I get the same impression, Mallen. At the very least, everything the PBC has presented is at least no worse than anything suggested by the "man possesed" e-mail, the "sweet flip" e-mail, or even Aubrey's quote about intending to relocate.

What's funny is that just about everything that has happened has been pretty transparent to even the most casual observer and most intuitive conclusions have now been backed up by evidence presented during the trial.

It's seems the most common disconnect is that a lot of people assume that since the contract says "specific performance" that it's enforcable, even though it rarely is. IMO, Seattle has kind of won just by this poceeding happening, because it's delayed the discussion of money, which may need to be mediated. But, I think you suggested that if they win this case they can move even if the money hasn't been settled at the time of relocation, or was I reading you wrong?