Crypto AG by Laszlo Baranyi
bill payne
billp at nmol.com
Wed Aug 12 06:10:28 PDT 1998
Wednesday 8/12/98 6:49 AM
Laszlo Baranyi, lb at qainfo.se
One of the changes I made this morning to
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM BRIEFS
ADDRESSING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
was to include http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm
Your work is a major contribution to getting to story OUT THERE.
Morales will sign at about 07:30 this morning and I will mail at about
08:00.
Let's all hope for PEACEFUL settlement of this STUPID TRAGIC BLUNDER.
Stupidity is difficult to underestimate. Robert Franklin Wallace,
economist
Best
http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2
I DO consulting in addition to directing Ph.D. degrees.
http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html
http://www.friction-free-economy.com/
http://www.mhpcc.edu/general/john.html
and building crypto units for the NSA/Sandia/DOE
http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm
I am in the completion phase of digitizing the
Model 2600FX Ultrasonic Veneer Tester
using a high-speed, probably Dallas DCS80C320, 80C32. But I am ensuring
that my
80C32 code works on all of the major 80C32 vendors parts.
See 2600FX at http://www.metriguard.com/METPROD.HTM.
One version of the green machine at http://www.metriguard.com/HCLT.HTM
runs on the Forth from my book.
I did the MASM interface to Visual Basic for
PC Data System - Pentium PC & Windows (R) software system for
production-line lumber testing - CLT & HCLT
I SINCERELY hope to return to DO ONLY technical work SOON.
As soon as Morales and I GET OUR MONEY!
I hope this is CLEAR.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
William H. Payne )
Arthur R. Morales )
)
Appellants Plaintiffs, )
) 98-2156
v ) 98-2157
)
Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF )
Director, National Security Agency )
National Security Agency )
)
Appellees Defendants )
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM BRIEFS
ADDRESSING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
1 COMES NOW appellant plaintiffs [Appellants - Plaintiffs] Payne [Payne] and Morales [Morales]
pro se litigants to exercise their rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm
Any party may file a response in opposition to a motion other than one for procedural order
[for which see subdivision (b)] within 7 days after service of the motion, ...
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#27
and
FRAP 26c Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed
period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the
paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM BRIEFS ADDRESSING
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES [MOTION] was served on August 3, 1998 by Jan E Mitchell [Mitchell],
Assistant US Attorney by mail. Exhibit A.
2 Mitchell writes
The Defendant-Appellee, National Security Agency [1], moves this Court for an Order extending the time
to and including twenty-one (21) days following the date Plaintiffs-Appellants file their memorandum brief
in which to file it memorandum briefs discussing jurisdictional issue in the above-referenced appeals. ...
3. Defendant-Appellee is not seeking an appeal and therefore, will NOT seek a certification for
interlocutory appeal from the District Court's memorandum Opinion and Order entered April 30, 1998, nor
will Defendant-Appellee seek an order explicitly adjudicating all remaining claims.
4. On July 22, 1998, Plaintiffs-Appellants were granted an extension until September 1, 1998 to respond to
the Court's show cause orders of June 30, 1998.
5 . Defendant-Appellee seeks an additional twenty-one (21) days from the date in which Plaintiff's-
Appellants' memorandum must be served in which to serve the memorandum briefs. According to the Show
Cause Order, if Appellants do not seek and obtain a certification for interlocutory appeal or a final dispositive
adjudication concerning appeal N. 9821257, the appeal may be dismissed, in which case a jurisdictional brief
would not be required as to that appeal. Should Plaintiffs-Appellants seek and obtain a certification for
interlocutory appeal pertaining to No. 2157, in the interest of economy, Defendant-Appellant seeks to file the
two memorandum briefs on the two very related jurisdictional issues at one time.
6. Undersigned counsel for Defendant-Appellee has contacted Plaintiff-Appellant William H. Payne who
has concurred on his own behalf and own behalf for Plaintiff-Appellant Arthur R. Morales in granting of this
motion. ...
3 Payne confirms 6 above in fax
Monday 8/3/98 3:41 PM
FAX
Jan Elizabeth Mitchell
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
District of New Mexico
Post Office Box 607
Albuquerque, NM 87103
505/346-7274
505/766-2868
FAX 505/346-7205
Dear Ms Mitchell:
Purpose of the fax is to
1 review points covered in our 8/3/98 14:18 phone conversation
2 suggest settlement.
You phoned me today.
You told me that you planned to file a motion or response to the Tenth circuit's
request Morales and my response to the jurisdictional issue on the 21st of August.
I told you that this was premature on your part since we had moved for a second time
for an extension of time.
I told you also that this matter was now before congress.
You appeared to indicate to me that you were in the process of adding both Morales and
Minihan as named parties in this appeal.
You asked me if it would be agreeable to us if you filed a response to the Tenth circuit
21 days AFTER Morales and I filed our response to the Tenth circuit on the jurisdictional
issue.
I AGREED.
I spoke to Morales on the phone shortly after our phone conversation.
Arguing points of law before court clerks and judges who have outstanding criminal complaint
affidavits for crimes COMMITTED IN WRITING against them would be unproductive on Morales and my
part.
Therefore, we will proceed to resolve the criminal conduct on the part of judges and court clerks
before we proceed further in this matter.
We will do this at the Congressional level.
Senate Judiciary Committe chairman Orrin Hatch, unfortunately, failed to properly process a valid
complaint on New Mexico district court chief judge John Conway in 1995.
http://www.jya.com/whp071598.htm
Hatch's failure to properly respond in 1995, in large part, caused our current legal conflict with DIR NSA
Minihan.
We foresee an unfortunate escalation of hostilities if this matter proceeds as it is.
We do not wish this.
We seek settlement of the UNFORTUNATE matter at the earliest time.
We ask your and Congressional help to settle this UNFORTUNATE matter before it gets WORSE.
If I have made any essential material errors in reporting my impression of the contents of our conversation,
then I would appreciate you giving your impression of possible errors.
You can do this in the letter you said you would write to us.
Sincerely,
bill payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Distribution
Senate Judiciary Committee e-mail
Arthur R Morales e-mail
4 Michell responds to 3 in letter dated August 4, 1998. Exhibit B
Mitchell writes
I have received Mr. Payne's FAX dated August 3, 1998 at 4:22. I want to clarify a few points. ...
As to the caption of the appeal, I have noted in the motion for extension of time which has been filed with
the Tenth Circuit that there was an additional Defendant numbed in the District Court case. However, I am
constrained at the time to use the caption which the Tenth Circuit is reflecting on its pleadings.
I will forward your FAX suggesting settlement to Defendants.
Sincerely,
JOHN J. KELLY
United States Attorney
signature
JAN ELIZABETH MITCHELL
Assistant U. S. Attorney
5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm Rule 54(b) states
(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim,
or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment
as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is
no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such
determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates
fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the
action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any
time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
Interpretation of meaning of 54(b) is
RULE 54(b) JUDGMENTS UPON MULTIPLE CLAIMS OR INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES
CORE CONCEPT
A judgment entered as to less than all claims in a lawsuit, or as to less than all parties in a lawsuit,
is not immediately appealable. Instead, the appeal must generally await the entry of judgment as to all
remaining claims and parties. However, the district court can make a judgment as to less than all claims or
parties "final", and thus immediately appeals, by expressly certifying that no just cause exists to delay the
appeal and by directing the entry of judgment.
APPLICATIONS
Prerequisites to Rule 54(b)
There are three prerequisites for obtaining an immediately appealable judgment from the district court
entered as to less than all claims or parties.
1: Multiple Claims or Parties Fully Resolved: To be eligible for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), a
partial adjudication must either (a) finally resolve at least one claim or (b) finally resolve the rights and
liabilities of at least one party. A claim or a party's interest MUST be adjudicated to finality, such that there
is nothing more to do that claim or that party but await the conclusion of the remaining portion of the
litigation. This limitation is a pivotal one. Rule 54(b) does not alter the normal rules of appellate finality for
individuals claims, and no appeal may be taken from district court ruling or any particular claim until the
court finally resolves that claim.
Multiple claims exist where each claim is factually separate and independent, or where each claim could be
enforced separately.
2: No just Cause for Delay: The district court must state, in clear and unmistakable language, that there is
no just cause to delay the appeal of the adjudicated claim or the adjudicated right and liability of a party.
Whether "just cause" exists is a determination made on a case-by-case basis. Certain criteria guide the
court's consideration:
o The relationship between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims;
o The possibility that the need for appellate review might be mooted by future developments in district court;
o The possibility that the district court might be obligated to consider the same issue on a later occasion;
o The presence (or absence) or a claim or counterclaim that could result in a set-off against the judgment
now sought to be made final and appealable; and
o Other factors, including delay, economic and solvency concerns, shortening of trial time, frivolity or
competing claims, and expense.
3: Entry of judgment: In clear and unmistakable language, the district court must also direct that judgment
is entered as to that one claim or one party.
Explanation by the District Court
In its order entering a Rule 54(b) judgment, the district court must clearly explain why it has concluded that
an immediate appellate review of that order is advisable.
Burden of Proof
The moving party bears the burden of establishing that a partial judgment should be entered under Rule
54(b).
Discretion of District Judge
Whether to enter a judgment under Rule 54(b) is reserved to the sound discretion of the district judge. Such
arguments are contrary to the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals. For this reason, Rule 54(b)
orders are not granted routinely or an accommodation to counsel. Instead, the district court must carefully
balance the needs of the parties for an immediate appeal against the interests of efficient management of the
litigation.
Motions for Rule 54(b) Judgments
A party may file a motion with the court to certify under Rule 54(b), or the court may do so on its own
initiative.
Effects of Rule 54(b) Judgments
Once entered, the time for appeal on the judgment begins to run, and does post-judgment interest.
Appealability of Denials for Rule 54(b) Requests
Allowing immediate appellate review of "partial" final judgments is a practice that departs from the federal
courts' traditional opposition to piecemeal appeals. Rule 54(b), thus, represents an unusual exception to this
settled policy. Predictably, the court reject immediate attempt to challenge denials of Rule 54(b) judgments
as premature and unappealable until a final ruling his entered on the merits.
Federal Civil Rules Handbook 1996, Baicker-McKee, Janssen, Corr, West Publishing Company
6 Appellants-Plaintiffs assert that there is NO REASON to seek a Rule 54 (b) certification for the
REASON THAT New Mexico district judge Santiago Campos [Campos] already issued such certification.
FACT 1 4 May 1998 Campos writes
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that sua sponte, Defendant is DEEMED by the Court to be the NSA,
and not Lt. Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan. Future captions for this case should reflect this change.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Morales is GRANTED.
http://jya.com/whp043098.htm
1: [A] claim or a party's interest MUST be adjudicated to finality ... has been satisfied.
FACT 2 2: is satisfed. [N]o just Cause for Delay:
Dismissing Minihan and Morales have nothing to do with the remaining claims of whether AppelleeS-
DefendantS Minihan and NSA provide lawfully requested documents on
1 Iran messages given to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm
http://caq.com/cryptogate
2 Libyan message intercepted by the US
3 deficient NSA cryptographic algorithms
FACT 3 3: In clear and unmistakable language, the district court must also direct that judgment
is entered as to that one claim or one party.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that sua sponte, Defendant is DEEMED by the Court to be the NSA,
and not Lt. Gen. Kenneth A. Minihan. Future captions for this case should reflect this change.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Morales is GRANTED.
http://jya.com/whp043098.htm is QUITE CLEAR.
FACT 4 Motions for Rule 54(b) Judgments
A party may file a motion with the court to certify under Rule 54(b), or the court may do so on its own
initiative.
Campos issues Rule 54(b) certification ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE.
However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for
presentment of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case.
FACT 5 Therefore, no Rule 54(b) certification needs to be sought by Appellants-Plaintiffs.
7 Campos did not explicitly state in Campos's June 29, 1998 letter http://jya.com/sec062998.htm
or in Campos' MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER http://jya.com/whp043098.htm that a
Rule 54(b) decision was issued. Therefore, Appellants-Plaintiffs seek to clarify Campos intention
Wednesday 8/12/98
Certified Return receipt requested
Santiago E. Campos, Senior Judge
P.O. Box 2244
U.S. Courthouse
South Federal Place
Santa Fe, NM 87504-2244
Re: William H. Payne v. National Security Agency
Civ. No. 97-0266 SC/DJS
Dear Judge Campos,
We assume that your statement
However, I shall await decision on the appeals before the Tenth circuit prior to setting a date for
presentment of the classified Declaration or before taking any further action in this case.
in your June 29, 1998 letter seen at http://jya.com/sec062998.htm is a sua sponte Rule 54(b) certification
for immediate appeal.
If we are incorrect in our assumption, then we ask that you write us and explain why we would need to
wait to appeal.
Clearly we have satisfied the three conditions required for immediate appeal which we are sure you are
acquainted.
If not, however, these conditions are included in Federal Civil Rules Handbook 1996, Baicker-McKee,
Janssen, Corr, West Publishing Company
Also, we would ask that you justify seeking permission for appeal from a judge who has issued a
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER when appellants have satisfied Rule 54(b) conditions if you
choose to respond negative.
If we do not hear from you Monday August 31, 1998, then we will treat our assumption as correct.
Sincerely
William H. Payne Arthur R. Morales
13015 Calle de Sandias NE 1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87111 Albuquerque, NM 87107
8 Appellants-Plaintiffs receive Exhibit C
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM H. PAYNE; ARTHUR R.
MORALES
Nos. 98-2156
Plaintiff - Appellants, 98-2157
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER
Filed August 6, 1998
The appellants and appellee are granted additional time until September 21, 1998
to this court's show cause order of June 30, 1998. All other requests contained in the
appellants; motion filed August 4, 1998 are referred to the panel of judges who will hear
this case on the merits.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court
by: signature Randy Simmons?
Deputy Clerk
A Hearing MUST be corrected to include defendant Minihan.
B Clerk FISHER has not addressed his removal from the appeal for previous title 18 felony violations of
law.
C ORDER does not address selection of three judge panel so not to include judges accused of Title 18 felony
violations of law or biased judges.
WHEREFORE
9 CORRECT ORDER Filed August 6, 1998 to include NSA Director Minihan. for reason
1 Find out who is RESPONSIBLE
2 Hold them ACCOUNTABLE
3 Hold them individually and their agency FINANCIALLY LIABLE
Some may pay with their lives for http://www.aci.net/kalliste/speccoll.htm
http://caq.com/cryptogate http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm
if this matter is NOT PEACEFULLY SETTLED.
10 EXPLICITLY RESPOND to request for removal of clerks FISHER and Hoecker from this appeal.
11 EXPLAIN how an unbiased panel of judges can be found at the Tenth circuit.
Respectfully submitted,
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Arthur R. Morales
1024 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
Pro se litigants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing response and motion
was mailed to Lieutenant General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF,
Director, National Security Agency, National Security Agency,
9800 Savage Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6000
and mailed to Jan E Mitchell, Assistant US Attorney,
9 Floor, Bank of America Building, 3rd and Tijeras, ABQ, NM 87102
an original and three copies as required by FRAP 27(d)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#27d United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1823 Stout Street, Denver, Co 80257 by CERTIFIED
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED mail August 12, 1998.
9
WEED KILLER computer interface proposal section 7/27/98 10:11 AM
Solution to controlling and collecting data from the WEED KILLER involves interfacing a personal computer
running a version of the Windows operating system to the WEED KILLER analog/digital hardware.
Windows is not a real-time operating system, therefore microcontroller controller/collector hardware
interface must be installed between a Wintel PC and the WEED KILLER hardware.
Essence of the Wintel data collector problem is that Windows 3.x or 9x responds to a hardware interrupt
usually between 70 to 150 microseconds. In rare occasions the interrupt latency may extend to 1.5
milliseconds or even longer. A microcontroller responds to an interrupt in several microseconds.
Wintel hardware controller interface is even more difficult than collection for the reason that the Windows
operating system only gives control to an application when Windows decides. In the collection, mode at
least a hardware interrupt signals Windows that the application wants control. However, the microcontroller
can send the Wintel an interrupt asking the applications code whether there is any message it needs to
send the microcontroller.
Microcontrollers have specialized timers, serial expansion ports and are, therefore, designed to be interfaced to
analog and digital hardware.
An 80C32 family microcontroller is proposed for the WEED KILLER application for reasons.
1 The 80C32 will do the job.
2 Multiple vendors of 80C32 guarantee future supply at a competitive price. Current suppliers include
Intel, AMD, Winbond, Dallas, Philips, Siemens, OKI, ATMEL, ...
3 High-speed parallel port bi-directional IEEE 1284 enhanced capability port 9 (ecp) communications
hardware between an 80C32 and PC is in the final stage of development.
4 IEEE 1284 hardware drivers are supplied with Windows NT. Custom assembler dll drivers are available
for 9x and 3.x.
5 A public-domain Forth 8051 operating system hosting a high-level language and interactive assembler with
complete source code documentation is available on Internet. http://jya.com/f86/whpf86.htm
Hardcover book further documenting 5 is available from Academic Press.
http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2
Only a Wintel machine is required for both hardware and software for the WEED KILLER project.
Usually a Forth hardware/software development probject on requres a voltmeter, logic probe, and,
infrequently, an oscilloscope. Reason is the INTERACTIVE control of the hardware and software
from a PC keyboard and diagnostic information easily printed to a PC monitor.
Justification for assertion made in the above paragraph comes from Internet.
NASA uses Forth extensively for its space programs. http://groucho.gsfc.nasa.gov/forth/
Ballard used polyForth http://av.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=polyforth&z=2&hc=0&hs=0
to locate wrecks of the Titanic, Bismarck, and Yorktown.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/98/midway
Sun Microsystems workstation boot into Forth then invokes Solaris. http://playground.sun.com/pub/1275/
Adobe Postscript is a version of Forth.
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/language/forth-postscript.html
Video game software are written mostly in Forth.
The Wintel side of the WEED KILLER project will be most-likely written in a small
amount of assembler interface code and Visual Basic.
While Forth threaded code software technology is extremely valuable in some settings,
it is not in others.
Java is a variation of Forth. http://www.mrl.nyu.edu/meyer/jvmref/
Future of Java on Wintel machines is unclear at this time.
For example,
The hottest items among techies is a browser called Opera.
This is a $40 shareware program that in speed and compact
size buts both IE and Communicator to shame. It has a slightly
different interface from either of the majors - an interface some find
refreshing while other find less than useful. As it's shareware, you can
try and then buy if you like it. One reason for its speed is that it ignores
Java - the Internet's Bandwidth Pig (IBP).
The Rumor Mill by Paul Cassel
ComputerScene Magazine July 1998
Forth executes code High-level at about 10% the speed of a compiled high-level
language.
Speed of execution of small applications is not effected by Forth’s slow execution.
Reason is that initial code is written in high-level Forth.
Inner loops are then translated into Forth assembler.
Speed is maintained with the advantage that data structures are created an maintained in
high-level language while the interactive operating system is retained for trouble shooting
both hardware and software problem.
Hardware cost of building the 80C32 the WEED KILLER boards is estimated at $10k.
Hardware design is estimated at 1 month labor at $50/hr for a total of $8k.
Software development on the 80C32 side in Forth and Forth assembler, software on the
Wintel side in Visual Basic and assembler, documentation, and training is estimated to
be 4 months for a total of $32k
/\/\/\
end
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy
mailing list