LHC Safety and the Law

[rpenner]

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

...
It's a little early in the process, since no address for any defendant is listed.

It is still early.

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the plaintiff may amend the complain once as a matter of course not later than 21 days after serving the complaint, and there after as justice requires (subject to approval of court or defendant who can obviously have a difference of opinion as to what justice requires).

Presumably, this means that as of Sept. 13 the plaintiff still had not served any of the defendants -- possibly because no address was yet known. A quick check on Google seems to indicate that only one is readily visible on the Internet (although I think Google lists a work address and not necessarily the residence). The plaintiff's historical appearances in the press are comparatively easier to find.

Depending on how and when service is planned, it could easily be 2012 before we hear from the defendants. Indeed, it could past Christmas before the defendants find out about the case. (FRCP 4) Ho ho ho.

The amendment complaint mostly adds paragraphs, although one paragraph in the original was split into two. I have a hard time reconciling what is said in paragraph 36 versus 48 since the same amount loaned seems to be about 0.5 and about 1.0 million dollars. It's not clear if there is meant to be paragraph between paragraphs 40 and 42. The bulk of the damages seem to be the financial awards made against the plaintiff in another court, so I expect those claims to be hotly* contested if and when the defendants show up.

The plaintiff claims in paragraph 18 that a sentence which includes "possible" (not "likely", "guaranteed", "probable", etc) amounts to an instance of defamation. Is this the same plaintiff who insisted that it was "conceivable" that the LHC might kill us all and then back tracked to sat that he didn't mean it was "probable" or "likely" -- he's just asking questions, y'know.

The amended complaint also demands that libelous material from the WBGI website be removed. So I went to the website to look for it. No clue what he means, but part of the website is behind password protection.

Thanks to the Streisand effect, having your lawyer cajole people to giving up their alleged defamatory conduct is often cheaper and more effective than suing. But that involves working at a certain emotional distance. Emotional distance is what allows diplomacy and settlement conferences to proceed, and without them we have only total war.**

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

I'm not a lawyer, attorney, or related, but if I were tasked with defending this case, I see no reason not to move to strike the hyperlink to the Wikipedia page on WBGI. http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/2010rules.html#DUCivR7_5 I simply don't understand why it is listed in the complaint since it is inappropriate, has no foundation for admissibility, and if the defendants are who the plaintiff says they are, the link doesn't help the defendants understand the complaint any better. Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, the link effectively allows defendants (who include the WGBI) or other interested persons to insert themselves into the plaintiff's complaint.

We're not close to seeing argument about the merits of the claims. That's where the meat of the case is. It's where witnesses give up evidence, evidence is shaped into facts, facts and law become arguments for justice. It's where snarky commentators can tear apart a proposed inference or logical deduction and point out that a claim does not rest on the evidence.

* Indeed.
** Total war might well seem to be a reasonable option if you are sure that you have right on your side. But the history of science teaches us "you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

 

[rpenner]

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

It looks like a shareholder case joined with a defamation case.

Well, one of the defendants has been served and they, or rather their Utah lawyers, seem to agree with this assessment. They argue that the parts that look like a shareholder case should be dismissed because Wagner had all of his shares sold and Nevada corporations should have shareholder cases tried in Nevada state court in any event, and that the allegations called defamation are mostly just replays about what various state judges wrote about Wagner and should be no more defamation than the 1977 People Magazine article.

An allegation new to me, and published by a state judge as a finding of fact, actually has a bearing on my list of things that I wanted to see from Wagner:

• for an apology and retraction of your claims about the RHIC and the LHC,
• for a similar apology and retraction for your 50-50 claim,
• for a similar apology for bandying about the title "Doctor" in a scientific discussion when you had no relevant doctorate in physics, math, statistics, risk management or related field,
• for an apology to the LHC for involving the popular press in a scientific debate where you refused to make a case for the sensational claims that briefly occupied the media in 2008,
• for a disclosure about the fund-raising done by your ongoing solicitation for the purported anti-LHC non-profit which we never received an update about, and
• for any discussion about the specific physics of your anti-LHC claims.

So I really would like to hear about the finances of the purported anti-LHC non-profit.

The bulk of the damages seem to be the financial awards made against the plaintiff in another court, so I expect those claims to be hotly* contested if and when the defendants show up.

Indeed.

Thanks to the Streisand effect, having your lawyer cajole people to giving up their alleged defamatory conduct is often cheaper and more effective than suing. But that involves working at a certain emotional distance. Emotional distance is what allows diplomacy and settlement conferences to proceed, and without them we have only total war.**

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

The Utah lawyers presented [doc 7] the finding of facts of three state cases in Federal Court. Since Federal District Cases wind up on the Internet and copyright-free, this would be a good example of the Streisand effect making unflattering statements more visible in the quest to suppress them.

Wagner starts to respond to this [doc 13] but I think he lost the trail of his res judicata argument is that he seems to be focusing on the nature of post-2008 "publication" while someone less connected to the case might see that the motion to dismiss touts the Findings of Fact as pre-existing judgments that the events really happened so no claim of false defamation can be predicated on a true history.

Wagner pits USC Title 28 Section 1332(a) against N.R.S 78.630 as to in which court the shareholder case should be brought. Once again the arguments aren't meeting head on, with the WBGI lawyers pointing that this is a state statue which sets forth conditions to have standing and procedures for invalidating a board for mismanagement in state court, and Wagner using the Federal Diversity statute and the fact that he is suing WGBI (and other plaintiff) for in excess of 8 million dollars to make this a "Federal Case." At issue appears to be just how you can glue plaintiffs and claims together for 28 USC 1332(a). Expect the WBGI lawyers to respond to this point if ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.shtml
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-078.html#NRS078Sec630

... if they don't move to hammer Wagner for the form of his reply. Wagner seems too close to the issue and doesn't seem to separate the facts, issues and arguments of this motion from his ongoing life history since 1996. In addition he starts out with a Wikipedia-level lecture on the general topic of res judicata which one might think would be unloved by a court which wrote in its local rules (7-1(b)(2)) "Memoranda must be concise and state each basis for the motion and limited citations to case or other authority."

Note: Because I have only evidence that one defendant has been served, I fear this case might go a bit sideways. When Wagner responded to the complaint, apparently the other defendants did not get notified and perhaps have not been served yet. By not serving them all at the same time, it seems that Wagner allows them many bites at the apple as many procedural clocks don't begin until service is made.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Well, one of the defendants has been served and they, or rather their Utah lawyers, seem to agree with this assessment. They argue that the parts that look like a shareholder case should be dismissed because Wagner had all of his shares sold and Nevada corporations should have shareholder cases tried in Nevada state court in any event, and that the allegations called defamation are mostly just replays about what various state judges wrote about Wagner and should be no more defamation than the 1977 People Magazine article.

An allegation new to me, and published by a state judge as a finding of fact, actually has a bearing on my list of things that I wanted to see from Wagner:


So I really would like to hear about the finances of the purported anti-LHC non-profit.

Indeed.

The Utah lawyers presented [doc 7] the finding of facts of three state cases in Federal Court. Since Federal District Cases wind up on the Internet and copyright-free, this would be a good example of the Streisand effect making unflattering statements more visible in the quest to suppress them.

Wagner starts to respond to this [doc 13] but I think he lost the trail of his res judicata argument is that he seems to be focusing on the nature of post-2008 "publication" while someone less connected to the case might see that the motion to dismiss touts the Findings of Fact as pre-existing judgments that the events really happened so no claim of false defamation can be predicated on a true history.

Wagner pits USC Title 28 Section 1332(a) against N.R.S 78.630 as to in which court the shareholder case should be brought. Once again the arguments aren't meeting head on, with the WBGI lawyers pointing that this is a state statue which sets forth conditions to have standing and procedures for invalidating a board for mismanagement in state court, and Wagner using the Federal Diversity statute and the fact that he is suing WGBI (and other plaintiff) for in excess of 8 million dollars to make this a "Federal Case." At issue appears to be just how you can glue plaintiffs and claims together for 28 USC 1332(a). Expect the WBGI lawyers to respond to this point if ...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1332.shtml
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-078.html#NRS078Sec630

... if they don't move to hammer Wagner for the form of his reply. Wagner seems too close to the issue and doesn't seem to separate the facts, issues and arguments of this motion from his ongoing life history since 1996. In addition he starts out with a Wikipedia-level lecture on the general topic of res judicata which one might think would be unloved by a court which wrote in its local rules (7-1(b)(2)) "Memoranda must be concise and state each basis for the motion and limited citations to case or other authority."

Note: Because I have only evidence that one defendant has been served, I fear this case might go a bit sideways. When Wagner responded to the complaint, apparently the other defendants did not get notified and perhaps have not been served yet. By not serving them all at the same time, it seems that Wagner allows them many bites at the apple as many procedural clocks don't begin until service is made.

The referenced case is not related in the least to the LHC case, but since richard penner insists on referencing it here, and since it is public record, I will briefly summarize the facts as shown by the pleadings:

Defamation Tort 1: In 2004 I helped set up a dedicated bank account. Company shareholders were promised in writing that investment monies sent in for that account would be used for a specific construction purpose (Visitor Center), and no other purpose. In response, about $200,000 in checks from about 20 investors were mailed to me, which I caused to be deposited into that account. I did not have spending authority on that account (my name was not on the signature card), but rather some of the defendants had such spending authority. Later, in 2011 shareholders began inquiring what became of that money, since the promised construction had not taken place. In order to hide an apparent misappropriation of that money for other purposes, one of the defendants wrote an email in which he stated to that shareholder that that account had never been set up, and that I had misappropriated the money. In fact, that account was set up, and the money was misappropriated by one or more of the defendants.

Defamation Tort 2: In 2008, by use of fraudulent testimony, one or more of the defendants obtained an indictment against myself and my wife. He had, during his grand jury testimony, backdated by a full year when he and his associate had replaced us as company officers, making it appear we had signed a company document while no longer officers. State corporate records, and extensive sworn affidavits from other board members at that time, prove he lied to the grand jury. In 2010 the indictment was dismissed by the court due to the failure to prosecute by the prosecuting attorney, after he learned of that lying. In 2011 one or more of the defendants published on the company website the "indictment" as if it were being currently charged, when in fact it was dismissed in 2010 because it was bogus.

Fraud Tort 3: Company shares had slowly increased in valuation from $30/share in 1995 to $520/share in 2005, while I had built the company up. In 2006, based on their claim I owed the company money, they sold my shares at a "public auction" attended solely by two defendants. No bidding took place, and my shares were sold to themselves at $10/share. Three months later, they advertised my shares to the other shareholders at $250/share, which price they maintained the following year for further sales at that price. The present share value is not known, as they are not now being sold.

The present argument being presented to the Court by the defendants is that the Court does not have authority to order them to remove the dismissed "indictment" from the company webpage, claiming "res judicata". Yet the only res judicata in effect is that the case was litigated, argued, and dismissed (i.e. found in my favor) when the facts were shown not to be as claimed by that defendant.

Additionally, they claim "res judicata" as to the misappropriation or embezzlement of the dedicated (Visitor Center) bank account, even though I only learned of that embezzlement or misappropriation in 2011, several years after the prior litigations had terminated. That account, and its missing funds, was never litigated.

Finally, they claim that the fraud tort can only be litigated in state court (under a "fraud, waste and mismanagement" corporate statute), not Federal court, even though federal courts clearly have jurisdiction to try state court matters when diversity jurisdiction is present, as is the case here.

The defendant company presently has about 20 days left to respond to my pending motion for an injunctive order directing them to remove the dismissed "indictment" from their web site. Additionally, the Court is being asked to direct them to provide me with addresses for the other defendants so they may be served.

 

[rpenner]

I am not a lawyer (IANAL), and this does not constitute legal advice to anyone, including you the reader.

Walter Wagner again struggles with process serving
In the anti-LHC lawsuit, correct service to CERN was outlined by the Swiss government as a process via the US counsel to the Swiss counsel to CERN as CERN has normal immunity as a multi-governmental organization on Swiss soil. At no point did the Court disagree with this evaluation and nothing came of Wagner's "success" of getting the court clerk to note Wagner's assertion of a default predicated on the date of a defective service made by an ordinary Swiss process server. "Actual knowledge" of a lawsuit is no substitute under Federal law for the lawful due process of service of the complaint and summons.

On Monday, Wagner filed a motion for an extension of time to serve the humans he claims have conspired to defame him.

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) gives plaintiff 120 days in which to serve the defendants, but if the plaintiff shows good cause, the "court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." The First Amended Complaint was filed on October 4, 2011, and the 120-day time-frame will expire on February 1, 2012. In that plaintiff has thus far served only defendant WBGI, plaintiff requests an extension of time, ....

Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 4(f) [Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country] or 4(j)(1) [Serving a Foreign State Government].

Here "good cause" probably means something like "Legally adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law)

I would argue that Mr. Wagner has not begun to show good cause.

In determining the existence of good cause, courts consider whether the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve the defendant and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. “Good cause or excusable neglect is generally found only in exceptional circumstances where plaintiff’s failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond his control.” *
* McKibben v. Credit Lyonnais, 1999 WL. 604883, at *3 (SDNY Aug. 10, 1999) (Preska, J.).

http://www.maglaw.com/publications/data/00223/_res/id=sa_File1/070071002Morvillo.pdf
That's the Southern District of New York, not Utah where Wagner filed, but it's suggestive that one needs to document why service wasn't performed (in 120 days! -- longer if you count from when the first complaint was filed) and why the Plaintiff couldn't cure this problem by spending more resources (like hiring a professional).

In this matter, plaintiff has been unable to serve the remaining unserved defendants because he does not have valid addresses for them, and defendant WBGI has not been forthcoming with providing him with that information. Plaintiff has attempted to locate valid addresses without success, and needs additional time in which to do so, or alternatively, to leave the Summons and Complaint with this Court's Clerk.

Nowhere is there a description of the lengths that Wagner went to ferret out these missing addresses other than to ask the defendant corporation. Nowhere is there case law provided that agrees that it is the corporation's duty to provide such information, which is unrelated to the central claim that these humans conspired to defame Wagner. Nowhere is there evidence that Wagner hired an investigator or contacted local authorities or the professional associates that these humans belong to or conducted searches of real estate records. Nowhere is there a description of the medical emergencies and other case load that so hampered Wagner's ability to find these defendants.

Wagner's showing of "good cause for the failure [to serve the summons and complaint]" amounts to a claim of personal ignorance and he blames the defendant for not educating him on this point. How can that amount to "good cause" for anything? In this case which Wagner says is about millions of dollars, did Wagner spend even $10,000 in finding these humans? If not, then on what basis does he specify their home states and towns in the allegations?

... or alternatively, to leave the Summons and Complaint with this Court's Clerk.

Rule 5(b((2)(D) of the FRCP allows that a paper is served under the rule by "leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address."

Yes, but this is not about summons and complaints. This is about "pleadings and other papers" as the title of Rule 5 tells us. Indeed, Rule 5(a)(2) emphasizes that Rule 4 covers (new) complaints, even if the individual has already been served and is now in default.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_5

Pursuant to the above Rule, plaintiff will leave copies of the Summons and Complaint with this Court's clerk. This will allow defendant WBGI to obtain them from this Court's Clerk for service upon WBGI's officers (current and former), which would be the easiest and most effective method of service, in light o f the lack of known (to plaintiff) addresses for the other named defendants, and the ability for defendant WBGl's counsel to readily transmit the Summons and Complaint to WBGl's officers (present and recent past).

Here Wagner invents procedures that don't exist in the United States that are patently prejudicial to the humans, and tries to shift the burden on the corporate defendant, ignoring the thirteenth amendment to the US Constitution by trying to impose a burden of work on that defendant.

Wagner's motion, in all its brevity is here.

 

[RJBeery]

rpenner, how is it that you seem to be up-to-speed on these proceedings? Do you proactively follow the court case(s)? Are you involved personally somehow?

 

[rpenner]

When Wagner didn't discuss the physics of his claims, I was forced to read up on the law of his claims. In particular, I registered with the US Federal PACER system which provides all public court filings at $0.08 per page (less for certain documents should they be overlong).

I am interesting in starting my own non-profit corporation, but the fund raising information provided by Wagner concerning his anti-LHC efforts raised questions that I haven't heard answered. According to one source, the anti-LHC effort has raised at least thousands, and I hoped to see that those funds were being spent for the purposes intended.

In 2010, I went to the public appellate hearing of Wagner and Sancho before a 3-judge panel to see how two pro-se plaintiffs manage their case. When the appeal upheld the original findings against Wagner, Wagner appealed to the full ninth circuit ( I think an 11-judge panel would hear the case if any judge thought it was worth the time). I've been watching for an appeal to the Supreme Court (Wagner has tried to appear before them before on another matter) or another anti-physics lawsuit.

Here, we see a lawsuit based on the value of Wagner's reputation and not the purported fate of the Earth. It's worth watching for a possible outcome that the court rules Wagner has no professional reputation of any value and/or that the lawsuit is part of a meritless pattern of lawsuits. The corporate defendant seems to be preparing evidence towards that which, I say, would possibly reflect on the anti-LHC and anti-RHC lawsuits of years past.

As for this filing, I was aware of the 120-day deadline and was preparing material for when it expired.

 

[RJBeery]

When Wagner didn't discuss the physics of his claims, I was forced to read up on the law of his claims. In particular, I registered with the US Federal PACER system which provides all public court filings at $0.08 per page (less for certain documents should they be overlong).

I am interesting in starting my own non-profit corporation, but the fund raising information provided by Wagner concerning his anti-LHC efforts raised questions that I haven't heard answered. According to one source, the anti-LHC effort has raised at least thousands, and I hoped to see that those funds were being spent for the purposes intended.

In 2010, I went to the public appellate hearing of Wagner and Sancho before a 3-judge panel to see how two pro-se plaintiffs manage their case. When the appeal upheld the original findings against Wagner, Wagner appealed to the full ninth circuit ( I think an 11-judge panel would hear the case if any judge thought it was worth the time). I've been watching for an appeal to the Supreme Court (Wagner has tried to appear before them before on another matter) or another anti-physics lawsuit.

Here, we see a lawsuit based on the value of Wagner's reputation and not the purported fate of the Earth. It's worth watching for a possible outcome that the court rules Wagner has no professional reputation of any value and/or that the lawsuit is part of a meritless pattern of lawsuits. The corporate defendant seems to be preparing evidence towards that which, I say, would possibly reflect on the anti-LHC and anti-RHC lawsuits of years past.

As for this filing, I was aware of the 120-day deadline and was preparing material for when it expired.

Ahhh, ok. Well one thing is clear: he'll either succeed or he won't, so he has a 50% chance!

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Ahhh, ok. Well one thing is clear: he'll either succeed or he won't, so he has a 50% chance!

Hey, those are better odds than I've been giving myself. But you might be right!

As to RP, he's what is known in legal parlance as an "officious intermeddler". This case, of course, has nothing to do with the thread on the LHC.

But as to the service, the new rules are reasonably clear, and now allow service of the Summons and Complaint on a defendant for whom an address is not known by leaving it with the clerk. Most state rules allow service by publication (in the newspaper) if you don't know the address, but not so in the federal rules.

The intent is clear when read in conjunction with the preceding rule:

Rule 5(b)(2)(C) mailing it to the person's last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing;

Rule 5(b)(2)(D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address

A person cannot have no known address, and no last known address, if he has been served with the Summons and Complaint. That would imply a last known address (where the Summons and Complaint was served).

So this rule (D) is indeed specifically tailored for when a party has never had a known address.

The introduction to the Rule 4 does not require it to be applied only on papers served subsequent to the service of the Summons and Complaint, nor does preceding Rule 4 eliminate the requirements under Rule 5.

Since this is a relatively new rule, I expect that the Court will either accept service on the Clerk, and have the one served defendant pick up the copies for the other un-served defendants, or require the served defendant to provide the addresses of the unserved defendants to plaintiff.

 

[rpenner]

As to RP, he's what is known in legal parlance as an "officious intermeddler".

Not according to the definitions at law.com or Wikipedia or nolo.com. I will stipulate that my efforts are of benefit to others. However, my only expectation of profit from my activities is the satisfaction of being shown to be correct and the rise of my reputation as this is shown to be the case.

If you don't wish to immediately abandon your claim that I fit these definitions, then from whom am I trying to get paid for my work? CERN? prometheus? Switzerland? You?

You didn't even credit me for my statement that your claims belonged on The Daily Show, so I know better to expect payment from you.

This case, of course, has nothing to do with the thread on the LHC.

... other than a certain commonality of plaintiffs, tactics, the lopsidedness of factual support, highly idiosyncratic readings of statutes and procedures without supporting citations of case law and the smell of futility?

But as to the service, the new rules are reasonably clear,

I largely agree, but where possible one should rely on case law interpreting the rules.

The 2001 Committee notes read in part:

Rule 5(b)(1) makes it clear that the provision for service on a party's attorney applies only to service made under Rules 5(a) and 77(d). Service under Rules 4, 4.1, 45(b), and 71A(d)(3)—as well as rules that invoke those rules—must be made as provided in those rules.

at the time, FRCP 5(b)(1) read as:

Service under Rules 5(a) and 77(d) on a party represented by an attorney is made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party.

http://classaction.findlaw.com/research/frcp.pdf

Today, to clarify the style, but not change the intent, both 5(b)(1)

If a party is represented by an attorney, service under this rule must be made on the attorney unless the court orders service on the party.

and 5(b)(2)

A paper is served under this rule by: ...

not just emphasize that they are talking about "this rule" (i.e. FRCP 5) and not the previous rule 4 which covers serving summons and establishing personal jurisdiction of the court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_5

and now allow service of the Summons and Complaint on a defendant for whom an address is not known by leaving it with the clerk.

I disagree for the reasons stated above.

Most state rules allow service by publication (in the newspaper) if you don't know the address,

I lack information on which to agree or disagree and this seems like an unnecessary digression.

but not so in the federal rules.

I agree.

The intent is clear when read in conjunction with the preceding rule:

Rule 5(b)(2)(C) mailing it to the person's last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing;

Rule 5(b)(2)(D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address

I agree that the intent is clear. Under the rule of interpreting statues and contracts, that words have meaning and you should not construe a contract or statue such that a given word has no meaning, what does it mean when Rule5(b)(2) begins with "A paper is served under this rule by ..." ? Clearly "under this rule" serves to limit the scope. Is rule 4 under this rule? I think not.

A person cannot have no known address, and no last known address, if he has been served with the Summons and Complaint. That would imply a last known address (where the Summons and Complaint was served).

If a person has been properly served with the Summons and Complaint, then they are a party to the lawsuit and are required to participate or suffer default. Thus in the interest of justice, there are higher standards for service of Summons and Complaint than "pleadings and other papers" as rule 5 describes itself.

The 9th circuit addressed this in 2007.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9458926747531317254
For someone already a party to the case, when the complaint was amended, service under FCRP 5 was appropriate. But this person's address had gone from known to unknown by virtue of him moving without telling anyone.

The court clarifies rule 4/rule 5 with:

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the commencement of an action and the service of process.
...
Although the parties and the district court assumed — for reasons not explained — that Rule 4 governed service of the amended complaint, that is not so. Instead, it is Rule 5 that was applicable. Here is why: The amended complaint in this case qualifies as a "pleading subsequent to the original complaint," thus allowing it to be served in any manner prescribed in Rule 5(b).

So since the humans have never been served with the complaint in this case, Rule 4 still governs the service of the summons and complaint, which is the naive expectation of the lower court in the district case.

A 2011 case is even clearer.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14960736109271718910

Depositing Papers With the Court is Not Proper Service
While not entirely clear, it appears that Cryer has submitted this package of materials seeking to effect service of process by depositing the original summonses with the Clerk of Court since there is no known address of certain defendants. Cryer cites to Rule 5(b)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure providing that "a paper is served under [Rule 5] by:... (D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address." Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D).

To the extent that Cryer considers that proper service of process has been effected on the defendants in this fashion, this belief is misplaced, and this Court will not deem that proper service of process has been effected.
...
Generally, service of process of an amended complaint can only be accomplished under Rule 5 where: (1) the original complaint was properly served; and (2) the defendants have appeared.

So this rule (D) is indeed specifically tailored for when a party has never had a known address.

A party, yes. But these humans have not been served and thus are not yet parties subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court.

The introduction to the Rule 4 does not require it to be applied only on papers served subsequent to the service of the Summons and Complaint, nor does preceding Rule 4 eliminate the requirements under Rule 5.

Huh? We are talking about how to serve the Summons and Complaint to the other named defendants -- the ones you haven't served yet.

Since this is a relatively new rule, I expect that the Court will either accept service on the Clerk, and have the one served defendant pick up the copies for the other un-served defendants, or require the served defendant to provide the addresses of the unserved defendants to plaintiff.

Huh? I thought the main changes to FRCP 4/5 since 1938 was the reduction in the role of Federal marshals in the service of process (in 1982) and the increase of electronic filing of pleadings and papers (more recently).

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Officious Intermeddler from Wikipedia: "An officious intermeddler is a person who voluntarily, and without request or pre-existing legal duty, interjects themselves into the affairs of another, and then seeks remuneration for services or reimbursement."

Remuneration from Wikipedia: " ... A number of complementary benefits, however, are increasingly popular remuneration mechanisms." I.e., money alone is not required to be considered remuneration.

RP's remuneration expectation: "However, my only expectation of profit from my activities is ... the rise of my reputation as this (to be correct) is shown to be the case."

=======

Yes, the Cryer case, a non-binding trial-court opinion from another jurisdiction, takes the stance that one cannot simply dump the Summons and Complaint on the clerk, and then later seek default claiming service was effected.

What is different in this case is that the trial court judge is being asked to assist in service, by requiring the served defendant's counsel either provide the addresses to plaintiff (which that counsel has) of the unserved defendants, so plaintiff can effect service under Rule 4, or alternatively have that counsel obtain the Summons and Complaint from the Clerk so that service can be effected.

There is no effort here to obtain a default against the unserved defendants.

And the Rule 5 clearly does imply that it applies in situations in which there is presently no known address (C), and there has never been a known address (D).

So there appears to be no binding appellate case precedent interpreting the rule, and plaintiff takes a normal interpretation that defendants who are hiding, and attempting to keep their whereabouts hidden, should nonetheless be able to be served under Rule 5.

Moreover, the introduction to Rule 5 reads:

"(1) In General. Unless these rules provide otherwise, each of the following papers must be served on every party:"

Note that it says "these rules", including Rule 4 (and the other Rules of Civil Procedure)
Also note, it does not say that Summons and Complaint is not applicable under Rule 5.

Since I did not write the rules (I would have written them with greater clarity), I can only go with what they say on their face. If the courts interpret them otherwise, that is what they do, clarify rules by making case law.

 

[rpenner]

As to RP, he's what is known in legal parlance as an "officious intermeddler". This case, of course, has nothing to do with the thread on the LHC.

Not according to the definitions at law.com or Wikipedia or nolo.com. I will stipulate that my efforts are of benefit to others. However, my only expectation of profit from my activities is the satisfaction of being shown to be correct and the rise of my reputation as this is shown to be the case.

If you don't wish to immediately abandon your claim that I fit these definitions, then from whom am I trying to get paid for my work? CERN? prometheus? Switzerland? You?

You didn't even credit me for my statement that your claims belonged on The Daily Show, so I know better to expect payment from you.

Officious Intermeddler from Wikipedia: "An officious intermeddler is a person who voluntarily, and without request or pre-existing legal duty, interjects themselves into the affairs of another, and then seeks remuneration for services or reimbursement."

Remuneration from Wikipedia: " ... A number of complementary benefits, however, are increasingly popular remuneration mechanisms." I.e., money alone is not required to be considered remuneration.

RP's remuneration expectation: "However, my only expectation of profit from my activities is ... the rise of my reputation as this (to be correct) is shown to be the case."

Did you not link to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia demonstrates that your reading is idiosyncratic and ignores the sentence before and the hyperlink?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration

Remuneration is the total compensation that an employee receives in exchange for the service they perform for their employer. Typically, this consists of monetary rewards, also referred to as wage or salary. [1] A number of complementary benefits, however, are increasingly popular remuneration mechanisms.

Rise in reputation is not remuneration as it does not flow from an employer (who you have, in any case, left unnamed) and it is not a "benefit" as the Wikipedia author links to a particularized definition of the word, peculiar to the jargon of American Human Resources. Stock options or life insurance or subscription to a towing service would be a non-cash "benefit", by way of a few examples.

So there appears to be no binding appellate case precedent interpreting the rule,

That is not what was shown. If you wish to assert that there is no binding precedent, I suggest "get thee to a law library" and find an annotated version of the FRCP, which will list the major appellate rulings interpreting Rule 4 and Rule 5.

and plaintiff takes a normal interpretation that defendants who are hiding, and attempting to keep their whereabouts hidden, should nonetheless be able to be served under Rule 5.

You did not demonstrate that they are attempting to keep their whereabouts hidden because at no point did you describe that you have expended effort looking for them. Did you (or your agents), for example, even leave the state of Utah, a state you claim holds none of the human defendants?

Moreover, the introduction to Rule 5 reads:

"(1) In General. Unless these rules provide otherwise, each of the following papers must be served on every party:"

If you read down, the Initial Complaint and Summons are not covered by Rule 5(1).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_5
And Rule 4(c)(1) reads in part: "A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4

 

[michael_taylor]

People say scientists are clever, but this makes it seem like maybe it's lawyers who are really.

 

[OnlyMe]

People say scientists are clever, but this makes it seem like maybe it's lawyers who are really.

Since even applying the term loosely, neither of the primary posters here, could be considered a lawyer, I don't believe anything about the cleverness or even intelegence of lawyers, can be drawn, from the discussion.

From my limited experience, legal logic and scientific logic, do not always even appear to be remotely related.

Have to wait and see what a judge has to say about the issue to know anything for certain about the legal logic involved...

 

[Trooper]

According to one source, the anti-LHC effort has raised at least thousands, and I hoped to see that those funds were being spent for the purposes intended.

So I really would like to hear about the finances of the purported anti-LHC non-profit.

Me, too, or did you already answer this with all the legal jargon, and I simply missed it. Also, did any famous physicists have to testify in person? Essentially, I want to know if this whole shebang had a beneficial or negative impact on your life. Any regrets? Just curious.

 

[rpenner]

People say scientists are clever, but this makes it seem like maybe it's lawyers who are really.

Since even applying the term loosely, neither of the primary posters here, could be considered a lawyer, I don't believe anything about the cleverness or even intelegence of lawyers, can be drawn, from the discussion.

I think I have been quite clear that I
a) have never graduated from an accredited law school,
b) have never passed the bar exam,
c) have never been admitted to the bar anywhere,
d) consequently never had the legal right to represent people in court for a fee, and
e) have no intention of giving people legal advice.
All of a-e are summed up when I say I am not a lawyer.
I also don't have a doctorate in any scientific field and I don't expect people in scientific fields to call me Doctor or Professor. My knowledge of GR is well-below that of someone who passed a year-long course devoted to that subject. And I suspect some of my facility with manipulating Clebsch–Gordan coefficients in my head has been lost to time.

I do, however, have personal opinions on what arguments seem healthy, well-founded on evidence and known statues and cited case law and which do not.

From my limited experience, legal logic and scientific logic, do not always even appear to be remotely related.

In part, I disagree. Logic is logic. But the practice of law is also about gamesmanship and is verdict- and outcome-directed. The practice of mathematics is an exploration of the particular consequences of a set of rules. The practice of science is a search for a precise, communicable, reliable and useful description of the universe.

In math, to use a logical fallacy is to commit a mortal sin -- an act that requires reversal, contrition and a vow to never repeat it.
In science, to use a logical fallacy is to commit a social gaffe -- an act that if repeated will see you shunned as a meritless nobody.
In the law, to knowingly use a logical fallacy is to take a gamble that the other side will fail to call you on it. To unknowingly use a logical fallacy is to be a bad lawyer who runs the risk of drawing up contracts that don't say what was meant or overcharges based on a paucity of evidence.

Have to wait and see what a judge has to say about the issue to know anything for certain about the legal logic involved...

Most judicial rulings don't out-and-out say someone's logic was flawed. They use, for the most part, softer language to criticize lawyers as part of the assumption of civility in the legal profession.

Me, too, or did you already answer this with all the legal jargon, and I simply missed it.

It seems James Blodgett has some history on this:

Finally one day Walter spoke of filing another lawsuit. He said he would prefer to hire a lawyer, but could file the suit himself. However, even that would cost several thousand dollars in expenses. I immediately gave him $1,000, and another member of the group did likewise.
...
Whitegoddess disparages donating to the LHCdefense fund. Yes, at the moment I believe it goes directly into Walter's pocket.

http://www.scientificconcerns.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177&start=30
http://www.lhcfacts.org/2008/06/10/this-field-of-thought/
Perhaps James or the other donor is the source who long ago spoke of donating $2k to Wagner and he or I garbled what was said.

I don't see how James Blodgett's statement of belief is materially less damaging than the alleged statements in the present case that Wagner's accounting of benefactors of WBGI was informally kept on Post-It notes.

Also, did any famous physicists have to testify in person?

No person testified in person, since no trial was held. Some Nobel laureates still miffed about Wagner's 1999-2000 anti-RHIC crusade voluntarily rang in with an Amici Curiae (Friends of the Court) brief. And the US Dept. of Energy rang in with some ex-scientist administrators.

// Edit -- a different user_id "Transcept" is associated with a claim of donating $2000 to the Wagner-run website. It seems that this is a more likely source of my belief that an individual donated $2k.
http://www.scientificconcerns.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177

As I said on May 2, if each true believer here gave at least several hundred dollars to lhcdefense - if they have not already - today and asked others in their personal circles to donate something, that would be a way to not be helpless and to be seriously involved in the solution.

(I have donated $2000 to lhcdefense.)

 

[OnlyMe]

Rpenner, I appologize if my post was taken as any kind of negative statement personally. That was not my intention.

Since even applying the term loosely, neither of the primary posters here, could be considered a lawyer, I don't believe anything about the cleverness or even intelegence of lawyers, can be drawn, from the discussion.

This should have been read that I do not have a very high opinion of "lawyers" and their "twisted" logic.., and that by separating the participants in this thread from lawyers, I was not projecting that opion on them personally.

From my limited experience, legal logic and scientific logic, do not always even appear to be remotely related.

While in theory, logic should be the same wherever one finds it applied, the gamesmanship (as you put it), involved in the practice of law, often corrupts any real logic. Logic should lead to some truth, where in law all to often, it is focused on what can be argued, rather than what is true.

I have seen on at least four occassions, where I was not involved, individuals arrested and even in court where all parties for the prosecution knew they were not guilty, of the crime they were accused, but also believed they could argue or make a case.

Have to wait and see what a judge has to say about the issue to know anything for certain about the legal logic involved...

You are correct judges seldom rule on a lawyer's logic directly, however when ruling for or against, any argument they are, in effect also "sometimes" accepting or rejecting the logic of the argument. Where the "truth" is not always present or clear, judgement becomes subjective and even an argument with flawed logic can tip the scales.

In one of those four cases mentioned above, after six months and two attorneys, a proof of evidence was requested. The judge in that case immediately dropped all charges against two defendants. They had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had not been involved, in any crime.., other than bipeing unable to afford a good attorney, who would ask the question at their first court appearance. I should add that in this situation the judge had not known that there was no evidence, before the appearance in which he dropped the charges.

My post was more a comment, that though our legal system is an important part of civil society, it remains largely influenced by subjective decisions, rather than the kind of proof and logic that science, operates within.

 

[Read-Only]

Rpenner, I appologize if my post was taken as any kind of negative statement personally. That was not my intention.



This should have been read that I do not have a very high opinion of "lawyers" and their "twisted" logic.., and that by separating the participants in this thread from lawyers, I was not projecting that opion on them personally.



While in theory, logic should be the same wherever one finds it applied, the gamesmanship (as you put it), involved in the practice of law, often corrupts any real logic. Logic should lead to some truth, where in law all to often, it is focused on what can be argued, rather than what is true.

I have seen on at least four occassions, where I was not involved, individuals arrested and even in court where all parties for the prosecution knew they were not guilty, of the crime they were accused, but also believed they could argue or make a case.



You are correct judges seldom rule on a lawyer's logic directly, however when ruling for or against, any argument they are, in effect also "sometimes" accepting or rejecting the logic of the argument. Where the "truth" is not always present or clear, judgement becomes subjective and even an argument with flawed logic can tip the scales.

In one of those four cases mentioned above, after six months and two attorneys, a proof of evidence was requested. The judge in that case immediately dropped all charges against two defendants. They had just been in the wrong place at the wrong time and had not been involved, in any crime.., other than bipeing unable to afford a good attorney, who would ask the question at their first court appearance. I should add that in this situation the judge had not known that there was no evidence, before the appearance in which he dropped the charges.

My post was more a comment, that though our legal system is an important part of civil society, it remains largely influenced by subjective decisions, rather than the kind of proof and logic that science, operates within.

I must agree with you. Thing is, when a case is taken to court, it's NOT about "finding the truth" by either side. It about nothing else except winning! The judge and/or jury are simply tools that both sides attempt to exploit.

 

[rpenner]

You didn't even credit me for my statement that your claims belonged on The Daily Show, so I know better to expect payment from you.

Wagner does apparently see benefit from my actions. 27 hours and 19 minutes after this post #389, the court clerk logs an affidavit filed by Wagner in support of the previously filed document -- the one I've been poking fun at.

Paragraphs 1-3 are about how one Defendant should be ordered by the court to do Wagner's research and service of process on his behalf. He makes a not very spectacular case of demonstrating that his duty under Rule 4(c)(1) is not utterly trivial.

3. Defendant WBGI has viable addresses for all of the defendants,

This is not shown to be true by even Wagner's allegations since he said some of these humans are past officers of WBGI and therefore may no longer have associations with them. Wagner himself is an example of a past board member of WBGI who no longer lives in the state that he used to when he was working for WBGI.

and it would be very easy for either WBGI's attorney to be designated as the agent for service of process for the other defendants, all of whom are WBGI officers (present and recent past),

More like ethically impossible for WBGI's lawyers to serve the interests of their client and the interests of the client suing their client. In any case, Rule 4(c)(1) says that this is Wagner's "responsib[ility] for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) ...".
Further, what basis does Wagner have for assuming that WBGI's attorney for this case has special knowledge of the location of those humans?

or to require defendant WBGI to divulge the addresses of the other un-served defendants, if this court declines to allow service pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(D).

4. It is my understanding that Rule 5(b)(2)(D) should be read in conjunction with its immediately preceding Rule 5(b)(2)(C). Together they read:
(C) mailing it to the person's last known address - in which event service is complete upon mailing;
(D) leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known
address,

Such a reading is deficient because it ignores all of Rule 4 which addressed summons, how summons are to be served, and the 120-day time limit for service of summons and Rule 5(a)(1) which does not cover summons.

While Rule 4 is the normal rule for service of the Summons and Complaint, it applies when the address of the party is known.

No case law shows that it does not apply when the address of the party is not known. Nothing on the face of Rule 4 shows that it does not apply when the address of the party is not known. Indeed, in that the rule allows for the us of Marshals in certain cases tends to support that it's probably Wagner's duty to ferret out these addresses and to expend resources to do so.

When the address has never been known, Rule 5 should be applicable.

Why? Because plaintiff wishes the law was written that way?

Under 5(b)(2)(C), if a party has been served, then that party has had a known address, and if that party has moved without leaving a forwarding address, then subsequent pleadings can be mailed to the last known address.

And yet if they have not be served with the summons in the manner prescribed by statue, are they a party to the case? Does the court have personal jurisdiction over them?

5. If a party has a last known address, then Service of Process would have been effected there, or possibly elsewhere, and then Rule 5(b)(2)(C) would be applicable thereafter for service of all subsequent pleadings.

Just to illustrate unclear writing, this is an example of "Savings of up to 50% or more!" a statement which places no bounds on the amount of savings. In the same way this sentence says nothing about where service of process can be performed. Yes it may happen at your personal residence, but it may also happen at a picnic or when you are waiting in a courtroom for some other purpose. The remaining content of the sentence is most correctly written as "If service of process was legally executed, then Rule 5(b)(2)(C) could be applicable thereafter for service of all subsequent pleadings until such time as mail delivery to that address gets returned as undeliverable." If the person has legal representation for this case, then Rule 5(b)(1) trumps all of Rule 5(b)(2) as to which person gets served with papers.

However, if a party has never had a known address, then he/she/it could not have been served with the Summons and Complaint pursuant to Rule 4,

This is untrue, since nothing constrains service of process to happen at the defendant's front door. Rules 4(e) and 4(f) may allow service to be made in various ways.

and thus this part (D) implies that service of the Summons and Complaint may be effected by "leaving it with the court clerk if the person has no known address", meaning no past known address from which they moved, or present known address.

Why do you think "no known address" must be read as "no past known address" when the natural reading is "no address currently known to the filing party or the court clerk" ? Consequently, I don't think rule 5(b)(2)(D) has anything to say about summons.

6. I am aware of an opinion of a federal trial court in Massachusetts that takes a somewhat contrary view (Cryer v. UMASS Medical Correctional et al.; Civil NO. 10-11346-PBS, US District Court, D. Health, Massachusetts, March 7, 2011; (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14960736109271718910), but I believe that view is in error, at least with respect to the instant case, as I am not seeking a default against defendants based on service upon the Clerk, but rather attempting to obtain verification that Rule 5(b)(2)(D) does allow service on the clerk (as opposed to service by publication in newspapers, as is allowed in some state courts when the party cannot be located) when there is no known address, and there never has been one.

You are welcome, Mr. Wagner, to the results of my work searching Google Scholar -- but you don't seem to have learned anything from it. Also local rule 7-5 may apply.

How is it somewhat contrary when they give as a section of the opinion the title: "Depositing Papers With the Court is Not Proper Service" ?
How is seeking default or not seeking default relevant to the difference between that situation and this one since default is a declaration which the plaintiff seeks if the defendant does not respond to the summons? The issue of default only brings the question of what constitutes proper service into focus, it doesn't change the facts about what form of service is proper. Wagner does not claim the facts in this case are inapposite to the question of whether service of the summons under Rule 5(b)(2)(D) is permissible -- he just claims that this view must be "in error" without argument.

7. In essence, I believe that the easy solution to service would be for defendant WBGI's Utah counsel to simply be designated as the agent for service of process for the un-served defendants,

Conflict of interest.

as that counsel is already in constant communication with the un-served defendants, all of whom are officers or directors of defendant WBGI.

Assumes facts not yet in evidence, because prior to this lawsuit did WBGI, a Nevada corporation with principle place of business in Hawaii, need a Utah lawyer?

Likewise, since an individual has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons pursuant to Rule 4(d), the easiest way to avoid such unnecessary expenses is to designate their corporate attorney as their agent for service of process, absent any other viable means of service.

Their corporate attorney is not their attorney, this also may be a conflict of interest. They also only have that duty after you accomplish formal notification "...by first-class mail or other reliable means." Rule 4(d)(1)(G).

 

[rpenner]

A note added to the news coverage of the OPERA aftermath displays a sad misunderstanding of the anti-LHC propaganda campaign.

Ladies and gentlement of the jury, I submit this is why you don't ever want scientists to be free to do experiments that, should anything go wrong, plunges the earth into catastrophe. Not even when they assure you that it could never happen. They are, in the end, merely human.

http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php

PJ is the great founder and contributor to groklaw.net -- a website devoted to covering anti-Linux FUD, lawsuits and related IP news items. But on this one issue, I think she had drunk of the anti-science Kool-aid.

My response:

PJ salaciously introduces an anti-science opinion into this news entry.

But the anti-LHC argument she is thinking about was predicated not on theoretical risk, but completely hypothetical risk unconnected to science or physics. It's akin to my claiming that she should not be allowed to post news articles about law cases because there is a chance that Rick Santorum will become enraged and go on a multi-state killing spree. Rick Santorum is a real person, news articles do, on occasion, enrage specific people, people that do go on killing sprees are possibly enraged, but that is not a reasonable argument and for much the same reason the anti-LHC arguments are not reasonable arguments. Further, the LHC arguments had a strong reliance on the naturalistic fallacy (whatever is natural is good and safe and efficacious; what is man-made is crap), while ignoring that if the risk assertions were true then the laws of nature themselves would have to be perverse and unreliable to the point that all 300 years of physics observations just accidentally told a consistent story.

In addition, PJ seems to think that scientists said "nothing can go wrong," when they listed a large number of expensive and sometimes life-threatening things that could go wrong and made plans to avoid all of those. So when things did go wrong, no lives were lost. Finally, they studied the whole area of hypothetical catastrophic unevidenced phenomena and sought to evaluate them. Instead of pooh-poohing that work, one must actually come up with a concrete and specific objection (which the 2008 anti-LHC case never did). If, for example, I had evidence that Rick Santorum was a repurposed killbot with a trigger phrase involving the words "unreasonable", "expansion" and "trademark" then I would have a case for why PJ should not link to news articles to IP issues.

The issue with unknown risks is that research (scientific or legal or spycraft, etc) is the only one method that bounds such risk. Mere philosophical conjecture and talk does not create risk -- it can only create fear. Confusing risk and fear is no basis for sane public policy.

-rpenner
Long time follower of the anti-LHC propaganda campaign

Other comments:

PJ, I'm confused by your comment. So what if their experiment failed because they messed up? That is why science works. Others always try to verify published results. Science learns more through failure than success.

Also, there is nothing scientists can do that would plunge the world into catastrophe. That is strictly the province of the politicians and their kind. They are the dangerous ones.

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?...cle&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=963299#c963424

Just like the comment she always makes about lawyers, you need experts, people who understand the minutiae of their fields, lawyers who know the law and the many different types of scientist who understand their branches of science. But we must never let lawyers decide all cases, that's what juries are for, lawyers may know the law but that doesn't make them experts on what is right and what is wrong, as the cases Groklaw covers proves there are many lawyers who have zero interest in justice and fairness.

Same goes for scientists, many of them are excellent people with the good of the world at heart, probably a much higher percentage than amongst lawyers simply because there is very little money in science! But we cannot allow scientists to decide everything in their fields without others having a say and sometimes overruling the experts.

That said most times people have accused scientists of doing things likely to destroy the world they are talking total poppycock.

A lot of scientists were very sceptical of the OPERA result and were (patiently) awaiting an update. The result was so out of keeping with expectation that, so far as I know, nobody started moving to do follow up work. If there was any acceptance of the result people would have been clambering over themselves to get in on the ground floor of what would have been completely new physics. They weren't.

Conclusion: excessive enthusiasm and an overactive PR department.

 

[rpenner]

I can't find any journalist who covered this in English, but apparently around January 27, 2011, Otto Rössler appeared reasonable enough that a Cologne judge (Az.: 13 K 5693/08) urged a "safety conference" with Drs. Voss and Ringwald on the matter of LHC Bugaboos. But digging into this story reveals that the lawsuit was dismissed and the judge's position perhaps mischaracterized.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2702415#post2702415

Vowing to appeal the January 27th dismissal of the lawsuit, Gabriele Schröter's lawyer, Olaf Möhring, has penned an open letter to Dr. Annette Schavan, German Federal Minister of Education and Research http://www.bmbf.de/en/555.php , attempting to pressure her into doing something unscientific with respect to CERN and the demands for a "safety conference."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2704290#post2704290
Over a year later, Otto Rössler is still spreading the story that the Court ordered CERN to have a safety conference based on a misunderstanding of German and court procedure.
Otto cites a paragraph from page 7 of the court minutes. http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/urteilsoriginal.pdf

Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahre 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer "Sicherheitskonferenz" diskutieren zu lassen.

The court expressed the opinion that it should be possible to allow debate at a "security conference" of the various security aspects, which were also the subject of two safety reports from the years 2003 and 2008.

That is hardly a direction to any party to actually organize such a conference under the court's authority.

A user using the pseudonym "PassingByAgain" cites paragraph 88 of the court ruling, which describes the plaintiffs request for the meeting and states that it is up to the defendant (who was not CERN but an agency of the German government) to make the decision to hold such a conference. http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/vg_koeln/j2011/13_K_5693_08urteil20110127.html

Die danach durch die Beklagte als Exekutive pflichtgemäß vorzunehmende Bewertung ist vorliegend erfolgt. Sie hält ein Gefährdungspotential des LHC nach dem Stand der Wissenschaft für ausgeschlossen. Der wissenschaftliche Meinungsstand zur Gefährlichkeit der von der CERN betriebenen Versuche lässt sich nach wie vor dahingehend zusammenfassen, dass selbst die Vertreter der Minderheit, die ein Schadensszenario für möglich halten, lediglich behaupten, dass die von ihnen aufgezeigten theoretischen Denkmodelle, die von einer Vielzahl unwägbarer Prämissen abhängen, bisher nicht widerlegt worden seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund fordern sie insbesondere - wie der in der mündlichen Verhandlung anwesende Prof. Rössler dort nochmals deutlich gemacht hat - eine fachwissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung in Form einer Expertentagung, die sich mit den seitens der Klägerin behaupteten Gefahren beschäftigt. Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität; sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein. Demgegenüber schließt die Mehrheit der mit dieser Frage befassten Wissenschaftler schon die Möglichkeit des Eintritts der von der Klägerin herangezogenen Prämissen aus. Entsprechende Szenarien sehen sie sogar als widerlegt an.

Afterwards, the defendant, as dutifully required by the executive branch in this case, performed an evaluation. She held an investigation to the potential danger of the LHC, according to the state of the science. The scientific opinion as to the dangerousness of the the CERN experimental run can still be summarized in such a way that even the representatives of the minority who hold a damage scenario as possible, claiming only that they indicate the theoretical models of thought, have been refuted even when they depend on a variety of imponderable assumptions. Against this background, the plaintiffs call for a professional scientific analysis in the form of a meeting of experts, in particular with the dangers - as Prof. Rössler, who was present at the hearing, has again made ​​clear there. To carry out such a meeting, is a question to be answered by the defendant based on political expediency, but it can not be the result of a judicial decision. In contrast, the majority of scientists dealing with this question includes the very possibility of the occurrence of the facts on which the applicant premises. Corresponding scenarios even they see as disproved.

On May 15, Otto Rössler claims that by not posting under a real name, the user has given up his civil rights. On May 21, Rössler agrees that "The public advice expressed to CERN and the whole planetary public by a court is in no way a court order." Except that CERN wasn't a party to the lawsuit against the German government.

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/rossler-cook-versus-hawking-and-the-cern-detectors

(All translations via massaged Google Translate.)