LHC Safety and the Law

On July 12, I was in Judge Wright's Los Angeles courtroom (1000 km round-trip road trip) to sit in the audience with a lot of professionals with Federal ID badges and a few interested amateur courtroom reporters. Rule one of courtroom practice, "Don't piss off the judge."

The moving party for the hearing, John Steele, wanted to phone into the hearing for the reconsideration of the denial of his previous motion to sanction the defense attorneys in a case where the judge accused the plaintiff, Ingenuity 13 LLC, and persons connected to it as worthy of criminal investigation. The judge ruled that several persons natural and corporate should jointly be responsible for this disgrace of this case and that if appealed a bond sufficient to pay lawyers fees past and future including interest should be filed. This was roughly $235k -- an amount arrived at on the recommendation of the winning party's argument which Ingenuity 13's lawyers refused to meet with for any meeting of the minds. So John Steele, we suspect, may have a tendency to shoot himself in the foot.

Indeed, the court's clerk disputes that he was advised to motion for telephonic appearance. And so, the judge orders his physical presence in California on the 12th.

And so he appears. The judge wants to know why there is a motion for reconsideration when no relevant grounds for reconsideration were submitted. The judge wants to know why evidence is submitted when it demonstrates no new fact -- indeed the fact was never in question. The judge wants to know why sanctions for violating the rules are appropriate when John Steele himself did not have any working email, phone or even valid address filed with the court. John Steele and the judge, it seems, have very different ideas of due process and Mr. Steele seems incapable of believing that anyone would doubt his arguments that he is the wronged one even in the face of documents he signed, submitted to the court, with his officially incorrect address on them twice. Then the judge checks if Mr. Steele is practicing law in California (he is not) and points out several recent documents filed by Mr. Steele and other pro se parties. When asked, Mr. Steele says he himself typed his own document. The judge points out that other documents look identical in front matter and back matter. (Evidence of common descent with modification!) John Steele's heated response seemed like the definition of contempt of court, and the judge told him a repetition would invite an "introduction to the U.S. Marshals." (They act as federal courtroom bailiffs, among other things.) The opposition to this motion, mostly repeated their paper arguments.

It was an nerve-wracking 45 minutes. Judge Wright (appropriate to a LA Federal Judge) even looks and sounds like Central Casting's idea of a seen-everything no-nonsense judge. John Steele's courtroom behavior was sub-par -- there was neither a strong argument that there was any injustice done or any need to reconsider and a complete unwillingness to even hear the facts and arguments that the judge was outlining. This, I think, was further evidence that many pro se parties are in a total war mind-set and it only harms their ability to represent their arguments and inferences as rational, reasonable ones.

Related coverage.

Have you ever thought about a career change? Maybe...a lawyer?
Have you ever thought about a career change? Maybe...a lawyer?

it sure seems that's where rpenner is headed. anyone wanna take bets? he flew to Hawaii, round-trip to appear at the case there, and now drove 1,000 km round-trip to LA for that case. a lotta free time on his hands, it appears.

rpenner: you quoted the newly-appointed trial judge: "The court finds that Mr. Wagner’s argument is nonsensical. There is no evidence that Mr. Wagner himself was arrested or was prevented from appearing at the Second Hawaii trial. He cannot complain that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate when he voluntarily chose not to appear."

What is nonsensical about his 'argument' is that that was not the thrust of my argument. he assumes that Mrs. Wagner was there to give me moral support only.

Rather, as detailed in the pleadings, Mrs. Wagner was a critical key witness, the secretary/treasurer for the company and who was prepared to testify about all of the nonsense that was being presented by the new management team (that has since bankrupted the company). instead, she was removed from the courtroom, precluding any form of reasonable defense, as well as demonstrating that judge's overt hostility, which necessitated my immediate action to preclude potential further hostile acts on his part (not knowing what he might have been up to). the fact that the arrest was illegal/unlawful and done in collusion with his judge pro-tempore who was serving as WBGI's attorney is troubling for many other judges. 10 days prior to that 'trial' Mrs. Wagner appeared in his courtroom. he had that same warrant in his possession at that time (he'd signed it himself two months earlier), but he did not arrest her then at that pre-trial hearing. instead, he waited until she appeared at the trial prepared to give testimony. he could also have waited until after her testimony to have her arrested; or he could have continued the 'trial' for a few hours to allow her to post bail, and then return. he did none of that. he deliberately sought to preclude a fair trial. her testimony would have refuted all of the bogus claims being made.

Because the newly-appointed (he'd been appointed about 3 weeks earlier) federal trial court judge missed that critical factor, the pending appeal will focus on that fact. the 'trial' was an absolute mockery of justice, and the 'judgment' cannot be relied upon for any form of factual conclusions, because it was entirely one-sided. and yes, the criminal charges that were issued to obtain the arrest warrant were also utterly bogus and obtained by clear perjury, and have since been dismissed. that perjury is part of the defamation claims.

the recent federal bankrutpcy filing by WBGI's current management, that a few years earlier argued in Nevada court that they were doing a great job in support of their position, might resolve this sooner, as WBGI will likely have a Trustee that will become impartial, and reach settlements with me on the pending claims.
Last edited:
it sure seems that's where rpenner is headed. anyone wanna take bets?
I'd bet against it since I have insider information on my goals and self-estimations of ability.
he flew to Hawaii, round-trip
Not an extraordinary expense, especially compared to luxurious Waikiki resort lodgings, but importantly cheaper than the alternative of relocating to Hawaii or flying one-way and taking a cruise ship back.
to appear at the case there,
The ill-fated suit served on the Department of Energy which you started discussing with me before you filed suit and which I called a ridiculous argument in many different ways, most importantly from a physics point of view.
and now drove 1,000 km round-trip
About 1120 km driving, some walking, a taxi and the LA Subway. Good thing domestic petroleum distillate is affordable.
to LA for that case.
"[T]hat" case being an unrelated case where lawyers were accused of acting badly to the point where multiple Federal judges have asked the Department of Justice to investigate the possible criminality of their scheme.
a lotta free time on his hands, it appears.
Not nearly enough time to actually litigate a case. All I see you "accusing" me of is a willingness in my advanced years to treat public legal spectacles as opportunities for entertainment outings. But I also get to chat with like-minded people so there is a social component that you are missing.

Indeed, you have failed to state a case in a way similar to the 2008 case you served upon the DoE. I spend my money and time as I feel like it, and while you are free under the law of the land to criticize it, I certainly have no basis to accept you as an authority on how my money and free time should best be spent.

rpenner: you quoted the newly-appointed trial judge: "The court finds that Mr. Wagner’s argument is nonsensical. There is no evidence that Mr. Wagner himself was arrested or was prevented from appearing at the Second Hawaii trial. He cannot complain that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate when he voluntarily chose not to appear."

What is nonsensical ... the pending claims.

The quote is from page 4 of Judge Shelby's decision dismissing the case or 2013-04-22 which was affirmed 2013-11-04 except against the corporation where nothing was decided due to a bankruptcy stay.

To which I reply with the the ancient rhyme:
Thomas Tusser said:
A foole and his monie be soone at debate,
which after with sorrow repents him too late.
Five Hundreth Pointes of Good Husbandrie, (1573), Chapter 10, page 19.​
and the hoary anecdote
Henry Kett said:
The Difference of Professions.
27. A person observed to an eminent lawyer, that Buchan's Domestic Medicine was a good book, because it qualifies every man to be his own physician.
‘How far that may be the case,’ observed the eminent lawyer, ‘I will not presume to determine ; but I may be allowed to speak decidedly as to my own profession ; and so I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.’
Flowers of Wit, (1825) volume II, page 115.​

But just as good doctoring is best first, so is good firefighting or good lawyering. Why without a competent and cool-headed lawyer, a person's run-in with the law can snowball and escalate into plethora of woes.

That's the jist of this post on the popular legal blog "Pope Hat." And that's what I believe the core take away from this week's judgement by a Utah federal judge on a certain party's purported "universe of ... bad acts". Lawyers are expensive, facing the law with just your own best efforts can be much more expensive. And you start facing the law much earlier than just in the courthouse.

Thus it was no surprise to me that multiple Utah courts have both taken judicial notice of Wagner's trips through the Nevada and Hawaii judicial systems and neither finds legal cause to undo (or rather discharge) the judgements previously rendered. The principle of Judicial Economy means final judgement is somewhat final.

[1:10:07] All totaled, the [USC Title 11] § 523(a)(2)(A) claim for actual fraud, the (a)(4) claim for embezzlement, the (a)(6) claim for willful and malicious injury and the (a)(19) claim for common law fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of any security combined to cover the universe of Mr. Wagner's bad acts that are detailed -- and monetized -- in the Nevada and Hawaii judgements and further discussed, in part, both by Judge Shelby in his dismissal of the action downstairs and by the 10th circuit in the appeal of that dismissal. Accordingly, WGBI's motion for summary judgement is granted.
From Yesterday's audio file attached to Docket 67 of case 13-02099 in Utah Bankruptcy court. (The Judge speaking should be Judge Marker if my notes are correct.)

See 11 USC § 523 for the statute.
In reply to Walter L. Wagner, re: your #423 post.

Cheers and Hello!

I have read of your positions and refutations...as to the veracity of them, only you can say.

However, you should be aware that "one cannot argue with God", especially a "God" made incarnate by acts of "self-realization", as in "I am that I AM", and my calculus

shall serve as proof. You cannot argue successfully against such a "fully wired" entity-of-self. Could it be you are not aware of this?


Also, your assumptions that at some point you will experience "a fair and impartial" court hearing seems based on the premise that such an environment exists, and I have

serious doubt there is such a thing....devoid of "bias". Do you really believe there is an unbiased court? A "non-opinionated" environment?


(Thanks for reading!)
Can you satisfy my curiosity, rpenner?

Is Gerry Nightingale Reality Check's sockpuppet?
Can you satisfy my curiosity, rpenner?

Is Gerry Nightingale Reality Check's sockpuppet?

I don't think so, Gerry's ideas are even more off base than RCs. Gerry has not mastered how to use a computer and RC could at least do that. It could be RC just messing with us and hiding his true identity, but I don't think that RC was that innovative or that imaginative.
in reply to AIP's this thread, re: my identity.

Trooper...it not necessary to enquire of the "fan gwai lo" <(phonetic spelling) as to my "true identity". I am Gerry Louis Nightingale, b.4/21/54, in Garden City, Mi.

Want more? I have the "more"


As a side issue, it was interesting to read a thread reply that made a comparison of "relativistic energy" pro-rated to mechanical value of motion...an "aircraft carrier moving at

20 knots" as a co-equal value of an "LHC operating at maximum capacity". This definitely got my attention, coming from a "master of physics!"


"Mechanical momentum of a mass" compares favorably with "relativistic energy?" Yes...I think this would work! With the proviso that the mass of the carrier

is moving at say...2,000 knots per second (relative to Earth, and assuming an impact) this should be adequate to assume a "co-equal" value to an LHC at "full max".


Yes, Gerry has "not mastered" his new toy (I rarely even touched a computer until late 2013) and as yet I'm unable to "cut and paste".


But, I manage to "get by".

(Thanks for reading!)