Friday 8/14/98 11:21 AM J Orlin Grabbe http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ The ABQ JOURNAL f 8/14,1998 front page article Sandia Scraps Guided Nuclear Bomb Project Lab Says Design Work Was Just an Exercise By John Fleck Journal Staff Writer Sandia National Laboratories has shut down an effort to design a guided nuclear bomb that critics say was aimed at Third World targets. Sandia pulled the plug because of controversy over the fact that the lab never received permission for the project from senior levels of the Clinton administration, said Sandia vice president Roger Hagengruber. ... is interesting from another standpoint. Article ends with "We have no plans to resurrect the program in fiscal year '99 or any year beyond that," said Sandia spokesman Larry Perrine. Perrine is now married to Renea Dietz of the former Sandia President Al Narth and then Lockheed Martin VP notoriety. I attach Friday November 15, 1996 14:01 Ms. GayLa D. Sessoms, Director FOAI/Privacy Act Division Office of the Executive Secretariat The Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Here they are PERRINE,LARRY G. (505)845-8511 LGPERRI (505)844-1392 0167 PERRINE,RENAE J. (505)284-2824 RJPERRI (505)844-6953 0724 http://www.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/emplloc?ename=perrine I received a profane phone call from Larry and Renea Perrine after our letter to Sessoms hit the Infobhan. I recorded it, of course. Narath's third wife is still on the Sandia payroll NARATH,SHANNA S. (505)284-2198 SSNARAT (505)844-6501 0168 http://www.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/emplloc?ename=narath Morales knows Perrine fairly well. Morales told me he had Perrine USED TO have lunch together. Orlin, it appears you have correctly measured the capabilities of SOME OF those running this county. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/apocalyp.htm Perhaps it is time to GET RID OF THEM and settle this UNFORTUNATE MATTER, of course. Later bill For all of our recollection Friday 8/14/98 9:06 AM John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm J Orlin Grabbe http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Roger Hagengruber is making news http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci8-14.htm Hagengruber 1 was Jim Durham's office mate when Hagengruber was new at Sandia. H. B. Durham who served as project leader http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm 2 was C William Childers' boss 3 was James Gosler's boSs 4 was Paul Stokes' boss Originator: Paul A. Stokes Date: 4/28/92 http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm 5 encouraged Sandia to do more 'work for others' projects like for the FBI and NSA. This includes the 'spiking work' for NSA. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ricono.htm http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate 6 told employees that Hagengruber favored shifting Sandia labs from DOE control to DOD control. 7 was one of the main people involved in getting me fired and CAUSING THIS MESS. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/sandcryp.htm http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm 8 Hagengruber looks like he may have relative working at Sandia HAGENGRUBER,MICHAEL L. (505)844-0628 MLHAGEN (505)844-7284 0121 HAGENGRUBER,ROGER L. (505)844-7310 RLHAGEN (505)844-1424 1231 http://www.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/emplloc?ename=hagengruber This matter CLEARLY should be settled before it GETS WORSE! Later bill For all of our recollection Friday 8/14/98 9:06 AM John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm J Orlin Grabbe http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ Roger Hagengruber is making news http://www.abqjournal.com/scitech/1sci8-14.htm Hagengruber 1 was Jim Durham's office mate when Hagengruber was new at Sandia. H. B. Durham who served as project leader http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm 2 was C William Childers' boss 3 was James Gosler's boSs 4 was Paul Stokes' boss Originator: Paul A. Stokes Date: 4/28/92 http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm 5 encouraged Sandia to do more 'work for others' projects like for the FBI and NSA. This includes the 'spiking work' for NSA. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/ricono.htm http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm http://caq.com/cryptogate 6 told employees that Hagengruber favored shifting Sandia labs from DOE control to DOD control. 7 was one of the main people involved in getting me fired and CAUSING THIS MESS. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/nukearse.htm http://www.aci.net/kalliste/sandcryp.htm http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm 8 Hagengruber looks like he may have relative working at Sandia HAGENGRUBER,MICHAEL L. (505)844-0628 MLHAGEN (505)844-7284 0121 HAGENGRUBER,ROGER L. (505)844-7310 RLHAGEN (505)844-1424 1231 http://www.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/emplloc?ename=hagengruber This matter CLEARLY should be settled before it GETS WORSE! Later bill Friday November 15, 1996 14:01 Ms. GayLa D. Sessoms, Director FOAI/Privacy Act Division Office of the Executive Secretariat The Secretary of Energy United States Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585 Dear Ms Sessoms: Purposes of this letter are; 1 a have the Department of Energy deliver lawfully requested information due us under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) o legal bills o military double-dipper employees o husband/wife employees o Sandia president Al Narath's use of taxpayer money to fund Narath's sex life at Sandia Labs. b show that we have exhausted all administrative remedies in our attempt to obtain this information, 2 reason with you as to the futility of DOE's attempt to resist our lawful inquiries, 3 and set a time for our filing our lawful, disruptive, expensive, damaging FOIA lawsuit if, of course, DOE is un-swayed by logic. October 25 you wrote, Thank you for your October 2, 1996, correspondence addressed to Secretary O'Leary. In you letter you requested the following information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act: 1. Names, dates of employment, current salaries of all husband/wife combinations who work at Sandia Laboratories as of December 5, 1995; and 2. Names, dates of employment, current salaries of all husband/wife combinations who work at DOE/ALOO Laboratories as of December 5, 1995. You go on to state, Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.8, the adequacy of this search for responsive documents may be appealed to the Director of Hearings and Appeals, HG-1, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0107. Please include a concise statement of the grounds for the appeal, a description of the relief sought, and attach a copy of this correspondence. The appeal to the Director must be made within 30 calendar days after your receipt of this letter. ... Our October 2 letter stated, to appeal a denial of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request; Ms Sessoms, our October 2 letter was an APPEAL directed to Energy Secretary. NOT a FOIA. And, we can appeal to the Secretary of Energy, not the Director of Hearings and Appeals, as you direct. 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. [FOIA GUIDE Congressional and Administrative News, September 1989] Ms Sessoms, you appear to want us to appeal an APPEAL. The above arguments we believe satisfies purpose 1b. We have exhausted all administrative remedies. You attempt to justify not giving us documents DOE apparently has in its possession regarding husband/wife employees with the argument, The Department of Energy (DOE) maintains the Pay/Pers Payroll System which contains employment related data for all DOE employees. However, the system does not cross reference or otherwise identify employees married to one another. Therefore, we are unable to provide the information responsible to your request. But there are OTHER documents which apparently DO contain reference to employees married to one another, we are told. But this leads to purpose 2: husband/wife employees. Let's look at reason we are requesting these documents, On Tuesday December 12, 1995 09:44 Payne wrote, During this time of corporate down-sizing many Americans are losing their jobs, perhaps even their homes as a result. Americans are sensitive, especially in these times, to those abuse the government system for personal financial profit. DOE has refused to release the number and names of retired military double-dippers who work at Sandia and Los Alamos. Like Sandia ethics director and retired general Jack Dickey. Equally offensive to military double-dippers in time of shrinking employment are husband/wife combinations both employed by DOE, Sandia, and Los Alamos. This is especially true if there are some improprieties involved in employment and promotions. And our October 2, 1996 contains the information, Wednesday September 28 Payne received a letter containing more information about husband/wife. In summary, 1 Harry and Delores Season Harry was a high-level ALOO employee (assistant manager?) Delores is a GS-14. Harry recently retired and went to work for Sandia National Laboratories! 2 Tim and Brenda Harmeson Brenda is Acting Manager, KAO (Gm-15). Tim is a staff person at ALOO, likely a GS-13. 3 Mike Zamorski and Phyllis Romero Mike is Acting Deputy Manager, KAO. Phyllis recently left DOE employment. 4 Ron and Gloria O'Dowd Ron is a GM-15 supervisory attorney at ALOO. O'Dowd reports to DOE/ALOO chief counsel Tyler Przybylek. O'Dowd processes FOIA requests. Like the one Payne is appealing in this letter. Gloria also works at DOE/ALOO. 5 Rush and Gloria Inlow DOE AL News, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ALBUQUERQUE OPERATIONS OFFICE, Aug 23, 1996 reports, Rush Inlow will serve as AL's Deputy Manager Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary has announced that Rush Inlow will become Deputy Manager of the Albuquerque Operations Office on Aug. 25. Inlow replaced James W. Culpepper, who retired May 1, 1996 and Tyler Przybylek, who has served as acting Deputy Manager in the interim. Letter Payne received on September 28 said that Gloria inlow is retiring September 30, 1996. Gloria Inlow apparently expressed resentment that she was MADE to retire because it was a conflict of interest for her to work for her husband, Rush Inlow. Inlows' estimated yearly income is in excess of $200,000. Gloria inlow is apparently going to come back to work a KAO as a contractor employee! Secretary O'Leary, it sounds as if your newly appointed Deputy Manager, Rush Inlow, is attempting to subvert nepotism rules. Purpose 2: military double-dippers. Payne wrote, Retired military personnel are going to work for Sandia National Laboratories. Not only do these individuals draw generous military retirement pay but they have a large income from Sandia. They are government "double dippers." Retired military who do not work for Sandia observe that almost all those retired military hired by Sandia were administrators in the military. Not technical military workers. Code of Ethics & Standards of Conduct of Sandia National Laboratories, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation states, "The perception of impropriety by Sandians can be as damaging to Sandia as would be the commission of the perceived offense." "Refrain from offering or providing Government personnel with improper gratuities, ...", "Carefully avoid any situation which will compromise Sandia's competitive position or result in a potential conflict of interest." page 5. Perhaps giving retired military high-paying jobs while double dipping from the government might be considered an improper gratuity? And influence-buying with the military might be considered a conflict of interest? If it were the case that Sandia was influence-buying with the military instead of hiring the most capable individuals, then this would be a matter of national security concern. Los Alamos National Laboratories rejection letter is dated SEP 29 1995. It reads, This letter is the final response to your September 12, 1995, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the following information: "Names and date of employment of all retired military personnel who were hired by Los Alamos National Laboratory between the dated of October 1, 1979, and September 12, 1995." The Office of Public Affairs, Albuquerque Operations Office, contacted the Los Alamos Area Office (LAAO) about your request. The LLAO states that the records you are seeking are contained in personnel files in the possession and control of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and are therefore, not 'agency records' subject to provision of the FOIA. 'Agency records' are defined as records in federal agencies' possession and control at the time of the FOIA request. However, pursuant to U.S. Department of Energy policy, records in the possession such as LANL, will be made available by DOE when the contract specifically provides that such records are the property of the Government. The contract between the DOE and LANL, managed by the University of California, clearly defines personnel files such as requested by you as being the property of the contractor. Accordingly, these records are not subject to release under DOE policy as well. DOE rejection letter dated August 21 by David L. Geary, signing for Elva Barfield, states, The SNL, through the Kirtland Area Office, has advised they don't have any existing records that identify retired military personnel. Therefore, there are no responsive records to your request." Not only this this statement false, it smacks of a cover-up of misconduct. Records in Sandia's personnel office list previous employment. On Wednesday August 23, 1995 06:29 I faxed Tom Carpenter of the Government Accountability Project, Sandia Lab News, August 18, 1995, page 8 reported with a picture of Dickey, "(Sandia's ethics director [Jack Dickey] and retired air force brigadier general, ..." Ethics director Dickey is identified by the Lab News as a double-dipper. Perhaps the Lab News is trying to blow the whistle again? My FOIA denial appears to be a MAJOR COVER UP of impropriety at Sandia. I will appeal, of course. Not only is Sandia's hiring retired military personnel probably improper but may be an attempt to undermine the Department of Energy's control of the National Laboratories through "Work for Others" programs. August 28, 1995 Payne appeals the above FOIA rejections to Hazel R. O'Leary. The military double-dipper information is withheld despite O'Leary's statement, Secretary O'Leary acknowledged that a DOE refusal to provide documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that is clearly within the law was "INEXCUSABLE. [DOE review, Vol 1.1, March '94] Ms Sessoms, we believe that DOE, Sandia, and Los Alamos HAVE RECORDS of military double-dipper. We HAVE a document published by Lockheed Martin showing that the Department of Defense (DOD) REQUIRES reporting military double-dippers to DOD! And we will present this document and other to the court showings that DOE, Sandia, and Los Alamos statements about NOT POSSESSING military double-dipper records IS A LIE. If necessary, of course. Purpose 2: legal bills. February 1, 1996 Payne writes Charles Przybylek, Chief Counsel, U. S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office (ALOO), A Freedom of Information Act rejection letter dated January 24, 1996 for, All invoices submitted to Sandia National Laboratories defending against Morales' lawsuit between May 1, 1991 and August 1, 1995. and invoices submitted to Sandia National Laboratories by the law firm of Simons, Cuddy and Friedman between March 1, 1994 and June 1, 1995. appears to be written by a lawyer. But the letter was signed by Freedom of Information Officer, Elva Ann Barfield. The reason Barfield appears not to have written this letter is that DOE employees Elva Barfield and Gwen Schreiner of the Albuquerque Operations office and senior attorney Ann Augustyn of DOE Hearing and appeals forced Sandia to reveal that Friedman collected over $120,000 from about January 1, 1993 until March 1, 1994 defending against my lawsuit. And I are currently attempting to obtain the remainder of Friedman's bills. The total paid to Friedman to defend against my lawsuit is estimated to be $250,000 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. Morales lawsuits cost Sandia/DOE far more than mine. Morales has been in a court trial at least once. I have never been to court, even for your spending about $250,000! ... Gar Alperowitz in, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the architecture of an American myth, Alfred Knopf, 1995 writes, As modern disclosures ordered by Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary concerning human radiation experiments suggest such classification provision helped foster a climate in which government officials were virtually exempt from public accountability", page 614. Now it appears that DOE\ALOO and Sandia Labs attempts to conceal the amount of money both spent on lawyers. ... But now in the rejection of the request for the remainder of the legal bills dated January 24, DOE has changed its mind about further release of legal bill information. Although you intended use of the records in more consistent with a determination that you are a "commercial use" requester, we have decided to process your request as an "all other requester" (please refer to my letter to you dated August 1, 1995) which entitles you to two hours of search time and the first one hundred page of reproduction free of charge per request. In your request you ask you be contacted before processing your requests if there would be any fees for searching for or copying the requested records. This office has been advised by the Kirtland Area Office and the Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico of the estimated charges for the processing of your requests. The total estimated charges for both requests (95-139-B and 95-175-C) are between $100 and $500. Before we can continue to process your request, we must have your agreement to pay the fees associated with the search and production of the documents. If you wish to modify your requests to reduce the amount of anticipated fees, please advise the office in writing by February 7, 1996. If you do not hear from you by February 7, 1996, we will consider your request withdrawn and will close the files. Wednesday February 28, 1996 we warn Przybylek of an impending lawsuit if the legal bill documents are not forthcoming. Dear lawyer Przybylek: You wrote me on FEB 21. Most of the contents of your letter were false, ambiguous, or misrepresented the facts. Purpose of this letter is to correct your letter, clarify ambiguities and misrepresentations, and convince you and others that we WILL sue ... You wrote, Reference is made to your February 1, 1996 letter to me concerning your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking law firm invoice submitted to Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia National Laboratories is managed and operated for the Department of Energy by Lockheed/Martin, so I assume that you are seeking invoices submitted to that organization. Specifically, you stated that you are seeking invoices submitted to Lockheed/Martin in defense of the Morales lawsuit (Garcia/Morales) and all invoices submitted to Lockheed/Martin by the law firm of Simons, Cuddy and Friedman between March 12, 1994 and June 1, 1995. Contents of these two paragraphs are FALSE. I wrote Elva Barfield on Friday July 28, 1995, 1 All invoices submitted to Sandia National Laboratories by all law firms defending Sandia against Morales' lawsuit between May 1, 1991 and August 1, 1995. Your FALSIFICATIONS include: 1 The starting date IS May 1, 1991, NOT March 12, 1994. 2 I specified "all law firms" NOT JUST Simons, Cuddy and Friedman. 3 I DID NOT specify just Lockheed/Martin. You wrote next, Although such invoiced have been held to be exempt from public release under the provisions of the FOIA because they constitute attorney work-product under exemption 5, (The Rio Grande Sun, Case KFA-0090), the name of the law firm submitting such invoice and the total amount of the invoice has been released as a matter of policy of the DOE General Counsel. Therefore, I am treating your letter to me as a request for this information under that policy. Your above paragraph is nonsense. Exemption 5 - Internal Government Communications The FOIA's fifth exemption applies to internal government documents. An example is a letter from one government department to another about a joint decision that has not yet been made. Another example is a memorandum from an agency employee to his supervisor describing options for conducting the agency's business. The purpose of the fifth exemption is to safeguard the deliberative policy making process of government. The exemption encourages frank discussion of policy matter between agency officials by allowing supporting documents to be withheld from public disclosure. The exemption also protects against premature disclosure of policies before final adoption. [FIRST REPORT By The COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, 1993] So, lawyer Przybylek, your conclusion about exempting legal bills from the FOIA using exemption 5 is incorrect. You cannot use exemption 5 to attempt to cover up taxpayer money misspent on legal bills. ... You wrote, Although our figures are not broken down by the dates you have referenced, I am providing the following information. The total amount of invoices submitted in the Garcia/Morales litigation as of December 31, 1995, was $567,137.00. Morales feels that this amount is too low. Morales points out that you did not include bills from the law firm of, 1 Rodey, Richardson, Sloan, Akin, and Robb between the dates of January 1, 1991 and January 29, 1993. Nor did you include bills from the law firm of, 2 Butt, Thornton, Baehr, and the law firm of, 3 Fenwick and West in California, so we guess that the amount is near DOUBLE the approximate $570,000 you write. More than $1,000,00! These records are obtained from the docket sheet. You wrote, The total amount of invoices submitted by the Simons, Cuddy, and Friedman law firm in the case of Payne v. Sandia Corp., et al was $108,341.00 as of December 31, 1995. ... So the total is more than $228,000! Legal bills sum of $228,000, of course, is absurd considering we have NEVER been to trial! ... Morales and I have cost DOE more than $1,000,000 in legal bills. Perhaps double this number! Ms Sessoms, we FOIAed Przybylek again for legal bill information. We did not receive any response to our FOIA. Ms. Sessoms, we feel that we have exhausted all of the administrative remedies available to us to obtain legal bill information. Purpose 2: Sandia president Al Narath's use of taxpayer money to fund Narath's sex life at Sandia Labs. October 30, 1996 I appealed to Hazel R. O'Leary, Dear Secretary O'Leary: Purposes of this letter is to appeal a denial of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. DOE FOIA request denial appeals, according to law, can be made to you. October 10, 1996 Michael Conley wrote, Dear Dr. Payne: This is in response to the above-referenced requests in which you sought (1) " Copies of reports of misconduct by Al Narath made by DOE's IG or other office between January 11, 1993 and November 27, 1995" and (2)"Any reports containing the name of William Payne, Bill Payne, etc. between January 11, 1993 and November November 27, 1995." With respect to you request (1) cited above, the Office of Inspector General neither confirms nor denies the existence of records responsive to you request. Lack an individual's consent, and official acknowledgment of an investigation, or an overriding public interest, even to acknowledge the existence of such pertaining to an individual could be reasonably be expected to constitute and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Refer to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C). With respect to you request (2) cited above, we would note that our records do contain responses by the Office of Inspector General to you regarding your previous Freedom of Information Act requests, numbers 93120302 and 951221001. In addition, the Office of Investigations, Office of Inspector General, will be responding to your request (2) as part of its response to your FOIA request number 95112002. This decision may be appealed with 30 calendar days of your receipt of this determination pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 1004.8. Appeals should be addressed to the: Director Office of Hearing and Appeals Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave, SW Washington, D.C. 20595 Thereafter, judicial review will be available to you in the federal district court either (1) in the district where you reside, (2) where you have your principal place of business, (3) where the Department's records are situated or (4) in the District of Columbia. Sincerely, Michael W. Conley Deputy Inspector General for Inspections Office of Inspector General. I appeal this denial. Sandia president Al Narath was apprehended in an act of sexual penetration with his administrative assistant, Renea Dietz in about 1992. Narath lost his security clearances, briefly, over this incident. Narath's second wife, Barbara, also divorced Narath, in part, over this incident. Dietz was promoted to an administrative position at Sandia. Shanna Lindeman divorced her husband. Lindeman was appointed to a division supervisor position at Sandia. Lindeman was the only employee in her division. Narath and Lindeman later married in Carmel, California. Lindeman has apparently not completed college but is reported to make about $120,000 per year at Sandia. Narath was reported changing the locks on his Sandia office. But this did not prevent Sandia security from apparently apprehending Narath with five nude women in his office. Mr. Ray Armenta, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission employee, confirmed this above incident. Apparently Narath was apprehended on the final weekend of his employment at Sandia in an act of sexual penetration with another employee in his Sandia office. Narath moved on to his new job as a Vice President of Lockheed Martin in charge of DOE Energy and Environment projects, Lockheed Martin, TODAY, August 1996 reports. Conley's statement, "even to acknowledge the existence of such pertaining to an individual could be reasonably be expected to constitute and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" is clearly in error. Narath's sex life at Sandia not only public but financed by taxpayer money. ... Ms Sessoms, IG official Conley is apparently unaware of the Vaughn Index or is attempting to deceive us. DOE MUST acknowledge existence of documents even if it wishes to withhold those documents for reason of FOIA exemption. Vaughn Index A distinguishing feature of FOIA litigation is that the defendant agency bears the burden of sustaining its action of withholding records. So, Ms. Sessoms, Conley is disobeying the law by failure to acknowledge existence of investigations reports of Narath. Purpose 4: Time limits for lawsuit. Ms Sessoms, O'Leary STATED in her celebrated whistleblower speech, I commit to promoting openness and I think one way I do this is being open myself. ... There is one final piece, ... measure results. Don't ever measure what anybody says, measure what is done ... And when we haven't done it well or completely or correctly we can come back and adjust, I expect you be to on me. We are. Morales and Payne have always felt the settlement of disputes is preferable to litigation. It's impossible to know how much the DOE spends combating whistleblowers at its 15 weapons plants across the country, but it's safe to say that Hanford's tab alone is upwards of several million dollars annually. One significant drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook is the DOE's practice of paying 100 percent of the legal expenses its contractors incur in fighting whistleblower lawsuits, regardless of the merits of the case. This encourages contractors to hire the most expensive lawyers and to continue litigation even when settlement would be cheaper." Michael O'Rourke, Cascadia Times, July 1995, page 10. We do not wish for DOE to further waste the taxpayers money. BUT if we do not have settlement or the lawfully requested documents, THEN we will file our expensive, disruptive, public, damaging lawsuit on December 20. If you have evidence that we have NOT exhausted all administrative remedies within the DOE, then we ask you to submit this to us by Friday December 1. Otherwise, we take no response as evidence that all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Sincerely, William H. Payne Arthur R. Morales 13015 Calle de Sandias NE 1024 LosArboles NW Albuquerque, NM 87111 Albuquerque, NM 87107