[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sandia Scraps Guided Nuclear Bomb Project
- To: j orlin grabbe <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], tamar stieber <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], larry spohn <[email protected]>
- Subject: Sandia Scraps Guided Nuclear Bomb Project
- From: bill payne <[email protected]>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:39:43 -0600
- CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], jay coughlan <[email protected]>, grassley <[email protected]>, federico pena <" Federico.F.Pena"@hq.doe.gov>, doug downen <" DOUGLAS.DOWNEN"@hq.doe.gov>, david skaggs <" skaggs"@hr.house.gov>, cynthia mckinney <[email protected]>, conrad burns <[email protected]>, c paul robinson <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
- Sender: [email protected]
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