From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 10:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: j orlin grabbe <spohn@etrib.com>
Subject: Sandia Scraps Guided Nuclear Bomb Project
Message-ID: <35D4765F.A24@nmol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

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