IN THE 10th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants) [For PETITION for Writ of Mandamus]; IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL (With a Attorney who was not nominated, appointed, or hired by a Defendant) [FOR NOTICE OF Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for OPINIONS and INTERVENTION]; IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY (U.S. Attorney who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants ) [For MOTION for Victims' Assistance with Representation]; IN THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants) [For CRIMINAL COMPLAINT]; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (With a Judge who was not nominated or appointed by any of the Defendants) [For DEMAND for Assistance with Representation and/or MOTION to Re-open Case to Consider Second Edition of [19] MOTION...] Frank McKinnon and 1,135 Concerned Citizens of southeastern New Mexico Petitioners (Plaintiffs), v. Dennis Spurgeon; Timothy Frazier; Tammy Way; Dale Gandy; Larry Gandy; Mike Marley; Peter Maggiore; Steve Creamer; Alan Dobson; and all others culpable in this matter, including but not all inclusive of George W. Bush, Pete V. Domenici, Samuel Bodman and anyone with the same intentions of the listed Defendants as described within this document, Respondents (Defendants). Amended PETITION for Writ of Mandamus; NOTICE of Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention; DEMAND for Representation; CRIMINAL COMPLAINT; 3rd Edutition of [DEMAND] and/or MOTION to Re-open Case to Consider Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury COME NOW pro se Frank McKinnon on behalf of myself, and, for, and with One Thousand McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 1 of 953 NO. 07-912 JH/LAM

One Hundred Thirty-Five (1,135) more concerned citizens of southeastern New Mexico (Plaintiffs), in allegiance and civic duty to, and for the defense and protection of, the State of New Mexico and the United States of America, to respectfully submit this PETITION for Writ of Mandamus, this NOTICE of these Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention, this DEMAND for Assistance with Representation, this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, and this DEMAND and/or MOTION to Re-open this Case to Reconsider this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury, which are as follows: RATIONAL OF THIS DOCUMENT (1) I am not a lawyer, and have no ambition to become one. The original document, which

started this case, was a poorly written 5 page Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction with a 1 page cover letter, which was seeking protection or injunctive relief from the threatening plans of the Defendants, which I filed in the Fifth Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, in Chaves County with 1,136 signatures. In more simple terms, I carried it into the Chaves County Courthouse, which is 5 blocks from my house, and handed it through the window to the clerk on July 13, 2007. (2) The only reason that I thought I knew how to file a Petition or Emergency Order of

Protection or Injunction was that I had an experience, in 2006, where it became necessary to file one to stop a corrupt County Commissioner (a real estate man who used to be a County Judge) from using FEMA money to pay a crew to illegally take (steal) some historic rock work out of the Spring River, just outside my living room window, with intentions of replacing it with offensive looking materials. The Petition was only one page. It was never officially served to the corrupt county official.. However, apparently, since the corrupt, retired county judge, was being caught manipulated the law in an abusive way, and his former peers saw it happening, I received responses from his attorney as if it he had been officially served with the Petition. His crew spent the next few weeks working hard to make a good McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 2 of 953

effort toward rectifying about $300,000.00 worth of damage they had done to the historic rock work. (3) The way that I learned that a Petition for Emergency Order for Protection or Injunction

was the appropriate legal action for stopping a corrupt government official from destroying public and personal property, and that it is a federal crime to talk in a way that causes somebody else to suffer emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury and death, like the Defendants are talking, is described as follows: (a) My house is about 12 feet from the edge of the Spring River. During WWII, there was a

German POW camp south of Roswell. Prisoners from this POW camp did some beautiful rock work along the walls of the Spring River. In 2006, a person could look out my living room window to see this beautiful, historic, rock work. I listened to city officials talk expanding the rock work for the rest of the Spring River to look just like the historic rock work outside my window. (b) A few months later, I heard a loud repetitive, pounding, sound and my house was

shaking. It sounded like heavy equipment tearing up large concrete slab. The walls inside my house cracked in several places, and glass shattered in my cabinet doors. I looked out the window and saw a county crew using heavy equipment to tear out the rock work I immediately talked with the crew leader to find out what they were doing. He explained that they were stripping the rock off the wall of the river to replace it with material that he showed me, which looked like cat vomit. (c) I asked the crew to stop tearing out the historic rock work. They responded by laughing at

me and saying, "this isn't historic rock" as they continued loading the rocks from the historic rock work into dump trucks that were lined up to carry the rocks away. (d) Again, I asked the crew to stop tearing out the historic rock work. They responded in

exactly the same way. So I asked them who their boss was. They replied by saying "Bobby Ramirez." (c) I said, "please stop tearing out the historic rock work, until I have an opportunity to talk

with Bobby and the Mayor, because I know that the city and county would want to collaborate in fixing McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 3 of 953

what you have already done." They responded by laughing and throwing more rocks into the dump truck. (d) Then, I said: "I will shoot the next person who steals another rock from this historic rock

work, as I got into my pick-up truck to try find the Mayor and Bobby Ramirez. I was unable to find either of these men. So I drove to the Roswell Police station to report that the theft of the historic rock work. (e) While I was siting at a table, with a police officer, reporting the theft of the historic rock

work, another police officer approached me, and told me to come with him. I followed that officer to a room where he frisked and handcuffed me, read me my rights. He then, escorted me to a police car and drove me to the Roswell Municipal Court. On the way, he told me that I should have filed a "Petition for Injunction." (f) At the Municipal Court, I found out that I was being charged with assault. I pled not guilty.

Then, I was taken back to the police car and driven to the jail where I was frisked, again, allowed to use the telephone to call my wife, and then placed in a room where they handcuffed me to a bench. (g) It took my wife a couple of hours to withdraw a thousand dollars for bail, pay the

Municipal Court Clerk, and drive to the jail to pick me up. While I was waiting, I had plenty of time to think about figuring out what a "Petition for Injunction" was. (f) As we were driving back to town, my wife explained to me that the judge had said that I

could end up in prison for as long as 14 years if my case went to trial, or I could go back into the Municipal Court and plead guilty, and have a year of probation with my recored cleared at the end of that year. (g) I responded to this, by saying: "But I didn't assault anybody." She told me that the law

says that "you can't even say something to somebody that makes them feel threatened...it is considered an assault." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 4 of 953

(h) (i) (j) (k)

So I walked into the Municipal Court and told the judge what my wife had told me. The judge responded to this by saying: And? I responded to this by saying: "I plead guilty." Then, I looked up the term "Petition for Injunction" on the Internet. I saw many different

forms of Petitions for Injunction. The form that seemed most appropriate for stopping a corrupt public official from destroying public and person property was a "Petition for Emergency Order for Proection or Injunction." (l) I spent the next day writing a Petition for Emergency Order for Protection or Injunction,

while the county crew continued with the pounding that shook my house, and loading the historic river rocks into dump trucks and hauling them away. (m) The next morning, I carried the Petition into the Chaves County Courthouse, and handed

it through the window to the clerk. (n) About an hour later, I noticed the pounding noise had stopped, and looked out the window

and saw the county crew standing on the bridge, talking, and looking at the destruction they had done. Then, they got into their cars and drove away. (o) A few days later, they started working on fixing the damage they had done to the Spring

River. It took them at least two weeks, maybe a month, to fix it. I still doesn't look as good as it did before they started tearing it up, but I believe that they put forth their best efforts. (p) I received a letter or two from Bobby Ramirez's lawyer, which appeared to be asking if I

was OK with the way they fixed the Spring River rock work. Then, I received a phone call asking the same thing. I told his lawyer that I was impressed with how hard the crew had worked at fixing it and that it was OK. As I am typing this document, today, I wish I had been more aware of how the legal system works, because I still have cracks my wall that need fixing, the glass in my cabinets has not been replaced, and my house is still going to need to be jacked up and leveled someday, which were all McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 5 of 953

caused by a corrupt politician who was manipulating the law to drain our federal government's money. (q) In the corrupt County Commissioner's case, it was FEMA money, that could have been

used to save more peoples' lives and homes in New Orleans. Even though the corrupt County Commissioner made the damage to the Spring River historic rock work something that will likely not be noticed by someone who never knew about it happening, it is still not as beautiful at it used to be, and there is still a few thousand dollars work of work that needs to be done to my house to bring it back to the condition it was in before the pounding of the heavy equipment damaged it. The corrupt county commissioner has since passed away. Therefore, even if I found that I still had a right to sue for damages to my house, there would be nobody to sue. (r) A year later, I visited with the Municipal Judge, and he said my that my record would be

"expunged." I assume that the meaning of "expunged" is cleared. (4) In the following pages you will read about two more situations that involve where corrupt

public officials have carelessly manipulated laws in ways that have had adverse effects on the lives of innocent, law abiding, people of the United States. (5) The first situation involves a group of people, who have bribed public officials to obtain

government contracts which have provided money to create fiscal infrastructure that made this group's government contracts and commercial activities extremely massive and profitable, which looked good on paper, as long as the person looking was not aware of the massive amount of bodily injuries, property damage, and deaths, that have been caused by the activities of this group, and as long as the person looking was not aware of the fact that this group obtained permits that allowed members of this group to break the laws that were made to protect people from bodily injury, property injury. and death; allowed members of this group to lie about breaking these laws; and allowed this members of this group to continue breaking these laws after this members of this group were caught breaking these laws, caught lying about breaking these laws, caught concealing where they had broken these laws, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 6 of 953

caught submitted false reports, caught injuring people, caught causing property damage, and caught carelessly killing people. This group of people was an organization called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. This company was sold in 2005, and has been dwindling to almost no longer existing. (6) If the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended,

would not have guided people to disregard my rights to due process and equal protection of the law for the past 7 years, some people, who were in the organization called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC), would have been held liable for the murder of Joe S. McKinnon, damage of my property, and injuries and deaths of many more uninformed people who have lived near and/or worked at GLCC Central Plant, including a few hundred kids, from New Mexico, who spent time at the Pathfinders Camp, which is briefly described on some of the following pages. (7) On January 23, 2009, while preparing to file what I hope will be the 3rd and final amended

edition of this document, I became aware that Great Lakes Chemical Corporation is actually part of the second group that is described in paragraphs 8 - 11. If I am ever provided with due process. I have the ability to provide some biological samples, which are being save by a legitimate third party, that would very likely cause people in the second group, who have made the irresponsible orders to have radioactive waste incinerated by ENSCO and/or to have it shipped directly to GLCC - Central to be deep well injected, liable for Felony murder and causing property damage, injuries, and deaths of the same people listed in paragraph 6 above. (8) The second situation involves a group of people, who have bribed public officials to obtain

government contracts which have provided money to create fiscal infrastructure that made this group's government contracts and commercial activities extremely massive and profitable, which would look good on paper, as long as the person looking is not aware of the massive amount of bodily injuries, property damage, and deaths, that have been caused by the activities of this group, and as long as the person looking is not aware of the fact the only reasons this group has made a profit, include the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 7 of 953

following: (a) (b) This group has received several $billions from the United States Government; This group has been allowed to avoid liability for its deadliest and most damaging

activities, which involve radioactive materials by operating with no impartial government agency monitoring or enforcing the law when it relates to these deadly and damaging radioactive activities. (c) In 1982, Congress made a promise that it could not keep, which was to take care of all of

the radioactive waste for the nuclear industry. (9) The second group includes a corrupt former United States Senator (Pete V. Domenici) and

corrupt former President of the United States (George W. Bush), who only played the part of aiding and abetting in the crimes committed by the first group, but accepted bribe money in trade of soliciting the continuation of the same sort of crimes, and in trade for soliciting even more insidious crimes that are being committed in the name of the Nuclear Renaissance and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and other names they are using to promote reprocessing nuclear fuel in the United States. Along with these solicitations of crimes in trade for bribes, Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush accepted bribe money to funnel $billions into the pockets of people associated with nuclear energy, nuclear fuel reprocessing, and nuclear weapons industries, all of which have and will continue to cause bodily injury, property damage, and death to innocent people, while they could have used the same federal government's (Department of Energy (Department of Defense)) money to produce energy from renewable (nontoxic) sources, and could have used it to make even our older, currently owned, poorest peoples', automobiles run on hydrogen instead of gasoline, which would have taken away their justification for invading other countries and fighting wars, and would have put a lot more money in the average person's pocket instead of gas tanks. I know that these issues have been such integral parts of political campaigns that this could be perceived as a political statement. There is no political intent here. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 8 of 953

(10)

The statement made in paragraph 9 on page 8 is made to show that Pete V. Domenici and

George W. Bush made a choice between two options, which are as follows: (a) Option 1 was to use money of the United States Government's Department of Energy

(Department of Defense) to promote nuclear energy, nuclear fuel reprocessing, and the production of nuclear weapons, while they knew that these activities would cause bodily injury, property damage, and death to innocent, uninformed, people of the United States for more than a million years. Even though encouraging any country to build and operate nuclear power plants is encouraging irresponsible behavior that will result in bodily injury, property damage, and death of innocent people of that country, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) has been an aggressive act toward any country that has been excluded from GNEP, and has been an aggressive act toward all of the countries that would be prohibited from reprocessing their own nuclear fuel. This has resulted in rekindling the Cold War with its Nuclear Arms Race. (b) Option 2 was to use money of the United States Government's Department of Energy

(Department of Defense) for activities that produce energy from renewable (nontoxic) sources, and to make even our older, currently owned, poorest peoples', automobiles run on hydrogen instead of gasoline, which would have taken away their justification for invading other countries and fighting wars, and would have put a lot more money in the average person's pocket instead of gas tanks. This option had and continues to have greater potential than Option 1 for accomplishing the objectives of providing energy and national security for the people of the United States, and it doesn't cause anyone to suffer bodily injury, property damage, or death. (11) I believe what Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush where they graduated from

universities. Therefore, I believe both of them have known better than to say that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and emissions free. (12) Prior to writing and filing the Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or injunction to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 9 of 953

stop the corrupt County Commissioner, and writing and filing the Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to stop activities promoted and ordered by the corrupt Senator and President, my only reasons for studying law, included the following: (a) I taught courses that included curricula with the United States Constitution: 3 years to

students in grade 6, and 2 years to students in grades 7 - 12. (b) I spent 5 years studying the definitions of Murder and Felony Murder and how they related

to documents and human behavior that were based on or guided by the National Environmental Act of 1969 (NEPA). This study included studying documents, communicating with people, and studying the behavior of people in several entities, which have included the following: (b.1) (b.2) (b.3) (b.4) (b.4) (b.5) County Coroner's Office in Union County, El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Sheriff in El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Prosecuting Attorney in El Dorado, Arkansas; Office of the Union County Clerk in El Dorado, Arkansas; Headquarters of the Arkansas State Police in Little Rock Arkansas; Offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigations in Little Rock, Arkansas, in Roswell,

New Mexico, in Las Cruces, New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Dallas, Texas, and in Washington, DC; (b.6) (b.7) (b.8) (b.9) The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality in Little Rock and El Dorado; The Arkansas Department of Health in Little Rock and El Dorado; Offices of the Governors in Arkansas and New Mexico; United States Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry

in Dallas, Texas, and in Atlanta, Georgia; (b.10) The United States Environmental Protection Agency Offices in Dallas, Texas, in

Boulder, Colorado, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in Arlington, Virginia, and in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 10 of 953

Washington, DC; (b.11) Offices of Occupational Health and Safety Administration Offices in Little Rock,

Arkansas, and in Washington, DC; (b.12) (b.13) (b.14) (b.15) (b.16) (b.17) (b.18) (b.19) (b.20) (13) The White House in Washington D.C. The United States House of Representatives in Washington, DC; The United States Senate in Washington, DC; The 9th Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Central Plant, in El Dorado, Arkansas; ENSCO Incinerator New Mexico Environment Department Office in Roswell and Santa Fe; New Mexico Health Department Offices in Roswell and Santa Fe; United State Geological Survey Office The reason that I spent 5 years studying the definitions of Murder and Felony Murder and

how they related to documents and human behavior that were based on or guided by the National Environmental Act of 1969 (NEPA), was that the NEPA was used by people associated with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) to be permitted to murder my father, and to injure and/or kill some more members of my family, my friends, my neighbors, and a few hundred people who grew up in New Mexico and spent time at a summer camp for kids that is located 3 miles from El Dorado in Union County Arkansas. (14) The ENSCO incinerator was, and may be still, incinerating hazardous waste from about

49 of the United States, and for the Department of Energy. (15) There is a web page article that talks about ENSCO and the Department of Energy.

Because understanding how kids from New Mexico have been affected by Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, ENSCO, and the Department of Energy is pertinent to [1] PETITION to stop GNEP, I McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 11 of 953

have inserted, between paragraphs, some pictures of the camp that my father established in 1956, gave me the responsibility of running in 1987, and completely gave to me in his Will in 2000. This article about ENSCO and the Department of Energy says the following (quotation marks omitted): RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEM GETS WORSE (a) Hazardous waste incineration got another black eye during a recent Congressional hearing.

It seems that for a decade--perhaps longer--hazardous waste incinerators have been illegally burning radioactive wastes shipped to them illegally by the federal Department of Energy (DOE), the agency responsible for managing the nation's atomic bomb factories.

(b)

It wasn't even the government that initially discovered this embarassment. Journalist Peter

Shinkle began a series of articles May 6, 1991, in the BATON ROUGE [LOUISIANA] TIMES about DOE shipping radioactively-contaminated chemical wastes to a Baton Rouge incinerator operated by Rollins Environmental Services--a facility not licensed to accept radioactive wastes. Shinkle's articles led first to a DOE investigation and later, on February 20, 1992, to a public hearing held by California Congressman George Miller and the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 12 of 953

(c )

Leo P. Duffy, a DOE assistant secretary, testified February 20 that between 1984 and 1991

some 113,000 cubic yards of radioactive wastes (about 200 boxcar-loads weighing 7000 tons) were shipped illegally to eleven chemical waste disposal facilities (incinerators and dumps): Aptus in Coffeeville, Kansas (1.6 million lb.); Chem Waste in Emelle, Alabama (4.2 million pounds); Chem Waste in Chicago (1.1 million lb.); Chem Waste in Sulpher, Louisiana (19,400 lb.); CECOS in Cincinnati, OH (133,000 lb.); ENSCO in El Dorado, Arkansas (3.6 million pounds); GSX (now Laidlaw) in Reidsville, North Carolina (18,766 lb.); LWD in Calvert City, Kentucky (86,440 lb.); Rollins in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (2.4 million lb.); Rollins in Deer Park, Texas (896,511 lb.); and SD Myers in Talmadge, Ohio (18,143 lb.). Duffy testified that 25 DOE sites had shipped illegal radioactive wastes and another 11 highly-suspect DOE sites remain to be checked. DOE hasn't had time to check the records from these additional sites because they have only known about the problem for nine months, he said. Duffy said, in all, perhaps 150 incinerators, landfills, fuel blending operations, recyclers and other waste facilities had accepted wastes from DOE but, so far, DOE has only confirmed that illegal RADIOACTIVE wastes went to 11 or 12 of them. DOE is continuing to investigate itself and its contractors, and Duffy promised to tell all as soon as all is known. (d) At the hearing February 20, various waste companies sent top officials to testify. George

VanderVelde, vice president of science and technology for Chemical Waste Management (Chem Waste) said his company has an extensive in-depth state-of-the-art program for analyzing incoming wastes for radioactivity and, he testified, "We have no indication that we received any undetected radioactive substances from DOE facilities." McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 13 of 953

(e)

The credibility of VanderVelde's testimony was undercut somewhat by subsequent

testimony from Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris, who presented an internal memo from a

Chem Waste employee dated February 6, 1992--two weeks before the hearing--saying that Chem Waste's Chicago incinerator was at that time holding 97 drums of illegal radioactive waste they had received a year earlier from DOE. Testimony indicated that Chem Waste had been unable to burn these

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 14 of 953

particular illegal radioactive wastes because its incinerator had been shut down by an explosion in early 1991. (f) Martin Marietta Energy Systems--the company that operates the Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, Kentucky), and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Portsmouth, Ohio)--sent its president, Clyde Hopkins, to

testify that his employees had been illegally shipping radioactive wastes to waste disposers like Rollins and Chem Waste for years. He said his employees used white-out illegally to delete information from McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 15 of 953

shipping manifests indicating that the wastes were radioactive because they believed "national security considerations" required them to. He said enemies of the United States might glean valuable information about U.S. atomic weapons by studying the wastes his staff had been shipping illegally to Chem Waste and Rollins and the others. He testified that his staff had been shipping uranium-238, uranium-235 and technetium-99 mixed in with chemical wastes. Additional information attached to his testimony indicated Martin Marietta had reason to believe iodine-129, neptunium-237, and thorium232 were also being shipped off-site to various incinerators and landfills. (It is worth noting that the

Camp Pond in late 1980s or early 1990s federal air pollution standard for thorium-232 is now five times stricter than the standard for plutonium-239, so tiny amounts of such wastes are dangerous.) (g) C. Randolph Warner, Jr., chairman of ENSCO, a major waste incinerator company in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 16 of 953

Arkansas, which burned nearly 4 million pounds of DOE's illegal radioactive wastes during the 1980s, testified there was no problem. All the wastes his company burned were safe, he said, including the illegal radioactive ones. (h) The total radioactivity shipped illegally by DOE was 1/10th of a Curie, the DOE testified,

and they trotted out a risk assessment to show that, on average, probably no one would have been harmed by dumping such small amounts of radioactivity into the environment. This is the old averaging trick, commonly used in risk assessments. Unfortunately, in the real world individuals don't

1980 Aerial Photo from Highway Department get exposed in an "average" way. Many may not be exposed at all; a few may be exposed a great deal; the average exposure remains low but those few people are in danger. It's like the fellow said: if all the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 17 of 953

air were removed from this room for 10 minutes, the average amount of air during the year would hardly change at all, but we would all be dead.

Camp Pond 1972 (i) The problem of radioactive waste gets worse every time anyone looks. April 9, Ohio's

Senator John Glenn (Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs) held a public hearing to announce that a draft study by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a minimum of 45,361 potentially radioactively contaminated sites across the U.S. Every state has some. Colorado tops the list with 7,060 sites; Vermont has only 36. This includes every place EPA could figure out where radioactivity has ever been present. Not all these sites are contaminated in a serious way but most are and will require cleanup. Just the DOE's 108 facilities--many of which are large, complex and badly contaminated--are presently estimated to cost $160 billion to clean up over the next 30 years. This estimate is almost certainly low. (j) In addition to the 45,361 potentially contaminated sites--some 15 or 20 thousand of which

may actually require cleanup--there are another 1.5 million oil and gas wells where, it was discovered last year, radioactive radium-226 and radium-228 have been brought to the surface along with oil and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 18 of 953

gas. The insides of oil extraction pipes are coated with a "scale" containing radium up to 100,000 times higher than natural background levels. In addition, much radioactivity from oil and gas wells has been dumped into shallow pits. In some cases, oil companies have donated old oil pipes to schools and municipalities, which have made jungle gyms, swing sets and parking lot barriers out of them. If old oil pipes are recycled, along with their radioactivity, the radioactivity will be incorporated into new metal products.

Camp Lodge in early 1990s (k) At Senator Glenn's hearing April 9, Dan Reicher from Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) noted that the government has never taken official notice of the radioactivity measurable in ash produced by burning coal. There are some 52,400 coal-burning power plants and industrial units, all of which are producing an ash elevated in radioactivity a few times higher than natural background levels. (l) EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Michael Shapiro testified April 9 that 1.1 billion tons

of NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material) wastes are produced each year by mineral processing, coal power production, oil and gas exploration and production, geothermal energy production, phosphorus and fertilizer production, and water treatment. Such wastes are entirely unregulated. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 19 of 953

(m)

Then there is wood ash, which, it was announced last year, is radioactive as well. During

the 1950s and 1960s, the United States tested atomic bombs above-ground in Nevada. The resulting radioactive fallout swept eastward, blowin' on the wind. The radioactive strontium and cesium settled out onto the ground and, as time passed, migrated into the soil. A-bomb enthusiasts assumed, optimistically, that it had gone away. (n) In 1989, Stewart A. Farber, who manages environmental monitoring for the Yankee Atomic

Electric Company in Bolton, Massachusetts, wondered if radioactive strontium and cesium from bomb fallout had been taken up by tree roots.[1] On a whim he took some ash from his home fireplace and tested it in his lab. It was about 100 times more radioactive than any other environmental sample he had ever checked. Now two years later, Farber has checked 47 samples gathered by 16 scientists in 14 states and he says wood ash "is a major source of radioactivity released into the environment." Only wood ash from California (upwind of the Nevada test site) seems free of radioactive fallout. (o) Industrial wood burning produces an estimated 900,000 tons of ash each year; residential

and utility wood burning generate another 543,000 tons. Many companies recycle their wood ash into fertilizer. (p) Farber says current regulations require wastes from a nuclear power plant to be disposed of

as radioactive wastes if they contain one percent as much radioactivity as is found in wood ash from New England. (q) Radioactivity is widely acknowledged to cause inheritable genetic changes, immune

system damage, reproductive damage, developmental disorders, and cancer. It is also widely acknowledged that the only truly safe dose of radiation is zero. (r) (16) See Reference 1,013 While studying documents from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and

the United States Environmental Protection Agency, I came across many documents that show how the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 20 of 953

aquifer that the Tailbrine Pond leaked into the same aquifer that fed the camp pond. The Tailbrine Pond was where Great Lakes Chemical Corporation would its waste that was too expensive to treat and recycle before it was shallow and deep well injected in to the ground water. Until today, Janaury 23, 2009, I was not aware that the Tailbrine Pond had radioactive materials. I had heard that it contained Department of Defense and Department of Energy waste. But I had no idea that it was radioactive. I have a strong feeling that most of the workers at GLCC - Central Plant have not been aware of this fact either, and even an stronger feeling that the people, who live above the contaminated ground water that flows south from the Tail Brine Pond, have not been told about the Department of Energy's radioactive materials that are in it. (17) Before finding out about the Department of Energy's radioactive material in the Tail Brine

Pond, on January 23, 2009, I had learned a lot about the the non-radioactive toxic substances that have been reported as being on-site at GLCC Central. I had learned that ENSCO incinerates hazardous materials from about 49 of the United States. I had learned that ENSCO scrubber brine was used to filter toxic substances that flowed through the ENSCO incinerator stack, in an effort to make the emissions from the ENSCO incinerator clean enough to be safely discharged into the air. I had learned that ENSCO scrubber brine contained Dioxin. I had leaned that the ENSCO scrubber brine was poured into the Tailbrine Pond that leaked into the aquifer that provides water for the spring fed Camp Pond. I had learned that the Tailbrine Pond was used to store toxic fluids before they were poured into the into injection wells that have leaked into the ground water. One of my last conversations on the last day that I spent visiting the EPA Region 6 in Dallas was with a person in charge if the injection well documents. I told him that I was concerned about the possibility of the leaking injection wells causing the contamination of the Camp Pond. His response was the question: "How can you tell which way the contamination came from." I don't remember if I had an opportunity to get back with that person to tell him about the graben fault runs through GLCC - Central that makes the injection wells unique in McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 21 of 953

they are like a bottomless holes, and the fluid that is injected into them could pop up out of the ground several miles away. This graben fault that runs north and south for miles and goes through the middle of GLCC - Central Plant makes it very unlikely that the fluid that has been injected into the injection wells would stay in one designated area, even if the injection wells were not leaking. But he did have a point. It would be difficult to tell whether the contamination in the Camp Pond came from the leaking Tailbrine Pond of the leaking injection wells. Considering the high concentrations toxic substances in ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central, I suspect that the contamination in the Camp Pond has come from both the Tailbrine Pond and the injection wells. Either way, although I have seen no sampling data regarding radioactive materials, this recent discovery of the Department of Energy's radioactive materials being in the plume of contaminated ground water that feeds the Camp Pond is causing feelings that are almost like when I first found out about GLCC's poisons in 2002. (18) The only reason I started this 3rd Edition of this document was to fix some of the

typographical errors, like lines that needed spacing, to complete Section 21 to make sure that everyone that reads this document is aware of the way political campaign contributions to Pete V. Domenici match the definition of bribery that is presented in 18 U.S.C. Part 1 Chapter 11 203, and to write a Rational for this document with a brief description of my experience with the County Commissioner stealing rock from the Spring River, because it is what motivated me to write and file [1] Petition for Emergency Order of Protection or Injunction to stop the threatening behavior of the Defendants, and with a brief description of my experiences of dealing behavior that has been guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as it is currently amended, when dealing with Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, because the Defendants are using the NEPA to justify their threatening behavior. I was not aware of the Department of Energy's radioactive waste in the ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central. Because my understanding is that the current behavior of the Defendants is merely a continuation of criminal behavior that caused the Department of Energy's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 22 of 953

radioactive materials to be poured and/or injected into the ground water that provided water for the Camp Pond, I will present just a bit more information to better explain why it is terrible and shocking news. (19) The picture of a document on the next pages contain correspondences regarding GLCC

storing ENSCO scrubber brine in the Tailbrine Pond and deep well injecting it.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 23 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 24 of 953

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 25 of 953

(20)

This inadvertent discovery of Department of Energy's radioactive waste being in the

plume of contaminated ground water that fed the Camp Pond, and my vague memory of reading a 1997 correspondence between the Hanford facility in Washington State and Great Lakes Chemical Corporation in El Dorado, Arkansas gave me reason to spend some time, Friday January 23, 2009, observing some behavior that was guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as it is currently amended, which was demonstrated by some good people and some not so good people, who work for the United States Government. It brought back memories of spending an excessive amount of time on the telephone with state and federal government employees between 2002 and 2005. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 26 of 953

Example of Behavior Guided by the NEPA on January 23, 2009 (21) When I found out about the Department of Energy's radioactive waste in the ENSCO, on

January 23, 2009, I remembered seeing at least one correspondence between Great Lakes Chemical Corporation somebody in Washington State. My research of the past couple of years has made me familiar with the Hanford nucler fuel reprocessing facility in Washington State. It could have been the Hanford facility. I think it was in the documents that the Region 6 EPA Superfund sent to me on a CD in 2004. I started making phone calls, which are described as follows: (a) I knew that Rick Ehrhart had done remediation work for the EPA Region 6 RCRA with

Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC), and that he understood the situation with the camp and GLCC - Central Plant. He understood my concerns with the plume of contamination that had been detected north, south, east and west of the camp that came from the Tailbrine Pond and the injection wells, and how GLCC had submitted had false reports, false maps that hid the fact that the camp existed, and so on... He had also been one of many EPA people, who told me that EPA really doesn't have enforcement authority over Department of Energy facilities. So, he was my first call. I wanted to ask him whether or not he had been aware of the radioactive materials, and, if he had not been aware, I wanted to make sure that he received this new information. I also thought that he might, as always, be helpful enough to tell me who in the EPA might know whether or not the Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility had ever been permitted to shallow and deep well inject radioactive material at GLCC - Central, or to have nuclear waste incinerated at ENSCO. I left a message for him to call. (b) I know Mark Potts had done work for the EPA Region 6 Enforcement Branch regarding

GLCC-Central, and that he understood a lot of the same issues that Rich Ehrhart understood about GLCC - Central. So I called and left a message for him. (c) Then I called the switchboard operator for EPA Region 6 and described the information

that I was seeking. She gave me the number for Nick Stone, who deals with DOE facilities, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 27 of 953

Charles Faultry of Superfund (d) Nick Stone and I have talked a few times, during the past couple of years, as I have been

studying the Department of Energy and the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. He has explained to me that his job was basically work with the community surrounding the WIPP site, and that the EPA Region 6 did not have enforcement authority over DOE facilities. So he was my next call. While Nick Stone and I were talking, Mark Potts called, so I told Nick Stone that I would call him back, and talked with Mark Potts for a few minutes. (e) Mark Potts explained that his only memories of the EPA dealing with any radioactive

materials in general was mixed waste. I described to him what I had read in the 1998 NRC Memo that gives guidelines that show how the EPA will not even deal with mixed waste, which is presented later in this document. Mark Potts appeared to be in agreement with my findings. (d) My next call was to Charles Faultry of Superfund. I explained to him that GLCC - Central

had been a Superfund site between 1978 and 2000, and that the Region 6 Superfund office had provided me with a nice CD with many documents related to GLCC - Central that I had put in one of file boxes I have related to GLCC that would fill up a room of my house. I told him about a Superfund document that I have seen which involved GLCC - Central and Washington State. Then I explained that I was wanting to find out whether or this document was related to Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, so if my suspicions .are correct, I could include it in a document I needed to complete in the next couple of days. I described my findings regarding radioactive waste in the ENSCO scrubber brine that was poured into the Tailbrine Pond, which leaked in the aquifer that fed the spring fed Camp Pond, and then deep well injected in wells that had leaked and also contributed to plum of contaminated ground water. I asked him if Superfund ever collaborated with the NRC. I think I remember him telling me that there are times when they do. I continued by telling him that I wouild McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 28 of 953

like to send him a copy of this document, so that he could share it with someone from the NRC. He responded to this by saying: "You need to talk to a member of the NEPA group." Then, he suggested that Cathy Gilmore. (e) I called Cathy Gilmore and briefly described this entire matter to her. I believe that I told

her that I just found out about the Department of Energy radioactive materials in plume of contaminated ground water that fed the Camp Pond. Then I know that I said: "I would like to send you a copy of this document that I am filing on Monday, so you can share it with the...I started to say NRC, but I just realized that we are talking about Department of Energy radioactive waste, and the NRC and EPA don't deal with Department of Energy radioactive waste." She agreed with this fact. Then, I babbled on about needing to find out about the DOE radioactive was in the plume of contaminated ground water, and how the NRC and EPA had no authority to deal with radioactive materials at DOE facilities. Cathy responded to this by Gilmore saying that the Department of Energy still has to abide by the law. Then, I explained to her how ironic that I felt it was for me to be talking to a person in a group that deals with the NEPA. She agreed to let me email this document to her, and said she would do what she could do. (f) I tried to call Nick Stone, so I could finish asking him he knew where I could find

information that would determine whether or not the Hanford nuclear fuel reprocessing facility shipped radioactive waste to be shallow and deep well injected at GLCC - Central. He was no longer in to answer his phone. So I talked with a person who works with him. This conversation ended with this person suggesting that I search through the Department of Energy Web site. (g) The Department of Energy web site search engine does not pull up any pages with the key

words "Hanford and ENSCO," but it does have pages about ENSCO. Pertinent excerpts, from these DOE web pages, are as follows: (g.1) PDF] Final Site-Wide Environmental Assessment of the Sandia National ... McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 29 of 953

www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/ea/ea1422/Chapter4-10.pdf - 2004-07-01 Chapter 4, Affected EnvironmentSection 4.10, Transportation[;] Final SNL/CA SWEA DOE/EA-1422 January 2003[:] "Table 4-9. Waste Shipments during Calendar Year 2000...Outbound Waste Shipments...Ensco, Inc., El Dorado, Arizona 4...Ensco West, Inc., Wilmington, California 6 (g.2) "TABLE B.4.14.21.Combined Livermore Site and Site 300 Hazardous Waste

Shipmentsa in CY2002 Treatment/Disposal Site State Number of shipments Waste Types... TABLE B.4.14.21.Combined Livermore Site and Site 300 Hazardous Waste Shipmentsa in CY2002...ENSCO West Inc...CA 5 RCRA hazardous and nonregulated waste..."

Source http://www.gc.energy.gov/NEPA/nepa_documents/EIS/eis0348/Vol_2/appxb-4.pdf (h) With verification of Department of Energy' "nonregulated waste" being a part of the

plume of contaminated ground water that flows south from GLCC - Central's leaking Tailbrine Pond and leaking injection wells, my next objective is to make sure that I have the email address described in Rule 5.1(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, where it says the following: "Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute - Notice, Certification, and Intervention[:] (a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. (i) I spent the next 4 hours talking on the phone with Department of Justice employees in

Washington, DC. trying to obtain the above mentioned electric [email] address, because I have an excessive amount of bad memories about spending a lot of money to mail letters and booklets that I put together about GLCC to Administrators of federal government agencies. I mailed a booklet about the Crimes of GLCC to Christy Whitman once a week for a month before Don Maddox of EPA McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 30 of 953

Headquarters explained that she doesn't receive booklets like mine. I think I have a few recordings of Maurice Rawles of EPA Region 6 bragging about he was blocking my mail from the Region 6 Administrator. I should have had my recorder running today while listening to all the reasons Department of Justice employees gave for not providing the designated electronic [email] address mentioned in paragraph. My last hope in getting this to the Attorney General is Debbie Wheeler (Case Administrator) who wrote an email to me that says she will back in her office on January 26. (j) While calling all of the kids that I could to let them know that they had been swimming

poison, a few of them described glowing roots that they had played with in the Camp Pond. Until today, January 24, 2009, I assumed that the glowing roots contained phosphorus from fire flies, It was shocking when I found out about the poisons that Great Lakes Chemical Corporation put in the Camp Pond by way of the leaking Tailbrine Pond, shallow well injection, and deep well injection. But it is now even more shocking to find out about the Department of Energy radioactive waste in the ENSCO scrubber brine. I have some Superfund aerial photographs that show how large the chemical plant is, but I really did not intend to do more than a brief presentation about GLCC in the Rational or reason for filing this document to show how behavior guided by the NEPA disregards equal protection of the law. (k) If you look at the aerial photograph on the next page, you may notice that the Tailbrine

looks like it is boiling. I spent a lot more time at the camp than the rest of the kids, because I live in the house by the road southwest of the water tower when I was born. We moved to Roswell when I was 2 years old, but the Camp Lodge was like a second home for me. It was where I spent most midterm breaks, Spring breaks, and a good part of most summers until I was 28 years old. I took daily walks that involved walking to the railroad track next to the Tailbrine Pond, and then walking on the railroad track for a while. I had no idea that I was walking through a poisonous and radioactive area.

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 31 of 953

1975 Aerial Photo from Highway Department (l) If you look at the picture of the Camp and the Tailbrine Pond, again, you may notice that

it looks like the poison is overflowing from the Tailbrine Pond and flowing along the ditch by the railroad track. I walked in that area, daily, between 1 and 4 weeks at a time in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of the kids, who spent time at the Camp, walked in that area too. But the person, who was hurt the most by the insidious activities of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and the Department of

McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 32 of 953

Energy was my father. He retired from teaching in Roswell in 1986. After he retired, he spent about 3 weeks of each month year round at the Camp until 1995 when his health got to where he could no longer take care of himself. His medical records look like toxicological studies of the toxic substances that are known to be on-site at GLCC-Central. (22) Although it will be impossible to have due process of having Plaintiffs' side of the story

being reasonably heard, unless it is heard by an impartial judge and a grand jury, and unless the United States Government analyzes the biological samples mentioned earlier. I believe that I would be breaking the law if I did not also provide the District Court with information that I suspect the Department of Energy could delete from its web site, which is related to bribery and Pete V. Domenici. I don't have the resources to continue researching this entire matter. Being deprived of equal protection of the law has made it impossible for me to teach full-time for the past 7 years. It has made it necessary for me to give up a business project, called MUSIC UNDER THE STARS, that I had been developing since 1996, and by 2007 had materialized into something that I am sure would have made my life much more prosperous, and would have done the same for many others. I know that I could

have been adding between $50 and $150 per day, 7 days per week, to income of my family's McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 33 of 953

locksmithing business since, March 7, 2007, when I found out about the threatening plans of the Defendants, if I wasn't spending all of my time trying to protect my home, family, friends, neighbors, and everyone from the threats that are being posed by the the Defendants. Protecting my home, family, friends, neighbors, and everyone else in New Mexico, the United States, and the rest of the world, from the effects of subversive crimes committed by Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush should be done by the United States Government. This statement should not be interpreted as me saying that I am going to stop fulfilling my civic responsibilities of doing all that I can, because I anticipate (with dread of knowing it will take many more hours making duplicate copies of audio and video recordings) the opportunity to provide pertinent information to a federal criminal investigator and the U.S. Attorney that the impartial federal judge assigns help the victims in this case. (23) Pete V. Domenici, George W. Bush, and politicians, with similar character, have

manipulated laws and policies in a way that has made it a norm for people, who work for the some agencies of the United States Government, to provide free consulting services to help subversive, polluting, industries break the law, lie about it, and avoid being held liable. (24) With all of this in mind, I respectfully submit this 3rd Edition of this document to be

entered into the United States District Court through electronic mail through the Case Administrator, with hope that it will also be received to all other office listed on page 1, and with hope that people, who work for the United States Government, will fulfill their civic responsibilities. (25) Before I begin, I must respectfully state that the Defendants' behavior is causing me to

suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and reasonable fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. Even though the unethical behavior of Judge Judith Herrera causes me to suffer even more emotional distress and serious fear of bodily injury, property damage, and death, I am sensitive to the fact that part of her (unwritten) job description has been to turn a blind eye to dishonesty, abuse of power, disregard for human rights, and McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 34 of 953

corruption, while holding loyalty to Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush. I hold no ill will toward Judge Herrera, or toward the Defendants. But, if somebody doesn't do what I am doing here with this document, the damage that the Defendants have already done to New Mexico with the "Nuclear Renaissance," and the damage that corruption has done to federal courts, will be irreversible. I respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B) and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, in the event that Plaintiffs' Victims Rights, Constitutional Rights, and facts of this case continue to be disregarded by the District Court. It may be necessary for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to mandate that the District Court properly address this rights of the Plaintiffs. I respectfully submit this NOTICE of Constitutional Questions and REQUEST for Opinions and Intervention to the Office of the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Rule 5.1 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and pursuant to my desire to help our Country become a safe and civilized place for everybody, even common people like me. I respectfully submit this DEMAND for Victims' Assistance with Representation to the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the State of New Mexico, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 and Rule 17(c )(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. I respectfully submit this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT to th United States Magistrate Court for New Mexico, pursuant to Rule 3 of Federal Rules for Criminal Procedures. AFFIRMATION OF OATH: I, Frank McKinnon, solemnly affirm that every statement that I

make in this document is the truth. I say this while knowing that making any untrue statements would be perjury, which should be punished by the law of the United States Government. I respectfully demand and/or move the District Court to re-open this case, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A)(C), to reconsider this Amended Revision of [19] MOTION, pursuant to Rule 5(4), Rule 71A(a), and 71A(f) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, with this DEMAND for Victims Rights, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 35 of 953

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, and with this DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury, pursuant to Rule 38(a)(b)(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, 28 U.S.C. Part V Chapter 121 1861 and Rule 6(a)(1) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, which are as follows: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS I respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B), in the event that Plaintiffs Victims Rights, Constitutional Civil Rights, and facts of this entire matter continue to be disregarded by the District Court. It may be necessary for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to mandate that the District Court properly address this Rights of the Plaintiffs. My experiences give me a feeling that the 10 day rule actually means 10 working days, unless the person applying the 10 day rule is bamboozling. There is a good bit of bamboozling by the Defendants and Judge Judith Herrera in this case, so the First Edition of MOTION [to] Re-open this Case to Consider Amended Revision of [19] MOTION with DEMAND for Victims' Rights and DEMAND for Trial by Grand Jury was electronically mailed to the Case Administrator to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico at 5:05 PM; January 16, 2009. I electronically mailed it to be filed at that time, with some editing for errors and clarification still needed, because, at that time, my understanding was that the deadline for 18 U.S.C. 3771 Victims' Rights was 10 days from the last plea or sentencing, and the last pleas or sentences were Judge Judith Herrera's illegal document attempting to dismiss this case while saying it was "with prejudice," followed by her document that says "Case Closed." By the way, the second document was illegal too. These two, illegal, documents were filed at 5:06 PM on January 6 at 5:06 PM. Ten working days would make the deadline January 21, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Upon reviewing 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A)(B)(C), I am, now, aware that it says the following: McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 36 of 953

(5) Limitation on relief. In no case shall a failure to afford a right under this chapter provide grounds for a new trial. A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied; (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days; and (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. I respectfully address these requirements as follows: 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(A ) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if (A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied[.] Plaintiffs asserted our right to be heard in the [1] PETITION and in [19] MOTION in ways that follow: (1) While I wrote the phrase due process in [1] PETITION, the only definition of due

process that I was aware of was the right to be heard. As a teacher and educational administrator, the only time I had come across the term due process was when the term was used to describe a student's right to tell his/her side of the story in disciplinary procedures. (2) While writing about the term Due Process, Mark Stevens LtCol USMC (Ret.),

Assistant Professor of Criminology, California State University, Fresno, says the following: ...The ancient Egyptians, for example, required judges to hear at least both sides of a case. The Code of Hammurabi is a type of due process -- something written down so people would know what the laws are. Even the ancient Chinese had some minimal procedures for notice and hearing when people were charged with something. When Jesus was put on trial, He was given the opportunity to reply and present evidence. The Greeks and Romans offered juries and professional orators. In most cases, these were not formal processes; they were the unwritten rules of justice as fairness. They started as customs and became law over time. See Reference 1,007. (3) In [1] PETITION, I wrote the following: PETITION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 37 of 953

OF PROTECTION OR INJUNCTION Claim: The respondents are posing threats to all persons living in [s]outheastern New Mexico, which include threats of damage to property and quality of life, threats of injury, and threats of loss of life. The respondents are doing this in a way that denies [c]oncerned [c]itizens of [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to due process, and denies all persons in [s]outheastern New Mexico our right to equal protection under the law. By writing, signing and filing [1] PETITION, I was asserting my right to be heard. By signing [1] PETITION, approximately 1,135 more Petitioners (Plaintiffs) were also asserting their right to be heard. (4) My writing and filing the original [19] MOTION TO DISQUALIFY, RECUSE

AND, OR, REMOVE JUDGE JUDITH HERRERA AND RELATED MOTIONS was an effort to assert Plaintiffs' right to be heard by an impartial judge. The motions and request made in [19] MOTION, include the following: .(4.a) (3.b) MOTION to Disqualify, Recuse, and, or, Remove Judge Judith Herrera; MOTION to Strike MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, and to Strike any

Perceived Authority Held by Judge Judith Herrera; (4.c) (4.d) (4.e) (5) MOTION to Have an Impartial Judge Request to Save Criminal Evidence; MOTION to Expedite Injunctive Relief [and] Make it Permanent In the Request to Save Criminal Evidence of [19] MOTION, I asserted Plaintiff's right

to Trial by Grand Jury by writing the following: REQUEST TO SAVE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE[:] Petitioners respectfully request that the Court to save the content of Judge Judith Herrera's Memorandum Opinion and Order to be made available for evidence of her appearance of collusion with Respondents in criminal acts, in the event that it may be used for: potential criminal investigations regarding impropriety in Senator Pete Domenici's and President George W. Bush's hirings of federal judges, regarding impropriety in this case, or regarding criminal complaints against the Respondents, McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 38 of 953

and regarding criminal trials related to the actions of the Respondents. (6) 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(B) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or

sentence only if (B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days[.] This is addressed on page 2 in paragraph (i) under the title: NOTE TO READER. (7) 18 U.S.C. 3771(5)(C) says: A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or

sentence only if (C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. The only accused Defendants that I remember seeing pleas to any offense in this case are: Mike Marley, Dale Gandy, Peter Maggiore. It is possible that I overlooked a plea to the offenses in this case by Larry Gandy, and one or two other accused Defendants. However, I am absolutely sure most of the accused Defendants in this case have not pled to the highest offense charged. (8) Rule 5.1. Constitutional Challenge to a Statute Notice, Certification, and Intervention

says the following (quotation marks omitted): (a) Notice by a Party. A party that files a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing

into question the constitutionality of a federal or state statute must promptly: (1) file a notice of constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper

that raises it, if: (A) a federal statute is questioned and neither the United States nor any of its agencies,

officers, or employees is a party in an official capacity, or (B) a state statute is questioned and neither the state nor any of its agencies, officers,

or employees is a party in an official capacity; and (2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal

statute is challenged or on the state attorney general if a state statute is challenged either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 39 of 953

(b)

Certification by the Court. Certification by the Court. The court must, under

28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the Attorney General of the United States that there is a constitutional challenge to a federal statute, or certify to the state attorney general that there is a constitutional challenge to a state statute. (c) Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits[:] Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney

general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional. (d) No Forfeiture[:] A partys failure to file and serve the notice, or the courts failure to

certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted. Rules 5.1(a)(1)(A)(B) do not appear to apply in this case, because, although the filing date of this document makes it appear like Pete V. Domenici and George W. Bush no longer work for the United States Government, there is an appearance of some Defendants still working for the United States Department of Energy. I can assure you that a proper criminal investigation would find that there are also Defendants working for the State of New Mexico. I will provide further information regarding this to U.S. Attorney who is assigned to represent the Plaintiffs. Rule 5.1(a)(2 ) appears to apply, and it says: "(2) serve the notice and paper on the Attorney General of the United States if a federal statute is questioned or on the state attorney general if a state statute is questioned either by certified or registered mail or by sending it to an electronic address designated by the attorney general for this purpose." Rule 5.1(b) "Certification by the Court." says: "The court must, under 28 U.S.C. 2403, certify to the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been questioned. After Pete Domenici' Junior removed [1] PETITION from state court, he used the fact that it has a Constitutional question for his reason for entering this case into the United States District Court. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 40 of 953

I have seen no evidence of any communication between the United States Attorney General and the District Court regarding this matter. Judge Herrera pretended like she could not understand how having no protection of the law when it involves activities at the Department of Energy GNEP facility would be violating the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law in her [14] MEMORANDUM But I have seen nothing from the Attorney General. Rule 5.1(c) "Intervention; Final Decision on the Merits" says: Unless the court sets a later time, the attorney general may intervene within 60 days after the notice is filed or after the court certifies the challenge, whichever is earlier. Before the time to intervene expires, the court may reject the constitutional challenge, but may not enter a final judgment holding the statute unconstitutional. I respectfully point out, here, that Judge Judith Herrera attempted to close this case while saying that she was doing so "with prejudice." All that I have been able to obtain about these documents is the electronically mailed notices of her filing her document to dismiss and her other document to close this case. I don't know if it is just my incompetence, or if I am actually being blocked from obtaining documents through the US Court's electronic filing system. It is possible that one of these documents has some information from the Attorney General. Even if the Attorney General has ruled on Pete Domenici's Junior's and Judge Judith Herrera's presentations of a Constitutional question(s). Even if one of these documents has a ruling from the Attorney General, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to tell our side of the story (due process) and Rule 5.1(d) "No Forfeiture," says: A partys failure to file and serve the notice, or the courts failure to certify, does not forfeit a constitutional claim or defense that is otherwise timely asserted. WHEREFORE, I respectfully demand and/or move the District Court to re-open this case. I also respectfully petition the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for Writ of Mandamus, in the event that Plaintiffs' Victims Rights, Constitutional civil rights, and the facts of this entire matter continue to disregarded by the District Court. McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 41 of 953

For the Attorney General: NOTICE of Constitional Questions and Seeking Opinions and Intervention I respectfully submit this NOTICE of Constitutional Questions to the Office of the United States Attorney General, pursuant to Rule 5.1 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which is as follows: The facts that I am presenting may need clarification and a presentation of supporting evidence to show that they are indisputable facts. I reserve the right of due process, which may involve providing a grand jury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a court, and/or the office of the Attorney General with documents, audio and video recordings of current and former federal employees, and summoned testimonies of current and former state and federal employees Understanding these Constitutional questions may also involve reading this entire document, but, in this section of this documents, facts and questions are presented in their most concise forms, which are as follows: According to Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Sec.202, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Definition for Solid Waste (42 U.S.C. 82 6903(27)), NRC Regulations 10 CFR 40.4, and NRC and EPA policies, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) have no authority to inspect and enforce the law at facilities associated with the United States Department of Energy when it involves radioactive materials. See Subsections 8.4 - 8.10.3 and Section 23. There are no state or federal health, environmental, or law enforcement agencies with any authority to inspect or enforce the law when it involves Department of Energy radioactive materials. Department of Energy facilities that handle harmful, radioactive, materials are operated by private companies. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant WIPP near Carlsbad, NM, has containers of radioactive materials buried in an area where there are underground streams and pockets corrosive brine (salt water). See Section 17.4. It is operated by a company (Westinghouse) which was a subsidiary of McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 42 of 953

British Nuclear Fuels, which is the British Government. It is now owned by Toshiba, with corporate headquarters in Japan. See Section 23 and Reference 1,008. There are people in Japan who have good reason to have bad feelings about that fact that the United States dropped atomic (radioactive) bombs that injured them, and injured and killed their family members. Westinghouse is in charge of making sure that people in the United States are not injured or killed by emissions of radioactive materials that are buried in an area where there are underground streams and pockets of corrosive brine. Outfall from Chernobyl's radioactive emissions were detected about 1,400 miles away. from Chernobyl. Most of the activities being conducted at these Department of Energy facilities involve harmful, radioactive, materials. Some of the activities involve non-radioactive, hazardous, materials, which state and federal environmental agencies do have the authority to monitor.. Monitoring and enforcing the law with just non-radioactive materials at these facilities has resulted in a voluminous amount of records describing how these Department of Energy contractors have broken the law. It is a common practice for many of these private companies to merely pay the fines and continue breaking the law. This is much more profitable than abiding by the law. See Subsection 17.8 and Section 22. Westinghouse has been caught being dishonest and breaking the law many times by the NRC, EPA, OSHA, and Department of Justice. EnergySolutions (also called Envirocare) has been caught being dishonest and breaking the law many times by the NRC, the EPA, and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality The people, who running this company, have, often, just pay the fines and continued breaking the same laws. Defendant, Alan Dobson, says that he worked many years at Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, while it was owned by British Nuclear Fuels (the British Government). He has presented the McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 43 of 953

Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility as the model for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) "Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center." EnergySolution (Envirocare) plans to operate a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant that would receive spent nuclear fuel (high-level radioactive waste) from all over the world. The Department of Energy has spent $millions, and has given $millions to EnergySolutions (Envirocare), and given several more $millions to the other companies at other potential GNEP locations, to promote the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. The Defendants, who work for the Department of Energy, and Defendants who work for the private companies (EnergySolutions, Northwind, and Gandy Marley) are promoting nuclear energy as being clean, safe, and emissions free. It is unreasonable to expect the Department of Energy to accurately monitor emissions from a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant after spending so much money to promote it by telling the public that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and emissions free. People, who have worked at Department of Energy facilities, have emitted an enormous amount of harmful, radioactive, materials into the air, water, soil, homes, food, and bodies of uninformed people of the United States. I have not been able to find where these people, who have emitted harmful, radioactive, materials have faced any consequences for their actions other than adverse health effects (injuries and premature deaths). Since the establishment of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, every time a new set of pictures (President and Vice President) has been placed on the walls of lobbies at federal agencies, the levels of cognitive skills and clarity of vision held by people working in the [Law] Enforcement Branch of the EPA have fluctuated. At times, it has been necessary (to keep their jobs, in ways similar to Judge Judith Herrera's experience) for people, who have worked in the EPA [Law] Enforcement Branch, to McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 44 of 953

play the part of complete stupidity, and to be willfully blind, while dealing with people associated with polluting companies that have given large political campaign contributions. There have been times when playing the part of complete stupidity and being willfully blind has resulted in many people, in the United States, being injured and killed by the actions of people who have been running polluting companies. Even with this flaws in the NEPA, the EPA hasprovided some form of monitoring and law enforcement protection to people living near and/or en route chemical plants, other polluting facilities, and hazardous waste dumps. There have been times when the same EPA employees have worked around the corruption of their superiors, and have accomplished much toward protecting many more people from being injured and killed by people who have been running the same polluting companies. I haven't studied the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) nearly as much as the EPA, but I am assuming that the same has happened with the NRC, and the NRC has done the same for people living near nuclear power plants. But the people, who live near and/or en route to and from these Department of Energy (Department of Defense) facilities, have no monitoring or law enforcement protection from from harmful emissions of radioactive materials. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See Reference 1. Constitutional Question 1: Does the fact that people living near and/or en route to Department of Energy (Department of Defense) facilities have no monitoring or law enforcement protection from harmful emissions of radioactive materials violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the laws? McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 45 of 953

The Plaintiffs have petitioned the state court and then the federal District Court for injunctive relief from the threatening behavior of the Defendants, because it is causing Plaintiffs to suffer an unreasonable amount of emotional distress and fear of bodily injury, property damage, death of Plaintiffs and people that Plaintiffs care about. Judge Judith Herrera (the presiding judge) was nominated by one of the Defendants, and was appointed by another Defendant to her position of District Judge. I have respectfully brought this conflict of interest to her attention, and have (as politely and respectfully as possible) asked her to disqualify herself and find an impartial judge for this case, so that Plaintiffs could have an opportunity to have our case appropriately heard . She has refused. Constitutional Question 2: Is Judge Herrera's behavior, which is described in the above paragraph, Constitutional? The Defendants plan to operate a nuclear waste reprocessing plant and a nuclear waste burner reactor (ADVANCE BURNER REACTOR). As previously mentioned, the Defendants are using Sellafield for a model for the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Sellafield has had a severe injurious impact on many people, fish, domesticated mammals, and wildlife of the United Kingdom. I believe that the fact that the model for the Defendants GNEP "Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center" (nuclear waste reprocessing plant) would be modeled after Sellafield is a good reason to feel threatened. People running a company called Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) broke the law and lied about it, on a routine basis, for about 40 years. GLCC was holding permits from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, based on the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for most of these 40 years. The criminal behavior people associated with GLCC resulted in my property being contaminated with many different kinds of very toxic materials, and injuries and deaths of my father McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 46 of 953

and some more of my family members. A FIOA request to the US EPA Region 6, seeking information related to any time the US EPA Region 6 had been aware of GLCC submitting false reports, breaking the law, and attempting to conceal breaking the law, resulted in more than Fifty Thousand pages of documents being placed in front of me on the FOIA room table. The NEPA, as it is currently amended, made it possible for me to understand how my property was poisoned, and how criminals, who worked for GLCC, were permitted and allowed to kill my father and injure an kill some more of my family members But it also did just that. It permitted and allowed criminals to kill my father and injure and kill some more of my family without facing consequences. I spent a few years doing nothing but learning about human behavior that has been guided by the NEPA, as it is currently amended. I have a digital audio recording (recorded June 2004 in the lobby of the EPA Region 6 office building in Dallas) of a person, who works for the U.S. Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR), in which he says that if they did would should be done about my situation, it would open the flood gates for a thousand more situations just like it. I have many other documents and recordings similar to this one of many state and federal health, environmental, and law enforcement agencies that could, someday, be presented to a grand jury, But stopping the Defendants from making history repeat itself is, currently, more important. I have another digital audio recording of an EPA employee telling that the reason he couldn't test for the toxic materials that they knew would be unique to the chemical plant that poisoned the camp pond was that his bosses would not let him. This recording was made while sitting in the FOIA room of the EPA Region 6. The biggest bosses at that time had their pictures on the wall in the lobby, and one of them (George W. Bush) is Defendant in this case. I have many more similar recordings. I had many conversations, between 2002 and 2007, with EPA employees who told me things (statements) that would help hold the criminals at GLCC accountable for killing my father. But when I asked if they could put these statements in writing and sign them. They explained that it would cause McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 47 of 953

them to be fired. The Defendants use a lot of the same rhetoric that criminals associated with GLCC used to justify disregarding the law as the Defendants are promoting the GNEP nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and nuclear waste burner reactor. This makes me feel threatened. People, who have run for W.R. Grace and Company have been caught lying and breaking the law as much as GLCC (maybe more), and have injured and killed many people. See Section 9. A Department of Energy document entitled: "Assessment of Startup Fuel Options for the GNEP Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) February 2008," says the following (quotation marks omitted): (1) The Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP) includes a program element for the

development and construction of an advanced sodium cooled fast reactor to demonstrate the burning (transmutation) of significant quantities of minor actinides obtained from a separations process and fabricated into a transuranic bearing fuel assembly. To demonstrate and qualify transuranic (TRU) fuel in a fast reactor, an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) prototype is needed. The ABR would necessarily be started up using conventional metal alloy or oxide (U or U, Pu) fuel. Startup fuel is needed for the ABR for the first 2 to 4 core loads of fuel in the ABR. Following start up, a series of advanced TRU bearing fuel assemblies will be irradiated in qualification lead test assemblies in the ABR. There are multiple options for this startup fuel. This report provides a description of the possible startup fuel options as well as possible fabrication alternatives available to the program in the current domestic and international facilities and infrastructure. (2) "As a licensed Category I processing facility, [W.R.Grace & Company] NFS owns and

operates the facilities and systems to receive, store, track, handle, process, and ship nuclear materials of all enrichments. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Special Nuclear Material (SNM)-124 permits [W.R. Grace & Company] NFS to receive, store, and process a wide variety of enriched uranium materials (up to 100% U-235) in a manner that provides maximum safety and compliance. In McKinnon et al. v. Domenici and Bush - Nuclear Renaissance. Amended Revision [19] Motion Page 48 of 953

addition, NFS processes these materials to form final products that meet or exceed customer specifications for nuclear fuel applications. [W.R. Grace & Company] Nuclear Fuel Services successfully amended its NRC license to encompass four new facilities on its site within a four-year period. It is expected that HEU fuel fabrication for the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) would fit under the existing license." See Section 9.43 and Reference 30. I asked people, who work for the N