Friday 5/15/98 2:55 PM E-mail Federico.F.Pena@hq.doe.gov and mail Federico F. Pena The Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Secretary Pena: Purposes of this letter are to 1 protest an improper Freedom of Information Act dismissal by Thomas O. Mann , Deputy Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals Thomas.Mann@hq.doe.gov 2 appeal a denial of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request. I attach a copy of my 3/10/98 appeal letter to you. DOE/ALOO failed to respond with time allotted by law to my FOIA request, as you can read in my appeal letter. On March 30, 1998 Barfield finally did respond. But late. APR 28 Mann writes me, We learned that AOO issued a determination concerning your request on March 30, 1998. Because your appeal was based on the Department’s failure to respond, and because the Department has responded you appeal is now moot. I follow the law. If Mann feels that there is law or federal regulation to support is claim that the time-out clause in the FOIA no longer applies because of a late agency response, then he should report this to you. Mann adds in the final paragraph of his APR 28 letter Accordingly, the appeal dated march 10, 1998, that you filed under the Freedom of Information Act, is hereby dismissed. My appeal is not, as Mann concluded, moot. My appeal is active. Mann, however, writes You may, however, file an appeal with the Office based on the March 30 determination. Man also writes Please note that, as stated in the determination letter, appeals under the Freedom of Information Act should be addressed to the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals. And Barfield writes Such an appeal must be made in writing within 30 calendar days after receipt of this letter, addressed to the Director, Office of Hearing and Appeals, ... Secretary Pena, your employees are apparently trying to invent their own FOIA rules instead of complying with federal law. Whenever a FOIA request is denied, the agency must inform the requester of the reasons for the denial and the requester's right to appeal the denial to the head of the agency. I am appealing to you, not http://www.hr.doe.gov/htbin/callup?name=breznay&SYNONYM=YES, George.Breznay@hq.doe.gov I ask that your office takes WRITTEN corrective action to educate or perhaps reprimand both Mann and Barfield for not following the law. Barfield writes in her Mar 30 letter The Kirtland Area Office (KAO), oversight for the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), conducted a search but could not locate any responsive documents. The KAO also made the determination that the documents you are seeking are contained in procurement files in possession and control of SNL and are, therefore, not “agency records” subject to provision of the FOIA. Secretary Pena, Barfield’s statement appears to be an attempt for bureaucrats to hide, perhaps in the case of RSA and VP Al Gore, possibly incriminating records from the public. Therefore, I assert that the requested documents are or should be part of DOE agency documents, if DOE is doing a proper job of managing its contractors. Therefore, I add this clause to my previous appeal. And ask that your respond within the time limit allowed you by law. Of course, I continue to feel that we should settle this unfortunate matter seen on Internet at http://www.jya.com/whp050898.htm http://www.jya.com/whp-10usca.htm http://www.jya.com/whp043098.htm http://www.jya.com/mf050998.htm http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.jya.com/crack-a5.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm before it gets even more serious and eventually costly to the taxpayer. Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias Albuquerque, NM 87111 Tuesesday 3/10/98 8:10 PM E-mail Federico.F.Pena@hq.doe.gov and mail Federico F. Pena The Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Secretary Pena: Purpose of this letter is to appeal a denial of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request. I wrote on Tuesday February 17, 1999 15:11 e-mail and mail Ms. Elva Barfield Freedom of Information Office U. S. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Office/OIEA POB 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 EBARFIELD@DOEAL.GOV Dear Ms. Barfield: VP Al Gore is in the crypto business. Information SuperSpyWay Al Gore Approved Encryption for China in Return for Campaign Donations by Charles R. Smith Portions of the above document posted on Internet at http://www.us.net/softwar/ and http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ states 1. Gore charged with encryption policy according to PDD-5 and PRD-27 on April 16, 1993. 2. Government officials represent themselves on Al Gore's behalf for RSA patent purchase negotiations in Feb. 1994. 3. RSA chairman Bidzos meets with Chinese officials at the same time as Ron Brown in Oct. 1995. 4. RSA Chairman Bidzos enters into merger negotiations with Security Dynamics, a company backed by Sanford Robertson, in Nov. 1995. 5. VP Gore calls Sanford Robertson from the White House for a donation in Nov. 1995. 6. Robertson delivers $100,000 donation ($80,000 soft - $20,000 directly into the Clinton/Gore campaign) in Jan. 1996. 7. RSA signs deal with China in Feb. 1996. The administration previously prosecuted similar deals but this time does nothing. 8. Justice Dept. approves RSA merger with Security Dynamics in April 1996 for $280 million dollars, netting Sanford Robertson's company a cool $2 million just to write the deal. In 1991 I was in involved with Sandia National Laboratories Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty seismic data authenticator. At that time Sandia director Tommy A Sellers had assumed responsibility for directorship from Robert Clem. Sandia supervisor Tom Wright replaced my supervisor, John Holovka, who was the supervisor for the CTBT seismic data authenticator. Wright brought in Ph.D. Steven Goldsmith to supervise me. Sellars, Wright, and Goldsmith were new to crypto-type projects. Much of this is documented at http://www.jya.com/whp021598.htm. This is evidenced by Sellar's attached SEP 24 1991 memorandum, which Goldsmith help author, addressed to Dr James J Hearn at the National Security Agency. The SEP 24 memorandum contained a number of technical errors. I corrected these errors in my attached December 20, 1991 memorandum. Department of Energy and it predecessors have a well-documented history of not requiring technical expertise for pursuit of interests. Stewart Udall, The Myths of August, writes, Any cover-up must be implemented and enforced by designated agents, and one man emerged in 1953 as the quarterback of the AEC's damage-control effort. His name was Gordon Dunning. Although the personnel charts of the 1950s list him as a low-level "rad-safe" official in the Division of Biology and Medicine, documents demonstrate that he was clothed with authority to manage and suppress information about the radiation released by the testing of nuclear weapons. ... About the time Sellers and Sandia Ombudsman gave me a directed transfer to break electronic locks for the FBI/ERF [engineering research facility], Goldsmith and Wright, certainly with the approval of Sellers, placed a contract with RSA Inc [http://www.rsa.com/], I was told. Ms Barfield, we think the American public needs to know more about RSA's work with Sandia National Laboratories. Therefore, Under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, I am requesting access to: 1 ALL purchase requisitions, including any attached statement of work, issued by Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratories, or DOE/ALOO between January 1, 1991 and February 17, 1998 to RSA Inc. 2 Copies of all invoices from RSA Inc received by Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratories, or DOE/ALOO between January 1, 1991 and February 17, 1998 If there are any fees for searching for, or copying, the records I have requested, please inform me before you fill the request. As you know, the Act permits you to reduce or waive the fees when the release of the information is considered as "primarily benefiting the public." I believe that this requests fits that category and I therefore ask that you waive any fees. Your office agreed to waive fees before. This request is surely of "public interest." December 13, 1994 DOE/AL FOIA officer Gwen Schreiner waived fees for the reason, "We have considered your request and have determined that release of the requested records is in the public interest, that disclosure of this information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government, that you or the organization you represent have little or no commercial interest in the material contained in the records, that you or the organization you represent have the qualifications and ability to use and disseminate the information, and that the records are not currently in the public domain. A waiver of fees is therefore granted." This waiver of fees was, undoubtedly, issued as a result of former Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's Openness initiative. Heart of America paid my way to hear Secretary O'Leary's celebrated whistleblower speech. If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption(s) which you think justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law. I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible, and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates. I received no response to the above FOIA. Therefore I appeal as a result of non-response. As you may be aware (6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall-- (i) determine within ten days \1\ (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and And you may also be aware ------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Under section 12(b) of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-231; 110 Stat. 3054), the amendment made by section 8(b) of such Act striking ``ten days'' and inserting ``20 days'' shall take effect on October 3, 1997. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 I expect a response to this appeal within the time allotted to you by law. Much of this unfortunate matter is appearing on Internet. http://www.jya.com/whp021598.htm http://www.jya.com/cylinked.htm Letter from Bill Payne Regarding Cryptography at Sandia http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Crypto AG: The NSA's Trojan Whore? http://caq.com/CAQ/caq63/caq63madsen.html NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran War http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm How Secure is America's Nuclear Arsenal? http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm And, of course, we continue to seek settlement. Sincerely, William H. Payne 13015 Calle de Sandias Albuquerque, NM 87111