March 14th, 2008 a COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION was filed against Large Hadron Colliders at the UN.
________________________________________________________________
Luis Sancho
PO Box 411
Honomu, HI 96728
808-964-5535
pro se
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
--oo0oo--
LUIS SANCHO, WALTER L. WAGNER, ) Civil No. ____________
)
Plaintiffs ) COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY
) RESTRAINING ORDER,
vs. ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,
) AND PERMANENTINJUNCTION
US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, )
FERMILAB, CENTER FOR NUCLEAR )
ENERGY RESEARCH (CERN), )
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, )
DOE ENTITIES 1-100, )
)
Defendants )
________________________________)
COMPLAINT FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
COME NOW Plaintiffs LUIS SANCHO and WALTER L. WAGNER, and for
causes of action allege as follows:
I
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
1. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Luis Sancho is a citizen of
Spain, with residence in the United States.
2. At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Walter L. Wagner is a citizen of
the State of Hawaii.
3. At all times herein mentioned defendant United States Department of
Energy [hereinafter DOE] is a federal agency with operations in the State of Hawaii.
4. At all times herein mentioned defendant Fermilab is a federal
laboratory with operations in Chicago, Illinois and Geneva, Switzerland at the LHC.
5. At all times herein mentioned defendant National Science
Foundation [hereinafter NSF] is a federally chartered agency for distributing federal
funds to recipients, including defendants herein.
6. At all times herein mentioned defendant Center for Nuclear Energy
Research [hereinafter CERN] is a European agency with operations in Switzerland
and France.
7. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the names or locations of Doe
Defendants 1-100.
II
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Re LHC
8. Defendants DOE, Fermilab, NSF and CERN, and Does 1-100 have
engaged in a partnership relationship to construct a machine in and around
Geneva Switzerland known as the Large Hadron Collider [hereinafter LHC]. The
LHC machine is presently under construction and nearing completion, with
completion anticipated in April, 2008.
9. Defendants intend to test the LHC machine upon completion, with
testing to commence within days of completion.
10. The purpose of the LHC machine is to create novel conditions of
matter never previously existent on earth, so that defendants may seek to
investigate the properties of this novel condition of matter for purposes of
fundamental physics research.
11. The machine is scheduled to operate by colliding high-energy beams
of protons [Hydrogen nuclei] or Lead nuclei into each other. The resultant collision
of the two atoms traveling in opposite direction and then colliding head-on is
designed to release a large amount of energy, and fracture the atoms into more
fundamental particles, as well as create novel particles from the abundance of
energy present.
12. Various competing theories of physics predict various outcomes
from these collisions, with no agreement amongst physicists as to what the
outcome will be.
13. In addition to fracturing the atoms into smaller, more fundamental
particles, some of the competing theories predict that the outcome will be a
rearrangement of the more fundamental particles, or creation de novo from the
abundance of energy present, or both, into novel forms, which include the following
descriptive particles from those theories:
a) Strangelets: Under this theory, the original constituents of the atom
[“up” quarks and “down” quarks] will recombine with newly created “strange” quarks
to form a new, more stable form of matter called a “strangelet”. Its enhanced
stability compared to normal matter would allow it to fuse with normal matter,
converting the normal matter into an even larger strangelet. Repeated fusions
would result in a runaway fusion reaction, eventually converting all of Earth into a
single large “strangelet” of huge size.

Micro Black Holes: Under this theory, the compression of the two
atoms colliding together at nearly light speed will cause an irreversible implosion,
forming a miniature version of a giant black hole, the remnant of a collapsed star.
Like its much larger cousin, a miniature black hole would not emit light, and any
matter coming into contact with it would fall into it and never be able to escape.
Eventually, all of earth would fall into such growing micro-black-hole, converting
earth into a medium-sized black hole, around which would continue to orbit the
moon, satellites, the ISS, etc.
c) Magnetic Monopoles: Under this theory, the high energy of the
collision would be converted into two massive particles known as north and south
magnetic monopoles. Each would carry a fundamental unit of magnetic charge.
Such particle might have the ability to catalyze the decay of protons and atoms,
causing them to convert into other types of matter in a runaway reaction.
14. The above theories, and other theories showing potential adverse
consequences, have been well articulated in various scientific publications. No
absolute refutation of the adverse scenarios that have been described has yet
been articulated, though efforts have been made, and it has been suggested by
defendants that the ‘risk’ of the adverse scenarios is small. Those efforts were
perfunctory “safety reviews” which purported to prove the falsity of the adverse
scenarios by indirect means. However, fundamental flaws were existent in
those “safety reviews” and pointed out to defendants by plaintiffs. As a result,
another “safety review” is currently underway by the defendants. The current safety
review is known as the LHC Safety Assessment Group [LSAG] Safety Review. It
was initially scheduled for completion by January 1, 2008, but defendants have
delayed its release, and it has not yet been released to the public for review by the
science community at large, as promised [see Exhibit “A” of affidavit of Walter L.
Wagner].
15. Plaintiffs and their associates are experts in physics and other fields
of science, technology and ethics who are capable of reviewing and analyzing such
safety reviews for flaws or errors. Plaintiffs and some of their associates have filed
in support of this complaint various affidavits detailing some of the safety flaws and
ethical flaws in safety review currently evidenced. Plaintiffs and their associates
require a minimum of four to six months time to review the LSAG Safety Review, as
well as the relevant scientific literature, in order to determine whether defendants’
most recent pending LSAG Safety Review is once again fundamentally flawed, or
satisfactory in addressing the safety issues in accordance with generally accepted
standards in science, technology and industry.
cont......