After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming, on partly modified grounds, the FBI'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(j)(2). See 28 C.F.R. § 16.96(a) (2007). 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 the records you requested.

Please note that, as explained in the FBI's release letter dated December 8, 2006, of the sixty-three pages referred to the FBI by the Civil Division, sixty-one were court documents. Your request specifically stated that you did not want copies of court documents. The remaining two pages are duplicates; thus, only one of those two pages was processed.

The FBI properly withheld certain information that is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to:

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2), which concerns matters that are related solely to internal agency practices; and

5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), which concerns records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.

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).

Janice Galli-McLeod
Associate Director

Below received Saturday September 8, 2007.

Look at the date of Galli-McLeod letter and below letter.

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535

1 Form requests Full Name:

That's what you wrote to send me that form.

2 Form requests Current Address:

That's the address you sent the form

3 Form requests Date of Birth:

June 11, 1937

4 Form requests Place of Birth:

Bismarck, ND

5 Form requests Daytime Telephone Number:

505-292-7037

6 You may also wish to provide prior addresses, employments, aliases, etc., which you believe may assist the FBI in locating the information you seek.___________________________________________

Sandia National Laboratories. But the information sought and not released in 1996 are the 60 pages of documents referenced by DOJ lawyer Kovakas.

7 Form states

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000. All signatures under the certification of perjury statement MUST be an original signature, as the FBI is no longer accepting faxed signatures. The signature must also be legible.

Signature__________________________________________________________ Date_______________________



9 Form states

To initiate your FOIPA request, please return the original request letter with the requested information. Please note that mail addressed to the FBI is delayed several weeks due to increased security procedures now in place. You must MAIL your request with your original legible signature, as the FBI is no longer accepting faxed signatures after the perjury statement.

1 bring to your personal attention that a yet-identified FBI special agent got me fired for a yet-unknown reason while I was working on a SECRECT/SCI FBI electronic lock breaking at Sandia National Laboratories in 1992.

2 bring to your attention to an apparently unnecessary form sent to me on October 23, 2006 [mailed October 24, 2006] by your subordinate FBI David M Hardy after I had completed a similar request FOIPA Public Liaison Officer (PLO) Nancy L. Steward.

3 complain that Mr Hardy returned my letter of October 5, 2006 with the apparently unnecessary instead of answering my letter and providing me requested information.

4 inform you that Department of Justice lawyer James Kovakas below the whistle on the FBI by informing me on November 30, 2005 that the FBI was in non-compliance of my request by not sending me 60 pages of documents requested in 1996.

5 request to know who the identity of FBI special agent who got me and fired, according to Deparment of Justice employee Jean Kornblut, and why that agent did this so that the public can evaluation how its money is being spent by the FBI.

6 suggest that we get these unfortunate matters before they get far worse.

Nancy Steward, FBI - Ms Eichhorst, please forward by email
Viola Brown, FBI

bill.leonard@nara.gov
iscap@nara.gov
william.bosanko@nara.gov

jim.kovakas@usdoj.gov
Jean.Kornblut@usdoj.gov

thomas.depriest@hq.doe.gov
george.breznay@hq.doe.gov

Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Washington, D.C. 20535

October 23, 2006

Mr. William Harris Payne
13015 Calle De Sandias, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dear Requester:

Your Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request is being returned. Your letter did not contain sufficient information to conduct an accurate search of the central records system at FBI Headquarters. The following information is necessary:

Full Name:

Current Address:

Date of Birth: _______________________ Place of Birth: ___________________________________

Daytime Telephone Number: _________________________________________________________

You may also wish to provide prior addresses, employments, aliases, etc., which you believe may assist the FBI in locating the information you seek.___________________________________________

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare that I am the person named above and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1001 by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both; and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false pretenses is punishable under the provisions of Title 5, U.S.C., Section 552a(i)(3) as a misdemeanor and by a fine of not more than $5,000. All signatures under the certification of perjury statement MUST be an original signature, as the FBI is no longer accepting faxed signatures. The signature must also be legible.

Signature__________________________________________________________ Date_______________________

To initiate your FOIPA request, please return the original request letter with the requested information. Please note that mail addressed to the FBI is delayed several weeks due to increased security procedures now in place. You must MAIL your request with your original legible signature, as the FBI is no longer accepting faxed signatures after the perjury statement.

Sincerely yours,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535

This is in reference to your September 15, 2006-telephone conversation with a member of my staff regarding your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

I spoke with two FBI staff members on September 15, 2006.

Monday September 25, 2006 08:08

julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Ms Eichhorst

Nonresponse by you and other FBI employees to an over 10 year old FOIA/PA request which DOJ lawyer James Kovakas includes 60 pages of documents response to my request compelled me to phone Nancy Steward FBI FOIAPA Public Laison Officer on Friday September 15, 2006 to complain. Here is a recording of that complaint.

Several hours later FBI employee Viola Brown phoned. Brown reported that she would investigate and phone me on Monday September 18, 2006. Listen to Ms Brown.

Ms Brown did not respond by phone on Monday.

You wrote

We have determined that the information you seek is not accessible under the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act Title 5, United States Code Section 552.

Who are we?

I believe that we is or are incorrect.

Department of Justice lawyer James M Kovakas exposed the FBI in his November 30, 2005 letter as non-responsive to my original 1996 FOIA request for documents in violation of the Provisions of the FOIA and Privacy Act [PA].

Further, lawyer Kovakas' office associate, Ms Jean Kornblut, told me on the phone that their office wanted to let me know that an FBI special agent was responsible for initiating my firing from Sandia National Laboratories. Listen to what Ms Kornblut said.

This led to the unauthorized release of the false and defaming documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos which violate, in writing, both the criminal provision of the Privacy Act and New Mexico's criminal defamation [libel] law.

I was assigned a SECRET SCI job assignment to break electronic locks for the FBI by Sandia Labs to break electronic locks for the FBI Engineering Research Facility, Quantico, VA at the time of my firing. I questioned the legality of my FBI job assignments.

It appears, from Kovakas-sent documents, that an FBI special agent acting outside the scope of his/her authority for some yet-unknown motive initiated these unfortunate series of events.

We, of course, continue to believe that quick settlement is the best course of action for all concerned.

You wrote

The FOIA does not require federal agencies to answer inquiries, create records, conduct research, or draw conclusions Rather, the FOIA requires agencies to provide access to reasonably described, nonexempt records. The information you seek, i.e., "the name of the unidentified special agent," is not a FOIA request because it does not comply with the FOIA and its regulations.

Let's assemble some reference material for response to Hardy.

THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 5 U.S.C. § 552a As Amended

The council had staff prepare a report listing possible fixes or additions to FOIA that would prevent another such meltdown. The suggestions included increasing the council’s powers to include some kind of mediation services, or making the council’s opinions binding. Other suggestions included changing the standard by which a person who wins a FOIA suit can recover his or her attorneys’ fees; increasing the amount of monetary penalties for FOIA violations; and making non-compliance with FOIA a possible ground for termination.

Penalties for FOIA Non-Compliance Being Considered The Washington Post is reporting that Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) are pushing a package of legislative proposals that would create, for the first time, penalties for agencies that ignore Freedom of Information Act requests. They also want to create a position for an independent arbiter -- an ombudsman for FOIA -- who would help referee conflicts between the public and the government.

Remedies for Non-Compliance

If an agency's FOIA officer will not properly comply with your request, you may wish to first appeal within the agency, contacting the head of the agency and demanding an explanation of why your request has been denied. If that doesn't work, you may wish to write to your government representatives, asking that they look into the matter. Note that the representative you contact should be from an appropriate level of government - that is, if the non-compliance is by a state or provincial agency, you would contact your state or provincial representatives, not your federal representatives.

If all else fails, you can consider initiating a legal action to compel disclosure. It is generally a good idea to wait until the request is significantly overdue before commencing legal action, and to work with a lawyer in framing your legal petition. If you subustantially prevail in your action, most FOIA laws will permit you to recover attorney fees. Please note that some agencies have been known to abuse this system - they will produce the requested documents on the day of the court hearing, and then inform the court that they are in full compliance with FOIA, arguing that they are no longer subject to penalties even though the person making the FOIA request has incurred expenses associated with the court action.

NOAA FOIA site.

FOIA Exemptions.

(b)(6) EXEMPTION 6 Personal Information Affecting and Individual's Privacy. This exemption permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information " would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This exemption cannot be invoked to withhold from a requester information pertaining to the requester.

(b)(7) EXEMPTION 7 Investigatory Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes. As amended, this exemption protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.

(b) (7) EXEMPTION 7(A) Records or Information that Could Reasonably be Expected to Interfere with Enforcement Proceedings. This exemption authorizes the withholding of "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information ... could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

(b) (7) EXEMPTION 7(B) Disclosure Which Would Deprive a Person of a Fair Trail or an Impartial Adjudication. Records that would prevents prejudicial pretrial publicity that could impair a court proceeding, protects "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [the disclosure of which] would deprive a person of the right to a fair trail or an impartial adjudication."

(b) (7) EXEMPTION 7(C) Personal Information in Law Enforcement Records. This exemption provides protection for personal information in law enforcement records. This exemption is the law enforcement counterpart to Exemption 6, providing protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

(b)(7) EXEMPTION 7 (D) Identity of a Confidential Source. This exemption provides protection for "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [which] could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source --including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis--and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source."

(b) (7) EXEMPTION 7(E) Circumvention of the Law. This exemption affords protection to all law enforcement information which "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."

(d) This section does not authorize the withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as specifically stated in this section. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress.

FURTHER AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AS AMENDED, CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(d) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order.

Sec. 1.8. Classification Challenges. (a) Authorized holders of information who, in good faith, believe that its classification status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of the information in accordance with agency procedures established under paragraph (b) of this section.

b) In accordance with implementing directives issued pursuant to this order, an agency head or senior agency official shall establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures shall ensure that:

(1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions;

(2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and

(3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (Panel) established by section 5.3 of this order.

---

----- Original Message -----
From: Anita Langley
To: bill payne
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: fumble, bumble and inept

Hardy is a familiar name around here, his name is signed onto a few FOIA related cover letters.

Agent's name's are routinely redacted and are covered under FOIA regulations, that's why he's brushing you off. Depending upon the situation in which the agent's name is hidden (ie, if it is on a previously released foia document), it may be possible to appeal due to special circumstances or relevance to your case. When you request a foia release, you cannot request information on a person unless you have written permission from that person or if the person is dead, and that along with the routine redactions for agents makes it very difficult to pin point federal agents.

If the document in question is a previously released foia document, consider filing an appeal on the redaction, at which point you should give your reasons. -

Anita

---

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Fair"
To: "payne payne"
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:50 AM
Subject: visit

Bill: be leaving for Denver early tomorrow and back by 4pm so any time after that. My place: go about three miles north of plaza and look for Atilano Rd on left(just past a mail box cluster) - if you pass the El Prado post office you went too far. Go down Atilano jog slightly right on Atilano Ln (sign on Rumsfeld fence) - that's my drive way - cross 4 cattle guards and a couple 90 degree turns - it's a two story territorial with a red tin roof in a pasture all by itself - a smaller one story guest house will be at the opposite end of the pasture. My phone, when you get lost, is 758 9331 or cell which I never answer is 613 0653. See you tomorrow. Regards,

Photo of Rumsfeld's Taos fence taken Tuesday September 28, 2006

Legendary pilot Fred Fair's Taos neighbor.

We took the high road to Taos from Santa Fe.

We saw lots of houses but very few businesses.

Kathe asked, "What do these people do for a living?"

Fred explained how heroin moves from Culiacán, Mexico to Chimayo, New Mexico.

Culiacán From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chimayo, NM

On a Saturday morning in May 1999, a new date was etched into the spiritual history of Chimayo. The villagers -- despairing that their village had the most drug dealers and users in the county, Río Arriba, with the most drug overdose deaths per capita in the U.S. and increasing numbers of drug-related killings -- came together on an interfaith procession to pray for the end of the violence from drugs and alcohol. Catholic, Tewa, Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Aztec, Pentacostal and Protestant marched along the highway to the Santuario, 450 people with a collective voice that screamed, needing to be heard.

Yet the local, state and federal authorities didn't hear the scream, didn't seem to care and didn't appear to want to do anything about the drug culture in Chimayo -- the drug-related robberies, the deaths, the murders, the fear. Then, out of the wide blue sky beyond the desert -- four months after the procession, on Sept. 29, 1999, an army of 150 officers -- local, state, Drug Enforcement Administration and FBI -- raided the homes of five drug dealers. Some say it changed Chimayo forever. Some say it was a watershed for drug-culture USA