29 May 1997
Source: William H. Payne
Thursday May 8, 1997 09:54
Certified - return receipt requested
Federico F. Pena
The Secretary of Energy
United States Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Secretary Pena:
Purposes of this letter are,
1 to correct errors in a record about myself,
2 alert you that some Sandia National Laboratories (SNL),
Department of Energy/Albuquerque Operations Office
(DOE/ALOO), and DOE headquarters personnel have
violated provisions of the Privacy Act, USC 552a, of
1974 as amended.
3 provide you a copy of a criminal complaint affidavit
filed against those individuals,
4 and suggest settlement.
As you may know, the Privacy Act permits a DOE contractor
employee to be considered an employee of DOE.
(m) Government Contractors.--(1) When an agency provides
by a contract for the operation by or on behalf of the
agency of a system of records to accomplish an agency
function, the agency shall, consistent with its
authority, cause the requirements of this section to
be applied to such system. For purposes of subsection
(i) of this section any such contractor and any employee
of such contractor, if such contract is agreed to on or
after the effective date of this section, shall be
considered to be an employee of an agency.
I was an employee of DOE contractor SNL.
Attached to this letter are copies of,
5 Letter dated April 15, 1994 addressed to Charles Burtner,
Director, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
signed by SNL Director Michael G. Robles.
6 Copy of July 27, 1992 Termination of Employment letter signed
by W. H. Payne. Payne is also identified on this document as
E# 01981.
7 Copy of the DISCIPLINARY REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES, July 16,
1992 referencing Case # 01981.
1
8 Copy of DISCIPLINARY REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES, July 6, 1992
identifying employees E# 21715 and E# 14429 as SNL supervisor
Larry Stotts and SNL employee Bob Cover.
I received copies of the documents identified in 5-8 on Saturday
March 22, 1997.
9 Letter dated September 5, 1995 addressed to Richard W.
Gallegos [Gallegos] signed by EEOC investigator Larry J.
Trujillo.
As you may know,
There are five basic elements to a request for amending a
Privacy Act record.
First, the letter should state that it is a request to
amend a record under the Privacy Act of 1974.
I request to amend a record under the Privacy Act of 1974.
You may also know,
Second, the request should identify the specific record
and the specific information in the record for which an
amendment is being sought. Copies of the records sought
to be amended may be included.
The contents of DISCIPLINARY REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES,
July 16, 1992 (DRCM) are mostly incorrect. I included
a copy.
You may also know about the Privacy Act,
Third, the request should state why the information is
not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. Supporting
evidence may be included with the request.
And
Fourth, the request should state what new or additional
information, if any, should be included in place of the
erroneous information. Evidence of the validity of the
new or additional information should be included. If the
information in the file is wrong and needs to be removed
rather than supplemented or corrected, the request should
make this clear.
The DCRM states,
"July 8, 1992, the Disciplinary Review Committee (DRC)
met regarding this case. At that time, the DRC agreed on
a conditional recommendation pending the receipt of further
information. The additional information has subsequently
been furnished, and therefore the DRC was reconvened [sic]
2
today.
E #0981 works in the Systems Research Center at Sandia.
This Center is involved in some extremely sensitive
(Classified) initiatives for which extremely high security
must be maintained. In addition, the work is being funded
by customers who are also considered sensitive, some of whom
do not want their association with Sandia to be divulged.
In some instances, there are special agreements with the
sponsoring agency regarding dissemination of information
or procedures which must be followed. The Sandia employees
who work in this Center have special accesses and much of
the information is compartmentalized.
On June 15, 1992, E #01981, wrote a letter to a foreign
national residing in a foreign country. Attached to this
letter was a copy of three reports E #01981 had written
while employed by SNL."
10 Correct
"was a copy of three reports "
to read
" was a copy of an UNCLASSIFIED SAND technical report
and a DRAFT paper."
The report I sent was,
11 SANDIA REPORT
SAND91-2201.UC-1706
Data Authentication for the Deployable Seismic
Verification System by William H. Payne
The DRAFT paper I had abandoned is titled,
12 Public Key Cryptography is Easy to Break dated
October 16, 1990.
I attach a copy of 12 and page 7 of 11.
I verify the contents this letter by affidavit.
The DRCM continues,
"One of the reports, a SAND document, was marked ~For
Official Use Only", and the other two documents were
unmarked but contained sensitive information."
The DRAFT paper mentioned in 11 contained some about 2,300
year-old Euclidean mathematics and a algorithm for directly
computing Euler's Phi function which is computationally
not feasible.
3
This is why the DRAFT paper was abandoned.
Euler lived about 1750.
13 Correct
"the other two documents were unmarked but contained
sensitive information."
to read
"the DRAFT paper was unclassified, contained well-known
mathematics, and a computationally-unfeasible algorithm
applied to the public subject of Public Key Cryptography.
There was only one document, not two."
The DRCM continues,
"As a result of an agreement between the sponsoring agency,
all work pertaining the activities within the control of
this sponsor will be protected as classified until the
sponsor specifically authorizes the release of the
information" ...
I attach a copy of the
WORKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
AND
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
CONCERNING RESEARCH IN CRYPTOGRAPHY AT
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and the National
Security Agency (NSA) have established a working relationship
which has grown substantially over the last decade. Currently,
there exist several joint project areas of mutual interest.
Different policies and administrative procedure exist at SNL
and NSA which govern the handling of sensitive and classified
material, and the documentation and dissemination of such work.
It is the purpose of the Agreement to specify the general
guidelines under which work will be administered in the area
of cryptography research at SNL.
First, SNL, in its role as systems integrator, requires and
indigenous cryptographic capability to support its Department
of Energy mission in the design and development of safe and
secure nuclear weapons and in treaty verification. SNL and
NSA agree to a cooperative effort to support SNL's needs in a
manner consistent with the role of such work to national
security.
Second, NSA, in its role as the U.S. Government approval
4
authority for cryptographic systems developed for and used in
national security applications, recognizes its responsibility
to provide support and guidance to SNL's activities in applying
cryptography.
Third, SNL will regard cryptographic research work as classified
when it is initiated or created, i.e., will protect such work as
"created classified", and will consult with NSA prior to handling
h work as unclassified.
Periodic technical and managerial discussions between SNL and NSA
will be held to increase the awareness of the security concerns of
both organizations and to develop and maintain an SNL
cryptographic classification guide which will protect the national
security interests of both organizations.
This working agreement shall be effective on the date of the last
signature and will be reviewed annually by SNL and NSA. It will
be valid until terminated by mutual agreement.
AGREED:
ALBERT NARATH RADM JAMES S. MCFARLAND
President Plans and Policy
TITLE TITLE
SANDIA NATIONAL NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
LABORATORIES
June 10, 1991 22 July 1991
DATE DATE
DRCM goes on to state,
... "and, as such, without a determined need-to-know, would
never be released to a foreign national."
14 Correct
"and, as such, without a determined need-to-know, would
never be released to a foreign national."
to read
"An UNCLASSIFIED SAND report can be sent to a foreign national
a foreign country as specified in Sandia Bulletin, V43, dated
September 16, 1991 which was provided to Payne by D. Landa
on 9/16/91. Further, since Payne checked with his
classification officer, Bruce Green, who supervised the
classification review of the report the SAND report, all
necessary known permissions were required.
Further, since the DRAFT paper date [October 16, 1990]
preceded the signed agreement by Narath [June 10, 1991] and
McFarland [22 July 1991] the agreement did not apply. In
addition, Payne, as a DOE contractor employee, had agreed
to follow the classification rules and procedures of DOE.
But Payne abided by the Narath-McFarland agreement once it
5
was known to him."
Attached is a copy of Sandia Bulletin, Landa routing slip, and
enclosures.
The DRCM continues,
"The cover letter that accompanied these reports contained
some inflammatory and derogatory comments about the particular
sponsoring agency."
This above statement is false.
15 Correct the above statement to read,
"The cover letter that accompanied this report and DRAFT
paper which were sent to the University of Tokyo stated,
"Enclosed is a technical report describing my implementation
of an NSA authentication algorithm. I checked with
classification officer, Bruce Green, this morning to
see if it is okay to send an OUO [Official Use Only] report
to a foreign national. It is. ...
Payne had all approvals from Sandia to send a copy of his
SAND report.
Payne then stated in the letter,
"The problem with random number funding here in the United
States is that it is too close to encryption which the
National Security Agency wants to totally control."
Encryption control is a well-known statement of fact and a
center of great controversy in the United States.
The statements I made were not "inflammatory and derogatory"
and the "particular sponsoring agency" was mentioned by name
in the SAND report.
I attach a copy of my June 15, 1992 letter to Professor
Masanori Fushimi.
I quote from page 7 of my SAND report,
"The National Security Agency (NSA) provides data
authentication algorithms for treaty verification
applications. Most of the algorithms are classified. NSA
will declassify a treaty verification algorithm to a
classification level that allows it to be shared with a
treaty participant after the treaty has been signed.
In 1973 NSA supplied to Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)
a data authentication algorithm, called the Unmanned Seismic
Observatory algorithm, for use in the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty seismic verification systems. The report, submitted
6
by R. Benincasa of NSA, is classified and therefore cannot
be cited here."
I attach a copy of page 7.
The DRCM continues,
"The agency, which does not openly divulge its association
with Sandia unless there is a need-to-know, is specifically
named in the letter."
NSA employee Donald Simard served as a Sandia internal report
approval referee on Payne's SAND report!
Therefore, correct
"The agency. which does not openly divulge its association
with Sandia unless there is a need-to-know, is specifically
named in the letter."
to read,
"NSA was referenced in Payne's SAND report. NSA employee
Donald Simard served as a Sandia referee of Payne's report.
Simard approved of this NSA's association with Sandia in
this UNCLASSIFIED SAND report."
The DRCM continues,
"Sandia works closely with this agency and it is considered
by all levels of management to be a valued customer. E # 0981
gave a copy of this letter to a representative of this agency
who is located on-site at SNL. In doing so, he placed the
relationship between SNL and this agency in jeopardy. ...
The representative of the sponsoring agency brought his copy
of the letter to the attention of Jim Gosler, 5931, who then
notified Craig Searls, 5911; E 01981 manager, and C. W.
Childers, Director, 5900. Subsequently, various meetings
were held to determine the rationale behind E #01981's
actions. ...
In addition, it is a requirement, as set forth in DCID-1/14,
for employees in all special access program that they report
all contacts/meetings with foreign national, not just foreign
nationals from sensitive countries. At the special access
in-brief, conducted by the Center Security staff, E # 01981
responsibilities regarding the protection of information and
the requirement for the continued special access, including
the necessity for reporting contacts with foreign nationals,
were detailed. His signature on Form 4414 SCI Non-disclosure
Agreement (NdA) which details the requirements for protection
of information is a demonstration of this presence at that
briefing. However, E # 01981 has recently stated that he was
unaware of this policy."
7
16 Correct the above three paragraphs,
"NSA employee Donald Simard [Simard] worked for Sandia
supervisor Jim Gosler. Gosler was not in the office when
Payne was going to report his contact with a foreign national
to supervisor Gosler.
Payne gave NSA employee Simard a copy of his letter to the
University of Tokyo professor. Simard then passed this letter
along to Golser. so that Payne would be in compliance of
DCID-1/14.
Simard refereed Payne's SAND report and approved it. Simard
would not have approved Payne's report if he were offended.
Thus Payne did not, or intend to, offend NSA but enumerated
in a matter-of-fact way cryptologic deficiencies in NSA's
work. Which NSA later attempted to fix.
Payne complied with all know applicable rules which he
obtained approval from his classification officer, Bruce
Green, and technical information transfer specialist,
Duane Landa, to send a copy of his UNCLASSIFIED SAND report
to a professor at the University of Tokyo.
Payne reported his contact with a foreign national to Sandia
management. Payne followed the rules and the statement,
"However, E # 01981 has recently stated that he was unaware
of this policy." is patently false in the DCR's own words."
And I attach a copy of Form 4414, SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED
INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, which I DID SIGN.
NOWHERE on Form 4414 is mentioned ANYTHING about foreign
nationals!
The Disciplinary Review Committee members, therefore,
attempted to MISLEAD readers of these MINUTES."
The DRCM continues,
"The cover letter also included a statement in which # 01981
notes that he would prefer to present his technical proposals
on this sensitive work directly to the foreign national's
government rather than the government of the United States."
is false.
The cover letter stated,
"I may be re-entering the random number business. Or I may
not be depending on the outcome of a proposal I wrote. I
sometimes think that my proposals should be directed to the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan instead
of agencies in the United States."
8
17 Correct
"he would prefer to present his technical proposals on this
sensitive work directly to the foreign national's government
rather than the government of the United States."
to read,
"Payne wistfully stated that his proposals on random number
research would likely have a better chance of funding in Japan
than the US because of the monopoly NSA appears to wish to
have on random number and cryptographic research."
The DRCM continues,
"During these meetings, E #01981 claimed that he had the
authority of release the sensitive information since he a checked
with Sandia Classification regarding release of the SAND
document"...
18 Correct the above statement to read,
"Payne released no classified or even sensitive information.
Payne had cleared sending a copy of his UNCLASSIFIED SAND report
to a colleague at the University of Tokyo.
The DRAFT paper contained no sensitive information. Only an idea
on an algorithm, which was computationally unfeasible, to compute
Euler's [circa 1750] phi function without factoring.
Payne obtained all required Sandia approvals known to him."
The DRCM continues,
... "had authored the two reports, and had done the work on
his own time. However, in contradiction to this claim, all
three documents had a "Sandia National Laboratories" banner
on them."
19 Correct the above statement to read,
... "had written the paper RSA ENCRYPTION in about 1986 at his
supervisor's, John Holovka, and project leader's, Jim Durham's
request on Sandia time. RSA ENCRYPTION was NOT sent to Payne's
colleague in Japan.
The abandon DRAFT paper titled Public Key Encryption is Easy to
Break states on the last page stated,
DRAFT
The author discovered this result between 8:30 and 10: pm
on October 15, 1990.
9
Payne wrote Public Key Encryption is Easy to Break on his own
time.
The SAND report and RSA encryption were both written on Sandia
time as Part of Payne's job assignments."
The DRCM continues,
"In addition, E #01981 utilized the Sandia mail system to send
out the letter and reports rather than providing his own stamps.
20 Correct the above statement to read,
"Sandia policy states that "the exchange of scientific and
technical information is encouraged ... Payne, securing all
known approvals required, officially exchanged information with
a Japanese colleague working in the same technical area as Payne:
pseudorandom number generation."
The DRCM continues,
"The reports are clearly Sandia property and are therefore subject
to the standard security regulations government the release of
sensitive information to outside agencies. "
21 Correct the above statement to read,
"Payne's SAND report was UNCLASSIFIED. Payne's abandoned DRAFT
paper was done on Payne's own time, preceded in date any agreement
with NSA and did not contain sensitive information.
Payne secured all approvals known to him for release of the SAND
report and DRAFT abandon paper."
The DRCM continues,
"In addition, SLI 1008 states: "Organizations working on
reimbursable program follow the distribution and marking
requirements of the reimbursing agency. In addition to the
standard approvals, approval of the DOE program manager is
required before information relating to that program can be
released." The release of these reports required approval
of the valued reimbursing customer and Sandia management."
22 Correct the above paragraph to read,
"Payne worked on the electronic lock breaking project funded
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Payne did not, and
even refused to work on NSA projects.
Payne did not release any information dealing with electronic
locks. Only information dealing with data authentication
and public key cryptography.
Payne did not require approval of any DOE manger since he did
10
not release any information "relating to that program.
The DRCM continues,
"Due to the sensitive nature of the work which is done in
this Center, E # 01981's organization/Center also has a policy
governing the release of unclassified material to outside
agencies. The policy require that all such material should
be reviewed by management prior to its release. The level of
review is dependent on whether the information is classified or
unclassified. E # 01981 clams that he was not aware of this
policy."
23 Correct the above statement to read,
"Payne worked in the Center between 1986 and about 1990. There
were only the standard DOE rules governing materials for release
at that time.
Payne returned to the Center in 1992. Center management NEVER
briefed Payne about such new rules."
The DRCM continues,
"It should be noted that E # 01981, due to the type of work he
is performing at the Center, has a number of special accesses.
The Center itself has additional security regulations and
procedures, including limited physical accesses. The Center
itself has additional security regulations and procedures,
including limited physical access by other Sandians. Working
in a special access environment should have made E # 01981 very
cognizant of the need for additional care and caution in his
interactions with others. Sandia's Code of Conduct, Personal
Conduct, specifically states "we should conduct ourselves, both
on and off the job, in a manner consistent with the national
interest and the reasonable expectations of fellow employees
and our customers." "Holding a Department of Energy granted
security clearance and maintaining the confidence entrusted
by SANDIA are requirement for continued employment. Maintaining
a security clearance and Sand's trust require that employees
follow high standards of personal integrity and reliability.
All employees must conduct themselves, both on the job and off
the job, in such a way that their reliability is not compromised.
Furthermore, employee conduct must not endanger or harm the
company's reputation or mission.~
24 Correct the above paragraph to read,
"Payne followed all rules of classification within the Department
of Energy. Payne represented the Department of Energy's interests.
Payne never agreed to adopt the National Security Agency's nor
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's classification rules.
Payne did his duty to uphold and promote the Department of Energy's
11
missions.
The DRCM states,
"Issues: Flagrant attack against a valued Sandia Customer;
repeated insensitive to Security/classification requirements
including divulging sensitive information to a foreign
national; and violations of the Code of Conduct"
25 Correct the above paragraph to read,
"Payne never made any "Flagrant attack against a valued Sandia
Customer,..."
Payne did alert NSA to generic cryptographic deficiencies in
its cryptographic algorithms. Which NSA attempted to correct.
Payne never committed "repeated insensitive to security/
classification requirements..." Instead Payne took careful
precautions to obtain approval for all his actions through
Department of Energy-approved channels.
Payne NEVER " ... divulging sensitive information to a foreign
national;" divulged any sensitive information to a foreign
national.
But rather, in at attempt to be friendly with a Japanese
professor sent an UNCLASSIFIED SAND report with Sandia
classification department approval to a previously
hostile-appearing Japanese who previously addressed his
letters to Payne as Dr. Payne.
Payne now received the letter dated June 26, 1992.
Dear Bill,
Thank you very much for the recent letter as well as a
SANDIA REPORT and a DRAFT on Public Key Cryptography. ...
I attach a copy.
The Japanese professor confirmed receiving only a copy of the
UNCLASSIFIED SAND report and DRAFT paper.
Not THREE technical reports claimed by the DRC!
2[5A] Correct the statement,
"Furthermore, employee conduct must not endanger or harm the
company's reputation or mission.~'
to read,
"Payne conducted himself as to bring credit to the missions of
the Department of Energy."
12
The DRCM concludes,
"Resolution:
The following resolution [sic] were adopted by the Disciplinary
Review Committee by a unanimous vote (7 to 0):
(1) E # 01981 should be terminated for conduct that has the
potential of compromise the mission of a valued customer and
behavior designed to offend the valued customer. The termination
is also warranted due to E # 01981's violation of the SNL Code
of Conduct, violation of Security Regulations, disregard of an
agreement between SNL and a valued customer concerning the
release of sensitive information, and his disregard of his
line organization's policy concerning the release of
unclassified information."
26 Correct the above paragraph to read,
"Payne (E# 01981) adhered to SNL's code of conduct,
represented the Department of Energy's interests in the
face of an attempted invasion of SNL by NSA through
it reimbursable 'work for others' fund1ng at SNL, never
violated any agreement between SNL and a "valued
customer" [NSA], never released any sensitive
information, only UNCLASSIFIED, with Sandia classification
approval, and public information, and was never briefed,
" ... of his line organization's policy concerning the
release of unclassified information."
Payne was fired from Sandia National Laboratories for no
valid reason. "
As a formality, Secretary Pena, as you may know,
Fifth, the request should include the name and address of
the requester. It is a good idea for a requester to
include a telephone number.
This information is included at the end of this letter.
Now, Secretary Pena, procedure for handling these
corrections is quite formal:
An agency that receives a request for amendment under the
Privacy Act must acknowledge receipt of the request within
10 days (not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays).
The agency must promptly rule on the request.
The agency may make the amendment requested. If so, the agency
must notify any person or agency to which the record had
previously been disclosed of the correction.
If the agency refuses to make the change requested, the agency
must inform the requester of: (1) the agency's refusal to amend
13
[Page 14 not provided]
(A) makes a determination under subsection (d)(3) of this
section not to amend an individual's record in
accordance with his request, or fails to make such review
in conformity with that subsection;
(B) refuses to comply with an individual request under
subsection (d)(1) of this section;
(C) fails to maintain any record concerning any individual
with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness
as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination
relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or
opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may
be made on the basis of such record, and consequently a
determination is made which is adverse to the individual; or
(D) fails to comply with any other provision of this section,
or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to
have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual
may bring a civil action against the agency, and the
district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction in the matters under the provisions of this
subsection.
(2)(A) In any suit brought under the provisions of
subsection (g)(l)(A) of this section, the court may order
the agency to amend the individual's record in accordance
with his request or in such other way as the court may
direct. In such a case the court shall determine the
matter de novo.
(B) The court may assess against the United States reasonable
attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably
incurred in any case under this paragraph in which the
complainant has substantially prevailed.
(3)(A) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection
(B) The court may assess against the United States reasonable
attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably
incurred in any case under this paragraph in which the
complainant has substantially prevailed.
(4) In any suit brought under the provisions of s subsection
(g)(1) or (D) of this section in which the court determines
that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or
willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual
in an amount equal to the sum of
(A) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of
the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person
entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000;
and
(B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney
15
fees as determined by the court.
(5) An action to enforce any liability created under this section
may be brought in the district court of the United States in
the district in which the complainant resides, or has his
principal place of business, or in which the agency records
are situated, or in the District of Columbia, without regard
to the amount in controversy, within two years from the date
on which the cause of action arises, except that where an
agency has materially and willfully misrepresented any
information required under this section to be disclosed to an
individual and the information so misrepresented is material
to establishment of the liability of the agency to the
individual under this section, the action may be brought
at any time within two years after discovery by the individual
of the misrepresentation.
Secretary Pena, date and time of "the discovery by the individual
of the misrepresentation" is Saturday 3/22/97 10:10. This is
penciled on the April 15, 1994 letter to Burtner in the upper right
hand corner.
And now, secretary Pena, we come to the criminal violations of the
Privacy Act.
Criminal complaint affidavits against Robles, Burtner, and Trujillo
have been filed.
As you may be aware 5 USC 552a(b) , the Privacy Act, states,
CONDITIONS OF DISCLOSURE - No agency shall disclose any record
which is contain in a systems of records by any means of
communications to any person, or to another agency, except
pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written
consent of, the individual to who the record pertains, ...
Robles, Burtner, and Trujillo did not have my written request to
release documents 6 and 7.
Therefore, the 5 USC 552a(i)1 applies.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES. - Any officer or employee of an agency,
who by virtue of his employment or official position, has
possession of, or access to, agency records which contain
individually identifiable information the disclosure of which
is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations
established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of
the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses
of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully disclosed
the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled
to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not
more than $5,000.
Now, Secretary Pena, repeated requests for documents 6 and 7 from
1992 even through both the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy
16
Act have NOT produced these documents.
For example, I wrote,
Wednesday March 27, 1996 06:13
Ms. Elva Barfield
Freedom of Information Office
U. S. Department of Energy
Albuquerque Operations Office/OIEA
POB 5400
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5400 ...
Your two letters dated MAR 21 indicates that neither Sandia or
DOE/ALOO intends to comply with either the Privacy Act (PA) or
the Freedom on Information Act (FOIA). ...
This is a request under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
I request copies of
1 ALL disclosures, both written and verbal, made by any
DOE/ALOO or Sandia employee containing the name of William
H. Payne or similar use (Bill Payne, Payne, etc.) between
October 1, 1991 until March 27, 1996 NOT AUTHORED BY PAYNE. ...
And I wrote both Sandia President C. Paul Robinson and DOE/ALOO
director Bruce G. Twining on November 13, 1995,
1 disclosures, both written and verbal, made to you containing
the name of William H. Payne or similar use (Bill Payne,
Payne, etc.) between October 1, 1990 until November 13, 1995.
2 disclosures, both written and verbal, made by you containing
the name of William H. Payne or similar use (Bill Payne,
Payne, etc.) October 1, 1990 until November 13, 1995.
I did not receive copies of documents 6 AND 7. And I appealed these
denials. Still no documents 6 and 7.
So, secretary Pena, we must assume that documents 6 and 7 came from
some undeclared system of records.
Declared system of records is required by section (e)(4) of the
Privacy Act.
(4) subject to the provisions of paragraph (11) of this
subsection, publish in the Federal Register upon
establishment or revision a notice of the existence
and character of the system of records, which notice
shall include
(A) the name and location of the system;
(B) the categories of individuals on whom records are
17
maintained in the system;
(C) the categories of records maintained in the system;
(D) each routine use of the records contained in the system,
including the categories of users and the purpose of
such use;
(E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding
storage, retrievability, access controls, retention,
and disposal of the records;
(F) the title and business address of the agency official
who is responsible for the system of records;
(G) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be
notified at his request if the system of records contains
a record pertaining to him;
(H) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be
notified at his request how he can gain access to any
record pertaining to him contained in the system of
records, and how he can contest its content; and
(I) the categories of sources of records in the system;
(5) maintain all records which are used by the agency in making
any determination about any individual with such accuracy,
relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably
necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the
determination;
(6) prior to disseminating any record about an individual to
any person other than an agency, unless the dissemination
is made pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section, make
reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate,
complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes;
(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises
rights guaranteed by the first amendment unless expressly
authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the
record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the
scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;
(8) make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual
when any record on such individual is made available to any
person under compulsory legal process when such process
becomes a matter of public record;
As you may know, Secretary Pena,
(i)(1) Criminal Penalties.-- ...
(2) Any officer or employee of any agency who willfully
maintains a system of records without meeting the
notice requirements of subsection (e)(4) of this
18
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined
not more than $5,000.
Sandia's Disciplinary Review Committee, whose members are listed
on document 7 kept SECRET system of records.
Document 7 is a sample record in this SECRET system of records.
Therefore, the Disciplinary Review Committee has violated the
criminal provisions of the Privacy Act.
In addition, I have been deprived of my civil rights as guaranteed
under the Constitution for being unable, until now, to request
enclosed amendment to document 7.
This denial of my civil right is, of course, at Title 18 felony
violation of law.
I attach a copy of the criminal complaint affidavit addressed to
magistrate judge Patel.
While we cannot negotiate settlement of criminal violations, we
can negotiate a settlement to the civil aspects of the damage done
by documents 6 and 7.
Ted G. Lewis is a former ms and Phd student of mine.
Lewis has been following my case since its inception.
Lewis received two copies of my SAND report.
Lewis is currently computer science department chairman at the
Naval Postgraduate School. Lewis is also editor-in-chief of
IEEE Computer.
Lewis, in his positions, has much experience in negotiation.
I asked Lewis on April 17 what my starting negotiating position
should be to settle this unfortunate case.
Lewis responded. "$10 million."
I look forward to your compliance with the directives of the
amendment section of the Privacy Act.
And my settlement team welcomes any opportunity to settle
this unfortunate matter. Before it worsens of course.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
William H. Payne
VERIFICATION
19
Under penalty of perjury as provided by law, the undersigned
certifies pursuant to 28 USC section 1746 that material
factual statements set forth in this Privacy Act amendment
request 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.
5/8/97 [Signature]
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
[End]
See complaint and documents referenced here:
http://jya.com/snlhit.htm