[90500] in Cypherpunks
Marshmallows
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bill payne)
Wed Nov 19 17:35:14 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:55:14 -0700
From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
To: Cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------32C15059651E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Attached was sent this noon.
--------------32C15059651E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="scal4.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="scal4.txt"
Wednesday November 19, 1997 07:37
Certified - Return receipt requested
Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Dear judge Scalia:
Purposes of this letter are to
1 file criminal complaint affidavits,
2 review status of this matter,
3 look into the future.
Tuesday January 21, Payne discovered, copy attached, of
_________________________
Department of Justice
Justice Integrity Service <--- seal displayed
United States Marshal
_________________________
United States Department of Justice
United States Marshals Service
To: William Payne Date 1/21/, 1997
Time 10 00 Am
NOTIFICATION OF ATTEMPTED SERVICE
At the above indicated time, I endeavored to contact you in
regard to service of legal documents [service to legal
documents crossed out, whp] AN INVESTIGATION.
You are requested to contact this office on telephone number
248 8263 by AS SOON AS POSSIBLE,
19 __ in reference to legal documents in our possession that
must be personally delivered to you or your representative,
Please refer to case number [19__ to case number crossed
out, whp] Ask for Deputy U.S. Marshal Arthur Lester
Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
United States Marshal
By: Arthur Lester
DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL
Form USM-37
(EST 6/2/80)
Š
The modification to the document were handwritten in pen.
Reverse side was handwritten,
To
William
Payne
This document was stuffed in the door handle of Payne's white
Ford pickup truck which was parked in the drive way at Payne's
home.
Thursday January 23 Morales and Payne meet with US
Marshals Authur Lester and Thomas Lopez.
Lester states that they are investigation "inappropriate
communications ..."
Lester cites two sources for this investigation:
1 Judge Fern Smith of the district of Northern
California
2 Clerk Toby Slawsky of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in Philadelphia.
Morales asked Lester whether Lester believed that Payne had
engaged in any improper or ILLEGAL communications.
Lester responded that Lester absolutely believed that Payne
did nothing wrong.
Morales ask Lester and Lopez if they had a letter authorizing
them to conduct this investigation.
Lester and Lopez responded that they did not have any such
document.
Payne and Morales issued a Freedom of Information Act
request on Monday January 27, 1997
Under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act, 5
USCS 552, we request access to:
1 The authorizing document which permits the Marshal's
office of the Department of Justice to Investigate
citizens for "Inappropriate communications ..."
2 All documents prescribing procedure for proper service
of a citizen for an investigation by the Marshal's
office of the Department of Justice.
3 All documents containing the names of Arthur Morales,
Art Morales, and William H. Payne, Bill Payne, etc. in
Š the Albuquerque Marshal's office between the dates of
January 1, 1992 and January 27, 1997.
February 6, 1997 US Marshals Service FOIA processor
Floristine P. Graham wrote in response to the request,
With respect to item(3), the records you seek relate to an
on-going law enforcement investigation. Therefore, the
remainder of your request is being denied pursuant to
exemption 7(A) of the Freedom on Information Act, 5 U.S.C
Section 552(b). Exemption 7(A) allow this Bureau to
withhold records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes to the extent that the disclosure of such records
or information could reasonably be expected to interfere
with enforcement proceedings. ...
and
If you are dissatisfied with my action on this request, you
may appeal this partial denial ... within 30 days of receipt
of this letter.
On March 9, 1997 Graham's denial was appealed to the
Co-Director, Office of Information and Privacy, United States
Department of Justice.
Time limit under law for an appeal response is 20 days.
But the Department of Justice ignores the law in 5 USC 552.
August 14, 1997 a follow up letter to the Director, Office of
Information and Privacy, United States Department of Justice
stated,
Purpose of this letter is to complain about unlawful
non-response of the Co-Director of to a FOIA appeal.
October 21, 1997 Payne received the attached following
letter,
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information and Privacy
Telephone 202-514-3642 Washington D.C. 20530
Mr. William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE Re: Appeal No. 97-0931
Albuquerque, NM 8711 RLJ:PNC:CSH
Dear Mr. Payne:
You appealed from the action of the United States Marshal
Service on you request for access to records pertaining to
yourself.
Š After careful consider of your appeal, I have decided to affirm
the initial action in this case. The documents responsive to
your request are exempt from the access provision of the
Privacy Act of 1974 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 552a(j)2. See
28 C.F.R. section 16.101 (1996). Accordingly, you access
rights are limited to those provided by the Freedom of
Information Act.
The information pertaining to you are properly withheld from
you pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 552(b)(7)(A), which pertains
to records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected
to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This material is not
appropriate for discretionary release.
Judicial review of my action on the appeal is available to you
in the United States District Court for the judicial district in
which you reside or have your principal place of business, or
in the District of Columbia, which is also were the records you
seek are located.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Huff
Co-Director
Judge Scalia, we are now left with three choices,
1 a FOIA/PA lawsuit,
2 do nothing,
3 or challenge the government to prove lawful conduct.
Since we, which in includes you, are involved in the process
of exposing criminal activity, all evidence in writing, within
the federal government and US federal court system, alternative
1 might not work until the court system is cleaned-up.
Besides we are currently, as you realize, involved in a FOIA
lawsuit with the National Security Agency.
2 is unacceptable to us for the reason that we have hard
written evidence criminal conduct of government employees.
And we intend to pursue this matter to conclusion.
3 is the best alternative in this case. This places the US the
Department of Justice in a position which requires defense.
Therefore, we are filing criminal complaint affidavit against US
Marshals Lester and Lopez, judge Fern Smith and Fifth circuit
clerk Toby Slawsky for violation of Title 18 Obstruction of
Justice.
Albuquerque FBI agent-in-charge Weber has previous been
charged for his involvement in this apparent failed
intimidation attempt using the US Marshals service.
Š
As you may know, Obstruction of Justice, Article 1512, as
amended states,
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation ... threatens, ...
or engages in misleading conduct toward another person with
intent to -
(3) hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law
enforcement officer or judge of the United States of
information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense ...
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and
thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person
from -
(1) reporting to a law enforcement or judge of the United
States the commission or possible commission of a Federal
offense ...
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned ...
And judge Scalia, the actions of Lester, Lopez, Smith, and
Slawsky required defense since Article 1512 states,
(d) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it
is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the
defendant's sole intention was to encourage, induce, or
cause the other person to testify truthfully.
In DECLARATION OF GARY W. WINCH [Winch] , Director
of Policy, NSA, which you have a copy, Winch attempts to
pass himself off to the court as THE individual responsible
for all FOIA matters at NSA.
NSA Deputy Director William P. Crowell, who assured us that
administrative remedies had been exhausted in our NSA FOIA
lawsuit, also is the ranking Freedom of Information Act,
Privacy Act Appeals Authority.
I attach the full test of RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM P.
CROWELL taken from Internet at jya.com, 23 October 1997.
Winch made a false statement under oath.
Attached copy of PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT stamped FILED 97 OCT 31 PM 1:02 details the
Šcrime committed by Winch.
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, entitled
the Complaint provides:
The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged. It shall be made upon
oath before a magistrate.
As you may be aware,
An individual may "make a written complaint on oath before
an examining and committing magistrate, and obtain a
warrant of arrest." This is in conformity with the Federal
Constitution, and "consonant with the principles of natural
justice and personal liberty found in the common law."
[United States v Kilpatrick (1883, DC NC) 16G 765, 769]
You may also be aware,
A complaint though quite general in terms is valid if it
sufficiently apprises the defendant of the nature of the
offense with which he is charged.
[United States v Wood (1927, DC Tex) 26F2d 908, 910, affd
(CA5 Tex) 26 F2d 912.]
And for your edification,
The commission of a crime must be shown by facts positively
stated. The oath or affirmation required is of facts and not
opinions or conclusion.
[United States ex rel. King v Gokey (1929, DC NY) 32 F2d
93, 794]
The complaint must be accompanied by an oath.
[Re Rules of Court (1877, CC Ga) 3 Woods 502, F Cas No
2126]
A complaint must be sworn to before a commissioner or other
officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses
against the United States.
[United States v Bierley ( 1971, WD Pa) 331 F Supp 1182]
Such office is now called a magistrate.
A complaint is ordinarily made by an investigating officer or
agent, and where private citizens seek warrants of arrest, the
practice recommended by the Judicial Conference of the
United States is to refer the complaint to the United States
Attorney. However, further reference to him is rendered futile
Š where a mandamus proceeding is brought to compel him to
prosecute and he opposes the proceeding.
[Pugach v Klein (1961, SD NY) 193 F Supp 630, citing Manual
for United States Commissioners 5 (1948)]
Any attempt to bring criminal complaints to government
authorities would, of course, be futile.
We are citizens of the United States and , judge Scalia, you
are the assigned magistrate.
In order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution and
Rules 3 and 4, a written and sworn complaint should set forth
the essential facts constituting the offense charged and also
facts showing that the offense was committed and that the
defendant committed it.
And,
As to the requirement that the complaint be made on personal
knowledge of the complainant, it is enough for the issuance
of a warrant that a complainant shows it to be on the
knowledge of the complainant.
[Giordenello v United States (1958) 357 US 480, 2 L Ed. 2d
1503, 78 S Ct 1245, rev. (Ca5 Tx) 241 F2d 575, 579 in accord
Rice v Ames (1901) 180 US 371, 45 L Ed 577, 21 S ct 406, and
United States v Walker, (1952, CA2 NY) 197 F 2d 287, 289,
cert den 344 US 877, 97 L Ed 679, 73 S Ct 172]
So as to keep contiguous the requirements of the law and the
criminal complaint affidavit, we will include this complaint in
this letter to you.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT:
US Marshals Arthur Lester, Thomas Lopez,
Northern District of California judge Fern Smith,
Fifth circuit court clerk Toby Slawsky
1 Slawsky, Smith and Albuquerque FBI agent-in-charge
Weber caused to have sent US Marshals Lester and Lopez
to apparently harass William H. Payne on January 23, 1997.
2 Lester and Lopez had no letter or other document to
present to Payne or Morales to indicate any valid
authorization for an investigation.
3 Attempts using the FOIA to have the Department of Justice
furnish documents relating to the alleged proper investigation
culminate with attached October 21, 1997 letter from Huff
stating a lawful investigation.
COUNT 1
ŠLester, Lopez, Smith and Slawsky are charged with criminal
violation of Title 18, Section 1512, Obstruction of Justice,
for having attempted to harass both Payne and Morales
from reporting
A felony perjury of Sandia lawyer Gregory A. Cone to judge
Smith,
B judicial misconduct as a result of the Tenth circuit clerks
and judges for ruling in both Morales' and Payne's appeals
when briefs of appellee Sandia Laboratories were accepted as
FILED when, by Tenth Circuit rules, the briefs could not be
accepted as filed because appellee missed the filing time
limit.
Payne and Morales both won their cases on appeal at the
Tenth circuit on a technicality, but judges and court clerks
awarded the wins to appellee.
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
criminal complaint affidavit 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.
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
Date Arthur R. Morales
1023 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
(505) 345-1381
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT: Garry Winch
1 Winch wrote in a sworn affidavit before Federal Court,
District of New Mexico,
As the Directory of Policy, I am a TOP SECRET classification
authority, pursuant to Executive Order 12958, section 1.4, and
I am responsible for processing of all requests made pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. section
552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552a, for NSA
records.
Š2 Attached 31 December 1996 letter from NSA FOIA/PA officer
William P. Crowell shows that Winch made a false statement
under oath.
Winch is not responsible for "all requests made pursuant
to the Freedom of Information Act"
COUNT 1
3 Winch is charged with violation of Title 18,
FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
1018. Official certificates or writings
Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by
any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or
other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a
certificate or writing, containing ANY statement which he
knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is
not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
for attempting to pass himself of to a federal court the sole
processor of FOIA requests so as to improperly attempt to
influence the outcome of a federal FOIA lawsuit.
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
criminal complaint affidavit 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.
Date William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111
505-292-7037
Date Arthur R. Morales
1023 Los Arboles NW
Albuquerque, NM 87107
(505) 345-1381
Visibility of our NSA FOIA lawsuit has increased as a result
of publication on Internet of documents relating to
cryptography and the NSA spy sting on Iran.
ŠFor example,
NSA, Crypto AG, and the Iraq-Iran Conflict
by J. Orlin Grabbe
One of the dirty little secrets of the 1980s is that the U.S.
regularly provided Iraq's Saddam Hussein with top-secret
communication intercepts by the U.S. National Security
Agency (NSA). Consider the evidence.
When in 1991 the government of Kuwait paid the public
relations firm of Hill & Knowlton ten million dollars to drum up
American war fever against the evil dictator Hussein, it
brought about the end of a long legacy of cooperation
between the U.S. and Iraq. Hill & Knowlton resurrected the
World War I propaganda story about German soldiers
roasting Belgian babies on bayonets, updated in the form
of a confidential witness (actually the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S.) who told Congress a tearful
story of Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwaiti babies out of incubators
and leaving them on the cold floor to die. President George
Bush then repeated this fabricated tale in speeches ten times
over the next three days.
What is remarkable about this staged turn of events is that,
until then, Hussein had operated largely with U.S. approval.
This cooperation had spanned three successive
administrations, starting with Jimmy Carter. As noted by
John R. MacArthur, "From 1980 to 1988, Hussein had
shouldered the burdenof killing about 150,000 Iranians, in
addition to at least thirteen thousand of his own citizens,
including several thousand unarmed Kurdish civilians, and in
the process won the admiration and support of elements of
three successive U.S. Administrations" [1].
Hussein's artful slaughter of Iranians was aided by good
military intelligence. The role of NSA in the conflict is an open
secret in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Only in this
country has there been a relative news blackout, despite the
fact that it was the U.S. administration that let the crypto cat
out of the bag.
First, U.S. President Ronald Reagan informed the world on
national television that the United States was reading Libyan
communications. This admission was part of a speech
justifying the retaliatory bombing of Libya for its alleged
involvement in the La Belle discotheque bombing in Berlin's
Schoeneberg district, where two U.S. soldiers and a Turkish
woman were killed, and 200 others injured. Reagan wasn't
talking about American monitoring of Libyan news
broadcasts. Rather, his "direct, precise, and undeniable proof"
referred to secret (encrypted) diplomatic communication
between Tripoli and the Libyan embassy in East Berlin.
ŠNext, this leak was compound by the U.S. demonstration that
it was also reading secret Iranian communications. As reported
in Switzerland's Neue Zurcher Zeitung, the U.S. provided the
contents of encrypted Iranian messages to France to assist
in the conviction of Ali Vakili Rad and Massoud Hendi for
the stabbing death in the Paris suburb of Suresnes of the
former Iranian prime minister Shahpour Bakhtiar and his
personal secretary Katibeh Fallouch. [2]
What these two countries had in common was they had
both purchased cryptographic communication equipment from
the Swiss firm Crypto AG. Crypto AG was founded in 1952
by the (Russian-born) Swedish cryptographer Boris Hagelin
who located his company in Zug. Boris had created the
"Hagelin-machine", a encryption device similar to the German
"Enigma". The Hagelin machine was used on the side of the
Allies in World War II.
Crypto AG was an old and venerable firm, and Switzerland
was a neutral country. So Crypto AG's enciphering devices for
voice communication and digital data networks were popular,
and customers came from 130 countries. These included the
Vatican, as well the governments of Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Such
countries were naturally skeptical of cryptographic devices
sold in many NATO countries, so turned to relatively neutral
Switzerland for communication security.
Iran demonstrated its suspicion about the source of the leaks,
when it arrested Hans Buehler, a top salesman for Crypto AG,
in Teheran on March 18, 1992. During his nine and a half
months of solitary confinement in Evin prison in Teheran,
Buehler was questioned again and again whether he had
leaked Teheran's codes or Libya's keys to Western powers.
Luckily Buehler didn't know anything. He in fact believed in
his own sales pitch that Crypto AG was a neutral company
and its equipment was the best. They were Swiss, after all. [3]
Crypto AG eventually paid one million dollars for Buehler's
release in January 1993, then promptly fired him once they
had reassured themselves that he hadn't revealed anything
important under interrogation, and because Buehler had begun
to ask some embarrassing questions. Then reports appeared on
Swiss television, Swiss Radio International, all the major
Swiss papers, and in German magazines like Der Spiegel. Had
Crypto AG's equipment been spiked by Western intelligence
services? the media wanted to know. The answer was Yes [4].
Swiss television traced the ownership of Crypto AG to a
company in Liechtenstein, and from there back to a trust
company in Munich. A witness appearing on Swiss television
explained the real owner was the German government--the
Federal Estates Administration. [5]
According to Der Spiegel, all but 6 of the 6000 shares of Crypto
AG were at one time owned by Eugen Freiberger, who resided
Šin Munich and was head of the Crypto AG managing board
in 1982. Another German, Josef Bauer, an authorized tax
agent of the Muenchner Treuhandgesellschaft KPMG, and
who was elected to the managing board in 1970, stated that his
mandate had come from the German company Siemens. Other
members of Crypto AG's management had also worked at
Siemens. Was the German secret service, the
Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), hiding behind the Siemens'
connection?
So it would seem. Der Spiegel reported that in October 1970,
a secret meeting of the BND had discussed how the Swiss
company Graettner could be guided into closer cooperation
with Crypto AG, or could even merged with it. The BND
additionally considered how "the Swedish company Ericsson
could be influenced through Siemens to terminate its own
cryptographic business." [6]
A former employee of Crypto AG reported that he had to
coordinate his developments with "people from Bad
Godesberg". This was the location of the "central office for
encryption affairs" of the BND, and the service instructed
Crypto AG what algorithms to use to create the codes. The
employee also remembers an American "watcher", who
strongly demanded the use of certain encryption methods.
Representatives from NSA visited Crypto AG often. A
memorandum of a secret workshop at Crypto AG in August
1975, where a new prototype of an encryption device was
demonstrated, mentions the participation of Nora L.
Mackebee, an NSA cryptographer. Motorola engineer
Bob Newman says that Mackebee was introduced to him
as a "consultant". Motorola cooperated with Crypto AG
in the seventies in developing a new generation of
electronic encryption machines. The Americans "knew Zug
very well and gave travel tips to the Motorola people for the
visit at Crypto AG," Newman told Der Spiegel.
Knowledgeable sources indicate that the Crypto AG
enciphering process, developed in cooperation with the NSA
and the German company Siemans, involved secretly
embedding the decryption key in the cipher text. Those who
knew where to look could monitor the encrypted
communication, then extract the decryption key that was also
part of the transmission, and recover the plain text message.
Decryption of a message by a knowledgeable third
party was not any more difficult than it was for the intended
receiver. (More than one method was used. Sometimes the
algorithm was simply deficient, with built-in exploitable
weaknesses.)
Crypto AG denies all this, of course, saying such reports are
"pure invention".
What information was provided to Saddam Hussein exactly?
ŠAnswers to this question are currently being sought in a
lawsuit against NSA in New Mexico, which has asked to see
"all Iranian messages and translations between January 1, 1980
and June 10, 1996". [7]
The passage of top-secret communications intelligence to
someone like Saddam Hussein brings up other questions.
Which dictator is the U.S. passing top secret messages to
currently? Jiang Zemin? Boris Yeltsin?
Will Saddam Hussein again become a recipient of NSA
largess if he returns to the mass slaughter of Iranians? What
exactly is the purpose of NSA anyway?
One more question: Who is reading the Pope's
communications?
Bibliography
[1] John R. MacArthur, Second Front: Censorship and
Propaganda in the Gulf War, Hill and Wang, New York, 1992.
[2] Some of the background of this assassination can be found
in "The Tehran Connection," Time Magazine, March 21, 1994.
[3] The Buehler case is detailed in Res Strehle, Verschleusselt:
der Fall Hans Beuhler, Werd Verlag, Zurich, 1994.
[4] "For years, NSA secretly rigged Crypto AG machines so
that U.S. eavesdroppers could easily break their codes,
according to former company employees whose story is
supported by company documents," "No Such Agency, Part 4:
Rigging the Game," The Baltimore Sun, December 4, 1995.
[5] Reported in programs about the Buehler case that were
broadcast on Swiss Radio International on May 15, 1994 and
July 18, 1994.
[6] "Wer ist der befugte Vierte?": Geheimdienste unterwandern
den Schutz von Verschlusselungsgeraten," Der Spiegel 36,
1996.
[7] U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico,
William H. Payne, Arthur R. Morales, Plaintiffs, v. Lieutenant
General Kenneth A. Minihan, USAF, Director of National
Security Agency, National Security Agency, Defendant,
CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS.
November 2, 1997
Web Page: http://www.aci.net/kalliste/
The internationaě interest in both the crypto aspects and,
now, judicial misconduct focuseó attenôion as whether the US
court systeí can repaiň itselć bů bringinç properly-chargeä
federaě employeeó tď justice.
Š
So, judge Scalia, we asked that you perform your job, issue
the warrants of arrest, writs, and finally get us copies of
the Tenth Circuit docket sheet for our cases.
The last request is especially simple:
Tenth circuit court clerks refuse to send us copies of the docket
sheets for our cases.
The reason is that these sheet contain WRITTEN EVIDENCE of criminal
conduct on the part of US federal judges and court clerks.
Sincerely,
Arthur R. Morales William H. Payne
1023 Los Arboles NW 13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87107 Albuquerque, NM 87111
