# LHC Safety and the Law

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

1. ### Walter L. WagnerCosmic Truth SeekerValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,552
As stated before, Mr. Nakamura went on the public record, after the fact, and stated that the sheriffs approached him before the arrest event, and obtained his approval to enter the courtroom during the civil trial and effect the arrest [and the warrant that he had issued]. The moment they entered the courtroom [at the back of the courtroom], he stood up and announced he was taking a break, cutting off the witness who was testifying mid-sentence, and he rapidly exited the courtroom [through his chambers door]. The sheriffs then proceeded forward and effected the arrest of Linda Wagner, who was sitting at the front at the defense table.

Mr. Nakamura had many other avenues available to him. It was his courtroom. He could have modified the warrant to preclude it being executed in his courtroom. He could have recalled it. He could have recessed the trial for a few hours while bail was being posted. He could have requested the sheriffs wait until 4:00 PM when the trial ends for the day. None of those events were done.

Now tell us, rpenner, how that case relates to the LHC and the Law thread you initiated? Isn't this just an effort on your part for an ad hominem attack?

3. ### StryderKeeper of "good" ideas.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,101
Forgive me, I know my physics is not up to par (in fact it's beyond rusty or mature), however I'm pretty sure that *if* CERN and it's LHC was to generate a blackhole that swallowed the world, we would already know about it far before the actual activation.

The reason I pose, would be down to a blackhole distorting spacetime enough and having an "Event Horizon". What I mean is that during the passage of time up to the event of a blackhole, our space would be distorted as it would actually be a proportion of that Event Horizon.

(I'm pretty sure some might be able to reason further if they are willing to theorize in regards to the EPR Paradox and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Events.)

I guess I'm saying I see it pretty foolish to be chasing lawsuits on something that should be pretty fundamental.

5. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
It goes to credibility and estimation of competence. You are consistently attacking my estimations of courtroom outcome, so I investigate to see what basis, if any, you have for claims of superior estimation. But if you would prefer to speak to the physics of the case, I would feel obliged to reciprocate. (Taking in mind, of course, that at this instant, your interests may be better served in reading, researching and responding to the Reply Brief.)

I have long considered the fund-raising on LHC Defense to be a claim of competence. I have seen one posted claim that they donated $2000, which is an extraordinary demonstration of confidence in the competence of the Sancho/Wagner legal team. Because the question of "are LHC Defense contributers and Luis Sancho well-served by Wagner's expertise?" is raised. For that matter, has Linda Wagner been well-served? No such details exist in the transcript or are forthcoming from other sources... Judges Hara and Nakamura are both unacceptable? What happens when Wagner runs out of Judges in Hawaii? While being arrested is always traumatic, in a practical matter it is a process which can take hours and is not easily interrupted. It is totally unclear to me why leaving the courtroom was a good idea. With benefit of hindsight, filing a motion to quash is not the same as quashing, and better advice might have been to surrender to the warrant and deal with it in a timely manner instead of letting outside circumstances dictate when the arrest would happen. Yet better advice would be to engage the services of at least one lawyer to deal either with the civil or criminal aspects. Even practicing attorneys have been known to hire the services of a lawyer. 6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 7. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member Messages: 4,833 This seems completely untrue from the GR definitions of black hole and event horizon. It is sufficient to demonstrate that if dangerous black holes could be formed at LHC that the universe would look different than observed, to eliminate the possibility of dangerous black holes at LHC. 8. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member Messages: 4,833 My heroes! The amici are back (April 13) to again pop the bubble of claims of expertise by Wagner. Whether such measured thoughts have any impact on the appellant who advanced the argument that "Dollarz iz teh only moniez" is yet to be seen. 9. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member Messages: 4,833 The Wagner-associated LHCDefense site is down. No word if this is a mere technical glitch or a case of not enough "Dollarz". http://www.lhcdefense.org/ 10. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member Messages: 4,833 I hate the slowness of paper and mail. Wagner's response to the Government reply is nowhere to be found. I was hoping to have it as early at this Monday. 11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member Messages: 32,158 rpenner: What's your association with this case (if any)? Or are you just interested? Are you just posting public documents here, or do you have inside information? 12. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member Messages: 4,833 No association, just interested. Wagner is one of the uncredentialed people who posted on physforum (Sept 3, 2007 - Jan. 3, 2008). Here, where he invited the discussion to follow, he stays but does not answer questions related to physics. He has in the past felt quite free to post his legal plans and strategies both here and on physforum.com and I have felt welcome to criticize them from my layman's perspective. US Government documents are public. (An alternative policy is that of the UK's "Crown Copyright" where reproducing government documents has to be justified in some manner.) Any US person with a credit card can sign up for a PACER account and read along with the documents of the Federal Justice system at no more than$0.08 per page (which is cheaper than if you walk up to the courthouse to do the same thing). I learned about this while following along in the SCO anti-Linux lawsuits on groklaw.com.

In addition, both the Hawai'i state case and the Federal lawsuit have received local and national news coverage, respectively, as have some of Wagner's earlier lawsuits.

Wagner jokes about asking if I have influence over the court system, but I'm just Joe Citizen. Typically, I don't cut-and-paste large parts of Wagner's documents. While groklaw's PJ is happy to do it, the SCO filed an annoyance motion to add her to the case without basis. Also, I would feel compelled to render their orginal use of italics, bold and underlining (sometimes in the same sentence). And since they are PDFs of paper documents, they are too large to simply attach.

Wagner, too, used to post documents on his now defunct website, but that ended when the court dismissed the case on September 26, 2008.

I'm pro-LHC, but not affiliated (even indirectly) with any plaintiff, defendant, affidavit submitter, funding source, press agency, law school, etc, and know of no basis where I might be a potential witness, jurist or added party to the covered case. Nor do I have academic or equivalent credentials which would relate to any facet of this case as a first-rank expert witness. (Some physics and math Ph.D. students think I'm well-versed for a layman, but a layman I am.) Nor am I a member of the Union of Collaborating Founders (UCF), a group which some anti-LHC websites describe as a pro-LHC think tank, a depiction which I feel is unfair.

I've been replying to scare stories about the LHC since about March 29, 2006 and got my interest peaked in legal proceedings by being a regular reader on groklaw.net -- which focused largely on one Unix/Linux vendor's suits against the Linux-using world and eventual Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I think I first became aware of Walter L. Wagner with his posts of September 3, 2007, and attempted to engage him in plain physics discussion. Until 2008 television coverage, I have never seen his face or heard his voice. And if there is any organized opposition to him, I have never met with them either.

Last edited: Apr 23, 2009
13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,158
I find your continued commentary on Walter's case interesting, rpenner. I'm not trying to put you off posting updates as you have been. I was just interested in your interest in the litigation.

It certainly looks like the case will be sunk on procedural issues.

14. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
The Motions Panel for the 9th Circuit appellate court has met this morning. Wagner loses on the proposition that the US Government should stop paying scientific grants. My heroes the amici are allowed to file their brief.

The next phase, the appeal being "fully briefed" is now ready to appear on the court calendar. Presumably, June-July is the earliest this will happen, but as always IANAL. As of this time, it looks like Wagner's reply to the US government does not appear on the docket.

I'll be watching this link: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view_hearing_notices.php
For 08-17389 Luis Sancho, et al v. US Department of Energy, et al

After a case on the calendar is heard, the ruling may appear as soon as the same week.

15. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
Dammit, Walter! I thought we were being neighborly and professional. But then you had to go steal my idea.

Here it is, Walter L. Wagner on the May 30, 2009 episode of The Daily Show.

At least he didn't use the "Dollarz iz teh onleez moniez" argument. Instead, he argued that the destruction of the Earth for a never-before done physics experiment is always 50%.

Messages:
2,045
Hilarious!

17. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,698
John Oliver really trumps him with the chances of having a child from two men joke!

18. ### udarnikRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
14
Well, I am a member of the UCF, and I find that characterization hilarious. For the real story of the origins of the UCF, you have to go to John Scalzi's Whateveresque forum where we all met. Specifically, this entry

whateveresque.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=99&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=jim+wright+emperor+of+the+universe

where Jim introduced himself. The name UCF grew out of off-line joking about that post, and we formed an off-line friendship, linking our various blogs in the process. We're a pretty eclectic bunch, bound together mostly by our interest in Science Fiction. We have a wide range of political and scientific affiliations. We have a Physics Ph.D. and myself (a P-Chem Ph.D.) in the group, which also includes IT professionals, a public defender and several former military personnel. It was one of the former Navy NCOs who first stumbled upon Walter Wager, and Walter stumbled upon our less than favorable opinions of him and his science by vanity Googling. The story of that encounter can be found here:

chicagoboyz.net/archives/6347.html

As for myself, I'm a Chemist working as a project manager in industry, and the only thinking (as in think-tank) I do about the LHC has been because I was irritated by something Walter said on the Internet. If he had had the sense to leave our one-off posts well enough alone, the members of our group would have pretty much ignored him, but as you can see from his behavior here, he has the habit of continually engaging any and all critics in debate.

19. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
We [an undefined group of unassociated people which I assume is in the majority despite the lack of collaboration] asked Wagner to discuss the physics behind his belief in the possible destruction of Earth. But he refused.
We questioned the wisdom of some of the legal actions taken by Wagner in his quest to shutdown LHC, particularly since he also attempted to shut down the RHIC. But he persisted.
We ridiculed the logic of approaching an appeal with arguments predicated on guesswork and nonsensical assertions. But he got angry.
We suggested that the media would agree with us. And so Wagner went on The Daily Show. Below are some reviews.

May 1, Steinn Sigurðsson in Science Blogs: Dynamics of Cats "Daily Show does LHC and other action items"
May 1, Seth Zenz in US/LHC Blogs "Evil Genius Says What?"
May 1, Janiece Murphy in Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men "Walter L. Wagner PWND By The Daily Show"
May 1, Matt Tobey in Comedy Central Insider "John Oliver Visits the Large Hadron Collider"
May 1, Sean Carroll in Discover Magazine Blogs: Cosmic Variance "Daily Show Explains the LHC"
May 1, Tona Kunz in Symmetry Breaking "The Daily Show on CERN, particle physics and black holes"
May 1, Jim Wright in Stonekettle Station "Walter L. Wagner Explains Probability"
May 1, Luboš Motl in The Reference Frame "Jon Stewart & John Ellis & LHC"
May 1, Rack Jite in KicK! Making Politics Fun "Daily Show, John Oliver the Hadron Collider will Destroy the World"
May 1, Ethan Siegel in Science Blogs: Starts with a Bang! "The LHC, Black Holes and You"
May 1, Adam Yurkewicz in US/LHC Blogs "Daily Show at CERN"
May 1, Jennifer Ouellette in Discovery Space: Twisted Physics ""I'm Not Sure That's How Probability Works...""
May 3, Phil Plait in Discover Blogs: Bad Astronomy "Intelligence falls into a black hole"

And here is the Digg page: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Daily_Show_Visits_the_Large_Hadron_Collider

20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,158
Nice Daily Show segment.

Maybe Walter thinks that any publicity is good publicity.

21. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,698
My supervisor's other half turns out to be a Daily Show follower but for years thought the news segments with the "Best ****ing news team in the world!" were made up. Until he saw John Ellis, a personal friend, on the show. It got emailed around the theory group here and even the people who I wouldn't say are people who watch The Daily Show of their own accord found it hilarious.

My supervisor and her husband worked at CERN many years ago along side John and can testify to his office being that full of paper but like all organised chaos John knows exactly where everything is.

22. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
OK. The promised response to the federal appellate brief never appeared. LHCdefense.com went dark. The Daily Show piece aired. The appeal was ruled "fully briefed" and ready to be scheduled for hearing.

Where is Wagner?
State court filings in Hawai'i may provide insight. But since Wagner thinks I'm not qualified to comment on criminal trial practice, here are the actual minutes of criminal case 3PC08-1-000097 on April 24, 2009:

This is in response to a motion filed by Walter's lawyer on April 13, the same day the amici filed to be added to the case.

Last edited: May 11, 2009
23. ### rpennerFully WiredValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,833
In my previous post I asked, "Where is Wagner?" We now have a partial answer.

On May 5, it appears the Wagner has produced the response to the Government's reply to Wagner's appeal. I have not seen it yet, but it may have an original work (if also untimely and impermissibly long) by Luis Sancho stapled to the back of it. And just before noon on May 11, the Government filed a motion to strike it from the record. The government thinks it's in violation of two scheduling orders and the Federal Rules which govern the timing of appeals paperwork (all of which anticipated this would be filed on April 20).

The government indicates that Wagner seems to have been working under the misapprehension that the government's response constitutes a "cross-appeal" which would result in some additional time for Wagner, but insists even if this is the case that the correct procedure is to request for the additional time before the deadline passes and points out this is not the first time that Wagner needed to be hit with the clue stick.

Specifically, the government (which raised many arguments on topics not addressed by Wagner's original appeal brief) points out their reply was not a "cross-appeal" brief. It's clear that the docket does not call it a cross-appeal brief and the title page of the brief does not mention a cross-appeal, no notice of appeal was filed by the government as required by FRAP 28.1 (b), and it does not ask the court to overturn any ruling of District Court so it is not a stealth cross-appeal even if such was proper. Indeed, what separates an original brief or cross-appeal brief from a reply brief is FRAP 28 (a) (10) "stating relief sought" and the government seeks no relief from the District Court's decision to toss Wagner out of court.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Cross-appeal
So now that you have that background, the anti-LHC forces have a somewhat better idea of just how good a friend Wagner is to the goals of their cause.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/

Kirk to Khan, revised: "You've managed to [assert you are better at physics and law than] just about everyone else, but like a bad marksman you keep missing the target!"