I believe there is some error in the Weekly's article regarding court dates. Here is my understanding of the dates based upon the Calendar Information and filings found at the website for Alameda County Superior Court.

February 5. A hearing based upon an order to show cause why the preliminary injunction restraining council from taking action regarding certifying the petition should or should not continue.

February 22. To hear the Lin's lawsuit.

March 11. To hear Ayala's lawsuit(s), which has two components to it.

I believe it is incorrect to say that both lawsuits are being heard on February 22 by Roesch. If this is true, I can't find it anywhere on the official web site.

By the way, the Lin's brief has been filed and it appeared today on the web site. All of you budding lawyers out there can go read it for yourself.

The title of this headline is a little misleading. The court order is a temporary restraining order. The lawsuit has yet to be heard in Superior Court. So, nothing is final.

Yesterday, the Lin's filed their brief which presents their evidence and articulates their arguments why the petition is defective under California Election Code. The Election Code is written so as to prevent factions from abusing the rights of direct democracy, in this case to mis-lead voters in signing petitions.

To get a copy of this brief to read go to:

Web Link

Getting it from the Superior Court web site is a bit burdensome.

The brief is not all that long to read and if you do read it you will be infinitely wiser regarding this issue than simply listening to the emotional rhetoric of Oak Grove opponents who wrap themselves in "right to vote" on everything concepts as their principal argument.

The defendents will respond with their respondent brief which is be filed February 7. I will try to post it for your easy reading when it happens.

Thanks Frank for creating a pdf file of the brief filed by the Lin's making it easier to read. After reading it, I certainly have gained a better understanding of the substance of the complaint. I will be interested to see how the defendants respond to some of the charges raised by the Lin's. Seems like the defendants do have a couple of issues to deal with.

Im impressed by the brief. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they make some good arguments.

I was neutral on the issue (neither supported nor was against the Oak Grove deal). But after these people (Lin) sued, I am definitely against it, just on principle. The Council should rescing their consent of the Lin's project..... not doing so, I'm afraid, would intimidate people from exercising their freedom of speech rights. The Lins may not understand the way democracy works, but this is the USA, and the little people should NOT be intimidated by those with bigger pockets!!!

I think someone else has trouble understanding the way democracy in the USA works...

BTW, I thought Steve Brozosky's idea of democracy he expressed during the most recent council meeting was gross. I'm now glad he didn't win the last mayoral election.

In my original post above I stated that it may be incorrect to state in the Weekly article that the two lawsuits were joined to be heard on the same date, February 22. On Tuesday (yesterday) of this week all parties to these suits jointly filed a motion join the suits in a single hearing and the judge signed it. So, the Weekly scooped this event by stating something that was not true at the time but became true later. They lied (maybe not knowingly), but were saved by future events playing out in their favor. Bush was not so lucky with is WMDs claim. Now you know that some things printed in the Weekly are projections, not fact at the time they are stated.

On freedom of speech rights and Lin's not understanding democracy: I quote from the Lin's complaint....

"The provisions of the Elections Code at issue are intended to protect the integrity of the referendum process by ensuring that voters are provided the necessary and accurate information required to make an informed decision whether to sign the Referendum Petition. (See, e.g., Assembly v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal.3d 638,652-53 (1982) (stating that the Elections Code requires certain information to be provided to voters asked to sign the petition); Clark v. Jordan, 7 Cal.2d 248, 252 (1936), superseded by statute, (holding that prospective signers of a petition must be protected from misleading statements). "

So, the Lin's and their lawyers have perhaps a very good understanding of democracy, which may exceed that of average citizens. Of course, a judge will decide if they are right. They could be wrong. Remember, the judiciary is the third part of our democratic form of government. Everyone, though, has a right to their opinion, whether it is equally right or wrong!

Why do people always have trouble with that pesky third branch of our democracy, the judiciary??

The Court will look over the relevant issues and decide if the petition should go forward. What is the big deal? It is not delaying anything. The Council has until March 7 to get this issue on the June ballot. The Court issues will all be resolved on Feb 22. If the Court says, the petition is good to go then we are all set to have an election.

By the way, is it democratic to be xenophobic? Why is the fact that the Lins hail from Taiwan a relevant fact? One of the property owners IS an American citizen.

For as "progressive" a society that we claim to be in our great city/state, it boggles my mind given the world economy that we live in that these same folks who are likely surviving our current economic problems in our own country likely have some componenent of international flavor in any investments they might own (some not even realizing it)! God forbid _anyone_ in Pleasanton is making money from foriegn investments?.... Food for thought.

For as "progressive" a society that we claim to be in our great city/state, it boggles my mind given the world economy that we live in that these same folks who are likely surviving our current economic problems in our own country likely have some componenent of international flavor in any investments they might own (some not even realizing it)! God forbid _anyone_ in Pleasanton is making money from foriegn investments?.... Food for thought.

What does the fact that the Lin's come from Taiwan has to do with this issue. Can Ayala please answer this race based topic. As far as Steve Brozosky is concerned he just want to take revenge on his election loss against Hosterman plain and simple.