And if you aren't hung over, does that just mean you partied so hardy(ie) that you are still drunk? That's the key to avoid hang overs. Wake up still drunk the next morning.
Me? Well, UC Lead Attorney Charles Olson and Cal spokestud Dan Moguluf and I, we went a bit crazy. We took my airjet over to Vegas. Mogs was doing keg stands left and right. I think by 3 in the morning Olsy and I were doing blow off of Mogs back. And then, we did shots. For every tree-sitter. Every. Single. One. And we counted Saint Dumpster Muffin twice. Because, yknow. She's a saint!
So, if I'm a bit slow this morning, please grant me some peace. It was a night you'll never forget! Or, more accurately, remember. GO BEARS!
If you haven't heard, we won! we won! Or to give you a more nuanced version, the judge ordered the injunction will dissolve in seven days pending appeal. There might be a 20 day stay beyond that, but it seems unlikely the chainsaws will continue beyond that. Moreover, Cal was awarded 85% of costs (not fees, costs)as against the 3 plaintiffs. They could get fees too by a noticed motion.
Here is where Berkeley lists its City Council meeting information. Yesterday, word was that there is a "closed door" sesh this Thorsday at 5 to discuss appeal. Nothing is listed there yet about a meeting tomorrow, but keep your eyes out there.
Here are some articles that have all been cited elsewise, but let's collate them. Let's collate them LIKE FUCK!
BDP. It has this comment by Bucky Von Waldenstein:
"Today (Tuesday, July 22, 2008) at 4:30 pm, Judge Barbara Miller issued her final judgment in the case of the Memorial Oak Grove dispute in Berkeley, California. The timing of her decision is highly prejudicial to the Petitioners, and this will make it difficult for them to exercise their legal right to an appeal.
"Judge Miller issued a ruling which dissolves the injunction protecting the trees in seven days (calendar days, not business days) and so the university will be able to cut the trees down unless an appellate court issues a new injunction. That means that Petitioners will have to get a motion into appellate court as soon as possible to have any chance of saving the trees. Petitioners’ difficulty is magnified by the fact that two out of three of their attorneys are away on previously-scheduled vacations, and so they will be unable to participate fully in the process.
"Also, the Berkeley City Council will be in a summer recess after tonight’s council meeting. They, too, will have to grapple with making a decision about how to proceed in a very brief amount of time.
"Unfortunately, the timing of the court's decision makes it particularly difficult for us to proceed to the next step in the judicial process. The ruling has forced our legal team to rush into court with minimum time to consult with all clients and to prepare legal papers.
"I believe that we have a strong case to take to the appellate court. It would be a real tragedy to lose the beloved oak grove now, and then win in court later when it would be too late to save the trees. You can’t put stumps and sawdust back in the ground and make things all better again. Those beautiful, majestic oaks would be gone forever.
"Irrespective of the unfair time constraints of the judicial process, the university still could choose to do the right thing and spare the trees until the appellate court rules. That approach would be cooperative and would ensure that the legitimate interests of the city and community were not shortchanged on a legal technicality.
"I can only hope that university officials have listened to the many people in this community who have spoken out in favor of the trees for the past two years--a coalition which includes a broad spectrum of Berkeley society--and they will realize the severe and lasting harm that will come of any rash action on their part to cut the trees down while we may still be standing at the courtroom door asking to be heard. Ignoring the wishes of the community like this would be counter to its paramount obligation to the public it serves. If it does so, the University of California will be forever stained in the eyes of many people who have supported it in the past. "
One of the former tree-sitters, Erik Eisenberg, better known by his protest name "Ayr," said Tuesday night that the tree-sit will continue despite the ruling.
"Our response is the same as it was on Day 1," he said. "We'll leave after the university signs something legally binding to protect the trees in perpetuity."
Volker said Miller's ruling was flawed because it assumed the stadium retrofit will be approved and funded. "If the stadium cannot be rebuilt, it makes no sense to build the athletic center at that location," he said.
Ayr, why will you accept a legally binding document as against Cal, but not 2 (2!) (two!!!!!) as against you?????
Volker, never accuse anybody's logick of being flawed. Ever. You wear that dress poorly.
CoCoTimes article. Nothing delightfully insane here, just another solid write up of the situation.
Save The Oaks email:
Dear Friends of the Oak Grove,
URGENT!!! This is a crucial moment for Berkeley's Memorial Oak Grove. Forward this to everyone you know in the social and environmental justice fields, your friends, your family, etc.... Spread this message far and wide!!
On Thursday, July 24th at 5pm, we are asking everyone who loves Memorial Oak Grove and who wants those trees to stay alive to please come to the Berkeley City Council Meeting at 2134 MLK Way and ask the city council to file an appeal on the lawsuit. Please come in person - which is what we need right now - but if you can't, please call and email and fax the mayor and all the city council members (see below for their contact info).
Please arrive before 5pm to get on the speaker's list... and if you want to march down to the City Council Meeting with other Oaks supporters, meet at the grove at 3:33pm followed by a rally in front of Old City Hall at 4:44pm.
If you'd like to help make banners for the rally, meet at the Oak Grove Wed. 2-4pm for an art party.
As you've probably heard, Judge Miller will lift the injunction on tree-cutting next week - and UC will have legal clearance to cut the trees as soon as Tuesday.
More info on the ruling here:
Our only chance to legally protect the Oak Grove is to get an appeal filed on the lawsuit and continue the injunction. While Stephan Volker with California Oaks Foundation has vowed to appeal, that may not be enough, as UC is requesting that the plaintiffs post a multi-million dollar bond for the duration of the appeal...a totally unrealistic amount of money, which would "slam the door" on the appeals process to save the oaks.
HOWEVER, if the city of Berkeley files an appeal, the bond would not apply! So if the city of Berkeley appeals, the injunction which currently prevents tree cutting could be continued AND we could ultimately win the case and save the grove.
This is crucial, the trees need your help now. City Council really listens to what the people say, so make your voice heard. The trees cannot speak for themselves, they need your voice NOW.
(PS - This meeting was previously scheduled for last Friday and was canceled, but it's now on the agenda.)
For the trees,
The Save the Oaks Campaign
PS - Read Antonio Rossman's article on why an appeal could succeed, and explain to the city council members and the Mayor why should appeal...
So, going forward what does this mean for us? Firstly, we have to figure out if we can attend the "closed door" sesh of the BCC in some manner. The words "closed door" make me predict no, but they might have something before hand, I don't know.
For Cal to continue to be screwed the following has to happen:
1. An appeal is brought (most likely with Berkeley's help)
2. The Appeals Court agrees to hear the case in full.
3. The Appeals Court issues a *new* injunction. My understanding is that that is rare.
If an appeal is brought and the appeals court agrees to hear the case, but does NOT issue a new injunction, then, my understanding is that Cal can start building once this injunction dissolves. However, they do so at their own financial risk. If the Appeals Court overturns Judge Miller in some manner, Cal would have to make the changes on their own dime.
I am not an appellate lawyer, but it does not seem likely that Cal would lose the appeal. So, that doesn't really matter. It'd just be a charade and then either at the end, Cal would go after the plaintiffs for fees/bonds et al (if Berkeley didn't join in the appeal) or just costs. But we could start building throughout the entire process. If there is no injunction.
*whew* That's a lot of thinking for 6:45 AM. Let's take a look at some sweet photos before we move on:
There is also a matter of a stay. A 20 day stay. This is different than an injunction. I am not sure of the ins and outs of this stay (would bond be required, can you get costs during the stay), but it might delay Cal 20 days further. That'd suck.
So, I think we are looking at a few different realities:
1. No appeal. Chainsaws 7.30ish.
2. Appeal. 20 day stay. Appeals Court doesn't take the case, chainsaws sometime in mid-August.
3. Appeal. 20 day stay. Appeals Court takes the case, but doesn't issue injunction. Chainsaws sometime in mid-August as Cal fights the appeal until unknown time period.
4. Appeal. 20 day stay. Appeals Court takes the case. Issues injunction. We hunt down and kill Steven Volker.
Feel free to correct me, if I have misstated something here. Given that we aren't talking about Inventory + Appraisals or Petitions For Final Distribution, I am a bit out of my element here. But I think this is a concise (or not so concise) analysis of where we are and what to expect going forward.
KEEP SENDING THOSE EMAILS AND LETTERS IN! I am going to assume that my letter to the BDP completely and totally swayed the judge's mind. And if I can do that, there's no reason you guys can't. I'm a total idiot!
I don't think there are any sports-related links in here, so feel free to drop your own. Dump away! GO BEARS!