Skip to main content

Trial of LLNS begins!

Anonymously contributed:


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

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.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!