Establishing a thread to cover the Hawaiian and European anti-LHC lawsuits since Walter L. Wagner feels that it is inappropriate to post these on his Astronomy thread. Hawaiian complaint: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hidce/case_no-1:2008cv00136/case_id-78717/ Hawaiian update: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=376492 September 17, 2008 -- Wagner and Sancho file their response to the government response to their motion to and yet another affidavit about a new fictitious danger. They cite the unpublishable and already rebutted R. Plaga paper again! They don't seriously address rule 4(f) or the Hague Convention and seem deaf to legal points being scored against them. September 18, 2008 -- Wagner goes on a trip to Utah. Judge Chang orders that Wagner file reply by September 23 (moot!?) confirms new hearing date of October 14, and clarifies that the hearing is just on default judgment, not any sort of injunction versus CERN. September 19, 2008 -- Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want back in as Amici Curiae -- now I have their autographs! September 19, 2008 -- Wagner and Sancho try for the third time to properly file a motion for a permanent injunction and yet another affidavit. I am critical of their use of unattributed quotes which is contrary to the practice of both science and law and the general goofiness of the reasoning. September 23, 2008 -- Conan O'Brian parodies Wagner's concerns. September 25, 2008 -- Original date for hearing on default judgment versus CERN .. this would have been before the LHC startup, but Wagner won't be in town that date so the fate of the world is sold short for Wagner's travel plans. Or are we to believe that Wagner divined the LHC setbacks? If he is a prophet why can't he tell us which of the speculative bugaboos we have to worry about instead of coming up with new ones as the case moves along? October 10, 2008 -- Wagner returns from Utah -- about this time the LHC was supposed to start physics runs, but transformers and quenches have probably set this back to 2009. October 14, 2008 -- Hearing on default judgment versus CERN * Wagner's own process server says that the service was illegal * The Swiss Embassy says the service was illegal * The US Government says the service was illegal * Wagner points out that some form of service was physically accomplished, which was not the point at issue and while he seems to have cut-and-pasted an essay on Rule 4(f) and the Hague Convention he cites no cases giving leave for him to ignore them. In most recent filings, Luis Sancho's signature appeared in a timely fashion. This represents a major improvement for Wagner's side. European complaint (new URL): http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/mr-beschwerde-cern-volltext.PDF European (ECHR) update: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4830&view=findpost&p=369936 This case is going nowhere -- I can't find any notice that the ECHR has taken more than an adminstrative pass at the paperwork and the filing seems deficient in that I don't see the prior court cases cited in detail -- the points raised in those cases must be in this record. They abandoned their chance to appeal in national courts. I'm not a lawyer and none of this constitutes legal advice. But it is fun.