Thanks, Ganan, for that post.  I appreciate your comment.

In my original post on this 50 meter vs 50 feet thing I posted: "In a 50 meter radius circle there is 729 square meters and that comes out to 7,853.98 square feet... or over half of that 0.3 acres."

I had also noted:  "  To put that into a better perspective there are 13,068 square feet in 0.3 acres."

Well, that first quote above is one where I had the right string, but the wrong Yo Yo.  That quote should have read:  "In a 50 foot radius circle there are 7,858.98 square feet... or over half of that 0.3 acres."  The exact acreage turns out to be 0.18 acres... or, as I said, over half of that 0.3 acres.

So, I posted 50 meters for the radius and 100 meters for the diameter, but my math was based on 50 FEET for the radius and 100 FEET for the diameter.... I was mixing apples and oranges.  Then again, anything to do with math is pure "Greek" to me.

I hope this clears it up a little, but your observation that digging would continue outside the parameters of the agreed upon distance limitation still stands.  You are correct.  My whole point, which I butchered terribly, was that the limitations placed on LAC in the event that "bones" or cultural objects might be discovered in the preliminary excavation, the limitations LAC agreed to, were balanced in the favor of the Native American concerns and that the scales were not tipped in favor of LAC.  In effect the LAC attorney was almost mocking the statements coming out of Mr. Falk and saying to the judge:  Look how far LAC has bent over in favor of Mr. Falk et al. 

OK, I am from Oklahoma, so let me put this in more traditional "Okie" style talk.  To my ears, the LAC attorney was saying to Judge Du: " For cryin' out loud, Judge!   Are you kidding me???  What more does LAC have to do to accomodate the plaintiffs than what they have already done?  50 bloomin' ( feet/meters, choose one ) in all directions??  Give me a bloomin' break, Judge!"

Now, I know she didn't really say all of that to Judge Du, but I have no doubt that Mr. Falk knew when the LAC attorney brought this limitation up in the courtroom that she was doing it as a result of Falk's failure to use it to his advantage, so she used it to mock him.  Falk, I don't believe, really wanted that restriction mentioned in the oral arguments, because he knew that the existing agreed restriction weakened his client's case significantly.

I think the LAC attorney played Falk like a fiddle and left him standing in the dust wondering:  "Who was that masked lady?"

I can not say enough about my admiration for the attorney representing LAC and for the exhibition of how to present a case for her client, the Defendant... LAC.  I know that having a video of the presentation would be against the law, according to the pre-procedure rules presented ahead of time.... but that doesn't keep me from wishing I had about 100 copies of that non existent video.  It should be required viewing for every freshman law student and Mr. Falk would benefit by viewing it every day from now until he no longer practices law.  She wiped the floor with Falk.

All of the above is just one person's opinion.  Others who listened to the procedure or attended it in person may have an entirely different viewpoint and I respect that possibility, but that is the way I saw it.  I think she gave Falk something to have nightmares about if he steps back into the courtroom against her in January of 2022.  No one wants to be embarrassed that badly.  JMO

Okiedo