LHC Safety and the Law

[Walter L. Wagner]

Well, while we are waiting...
On the morning of the trial, Walter's lawyer moved to join with his wife's lawyer's motion for a continuance, which was granted -- trial now scheduled for Feb 8, 2010.

Prosecution is due to respond to the latest motion to dismiss (and possibly the request to supress evidence??) on Dec 29, 2009.

Since rpenner has apparently directed this away from the law involving the LHC, and into a particular case involving Mrs. Wagner (and myself), I will digress briefly for those not previously apprised:

The charge was made by a Liar (one Kenneth Francik, previously prosecuted by the Los Angeles prosecuting attorney for being a liar) that Mrs. Wagner had signed, on January 1, 2004, a corporate document involving money using a corporate title (secretary/treasurer) while no longer such officer, having been replaced some six months earlier in that capacity by one Annette Emerson. She was originally charged with identity theft (since dismissed) and "attempted theft", in that I subsequently attached that document to a civil suit I filed for monies owed to me, as an Exhibit in support of my civil allegations. That civil suit is still pending, with no final determination by the court as to whether those monies are owed to me (they are) or not.

At the hearing a few days ago, the "trial date" was continued until February, 2010 so as to first allow the hearing on the current motion to dismiss. The prosecuting attorney was given a cut-off deadline by the court of December 29, 2009 to put up or shut up. His is not an easy task.

The public record (of Nevada, wherein the corporation involved was incorporated) shows Mrs. Wagner as an original incorporator, Director and officer of that corporation. It further shows that she was not removed as an officer until a February, 2004 filing, being removed both as a Director and as the Treasurer, but being retained as the Secretary. It shows that her position as the Treasurer went to one Mr. Perkins, and no additional director replaced her directorship position.

Subsequently, Ms. Emerson, the party the Liar claimed replaced Mrs. Wagner as the corporate officer in August, 2003, filed her first document with Nevada in March, 2004 in which she did not seek to be named as an officer, but instead sought to be named as a "Resident Agent" (the party who can be served with legal process on behalf of a corporation). Thereafter, in June, 2004 Ms. Emerson filed her second document with Nevada, replacing Mr. Perkins with herself as the Treasurer, but leaving the other officer positions intact (including Mrs. Wagner's position as Secretary). Finally, in September, 2004, Ms. Emerson filed a third document with Nevada in which she replaced Mrs. Wagner with herself as the Secretary.

That is what the public record shows, which directly contradicts the assertions by the Liar. Likewise, the private record shows that corporation's attorney writing to Mrs. Wagner in May, 2004 advising her as to her then status as a corporate officer being that of corporate secretary.

The task for the prosecuting attorney is now to convince the court that Mrs. Wagner, out of the some 6 billion people on Earth who are entitled to rely upon the public record, could not herself rely on the public record in determining whether to sign a document as a corporate officer, or otherwise act in a capacity as a corporate officer, when she was aware of both the public record, and the corporation's attorney's assertions to her. And, he must convince the court that she had some form of criminal intent in signing a document for monies that were legitimately owed while signing as a corporate officer, which officer she was in fact, which she was on the public record, and which she was in the minds of her fellow corporate officers.

I suggest that the honorable course of action (if there is any honor left on their part) is to simply acknowledge that they were lied to, rather than to continue down their course of trying to prove that Mrs. Wagner knowingly signed a document knowing she was not an officer, when everything else (public record, attorneys, corporate officers) told her she was that officer.

But people of rpenner's ilk would like to continue to deceive the public, both about this and about the legitimate issues involving the LHC risk assessment currently ongoing at a management level.

 

[prometheus]

But people of rpenner's ilk would like to continue to deceive the public, both about this and about the legitimate issues involving the LHC risk assessment currently ongoing at a management level.

I would like to register my outrage at this. Coming from the person who refers to themselves as a nuclear physicist when it reality they are nothing of the sort grates quite a lot with me.

 

[rpenner]

09-24-08

The position that CERN is taking through the US government attorney is ....

09-24-08

I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that be some sort of huge ethics violation, conflict of interest and could get the attorney both fired and disbarred if it were true? But, of course, the basis for this charge is nowhere to be found. Not everyone who disagrees with you is working for CERN.

10-29-08

Circa October 20, [Wagner] was busy on a cluster of apparently closely networked blogs where the subject was Wagner's representation of his own credentials as given to this court and elsewhere. The response has not been very positive.

10-29-08

Wagner has made strong claims concerning his credentials. Yet, after having been given dozens of opportunities (even in court and these very forums) to back up those claims by presenting them, he has every single time, without fail, ignored those requests and side-stepped them entirely.

...

The federal government has expended a large sum for the construction of the LHC over the course of more than a decade.The amount of money spent by the federal government is approximately DOUBLE the amount spent by each of the other countries involved in the construction project [10% versus 5%], and constitutes 100% of the Dollar commitment to the project [the other commitments were in Euros]. This long-term expenditure commitment dwarfs the expenditures of those cases in which it was found that federal involvement in a project did not constitute a major federal action.

(caps in original)

02-10-09

Section VIII: Wagner argues long-windedly. (Shoot me, shoot me now.)
1. Wagner says $531 million is a lot of money. He reuses his unsupported "double" assertation. He reuses his "Dollarz iz teh onleez moneez" argument. And he says that $531 million is quantitatively different than the amounts of funds in the case law cases.

02-12-09

Anyone who is interested in reading the complete appellate brief that was filed, to see how it compares with the "analysis" by rpenner, may PM me and provide me with an email address, I will email it to them as an attachment. It's only 25 pages of a Word document.

02-13-09

Let the reader decide, eh?
...
The whole issue of "average percentage per country" is a bad argument to make, and as a biologist, Wagner should know that "average plant size" is not a figure which helps you understand how a forest looks.

03-02-09

Wagner seems to be claiming that it would be possible to do a diligent appeal reply in just 20-40 hours. [Or is he boasting about how little time he spends on legal matters? That would be apples (non-lawyer) and oranges (distinguished appellate lawyer representing multiple government departments).]

....

Wagner brings the Nobel Laureate amici into this, despite the fact that they haven't filed yet in the appeal and their filings haven't been cited by specific document number. He makes a classic appeal to personal incredulity and calls them religious nuts. And tries to leverage that bit of illogic into an assertion that the US government should be ordered to "discontinue any further funding of defendant CERN's operation" during the appeal.

03-03-09

Anyone wanna buy some of rpenner's snakeoil?

04-09-09

The arrest warrant was issued based on perjured testimony of a disgruntled company shareholder.
...
Of course, you won't get these facts from rpenner, who appears to have an axe to grind.

To save rpenner the trouble, I'll likely post the response to the federal brief when it is filed.

04-09-09

All I'm doing is reading the public records and you don't dispute my reading of those minutes.
...
I put the propsition to you that your problem is with the court records and not with me.

04-10-09

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?

04-10-09

It goes to credibility and estimation of competence.
...
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.

05-01-09

[Wagner] argued that the destruction of the Earth for a never-before done physics experiment is always 50%.

05-04-09

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.

10-26-09

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.
...
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.

11-21-09

Since rpenner has apparently directed this away from the law involving the LHC

You seem perfectly willing to chat about it, and I am not the only one who gets curious on the topic. I think it is perfectly valid background on the source of unevidenced claims. When you make sterile assertions that something may happen, or a numerical claim not backed by calculation, your track record is germane. If you had discussed a physics argument or if (for example) Roessler had shown his calculations, discussing the source of the claims would be largely inappropriate.

The charge was made by a Liar (one Kenneth Francik, previously prosecuted by the Los Angeles prosecuting attorney for being a liar)

The only Ken Francik of Los Angeles that Google is familiar with is a retired (circa 2000) LAPD Dectective and instructor. You weren't 100% clear. Was he procecuted? When was it? Did it go to trial? Was there a verdict? What source do you have? And can you show that this Ken Francik is the same as your Ken Francik. Is your Ken Francik the same as my Det. Ken Francik. In the past I have falsely accused you of having an impressive publication record, when in fact it was a different W. Wagner, so I don't want to do this again.

That is what the public record shows, which directly contradicts the assertions by the Liar.

Well, then they both can't be telling the truth. But as a purported officer of an organization which has all real assets in Hawaii, why should Mrs. Wagner depend on records in far away Nevada? Wouldn't local records like emails and paychecks be capable, in principle, of demonstrating that the Nevada records were fundamentally unreliable? For example, hypothetically, if the Secretary is told that she is fired and gets no (or reduced) paychecks, would that not indicate to even "a moron in a hurry" that that Secretary is no longer an officer of the company? Tch. But you are under NO OBLIGATION TO RESPOND to these hypotheticals, lest you murder your defense lawyer's case. I'm just saying that I cannot take your unevidenced side on this case as 100% reliable and am willing to exercise some skepticism.

The task for the prosecuting attorney is now to ...

... to do what is best in the pursuit of justice. Dismissal is a win if it is merited. Plea bargins are a win if they are merited. Conviction at trial is a win if it is merited. But because you are understably biased against the notion that you have done anything wrong, you attribute malice to the prosecution and limit the prosecution's hypothetical goals by your own failures of imagination. In an adversarial situation, like a courtroom or a game of chess, such failures of imagination can be major defects.

But people of rpenner's ilk would like to continue to deceive the public, both about this and about the legitimate issues involving the LHC risk assessment currently ongoing at a management level.

I have no way of confirming that your claims against anyone you call a liar, a deciever or prejudiced individual is so. I suspect that these claims only mean that they have spend time talking with you and disagree with you on matters of fact or opinion.

 

[rpenner]

First, the opening brief asserts (at 10) that plaintiffs Luis Sancho and Walter L. Wagner submitted affidavits supporting the complaint in the capacity of persons who hold the title of “Dr.” In fact, those affidavits demonstrate that neither plaintiff holds a Ph.D, an M.D., or a similar doctoral degree in any scientific or science-related field. Rather, Sancho’s affidavit states that he obtained an “undergraduate degree” in an unspecified field, “followed with my post-graduate studies,” also in an unspecified field. SER 17 (¶ 1). Wagner’s affidavit states that he obtained a “graduate degree in 1978 . . . in law.” SER 12 (¶ 1).

The court then confirmed that Wagner is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction: [[The court was no doubt aware that, prior to the hearing, Wagner had stated, in an affidavit filed with the complaint, that he obtained a law degree in 1978. See supra, p. 8.]]

THE COURT: Are you admitted to the bar anywhere, Mr. Wagner?
MR. WAGNER: No, Your Honor.

SER 96.

Various rules that govern litigation in the federal courts amply illustrate the principle that, if pro se plaintiff A wishes to join in legal papers filed by pro se plaintiff B, then A must sign those papers himself and cannot rely on B’s signature as a proxy for his own. [[See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”); Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) (“A pro se notice of appeal is considered filed on behalf of the signer. . . .”); Fed. R. App. P. 32(d) (“Every brief . . . filed with the court must be signed by the party filing the paper. . . .”). That Sancho is not pursuing an appeal is entirely consistent with these rules. Otherwise, Sancho would be giving tacit approval to Wagner’s (continued) improper attempt to act as his lawyer.]]

Contrary to Mr. Arbab's false assertion that I am not a lawyer, and therefore cannot make pronouncements on whether he has a light caseload or not, l completed a standard 3-year Socractic [Sic] law curriculum in the 1970s, and briefly practiced as an attorney before embarking on a career in nuclear physics in an administrative capacity.

I would like to register my outrage at this. Coming from the person who refers to themselves as a nuclear physicist when it reality they are nothing of the sort grates quite a lot with me.

I believe the evidence shows you are not alone in that respect.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

It appears that rpenner enjoys citing selectively from public record. One wonders why he enjoys citing extensively from that case involving Mrs. Wagner, but does not cite the public documents that are in that case file that are the Nevada documents. For rpenner's information, it is irrelevant what non-public documents might say -- if you want to be recognized as a corporate officer you need to have yourself registered as such on the public record - that is a legal requirement for a corporation. Certainly one can argue a time-delay, possibly, even a few months, in not getting your documents timely filed with the State even though an officer. The situation here is entirely different. The time-delay is a full year (one full cycle, since the filing requirement is annual), plus the prior documents filed by Emerson clearly show she did not believe she was a corporate Secretary when she filed them replacing Mrs. Wagner, but rather initially a corporate Resident Agent using the proper Nevada form, secondly a corporate Treasurer using the proper Nevada form, and not until one year later, using the Nevada form, replacing Mrs. Wagner as a Secretary. So it is curious why rpenner focuses on irrelevant assertions instead of on legal requirements on a case that is irrelevant to the LHC case. I suspect that most legal scholars recognize that he is trying to sway an audience by irrelevant material - a method otherwise known as an ad hominem attack, and that others are outraged at that tactic.

 

[prometheus]

So it is curious why rpenner focuses on irrelevant assertions instead of on legal requirements on a case that is irrelevant to the LHC case. I suspect that most legal scholars recognize that he is trying to sway an audience by irrelevant material - a method otherwise known as an ad hominem attack, and that others are outraged at that tactic.

Not that I believe rpenner to be guilty of this, but citing irrelevant evidence is not ad hominem, it is false attribution. Another example of Mr. Wagner claiming knowledge that he doesn't have?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Material irrelevant to consideration of the matter at hand, but used in an effort to make the person appear to be other than he is, is 'ad hominem'. It is also 'false attribution'.

 

[prometheus]

Material irrelevant to consideration of the matter at hand, but used in an effort to make the person appear to be other than he is, is 'ad hominem'. It is also 'false attribution'.

It's still twisting the facts to fit your agenda.

Let's have some definitive answers to these questions Walter - Are you a nuclear physicist? Are you a lawyer?

 

[rpenner]

BTW, I was up very late last night writing the two posts above. "A moron in a hurry" is not meant to cast aspersions (especially upon Mrs. Wagner) but alludes to an actual legal standard in trademark law. A judge, in what may be valid case law in England and Canada (still not a lawyer, remember) and which seems to capture the sentiment of many courts, wrote that there can be no claim of confusingly similar trademarks if even "a moron in a hurry" could tell that A was not the same or backed by B. The phrasing was piquant and appropriate to my hypothetical which in no way reflects any information I have on what actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry

The reason I don't have the documents in the case folder is that those documents are in a Hawaiian courthouse, not on the court's public website.

And the only person whose opinion I am trying to change is yours, Wagner. I would like to get you to engage on the physics, math and evidence. From just the immediately above quotes, a host of questions arise. Your continued silence on these issues leave me free to hypothesize and build models, and leave me completely clueless as to how you can think that you have made a positive showing.

Can you answer any of the below simple questions and fair follow-ups in a useful, reliable and verifiable manner? Ideally, I would like to see them all answered.

* Is CERN using a US Government attorney to speak for them in court?
* Did you raise the above potentially defamatory claim?
* Have you retracted it?

* Do you, as evidenced by your affidavits, plan to certify yourself as an expert witness in the arenas of high-energy physics and goings-ons at particle accelerators?
* If so, how do you plan to do this without a verifiable and reliable CV with peer-reviewed publications and textbooks in the fields listed on the record?
* If not, don't the Federal Rules of Evidence demand that your accounts of events you did not personally witness be discarded?

* Was it a simple mistake or a deliberate choice to use the phrase "approximately DOUBLE the amount spent by each of the other countries" when the facts only support "approximately DOUBLE the mean (simple average) amount spent by each of member states of CERN" ?
* Isn't it stupid and insane to assert that Dollars are the only transactions the US Government cares about? If not, can I avoid taxes by having the multinational I work for pay me in Euros?
* Even if it were true that the largest percentage of funds came from the US, why would that matter if the percentage was still on the order of 10%? Does 10% of the voting public ever get to dictate to the 90% of the voting public? If the US role is so crucial, then why does the text of the agreements say the US has no voting role?
* Are there distributions where the mean is less useful description of the distribution than the median?
* With only on the order of 20 member states in CERN, is it appropriate to use statistical summaries to characterize them, given their wide variety in land area, population and GNP?

* Did you, as other claimed, receive LHC Defense contributions in excess of $2000?
* How far along are you on getting your long-promised tax-free certification?
* Won't such tax-free certification require your books to be transparent?

* Did you not make the case on television (edited though it may have been) that the chance of any outcome of a never-before done physics experiment is always 50%? If not, will you present us with an actual LHC risk calculation?
* Regardless, are you aware of the axiom of probability theory that the sum of probabilities of outcomes of an experiment totals to one?

* Are you a lawyer? If so, why did you tell the judge that you weren't admitted to the bar anywhere?
* Would you please show us your nuclear physics publication record?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

BTW, I was up very late last night writing the two posts above. "A moron in a hurry" is not meant to cast aspersions (especially upon Mrs. Wagner) but alludes to an actual legal standard in trademark law. A judge, in what may be valid case law in England and Canada (still not a lawyer, remember) and which seems to capture the sentiment of many courts, wrote that there can be no claim of confusingly similar trademarks if even "a moron in a hurry" could tell that A was not the same or backed by B. The phrasing was piquant and appropriate to my hypothetical which in no way reflects any information I have on what actually happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry

The reason I don't have the documents in the case folder is that those documents are in a Hawaiian courthouse, not on the court's public website.

The reason they are called "public record" is because they are available to the public. If you don't want to contact the clerk of the court to obtain copies from the court file, it is also possible to contact Nevada directly to look them up. They have them on permanent file, which is where the ones in the Hawaii court file came from - copies made from Nevada and then filed in the Hawaii court file when it was claimed the facts were contrary to the records.

As to your subsequent questions, they are irrelevant or already answered previously.

The only reason I respond to this is because you keep attempting to cast aspersions where none should be cast; particularly after I provided you with reference to what the public record says. If you can't be bothered with checking the public record, I can't be bothered with your other delusions.

 

[rpenner]

Can you answer any of the below simple questions and fair follow-ups in a useful, reliable and verifiable manner?

Ah, so the answer is no, and you do not dispute that they are simple questions and fair follow-ups. Interviewing you is so... precious.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Dear Mr. rpenner:

I am not in the habit of casting pearls before swine.

Before I would consider even beginning to answer your questions, I would expect a full apology from you to Mrs. Wagner. But I suspect that won't be forthcoming in the near future.

Sincerely,

Walter L. Wagner

 

[rpenner]

Before I would consider even beginning to answer your questions, I would expect a full apology from you to Mrs. Wagner.

Dear Mrs. Wagner,

I'm very sorry that you going through such troubling times and I have done my best to portray your current legal situation as neutrally and sedately as possible from the Hawaiian news reports and online courtroom minutes, even though I, as does the judge in the current criminal trial, suspect that much of it is based on getting bad advice. That is, as I have attempted to distinguish for your husband, a personal opinion of likelihood and not actually based on verifiable facts at my fingertips. But it has long seemed to me that I have no reason or cause to hurl anything at you, who remain a complete stranger to me. That was never my intention, and I'm sorry if someone may have told you different.

Unfortunately it is not my place to apologize for the anguish names like Francik, LHC Defense, Morton, Nakamura and WBGI may now bring you. I am not the author of the woes these names represent for your family. To the stated goal of neutrality and sedateness, I have tried not to add to your woes by often using your given name or Walter's home address -- even when it is according to court papers cohabited by both Walter and the often-invisible Luis Sancho. If you feel slighted by my indirect references during coverage of these past months to you as Walter's wife, I could readily adopt whatever other phraseology you would prefer, but none of calling you by name, or initial or merely as "co-defendant" would seem to be less hurtful. I would not wish your woes on anyone and I hope that you find for yourself a happy outcome.

-rpenner

P.S. I regard the above demand as fundamentally unwise, and insofar as between us we have no mutually trusted source of authentication, I will not be able to verify any communication as authentic.

 

[rpenner]

Fourth-generation fear-mongering by many of the same players as before.

http://www.concerned-international.com/files/UN Communication LHC CERN conCERNed international.pdf

Still not making any headway on the physics, but they have improved their sterile rhetoric a bit, and this time they file in English.

This time they file based on:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b3ccpr.htm (Widely in effect, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en) and the newish Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b4ccprp1.htm (in effect, but ratified in less places http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-5&chapter=4&lang=en )

On page six, they finally get the name of CERN right! As established by international treaty in 1954, it is the "European Organization for Nuclear Research" http://documents.cern.ch//archive/electronic/other/legal/articles/LSL00000014.pdf
They do confuse the date of signing and the date that the document went into force, but for anti-LHC forces, one must pay attention to the small steps.

[T]he LHC entails manifold dangers to the authors’ lives and to the integrity of the environment. The usage of this machine therefore violates the authors’ rights assured by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN-Doc. 2200/A [XXI]) and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, especially guaranteed in articles 2 and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the integrity of surrounding implicitly guaranteed in article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

OK, once again they play fast and lose with the names of things. So what do these articles say?

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a ) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b ) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c ) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Shorter: Signers shall pass laws to protect against bad discrimination is bad. It should be at least possible to seek relief against claims of discrimination.
No case here -- the law that created CERN predates the law that created Human Rights. As of today, no anti-CERN lunatic has suggested how fundamental forces of the universe might deprive people of right in a way that discriminates against people's gender.

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

Most of this has nothing to do with CERN since CERN is not an instrument of capital punishment. The first paragraph does not apply, because no-one at CERN thinks that the LHC will deprive people of life.

Nothing in this article concerns anti-LHC forces completely unfounded and unjustified fears based on their failure to understand physics. Now if they did physics and could prove that the LHC would (not might in a hypothetical universe where up is down and laws of nature are fiercely malicious) kill people, then they would have a trivial case.

Instead, they use tobacco-industry tactics of trying to insert doubt where there is none.

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It's not unlawful to call an idiot an idiot or to call a liar a liar, particularly when they make their status public.

Are the anti-CERN forces that incompetent?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The presentation of the work instantly smacks of 'knocked up some an idiot using Word'. Surely having read so many arxiv works at least one of the LHCConcern crowd would have learnt how to write a paper using LaTeX by now?!

On only a superficial reading numerous mistakes are noticeable and not technical details, basic things.

On page 11 they say "Hadrons are heavier particles than protons or neutrons, components of atoms.". Hadrons are the class of particles made up of quarks bound by the strong force. Protons and neutrons are hadrons. Nuclei are not, but they are made of hadrons obviously. Many hadrons are lighter and smaller than protons and neutrons, plenty of mesons are. Mesons are hadrons made of quark-antiquark pairings. A pretty basic thing to get wrong.

On page 13 "However, when gravity is extremely strong and distances are extremely small (conditions that will be produced at the LHC)". Gravity isn't 'strong' until the Planck Scale, that's the definition of the Planck Scale! Extra dimensions could exist on much larger scales but that is not synonymous with gravity being strong. The LHC might see extra dimensions but it won't get close to the Planck scale.

I like how they say things like "Dr. Paul Werbos is the author of several peer-reviewed physics papers.". Doesn't say what those papers were in or how much of an impact they made in their area or what experience the author has of relevant physics. It turns out very little.

But then I suppose that kind of 'lie by omission' is precisely the kind of thing Walter is used to, eh Walter? The post of yours which Prom quotes here is oozing with hypocrisy. All you do is misrepresent yourself. You aren't a nuclear physicist, you aren't a Doctor, you have no education in the relevant theories and judging by things you've said on the LHC Concern forum and on The Daily Show you're profoundly ignorant of everything from basic probability through to relevant quantum field theory. The one who misrepresents himself is you.

 

[rpenner]

Sorry -- I was slow in commenting in my first post. Timing of this seems aligned with WLW's return to this (widely read) thread. So it seems that the anonymous cowards who posted this are just acting as press flacks and not scientists or lawyers.

 

[rpenner]

Article 5 of the very same law provides an absolute defense for CERN.

By the demands of the lawsuit/press release, the morons want to turn Switerzland, France, Germany and CERN into their slaves in a dictatorship of the stupid and fearful. This the court cannot do.

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
3. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
[Remainder omitted]

Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

An interesting article on the subject:

http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog...own-tiny-plughole-remains-a-possibility-2.htm

Also, rpenner said:

"I'm very sorry that you going through such troubling times and I have done my best to portray your current legal situation as neutrally and sedately as possible ..."

A neutral presentation would have included the following facts:

1) During August, September, October, November, and December of 2003 and January, 2004, no one filed any documents with Nevada to change officers or directors of that corporation (WBGI);

2) During February, 2004 a document was filed with Nevada removing Mrs. Wagner as a Director and as the Treasurer, but retaining her as the Secretary of WBGI;

3) During March, 2004 Ms. Emerson and I jointly filed a document removing the existing 'Resident Agent' and replacing that position with Ms. Emerson;

4) During April and May, 2004 no documents were filed with Nevada for WBGI;

5) During June, 2004 Ms. Emerson filed a document with Nevada replacing the existing Treasurer with herself, and leaving the existing Director and other officers intact;

6) During July and August, 2004 no documents were filed with Nevada for WBGI;

7) On September 2, 2004 Ms. Emerson submitted for filing a document with Nevada replacing Mrs. Wagner's position as Secretary with herself.

Those facts directly contradict Francik's assertion to a Grand Jury, in which he swore up and down, hope to die, under penalty of perjury, that Mrs. Wagner was replaced as the Secretary by Ms. Emerson in August, 2003, and which grand jury returned an "indictment" against her based solely on his testimony and without any written documents presented to them, such as copies of the public record or private corporate record.

Not on the public record of Nevada, but contained in the Hawaii case file, are additional WBGI records which show:

a) On September 2, 2004 Francik, along with Emerson and others, voted to remove Mrs. Wagner as the Secretary and replace her with Emerson, as per the written minutes of that meeting, and Ms. Emerson was directed to file an appropriate public record document with Nevada reflecting that vote (which she apparently did, as per 7) above;

b) In August, and earlier in May, 2004 Francik requested orally and in writing for Mrs. Wagner to sign two separate corporate documents in her capacity as a corporate officer;

c) In May, 2004 Francik was hand-delivered (in my presence) a letter from the WBGI attorney advising him as to the identities of the corporate officers and directors, which attached copies of the public Nevada record referenced above (to the date of March, 2004) to that hand-delivered letter, in which Mrs. Wagner was identified as a WBGI officer.

Clearly, because Mrs. Wagner has been victimized by Francik's felony, she is troubled by his name. Likewise, she is troubled by persons who serve as his lapdog who do nothing to present the facts, but instead seek to hide the facts and paint a picture along the lines of the picture Francik painted of her to the Grand Jury.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

she is troubled by his name. Likewise, she is troubled by persons who serve as his lapdog who do nothing to present the facts, but instead seek to hide the facts

But she decided to marry you.

 

[rpenner]

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2009/PR18.09E.html

1.18 TeV and climbing. Fastest protons in a man-made accelerator.