Posts by rpenner

Oi! Speak English! (And try to use facts and logic)

Your first sentence is unintelligible. Are you Luis Sancho?

1) Wagner's very own process server reported the service had problems. The Swiss mission to the US wrote a letter to the court helpfully outlining the International Law (Hague Convention) and legal methodology required by law. The US District court asked Wagner to explain how the service complied with relevant law, which Wagner didn't meaningfully address.

2) You are Luis Sancho aren't you? Sancho's bizarre courtroom lecture on "true science" was not from the witness stand, so it doesn't count as evidence. Wagner and Sancho have never passed voir dire, so what they say certainly doesn't count as expert evidence. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2571435#post2571435 When asked time, and time again to explain a concrete scenario where the LHC would be more dangerous than pouring water onto a plant, Wagner and Sancho dither and hand-wave. So everything is speculative and non-concrete on the plaintiff's side.

3) It's about demonstrable cause and effect. You failed to demonstrate, so regardless of the effect, it can't be blamed on the named causes. Being a foriegner without even pretensions of understanding the US Federal court system, Sancho is excused to a degree for not understanding the courts' limited role and the decades of balancing what the consequences of Article III of the US Constitution mean. Wagner, however has a J.D. from an unaccredited law school, and this may have given him delusions of competence.

4) You are confusing 18 USC § 831 (1982) with the various provisions of the Patriot Act. (See above link)

5) If true, this was Wagner and Sancho's job to figure out before they filed the case. Ironic that you claim CERN is the source of all truth. Nevertheless, 9% of CERN's total budget is far more money than the US's paltry contribution to operational expenses like keeping the lights on at US-staffed workstations.

6) Dismissing on technical points is less personally insulting then explaining that the case fails to meet any of the three legs of standing to sue under Article III because the plaintiffs spend more time posturing than thinking, hunting evidence, following procedure, knowing the law, using logic, and explaining a rational basis for their viewpoint.

I was in that appellate courtroom and Wagner and Sancho behaved like buffoons, insulting the center judge's years of experience, rocking back and forth in swivel chairs, acting chummy with the (teenage?) daughter of an attorney, and squabbling over the microphone in the final minutes.

What did they want? They wanted the LHC to shutdown.

Why did they fear operation of the LHC? No basis for this was ever communicated.

Who did they want to shutdown the LHC? A single judge in Hawaii.

What law did they cite? A possible requirement to do paperwork in 1997, over ten years before their lawsuit was filed.

Did the law apply to construction of the LHC? Judge Gillmor said no (September 2008)

Did the law apply to US funding of the scientists who work at CERN? No case made.

Is there any evidence today that plaintiffs were directly harmed by the lack of paperwork? no.

Is there any concrete case that any LHC disaster scenario is possible in this universe? no.

Is there any link between filling out paperwork and the discovery of a natural law that would render particle colliders more dangerous than commonly thought? No.

Is there any way a US judge can order a non-party to do something? No.

Did Wagner and Sancho try a legal back door to do something better done another way? Yes. The correct/honest/understandable way to sue someone for doing something that's allegedly dangerous to you is to do that directly. But Wagner and Sancho only wanted to proof that some paperwork hoops were not jumped through. They perhaps though having the whole burden of proof was too hard. They abandoned the effort to do science and demonstrate their claims. They even abandoned the effort to separate good claims from bad claims -- they took every line of speculation which they heard.

Why did Wagner and Sancho ignore their process server, the Swiss mission, and the judge who asked about the CERN process? Good question.