Department of Justice

Monday December 5, 2005 14:09
Updated
Wednesday January 16, 2008 11:16

jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov

Kornblut is Kovakas' secretary.

Payne is maneuvering the mouse pointer for the Intel Webcam snapshot Save using his 1.5x Walgreen's Ben Franklin reading glasses.

That's why he is not looking at the camera.

Note name Gosler above.

August 10, 1994 Plaintiff's lawyer Stephen D. Aarons finally files MOTION to reconsider protective order.

Aarons writes:

1 Whether by inadvertence, the press of federal caseloads, or design, the court suggested at a pretrial conference in May 1993, that both parties suspend further discovery until it ruled on defendants' summary judgment motion. Discovery has ceased ever since.

2 Nearly one year ago, on August 19, 1993, the court issued its amended protective order, effectively sealing all substantive pleadings in this case.

3 Before issuing that order, the court considered plaintiff's written response against sealing. Judge Conway informed all counsel in open court that James R. Gosler would be permitted to deliver unknown documents to Judge Conway at time and place certain.

4 Judge Conway apparently reviewed those documents in camera without counsel for plaintiff.

5 The communication with Gosler constitutes an improper, ex parte communication with the one defendant who has been charged in plaintiff's amended complaint with the most outrageous and culpable acts.

6 Given the nature of this lawsuit, where defendants allege some sort of security infraction by plaintiff as justification for his firing, such communication under the guise of national security violated plaintiff's due process rights. Plaintiff has been prejudiced by this improper communication coupled with protracted delays. ...

WHEREFORE Plaintiff William H. Payne requests that:

A Judge Conway recuse himself from further participation in these proceeding, based on improper communication with defendant Gosler,

B The newly designated judge reconsider the standing protective order without recourse to ex parte communications with a named defendant, or in the alternative, allow counsel for plaintiff to review and respond to such communications, and,

C The court deny defendants' long-standing motion for summary judgment, set new discovery deadlines under the circumstances, and grant such further relief as justice requires.

<Steve Aarons>

Aarons Law Firm
Counsel for Plaintiff

Look at Internet comment below.

David Glass appears to be a DOJ lawyer representing NSA? Or maybe the FBI? Special agent (b)(3) with copy to (b)(6).

DOJ phone book is not working for Daniel Metcalfe as it did when we looked up Kovakas and Kornblut.

Arrived Monday November 20, 2006.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Information and Privacy
Telephone. (202) 514-3642
Washington, D.C. 20530

NOV 16 2006

Mr. William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias, NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 Re: Appeal No. 06-1191 Request No. 145-FOI-8492 BVE:GLB:CL

Dear Mr. Payne:

You appealed from the action of the Civil Division on records referred to it by the National Security Agency (NSA) in response to your request for records pertaining to yourself.

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming the Civil Division's action on the records referred to it. These records are exempt from the access provision of the Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(5). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.89 (2006). Because these records are not available to you under the Privacy Act, your request has been reviewed under the Freedom of Information Act in order to afford you the greatest possible access to them.

The Civil Division properly withheld certain information that is protected from disclosu under the FOJA pursuant to:

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), which concerns matters specifically exempted from release by statute (in this instance, 50 U.S.C. § 403g, which protects from public disclosure the functions, names, official titles, salaries or numbers of CIA personnel);
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), which concerns certain inter- and intra-agency communications protected by the deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges; and

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), which concerns material the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.

The Civil Division also referred 60 pages of those pages referred to it by NSA to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as these pages originated with the FBI. The FBI will process these records and respond directly to you. This referral was proper and in accordance with Department of Justice regulations. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.4(c).

Finally, with regard to the many other issues raised in your February 2, 2006 appeal letter relating generally to your civil litigation and complaints against government agencies, please nc that the principal administrative function of the Office of Information and Privacy is limited to the adjudication of appeals from denials of access by components of the Department of Justice 1 information requested under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. Accordingly, this Office does not have the authority to discuss settlement of your civil actions or to act upon any the other issues raised in your February 2, 2006 letter. I regret that I can be of no further assistance to you.

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may seek judicial review in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

Daniel J. Metcalf
Director