Dear ASKDOJ

Please forward this email to both Ms Jones and attorney general Gonzales.

Please give me an ack that you have properly forwarded this email to Jones and Gonzales.

Thanks in advance.
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#tojones

Tuesday February 28, 2006 Certified - return receipt requested and email Priscilla Jones Chief, Administrative Staff U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Ms Jones: You wrote in your February 17, 2006 letter to me seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#jones This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Civil Division was received by this Office on February 9, 2006. You should have received my administrative appeal on about February 3, 2006 by email since it was acknowledged received on February 2, 2006. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#askdojack In that email submission seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#toaskdoj I asked Please send a copy of this email to Attorney General Gonzales. and Please send an ack if you get this email and it is successfully forwarded. I received no ack from ASKDOJ. Your statement The Office of Information and Privacy, which has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals, has a substantial backlog of pending appeals received prior to yours. In an attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a general practice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt. Your appeal has been assigned number 06-1191. Please mention this number in any future correspondence to this Office regarding this matter. creates the appearance of another long wait ... perhaps similar to the wait of about 10 years for response to my FOIA request. All of the evidence of assertions made in my appeal letter seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#appeal are in writing in court records. You didn't address whether the prima facie evidence of New Mexico state and federal criminal acts by New Mexico US attorneys Dow and Hoses was passed to attorney general Gonzales. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#dow and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#hoses Nor did I receive an email acknowledgment from ASKDOJ when DOJ website clearly states E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. Your letter did not address how the criminal violations of the Privacy Act [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#pacrime will be addressed for the false and defaming documents [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#cvpa released by Sandia labs to EEOC without my written consent will be dealt with. So please answer 1 Was my February 2, 2006 email submission of the February 9, 2006 hardcopy forwarded to your office by ASKDOJ? 2 Was my email submission forwarded to attorney general Gonzales as requested to ASKDOJ? 3 Identify [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#codirector] Co-Director Office of Information and Privacy a address b telephone number c email address I ask that you respone to the above three questions by email to me by Wednesday March 2, 2006. As you may realize, Mr Morales and I have exhausted all legal remedies short of the U S Supreme Court to have our 7th amendment right inviolate to paid for New Mexico 12 person trial by jury and 10th amendment right to litigate pro se restored. Our next step may have to be a supreme court writ 22 petition to void judgments for prima facie reason of lack of federal jurisdiction. Replevin, defamation [libel] and harassment are not federal questions. But perhaps there is a less brutal solution. All evidence of wrong-doing of Sandia labs, lawyers and judges is in writing. So a reasonable solution might be settlement.. Reasonable settlement conditions have been outlined. See http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#charlton I am sending a copy of this letter to Thomas DePriest, Esq, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel to enlist his help in getting these unfortunate matters quickly settled before they get far worse. We continue to believe that the 20 working days, as originally requested [see http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/codirector/codirector.htm#20days] is a reasonable date to hear from your office and Mr DePriest that we will settle as opposed to proceed legally. Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 bpayne37@comcast.net 505-292-7037 distribution Certified - return receipt requested and email Thomas DePriest, Esq U.S. Department of Energy Office of General Counsel Forrestal Building Mail Station GC-72 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-0103 (202) 586-2946 thomas.depriest@hq.doe.gov U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information and Privacy Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone(202) 514-3642 FEB 17 2006 Mr. William H. Payne 13015 Calle De Sandias NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Request No. 145-FOI-8492 Dear Mr. Payne: This is to advise you that your administrative appeal from the action of the Civil Division was received by this Office on February 9, 2006. The Office of Information and Privacy, which has the responsibility of adjudicating such appeals, has a substantial backlog of pending appeals received prior to yours. In an attempt to afford each appellant equal and impartial treatment, we have adopted a general practice of assigning appeals in the approximate order of receipt. Your appeal has been assigned number 06-1191. Please mention this number in any future correspondence to this Office regarding this matter. We will notify you of the decision on your appeal as soon as we can. We regret the necessity of this delay and appreciate your continued patience. Sincerely; Priscilla Jones Chief, Administrative Staff

Envelope received Tuesday February 21, 2006

Read Tuesday evening February 14, 2006

1 to appeal November 30, 2005 FOIA response [145-FOI-8492] authored by James M Kovakas seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm

2 inform you of a criminal violation in writing of the Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a which Mr Kovakas is involved

3 complaint about non-compliance with 5 U.S.C. §552(6)(A)(i)

4 and suggest settlement of our 14 year legal battle.

With regard to the remaining seventy-five pages, I determined that five pages are exempt in full pursuant to the FOIA/PA. These documents consist of a two-page and a three-page draft letters to you by Civil Division attorney David Glass prepared in connection with the litigation Willairn H. Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al., No. 92-1452. The documents are exempt pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (5), based upon the attorney work product privilege incorporated within this exemption. The documents are also exempt pursuant to the PA, 5 U.S.C. §552a(d) (5), which provides for the withholding of records from an individual prepared for litigation.

inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

nothing in this section shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.

The remaining seventy pages of documents may be released to you in full or in part. While inter-agency documents containing the names of agency employees involved in the litigation are exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (5) and 5 U.S.C. §552a(d) (5), as a matter of administrative discretion, I have determined that these documents may be released with minor deletions of attorney work product pursuant to S U.S.C. §552(b) (5) and 5 U.S.C. §552a(d) (5). The names and telephone numbers of CIA and NSA personnel have been redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C.§552(b) (3), in conjunction with Section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949 and Section 6 of Public Law No. 86-36. The names of FBI personnel have been redacted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b) (6), to protect the personal privacy of these individuals as well.

Requested un-redacted documents don't have anything to do with "protecting intelligence sources and methods." but merely are an attempt by Kovakas to shield NSA employees from criminal prosecution.

Because of possible multiple occurrences of the same yet-unidentified NSA employee[s?] New Mexico's criminal law

30-3A-2. Harassment; penalties.

A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

The documents do relate to to Sandia labs' department manager James Gosler, Sandia labs' lawyer Harold Folley, DOJ lawyer David Glass representing some yet-unidentified NSA employee[s?] seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

(b) Conditions of Disclosure.— No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be—

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

IV. Exemption 3 Statutes

List of Exemption 3 Statutes relied on by agency during current fiscal year.

(1) National Security Act of 1947, as amended, codified at 50 U.S.C. §403- 3(c)(7).

(2) Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, as amended, codified at 50 U.S.C. §403g.

1. Brief description of type(s) of information withheld under each statute.

The National Security Act of 1947 requires the Director of Central Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and methods from disclosure.

The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 exempts from release certain enumerated categories of information including CIA’s organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries and/or number of personnel employed by the CIA.

[D]irector of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, ...

Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, nothing in this Act or any other law (including, but not limited to, the first section and section 2 of the Act of August 28, 1935 (5 U.S.C. 654) (repealed by Pub. L. 86-626, title I, Sec. 101, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 427)) shall be construed to require the disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security Agency, or any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of the names, titles, salaries, or number of the persons employed by such agency.

(b) The reporting requirements of section 1582 of title 10, United States Code, shall apply to positions established in the National Security Agency in the manner provided by section 4 of this Act.

Assistive technology, assistive technology devices, and assistive technology services

Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) Authority.— The Secretary of Defense may provide assistive technology, assistive technology devices, and assistive technology services to the following:

(1) Department of Defense employees with disabilities.
(2) Organizations within the Department that have requirements to make programs or facilities accessible to, and usable by, persons with disabilities.
(3) Any other department or agency of the Federal Government, upon the request of the head of that department or agency, for its employees with disabilities or for satisfying a requirement to make its programs or facilities accessible to, and usable by, persons with disabilities.

(b) Definitions.— In this section, the terms “assistive technology”, “assistive technology device”, “assistive technology service”, and “disability” have the meanings given those terms in section 3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 3002).

(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--

(i) determine within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and ...

The U.S. Supreme court is quite clear in Willingham, Warden, et al v Morgan,395 U.S. 408(1969)

The Judicial Code require defendants who would remove cases to the federal courts to file "a verified petition containing a short and plain statement of the facts"

28 USC Sec. 1746. - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

clearly states

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1)

If executed without the United States: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''.

(2)

If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ''I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)''

1 Receipt for New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuit: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm

2 Fraudulent notice of removal without required verification: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitd.htm

3 Docket sheet showing pattern and practice of criminal harassment using federal court as instrument of harassment: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1677.htm and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1574.htm. and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1132.htm.

1 Receipt for New Mexico state 12 person jury trial lawsuit: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitg.htm
and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibith.htm

2 Fraudulent notice of removal without required verification: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibitj.htm
and http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/exhibiti.htm

3 Docket sheet showing pattern and practice of criminal harassment using federal court as instrument of harassment: http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/pacer/dock1198.htm

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html]

Release date: 2005-08-03

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

§ 4. Misprision of felony [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000004----000-.html]

Release date: 2005-08-03

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The Roadmap is included so that DOJ can easily compute its liability.

Roadmap to lawsuits 1 Monday November 26, 2001 08:18

Plaintiff(s)	State	Federal dockets saved April 12, 2004	Metropolitan
Morales Payne	cv - 2000 10289 Monday September 9, 2002 14:21	00 cv 1574
Morales Payne	CV-2001-03118 Wednesday April 3, 2000 13:55	01 cv 0634
Morales Payne	CV-200106293 Wednesday April 3, 2002 13:49	01 cv 1198
Payne	CV 2000-10278 Monday September 9, 2002 13:43	00 cv 1677
Payne	cv 2001-05900 WWednesday April 3, 2002 13:17	01 cv 1132
Payne	CV 2001 07794 Monday September 9, 2002 13:43	Never!
Morales Payne	CV 2002 3425 Monday September 9, 2002 13:43	Never!
Payne			cr1231xx 03 Monday September 9, 2002 1
Morales Payne	Utah writ petition Wednesday August 4, 2004 09:01	03CV228
Payne	Utah writ petition Wednesday August 4, 2004 09:01	03CV288
Morales Payne	US Supreme court Rule 22 writ petition Wednesday August 4, 2004 09:01

http://albuquerque.fbi.gov/contact.htm

David M. Hardy
Chief Record/Information Dissemination Section Records Management
Division Federal Bureau of Investigation
Department of Justice
935 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W. Washington, DC 20535-0001
(202) 324-5520

Is the FBI proactive in its approach to economic espionage? Yes. FBI Director Robert Mueller has designated espionage as the FBI's number two priority - second only to terrorism. The Economic Espionage Unit is dedicated to countering the economic espionage threat to include developing training and outreach materials; participating in conferences; visiting private industry; working with the law enforcement and intelligence community on requirement issues; and providing specific classified and unclassified presentations.