U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

First posted
Thursday August 10, 2006 09:34
Updated
Wednesday November 21, 2007 09:44

----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: bill.leonard@nara.gov
Cc: art morales ; gregory.pannoni@nara.gov ; alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov ; The Secretary ; julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov ; foialo, foialo ; isoo@nara.gov
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 6:49 AM
Subject: Response from Mr Leonard requested

Mr Leonard

Please respond with plan to
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm#leonard

Matters are getting more serious

Brzezinski and california trip viz.

I'll be reading email on the road this week.

bill



Thursday October 18, 2007 08:33

Jay


No response to


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm#leonard

What's happening?

bill



We're researching
You cannot request a MDR on the same records that were reviewed under the FOIA for two years from the date of the Director of Policy's letter informing you that these records were exempt from disclosure because, among other things, they were currently and properly classified.

Dubious Secrets

Mandatory Declassification Review Appeals

Friday October 5, 2007 13:54

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm#leonard

J. William Leonard
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
National Archives and Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, DC 20408
Telephone: 202-357-5250
Email: bill.leonard@nara.gov

Dear Mr Leonard:

I have a complaint.

William J Bosanko of your office does not appear to have made any progress in over a year getting well-identified documents to NARA for a mandatory declassificaton review.

NSA lawyer Eric O'Shea writes 13 April 2006 on that the documents either I or Gosler authored are properly classified SECRET or TOP SECRET.
The information remains currently and properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET in accordance with the criteria established in Section 1.2 of EO 12958, as amended. The documents are classified because their exposure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave and serious damage, respectively, to national security. Accordingly, the documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

I disagree with NSA lawyer O'Shea that "The documents are classified because their exposure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave and serious damage, respectively, to national security."

Lawyer O'Shea failed to "to identify or describe the damage" as required in Sec. 1.2(a)(4).
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 1.2. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.5 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories. Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.

To the contrary, I assert that classification of the documents are in in violation of Sec. 1.8(a)(1),(2) and (4)
Sec. 1.8. 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;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.

All of the documents referenced in false and defaming documents released by the Phoenix office EEOC have appeared on Internet.

And my Sandia labs job assignment tutorial on RSA encryption [paper1]was not sent to Japan as claimed Sandia labs.


Here's a copy of the second referenced "sensitive information" paper [paper 2].

And a link to the cover pages of my SAND report which was posted in its entirety at cryptome.org [Tech report].

Those with even a modicum of math skills would realize that neither paper1 or paper2 contains "sensitive information' and certain do not warrant "properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET" classification.

And clearly from the cover my tech report is unclassified. So whatever is SECRET and TOP SECRET appears to be documents the FBI or NSA.

The FBI declassified and released the Wayne R Gilbert letter on December 6, 2006 showing that Sandia labs manager James Gosler turned me into the FBI for some alleged national security violation.

One conclusion is that NSA is abusing classification privledges inviolation of Secs 1.2 and 1.5 of EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958.

NSA lawyer O'Shea writes
You cannot request a MDR on the same records that were reviewed under the FOIA for two years from the date of the Director of Policy's letter informing you that these records were exempt from disclosure because, among other things, they were currently and properly classified.

We cannot find any two year statute.

Director of policy William B Black wrote twice on 14 and 22 March 06
You stated in your appeal letter that you believed the subject documents were improperly classified and requested a classification review. It appears you are blending the FOIA appeal process with the Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) process (EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5). EO 12958, as amended, Section 3.5 is the proper avenue for classification challenges. Agency policy states, if a requestor submits a request under both, the FOIA and the MDR, the Agency shall require the requestor to elect one process or the other. The request shall be treated as a FOIA unless the requested materials are subject to the MDR only. Additional information regarding the MDR process can be found at: http://www.archives.gov/isso/oversightgrouss/iscap/mdr-appeals.html. If you wish to request a classification challenge under the MDR process, please submit a separate request in writing to this Agency. Your MDR request will be processed accordingly.

I responded on Thursday April 6, 2006
I demand a Mandatory Declassification Review.

So it would appear I did make a proper MDR request but have not gotten a response.

O'Shea wrote

If you disagree with the Appeal Authority's decision to deny your appeal, you can seek judicial review as set forth in the Appeal Authority's 14 March 2006 letter.

Black wrote in both his letters

Since your appeal has been denied, you are hereby advised of your right to seek judicial review of my determination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) in the United States District Court in the district which you reside, in which you have your principal place of business, in which the Agency's records are situated (U.S. District Court of Maryland), or in the District of Columbia.

So it appears litigation is a possibility at this point.

These matters have become far more serious because New Mexico judges Armijo and Garcia have recently committed Title 18 felony violations of law which were reported to Kirtland AFB Commander Colonel Terrence Feehan.

It does not appear that we have any safe harbor from the US government.

No safe harbor.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit/nsalawsuit.htm#rule60response

So please let me know what NARA intends to do to get the requested documents with a schedule October 10, 2007.

Sincerely,


William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
bpayne37@comcast.net

Distribution

bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
william.cira@nara.gov
robert.skwirot@nara.gov
patrick.viscuso@nara.gov
john.powers@nara.gov
philip.calabrese@nara.gov
kristofer.johnson@nara.gov
lee.morrison@nara.gov
william.carpenter@nara.gov
dallas.perry@nara.gov
rashad.shakir@nara.gov
joseph.taylor@nara.gov
robert.tringali@nara.gov
patty.frye@nara.gov
janet.brooks@nara.gov
dorothy.cephas@nara.gov
isoo@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
McClenaghan c/o jayala4@leo.gov



----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko"
To: "bill payne"
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: you must lodge proper MDR requests with the specificagencies


Bill,

Neither link appears to deal with MDR.

A MDR is a very specifc type of request that must be lodged with an
agency. You then must lodge appeals within specific timeframes. I
believe that we have previously provided you with extensive background.
Do you have a specific MDR request that youwould like to discuss? Do
you have any specific questions pertaining to MDR that I can perhaps
answer?

If you could provide me with specifics, I can perhaps help.

Jay


Wednesday September 26, 2007 12:51

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm#scheduleplan

william.bosanko@nara.gov

Jay

I respond to your email:
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:02 PM Subject: Re: hits for "mandatory declassification review."

NARA can't conduct a MDR for materials in the legal and physical custody of other agencies, you must lodge proper MDR requests with the specific agencies and in accordance withteh pertinent regulations (paying special attention to timeframes, overlap of FOI and MDR, etc.).

I believe that I have lodged proper MDR requests with both NSA and the FBI. Let's review

the spoken and written facts.

1 DOJ lawyer James Kovakas reveals on November 30, 2005 that the FBI has 60 pages of documents which were responsive to a FOIA/PA request to the FBI but not released.

2 Kovakas office paralegal Jeam Kornblut falsely fingers the FBI for getting me fired from Sandia labs.

3 The FBI retaliates by declassifying and releasing to me the Wayne R Gilbert letter on December 6, 2006 showing that Sandia labs manager James Gosler turned me into the FBI for some alleged national security violation.

4 Gosler gave apparently same or similar documents to New Mexico judge John Conway who then proceeded to seal my ADEA court claim. See docket entry 3.

5 NSA lawyer Eric O'Shea writes 13 April 2006 on that the documents either I or Gosler authored are properly classified SECRET or TOP SECRET.
The information remains currently and properly classified SECRET and TOP SECRET in accordance with the criteria established in Section 1.2 of EO 12958, as amended. The documents are classified because their exposure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave and serious damage, respectively, to national security. Accordingly, the documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1).

BS.

6 The FBI has these documents since Gilbert writes that he sent them to NSA for evaluation. I requested a mandatory declassification review of these documents from the FBI.

7 Is my Wednesday December 20, 2006 13:21 appeal letter to the FBI requesting a mandatory declassification review clear?

8 We do not appreciate the government's intimidation attempts using crooked judges.

9 We want these documents because we feel that release and publication on Internet will help speed settlement of these unfortunate matters caused by James Gosler and perhaps others.


8 So, Jay, I think that I have done everything properly.


Written evidence suggests that you/NARA is not doing its job by trying to throw up nonsense road blocks and stalling.

So let's formulate a plan and schedule to get the documents.

bill

Distribution

bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
william.cira@nara.gov
robert.skwirot@nara.gov
patrick.viscuso@nara.gov
john.powers@nara.gov
philip.calabrese@nara.gov
kristofer.johnson@nara.gov
lee.morrison@nara.gov
william.carpenter@nara.gov
dallas.perry@nara.gov
rashad.shakir@nara.gov
joseph.taylor@nara.gov
robert.tringali@nara.gov
patty.frye@nara.gov
janet.brooks@nara.gov
dorothy.cephas@nara.gov
isoo@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
McClenaghan c/o jayala4@leo.gov


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko"
To: "bill payne"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: hits for "mandatory declassification review."


Bill,

NARA can't conduct a MDR for materials in the legal and physical
custody of other agencies, you must lodge proper MDR requests with the
specific agencies and in accordance withteh pertinent regulations
(paying special attention to timeframes, overlap of FOI and MDR, etc.).

Jay


----- Original Message -----
From: "bill payne"
To: "William Bosanko"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: But I think in the past you have confused MDR with requests you filed under the FOIA


Jay

Our emails crossed.

Your statement " But I think in the past you have confused MDR with requests
you filed
under the FOIA and that we previously determined (within last year or
two) that you needed to start anew with MDR." I believe is incorrect.

I filed specifically with the FBI and NSA for mdr.

But if you think I need to start anew, please send specific instructions.

Thanks in advance.

bill


----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko"
To: "bill payne"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: With respect to MDR - which agency did you lodge a MDRwith,
when,


But I think in the past you have confused MDR with requests you filed
under the FOIA and that we previously determined (within last year or
two) that you needed to start anew with MDR.

Jay





----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: William Bosanko
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: hits for "mandatory declassification review."


Jay

I find LOTS of hits for "mandatory declassification review."

I claim that I have complied but have gotten no response from the government.

bill

Search for "mandatory declassification review the below page: 13 April 2006 letter from O'Shea


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/\nsa\williamblack.htm


Is my certified Huffman letter clear enough?


I demand a Mandatory Declassification Review.

Proper process is to request NARA to do a Mandatory Declassification Review of documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/brandenburg\brandenburg.htm


I request copies of all of these documents. If any are classified, then I ask that you identify these documents so that I can request a mandatory declassification review.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia\fbifoia.htm

I believe these documents are improperly classified. Therefore, I contacted J. William Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight Office National Archives and Records Administration on August 11, 2006 to request a mandatory declassification review.

NARA employee William Bosanko responded to my request for a mandatory declassification review on April 25, 2007.


The FBI declassified a Wayne R Gilbert a letter on December 8, 2006 acknowledging existence on documents containing my name [William H Payne, Payne, Bill Payne, etc] forwarded from your office to the FBI which then forwarded to the National Security Agency [NSA]. And presumably materials were sent back from NSA to the FBI in WDC and back to you office.

I request copies of all of these documents. If any are classified, then I ask that you identify these documents so that I can request a mandatory declassification review.
C:\cw\cw1\fbifoia\fbiletter3\letter.htm

Here are the corrective actions

1 All classified documents possessed by Sandia labs, FBI, DOE, and NSA containing my name related to Wayne R Gilbert's January 28, 1993 letter are subjected to a mandatory declassification review.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal\fbifoia\fbiletter3\letter.htm

Lots of instances of "mandatory declassification review" here too

http://www.prosefights.org\nara\nara.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko"
To: "bill payne"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Let's DO something.


Bill,

I really can't "plan" or "schedule" as these are things that rest with
you and the agencies.

With respect to MDR - which agency did you lodge a MDR with, when,
etc.?

Thanks,

Jay

----- Original Message -----
From: "bill payne" bpayne37@comcast.net
To: "William Bosanko"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Let's DO something.


Jay

Let's make a plan and SCHEDULE.

The plan can include a foia lawsuit in dc federal court for the documents
Gosler gave judge conway
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/docket921452/docket921452.htm#demand
and the fbi
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/fbiletter3/letter.htm#reddot


I thought I filed an MDR.

Nothing apparently has happened on the MDR front since last time this year.

Please advise.

bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko" william.bosanko@nara.gov
To: "bill payne" bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER


Bill.

If they are classified you can file either a FOIA or a MDR. If they
are not classifed then you can file a FOIA. If you need any help with
how to file a MDR, our office can help. We however have little/no
jurisdiction with respect to FOIA.

Jay


William J. Bosanko
Associate Director

Information Security Oversight Office
The National Archives Building
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20408

(202) 357-5205 (office)
(202) 246-4264 (cell)
(202) 357-5907 (fax)

----- Original Message -----
From: "bill payne" bpayne37@comcast.net
To: "William Bosanko"
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Let's DO something.


Jay

Let's make a plan and SCHEDULE.

The plan can include a foia lawsuit in dc federal court for the documents
Gosler gave judge conway
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/docket921452/docket921452.htm#demand
and the fbi
http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/fbifoia/fbiletter3/letter.htm#reddot


I thought I filed an MDR.

Nothing apparently has happened on the MDR front since last time this year.

Please advise.

bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko" william.bosanko@nara.gov
To: "bill payne" bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND ORDER


Bill.

If they are classified you can file either a FOIA or a MDR. If they
are not classifed then you can file a FOIA. If you need any help with
how to file a MDR, our office can help. We however have little/no
jurisdiction with respect to FOIA.

Jay


William J. Bosanko
Associate Director

Information Security Oversight Office
The National Archives Building
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20408

(202) 357-5205 (office)
(202) 246-4264 (cell)
(202) 357-5907 (fax)

----- Original Message -----

From: "William Bosanko" william.bosanko@nara.gov
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Cc: "Kristofer Johnson" kristofer.johnson@nara.gov
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: your help to get the documents


Bill,

As I have indicated to you in the past, our office does not really have
the authority to "get" or to "declassify' the materials you seek.

We can however provide you information on how to file a mandatory
declassification review (MDR) request (which, as I have explained is not
the same as a request under the FOIA). We have already done that,
although we remain willing to provide you with additional explanation,
etc. as to what you can and can't do under the MDR provisions. If you
have any such questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

Jay


Sunday August 26, 2007 20:39

William J. Bosanko Associate Director,
Classification Management Directorate
Telephone: 202-357-5205
Email: william.bosanko@nara.gov

Dear Mr Bosanko:

About this time in 2006 you appeared willing to try to get and declassify the documents documents referred to in my August 22, 2007 appeal letter to Mr Hardy of the FBI to help get these unfortunate matters settled.

You appeared to be sincere. But nothing has happened.

So I ask that you provide a schedule of events that will lead to release of the documents that James Gosler gave the FBI and judge John Conway by September 7, 2007.


Sincerely

William Harris Payne
13015 Calle De Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
bpayne37@comcast.net
505-292-7037

Distribution

bill.leonard@nara.gov
gregory.pannoni@nara.gov
william.cira@nara.gov
robert.skwirot@nara.gov
patrick.viscuso@nara.gov
john.powers@nara.gov
philip.calabrese@nara.gov
kristofer.johnson@nara.gov
lee.morrison@nara.gov
william.carpenter@nara.gov
dallas.perry@nara.gov
rashad.shakir@nara.gov
joseph.taylor@nara.gov
robert.tringali@nara.gov
patty.frye@nara.gov
janet.brooks@nara.gov
dorothy.cephas@nara.gov
isoo@nara.gov
foialo@nsa.gov
julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov
the.secretary@hq.doe.gov
alexander.morris@hq.doe.gov
McClenaghan c/o jayala4@leo.gov


Links to attachments added Monday April 30, 2007 12:00

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bosanko"
To: "bill payne"
Cc: "art morales"
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Mandatory declassification of all document FBI hascontaining my name or id


Dear Mr. Payne,

If you are interested in seeking the review of classified national
security information under the mandatory declassification review (MDR)
provisions of Executive Order 12958, as amended, "Classified National
Security Information," you will need to file your requests directly with
the pertinent agencies. Before you lodge such requests, please be
certain to review the following:

1. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of E.O. 12958, as amended (attached).
2. 32 C.F.R. Pat 2001.33 (attached)
3. Appendix A of 32 C.F.R. Part 2001 (attached)

Additionally, I would also suggest that you review the MDR sections of
the ISOO website. See:
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/oversight-groups/iscap/mdr-appeals.html
and http://www.archives.gov/isoo/contact/mdr-contact.html .

I have also attached some basic stock slides on MDR that might also be
of use as you consider whether or not to pursue the information you seek
via the MDR provisions.

If you have any specific questions concerning the MDR programs, please
let me know.

Thanks,

Jay


----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: William Bosanko
Cc: art morales ; cbecknell@doeal.gov ; Jean.Kornblut@usdoj.gov ; Jim.Kovakas@usdoj.gov ; the.secretary@hq.doe.gov ; tapodaca@doeal.gov ; foiofficer@doeal.gov ; julia.eichhorst@ic.fbi.gov ; iscap@nara.gov ; bill.leonard@nara.gov ; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:31 AM

Subject: Mandatory declassification of all document FBI has containing my name or idWednesday April 25, 2007 09:28


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm#jay

Dear Jay


The recently declassified Gilbert letter reveals the charges were made against me to the FBI.

Yet in FOIA/PA requests made as early as 1993 [See Kovakas fax] existence of the documents were kept secret from me by certainly Sandia labs, certainly the FBI, certainly NSA, maybe DOE and maybe [Kovakas] DOJ.

Thus I was enable to request a mandatory declassification review at that time.

Failure to acknowledge the existence of these documents appears to violate the dictates of the FOIA and PA.

Let's see if we can't get these documents for mandatory declassification review.

I'm curious about what charges were made. I, of course, did nothing wrong.

Perhaps we should get these matters settled before they get far worse?

bill
ps

Morales and I opened DOE Senior FOIA Official William M Schwartz's appeal determination letter on Tuesday April 24, 2007.

At first glance, it appears that DOE is still trying to evade acknowledgment of the documents that Gosler/Sandia sent to New Mexico federal court and the FBI.

The Gilbert letter makes it very clear

1 Gosler accused me of a national security violation with the complaint to the FBI apparently at the Albuquerque FBI office level.

2 Albuquerque FBI sent the complaint to Gilbert the the FBI in WDC.

3 Gilbert sent the complaint to Stewart Baker who was general counsel at NSA.

4 Lawyer Baker probably gave complaint to NSA employees who might be technologically competent to evaluate complaint.

5 NSA technical employees likely reported back to Baker.

6 Baker then likely responded to Gilbert.

7 Gilbert likely responded to the Albuquerque FBI office.

8 The FBI in WDC, being in the middle, is certain to have all of the documents Gosler/Sandia generate containing my name.


I requested these documents under the FOIA/PA but the FBI, Sandia labs, DOE, and NSA but none of these agencies acknowledge their existence, presumably because they were classified. This is a violation of the FOIA/PA rules.

The documents existence should have been acknowledged. These agencies should have declared that they would not release them because they were classified.

If FOIA/PA rules had been followed then I could have demanded a mandatory declassification review about 13 years ago.

I will respond to Schwartz's letter especially the nonsense
A. Adequacy of the Appellant's Description of Documents Requested

and

DOE Regulations require an office assist a requester in restating a request that it does not understand.

especially in view of 1-8 above.

Let's get the mandatory declassification of the documents given to the FBI and generated by the FBI so we can, at last, get these matters settled.

Friday August 11, 2006 09:53

By email


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm

J. William Leonard
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
National Archives and Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, DC 20408
Telephone: 202-357-5250
Email: bill.leonard@nara.gov

Dear Mr Leonard:

Purpose of the email is to make a request for a mandatory declassification review of the 70 pages of documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.


Plus the apparent 60 pages of documents originating at the FBI but held both by DOJ lawyer Kovakas and the FBI.

The FBI has been unresponsive for 10 years to my FOIA request referenced by Kovakas and well has been the NSA.

DOJ employee Pricilla Jones acknowledged February 9, 2006 appeal of Kovakas decision to withhold name of FBI Special Agent.

Ms Jean Kornblut of Kovakas' office informed me on May 23, 2006 that their office wanted me to know that a yet unidentified individual employed as a Special Agent at the FBI was responsible [along with Sandia National Laboratories employees Gosler and Folley] for having me fired and for production subsequent release to EEOC in Phoenix without my written approval of the false and defaming [libelous] documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

The Freedom Of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended in 2002, states
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall-- ...

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

So DOJ non-response paves the way to NARA mandatory declassification review or DC federal court lawsuit.

Ms Kornblut and I discussed what should be done.


Ms Kornblut appeared to agree that NARA should be contacted to get the documents, including the 60 pages from the FBI, to perform a mandatory declassification review.

We had hope to avoid requesting a MDR from NARA by suggesting reasonable settlement of this unfortunate 14 year matter caused by lawyers by suggesting settlement to DOE.

DOE Hearing and Appeals director apparently decided not to respond to our settlement offer.


Please let me know if this email request is sufficient for my request.

hoping it will go away. This in unlikely because of the financial damages cause by the US federal government in this matter.

Please give me a time limit for automatic assumption of denial of my request so that we can take the next legal steps. This matter has gone on far too long.

Sincerely

bill payne
bpayne37@comcast.net


Distribution

Jean.Kornblut@usdoj.gov
george.breznay@hq.doe.gov
Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov


12:40 Friday August 11, 2006




Morales got same below message.

Dr Stuart Guttman emailed.

Kovakas has gone bonkers.

Kovakas and Kornblut did the number on the FBI [fumble, bumble and inept - APD moniker].




----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Constitutional problem: denial of two paid for 12 person trial by jury breech of contract lawsuits guaranteed inviolate

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people.

We've been defrauded out of money with two paid for 12 person jury trial breech of contract lawsuits guaranteed inviolate by both us and new mexico state constitutions.

GAO should investigate these constitutional problems.


Sunday August 27, 2006 14:22

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/bosson/bosson.htm#bosson

richard.bosson@supremecourt.nm.org and certified mail return receipt requested

Richard Bosson
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860

Dear judge Bosson:

William H Payne moves to void judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Kenneth G Brown did not have jurisdiction to dismiss under rule 1-041: Dismissal of actions.

Payne's right to paid for 12 person jury trial right guaranteed inviolate by both US and New Mexico constitutions.

Payne moves to void second judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Kenneth G Brown did not have jurisdiction to take away Payne's right to represent himself pro se.

William H Payne


Date


Arthur R Morales and William H Payne moves to void judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Robert H Scott did not have jurisdiction to dismiss under rule 1-041: Dismissal of actions.

Morales' and Payne's right to paid for 12 person jury trial right guaranteed inviolate by both US and New Mexico constitutions.

Morales and Payne moves to void second judgment dated May 16, 2002 because judge Robert H Scott did not have jurisdiction to take away Morales' right to represent himself pro se.


Arthur R Morales


Date


William H Payne


Date

We ask that you sign both ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, ORDER
OR WRIT OF THIS COURT, forward copies to the clerk of the second judicial district and parties involved by September 15, 2006

Sincerely,

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037

Distribution

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


STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BERNALILLO COUNTY

No. CV 2001 07994

Willam H Payne, Plaintiff

against

W John Brennan, W Daniel Schneider, Defendants

ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, ORDER
OR WRIT OF THIS COURT

A motion having been made to set aside the an order entered in the above styled case on the day of May 16, 2002 and second order dated May 16, 2002 upon the grounds that such orders:

[ ] was entered because of (a) (mistake) (inadvertence) (surprise) (excusable neglect) (fraud).

[X] is void because judge Kenneth G Brown did not have jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is denied right to paid for 12 person jury trial guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Plaintiff has right to represent himself pro se guaranteed by Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which New Mexico Constitution Bill of Rights section 1 honors.

The court having held a hearing finds that the motion was timely filed and there are good grounds to grant the relief requested.

IT IS ORDERED that the above orders be set aside.

It is further ordered that CV 2001 07994 either be immediately settled or sent to trial.

Dated:

__________________ , ________

________________________________________
Richard C Bosson


STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BERNALILLO COUNTY

No. CV 2002 3425

Arthur R Morales and William H Payne, Plaintiffs

against

W John Brennan, Kenneth G Brown, William Haas, Patricio Serna, Walz and Associates, Defendants

ORDER SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT, ORDER
OR WRIT OF THIS COURT

A motion having been made to set aside the an order entered in the above styled case on the day of July 8, 2002 and second order dated July 8, 2002 upon the grounds that such orders:

[ ] was entered because of (a) (mistake) (inadvertence) (surprise) (excusable neglect) (fraud).

[X] is void because judge Robert H Scott did not have jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs is denied right to paid for 12 person jury trial guaranteed inviolate by New Mexico and federal constitutions.

Plaintiff Morales has right to represent himself pro se guaranteed by Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution which New Mexico Constitution Bill of Rights section 1 honors.

The court having held a hearing finds that the motion was timely filed and there are good grounds to grant the relief requested.

IT IS ORDERED that the above orders be set aside.

It is further ordered that CV 2002 3425 either be immediately settled or sent to trial.

Dated:

__________________ , ________

________________________________________
Richard C Bosson



Sunday August 27, 2006 14:42

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/madrid1/madrid.htm#madrid

Certified return receipt mail and email

patricia.madrid@ago.state.nm.us

madrid@madridforcongress.com

Patricia A Madrid
New Mexico Attorney General
P.O. Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508

Dear attorney general Madrid:

Second judicial district attorney Kari Brandenburg was sent both by email and certified mail, return receipt requested several prima facie [all evidence of felony criminal guilt of accused in writing] criminal complaints on Tuesday May 23, 2006.

Return receipt green card shows that Brandenburg's office received complaints on May 24, 2006.

Brandenburg was asked to respond by June 7, 2006.

We received no response from Brandenburg as of Sunday August 27, 2006.

We wrote Metropolitan chief judge Judith Nakamura both by email and certified, return receipt requested, mail concerning failure to process misdemeanor criminal complaints properly on March 24, 2006.

Nakamura's office received our certified letter on March 27, 2006.

We asked for a response from Nakamura by April 7, 2006.

We received no response from Nakamura as of Sunday August 27, 2006.

Neither Nakamura or Brandenburg wrote us to tell us that there was something wrong with our criminal complaints.

Nonresponse appears to be Nakamura's and Brandenburg's way of not doing their jobs and thus apparently ignoring their oath of office.

We ask that you complete the enclose questionnaire by September 15, 2006 so as to not ignore your oath of office.

Questionnaire response is required for the reason that you are a lawyer.

Lawyers, we have found in our 14 year legal project, are notorious in evasion of facts.

Verified responses to TRUE and FALSE questionnaire leaves little room for attempted lawyer evasion.

We ask that you direct second judicial district district attorney Kari Brandenburg to serve the summons directed to the parties identified in our May 23, 2006 letter or tell us why are complaints are invalid.


We ask that you send us a copy of your letter to Brandenburg by September 15, 2005.

We continue to believe that settlement of these unfortunate matters is best and enlist your settlement help.

Sincerely

Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
505-323-7277

William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037

Distribution

Richard Bosson
Chief judge
Supreme Court of New Mexico
PO Box 858
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-4860
richard.bosson@supremecourt.nm.org and certified mail return receipt requested
jnakamura@metrocourt.state.nm.us

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


Verified New Mexico and Federal Constitutional Law and New Mexico Judicial Procedure and Rules Questionnaire and Responses
of
New Mexico attorney general Patricia A Madrid

1 Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution states?
U.S. Constitution: Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

2 New Mexico Constitution ARTICLE II Bill of Rights states?
Section 1. [Supreme law of the land.] The state of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the federal union, and the constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land
Response.

TRUE

FALSE

3 New Mexico Constitution ARTICLE II Bill of Rights states?
Sec. 12. [Trial by jury; less than unanimous verdicts in civil cases.]

The right of trial by jury as it has heretofore existed shall be secured to all and remain inviolate. In all cases triable in courts inferior to the district court the jury may consist of six. The legislature may provide that verdicts in civil cases may be rendered by less than a unanimous vote of the jury.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

4 No. CV 2001 07994 is a paid for 12 person jury trial.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

5 No. CV 2002 3425 is a paid for 12 person jury trial.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

7 Are United States state courts bound by abide by paid for trial by jury guaranteed by new Mexico and US Constitutions?

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

8 A New Mexico state judge cannot dismiss a paid for trial by jury lawsuit guaranteed inviolate by federal and state constitutions?
1-041. Dismissal of actions.

A. Voluntary dismissal; effect thereof.

(1) Subject to the provisions of Paragraph E of Rule 1-023 and of any statute, an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of the court:

(a) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or other responsive pleading; or

(b) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared generally in the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action based on or including the same claim.

(2) Except as provided in Subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, an action shall not be dismissed on motion of the plaintiff except upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. If a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim has been filed by a party prior to the service upon such party of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not be dismissed against the party's objection unless the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim can remain pending for independent adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.

B. Involuntary dismissal; effect thereof. For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the defendant. After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the q facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders judgment on the merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings as provided in Rule 1-052.

Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this paragraph and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 1-019, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.

C. Dismissal of counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. The provisions of this rule apply to the dismissal of any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim. A voluntary dismissal by the claimant alone pursuant to Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph A of this rule shall be made before a responsive pleading is served, or if there is none, before the introduction of evidence at the trial or hearing.

D. Costs of previously dismissed action. If a plaintiff who has once dismissed an action in any court commences an action based upon or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court may make such order for the payment of costs of the action previously dismissed as it may deem proper and may stay the proceedings in the action until the plaintiff has complied with the order.

E. Dismissal of action with and without prejudice.

(1) Any party may move to dismiss the action, or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party claim with prejudice if the party asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action to bring such claim to trial or other final disposition within two (2) years from the filing of such action or claim. An action or claim shall not be dismissed if the party opposing the motion is in compliance with an order entered pursuant to Rule 1-016 or with any written stipulation approved by the court.

(2) Unless a pretrial scheduling order has been entered pursuant to Rule 1-016, the court on its own motion or upon the motion of a party may dismiss without prejudice the action or any counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim if the party filing the action or asserting the claim has failed to take any significant action in connection with the action or claim within the previous one hundred and eighty (180) days. A copy of the order of dismissal shall be forthwith mailed by the court to all parties of record in the case. Within thirty (30) days after service of the order of dismissal, any party may move for reinstatement of the case. Upon good cause shown, q the court shall reinstate the case and shall enter a pretrial scheduling order pursuant to Rule 1- 016. At least twice during each calendar year, the court shall review all actions governed by this paragraph.

(3) The filing of a motion for dismissal pursuant to this rule shall not be taken to be an entry of appearance in said action or proceeding.

F. Applicability. This rule shall apply to all civil cases filed in the district court, including civil cases appealed from the metropolitan or magistrate courts. This rule shall not apply to:

(1) guardianship, receivership, trusteeship or conservatorship cases;
(2) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code;
(3) proceedings commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Probate Code; or
(4) proceedings commenced pursuant to the Children's Code.

[As amended, effective January 1, 1990.]

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

9 The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

10 The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives the constitution right for a citizens to represent themselves pro se in a US court?

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

12 Citizens have a Tenth Amendment constitutional right to represent themselves in a demanded jury trail guaranteed inviolate by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and New Mexico?

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

13 If a judge rules without jurisdiction is the appropriate remedy
A appeal judge's ruling.

B seek writ to void ruling?

Response.

A

B

14 Does New Mexico have a way to void a ruling made without jurisdiction?

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

15 Are New Mexico elected and appointed officials required to sign an Oath of Officer?
Section 1. [Oath of officer.] Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

Response.

TRUE

FALSE

17

Verification

Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that material factual statements set forth in this pleading are true and correct, except as to any matters therein stated to be information and belief of such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that the undersigned verily believes the same to be true.

Notary Public ______________________________________

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ___________.

Patricia A Madrid

_____________________



----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: fraudnet@gao.gov
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: Please help get matters settled

Friday August 11, 2006 09:53

By email


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nara/nara.htm

J. William Leonard
Director
Information Security Oversight Office
National Archives and Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500
Washington, DC 20408
Telephone: 202-357-5250
Email: bill.leonard@nara.gov

Dear Mr Leonard:

Purpose of the email is to make a request for a mandatory declassification review of the 70 pages of documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/deptofjustice/deptofjustice.htm.


Plus the apparent 60 pages of documents originating at the FBI but held both by DOJ lawyer Kovakas and the FBI.

The FBI has been unresponsive for 10 years to my FOIA request referenced by Kovakas and well has been the NSA.

DOJ employee Pricilla Jones acknowledged February 9, 2006 appeal of Kovakas decision to withhold name of FBI Special Agent.

Ms Jean Kornblut of Kovakas' office informed me on May 23, 2006 that their office wanted me to know that a yet unidentified individual employed as a Special Agent at the FBI was responsible [along with Sandia National Laboratories employees Gosler and Folley] for having me fired and for production subsequent release to EEOC in Phoenix without my written approval of the false and defaming [libelous] documents seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/supremecourt/cvpa.htm#gallegos.

The Freedom Of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended in 2002, states
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall-- ...

(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of such appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination under paragraph (4) of this subsection.

So DOJ non-response paves the way to NARA mandatory declassification review or DC federal court lawsuit.

Ms Kornblut and I discussed what should be done.


Ms Kornblut appeared to agree that NARA should be contacted to get the documents, including the 60 pages from the FBI, to perform a mandatory declassification review.

We had hope to avoid requesting a MDR from NARA by suggesting reasonable settlement of this unfortunate 14 year matter caused by lawyers by suggesting settlement to DOE.

DOE Hearing and Appeals director apparently decided not to respond to our settlement offer.


Please let me know if this email request is sufficient for my request.

The government and courts have gone into a non-response mode in this matter apparently hoping it will go away. This in unlikely because of the financial damages cause by the US federal government in this matter.

Please give me a time limit for automatic assumption of denial of my request so that we can take the next legal steps. This matter has gone on far too long.

Sincerely

bill payne
bpayne37@comcast.net


Distribution

Jean.Kornblut@usdoj.gov
george.breznay@hq.doe.gov
Sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov