LHC Safety and the Law

[rpenner]

Otto Rössler has published again.

His paper which reviews his own revolutionary view of General Relativity was published in the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research.

http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMCSR/contents/2012 cont/9 Feb.htm

I can't say as I find this direction profitable, as the journal editors don't profess to have any experience with GR or fundamental physics. Also, the article is labeled as a review it is hardly a "critical" review. Two of out Rossler's three self-references are unpublished.

 

[rpenner]

The original Editor-in-Chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals sued over a November 27, 2008 article in Nature called "Self-publishing editor set to retire" along with a photo caption that read "Apparent misuse of editorial privileges has sparked calls for a clearer peer-review process across journals." Here is that article:

The editor of a theoretical–physics journal, who was facing growing criticism that he used its pages to publish numerous papers written by himself, is set to retire early next year.

Five of the 36 papers in the December issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals alone were written by its Editor-in-Chief, Mohamed El Naschie And the year to date has seen nearly 60 papers written by him appear in the journal.

A civil engineer by training, El Naschie attempts to combine aspects of particle physics and chaos theory. Many of his papers revolve around the idea that fractal properties of space-time can influence elemental particles and physical constants.

Most scientists contacted by Nature comment that El Naschie's papers tend to be of poor quality. Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University in New York, says he thinks that "it's plain obvious that there was either zero, or at best very poor, peer review, of his own papers". There is, however, little evidence that they have harmed the field as a whole.

El Naschie, who was born in Cairo and now splits his time between England and Germany, rejects any charges of sloppy peer review. "Our papers are reviewed in the normal way expected from a scientific international journal published by a reputable international publisher," he told Nature in an e-mail signed by P. Cooper, who claimed to be a spokesperson for the editorial board of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. Elsevier, which publishes the journal, is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which holds that good editors "ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers".

On 25 November, Elsevier's director of corporate relations, Shira Tabachnikoff, wrote an e-mail to Nature saying: "Dr El Naschie's retirement as Editor-in-Chief of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals will be announced to readers in the first issue of 2009. Elsevier and Dr El Naschie have been in discussion for quite some time about the details of his retirement and the transitional arrangement for papers under review."

In a separate e-mail Tabachnikoff wrote: "[We are] committed to supporting our editors in maintaining high standards for both the editorial and peer- review process. At times there may be discussions about particular scientific issues and fields, even at the level of individual editorial decisions. That is a part of the normal process of scientific publishing."

El Naschie defended the journal's publication record, saying: "We put more emphasis on the scientific content and the originality of the papers and slightly less emphasis on prestigious addresses and impressive affiliations." His website lists a number of such affiliations, including honorary professorships at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Donghua University, also in Shanghai. By his own account, which could not be confirmed by Nature despite a number of attempts, he is an advisor to the Egyptian Ministry for Science and Technology and a principal adviser to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Saudi Arabia.

But he is not, as he claims on his website, a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, says Walter Greiner, a former director of the institute. Greiner also says El Naschie has ignored his requests to remove his name from the list of members of the journal's honorary editorial board. Through Cooper, El Naschie says that it would not be "appropriate" to address these concerns.

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals was founded by El Naschie in 1991. It costs US $4,520 a year, and usually comes bundled with access to other Elsevier journals. Most large research organizations have electronic access for this reason.

The journal has a relatively high impact factor of 3.025 for 2007. But that may be the result of a high rate of self-citation, says Zoran Škoda, a theoretical physicist at the Ruder Boskovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia. Of the 31 papers not written by El Naschie in the most recent issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, at least 11 are related to his theories and include 58 citations of his work in the journal.

In May, Škoda sent letters to members of the journal's editorial board asking whether they agreed with El Naschie's editorial practices. In return, he says, he and his institute director received a letter, signed by a P. Green who identified himself or herself as a legal advisor to the editorial board, threatening legal action should Škoda continue sending "defamatory" letters.

Škoda notes that Ji-Huan He, the journal's regional editor for China and a mechanical engineer and computer scientist at Donghua University, also cites El Naschie's work frequently. The current issue of the journal has one paper by He that cites himself 14 times and El Naschie twice. He is also editor of the International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, which in a 2005 editorial said: "Men of genius like Einstein and El Naschie very often ask some straightforward and seemingly innocent questions, which may turn out to have undreamed of answers."

A small minority of physicists cautiously recognizes the originality of El Naschie's ideas. "They're at least interesting," says Werner Martiennsen, a retired physicist at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, and one of the regional editors for Europe on Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

Otto Rössler was listed as a "honorary editor" for CSF during this dark period, and this is one of the many reasons I was critical of his decision to try and get his misinterpretations of General Relativity published there.

As for the lawsuit, on Friday morning a decision was published in Bristol Crown Court:

Issues

8. There is no dispute that the Article is defamatory of the Claimant. The issues which I have to determine are meaning (to a limited extent) and the three substantive defences advanced by the Defendants: justification (truth), honest comment and Reynolds privilege. Because of my conclusions on liability, the issue of damages does not arise.


Summary of conclusions

9. My conclusions are that the Article is substantially true whether one considers the meanings complained of by the Claimant or justified by the Defendants (insofar as there is any difference), that it contains comments which are defensible as honest comment and that it was the product of responsible journalism, so that the defence of Reynolds privilege succeeds.

...

Lucas-Box (a): The Claimant abused his position as Editor-in-Chief by publishing in CSF an excessive number of articles written by himself.

88. The Defendants rely on a number of strands of evidence in support of this part of their case: the first, is what may be described as the numerical case; the second comes from Professor Turok's evidence on the quality and repetitiveness of the Claimant's papers published in CSF in 2008, and the third comes from Professor Keating's evidence on the norms which apply to scientific publishing to the Lucas- Box meaning (a) to which I have already referred. This evidence provides a compelling case that this allegation is true.

...

The poor quality of the papers published

105. The quality of the articles in question is relevant both to whether publication of them was excessive, and to whether the Claimant abused his position as Editor-in-Chief of CSF by publishing them in the quantity he did. The question of quality is addressed in detail in relation to Lucas-Box meaning (b); but for present purposes I need only say that I accept Professor Turok's opinion that the quality of the Claimant's 58 articles published in CSF in 2008 was such that they would not have been published by any reputable peer reviewed journal. This in itself is strongly supportive of the case that the Claimant abused his position by self-publishing them in CSF.

...

Lucas-Box (b) The Claimant's articles tended to be of poor quality.

...

120. Through Professor Turok, it is said by the Defendants that on analysis, the 58 papers or articles contained the following defects:

• A failure to define terminology and concepts, including in particular a failure to present the principles and equations of "E-infinity theory" and the predictions which are said to be deduced from it;
• Strongly expressed conclusions, unsupported by any, or any intelligible process of logical reasoning; in particular, the repeated unexplained reliance on numerical coincidences in support of the assertion that the Claimant's "E-infinity theory" is correct;
• Statements which are meaningless or obscure, even to a readers with expertise in the field of theoretical physics;
• Statements which are simply wrong;
• Elementary errors of spelling and grammar;
• A lack of any, or any substantial, contribution of new knowledge to the field;
• An excessive degree of citation of other articles written or co-written by the Claimant, in particular in order to justify assertions which should have been supported by self-contained argument or references to the work of independent authors (the articles published by the Claimant in CSF in 2008 contained approximately 301 citations of his own articles in CSF, including citations of "in press" articles: i.e. those articles which were due to be, but which had not at the material time, been formally published);
• The use of those articles to advertise other articles by the Claimant.

121. In my judgment, for the reasons explained by Professor Turok, these criticisms were well-founded.

...

Lucas-Box (c): Whilst CSF was under the Claimant's editorial control his articles had been subject to (at best) very poor peer review before publication in CSF.

...

179. The short point is a proper peer review process would have "picked-up" the defects in quality Professor Turok identified and Claimant's papers would not then have been recommended for publication, let alone published in their current form.

...

191. Even if the Claimant's case on what happened at CSF is taken at face value, it is apparent as Professor Keating concluded that nothing which could be described as appropriately rigorous or ethical peer review of his papers took place.

...

Lucas-Box (d) CSF's Impact Factor may have been inflated by an excessive rate of citation of the Claimant's articles in CSF during his editorship.

...

210. The question then arises whether the citation of the Claimant's papers which has this inflationary effect on the IF is "excessive citation". In my view it is for the following reasons.

211. First, the vast majority, as it was described by Professor Turok, of citations within the Claimant's own papers were to papers written by him. Moreover, key assertions by the Claimant were frequently justified only by reference to his own papers rather than by a self-contained argument or by references to peer reviewed work by independent authors as is the common and accepted practice in the Field. In Professor Turok's view the Claimant's papers "advertised" himself to an unusually high extent: indeed sometimes, whole sections of his papers were devoted only to this. The Claimant's papers were self-referring and self-promoting to an extent well beyond that acceptable in a scientific journal. In those circumstances, his self-citation obviously excessive.

212. Second, the quality of the Claimant's papers is also relevant. Professor Turok's evidence was, in effect as Mr Caldecott submitted, that the Claimant's papers were bordering on meaningless. Any citation of papers of such poor quality was excessive, and they should not have been cited by the Claimant or any other author writing in CSF.

213. Third, two charts provided by Ms McVeigh set out in Schedule 2 to this judgment, illustrate two important related facts: (i) that the vast majority of references to the Claimant's papers are from other papers published in CSF, rather than from the wider literature; see Ms McVeigh's Figure 4; and (ii) the strong correlation between the citation of Claimant's papers and his editorship of CSF: see Ms McVeigh's Figure 5. As Professor Turok said there was a remarkably strong correlation between years when the Claimant's papers received a large number of citations, and the years when he was editing CSF (falling for example, from 1325 in 2009, to 26 in the first third of year of 2011). The correlation continues into 2009, because the journal had a significant backlog of papers already accepted by the Claimant which Elsevier agreed to publish as one of the terms of the Claimant's retirement. There are other journals publishing work in the same area as CSF and where one might expect to see citation of the Claimant's work if such citation were academically justified. Though the Claimant referred to some Google Scholar Statistics in his cross-examination of Ms McVeigh and in his closing submissions, which apparently showed 421 citations to date of one his papers, these statistics were not formally in evidence at trial and the Defendants did not have an opportunity to investigate the source or dates of the citations concerned.

214. The inescapable conclusion therefore is, as the Defendants submit, that the papers published in CSF under the Claimant's editorship discussed and referred to his work to an unjustified extent. On this basis also, citation of the Claimant's work by authors writing in CSF can properly be described as excessive.


Lucas-Box (e): There were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant's imminent retirement as Editor-in-Chief was connected to these aforesaid faults as Editor-in-Chief. Alternatively, if the Article meant and was understood to mean that the Claimant was dismissed or forced to retire because of his faults as Editor-in-Chief, then it is true in that meaning also

...

216. Amongst the Elsevier Documents are a letter of termination to the Claimant from Elsevier, and correspondence from which it can be seen that Elsevier terminated the Publishing Agreement, that they did so because they were dissatisfied with the Claimant's editorship of CSF, that they maintained their position despite threats of litigation and protests from the Claimant; and that the Claimant was forced to 'retire' from his position as Editor-in-Chief of CSF.

217. The Elsevier Documents therefore establish not merely reasonable grounds, but the higher meaning complained of by the Claimant.

...

Lucas-Box (f): The Claimant was cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, having falsely claimed to be a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Physics at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt and having made other suspect claims to impressive academic affiliations. If, which is denied, the Article meant that the Claimant had claimed affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled, the Defendants will contend that the Article was also true in that meaning.

...

283. Having regard to all these matters I am satisfied that the Defendants have established the truth of the higher meaning complained of by the Claimant in relation to the affiliations issue. That is, the Claimant was not merely cavalier about his academic and professional affiliations, but had claimed impressive affiliations to which he knew he was not entitled, which, and not coincidentally in my view, considerably inflated his academic position and achievements in each case.

...

Lucas-Box (g) There were reasonable and serious grounds for suspecting that the Claimant used, or caused others to use, fictitious names in order to respond to enquiries about his editorial practice.

286. This is the most curious (indeed it might even be described as bizarre) feature of this case.

...

311. Whoever sent the false name emails however, whether it was Ms Boehm or Mrs Thorsen-El Naschie, or indeed both of them, the question which matters is whether the emails were sent with the Claimant's knowledge or authority. I am satisfied they were.

...

371. Nature regarded this as a charade and reasonably so in my view. An email from Ms Witze to QS at the time said (somewhat presciently in the circumstances) said that she was convinced the emails Nature were receiving were coming from the Claimant himself; it was she who had asked QS to confirm the identity of P. Cooper.

372. These peculiar communications, the tone of which is somewhat difficult to convey, are not merely relevant to whether the Claimant was given an opportunity to respond, but to the suspicions and reasonable ones as it seems to me, within Nature at the time, that something 'fishy' was going on to put it colloquially. As QS said in evidence, the lack of response from P. Cooper tended to confirm such suspicions. The use of pseudonyms as he suspected them to be, struck him as wholly unprofessional and suggestive of a desire to avoid giving full answers. They justified (in the Reynolds sense) the decision to say in the Article for example, that P. Cooper "claimed" to be a spokesman for the CSF Editorial Board: in other words to the decision to point out the lack of clarity as to who P. Green and P. Cooper actually were.

...

382. In the result, I consider the Article was the product of responsible journalism. It resulted in the publication of information of high order of public interest. The claim to Reynolds privilege therefore succeeds as an additional defence to the Article.


Outcome

383. For all these reasons the Claimant's claim is dismissed. I have considered the communications from the parties and the draft orders proposed by the parties following the circulation of the judgment in draft. It follows from my conclusions that the Defendants are entitled to their costs of the action to be assessed if not agreed. All other consequential matters can be dealt with in writing in default of agreement or at a further hearing if necessary.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html

Just because something is defamatory doesn't make it untrue -- and you need both to prevail in a defamation case, at least in the jurisdictions I have read about.

El Naschie, Rössler and others have been drawn together in a clique of back-scratching pseudo-scientists, evading or ignoring serious confrontation by their ideas with reality and the El Naschie-run CSF would give their names and buzzwords the veneer of respectability with the cost of a few self-citations. This was effective at manipulating the journal's citation statistics, but they could not fool the publisher or the courts forever. A pretense of respectability is no substitute for the real thing.

Nowadays, CSF is trying to put this period of its history behind it. But the social dynamics of crank magnetism ensures that such cliques, be they cults of personality, religious sects, ideological political movements or covens of quacks and charlatans, will rise again. Fortuneately, Science isn't just a journal of good reputation -- it is also a verb. And in this case, truth and reality, nay even Nature herself, prevailed.

 

[rpenner]

One of the questions most university physicists and mathematicians have to cope with is how to with the masses of cranks demanding their attention. Attitudes vary on both sides of the fence, but the professional soon learns that the standard crackpot is not going to reform into a respectable scientist (although they may solicit help in appearing respectable). Some (a small minority in my experience) of professionals may cling to hope that some pseudoscientists can be reformed -- perhaps this is just the optimism of the young and inexperienced. But regardless of initial goodwill, an aggressive, arrogant and ignorant individual soon wears out his welcome.

This was point was made very clear to me in another very short post by Otto Rössler which I reproduce for you:

CERN’s 4-year-long Refusal to Update its Safety Report Is a Criminal Act
Especially so when an un-refuted proof of danger is lying on the table…
The fact that not a single person on the planet stands up to defend CERN shows that something is woefully wrong with the planet’s media.
Really no one ready to file a public question?
Aljazeera as the last Christian voice on planet earth?
“J’accuse,” says (Zola)/Semmelweis: “Someone is bound to care when earth’s womb is being infected with self-multiplying black holes.”

In the UK, of course, I know of no way to to say "X's Y is a Criminal Act" without immediately facing ruin from defamation lawsuits from all parties connected with X. Even in the US, the words are so inflammatory that the burden might soon be on the speech-maker to demonstrate that the claim was not recklessly made. I assume that in the rest of the English-speaking world the legal situation is intermediate between these points. (IANAL)
In the next line, Rössler claims a "proof of danger" exists, but at no point has a theorem been proven from axioms or evidence introduced that X is doing anything dangerous. The UK defense of "justification" (i.e. making true statements) goes out the window because Rössler misunderstands the process of logical thinking and empiricism.
In the next line, Rössler seems to be saying CERN is bullying him by ignoring his baseless claims. I do, however, agree that "something is woefully wrong with the planet’s media" because in 2008 and continuing to today, some venues credit Rössler's opinion as that of an expert.
There have been multiple lawsuits against CERN -- but in all cases the judges couldn't find a connection between the claims and reality and the law.
Al Jazeera does occasionally interview Rössler which is apropos of nothing.
The last quotation is neither cited nor discoverable by Google Search -- both Zola and Semmelweis died before GR described black holes. Or maybe Rössler is embracing the Galileo Gambit with Émile Zola (1840–1902) and Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818–1865) poorly substituting for Galileo. Zola was protesting against the racism of the army and courts in refusing to follow were the truth led. Historically, medicine was not originally strongly science-based as this was still very much true in the nineteenth century. Semmelweis's discovery that hand-washing was correlated with reduced infections was a truth that medical knowledge didn't know how to generalize at the time. Both Zola and Semmelweis had a portion of the truth on their side, both Zola and Semmelweis wrote up their findings and the reasoning that lead them to their convictions and both were ultimately vindicated. This does nothing to support the case that Rössler might have truth on his side. "It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." (attributed to Robert L. Park)


So I think I might be through with Rössler's blog as I gave up on Luis Sancho before him. This was intended to be my parting shot:

I do not know Otto Rössler personally. But after watching him repeatedly make scientific and numeric and mathematical claims about the chances of something happening and the time for something happening and about certain claims being theorems and never answering questions about assumptions, calculations, axioms and reasoning, I have come to the strong, if provisional, opinion that he is only a self-promoting pseudomathematician and often prone to making up stories to make himself seem more important. If Otto Rössler were any type of scientific expert there would be no need to ask these questions because scientific methodology and any proper peer review of Rössler’s work both would have required him to answer these basic questions as part of the burden of proof of someone making original claims.

Due to these as-yet unjustified and therefore scientifically irresponsible claims, reportedly a girl in India committed suicide in 2008. In some jurisdictions it is a criminal act to shout “Fire!” in a theater because of the high chance of panic and injury. Similarly in an actual case of evacuating a ship to the lifeboats, panic-mongering is counter-productive. Rössler is not solely responsible for the media firestorm that flared up in 2008 but he was all too happy to pour the fuel on the fire.

Science has to be a precise, useful and communicable description of nature. Rössler only claims precision but has not communicated how he has any idea how his claims usefully relate to nature and therefore has neither communicated a scientific model of nature nor demonstrated that his claims are useful in any scientific manner. Instead of demonstrating where the claims come from Rössler cements my inference that he simply makes up baseless stories by not answering basic questions that would have been asked very early on if he had not evaded peer review.

In this posting, I think Rössler has jumped from pseudomathematician to pseudolawyer and should be ignored for similar reasons. If his claims were based in evidence and communicable reasoning it should be easy to explain them and in four years this self-styled soi disant prosecutor has not built a case and denied that he has the burden of proof. A CERN researcher (Rolf Landua) has spent hours with Rössler and no part of his thinking has been elucidated. Perhaps Rössler’s most productive step would to consult with an expert of the mind and try and work out why he has been unable to explain the reasoning behind any of his many claims. I am not of the provisional opinion that the reason is some sort of superhuman genius unique to Rössler.

I expect this to be my last posting, because nothing more needs to be said.

 

[rpenner]

October 16th,
In Germany, another appellate decision has been rendered against the anti-LHC forces because once again they bring no evidence of danger. The basic principle seems to be vague abstract doubts not based on science are no reason to promote hypotheticals to claims of actual litigable danger.
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-german-woman-atom-smasher-world.html "Objectively, there is no evidence to doubt the correctness of these safety reports nor was any conclusive evidence presented."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...cs/2012/10/28/revisiting-doomsday-at-the-lhc/ Points out that Walter Wagner, then a Hawaiian resident, also filed suit. And lost. And showed up on The Daily Show -- which I first suggested was the proper venue for his ideas.
http://www.ovg.nrw.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/35_121016/index.php "Objektive Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Sicherheitsberichte seien weder schlüssig dargelegt noch ersichtlich." "Concrete questions about the accuracy of the safety reports were neither conclusively demonstrated nor self-evident."

Full Text of the decision: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/ovg_nrw/j2012/16_A_591_11beschluss20121016.html (In German legalese...)

Otto Rössler's blog does really comment on the case other to suggest that we all see Steve Carrell's latest film. No mention of lawyer Olaf Möhring's misinterpretation of the previous court ruling as an order to hold a safety conference with some mix of scientists and crackpots, but the wording clearly indicates that this court sees no such need.

 

[rpenner]

So Walter Wagner's US coalition to sue the LHC has not been heard from. Gabriele Schröter and Otto Rössler's lawsuit has fallen down. Are these causes dead? Not necessarily, but by rights they should be.
Litigation can continue a very long time, as this 2011 Federal lawsuit based in part on 2004-2008 state court filings shows:

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)

In Hawaii's Appellate Court, on September 20, 2011 a three-judge panel affirmed the September 28, 2009 judgement of the June 30, 2005 complaint against Wagner et. al.

This is referred to "Second Hawaii Decision II" in the Federal case.

And yes, this is also the subject of the separate Federal complaint that was filed to recover the amount of the "judgment" that was obtained by that criminal activity, etc.

On Monday, a magistrate judge recommended that the (newly appointed!) presiding judge dismiss most of the remaining causes of action in the lawsuit because these cases had already been decided and appealed to finality. The exception was a Hawaiian court case different from the above, where the appellate court decided that the lower court had to address one of Wagner's arguments, rendering the largely-decided case as not-entirely-final. For a variety of factors the magistrate judge also recommended that the Federal lawsuit be stayed until the Hawaiian issue is finalized.

Again, this court has already concluded in the R&R that the issues concerning the 2004 Note that are raised in this case are identical to the issues raised in the case underlying the First Hawaii Decision. After Plaintiff received an unfavorable ruling on those issues in the First Hawaii Decision I, he initiated this case, raising the same issues. Consequently, it appears that Plaintiff’s filing of this case was, at best, reactive and, at worst, vexatious.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.81811/gov.uscourts.utd.81811.75.0.pdf

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).

On Monday, the same magistrate judge denied Wagner's attempt to put a custodian in charge of WBGI's affairs, because the law requires a Nevada state court to exert that authority over a corporation registered in Nevada.

WBGI is a Nevada corporation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to appoint a receiver is governed by Nevada law. Pursuant to Nevada statutory law governing the appointment of a receiver, Plaintiff’s motion has been brought in the wrong court. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 78.650(1). Under § 78.650(1), a shareholder must apply for appointment of a receiver in “the district court in the county in which the corporation’s registered office is located.” Id. WBGI is a Nevada corporation, with its principal place of business in Hawaii. Accordingly, this court cannot be the proper venue to entertain Plaintiff’s request for appointment of a receiver.

Furthermore, even if this court could entertain Plaintiff’s motion, the court would be forced to conclude that he lacks standing to bring it. Under § 78.650(1), only a shareholder who holds “one-tenth of the issued and outstanding stock” may apply for appointment of a receiver. Id. In a report and recommendation issued on March 5, 2012, this court concluded that Wagner no longer had any ownership interest in WBGI. [[See docket no. 30 at 18.]] Because Plaintiff is not a shareholder of WBGI, he cannot bring a motion for appointment of a receiver under § 78.650(1). See id.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.81811/gov.uscourts.utd.81811.74.0.pdf

Now, I am not saying that Wagner's aggressive litigation in this case demonstrates that he cares more about this issue than his abstract worries about the LHC. Who can say what Wagner thinks about the LHC? But it does strongly indicate that if you have concrete evidence of a problem, litigation is an expensive and time-consuming route to make your case. I also think it shows that litigants can be too close to the subject matter to judge the outcome of their cases objectively.

 

[rpenner]

The referenced case is not related in the least to the LHC case...

Other than being meritless and filed primarily by the same party. Indeed, if one attributes causation of the existence of the LHC case primarily to the plaintiffs, it is a useful data point for validating or rejecting that model.

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.

If there a pattern of behavior, the essence of science is to be able to predict that behavior.

Now, I am not saying that Wagner's aggressive litigation in this case demonstrates that he cares more about this issue than his abstract worries about the LHC. Who can say what Wagner thinks about the LHC? But it does strongly indicate that if you have concrete evidence of a problem, litigation is an expensive and time-consuming route to make your case. I also think it shows that litigants can be too close to the subject matter to judge the outcome of their cases objectively.

Scientists and lawyers don't get along much because scientists use logic and philosophy to cooperatively bring human understanding of reality to closer approximations while lawyers embrace logic and philosophy as tools to advance the viewpoints of their clients. While reality and past legal interpretation have a lot of weight, they can be regarded as mere starting points for a legalistic argument that, say, tomatoes are no fruit. A criticism from scientists to a crackpot might be "You are arguing like a lawyer" which would be shorthand for pointing out that the argument is not convincing to one who is not already a partisan or is better grounded in the experimental record and does not advance human knowledge of reality. (Even from a scientist, "You are arguing like a lawyer" is not likely to convince a District Attorney (or Queen's Counsel) to reduce charges -- that's a case where you want a lawyer.)

Well, today a Federal Judge in Utah, in unusually spicy language, orders that Wagner's case is closed. http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utd.81811/gov.uscourts.utd.81811.86.0.pdf

There are a number of motions pending in the above-captioned matter. Over a year ago, Defendant World Botanical Gardens, Inc. (WBGI) filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) and Plaintiff Walter L. Wagner filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 10). The Honorable Paul Warner addressed these motions in his First Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 30). Judge Warner recommended that the court deny Mr. Wagner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. He then considered WBGI’s motion to dismiss the claims pending against it.

Judge Warner divided Mr. Wagner’s claims into two categories. First, he recommended that the court grant WBGI’s motion as it pertained to Mr. Wagner’s claims for fraud, waste, and mismanagement because he found that Mr. Wagner lacked standing to bring these claims. Second, Judge Warner assessed whether Mr. Wagner’s claims for defamation should be dismissed under the doctrine of issue preclusion, since Mr. Wagner has been involved in numerous state court actions with these parties on similar matters. Mr. Wagner alleges claims for slander and libel against WBGI for making false statements about three different topics: Mr. Wagner’s poor record-keeping, a fraudulent promissory note signed by Mr. Wagner’s wife Linda in 2004, and Mr. Wagner’s misappropriation of WBGI funds. Judge Warner took judicial notice of three state court decisions that dealt with these issues:

1. World Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Wagner, Case No. CV05-02079 (Second Judicial District for the State of Nevada, Oct. 2, 2006) (“Nevada”);
2. Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., Case No. 04-1-0232 (Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii, Nov. 13, 2007) (“First Hawaii”); and
3. World Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Wagner, Case No. 05-1-0210 (Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii, Oct. 9, 2008) (“Second Hawaii”).

Given the findings made by these courts, Judge Warner found that the Nevada decision barred Mr. Wagner’s claim related to record-keeping; that the First Hawaii decision barred Mr. Wagner’s claim concerning the 2004 promissory note; and that the Second Hawaii decision barred Mr. Wagner’s claim about misappropriation. But because Judge Warner did not have proof that any of these decisions were final, he found that WBGI had not satisfied a required element to establish issue preclusion. Accordingly, Judge Warner recommended that the court deny WBGI’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertained to the defamation claims without prejudice to refile if the state court decisions became final.

After Judge Warner issued his First Report and Recommendations, WBGI submitted a second Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) and a Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 41). The individual Defendants also submitted a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 52). In these motions, the Defendants presented evidence that the Nevada decision was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court; that the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii reversed the First Hawaii decision on a quantum meruit claim but affirmed the decision in all other respects; and that the Hawaii Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari for the Second Hawaii decision, which was affirmed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii. As a result, the parties argued that the defamation claims related to poor record-keeping and misappropriation of funds should be dismissed, and that the court should stay the remaining defamation claim concerning the 2004 promissory note until the First Hawaii court issued a final decision. In his Second Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 75), Judge Warner agreed that the Defendants’ arguments were valid and adopted their recommendations.

Mr. Wagner has filed an Objection to Judge Warner’s First Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 32) as well as an Objection to the Second Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 77). In his first set of objections, Mr. Wagner argues that only issues concerning the identity of WBGI’s proper governing board were litigated in the Nevada court, and that therefore the court’s decision cannot be used to preclude him from now litigating issues about his record-keeping. The court disagrees. The Nevada court ultimately decided which of two competing boards of directors should control WBGI. But to reach this decision, the Nevada court resolved a number of related factual and legal issues, including whether Mr. Wagner misappropriated funds, whether he kept proper records, and whether his removal from the board of directors was proper. Mr. Wagner had ample opportunity to argue these issues during the Nevada litigation and is now barred from asking this court to reconsider factual matters that the Nevada court has already addressed.

Second, Mr. Wagner contends that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues addressed by the Second Hawaii court because his wife was arrested during those proceedings on a bench warrant. Mr. Wagner asserts that he could not present his own testimony during that trial because he had to bail his wife out. The court finds that Mr. Wagner’s argument is nonsensical. There is no evidence that Mr. Wagner himself was arrested or was prevented from appearing at the Second Hawaii trial. He cannot complain that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate when he voluntarily chose not to appear. In any event, the Second Hawaii court had already decided issues concerning Mr. Wagner’s conversion and misappropriation on a motion for partial summary judgment, long before Ms. Wagner was arrested at trial.

Tough for Mrs. Wagner, but if it was Wagner's representative that left the courtroom to start the lengthy process of getting her out on bail without getting a continuance for the hearing, Wagner would likely have cause against that representative for breach of duty. As Wagner was representing himself, the judge is saying he has noone to blame but himself.

Third, Mr. Wagner challenges Judge Warner’s finding that Mr. Wagner lacked standing to bring his fraud, waste, and mismanagement claims against WBGI. Mr. Wagner claims that the sale in which his remaining interest in WBGI was sold was conducted fraudulently. But, as the Second Hawaii court found, this sale was conducted according to a valid Nevada court order and under court direction. In essence, Mr. Wagner is asking a federal court to question the sufficiency of a state court proceeding for reasons wholly unrelated to any federal law. The court declines Mr. Wagner’s invitation.

This sounds polite enough, but its a reminder that federal courts (like the LHC court in Hawaii) have limits to their jurisdiction and mere "invitation" to exceed their constitutional and statutory authority is not going to get them to see things your way.

In his second set of objections, Mr. Wagner argues that Judge Warner failed to consider a number of affidavits that Mr. Wagner submitted in support of his contention that the Nevada and Hawaii state court decisions were fraudulently obtained. But Judge Warner was considering purely legal issues on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These legal decisions do not depend on any of the factual issues raised by Mr. Wagner in his supporting affidavits. As a result, it was appropriate for Judge Warner to disregard them. In any event, even if the state court proceedings were indeed tainted by the fraudulent actions of some of the parties (a fact of which the court is highly skeptical), Mr. Wagner must challenge those decisions using procedures outlined by state law. This court will not overturn a state court decision on the grounds that Mr. Wagner suggests, no matter how many affidavits he submits.

It is not good to have a federal judge say they view your claims of fact as "highly skeptical."

Rule 12(b) is about motions to dismiss a case before arguing about the facts and laws of the case.

12(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

1. lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
2. lack of personal jurisdiction;
3. improper venue;
4. insufficient process;
5. insufficient service of process;
6. failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
7. failure to join a party under Rule 19.

A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.

Second, Mr. Wagner contends that the Hawaii appellate court’s decision on the First Hawaii matter resolves his claims in his favor. The court generously concludes that Mr. Wagner’s argument is born out of a misapprehension of the Hawaii court’s ruling. The Hawaii Court of Appeals held: “We conclude that summary judgment was not warranted as to Wagner’s claim based on quantum meruit, and further proceedings on remand are required as to this claim. In all other respects, we affirm the circuit court.” Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 268 P.3d 443, 446 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011). These “other respects” include a claim based on the 2004 promissory note, which the First Hawaii court denied. It is clear that the Court of Appeals took no issue with the First Hawaii court’s finding that the 2004 promissory note was fraudulent. In any event, the appellate court did not resolve Mr. Wagner’s claims in his favor, since even Mr. Wagner’s quantum meruit claim faces a number of hurdles on remand. These hurdles include issues about whether he was required to be licensed to recover and whether his claim is barred by the “multitude of evidence suggesting questionable conduct by Wagner.” Id. at 456.

The court "generously" guesses that Wagner makes bad arguments because he's a poor reader, not because he is necessarily a blight upon humanity. We should all be so generous.

Finally, Mr. Wagner argues that he should be able to proceed with the part of his defamation action that concerns an indictment against him that the Defendants allegedly published on the WBGI website. But Mr. Wagner’s claim appears to be nothing more than an assertion that the Defendants published a document available in the public record. See State of Hawaii v. Wagner, Case No. 3-PC-08-1-97 (indictment filed February 28, 2008). This action does not constitute a claim for defamation.

Because the court is not persuaded by any of Mr. Wagner’s objections, the court adopts all of Judge Warner’s recommendations except for one. The court sees no reason to stay the case until resolution of the First Hawaii decision because the court finds ample reasons to dismiss the case immediately.

This is fortunate for the cause of justice, because in Hawaii on April 3rd of this year, Wagner filed for a stay of the reopened First Hawaii case until such time as this case is decided. See document 0000161 of case 3CC041000232 in Hoohiki. I don't see a notice of this action in the Federal Case, nor any notice or minutest text in the Hawaiian court of his WBGI's pending motion to stay the Federal case. This reporter "generously" assumes that Mr. Wagner merely forgot about his own the pending motion to stay the Federal case that Wagner opposed and objected to.

While Judge Warner focused on the First Hawaii court’s treatment of the 2004 promissory note, other courts have also addressed this issue. Most importantly, the Second Hawaii court made an identical finding in its Findings of Fact: “After August of 2003, Defendant Linda Wagner executed numerous documents purporting to be WBGI documents using the title of WBGI Treasurer, without authority or authorization to do so, including a Promissory Note dated January 1, 2004.” Second Hawaii Decision ¶ 73. Based on this statement, the court holds that the Second Hawaii court has already addressed an identical issue to the matter that Mr. Wagner now attempts to bring before this court. And as discussed above, Mr. Wagner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the matters that were considered by the Second Hawaii court. Since the Second Hawaii decision is now final for the purposes of issue preclusion, Mr. Wagner is barred from asserting any claims based on the 2004 promissory note. The court therefore dismisses all of Mr. Wagner’s claims on the grounds that they have been previously litigated.

The court notes that a myriad of other reasons exist to dismiss this case. If the court determined that issue preclusion did not bar Mr. Wagner’s causes of action, the court would nevertheless issue an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court is convinced that this case has been filed for the purpose of harassing the Defendants. The Second Hawaii court labeled Mr. Wagner a vexatious litigant for commencing at least five civil actions that were determined adversely to him, as well as for filing in bad faith numerous frivolous motions that were intended for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary delay. The number of instances of Mr. Wagner’s fraudulent conduct, false representations, and unauthorized actions listed by both the Second Hawaii court and the Nevada court are too legion to list here. As one example, Mr. Wagner was able to obtain a default judgment against WBGI without its knowledge by telling the Second Hawaii court that WBGI did not have any officers or directors and that WBGI did not object to the default being taken. [[The Second Hawaii court later granted relief from its entry of default when it realized that WBGI did indeed have a board of directors who had never received notice of the lawsuit.]] Second Hawaii Decision ¶ 96. Given this background, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Wagner’s current suit was brought in good faith. It is also doubtful that Mr. Wagner’s Complaint satisfies the pleading standards required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is even doubtful that the court has jurisdiction to hear this matter, as Mr. Wagner presents no federal question and bases his claim to diversity jurisdiction on unsupported assertions that the amount in controversy is over $75,000. All of these observations support the court’s decision to dismiss the case.

This is a seriously harsh paragraph. It's my guess that this language will tend to convert any half-assed appeal that doesn't address all these points into a frivolous appeal -- one that is just a waste of time and paper. The "amount in controversy" is the monetary value of the damage to Wagner's reputation, isn't it?

11(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

1. it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
2. the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
3. the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
4. the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

If you ever wanted to know what keeps lawyers from spiraling into a cesspool of black-is-white and "it depends what the meaning of "is" is" -- this is it -- Rule 11(b) [and c].

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Wagner’s objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts Judge Warner’s First Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 30) in full. The court adopts Judge Warner’s Second Report and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 75) with the exception that it declines to stay the case. Instead, the court dismisses all of Mr. Wagner’s claims. As a result, the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 39 & 52) are GRANTED. WBGI’s first Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 5) and its Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 41) are DENIED AS MOOT. Mr. Wagner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED. The court orders the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

"Closed" in this case doesn't mean "over" in that there may still be additional post-judgement motions.

 

[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)

This case was dismissed last month. This month Wagner begins an appeal. (Also there is in Hawaii a retrial of one issue left over from the 2004 original lawsuit, and the entity Wagner keeps on suing declares bankruptcy in Nevada.)
Highlights:

Plaintiff Walter L. Wagner hereby appeals the Memorandum Decision and Order dated April 22, 2013 in its entirety.
Please take notice that WBGI filed a bankruptcy petition in the US Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, on April 30, 2013, Case No. 13-50833 invoking automatic stay provisions.​

It will be month before Wagner needs to pay fees, so who knows how long the appeal will take.

The Chapter 11 (voluntary bankruptcy protection for reorganization) case is moving fast and provides some financial insight into the WGBI entity that Wagner seeks to extract cash from/gain control of/harass its officers. WGBI states that it owes about $38,000 in legal fees, and is owed about $19,000 in accounts receivable, and about $3.5 million in Hawaiian and Nevada judgments against W.L. Wagner and D. Perkins. So on paper, it just looks like a cash flow problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code

According to Wikipedia,

Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Um...

OK, was it all about micro black holes?

:EDIT:

I was earlier thinking about making a thread about mico black holes because the concept is bewildering.

 

[rpenner]

Plaintiffs Wagner and Sancho, in the 2008-2010 anti-LHC case and appeal, I believe, accepted that the energies at the LHC would not of themselves present a civilization threatening event, so the only remaining class of event was death-by-accreting-object which came in two theoretical flavors: Gravity (Black Holes) and QCD (Strangelets). Neither Wagner nor Sancho presented a model of such an object consistent with our universe and still dangerous to human civilization, so there was no physics case made. (Giddings and Mangano made a devastating physics case that accreting objects, if formed, could not both be dangerous and leave no mark in the heavens at current levels of study.) There likewise was no legal case made that they had standing under Article III of the US Constitution to sue in Federal Court. (The requirement of a concrete injury wasn't even met with a concrete theoretical model.) There likewise was no legal case made that they correctly served an entity who was empowered to control the LHC. (The Swiss government pointed out what a gap between international requirements and Wagner's practice existed.)

I know of only one "victory" for Wagner's pro-se efforts, when a California prosecutor made an own goal by undercharging (so said a judge). Wagner makes reckless arguments (Process isn't needed, FRCP 5 covers initially serving the summons and complaint on the defendant, Dollarz is the onleez moniez) and reckless claims of facts (telling a judge at Pearl Harbor, who signed up for federal service because of Pearl Harbor, that Wagner's stint as a VA Technician compares favorably to that of the judge's).

But the only "black holes" in the 2004-2013 Hawaiian-Nevada-Utah-WBGI cases would be Wagner's filing system. Wagner sued for umpteen million dollars because he thought (in part) it was defamatory for people to say they had trouble sorting through his records, some of which were on adhesive notes. But as I read this case both Judges Warner and Shelby believe that matter had already been litigated in Nevada court.

[Wagner] had diverted funds to his personal accounts, failed to keep proper financial records, . . . failed to pay employment taxes, failed to file corporate income tax reports, [and] failed to keep accurate records of shareholders. [WBGI board members] also discovered the Internal Revenue Service had placed a lien on WBGI’s real property to secure payment of overdue payroll taxes.

A lawyer doesn't have to sign on to his client's cause, only represent his client in court. But as a pro-se litigant, Wagner cannot divorce himself of his positions so easily. Does the defamation case mean Wagner now believes it is likely that his 2008 anti-LHC lawsuit was baseless? If society has no future, reputation is worthless and no defamation damages can exist and no money damages can make amends.

 

[RJBeery]

400+ posts. This issue leaves my head spinning. How does Wagner's diverting of funds for personal use, etc, relate to LHC safety?

 

[OnlyMe]

400+ posts. This issue leaves my head spinning. How does Wagner's diverting of funds for personal use, etc, relate to LHC safety?

It seems to have been a legal offshoot of the original law suit. Suits of this type often include cross complaints seeking recovery of costs and even damages. From there, investigations seeking assets or financial status of the plaintiff, could easily turn up any unusual accounting or distributions of associated funds.... A lay evaluation, based only on experience in a few small claims cases.

 

[rpenner]

OnlyMe, that seems baseless. The commonality is that Wagner initiated the 2008 LHC case and some of the 2004-2013 actions. In both he misconstrues the powers of Federal courts. In both he asserts justice and law are on his side and fails to convince people of this.

 

[OnlyMe]

OnlyMe, that seems baseless. The commonality is that Wagner initiated the 2008 LHC case and some of the 2004-2013 actions. In both he misconstrues the powers of Federal courts. In both he asserts justice and law are on his side and fails to convince people of this.

I was responding only to RJ's question of how the diversion of funds issue got involved. And I did say it was a lay evaluation.

I was not saying that is the case, "here" but I do know, that at least in California, cross complaints can be filed and investigations into assets can follow from court rulings or even precede them is some cases... That I know from experience as I mentioned, from small claims actions (in Calif.), which are more restricted than what would appear in a higher court.

I follow your thread loosely. You are the one following this issue closely. What is the connection between the LHC case(s) and the accounting or diversion of funds issue?

 

[rpenner]

Walter L. Wagner. It was hoped that following one case would provide insight for the others.

 

[OnlyMe]

Walter L. Wagner. It was hoped that following one case would provide insight for the others.

Insight would require more study and attention, than I can handle. But it does provide some entertainment, as a casual observer.

 

[OnlyMe]

Walter L. Wagner. ...

Ah, O.K. I am slow sometimes, but I do now get the connection!

 

[IncogNegro]

Just do what you do Rpenner... Fear in one can cause worry to another.... but objectivity wins over any emotion.

 

[rpenner]

Updates:
2012-12-12 -- Wagner files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to erase debts http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utb.352645/gov.uscourts.utb.352645.docket.html
2013-03-14 -- WGBI contests Wagner's Chapter 7 bankruptcy http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.utb.355915/gov.uscourts.utb.355915.docket.html
2013-05-28 -- Wagner injects himself into the WGBI Chapter 11 bankruptcy http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvb.322796/gov.uscourts.nvb.322796.docket.html

He now asserts he is an "expert" in detecting fraud due to his training in "medicine" by which he means his 1979-1983 stint as a VA Technician.
He touts his membership in the Health Physics Society despite that membership claim per se not requiring proficiency in Health or Physics. Nor is there a means to check membership claims as a HPS membership is not a professional requirement.
Reference: http://hps.org/aboutthesociety/howtojoin.html , http://hps.org/aboutthesociety/categories.html

Other parts further serve to undermine Wagner's credibility.

 

[rpenner]

At the Register, an article is up called "Copyright troll Prenda Law accused of seeding own torrents" which is one of a number of articles alleging a scheme to possibly entrap and extort money from pornography downloaders and persons hastily identified as such.
A hurtful comment reads:

Carrying on the best traditions of American lawyers
In the finest traditions of Canter and Siegel. Is there anything low enough that some American lawyer somewhere won't sink to it?

To be fair, it is largely American lawyers who are responsible for unraveling the maze of shell corporations and unhelpful "experts" to place before the various judges just exactly what has been going on. It helps that a Prenda Law member's spouse seemed to enumerate the elements of extortion while "defending" the behavior for the press, but ultimately the lawyer's I have heard from or talked to don't think this is some sort of "grey area" in American legal practice. Prenda Law seems to have had thousands of successful settlements because a) the law is scary, b) lawyers are expensive, c) no one wants their deliberately private behavior brought into public view and seems to have crossed the ethics line with allegations of d) extortionate settlement "offers" that read more like "give us money or we'll do this" rather than "we have a legitimate grievance and feel we must protect ourselves from your evil ways", e) begin both client and lawyer, f) hiding in a maze of shell corporations and opaque trusts, g) inducing copying by authorizing it in a non-transparent way (the topic of this article), and h) recommending sham defense attorneys to a population which is unlikely to have experience with attorneys.

Allegation e is particularly ugly because lawyers exist so interested parties don't go rounds of fisticuffs in negotiations. Without cooler counsel heads, every cause has the potential to go total war, Hatfields and McCoys. Although its a person's right to speak for themselves in court, lawyers find it painful to face a pro se party in court, even when it means they will likely win.

It's not demonstrated l that d-h were the original intention -- perhaps they started in the best of intentions to represent a legitimate client once upon a time. However it doesn't matter if d-h were original or "merely" the rounds of a "total war" strategy evolving around maximizing profit without ethical guidance, they point to a complete (alleged) collapse of the standards even American lawyers are held to.

Under this "total war" hypothesis one would not expect the principles of Prenda Law to be apologizing unless a part of a class-action settlement. (Because of the First Amendment it is extremely problematic for a court to order an apology.) If they have abandoned the ethical guidance of their profession, then why expect them to ever see that they are in the wrong. Justice, not originating from within, must be imposed from without. And this is the way that this story has been trending over the last couple of months.

See also: "Judge hands copyright troll an epic smack-down"

 

[eram]

Um...

OK, was it all about micro black holes?

:EDIT:

I was earlier thinking about making a thread about mico black holes because the concept is bewildering.

Nobody knows how a micro BH would actually work, it's in a "fuzzy realm".

Anyway, this Wagner played too much Half-Life, and filed suit against the CERN, claiming the LHC could potentially result in some earth shattering disaster.