the ruling is coming via mail.

it's not at all clear when that will be. by june, if i'm lucky, i think. so, i want to say i'm glad it's over, buuuut....

i think the judge accepted the basic premise of my position: if the area has a second hand smoke problem, they are obligated to "do something", and this whole refusal to do anything thing is bullshit. i could get the wall, and have the smokers pay for it. or, they could just let me run the fucking fan, already, and pay me costs for wasting my time. but, have i established that there's actually a problem?

she pushed the idea of an air quality test, and i'm all about empiricism, of course, but i had to push back that there are limits to empiricism and that the tort i'm suing over has generally accepted a lesser standard of subjective experience, in the form of journals or witnesses. is there an established ppm?

it took me some convincing to get her to take the usb key seriously. but, i'm convinced that she did, in the end, and that the reason she's doing this by mail is that she wants to examine the video evidence, to determine if i've made my case or not.

i think it would be hard to deduce i haven't.

but, i think this is the basic premise: she agrees that i'm right, if i've demonstrated a problem exists, but she left open the idea, because she seemed apprehensive about the vlog as evidence.

i'll find out in a few weeks.