LHC Safety and the Law

Back from a visit to the San Francisco Federal Courthouse. It was quiet and the people friendly. The federal building across the street has some interesting architecture -- not up to City of London standards, but nice and very modern-looking.

But while I was there, I browsed a document which would have taken about 90 days to appear electronically, and I checked on the courthouse copies to see what parts of the September 2 courtroom transcript was used and to see if Luis Sancho's signature was any more visible than on the PDFs I have.
News from the Court. Wagner's reply has been rejected by the clerk. There is no mention of Luis Sancho.
Clerk's notes:

Received original and 15 copies reply brief of Appellant Walter L. Wagner (Informal: No) 19 pages. Served on 05/05/2009. Deficiency: Untimely. Other deficiencies: Footnotes font too small. Incorrect color covers. Notified Appellant. (GLS)

To: Walter L. Wagner
From: [], Clerk of Court
By: [], Deputy Clerk
Re: Receipt of a Deficient Reply Brief of Appellant on 05/08/2009

The referenced brief cannot be filed for the following reason(s):
Major Deficiencies:
  • Footnotes font too small: The footnotes must be the same size and format (14-point font) as the body of the brief. See FRAP 32(a)(5). Please submit a replacement brief (original and 15 copies).
  • Untimely: The brief was not served by the scheduled date. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this notice, please submit a motion requesting leave to file the brief late. If such a motion is filed, the responding order will adjust the dates for filing any subsequent briefs. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.
Minor Deficiencies:
  • Incorrect color covers: The brief has an incorrect color cover. See FRAP 32(a)(2). Please submit sixteen (16), grey replacement covers of the correct color for your brief.

The following action has been taken with respect to the brief received in this office:
  • The deficiency by appellant is judged to be serious. We cannot file your brief. You must correct the deficiency within 14 days.
If the defect by appellant is not corrected in a timely manner, the reply brief will not be filed and the case will be deemed ready for calendaring on the basis of the principle briefs.
When submitting corrections to your brief, please return a copy of this letter. If you don’t submit your correction within 14 days of this notice, you must file a motion for leave to file a late brief. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.3 re: Extensions of time for filing brief.

When you file a brief, you are writing for the ages and the court rules often reflect this in large and small ways. In the scientific publishing arena, have you seen similar form letters?

In addition to the general rules of the Federal Appeals Court, each circuit has its own rules. Here are the local rules (referenced in the letter above): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/rules/FRAP/Rules_TOC.htm
Last edited:
On May 11, 2009, the Government filed a motion in the appeal case calling Wagner's response untimely and requesting that the court rule that Wagner has no right to reply in this or any further untimely filing.

FRAP 26 and FRAP 27 only give Wagner 8 working days to respond. That would be today.

But perhaps there is a response in the mails. Some insightful, earth-shattering reasoned argument, citing the laws of this land and the wise rulings of yore which will not only explain why FRAP does not apply to Wagner, but that we were foolish to expect them to.

News when I have it.
And now it is back up.

What a load of outrageous crap.

LHC defence said:
[The LHC] has been dubbed the largest, most expensive, most powerful experiment ever attempted, certainly dwarfing all particle colliders ever built before, both in terms of size and power.

How is it's size so much bigger than all particle colliders built before it when it uses the same tunnel as the previous collider, LEP?
Another warm cloudless day at the San Francisco Federal courthouse. A day apparently unmarred by the docketed receipt of any reply to the motion to bar Wagner (and Sancho) from responding to the Government case for the District Court decision to toss out the anti-LHC lawsuit.

Helicopters hovered for hours in the mid-morning, apparently in response to news at another SF-based courthouse.
March 21, 2008 - Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner file suit in Federal Court Page with free link to original claims
Sept 2, 2008 - Oral argument on a motion to dismiss
Sept 26, 2008 - The Federal Court in Honolulu rules against Sancho and Wagner. Text of Ruling
Feb 2, 2009 - Walter Wagner filed appeal argument Commentary As on LHC-concern.info
Feb 26-March 3 - Government and Wagner file motion, opposition and reply in regards to an extension of time for the Government.
April 1 - Court grants Government request for additional time. Gives Wagner 14 days to respond if he so chooses. (This actually overrides FRAP 31 (a) (1) which makes Wagner's affidavit of May 27 an admission of negligence.)
April 6 - Government replies to appeal. Text here
April 13 - Glashow, Wilczek and Wilson petition to file an amici brief (This is timely according to FRAP 29 (e) and FRAP 26 (a) (2).) Partial Text Here
April 20 - Wagner's deadline to respond to the Government lapses without even the recommended letter from Wagner (Local rule 31-2.3 recommends letters for non-filers. FRAP 28 (c) states in part: "Unless the court permits, no further briefs may be filed." So this would have normally been the last chance for Wagner to prop up his case.)
April 21 - Wagner's deadline to argue against the amici brief being considered expires.
April 30 - Court rules against Wagner's vague wish for an order compelling the Government to halt any funding, accepts the Nobel Laureates and Professor as amici (No argument against amici was ever filed)
May 5 - Wagner's brief finally shows up -- and is rejected by the court clerk -- // Update: We may now have a copy of how this was meant to appear: http://rjwagner49.com/Personal/Politics/LHC/WalterWagnerReplyBrief.pdf http://rjwagner49.com/Personal/Politics/LHC/LuisSanchoReplyBrief.pdf
May 11 - Government argues that Sancho is basically a no-show and Wagner should not be allowed any more briefs Text here
May 16 - Dr. Roessler types up a pre-print allegedly for Science
May 19 - Deadline for Wagner to respond to above passes without notice.
May 27 - Wagner files a motion to be allowed to reply to amici brief -- in it is clear grounds for LHCDefense contributors to be angry at Wagner. "l believed that it was timely filed even with respect to the government brief, which brought in counter-claim issues, though if not, I apologize to the Court for mis-reading the rule pertaining thereto." It is not about parsing rules, it's about showing respect to all parties (especially the court) and requesting to deviate from the rules. But Wagner is so clueless that he doesn't even cite the rules that give the court discretion to grant his request. And where are these "counter-claim issues" Wagner speaks of?

He spends the bulk of his time composing a diatribe of an affidavit. He claims to be a scientist (once again, the question of Wagner's credentials goes unanswered) and tries to argue that no "vital" science can be done at LHC. (Not even to answer the question in Wagner's mind if particle accelerators could kill every one of us, which is his central drive.)

On or prior to June 4, I expect to see the Government tear a hole in Wagner.
Last edited:
In the May 27 filing, Wager attaches a purported pre-print from O.E. Rossler. (no umlaut).

Seven New Features of Black Holes Impart an Uncanny Risk on the LHC
Otto E. Rossler
Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Morgenstelle 8, 72076
Tubingen, F.R.G.

The most recent chapter in the fascinating story of black holes is offered. Johnny Wheeler's witty profundity in the footsteps of his mentor Einstein still shines through. The "no-hair theorem" is clipped from 3 to 2 surviving "hairs" (mass and angular momentum remain, charge goes). And an unbelievable oversight of the scientific community maintained for 7 decades is exposed: an infinite slow-down of infalling astronaut clocks so that horizons become effectively unreachable. The other five new features are: nonevaporation; threshold reduction; exclusive risk to earth; quantum protection of neutron stars; and exponential growth inside matter. An attempt at falsifying this 7-link chain in at least one element is encouraged as a precondition for the Large Hadron Collider's planned second start.

(April 17, 2009, revised May 16, 2009)

Much of it is unintelligible due to photocopy and/or printing defects. There are no equations and no math. The conceit that this paper might be published in Science anywhere near it's current form is laughable.

As always, Roessler fails at GR and so needs to shut up.

Black holes carry a funny name -- John Wheeler had thought about the latter for half a year while dropping every other activity. Later on he added the witty "no hair theorem" to further boost their popularity (after a pop song from Einstein's Berlin time "Say - is it real' true -- that the frog at the ass has no hair?" - (I apologize). There exist many sci-fi stories and even crime novels about black holes. Seven new features are to be offered in the following which taken together could give one the impression of conspiring against humankind. Fortunately, however, disproving a single one will suffice to break the chain and with it the dangerous spell.

First chain link: "Unapproachability in finite time"

The fact that light takes an infinite time to reach the horizon (the surface) of a black hole, and equally long back up, is well known: "infinite radar distance" [1]. Astronauts take twice as long to plunge down and bounce up again (if a hard trampoline is assumed suspended on the horizon that [unintelligible] acknowledged in the literature [2,3]. Amazingly, it nevertheless got suppressed somehow from physicists' consciousness. The obvious reason for that is Oppenheimer and Snyder's famous finding that the proper infalling (as well as rebouncing) time is finite and quite short: From the surface of a collapsing star it makes up only about one day [4]. However, the same proper infalling-plus-rebouncing time of two days bridges an infinite time span on the clock of anyone wating on the departure-and-arrival level. This fact is trivial to demonstrate (astronauts cannot overtake light). It follows that an infinite slowdown of the astronaut's clock is responsible for the infinite difference between the travel time of two days and the infinite waiting time outside. This fact - that we here ss [sic] an extremal case of Einstein's famous twin-clocks paradox - got overlooked by the scientific community for 7 decades [4]. Note that an infinitely slowed-down clock allows any infinite distance to be bridged in finite proper time. Thus, the finite link between horizon and outside world traditionally assumed in the wake of the Oppenheimer-Snyder result unfortunately ceases to be physical.

[six other "links" omitted]

[1] Foster, J. and Nightingale, J.D., A Short Course in General Relativity, 3rd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag 2006, p. 130.
[2] Novikov, I., Black Holes and the Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990. Quote
(p. 24): Radio waves will travel infinitely far to the gravitational radius [horizon] and will never return to the observer who sent them."
[3] Thorne, K.S., Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein 's Outrageous Legacy. New York: W.W. Norton 1994. Quote (p. 294): "When an infinite amount of external time has passed, the [infalling] particle has experienced only a finite and very small amount of
[4] Rossler, O.E., "Overlooked twin paradox in Oppenheimer-Snyder theory -
greatest oversight and risk of history." (Submitted to Nature.)
Text included in: www.nature.com/news/2009/090508/full/news.2009.459.html
Original 1-page manuscript on: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/overlooked.pdf

Why would Wagner think this helps his case at all? The references (so far) are a simple textbook on GR which the author shows no effort at mastering, two pop-science books and a blog comment the author himself left somewhere on the Internet.
Still on the May 27 filing. The court clerk called his motion untimely (FRAP 28 (c) doesn't allow Wagner a reply to an amici brief, one would have to petition separately for the right). Therefore the clerk (who has received neither a motion for late filing or a motion to allow a reply to the amici brief) rightly calls it untimely, with the wrong cover, and notes that Wagner is marking it up like high school paper and not a court brief.

So now we go on to the motion to allow Wagner to file the mystery brief. There are so many things wrong, I want the court on it's own motion to deny Wagner further access to the courts.

We start with the title:
This obviously crosses with the May 11 Government motion to disallow any such brief, and as the Government cites FRAP 27, FRAP 28.1(f)(3), 9th Circuit Rule 27-1 and case King v. Atiyeh, book law and precedent seem to be (unopposed) on the Government's side. But as the clerk rejected the brief for reasons other that mere untimeliness, the actual brief is yet to be seen on May 27 and Wagner is still arguing about May 5.

Pursuant to a Letter from the Clerk of the Court dated May 15, 2009, but not received by appellant Wagner until May 20, 2009, requiring a motion for leave to file a Reply Brief six days after the filing of the Order granting the Amici request for the filing of their brief, appellant Wagner respectfully moves this Court for leave to file his Reply Brief filed in response to the Amici brief.
If it is in response to the amicus brief, then Wagner has no expectation to be allowed to file the brief. If it is a response to the Government's case, then it was due on April 20, and Wagner wants to use every second of time to polish it.

Let us assume it is in response to the amicus brief. Contrary to FRAP 27 (2)(a), Wagner does not offer grounds on why such a motion should be granted. Indeed, FRAP 28 (c) says the general rule is no one gets to file such a brief, even though it authorizes the court to decide to allow it. FRAP 2 gives the usual grounds to make exceptions to the rules "to expedite [the court's] decision or for other good cause." But "good cause" does not mean what is good for Wagner's ego. It is a term of art meaning in the cause of preventing injustice. One authority writes: "[FRAP 2] also contains a general authorization to the courts to relieve litigants of the consequences of default where manifest injustice would otherwise result." Wagner argues no such injustice. Instead he argues (as we will see below) that the amici are wrong which should have been argued on or prior to April 21.

Let us then assume that Wagner means this brief to be the very late reply to the Government's case and just happens to mention the amici brief in passing. Once again, there is no mention of grounds, no showing of why an exception to the timing rules is in the pursuit of justice, and does not demonstrate that reasons other than willful negligence are the reason for the late filing. All this in spite of the Government lawyer kindly showing Wagner how a formal request for late filing is obtained prior to the deadline. And as it is specifically the very issue first raised by the Government in their motion, Wagner should be filing a cross-motion.

This motion is supported by the accompanying Affidavit of Walter L. Wagner in Support of Motion for Leave to File, and the accompanying amended Reply Brief Of Appellant Walter L. Wagner with footnote font now at 14-point font as requested by the Clerk, and the cover sheet now grey rather than yellow, as requested by the Clerk.
Note: No such Reply Brief was attached. This is untrue.

This motion is further based upon the Order of this Court filed April 30, 2009 in which it granted the motion of the Amici for leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief. It is argued that such order granting such leave thereby allowed appellants the right to file a brief in reply thereto, which they did six days after this Court's order, as detailed in the accompanying affidavit in support.
Technically it is not argued. That is a bald assertion. No authority is cited, no law or rule of the court is referenced. And FRAP 28(c) seems to be the final word on what the rights are to file briefs. And as the Government says in its motion (quoted circa May 12), the Court's order of April 30 specifically anticipated no additional briefs being filed.

// Edit, added: Indeed, one authority writes of the amicus brief (with its specific schedule): "A 7-day period also is short enough that no adjustment need be made in the opposing party’s briefing schedule. The opposing party will have sufficient time to review arguments made by the amicus and address them in the party’s responsive pleading. The timetable for filing the parties’ briefs is unaffected by this change." So an amicus brief does not confer any change to rights to file briefs or their timings, and so it follows that a court order which grants the amici motion (which Wagner did not consent to but neither argued against), cannot change the schedule, especially after all deadlines expired.

This action of the Court rendered moot the issue as to whether or not the submitted reply brief was timely with respect to the filing of the appellee's response, which appellants nevertheless believed was also timely, as per the accompanying affidavit.
Translation: "Because we assert now, out of thin air, that a never-before-seen right to reply to an amicus brief, we say that the Government and Clerk both are bonkers when they claim the brief was untimely. They did not anticipate that by asserting these just-made-up rights we actually relieve the Court of any need to hear their argument. But even if this Court wants to be so backward as to try to enforce the "rules" in that FRAP nonsense, we are now going to claim we genuinely believed that we were engaged in the more complicated cross-appeal process despite not having even the slightest shred of evidence to support this belief. Because, whether we are talking about court rules or physical theory, what Wagner believes in his mind is much more important mere pathetic evidence like the rest of humanity relies upon. Trust me, I'm a genius."

(The affidavit is a bit more than twice as long. Shall I reproduce it here?)
Last edited:
On or prior to June 4, I expect to see the Government tear a hole in Wagner.

Well, at 8:03 am (11:03 Eastern Time) on June 2, our favorite Government attorney files this response to Wagner's motion.
On May 29, 2009, pro se appellant Walter L. Wagner filed a “motion for leave to file reply brief six days after order granting filing of amicus curiae brief.” Wagner filed this motion in response to Deputy Clerk Sumera’s deficiency letter of May 15, 2009, which noted, inter alia, that “[t]he brief was not served by the scheduled date.” Federal Defendants-Appellees United States Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and Fermilab (collectively, “DOE”) respectfully submit that Wagner’s May 29 motion should be denied.

1. In the affidavit to his motion (at 1-2), Wagner asserts that “the optional Reply Brief” is necessary to address the amicus brief, not the answering brief of DOE. However, as DOE previously noted in its May 11, 2009 motion to strike reply briefs (at 3 & n.3), the Court’s order of April 30 (per Judges Leavy and Bea) directed both that “[t]he Clerk shall file the amicus brief” and that “[t]his case is ready for calendaring.” The obvious implication of the April 30 order is that the Court does not wish to receive a reply to the amicus brief. A case is generally not considered “ready for calendaring” if briefing is still underway.

2. If, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court does in fact wish to receive a reply to the amicus brief, DOE respectfully submits that the Court should enter an order along the following lines:

a. The Court should reject the reply brief tendered by Luis Sancho. [[The cover of the brief tendered by Wagner is styled “Reply Brief of Appellant Walter Wagner.” However, a second brief, styled “Reply Brief of Appellant Luis Sancho,” is stapled to the back of Wagner’s reply brief. ]] First, Sancho has not joined in Wagner’s May 29 motion; simply put, Sancho is not seeking this Court’s leave to file a reply brief out of time. Wagner and Sancho are pro se litigants, such that Wagner does not represent Sancho. Moreover, as previously stated in DOE’s May 11 motion to strike (at 3-4), the reply brief tendered by Sancho is plainly substantially over length (in addition to being out of time). Wagner’s May 29 motion does not even purport to explain why Sancho should be permitted to file a substantially over length reply brief.

b. The Court should not accept the reply brief tendered by Wagner in its present form. Despite Wagner’s above-noted assertion that a reply is necessary only to address the amicus brief, the bulk of the brief tendered by him is styled “Reply to Defendants/Appellees’ Answering Brief.” Therefore, assuming arguendo that the Court wishes to receive a reply brief from Wagner that addresses the amicus brief, Wagner should be required to resubmit the reply he has tendered, omitting the present section V (“Reply to Defendants/Appellees’ Answering Brief”) and paragraphs 2 through 4 of the present section VI (“Conclusion”).

However, for the reasons stated in paragraph 1 above, Wagner’s May 29 motion should simply be denied.
Another fine day in San Francisco it was. I had a fine lunch in the Macy's basement even after being assaulted by one of Paris Hilton's minions armed with a spray bottle of celebrity perfume. ( I think it smells of dead flowers and grapefruit. Now my laptop bag smells of it. ) The court clerks are still aching from the recent federal holiday/bank holiday disrupting their weekly routine, so there is no way to know yet when the next batch of scheduled cases appear.
I thought I understood what was going on, until now.

On April 30, two judges accept the amicus brief, and say the case is ready for calendaring which would be the step where the hearing date is decided.

On May 5, Wagner submits a wad of paper.

On May 11, the Government moves to strike the Wagner brief for being untimely and no showing of good reason, and the Sancho brief for being improperly filed, untimely and no showing of good reason, and over-long. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2251130#post2251130

On May 12 a deputy clerk with the court orders that motion to be examined by a panel.

On May 15, a different deputy clerk writes a letter to Wagner indicating his brief is untimely, and formatted wrong. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2254951#post2254951

On May 27, Wagner files a motion to allow the brief(s), but fails to attach them as promised.

On May 29, the brief(s) go into the mail.

On June 2, as predicted by your reporter, the Government points out that Wagner showed no good reason for anything.

On June 11, the first deputy clerk override the same clerk's earlier decision on May 12, and orders the brief(s) filed. But since the May 12 motion did not dispose of the motion to strike, isn't the motion to strike still under consideration? In the same motion the deputy clerk ignores all of Wagner's talk about amici and orders the brief(s) filed as a reply to the Government's principle brief.

But what is going on? Is the Sancho brief in or out? Is the motion to strike pending or decided? What part of Wagner's filing was persuasive? Is the clerk just waiting for the brief(s) to be filed before striking?

The Government is entitled to file (within 14 days) for reconsideration or clarification of the order, but I'm not sure that's a great idea.

So, once again, what is going on?
Last edited:
Sent June 10, received June 12. (Deadline: May 16)
Walter Wagner said:
ln response to Federal Defendants-Appellee's Response to Walter L. Wagner's "Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief Six Days After Order Granting Filing of Amicus Curiae Brief" , it is to be noted that the Sancho 'Reply Brief' attached as an addendum to appellant Walter L. Wagner's reply brief complies with F.R.A.P. Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(ii), which allows for a reply brief to be either 30 pages or 7,000 words. The Sancho 'Reply Brief' is 6,994 words (excluding footnotes, addenda, cover, and certificate of compliance), and therefore not overly Iong. lndeed, it is an extremely interesting, well-reasoned read.
Untimely. Managing Sancho's case (i.e. acting as his lawyer). Not an argument, just a contradiction. Unspecific as to the issue at point (are pages of footnotes part of the word count or not). Cites no case law. Totally ignores the adjacent paragraph F.R.A.P. Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
Headings, footnotes, and quotations count toward the word and line limitations. The corporate disclosure statement, table of contents, table of citations, statement with respect to oral argument, any addendum containing statutes, rules or regulations, and any certificates of counsel do not count toward the limitation.
(emphasis added)
Minor updates:
6/18 - Court files 76 pages of reply briefs for Sancho/Wagner
6/29 - Calendar check performed.

I will refer to another pro-se litigant's description of what this means:
According to the clerk's office, the suit will first be submitted to the court's staff of law clerks who will determine whether or not the suit warrants oral arguments. Once this is determined, the suit will either be sent to a screening panel which consists of three circuit judges who will rule on the suit, or it may be sent to a merits panel who will then hear oral arguments before ruling on the suit. The process of adjudication can take up to a year or more before either panel reaches a decision.
http://www.article5.org/Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Page.htm

Some friendly advice for all: http://www.riverbendlaw.com/persuasive.htm
Last edited:
Well, that's been over a month since there has been any movement in the "Hawaiian Man Sues LHC" case. The San Francico clerks are trying to make sense out of the appellate filings and will eventually decide how much oral argument is needed and find time on some judge's calendar.
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

I guess file this under no news is news. The October calendar for the court has recently been published, so unless the Sancho/Wagner case is added to existing schedules (like the Government appeal of the exclusion of some evidence in the perjury trial of local baseball star Barry Bonds was), the next oppurtunity to scheudule the case is November 2.

"ὄψὲ θεῶν ἀλέουσιμύλοι, ἀλέουσι δὲ λεπτ" or roughly, "The gears of justice turn slowly but grind very finely."
Seeing the Daily Show poop on Mr. Wagner's head was good enough for me. For a while there I was afraid to step out my front door, I figured there was a 50/50 chance a dragon might fly by and bite my head off.
I wonder if there's an atheist out there preparing a similar court case against America's churches. The charge: christian rituals are endangering the world by threatening to open a portal to hell from which zombies and other undead terrors will emerge to feast on the flesh of the living, and if such a portal isn't closed within 24 hours, it will remain open for eternity until the entire Earth is filled with the walking dead.
Here's your monthly update: There is still no scheduled date for the 9th circuit appeal of the dismissal of the case brought by Wagner and Sancho. The last action taken, on June 29th, was notice of the case to be be discussed by the clerks and an appropriate schedule for oral arguments to be made. I think the next window of opportunity is December 7-11.

In Hawaii, the unrelated criminal trial heats up. On October 16, Wagner's lawyer filed a motion to forestall the prosecutor from bringing up certain evidence without the permission of the judge, and what may very well be the last motion to dismiss. The trial, once scheduled for August 3, is now scheduled for November 17.

Like the LHC startup itself, these proceedings just seem to drag on much longer than expected.
In Hawaii, the unrelated criminal trial heats up. On October 16, Wagner's lawyer filed a motion to forestall the prosecutor from bringing up certain evidence without the permission of the judge, and what may very well be the last motion to dismiss. The trial, once scheduled for August 3, is now scheduled for November 17.

The motion to exclude 'certain evidence' is a motion to rely entirely upon the public record, and to exclude evidence which contradicts the public record, in particular oral evidence.

The public record was initially generated in 2001 and showed Mrs. Wagner to be a founder, Director and Secretary for the company from the time of the filing of the articles of incorporation, through and until February, 2004 when she was removed (by myself) as a Director and Treasurer, but retained as the Secretary. Thereafter, the public record show one 'Emerson' becoming the Resident Agent (for service of process) in March, 2004, becoming the Treasurer in June, 2004, and replacing Mrs. Wagner as the Secretary in September, 2004.

The motion is in essence a request that oral evidence that would be introduced years after the public record was generated and that would otherwise contradict the public record should be excluded, as required by law. The law requires persons to be cognizant of the public record, and allows them to rely on the public record.

The oral evidence that the prosecutor would like to introduce would be the oral statements of a known Liar and felon who has asserted that 'Emerson' became the Secretary in August 2003, and that therefore a document signed by Mrs. Wagner in her capacity as a corporate Secretary on January 1, 2004 were not valid, and that my use of that document as an Exhibit attached to the complaint in support of my civil suit was an "attempted theft" on my part for using documents I supposedly knew were not valid.

Since the facts are that Mrs. Wagner was the Secretary when she signed those corporate documents I used as Exhibits attached to my civil suit, and since the public record shows she was that Secretary at that time (January 1, 2004), and since the public record shows that 'Emerson' did not file to become the Secretary with her first public-record filing in March, 2004, nor with her second public-record filing in June, 2004, but not until her third public-record filing in September, 2004; therefore the public record fully shows Mrs. Wagner was that officer on January 1, 2004 when she signed that document, and the Liar's oral assertions to the contrary should be excludable.

Once those fraudulent assertions from that Liar are excluded, then there is no case.

Those facts, incidentally, have been known to the prosecutor for some 18 months, but he has chosen to maintain that prosecution for political purposes (likely to advance the agenda of his long-time friend, the Liar's personal attorney).

I mention this because we have a similar fraud with the LHC management (CERN), which now asserts that there are no safety concerns. This is not true.

The Mangano safety argument ("neutron star argument") relies A) upon an unproven assumption that the cross-section for interaction of near-relativistic micro-black-holes is not near-zero; whereas we 1) have no impirical evidence thereon, and 2) some theoreticians show the cross-section to be near-zero at relativisitic speeds (loosely analogous to diminishing cross-sections with speed for neutrons); and B) the safety argument equating proton-Lead collisions in nature as being the same as Lead-Lead collisions at the LHC for comparable COM energies is likewise unproven and appears contrary to established physics, and certainly also has no impirical evidence.