BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Trial of LLNS begins!

Anonymously contributed:


http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_14681243

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks good for about $140M after taxes to me. Godaddy Go

Anonymous said...

Theft by LLNS LLC? Nothing new here. What did you expect when the new profit-based corporate team took over this lab.

They are a bunch of crooks. These same crooks also have control of your lab pension. Scary thought, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

The "alleged theft" took place in 2004 - that would have been UC, not LLNS.

Anonymous said...

Bet the same managers are still working at the lab though. Let's see how limited that liability really is.

Anonymous said...

March 17th, 2010 9:57 is right on the money. Personally I hope March 17, 2010 8:35 AM is right and the guys gets his $140M plus royalties. Can you imagine what that would amount to at ten shots a second even if it was $1.00 a pulse. It will be LIFE for this guy.

Anonymous said...

Obviously crooks are involved in this case. Not sure which side.

Anonymous said...

Normally the Lab would settle out of court. Not because they are wrong but because it is deemed cheaper to pay than to fight in court. Since they have decided to fight suggests they think they will win enough good p.r. and court cost reimbursement to make it worthwhile.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously crooks are involved in this case. Not sure which side." My bets on LLNL /LLNS the good old Recthal Boys. I hope the dude wins $140M plus the $1.00 per shot for life paid in one lump sum and that $140M is after taxes.

Anonymous said...

Could LLNS go bankrupt?

Anonymous said...

The liability would be UC's . . . though the fact has been acknowledged that many of the same poor managers remain from the "good
'ol days."

Anonymous said...

UC won't pay a dime, this is all on LLNS back and hopefully out of that $80M a year fee they get. $140M, no fee for almost two years. Can't say I feel sorry for them, but since TCP-1 is so well over funded maybe they can borrow the funds from with a promise they'll pay it back later.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget this involves NIF. First, NIF will tax the rest of the Lab's programs. Then it can pay off the judgment, saving LLNS's profit.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that the cost of this loss is reimbusible under the contract. DOE and the taxpayers will bear the cost of any judgment.

Anonymous said...

"Gary Gwilliam, an Oakland attorney representing Kley, said that the lab in 2004 "expressed a great deal of interest" in his client's invention — a nanocrystalline diamond shell — and signed a nondisclosure agreement with Kley to have him work on developing these diamond capsules. Kley formed a new company, General Nanotechnology, in anticipation of a contract with the lab to develop the shells.

But Gwilliam said that the lab immediately began using Kley's trade-secret information without his knowledge, and then hired a German company to develop the diamond capsules. The lab also broke off communication with Kley in October 2004, Gwilliam said."

Suit revolves around 2004 {UC} activities. How is this "all on LLNS back"? The current contractor would not be liable for the illegal activities of a previous contractor.

Anonymous said...

The upper management at LLNL is very good at doing cover-ups. I wouldn't worry too much about it. They'll have this whole matter deeply buried and forgotten in no time at all.

They are probably busy at work as we speak, shredding all of the incriminating evidence. That's why they are paid the big salaries. They're really adept at operating paper shredders at fast speeds.

Anonymous said...

judging by how the LANL 2007 thumb drive incident was resolved, I believe that March 22, 2010 9:26 PM is correct. At the time of the trailer park raid, LANS had just taken over, and they received a relatively small fine as compared with UC, which was the institution that allowed the removal to take place. However, the Compliance Order was focused on LANS, to fix the programmatic/procedural weaknesses/

Anonymous said...

And who had to clean up the mess the Navy left on site? Not the Navy. Ditto for the PCBs and radium-laden instruments buried there.

Both assets and liabilities are transferred with new owners.

Anonymous said...

March 25, 2010 5:16 PM

Operative word is "illegal."

Many of the legacy environmental issues are the result of activities that were not illegal (or regulated) at the time they occurred.

Anonymous said...

UC may have been managing the lab back in 2004 when the idea was first stolen, but LLNS continued the theft process by not quickly rectifying the situation and possibly allowed actions that further damaged the suing litigant.

I suspect both UC and LLNS will be called into court over this mess. The case may also reveal damaging evidence that brings about firings for several LLNL upper managers.

Anonymous said...

It appears that all of you are assuming the worst! The bottom line is the Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the Lab and this but a mere allegation, unless the case is proven in a court of law.

Blog Archive