LHC Safety and the Law

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rpenner, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    This is interesting . Lots to learn about history in court documents . The long arm of the law
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. udarnik Registered Senior Member

    New Legal Actions

    The World Botanical Gardens, which Wagner founded and were removed from his control by court order, sued Wagner for damages, but the case was dismissed. Walter is now suing htem for libel, as he threatened to do to Jim Wright (stonekettle.com/2008/10/walter-l-wagner-pitifully-insane.html).

    Our little group of friends has begun to get hits on our websites from computers known to be used by Wagner, so I expect some activity on the Net from him in the near future in an attempt to remove some of the more damaging information people have dug up on him. Such as this (shouldersofgiantmidgets.blogspot.com/2008/10/return-of-radiation-man.html).
  8. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    In Utah's Federal court.
    https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?81811 (PACER subscription required)
    http://www.archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.utd.81811 (RECAP)

    It looks like a shareholder case joined with a defamation case.
    I don't know what Wagner's reputation was valued circa 2004 when the alleged slanders began, but I never would have guessed millions of dollars. The complaint meanders a bit and talks about the same chunks of money and the same transactions in distant paragraphs with less than perfect clarity. Some of the constructions look cut-and-pasted from other sources. "[Defendants] knowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed, covered up, falsified, or made false entries in the [computer file in violation of regulations] precluding such altering, destroying, mutilating, etc ...." (This offends my sense of style in federal complaints.)

    I am concerned that by raising the issue of his reputation with the school district that refused for a while to hire him, this complaint will raise questions about what is and isn't known about Wagner's reputation to people connected with his employment during the discovery phase.

    At least one of the claimed libels relates to the use of Post-It notes in file folders. I don't necessarily see that rising to the level of defamation, regardless what you think of the sticky-note blight.

    It's a little early in the process, since no address for any defendant is listed.
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

  10. kurros Registered Senior Member

    "Additionally, Wagners' points on appeal are nearly incomprehensible..."

  11. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    So who is Walter L. Wagner?
    Extensive blog post analyzing the genleman...
    The above was incredibly illuminating to me. To this point my whole disagreement with Mr/Dr Wagner had to do with how he calculates the odds of something (namely, without complete information, any given premise has a 50% chance of being true). After reading the full post referenced above I started to feel a bit more...ashamed. I used to hold the theory that Wagner liked the attention, but I guess if I lived in genuine terror that the world was about to end I would probably do everything I could to prevent it as well, public opinion of me be damned.
  12. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    That may indeed motivate him. That may even be why he was arrested with a number of weapons in 2001 near the office of his one-time classmate who had previously taken out a restraining order and who helped get anti-stalker legislation passed in California.
    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20069143,00.html (1977)
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_harassed_another_not_a_vexatious_litigant/ (2007)

    But this hypothesis doesn't explain why he opined without basis to the presiding judge at his 2010 appeal of the dismissal of the anti-LHC lawsuit that he "probably" had a longer history of federal service than the judge. A brief check of the relevant Wikipedia pages would have provided a basis for coming to the opposite conclusion of the one Wagner voiced in the Honolulu courtroom. Moreover, the judge was continuously in Federal judicial robes since President Johnson appointed him in 1967 while Wagner's stint at the VA Hospital was, I believe, five years.


    Finally, I find it callous that the 2008 media storm which featured references to Wagner's anti-LHC lawsuit as a surrogate for authority did not even pause at the news of an Indian girl's suicide allegedly prompted by sterile and baseless fearmongering. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7609631.stm

    This, and the probability claim made on the April 30, 2009 The Daily Show and repeated since, start to form the basis of my estimation of Walter Wagner's reputation as a reliable source of information and so I cannot value any purported third-party damage to his reputation in the millions of dollars, as he does in the most recent federal lawsuit.
  13. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    An exact quote.

    The presiding judge, Foley, also wrote: "Wagner's concise statement [note: in the Opening Brief] of the case fails to set forth the nature of the case ..."

    However, in the Opening Brief, in the first section entitled Concise Statement of the Case, fourth paragraph following introductory material, it reads:

    "During the course of the 'trial' appellant Linda M. Wagner was arrested and removed from the courtroom pursuant to a warrant issued earlier by judge Nakamura,the trial court judge herein, which in turn was based upon the criminal lies of WBGI's primary agent Francik to a grand jury that heard only from him regarding his false claim of wrongdoing. ... both Wagners were precluded from exercising any of their due process rights to a fair civil trial, as detailed infra."

    Presiding Judge Foley was not the original presiding judge. When the appeal was filed in mid 2009, the presiding judge assigned was Judge Craig Nakamura (no relation to the trial court Judge Greg Nakamura), and for the past two years he has been reviewing the case. However, one month ago he issued a terse one sentence statement recusing himself from further review of the appeal. Accordingly, Judge Foley was assigned, and a few weeks later issued the above dismissal of the appeal, with his comment that he wasn't able to comprehend that we were complaining that we did not have a trial in the usual sense of the word (both sides present, not just one side as was the case).

    Apparently, the statement that the appellants did not receive a trial, because they were arrested and removed from the courtroom pursuant to the same judge's order, was not comprehensible to this new judge, or barely so. Apparently, he did not wish to entertain the concept that a trial court judge would deny a trial to parties, and so simply dismissed the appeal.

    The appeal itself goes into great detail about how the plaintiff's agent lied to a grand jury in order to arrange an arrest warrant, that the trial court judge is the same one who issued the arrest warrant, and that the two of them contrived in advance of the civil "trial" to have the defendant/appellants arrested and removed from the courtroom so they could not participate in the "trial". That is likely the 'reason' the first judge recused himself, and the second presiding judge claimed it was "nearly incomprehensible". C'est la vie.

    Incidentally, that prosecution based on the lying to the grand jury was dismissed and the dismissal is final, as of about 1 year ago, and the filing of suit against the liar in federal court was within a 1-year statute of limitations that started running upon finality of the dismissal.

    And yes, this simply begs for Certiorari, which application therefor will be filed in the next 90 days.

    And yes, this is also the subject of the separate Federal complaint that was filed to recover the amount of the "judgment" that was obtained by that criminal activity, etc.

    And Mr. Richard Penner, you are engaged in libel when you re-publish false and defamatory information about other people. You are warned. Your constant linking to previously established false and defamatory links is not privileged conduct. If in doubt, don't republish, and if it appears defamatory, it is both false and defamatory.

    But what do any of your postings, and my refutations thereto, have to do with the thread, which is about the LHC case. Nothing.
  14. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    The irony is almost poetic in "warning" someone that they are guilty of libel when they link to an article about you being accused of being a vexatious litigant...:roflmao:
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Note that this is publication by the US Government of Wagner's own pro se complaint and thus is in his own words.

    This is a publication by the State of Hawaii.

    These are news articles not published by me. I have no basis to consider them untruthful and they appear sourced in court documents. Nor are there visible signs of retraction.

    This document was typed up from a recording made by the court in open court.

    I haven't yet heard reports that this story is false or that the 2008 media coverage wasn't a factor in her death.

    Prior to your appearance on The Daily Show, I suggested that your arguments would be suitable material for their show. I was not disappointed, but in addition to cementing you as a public figure, how was this portrayal "false"? I didn't even link to this still-available-on-the-web video, but cited the program in an identifiable manner.

    You can piss-off for failure to state a claim. I re-published nothing, but linked to unretracted news articles and court filings and transcripts of conversations you had in open court. I didn't put them on the web (except for the transcript of the court-made recording). I have every reason to believe that they are true, some of them are in your own words, many are or are from court documents.
    (Are you threatening me?) My point is that I've been warned since 1977. But you have warned me of precisely nothing. This isn't a cease-and-desist notice because you have not identified specific behavior which you want me to cease-and-desist. Indeed, you have as much as accused me of spreading lies without the simple courtesy of spelling out which are the lies. To do anything but ignore your purported "warn[ing]" would be to unconscionably chill my freedom of expression of opinion and the reasonable basis for that opinion.
    I am not linking to links, I am linking to web pages -- a high tech version of citing material published by (mostly) others, like the publishers of People Magazine, the US Government and yourself. I have a good-faith belief that such activities are protected and encouraged by the State and Federal governments to promote that sharing of dependable information which is also a major part of scientific practice. Your web-browsing software typically recognizes these citations and presents you with options to copy or follow them, but I don't think any court has recognized that linking is tantamount to re-publishing.
    (Are you giving me legal advice?) It does not follow that if it makes you look bad or unreliable or unskilled that it must be false. Look at all those horrible things they say about Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh -- not all of them are false. Clearly the US Government has a constitutional interest in protecting the spread of reliable defamatory statements which is why the newspapers are filled with stories about arrests and criminality to the point that the most shocking statements above are (no offense!) small potatoes, indeed.

    Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that was clear. I was waiting
    • for an apology and retraction of your claims about the RHIC and the LHC,
    • for a similar apology and retraction for your 50-50 claim,
    • for a similar apology for bandying about the title "Doctor" in a scientific discussion when you had no relevant doctorate in physics, math, statistics, risk management or related field,
    • for an apology to the LHC for involving the popular press in a scientific debate where you refused to make a case for the sensational claims that briefly occupied the media in 2008,
    • for a disclosure about the fund-raising done by your ongoing solicitation for the purported anti-LHC non-profit which we never received an update about, and
    • for any discussion about the specific physics of your anti-LHC claims.
    And since I've gotten none of those, quite reasonable requests from the point of view of someone interested in a scientific discussion or setting up a non-profit, I'm annoyed that you have recently filed a complaint in Federal Court and apparently valued your reputation in the millions of dollars. At the same time your post volume has gone up without addressing the scientific arguments at the heart of your 2008 Lawsuit which seems like a really big elephant in the room if you wish to talk about your reputation in Utah.
  16. Magneto_1 Super Principia Registered Senior Member

    Walter, I totally agree with you. There is something absolutely wrong with RPenner's posts about things going on in your personal life. This should not be allowed especially on a math & physics blog.

    RPenner threated me before, stating that he would somehow contact one of my ex-employers because he did not like my postings.

    The moderator should step in when these type of things occur. But with this moderator, "don't count on it!!"
  17. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Wow Sac State ? Really ? California Bar is fickled . Paul Prudler he past the bar after being just a real estate broker .I think it Paul Prudler . Might of been another agent , but there was an agent that did not go to law school and pass the bar then practiced real estate law. If it was Paul which I think it was , but might not be ? He started a Tittle Company in his garage and then evidently sold it for millions. Back when Millions was still a bunch of money . The point is the California Bar has been known to stretch the limits of who they let in .

    Wow Sac State . They got one losing foot ball team too. The Griz stomp ass every time . When did they add the North to it ? My Mom got her teaching credentials there . We use to smoke weed under the foot bridge when we was in junior high . This is like old home week . High Five Walter, Wheres the weed ! There was a band with a jazz guitar player . His Guitar was a white hollow body and the guy could really play . I was trying to remember that name of that band . The other thing I was trying to remember was a guy that got his law license revoked for running drugs in his private plane form Mexico to Sacramento . No it was not Walter . He was an Apartment owner . Can't remember . Wow Sac State
  18. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Magneto, if memory serves me correctly I actually defended you quite heavily when various posts were made about your personal life. Walter L. Wagner is a bit different because he's intentionally a publicity hound who flaunts his "background" in a high profile manner to lend credence to his arguments. One cannot enjoy both the sword of credentials and the shield of anonymity to prevent those credentials from being scrutinized.
  19. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    No. I disagree with "personal" when I used your self-posted professional info. I disagree with "threatened" when I discussed a hypothetical course of action and invited discussion -- indeed you yourself didn't perceive any supposed "threat" until quoting a post the next day where I believed your profession had published professional standards. That you resolved to resign the next day kind of aborted the discussion of what course of action was recommended and doesn't make clear that any "threat" was real. I disagree with "would" because it was not clear to me that I would take any action. I disagree with "somehow contact" since I was quoting from a handbook on how to contact and why. I disagree with "did not like" for more objective criteria like fallacious arguments and plagiarism.

    It was obvious then and is obvious now that we do not see eye-to-eye on this, and perhaps it would have been best to get a moderator or other third party to arbitrate this difference of opinion.

    To recap from two threads earlier this year:

    You provided trivial connections to your real-life name and self-published career information when you advertised your self-published books here.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2734803&postcount=33 (April 16)
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2734850&postcount=36 (April 16)

    You further attempted a fallacious argument from the authority of your position as a Faculty member of the University of Phoenix, an institution our Ph.D. holders and students hold in contempt and held forth your dreams of obtaining a teaching position at Caltech -- a school which Oxford Dons barely manage to sneer at.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2735153&postcount=41 (April 17)

    You later additionally posted your LinkedIn profile and thus returned the details of your professional life into this forum.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2772696&postcount=47 (June 24)

    I reminded you that the University of Phoenix's "Faculty Code of Conduct" not only forbids many of your posts but arguably considers them to be "major categories of misconduct" and provides procedures for processing the complaint of "any person" which I believe includes me.

    I exercised my poetic side to express the disappointment I have in every new post of yours.

    I also invited rational arguments and advice on what course of action to pursue.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2773799&postcount=87 (June 27)

    You dismissed my arguments as "complete nonsense"
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2773812&postcount=89 (June 27)

    I presented evidence that there was substantial similarity between your text and similar text on Wikipedia which both predated your post by years and had no ties to you.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2773856&postcount=90 (June 27)
    Guest254 added two more examples.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2773964&postcount=93 (June 28)

    You applied the wrong standard in your defense.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2774062&postcount=103 (June 28)
    I explained this, referred you to the "Faculty Handbook" and offered to join you in a joint petition for summary judgement.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2774128&postcount=105 (June 28)
    Then, suddenly, and after more missing the point, you suddenly perceive a supposed "threat" where it is clear that we are enjoying your inability to parse your own job requirements -- and your reaction is to declare your resignation.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2774152&postcount=107 (June 28)
  20. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Heh Heh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are in big trouble now, RJ.
    You are also on the list.
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2011
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

  23. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    I don't see how that's supposed to reflect negatively on his character or credibility. Maybe the knives were there to protect his former classmate from Tevatron strangelets or some such, by slicing them to fine dust before they could reach her office.

Share This Page