PRL shoots itself in the foot. Or the head?

So, feast your eyes on this beauty:

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i19/e193901

(or you can get it here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096 )

So, the Lorentz force and special relativity are incompatible. Warning signs follow:

1) The paper is written in non-relativistic notation

2) The chap only cites 1) textbooks, 2) himself and 3) Einstein.

Apparently this did not give the editor of PRL pause for thought.  Here's a comment:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1502'

and here is a reponse from McDonald, who I would trust as a bit of an expert on this stuff.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf

His conclusion (tastefully reserved for a footnote, I might add) is that Mansuripur dropped the ball.

I am going to watch how this one develops with glee. Either way, the outcome will be fantastic. Either

1) some random self-citing chap from an optics department fells Einstein

or

2) some random self-citing chap from an optics department provides delicious proof that PRL editors are right tits while simultaneously proving himself to be a right tit.