Friday May 9, 2008 13:47

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:31 PM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject:

Bill

...

I don’t know about the 11K. If you think you can go after it yourself – do it. I do know you can spend 200K on an attorney, who will do absolutely nothing.

From my 100 ft view, on the war, not the 11k battle, I do believe there was adverse information which was not shared with you.

Regardless, of what you did, or what you were accused of doing, you had a right to this information and a right to challenge and defend yourself.

When you started your job, you signed a number of documents including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The company you worked for and all federal agencies are responsible for complying with the FCRA and PA. Every time you submitted your identifying

Information for a job opportunity - Name, DOB and SS#, this information was more than likely accessed, and you should have been notified as much.

Under the law they are required to provided you with the adverse data and give you an opportunity to

1) Dispute
2) Correct
3) Amend
4) Appeal
5) Even if all else failed, and everyone disagreed, you are provided the revocable right to Include a formal statement of explanation or dispute.
6) They are required to keep a record of everyone this information was disseminated to, and inform you, on request, the names of everyone this information was disseminated to.
7) They are also required to provide the statement of explanation or dispute to everyone who access the record.

I hope you can track back every job you applied for.

The NSA and resumes of their contractors are also scanned and data mined.

It is also important to note that if the statute of limitations may start anew if a court finds that agencies were deliberately trying to hide their liability.

XXXX

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:59 AM
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Subject:

Bill

I am attaching two FOIA/Privacy Act letters I would like you to consider filing.

If you do it I will even send you a check for the fingerprinting fee. ...

William Harris Payne 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 Federal Bureau of Investigation Privacy Act / FOIA Officer Record Information/Dissemination Section (RIDS) Service Request Unit, Room 6359 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2053 Subject: Privacy Act / FOIA Request May 8, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act I am requesting any and all records that reference myself (William Harris Payne), in any system of record, manual or automated . I am providing the following reference information that would assist in the records search, including; Name - William Harris Payne Social Security Number - Date of Birth Place of Birth - Address 13015 CALLE DE SANDIA Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 I reiterate my request under my rights specifically granted to me under the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act and various other governmental laws, rules and regulations to produce any and all records that pertain to myself, not limited to, but including; "Name, former names, birth date, birth place, Social Security number, home address, phone numbers, employment history, residential history, education and degrees earned, names of associates and references and their contact information, citizenship, names of relatives, birthdates and birth places of relatives, citizenship of relatives, names of relatives who work for the Federal government, criminal history, mental health history, drug use, financial information, fingerprints, summary report of investigation, results of suitability decisions, level of security clearance, date of issuance of security clearance, requests for appeal, witness statements, investigator's notes, tax return information, credit reports, security violations, circumstances of violation, and agency action taken." I am requesting all of my background information, including but not limited to my security file, findings & results etc. This request should also include but not be limited to the detailed contact information for each person to whom my background and/or security information results were disseminated. It should be noted that this request covers any and all data accessed. These records should include the detailed, complete and proper accounting of disclosures of each individual record and related contact information identifying the individuals the information was accessed by and/or disseminated to, are covered under the Privacy Act. I need and request this information. I am requesting a waiver of any fees associated with this request because my privacy rights have been violated. I am including a sworn declaratory statement of my identification. In addition, I am having this letter signed by a notary public 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. Sincerely Notary Information William Harris Payne William Harris Payne 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 Federal Bureau of Investigation CJIS Division - Record Request 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306 Subject: Privacy Act / FOIA Request May 8, 2008 Dear Sir/Madam Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act I am requesting any and all records that reference myself (XXXX XXXX), in any system of record, manual or automated. I am providing the following reference information that would assist in the records search, including; Name - William Harris Payne Social Security Number - Date of Birth Place of Birth - Address 13015 Calle de Sandia Northeast Albuquerque N.M. 87111 I reiterate my request under my constitutional and civil rights and additional rights specifically granted to me under the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act and various other governmental laws, rules and regulations to produce any and all records that pertain to myself, not limited to, but including; "Name, former names, birth date, birth place, Social Security number, home address, phone numbers, employment history, residential history, education and degrees earned, names of associates and references and their contact information, citizenship, names of relatives, birthdates and birth places of relatives, citizenship of relatives, names of relatives who work for the Federal government, criminal history, mental health history, drug use, financial information, fingerprints, summary report of investigation, results of suitability decisions, level of security clearance, date of issuance of security clearance, requests for appeal, witness statements, investigator's notes, tax return information, credit reports, security violations, circumstances of violation, and agency action taken." I am requesting all of my background information, including but not limited to my security file, findings & results etc. This request should also include but not be limited to the detailed contact information for each person to whom my background and/or security information results were disseminated. It should be noted that this request covers any and all data accessed. This also includes systems (manual or automated) external either virtually or physically which your agency accessed, inquired on or obtained a "hit on" or provided extracts to. These records along with the detailed, complete and proper accounting of disclosures of each individual record and related contact information identifying the individuals the information was accessed by and/or disseminated to, are covered under the Privacy Act. I need and request this information. I am requesting a waiver of any additional fees associated with this request, because my privacy rights have been violated. I am including a sworn declaratory statement of my identification and have included a populated "fingerprint" card produced with the assistance of a N.M. State Police technician. In addition, I am having this letter signed by a notary public. I am including a check for XX. Dollars made out to the Treasury of the United States for fingerprint fee as indicated on you web site. I have been a XXXXXXX for more than fifteen years, and am familiar with the reporting capabilities' of many of your systems. I am also familiar with the auditing/reporting requirements & capabilities of your systems. If your have some difficulty, I would be happy to come in and produce the functional and technical reporting specifications to obtain the required data. 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. Sincerely Notary Information William Payne

Tuesday April 15, 2008 06:57

What do you think Ms McLeod meant by

I not that you posted additional information on your internet Web site. However, this Office can accept and adjudicat only those appeals that have been delivered in writing. See Center for Public Integrity v HHS, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2248071 (D.D.C. August 3, 2007).

Hmm. Wrong WL number?

5. Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. HHS, No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2257324 (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2007)

?

Do you think that Ms McLeod realizes that assistant US attorney John W Zavitz is involved in felony New Mexico crimes involving harassment [misdemeanor], attempt to commit at felony, and possible extortion.

As well as docket fraud too, of course.

Pacer garnishment docket as of Friday March 28, 2008 14:19.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit\pacerdocket970266.htm

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/apdstatement/apdstatement.htm#statement2

And that Morales and Payne are going to likely file criminal complaint affidavit statements with APD Tuesday afternoon April 15, 2008?

Janice McLeod message.

Let's continue to try to find out what national security violation charges Sandia lab manager James Gosler sent to the FBI.

We speculate that FBI does not wish to release the documents because it would embarrass the FBI by revealing that the FBI got hoodwinked by a psychotic.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/fbiletter4/letter.htm#denial

Office of Information and Privacy
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mr. William H. Payne               Re: Appeal No. 08-1344 13015
Calle de Sandias, NE                Request No. 1090404
Albuquerque, NM 87111          ADW:RMF

Dear Mr. Payne:

You appealed from the action of the Headquarters Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to your request for access to records pertaining to yourself.

After carefully considering your appeal, I am affirming the FBI's action on your request. The records responsive to your request 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 them.

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; ,:

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; 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.

Please note that we have considered only your written appeal dated March 22, 2008. I note that you posted additional information on your internet Web site. However, this Office can accept and adjudicate only those appeals that have been delivered in writing. See Center for Public Integrity v. HHS. No. 06-1818, 2007 WL 2248071 (D.D.C. August 3, 2007).

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

Janice Galli McLeod
Associate Director

You have the right to appeal any denials in this release. Appeals should be directed in writing to the Director, Office of Information and Privacy, U.S. Department of Justice,1425 New York Ave., NW, Suite 11050, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 within sixty days from the date of this letter. The envelope and the letter should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Appeal" or "Information Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA number assigned to your request so that it may be easily identified.

Date: April 1, 2008
Contact: Dave McCoy, Director,Citizen Action
(505) 262-1862

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Citizen Action, a public interest group, received a victory in a federal lawsuit against the National Nuclear Security Agency/Albuquerque Operations Office (NNSA) for engaging “in a continuing pattern and practice of unlawful delay” in furnishing documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Brack states that “In light of the Kafkaesque review process adopted by Defendant, it is not surprising that the delay in this case stretched many months beyond the statutorily-prescribed time frame.” The decision describes a “labyrinthine process for reviewing FOIA requests” that does not justify the delays even for “situations involving national security, sensational, or complex issues.” The decision orders an agreement to be made between DOE and Citizen Action within 30 days for “responding to pending requests and for processing future requests.”

Citizen Action Attorney Richard Mietz, Santa Fe stated, “This is a complete vindication of my client’s right to receive information under the FOIA in a timely manner.”

This is the second time in a year that Mr. Mietz has successfully persuaded a federal judge that the Albuquerque NNSA office engages in a pattern and practice of unlawful delay when responding to citizen requests for information about the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities.

The documents sought by Citizen Action seek a wide range of information about Sandia National Laboratories. Dating from requests going back to 2004, these include:

Ten-Year Site Plans for future activities at Sandia National Laboratories High level radioactive waste and release of contamination from nuclear weapons production buried in a Cold War waste site known as the Mixed Waste Landfill and many illegal dumpsites referred to as “Yardholes” scattered about Sandia Environmental information about groundwater monitoring, air monitoring, earthquake faulting, radioactive contamination of plants and animals at Sandia

Citizen Action Director, Dave McCoy stated, “This decision should send a strong message to NNSA’s management that NNSA can no longer use delay to create secrecy about Sandia’s dangerous operations. This decision acknowledges that provision of information may be useless if it is not timely. The public needs to obtain information for commenting on Sandia’s current plans. There is a Sandia facility wide permit request pending approval. That would include: open air burning of high explosive wastes; production of neutron generator tubes that leak tritium without air monitoring; leaving radioactive and toxic waste contamination in place without monitoring groundwater over our drinking water, and; Sandia’s plans for future nuclear weapons related production that will generate hundreds of thousands of pounds of hazardous and radioactive waste.”

The decision also builds on and goes beyond an earlier federal FOIA decision in favor of Nuclear Watch in Santa Fe. The Citizen Action decision sets forth a requirement to avoid future violations and to timely furnish the documents from over ten outstanding Citizen Action FOIA requests. Judge Brack cited language from the Nuclear Watch case that “observed this process ‘makes a mockery of the 20-day target set by FOIA and violates congressional intent.’”

Citizen Action continues to also battle with the New Mexico Environment Department lawsuit to obtain a 2006 TechLaw report about contamination at the MWL. The Environment Department is suing Citizen Action in state court to keep the report secret. McCoy said, “One can only question what the Environment Department hopes to achieve by suing a public interest organization instead of the polluter.” The New Mexico Supreme Court recently denied a request for a stay on the release of the TechLaw report to the Attorney General and Citizen Action’s attorney.