Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

8/7/2019 Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/inslaw-and-promis-timeline 1/56

Inslaw and PROMIS TimelineThe Inslaw Dispute and PROMIS

Project: Loss of US Civil Liberties

Open-Content project managed by Paul, KJF, PDevlinBuckley, blackmax

add event | references

of 2 (135 events)previous | 1, 2 | nextMid-1970s: PROMIS Software Developed, Can Integrate Information from Multiple Databases

An application known as PROMIS, the Prosecutor·s Management Information System, isdeveloped. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] It is designed to be used to keep track of criminalinvestigations through a powerful search engine that can quickly access all data items storedabout a case. [SALON, 7/23/2008] William Hamilton, one of the application·s developers, willdescribe what it can be used to do: ´Every use of PROMIS in the court system is trackingpeople. You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer, judge, defence lawyer,

and it·s tracking all the names of all the people in all the cases.µ Wired magazine willdescribe its significance: ´What this means is that PROMIS can provide a complete rundown ofall federal cases in which a lawyer has been involved, or all the cases in which a lawyer hasrepresented defendant A, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented white-collarcriminals, at which stage in each of the cases the lawyer agreed to a plea bargain, and so on.Based on this information, PROMIS can help a prosecutor determine when a plea will be takenin a particular type of case.µ In addition, PROMIS can integrate several databases withoutrequiring any reprogramming, meaning it can ́ turn blind data into information.µ PROMIS isdeveloped by a private business entity that will later become the company Inslaw, Inc.Although there will later be a series of disputes over the application·s use by the USgovernment and others, this version of PROMIS is funded by a Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration grant and is therefore in the public domain. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993]

Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., William HamiltonCategory Tags:Other Events

1976: Future Key Justice Department Official Leaves Inslaw, Circumstances of Departure underDispute

C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, the general counsel of the Institute for Law and Social Research,leaves his position. The circumstances of his departure from the institute, which will later betransformed into the company Inslaw, will later be disputed. The departure is significantbecause Brewer will later be hired by the Justice Department to manage a contract withInslaw (see April 1982), and will adopt a combative approach to his former employer (see

April 14, 1982 and April 19, 1982).Hamilton's Account - Inslaw owner William Hamilton will later say that Brewer is asked toleave because he is unable to perform his duties, but is given sufficient time to find anotherjob instead of being forced out. Inslaw vice president John Gizarelli will corroborateHamilton·s account, telling the House Judiciary Committee under oath that Hamilton told himBrewer had been asked to resign.Contradictory Statements by Brewer - Brewer will give different accounts of his departure. Hewill tell investigators from the Justice Department·s Office of Professional Responsibility(OPR): ´At no time did he [Hamilton] ever say you are fired and at no time did he [Hamilton]



ever indicate great dissatisfaction with my performance.« I never felt that I was discharged,let alone wrongfully discharged.µ He will repeat this line to investigators from the Housecommittee: Í never thought that he asked me to leave. It has always been my understandingthat I was not asked to leave. I have never viewed my departure from the institute as eitherbeing a discharge, or forced.µ However, another statement he will make puts a differentslant on this; he tells the OPR: ´[I]t has been my view that Mr. Hamilton obviously wanted me

gone. He had been sending these signals, if not directly indicating a job dissatisfaction, sinceApril, and it was now February, almost one year later, and I was still extricating myself.µ Inaddition, Brewer will say in a court appearance: Ón one occasion Mr. Hamilton came andsaid to me, ¶can you go to lunch?· I explained that I couldn·t. And he said, ¶Well, what I haveto say over lunch I can say right now. I think you ought to find [an] alternative³that youought to leave the Institute.·µImpact - The committee will comment, ´The circumstances surrounding Mr. Brewer·sdeparture from the institute appear to have had a major influence over his views about Inslawand its president, Mr. Hamilton.µ Gizarelli will say that he had occasional contact with Brewerbefore his departure, and: ´[H]e thought that Mr. Hamilton was insane. And I think he meantthat literally. He did make comments about his rationality, his sanity, thought he wasn·tcapable of leading an organization. The tenor of his remarks were to me very startling.µ [US

CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, William Hamilton, C. Madison ´BrickµBrewer, John GizarelliCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

1980s: Oliver North Uses PROMIS Software to Track Dissidents

Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North uses a sophisticated brand of software known as PROMIS totrack potential security threats in the United States. Intelligence officials will later tell Wiredmagazine that North has a command center connected to a larger Justice Department facilityutilizing the software. Áccording to both a contractor who helped design the center and

information disclosed during the Iran-Contra hearings,µ North maintains a ´similar, butsmaller, White House operations room« connected by computer link to the [JusticeDepartment]¶s command center.µ According to Wired, North uses computers in his operationscenter to track ´dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States as part of adomestic emergency preparedness program.µ North is assigned to work with FEMA on thesecretive Continuity of Government (COG) program from 1982 to 1984 (see 1982-1984). Wiredwill later report, ́ Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyoneever arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to paytheir taxes.µ Compared to PROMIS, Wired notes, ́ Richard Nixon·s enemies list or Sen. JoeMcCarthy·s blacklist look downright crude.µ [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Oliver NorthTimeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

1980s or Before: Database of Potential Enemies Established as Part of Continuity of GovernmentPlan

As a part of the plan to ensure Continuity of Government (COG) in the event of a Sovietnuclear strike or other emergency, the US government begins to maintain a database ofpeople it considers unfriendly. A senior government official who has served with high-level



security clearances in five administrations will say it is ́ a database of Americans, who, oftenfor the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time ofpanic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ¶enemies of thestate· almost instantaneously.µ He and other sources say that the database is sometimesreferred to by the code name Main Core, and one says it was set up with help from theDefense Intelligence Agency.

Alleged Link to PROMIS - The database will be said to be linked to a system known as PROMIS,the Prosecutor·s Management Information System, over which the US government conducts along-lasting series of disputes with the private company Inslaw. The exact connectionbetween Main Core and PROMIS is uncertain, but one option is that code from PROMIS is usedto create Main Core. PROMIS is most noted for its ability to combine data from differentdatabases, and an intelligence expert briefed by high-level contacts in the Department ofHomeland Security will say that Main Core ´is less a mega-database than a way to searchnumerous other agency databases at the same time.µDefinition of National Emergency - It is unclear what kind of national emergency could triggersuch detention. Executive orders issued over the next three decades define it as a ´naturaldisaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency,µ while Defense Departmentdocuments include eventualities like ´riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful

obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order.µ According toone news report, even ́ national opposition to US military invasion abroadµ could be a trigger.How Does It Work? - A former military operative regularly briefed by members of theintelligence community will be told that the program utilizes software that makes predictivejudgments of targets· behavior and tracks their circle of associations using ́ social networkanalysisµ and artificial intelligence modeling tools. ´The more data you have on a particulartarget, the better [the software] can predict what the target will do, where the target will go,who it will turn to for help,µ he will say. ´Main Core is the table of contents for all the illegalinformation that the US government has [compiled] on specific targets.µOrigin of Data - In 2008, sources will reportedly tell Radar magazine that a ´host of publiclydisclosed programs« now supply data to Main Core,µ in particular the NSA·s domesticsurveillance programs initiated after 9/11. [RADAR, 5/2008] Entity Tags:Defense Intelligence Agency, Inslaw, Inc.Timeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Spring 1981: Justice Department Official Reportedly Says ¶We·re Out to Get Inslaw·

Laurence McWhorter, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, tells one of hissubordinates, ´We·re out to get Inslaw.µ Inslaw developed the PROMIS database and searchapplication (see Mid-1970s) and is soon to become embroiled in a dispute with the JusticeDepartment over it. Mallgrave will later tell Wired magazine: ´We were just in his office forwhat I call a B.S. type discussion. I remember it was a bright sunny morning.« [McWhorter]

asked me if I would be interested in assuming the position of assistant director for dataprocessing« basically working with Inslaw. I told him« I just had no interest in that job. Andthen, almost as an afterthought, he said ¶We·re out to get Inslaw.· I remember it to this day.µ[WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., Frank Mallgrave, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Laurence McWhorterCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 1981: President Reagan·s Counsellor Praises PROMIS to Prosecutors



Edwin Meese, Counsellor to President Ronald Reagan, praises the PROMIS application at agathering of prosecutors. He calls it ´one of the greatest opportunities for [law enforcement]success in the future.µ PROMIS is a database search system to help prosecutors findinformation about cases and people involved in them. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:Edwin Meese

Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

August 13, 1981 or Before: PROMIS Oversight Committee Formed at Justice Department

A PROMIS oversight committee is formed at the Justice Department to supervise theimplementation of the PROMIS software at US attorneys· offices. The committee·s membersare initially Associate Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani, Associate Deputy Attorney GeneralStanley E. Morris, Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys William P. Tyson, and theJustice management division·s Assistant Attorney General for Administration Kevin D. Rooney.The associate attorney general is the chairman of the committee. The date on which thecommittee is established is unclear, but it will be mentioned in a memo dated August 13,

1981, so it must be at this date at the latest. Lowell Jensen will also be significantly involvedin the committee, first as the associate attorney general for the criminal division until early1983, and then as associate attorney general, meaning he also chairs the committee. Themain official who reports to the committee is PROMIS project manager C. Madison ´BrickµBrewer, although he will not be hired by the department until the start of the next year (seeApril 1982). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Justice Management Division, William P. Tyson, Executive Office for US Attorneys, USDepartment of Justice, Criminal Division (DoJ), Kevin D. Rooney, Stanley E. Morris, Rudolph (´Rudyµ)Giuliani, Lowell JensenCategory Tags:Other Events

November 2, 1981: Justice Department Requests Proposals for Installation of PROMIS Software

The Justice Department issues a request for proposals (RFP) for the installation of publicdomain PROMIS software. Two of the 104 companies that ask for the request for proposalssubmit bids. However, one of them, Systems Architects, Inc., has problems in its bid and thecontract will be awarded to the other, Inslaw (see March 1982).Problems with Installation Concept - The installation is to be on minicomputers and wordprocessors, although both Inslaw, which developed PROMIS, and other potential bidders hadpreviously advised the department not to try to perform PROMIS functions on word processingequipment, as it is not powerful enough. One reason for this is that PROMIS involves over500,000 lines of Common Business Oriented Language (COBOL) program code and requires avery large-capacity computer at this time. In addition, Inslaw advises the department to move

toward the use of more powerful computers that could perform both case management andword processing. However, the department ignores the advice.Existence of Privately-Funded Enhancements 'Explicit' - There will later be an argument abouthow much the department should pay Inslaw for the software. This dispute will turn onprivately-funded enhancements to the application Inslaw says it makes after an initial versionof PROMIS was developed using government money. According to a report drafted by theHouse Judiciary Committee, during the contract negotiations, Inslaw is ´explicit in stating tothe department that its version of PROMIS had been enhanced with private funds and futureenhancements funded outside the department·s contract were expected.µ Nevertheless, the



department will say that it owns the software, and will cite as support amendments to theRFP that make available to all bidders copies of the pilot project software, and state that theRFP does not anticipate redevelopment of the public domain PROMIS software used in thepilot offices. If any alterations are made under the contract, they are to be made available tothe offices using a current version. Regarding the amendments, the committee will comment,´Unfortunately, this language may also have blinded department management to the idea

that Inslaw had made privately funded enhancements that were its property.µ [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, SystemsArchitects, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

1982-1984: Oliver North Works with FEMA to Develop Martial Law Plans

Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) to develop plans for implementing martial law in the event of a national emergency.The plans are developed under the highly classified Continuity of Government (COG) program,which is designed to ensure the survival of the federal government in times of disaster. As amember of the National Security Council (NSC), North is assigned to the EmergencyMobilization Preparedness Board (EMPB), formed by President Reagan to coordinate civildefense planning among the NSC, FEMA, and White House (see December 29. 1981). Accordingto the Miami Herald, the martial law plans would ´suspend the Constitution in the event of anational crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent, or nationalopposition to a US military invasion abroad.µ Sources will claim North is involved in a majordomestic surveillance operation as part of the COG program (see 1980s and 1980s or Before).During investigations into the Iran-Contra affair, Representative Jack Brooks will be barredfrom asking North about his involvement with the plans and the secret program (see 1987).[MIAMI HERALD, 7/5/1987; REYNOLDS, 1990; RADAR, 5/2008] Entity Tags:Oliver North, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Jack Brooks, Emergency MobilizationPreparedness Board, National Security Council

Timeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

1982-1984: PROMIS Used by NSA, Treasury, and NSC to Track Loans to Soviet Union

The PROMIS database application is used for a program called ´Follow the Moneyµ to trackloans made by Western banks to the Soviet Union and its allies. The top-secret program is runfor the National Security Council (NSC) by Norman Bailey, who uses NSA signals intelligence totrack the loans. Bailey will later say that the PROMIS application is ́ the principal softwareelementµ used by the NSA and the Treasury Department in their electronic surveillanceprograms that track financial flows to the Soviet bloc, organized crime, and terrorist groups.

According to Bailey, this program marks a significant shift in resources from human spying toelectronic surveillance, as a way to track money flows to suspected criminals and Americanenemies. [SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:National Security Agency, US Department of the Treasury, National Security Council,Norman BaileyCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department



Early 1982: Justice Department Component Provides PROMIS Version to Colorado DistrictAttorney·s Office

Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at theJustice Department·s Executive Office of US Attorneys provides a copy of a government-owned version of PROMIS to Bob Bussey of the Colorado District Attorneys· Council. The

version is a pilot one for Prime computers and is provided at the request of the department·sPROMIS project manager, Madison ´Brickµ Brewer. Rugh will later discuss the availability ofother government-owned versions of PROMIS with Bussey and will provide him with a versionfor DEC computers early next year. [US CONGRES S, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasionswhen OMISS provides versions of the software to entities outside the Justice Department (seeApril 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Jack Rugh, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Office of Management Information SystemsSupport, US Department of Justice, Bob BusseyCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Between Early 1982 and April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Offers Government-OwnedVersion of PROMIS to Pennsylvania State Government

Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at theJustice Department·s Executive Office for US Attorneys repeatedly tells Jean Gollatz of thePennsylvania State Government that a pilot government-owned version of the PROMISsoftware for Prime computers is available for her use, if she wants it. He also provides herwith a copy of a request for proposal used by his office for a computer contract at some timein early 1982, and says that his office·s enhanced Prime version should be available by mid-summer 1983. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS discussesproviding versions of the software to other entities (see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Jean Gollatz, Jack Rugh, Office of Management Information Systems Support, USDepartment of Justice, Executive Office for US AttorneysCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

March 1982: Inslaw Wins Contract to Install PROMIS from Justice Department

Inslaw wins a $9.6 million contract from the Justice Department to install the public domainvesion of PROMIS application in 20 US attorneys· offices as a pilot program. PROMIS is anapplication designed to be used by prosecutors to keep track of case records (see Mid-1970s).If the trial installation is successful, the company will install PROMIS in the remaining 74federal prosecutors· offices around the country. The contract is also for the necessarytraining, maintenance, and support for three years. According to William Hamilton, one ofInslaw·s owners, the eventual market for complete automation of the Federal court system isworth up to $3 billion. However, this is the last contract Inslaw receives from the JusticeDepartment for PROMIS, as the deal becomes mired in a series of disputes. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992; WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:William Hamilton, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 1982: Justice Department Appoints Former Inslaw Employee to Supervise Contract withCompany



C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer gets the job of supervising a contract with Inslaw for theinstallation of the PROMIS database and search application (see March 1982). [US CONGRESS,

9/10/1992; WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] According to a report by the House Judiciary Committee, Brewergets the job from William P. Tyson of the Justice Department·s Executive Office for USAttorneys (EOUSA). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, according to Wired magazine, Brewer isappointed by EOUSA Director Laurence McWhorter, who had told a previous candidate for the

position that he was óut to get Inslawµ (see Spring 1981). [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Brewer hadoriginally been hired by the EOUSA in January. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] He once worked forInslaw, but was allowed to resign when its founder William Hamilton found his performanceinadequate (see 1976). [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Brewer will soon demonstrate his hostility to Inslaw,and the company will ask that he be replaced (see April 14, 1982, April 19, 1982, and Mid-April 1982).Importance of Job - As the project manager, Brewer is involved in all major contract andtechnical decisions, including forming the department·s position on Inslaw·s claim that itshould be paid for privately-funded enhancements it makes to PROMIS. Brewer also reports onprogress on the contract to the department·s PROMIS Oversight Committee (see August 13,1981 or Before).Comment by Assistant Attorney General - Assistant Attorney General Lowell Jensen will later

comment: Í would think that the better path of wisdom is not to do that [i.e. hire anallegedly fired employee to direct the contract of his former employer] if that·s possible todo. I think that it·s better to have these kinds of issues undertaken by people who don·t havequestions raised about them one way or the other whether they are biased in favor of oragainst the people they deal with.µ However, this thinking apparently does not impact thedepartment·s decision to hire Brewer.House Judiciary Committee Investigation - In the light of these circumstances, the HouseJudiciary Committee will call the appointment a ́ curious choice,µ partly because Brewer tellsit: Í was not a computer person. We talked about my role viewed as being liaison, the personwho would make things happen, a coordinator. It was not contemplated that I would, byosmosis or otherwise, learn computer science.µ After interviewing Justice Department staff,the committee will find that it is únable to determine how Mr. Brewer came to be

considered for the position.µ The committee will also point out: ´The potential conflict ofinterest was an unsatisfactory situation irrespective of his admittedly negative feelings abouthis forced resignation from the company. Had Mr. Brewer taken actions which could havebeen construed to unduly favor Inslaw throughout the life of the contract, similar questions ofpotential conflict could just as easily have arisen either from within the department or fromoutside competitors of the company.µFindings of Government Accountability Office and Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations- The Government Accountability Office and Congress·s Permanent Subcommittee onInvestigations (PSI) will find that Brewer·s appointment as project manager creates anappearance of a conflict of interest that should have been avoided by the department. ThePSI report will say, ´The staff finds that the department exercised poor judgment in ignoringthe potential for a conflict of interest in its hiring of the PROMIS project director [Brewer],

and then, after receiving allegations of bias on his part, in failing to follow standardprocedures to investigate them in a timely manner.µCourts' Opinions - During the legal proceedings that stem from a dispute between Inslaw andthe department, two courts will comment on the issue. George Bason, of the BankruptcyCourt for the District of Columbia, will say, Ón the basis of the evidence taken as a whole,this court is convinced beyond any doubt that Brewer was consumed by hatred for and anintense desire for revenge against Mr. Hamilton and Inslaw, and acted throughout this matterin a thoroughly biased and unfairly prejudicial manner toward Inslaw.µ William Bryant, of the



District Court for the District of Columbia, will add, ́ The nature and circumstances of hisseparation from that employment are somewhat in dispute, but it is clear that Brewer wasnot happy in his job when he left it after being urged to do so by Hamilton.µBrewer's Motivation - Inslaw attorney Harvey Sherzer will comment in court on one of themotivations apparently driving Brewer: ´[H]e seemed to think there was something wrongwith a contractor benefiting from a government contract.« The gist of what he seemed to be

saying was that by performing this contract Inslaw and Mr. Hamilton, specifically, was makingan effort to expand the company. And there seemed to be a negative inference towardInslaw·s ability to use the base created by this contract to expand.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Office of Professional Responsibility Conclusion - On the contrary, the Justice Department·sOffice of Professional Responsibility will examine the matter and rule there is no conflict ofinterest. Brewer will later tell a federal court that everything he does regarding Inslaw isapproved by Jensen. Jensen had previously supervised a product known as DALITE, which losta major contract to Inslaw in the 1970s. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:Lowell Jensen, William Bryant, Office of Professional Responsibility, Laurence McWhorter,Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, US District Court for the District of Columbia, HouseCommittee on the Judiciary, Harvey Sherzer, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, C. Madison´Brickµ Brewer, Inslaw, Inc., Executive Office for US Attorneys, George Bason, Government

Accountability Office, Frank Mallgrave, William P. TysonCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 2, 1982: INSLAW Tells Justice Department It Intends to Market Enhanced PROMISCommercially

A lawyer acting for Inslaw writes to the Justice Department telling it that Inslaw intends tomarket a version of the PROMIS software commercially. The lawyer, Roderick M. Hills ofLatham & Watkins, tells Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris, who is also amember of the committee overseeing PROMIS, that, even though the software was initiallydeveloped with government money (see Mid-1970s), private enhancements to it mean thatInslaw can sell the improved version for a fee. The letter is accompanied by a memorandumfrom Inslaw owner William Hamilton explaining the situation. Inslaw and the department havejust signed a contract for Inslaw to implement the public domain version of the software atUS attorneys· offices for the department (see March 1982). However, the privately-fundedenhancements mean that if the department chose to use the latest version, it would have topay for the actual software, as well as installation and maintenance costs. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., Latham, Watkins & Hills, Roderick M. Hills, William HamiltonCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 14, 1982: Justice Department Official Suggests Terminating PROMIS Installation Contract

One month after the Justice Department and Inslaw sign a contract on the installation ofPROMIS software (see March 1982), a departmental official raises the possibility ofterminating the contract. At a meeting of the PROMIS Project Team, project manager C.Madison Brewer, the Justice Department·s contracting officer Peter Videnieks, and Jack Rugh,the acting assistant director for the Office of Management Information Systems Support,discuss terminating the contract with Inslaw for convenience of the government, according tonotes taken at the meeting. ´Discussed Inslaw·s ¶PROMIS II· memo, termination forconvenience discussed,µ read Videnieks· notes. When the contract becomes the subject of aseries of legal actions, the three men begin to suffer from what the House Judiciary



Committee will call ´severe memory lossµ over what happened at the meeting. In a swornstatement, Brewer will say he does not recall the details of the meeting, but if thisrecommendation were made, it was made ín jest.µ However, he will admit to being upsetwith Inslaw·s handling of the contract and its demand for payment for enhancements it hadmade privately to the application (see April 2, 1982). Bankruptcy Court Judge George Basonwill comment: Áll of the [Justice Department] witnesses who attended the April 14, 1982

meeting professed a total lack of memory about it. They testified they had no recollection ofany such meeting. This court disbelieves that testimony. None of them could offer anycredible explanation, or indeed any explanation, of the meaning of Videnieks· handwrittennotes other than what this court finds to be their meaning.« These notes constitute a¶smoking gun· that clearly evidences Brewer·s intense bias against Inslaw, his single-mindedintent to drive INSLAW out of business, and Rugh·s and Videnieks· complicity.µ [US CONGRESS,

9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Peter Videnieks, Jack Rugh, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, GeorgeBasonCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

Mid-April 1982: Inslaw Asks Justice Department for Different Project Manager for PROMISImplementation, Department Refuses

Inslaw asks the Justice Department to appoint a manager other than C. Madison ´BrickµBrewer to run the PROMIS project that Inslaw is working on for the department. Brewer hadformerly worked for Inslaw, but had left under a cloud (see 1976), and later been hired by thedepartment to supervise the contract between it and Inslaw (see April 1982). Following initialproblems with Brewer (see April 14, 1982 and April 19, 1982), Inslaw asks Associate DeputyAttorney General Stanley E. Morris to replace him, as Inslaw owner William Hamilton thinks hehas antagonistic feelings toward Inslaw due to their past. However, departmental officials saythat Brewer·s skills and prior employment with Inslaw were important factors in his hiring bythe department. Laurence McWhorter, deputy director of the Executive Office for USAttorneys, will later say that Brewer·s employment by Inslaw qualified him to ´run theimplementation of a case tracking system for US attorneysµ and ́ to basically direct theimplementation of a case tracking system in US attorneys offices.µ The House JudiciaryCommittee will comment, Ít is difficult to understand, however, how« McWhorter couldmake this statementµ because Brewer himself admitted that at the time he left Inslaw, ´hehad very little, if any, experience in managing computer projects and government ADP[automated data processing] procurement law,µ and he also ádmitted to a lack ofexperience or detailed understanding of computers or software.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:William Hamilton, Stanley E. Morris, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison´Brickµ Brewer, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Laurence McWhorter, House Committee on theJudiciaryCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 19, 1982: Justice Department Official Criticizes Inslaw in Meeting

Justice Department manager C. Madison Brewer displays his hostility towards Inslaw, Inc., in ameeting to discuss the implementation of the PROMIS application. An Inslaw memorandum ofthe meeting says, ́ Brewer seized upon this issue [that Inslaw wanted to be paid for privately-financed enhancements it had made to the software] and launched into a tirade which wasvery emotional, unorganized, and quite illogical.µ Brewer·s complaints are:



The memo claiming the payments is ´typical of Inslaw and [Inslaw owner] Bill Hamilton andthat it was self-serving and unnecessary.µHow did the Justice Department ´know that we might say work was not finished under our

government contracts and the next week copyright the work and begin selling it back to theJustice Department?µA press release about a contract awarded to Inslaw was inaccurate because ít described

West Virginia as a successful implementation when in fact, they had spent an additional 20K[$20,000] on the project and Lanier was doing all the work.µThe memo had caused áll kinds of problems in Justice and had many people upset.µÍllinois Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Michigan Prosecuting Attorney·s Association,

Andy Voight, and others,µ would say that Ínslaw did not do good or successful work.µ´Hamilton started the PROMIS system as an employee of the DC, USAO [US Attorneys Office

in Washington, DC]. And that all of the software was developed with Federal funds and whatright did Hamilton have to try to claim ownership of the software.µThe memo adds, Áll of these comments were based with an obvious dislike of Bill Hamiltonand a resentment for the success of Inslaw personified in him.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

Before May 17, 1982: Inslaw Makes Government-Funded Enhancement to PROMIS Software

Inslaw enhances its PROMIS software under contract to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, partof the Justice Department. The improvement, known as the ´printed inquiry enhancement,µis delivered to the department on May 17, 1982. As the development of the original softwareand this enhancement is government-funded (see Mid-1970s), Inslaw cannot charge forproviding the software to the government solely by virtue of this improvement. However,Inslaw also says it makes privately-funded enhancements at this time, enabling it to charge afee for a version of the application with these enhancements (see April 2, 1982 and July 17,1982). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]

Entity Tags:Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

May 26, 1982: Inslaw Again Tells Justice Department It Intends to Market PROMIS

Inslaw·s attorney James Rogers writes to the Justice Department in an attempt to allay fearsthe department has about the implementation of the company·s PROMIS software for it.Rogers provides Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris with a detaileddescription of what the company plans to do to market the software commercially from thenext month, and asks that the department respond to Inslaw to énsure that theserepresentations are correct.µ Rogers says that the version of PROMIS the company will market

comprises three parts: (1) the original application developed with government money (seeMid-1970s); (2) enhancements made by Inslaw using private money (see April 2, 1982 and July17, 1982); and (3) an enhancement made for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (see Before May17, 1982). Parts (1) and (3) do not entitle Inslaw to market the software commerciallythemselves. However, part (2) does. At the Justice Department, both C. Madison ´BrickµBrewer, who supervises the PROMIS contract, and Peter Videnieks, the department·scontracting officer, are unhappy with this intention. The House Judiciary Committee willcomment that this letter is ´followed by a very antagonistic meetingµ between Brewer andInslaw representatives, and that Brewer and Videnieks continue ´to believe that, because the



department was currently funding the implementation of PROMIS, they could ignore Inslaw·sproprietary interest in the privately funded enhancements made to the PROMIS software.µ [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, Peter Videnieks, Stanley E. Morris, USDepartment of Justice, C. Madison ´Brickµ BrewerCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

July 1, 1982: Inslaw Memo Sets Out Justice Department Manager·s Attitude to Company

In an internal memo, Inslaw employee John Gizarelli outlines a problem concerning thePROMIS project with the Justice Department official handling the contract, C. Madison ´BrickµBrewer (see April 14, 1982, April 19, 1982, and Mid-April 1982). Brewer had left Inslaw undera cloud in the mid-1970s (see 1976), but is now overseeing the PROMIS implementationproject at the Justice Department. Gizarelli writes to Inslaw vice president Dean Merrill thatBrewer ´has made no secret of his dislike of [Inslaw president] Bill Hamilton.µ He adds: ´Inhis present job, he is in a position to demonstrate his dislike. Bill, however, has kept hisdistance from the project and probably will continue to do so, until and unless there are largeproblems which Bill³in his role as president³must deal with personally. It is entirelypossible³and I believe likely³that Brick will escalate the level of controversy until he drawsBill into the project, at which time he will be able to ¶lord it over him· and show who·s boss. Idon·t think Brick will ever be at peace with his feelings about Bill and therefore, with us.µ [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., Dean Merrill, John Gizarelli, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, William HamiltonCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

July 17, 1982: Inslaw Employee Says Company Has Made $1 Million in Private Enhancements toPROMIS over Last Year

Joyce Demy, an employee of the software company Inslaw, writes to the firm·s lawyer saying

that it made enhancements to its PROMIS software worth $1 million between May 1981 andMay 1982. She also tells the lawyer, James Rogers of Latham, Watkins & Hills, that nogovernment money was used for the enhancements, which were paid for solely out of privatefunds. Prior to the enhancements, the original PROMIS software was in the public domain, asit had been paid for by government money (see Mid-1970s). However, the various privately-funded enhancements mean that Inslaw can claim ownership of it. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., James Rogers, Joyce Demy, Latham, Watkins & HillsCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

August 11, 1982: Justice Department Admits Inslaw Owns Privately-Funded PROMIS Enhancements

Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley Morris writes to James Rogers, an attorney actingfor Inslaw, and admits that the company owns privately funded improvements to the PROMISsoftware. Morris first points out that part of the software was financed by the government:´We agree that the original PROMIS, as defined in your letter of May 26, 1982 (see May 26,1982), is in the public domain. We also agree that the printed inquiry enhancement is in thepublic domain.µ This means that Inslaw could never charge the department for the use ofsoftware comprising only the original application and the printed inquiry enhancement(although it could of course charge for installation and maintenance). However, Morris adds,´To the extent that any other enhancements to the system were privately funded by Inslaw



and not specified to be delivered to the Department of Justice under any contract or otherarrangement, Inslaw may assert whatever proprietary rights it may have.µ This means thedepartment agrees that Inslaw can sell a version of the software with privately-fundedenhancements. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This statement is made in response to a letter sent bylawyers acting for Inslaw founder William Hamilton, informing the department that Inslawintends to become a private company, and asking it to waive any proprietary rights it might

claim to the enhanced version. Clarification will be provided in a 1988 deposition in whichDeputy Attorney General Arnold Burns will say, ´Our lawyers were satisfied that Inslaw·slawyers could sustain the claim in court, that we had waived those [proprietary] rights.µ[WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, William Hamilton, Arnold Burns, Inslaw, Inc., Stanley E. MorrisCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

November 10, 1982: Justice Department Says Inslaw in Default of PROMIS Contract

Peter Videnieks, the Justice Department·s contracting officer, writes to Inslaw and says thatit is in default of a clause in a contract between it and the government on the installation of

PROMIS software. The clause concerns advance payments made by the department, whichInslaw needs to receive for its work under the contract in order to keep on operating as abusiness. Due to Inslaw·s poor financial situation, the House Judiciary Committee willcomment that withholding the advance payments would have a ´devastating impactµ on thecompany, and Videnieks will later say he was aware of this, stating, ´I think I was advised atthe same time that Inslaw may indeed have difficulty in meeting the December payroll, and Ithink in general I was advised that they were in bad financial condition.µ Due to its lack ofcash, Inslaw had assigned rights to the advance payments to a financial institution to secure aline of credit. Justice Department PROMIS project manager C. Madison ́ Brickµ Brewer will saythat the reason the department is considering terminating the advance payments is a loanInslaw has from the Bank of Bethesda, under which a lien was placed on the advancepayments received by Inslaw from a specific account (not the account itself). According to

Brewer, the lien is contrary to the contract and places the government in financial risk. [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Peter Videnieks, Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, HouseCommittee on the JudiciaryCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

November 19, 1982: Justice Department Requests Copy of PROMIS Software

A technical representative for the Justice Department formally asks Inslaw for a copy of thePROMIS software currently being used by US attorneys· offices. The department will later saythat this request is motivated by concern over the financial viability of Inslaw, although thecompany is in financial difficulty because the government is withholding advance payments it

owes (see November 10, 1982). At this time, the department has not yet obtained theminicomputer hardware for each attorney·s office and Inslaw has arranged for the largest USattorneys· offices to use PROMIS on a time-sharing basis. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

December 6, 1982: Justice Department Demands Inslaw Hand over PROMIS Software, Inslaw Asksfor Contract Modification



Peter Videnieks, the Justice Department·s contracting officer, writes to Inslaw to demandthat it turn over all computer programs and supporting documentation relating to a contractto install PROMIS software for the department (see March 1982). In response, Inslaw says itwill not do this without the department modifying the contract between them toacknowledge that it has inserted privately-funded enhancements into a public domain versiondeveloped for the department. This modification is apparently required because thedepartment is using a time-share version of the application in advance of full installation, andInslaw·s other timesharing customers also use a version with the enhancements. Thedepartment then says that the original contract called for software in which the governmenthas unlimited rights, and asks Inslaw to identify the parts of the software it claims areproprietary. Inslaw offers to provide the enhanced software to the 94 attorneys· officescovered by the contract at no extra charge, provided the department agrees to Inslaw·s rightsand does not disseminate the software beyond these offices. However, Videnieks will latertell investigators for the House Judiciary Committee that the department believed that it hadunlimited rights to any versions of PROMIS, and if restrictions were placed on data rights,then this would not satisfy Inslaw·s obligation under the contract. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice, Peter Videnieks

Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

December 9, 1982: Justice Department Official Mentions Possibility of Inslaw Bankruptcy, SaysDepartment Should Get Copy of PROMIS

The Justice Department·s PROMIS project manager, C. Madison ́ Brickµ Brewer, writes amemo about potential developments in the project. In the memo, he says he is concernedabout the possibility Inslaw, the company that is implementing the PROMIS software, may gobankrupt, and that staff at the Executive Office for US Attorneys may need to take over theproject. Brewer also mentions the possibility that the contract with Inslaw could beterminated by the department. Inslaw will enter bankruptcy in 1985, at least partially as a

result of the department withholding payments from it (see February 1985). [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

March 18, 1983: Justice Department Again Demands Enhanced PROMIS Software, Says It Will Thinkabout Acknowledging Inslaw·s Rights to Enhancements

The Justice Department makes a counter-proposal in the dispute over whether Inslaw shouldprovide an enhanced version of the PROMIS software and documentation to the department toensure against the company·s bankruptcy (see December 6, 1982). The counter-proposal ismade in a letter from Peter Videnieks, the department·s contracting officer, to HarveySherzer, an attorney for Inslaw. Videnieks still wants a copy of the enhanced PROMIS software,but is willing to limit the software·s dissemination to the attorneys· offices contemplated bythe original contract. However, the department does not admit that Inslaw has madeprivately-funded enhancements to the software, so this limitation on dissemination will onlyapply if Inslaw can demonstrate the privately-funded enhancements that it claims haveactually been made. Nevertheless, no mechanism for producing such proof will be specified.If Inslaw can show the software contains such enhancements, the department will either tell



it to remove them, or negotiate regarding inclusion of the enhancements. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Harvey Sherzer, Inslaw, Inc., Peter Videnieks, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

April 11, 1983: Inslaw and Justice Department Sign Modification to PROMIS Contract

Inslaw and the Justice Department conclude a modification, number 12, to a contract underwhich the company is to install PROMIS software for the department (March 1982). Themodification appears to resolve a dispute that has arisen between the two parties (seeDecember 6, 1982 and March 18, 1983), as the department wants Inslaw to give it a copy ofthe software, but Inslaw says it has made privately-funded enhancements to the code andwants the department to undertake not to disseminate the enhanced software beyond thelocations specified in the original contract (the department is entitled to disseminate anearlier, public domain version of the contract any way it wants). The modification says thatInslaw will give the department a copy of the software, and the department undertakes notto disseminate it in future, provided that Inslaw can demonstrate the enhancements were

actually made. As a result of the agreement, the department will continue to make advancepayments to Inslaw. It is this modification that leads to a series of legal disputes that will lastwell into the next decade, as the parties never come to an agreement on how theenhancements are to be demonstrated and the department begins to disseminate thesoftware unchecked. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

Shortly After April 11, 1983: Massachusetts Asks Justice Department Component about Availabilityof PROMIS from Sources Other than Inslaw

An official in the Massachusetts State government asks a Justice Department official about

the availability of PROMIS software from sources other than Inslaw, the company that createdit. This follows a demonstration of PROMIS by Inslaw at the Boston US Attorneys office to agroup of people from the State of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts request is passed on toJack Rugh of the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the JusticeDepartment·s Executive Office for US Attorneys. Rugh replies that some government-ownedversions of the software are available, but there is currently a dispute with Inslaw overownership of an enhanced version of the software. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one ofseveral occasions when OMISS discusses providing versions of the software to other entities(see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Office of Management Information Systems Support, Jack Rugh, US Department of Justice,Executive Office for US AttorneysCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Provides Government Versions of PROMIS toPotential Contractors

Various versions of PROMIS software owned by the government are made available topotential bidders who may offer to supply computer equipment to the government.Apparently, the versions are made available by the Office of Management InformationSystems Support (OMISS) at the Executive Office for US Attorneys for use in benchmarking the



contractors· equipment. No restrictions are placed on the use of this software. According toJack Rugh of OMISS, the Justice Department may also tell the bidders a version of PROMISwhich Inslaw claims it owns may be made available to them at some future date. [US CONGRESS,

9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS provides versions of the software toentities outside the Justice Department (see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Office of Management Information Systems Support, Jack Rugh, US Department of Justice,

Executive Office for US AttorneysCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Discusses Providing PROMIS to Department·sCriminal Division

Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at theExecutive Office for US Attorneys holds a number of informal discussions with personnel in theJustice Department·s criminal division regarding the division·s possible use of OMISS·senhanced version of PROMIS, as well as its use of one of OMISS·s Prime computers. In addition,the possibility of cooperating on PROMIS software maintenance and enhancements in the

future is discussed. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISSdiscusses providing versions of the software to other entities (see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Jack Rugh, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Office of Management Information SystemsSupport, US Department of Justice, Criminal Division (DoJ)Category Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Discusses Availability of PROMIS with Bureauof Justice Statistics

Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at theJustice Department·s Executive Office for US Attorneys discusses the availability of agovernment-owned pilot version of PROMIS software, as well as an enhanced version, with

Don Manson of the Bureau of Justice Statistics on a number of occasions. According to a latermemo drafted by Rugh, Manson is ´particularly interested in providing a copy of our enhancedsoftware to the US Virgin Islands.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions whenOMISS discusses providing versions of the software to other entities (see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Executive Office for US Attorneys, Don Manson, Office of Management Information SystemsSupport, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jack Rugh, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Provides Government Version of PROMIS toContractor for Benchmarking

The Justice Department makes a version of PROMIS software owned by the governmentavailable to a contractor named Dave Hudak. The version is a pilot copy for use on Primecomputers and is provided to Hudak under a contract according to which he should developbenchmarking programs for computer purchases by the department. Apparently, the versionis made available by the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at theExecutive Office for US Attorneys. No restrictions are placed on the use of this software.According to Jack Rugh of OMISS, the department may also tell the bidders a version ofPROMIS which Inslaw claims it owns may be made available to them at some future date. [US



CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS provides versions of thesoftware to entities outside the Justice Department (see April 22, 1983).Entity Tags:Jack Rugh, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Office of Management Information SystemsSupport, US Department of Justice, Dave HudakCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

April 22, 1983: Justice Department Memo Documents Numerous Occasions PROMIS VersionsProvided to Others

Jack Rugh, the acting assistant director of the Office of Management Information SystemsSupport at the Justice Department·s Executive Office for US Attorneys, drafts a memosummarizing occasions on which versions of PROMIS software have been provided toorganizations other than US Attorneys· offices by the department or such provision has beendiscussed. The memo is drafted in response to a request by PROMIS project manager Madison´Brickµ Brewer, who asked Rugh about any discussions he may have had about such provisiona week earlier. The memo lists various occasions on which versions of PROMIS were providedto entities outside the Justice Department (see Early 1982,Before April 22, 1983, and Before

April 22, 1983). It also documents discussions Rugh has had about providing the software toother entities (see Early 1982, Between Early 1982 and April 22, 1983, Before April 22, 1983,and Before April 22, 1983). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Jack Rugh, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Office of Management Information SystemsSupport, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

May 6, 1983: Justice Department Official Says PROMIS Will Be Provided to Israeli Government

A Justice Department official writes a memo saying he will soon provide the PROMISapplication to an Israeli government representative. The official is Jack Rugh, the actingassistant director of the Office of Management Information Systems Support at the ExecutiveOffice of US Attorneys. The memo states that ́ Reference my memorandum to file dated April22, 1983, on the same subject. [C. Madison] Brick Brewer [PROMIS project manager at theJustice Department] recently instructed me to make a copy of an LEAA version of PROMIS [aversion wholly owned by the Justice Department] available to Dr. Ben Orr, a representative ofthe government of Israel. Dr. Orr called me to discuss that request after my earliermemorandum was written. I have made a copy of the LEM DEC version of PROMIS and willprovide it along with the corresponding documentation, to Dr. Orr before he leaves theUnited States for Israel on May 16.µHigh Officials Possibly Involved - The House Judiciary Committee will comment: ́ Given theinternational dimensions to the decisions, it is difficult to accept the notion that a group oflow-level Department personnel decided independently to get in touch with the governmentof Israel to arrange for transfer of the PROMIS software. At the very least, it is unlikely thatsuch a transaction occurred without the approval of high-level Department officials, includingthose on the PROMIS Oversight Committee.µActual Version of PROMIS Unclear - The committee will also later speculate that a versionwhose ownership is under dispute was also given to the Israelis, saying: ´[I]t is uncertain whatversion actually was transferred. Department managers believed that all versions of theEnhanced PROMIS software were the Department·s property. The lack of detaileddocumentation on the transfer, therefore, only creates new questions surrounding allegationsthat Enhanced PROMIS may have been sold or transferred to Israel and other foreign



governments.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Rugh will pass the application to Brewer for handingover to Orr six days later (see May 12, 1983).Entity Tags:Executive Office for US Attorneys, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, US Department of Justice,Office of Management Information Systems Support, Benjamin Orr, Jack RughCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

May 12, 1983: PROMIS Application Handed Over for Passage to Israeli Government

Jack Rugh, the acting assistant director of the Office of Management Information SystemsSupport at the Justice Department·s Executive Office for US Attorneys, writes a memo turningover the PROMIS application to a colleague, C. Madison Brewer. The application is for passageto the government of Israel, a transfer already discussed by Brewer and Rugh (see May 6,1983). Rugh writes: ´Enclosed are the PROMIS materials that you asked me to produce for Dr.Ben Orr of the government of Israel. These materials consist of the LEM DEC PDP 11/70version of PROMIS on magnetic tape along with the printed specifications for that tape, aswell as two printed volumes of PROMIS documentation for the LEAA version of the system.µ[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Office of Management Information Systems Support, Jack Rugh, C.Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, Benjamin Orr, Executive Office for US AttorneysCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

July 21, 1983: Justice Department Says Dissemination of PROMIS Software Still Limited underAgreement with Inslaw

Peter Videnieks, the Justice Department·s contracting officer, writes to Inslaw to set out thedepartment·s position on a significant modification to a contract between the twoorganizations. Videnieks agrees that modification 12 ́ continues to limit dissemination of thatversion of the PROMIS computer software [a privately-enhanced version] specified in themodification.µ He adds that the modification ´will continue to apply in the event that the

government invokes the provisions of Clause 22, ¶Disputes,· in that the government will limitdissemination pending a contracting officer·s final decision in the matter.µ [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice, Peter VidenieksCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

Between August 29, 1983 and February 18, 1985: Inslaw Implements PROMIS in 20 US AttorneysOffices

Inslaw implements its enhanced PROMIS software at 20 US attorneys· offices. Theimplementation is performed pursuant to a contract signed by the company and the JusticeDepartment in 1982 (March 1982). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

December 29, 1983: Justice Department Decides to Terminate Part of PROMIS Contract

Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen and other members of the Justice Department·sPROMIS Oversight Committee approve the termination of part of a contract with Inslaw, Inc.,



for the installation of PROMIS software (see March 1982). The termination, pushed throughdespite a report that there was progress with Inslaw·s attorney on the resolution of contractproblems, only concerns the part of the contract for the installation of PROMIS on wordprocessing hardware in 74 small US attorneys· offices. Inslaw will still be contracted to installthe application in 20 other US attorneys· offices. The termination is to be for default, asInslaw has allegedly failed to perform this portion of the contract, although a different reason

will later be given (see February 1984). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Lowell Jensen, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

February 1984: Justice Department Counsel Finds Inslaw Has Not Failed to Perform PROMISContract, Portion Terminated Anyway

Justice Department procurement counsel William Snider issues a legal opinion stating that thedepartment lacks legal justification to terminate part of a contract on the installation ofPROMIS software for default. The department·s PROMIS Oversight Committee had decided onthis course of action in December (see December 29, 1983), as it said that Inslaw, the

company installing PROMIS, was not performing the contract properly. However, thecommittee decides to terminate the portion of the contract anyway, but for convenience³meaning Inslaw may receive some compensation³not default. PROMIS project manager C.Madison Brewer then notifies INSLAW owner William Hamilton that Deputy Attorney GeneralLowell Jensen has decided on partial termination. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Lowell Jensen, William Hamilton, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer,William SniderCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

August 15, 1984: Justice Department Official Says Conceding Inslaw·s Ownership of EnhancedPROMIS Would Alter Department·s ¶Rights in Data·

Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, director of the the Office of Management Information SystemsSupport at the Justice Department·s Executive Office for US Attorneys, argues againstaccepting a proposal made by Inslaw to resolve the dispute that has arisen over rights to anenhanced version of the PROMIS application. In a memo to Kamal J. Rahal, director of theprocurement and contracts staff, Justice Management Division, Brewer warns, ´The proposalwould substantially alter our rights in data (e.g., we would become a licensee³and thus giveup the unlimited rights we currently enjoy).µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, US Department of Justice, Kamal J. RahalCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

1985: Private Company·s Attempt to Purchase Inslaw Fails

A company called SCT attempts to purchase Inslaw, which designed the PROMIS database andsearch application. SCT is assisted by the New York investment bank Allen & Co., which helpswith the finance for the proposed deal. The attempt fails, but, according to Inslaw·s founderWilliam Hamilton, in the process a number of Inslaw·s customers are warned by SCT thatInslaw will soon go bankrupt and will not survive reorganization. Wired magazine will say thatAllen & Co. has ´close business tiesµ to Earl Brian, a businessman who is said to be interestedin PROMIS software and who is well-connected inside the Ronald Reagan administration. [WIRED

NEWS, 3/1993]



that he does not undertake a review of the misconduct allegations, but only looks at Inslaw·sbusiness proposal. The committee will point out that this is in ´direct contradictionµ ofJensen·s version. While examining the proposal, Stephens receives several telephone callsfrom Inslaw attorneys Charles Work and Elliot Richardson. He feels they are lobbying thedepartment very hard because they believe Inslaw has what the committee will call ´somespecial relationshipµ with the department. According to a report by the committee, Work and

Richardson attempt to convey that, ´based on a longstanding relationship between thedepartment and Inslaw, the department should look favorably on Inslaw·s new businessproposal.µOutcome of Review - However, Stephens reports to Jensen that the need for Inslaw·s businessproposal is questionable and the department thinks the work can be done in-house. Jensenthen writes to Richardson, saying that the department does not have an immediate need forthe work, and will not act on the proposal.Comment by House Committee - The committee will comment, ´Because the department didnot adequately investigate Inslaw·s allegations, the company was forced into expensive, time-consuming litigation as the only means by which the department·s misappropriation ofInslaw·s enhanced PROMIS could be exposed.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., Elliot Richardson, Charles Work, Jay Stephens,

Lowell JensenCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

April 30, 1985: Justice Department Analysis Says Inslaw Has Made No Proprietary Enhancements toPROMIS Software

In an analysis of an Inslaw proposal for the resolution of the PROMIS dispute, the ExecutiveOffice for US Attorneys (EOUSA), a Justice Department component, says that Inslaw has notmade any proprietary enhancements to the software. ´It appears [to the department] thatthere are no proprietary enhancements,µ says the analysis sent by William P. Tyson, theEOUSA director, to Jay Stephens, the deputy associate attorney general. ´All proposals

received from Inslaw attempt to force the department into acknowledging Inslaw·sproprietary interest in the US attorneys· version of PROMIS by offering a license agreementfor software maintenance,µ Tyson adds. According to the memo, accepting Inslaw·s proposal´would, in effect, ratify Inslaw·s claim that the software is proprietary; not only the micro-computer version which Inslaw proposes to develop, but also the Prime mini-computer versioncurrently operational in 20 districts.µ The Justice Department·s position means that it wouldhave unlimited rights to the software. The House Judiciary Committee will later commentthat the department ´may have used its ¶unlimited rights· posture as a pretextual basis for itsnational and international distribution of Enhanced PROMIS outside of the department.µ [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:William P. Tyson, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary,Executive Office for US Attorneys, Jay StephensCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

Between June 24, 1985 and September 2, 1987: Justice Department Installs Enhanced PROMIS atAttorneys· Offices despite Inslaw Protests

The Justice Department makes enhanced PROMIS software available at multiple locations,outside the framework of its contract with Inslaw on the application·s installation and overprotests by the company. The software is first installed at 25 US attorneys· offices in addition



to 20 still covered by a contract between Inslaw and the department (see Between August 29,1983 and February 18, 1985). According to Inslaw·s counsel Elliot Richardson, an enhancedversion of the software is then illegally copied to support an additional two sites. Finally, 31additional sites are brought on line via telecommunications. These additional, smaller USattorneys· offices had initially been covered by the contract with Inslaw, but this portion ofthe contract was terminated in 1984 (see February 1984). Inslaw will repeatedly protest about

this installation (see March 14, 1986), and a bankruptcy court will find it is in violation of thelaw (see September 28, 1987), although this ruling will be overturned (see May 7, 1991). [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Elliot Richardson, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute

September 9, 1985: Inslaw Complains about Additional PROMIS Installations

Inslaw complains about additional installations of enhanced PROMIS software by the JusticeDepartment. Inslaw and the department had a contract for the company to install thesoftware in 20 large US attorneys· offices and then dozens of smaller ones (see March 1982),

but the portion of the contract for the smaller offices was terminated (see February 1984),and the department is installing an enhanced version of the software Inslaw says it owns inthese smaller offices (see Between June 24, 1985 and September 2, 1987). The complaint ismade in a letter by Inslaw president William Hamilton to H. Lawrence Wallace, the assistantattorney general for administration. ´I am extremely disturbed and disappointed to learn thatthe Executive Office for US Attorneys has begun to manufacture copies of the PROMISsoftware for customization and installation in additional US attorneys offices, specificallythose in St. Louis, Missouri, and Sacramento, California,µ Hamilton writes. ´This action occursat the very time that the Department of Justice and Inslaw are attempting to resolve, bynegotiation, Inslaw·s claim that the US attorneys version of PROMIS contains millions ofdollars of privately-financed enhancements that are proprietary products of Inslaw and forwhich Inslaw has, to date, received no compensation.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]

Entity Tags:H. Lawrence Wallace, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice, William HamiltonCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

November 15, 1985: Justice Department Makes Counterproposal for Settlement of PROMIS Dispute

The Justice Department makes a counterproposal in the dispute with Inslaw over rights to anenhanced version of the PROMIS software. The principles of the settlement, set out by theJustice Management Division·s general counsel Janice A. Sposato in a letter to Inslaw lawyerHarvey Sherzer, are:The department will not pay Inslaw any additional money for the enhanced software

obtained under a contract on implementation of PROMIS at US attorneys· offices;Inslaw will recognize that the US government has the right to unrestricted use of the

enhanced software obtained under the contract for any federal project, including projectsimplemented by independent contractors;The department will agree not to make or permit any disclosure or distribution of the

software other than as described above, or as required by federal law.Inslaw will not accept the counterproposal, and the dispute will continue. [US CONGRESS,

9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Janice A. Sposato, Harvey Sherzer, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute



February 21, 1986: Justice Department Says Inslaw Has Not Made Proprietary Enhancements toPROMIS

Peter Vidieneks, the Justice Department contracting officer working on the PROMIS contract,declares that Inslaw has not made any proprietary enhancements to the software. Hetherefore denies Inslaw·s claim of $2.9 million for licensing fees. This means that the Justice

Department thinks it owns all versions of PROMIS, whereas Inslaw says it owns one version ithas improved through privately-funded enhancements. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice, Peter VidenieksCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

March 14, 1986: Inslaw Warns Justice Department against Use of Enhanced PROMIS Software

A lawyer acting for Inslaw warns the Justice Department that the department·s use of theenhanced version of PROMIS software contravenes bankruptcy legislation. Inslaw, in Chapter11 bankruptcy due to a dispute between itself and the department (see February 1985),writes to the department·s contracting officer saying that the software·s use without Inslaw·s

consent and the payment of licensing fees would contravene Inslaw·s property rights and itsrights as a debtor in possession of the software under the bankruptcy code. In addition, Inslawargues it is ´a wrongful exercise of control over property of the debtor·s estate in violation ofthe automatic stay now in effect.µ The automatic stay is a legal mechanism that preventscreditors³such as the Justice Department³harassing a debtor³such as Inslaw³in bankruptcy.Inslaw also says that the department·s dissemination of the software to third parties coulddamage or destroy the product·s commercial value, possibly wrecking the company. [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

June 9, 1986: Inslaw Files Action against Justice Department in Bankruptcy Court

Inslaw files a complaint for a declaratory judgment, the enforcement of automatic staybankruptcy protection provisions, and damages against the Justice Department in the disputeover the department·s alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software. The automatic stay is oneof the fundamental debtor protections provided by bankruptcy laws. It stops all collectionefforts, harassments, and foreclosure actions, giving the debtor temporary relief fromcreditors. It is important because it allows a bankruptcy court to centralize all disputesconcerning property of the debtor·s estate so that reorganization can proceed orderly andefficiently. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Inslaw·s attorney for the case, Leigh Ratiner of theWashington firm Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, chooses the bankruptcy court for the filing basedon the premise that the Justice Department, as the creditor, has control of enhanced PROMIS.He will later say: ´It was forbidden by the Bankruptcy Act for the creditor to exercise controlover the debtor property. And that theory³that the Justice Department was exercisingcontrol³was the basis that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction. As far as I know, this wasthe first time this theory had been used. This was ground-breaking.µ [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Inslawclaims that Justice Department manager C. Madison Brewer, who was responsible forimplementing PROMIS in the department, was instrumental in propelling Inslaw intobankruptcy (see April 1982, April 14, 1982, and April 19, 1982), and that he then hinderedInslaw in its development of a reorganization plan. Inslaw also alleges that its concerns were



made known to the highest levels of Justice Department·s management, without any response.[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Leigh Ratiner, C. Madison ´Brickµ Brewer, Inslaw, Inc.,Bankruptcy Court for the District of ColumbiaCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

June 16, 1986: Senator Asks Justice Department Oversight Unit about Inslaw Allegations

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), a Justice Department oversight component,receives a letter from Laurie A. Westly, chief counsel to Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), asking forits view of allegations made by the software company Inslaw against the Justice Department.The letter mentions claims of misconduct by department official Lowell Jensen. Westly alsorefers to litigation recently initiated by Inslaw (see June 9, 1986), specifically the claim thatJensen contributed to the bankruptcy of Inslaw and had a negative bias toward its software.She also asks whether Jensen has breached any ethical or legal responsibility as a departmentemployee. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] It is unclear what action the OPR takes in response to thismatter. However, it conducts a preliminary investigation into whether Jensen was biasedagainst Inslaw this year, and this may be in response to this letter (see 1986). It will alsobegin a fuller investigation the next year (see October 14, 1987).Entity Tags:Lowell Jensen, Laurie A. Westly, Office of Professional Responsibility, Paul Martin Simon,Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

1986: Preliminary Report by Justice Department Oversight Unit Concludes No Bias in Inslaw Affair

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an oversight unit at the Justice Department,conducts an initial review of bias allegations against departmental officials in the Inslawaffair. The exact timing of the review is uncertain, although it may come after a query aboutthe case from Senator Paul Simon in June (see June 16, 1986). The review finds that there is

no misconduct by Justice Department manager Lowell Jensen. According to statements madeby acting OPR counsel Robert Lyon and assistant counsel David Bobzein to the House JudiciaryCommittee in 1990, the OPR does not perform a full review at this time because theallegations of bias are not an issue OPR would normally review. Therefore, it plans to rely onthe findings of a bankruptcy court hearing the Inslaw case (see June 9, 1986). However, afterthe bankruptcy court finds in favour of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987), partly because itthinks the bias allegations are well founded, OPR begins a full investigation (see October 14,1987) and concludes there was no bias (see March 31, 1989). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, David Bobzein, Inslaw, Inc.,Lowell Jensen, Robert LyonCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

June 23, 1986: Inslaw Files First Claim with Board of Appeals over PROMIS Dispute

Inslaw files a claim with the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals in itsdispute over the Justice Department·s use of enhanced PROMIS software. Further claims willbe filed on September 19, 1986 and August 24, 1987. The claims are filed subsequent tonotices of appeal submitted in February 1985, as well as May and November 1986. Themonetary claims fall into six categories:Time-sharing charges for a computer center operated by Inslaw and used by several US



attorneys· offices;Contract target fees and other payments;Indirect costs, including overheads;Direct costs;Costs, including legal fees, incurred by Inslaw after a portion of the original contract was

terminated by the government for its own convenience; and

Costs incurred because the Department withheld payments.However, as the issue is also the subject of a dispute before a bankruptcy court andsubsequent appeal courts, the matter will be held in abeyance and the board will not takeany significant steps for years. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, Inslaw,Inc.Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

July 9, 1986: Senator Asks Justice Department about Inslaw Case

Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD) sends a letter to the Justice Department asking about the

dispute with Inslaw over enhanced PROMIS software. The letter will spark interest by DeputyAttorney General Arnold Burns in the case (see After July 9, 1986). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Charles Mathias, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

After July 9, 1986: Deputy Attorney General Told Justice Department Has Waived Rights toEnhanced PROMIS Software

Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns is told that the Justice Department has waived itsrights to enhanced PROMIS software (see August 11, 1982). Following a letter asking about theInslaw case from Senator Charles Mathias (see July 9, 1986), Burns asks subordinates aboutthe litigation with Inslaw and is told the company wants the department to pay royalties.Burns then suggests that the issue should be turned around and that a claim against Inslawshould be made for it to pay royalties to the government, which funded the development ofthe first version of PROMIS (seeMid-1970s). However, further research comes up with a resultshocking to Burns, who will say in 1988, ´The answer that I got, which I wasn·t terribly happywith but which I accepted, was that there had been a series of old correspondence and backand forthing [sic] and stuff, that in all of that, our lawyers were satisfied that Inslaw couldsustain the claim in court, that we had waived those rights, not that I was wrong that wedidn·t have them but that somebody in the Department of Justice, in a letter or letters, as Isay in this back and forthing [sic], had, in effect, waived those rights.µ The House JudiciaryCommittee will later comment, ´Considering that the deputy attorney general was aware ofInslaw·s proprietary rights, the department·s pursuit of litigation can only be understood as awar of attrition between the department·s massive, tax-supported resources and Inslaw·sdesperate financial condition, with shrinking (courtesy of the department) income.µ Thecommittee will add, ´In light of Mr. Burns· revelation, it is important to note that committeeinvestigators found no surviving documentation (from that time frame) which reveal thedepartment·s awareness of the relative legal positions of the department and Inslaw, onInslaw·s claims to proprietary enhancements referred to by Mr. Burns.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Arnold Burns, House Committee on the Judiciary, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute



June 19, 1987: High Justice Department Official Says Inslaw Case Should Be Reassigned to AnotherJudge

Richard Willard, assistant attorney general of the civil division, writes a memo to DeputyAttorney General Arnold Burns about the Inslaw affair. According to Willard, George Bason,the bankruptcy court judge dealing with the Justice Department·s alleged theft of enhanced

PROMIS software, should be taken off the case. Willard writes that Bason·s conduct is ´soextraordinary that it warranted reassignment to another judge.µ The House JudiciaryCommittee will comment that department officials are ćoncernedµ about Bason·s handlingof the case ´very early in the litigation,µ and that they think Bason tends to believestatements made by Inslaw. The committee will add: ´The department believed that JudgeBason disregarded the sworn statements of department witnesses. The department alsobelieved that Judge Bason made lengthy observations regarding the credibility of its witnessesand that Judge Bason·s uniformly negative conclusions were based on inferences notsupported by the record.µ Therefore, by the summer of 1987, the department is áctivelyseeking ways to remove Judge Bason from the case.µ Bason will rule in favor of Inslaw in theautumn (see September 28, 1987). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Richard Willard, George Bason, Civil Division, Arnold Burns, House

Judiciary CommitteeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

June 19, 1987: Former Deputy Attorney General Claims Attorney General Informed of Inslaw Affair

Former Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen says that Attorney General Ed Meese wasinformed about the Justice Department·s dealings with Inslaw. He makes the statement in asworn deposition to the Office of Professional Responsibility, a Justice Department unitinvestigating the department·s alleged theft of the enhanced PROMIS case tracking softwarefrom Inslaw. Jensen says, Í have had conversations with the attorney general [Meese] aboutthe whole Inslaw matter, as to what had taken place in the PROMIS development and what

had taken place with the contract and what decisions had been made by the department withreference to that.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, Meese will tell the House JudiciaryCommittee he has no recollection of any discussions about case tracking (see July 12, 1990).Entity Tags:Edwin Meese, Inslaw, Inc., Lowell Jensen, US Department of Justice, Office of ProfessionalResponsibilityCategory Tags:Origin of Dispute

June 1987 or Shortly After: Attorney General Told PROMIS Case Judge ¶Off His Rocker·

Justice Department staff tell Attorney General Edwin Meese that Judge George Bason of theBankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia is óff his rocker,µ according to a swornstatement Meese will later make to the House Judiciary Committee. Bason is presiding over adispute between the department and the software company Inslaw (see June 9, 1986) andwill eventually rule against the department (see September 28, 1987). This comment appearsto be part of a campaign to get Bason removed from the case (see June 19, 1987) and a judgemore favorable to the department appointed. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Edwin Meese, US Department of Justice, George BasonCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings



Second Half of 1987: Bankruptcy Court Hearing Inslaw Case ¶up to Par· Administratively, Accordingto Clerk

According to a sworn statement made to the House Judiciary Committee by Martin Bloom,clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, the administration of the court bythe clerk·s office is úp to parµ by ´the latter part of 1987.µ Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson will

agree with Bloom, complimenting the bankruptcy court·s judge, George Bason, onimprovements in the court·s administrative condition in remarks to an annual judicialconference.Condition of Clerk's Office Later Becomes Important - The condition of the clerk·s office willlater become significant because it will apparently be an important factor in the non-reappointment of Bason later this year (see December 15, 1987). For example, a confidentialreport about his possible reappointment (see December 8, 1987) will say, ́ Judge Basonevidenced no inclination to come to grips personally with the management challenge posed bythe terrible shortcomings of the Office of the Clerk of our Bankruptcy Court.µ Bason iscurrently at loggerheads with the Justice Department over the Inslaw case (see June 19, 1987)and will rule in favor of Inslaw in September (see September 28, 1987).Previous Poor Condition - It will be established that the clerk·s office was not in good

condition when Bason took over the bankruptcy court in the mid-1980s, although a May 1986report said that the system was being brought under control and Bloom will blame theprevious clerk for the problems. Bloom will also say that Bason takes an active role inproviding whatever assistance he can in improving the administrative condition of the court.Committee's Assessment of Court - However, the committee that fails to reappoint Bason willsomehow come to believe that it is still a mess at this time and that this is Bason·s fault,although an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee will find that ´most of thedistrict and circuit judges interviewed [who were on the reappointment committee] said thatthey had little or no contact with Judge Bason and were not in a position to have firsthandknowledge of the condition of his court.µ Neither Bloom nor the previous clerk will beinterviewed by the panel about the court·s administration and, according to Bason, there isno mechanism in place for the judges to personally evaluate it. The committee will comment:

Ćonsidering that poor administrative controls seemed to be one of the primary reasons forJudge Bason·s failed attempt at reappointment, it is unusual that neither Judge Bason nor theother individuals most responsible for the administration of the court were interviewed by thepanel. Judge Robinson made a telling comment to committee investigators when he said it isunfortunate bankruptcy judges are selected by judges furthest removed from the bankruptcycourt.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Martin Bloom, George Bason, Aubrey Robinson, Bankruptcy Court for the District ofColumbia, House Judiciary CommitteeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

July 7, 1987: Deputy Attorney General Asks Subordinates for ¶More Favorable Disposition· of Inslaw

Case

Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns asks his subordinates at the Justice Department·s civildivision to ćonsider initiatives for achieving a more favorable disposition of this matter [alegal dispute between the department and Inslaw over PROMIS software].µ This is apparentlya reference to the possible removal of Judge George Bason from the case, as the departmentthinks he is biased against it (see June 19, 1987). In response to the comments, thedepartment will draft a report about removing Bason (see After July 7, 1987). [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992]



Entity Tags:Civil Division, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, George Bason, Arnold Burns, USDepartment of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

After July 7, 1987: Justice Department Report Says Inslaw Judge Cannot Be Removed over AllegedBias

Following a request from the Justice Department·s leadership (see July 7, 1987), MichaelHertz, the director of the civil division·s commercial litigation branch at the department,writes a memo entitled ´Feasibility of Motion to Disqualify the Judge in Inslaw.µ Thedepartment has come to believe that the judge, George Bason, is biased against it (see June19, 1987) and hopes to challenge his findings of fact by saying they are unsupported byevidence and reflect a desire to reach a preordained conclusion. This position is mostly basedon the department·s observations that some of Bason·s findings of fact are ´rambling andbased on deductions that are both strained and have flimsy support.µ However, Hertz writesto Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart Schiffer that the facts simply do not support acase of bias strong enough to disqualify Bason from the remainder of the Inslaw case. Hertz

adds that he is ´fairly confidentµ that any motion to dismiss Bason would not succeed and thedenial of any such motion could not be successfully challenged on appeal. He gives thefollowing reasons:The department has no evidence that what it views as ´Bason·s incredible factual

conclusions or alleged biasµ actually stem from an extrajudicial source, as the case lawrequires;Adverse factual findings and inferences against the government are not enough to support a

claim of bias; andAdverse credibility rulings about some of the government·s witnesses in a prior phase of the

proceedings are not on their own sufficient to disqualify Bason from the rest of theproceedings.Hertz says that attempting to demonstrate bias by Bason could adversely affect any future

appeal by the department on the findings of fact. He also advises Schiffer that as much as thedepartment may disagree with Bason·s findings: ́ [T]hey are not mere conclusory statements.Instead they reflect a relatively detailed judicial analysis of the evidence, including reasonsfor believing certain witnesses and disbelieving others, as well as consideration of whatinferences might or might not be drawn from the evidence.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Despitethis, the department will twice attempt to get Bason recused, failing both times (see January19, 1988 and January 25, 1988).Entity Tags:Michael Hertz, Civil Division, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, Stuart Schiffer,US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

August 1987: Assistant Attorney General Says Inslaw Bankruptcy Judge ¶Not Favorably Disposed· to

Department

Assistant Attorney General Richard Willard reports to Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burnsabout the Inslaw case. Willard says that the Justice Department has developed a good trialrecord, but: ́ [T]here is virtually no reason for optimism about the judge·s ruling. Eventhough our witnesses performed admirably and we believe we clearly have the better case,Judge Bason made it apparent in a number of ways that he is not favorably disposed to ourposition.µ The department has been trying to have Bason removed from the case for some



Stuart Schiffer, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department·s civil division,writes to Richard Willard, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, about theInslaw case. Schiffer writes: ́ [Judge George] Bason has scheduled the next [Inslaw] trial forFebruary 2 [1988]. Coincidentally, it has been my understanding that February 1 [1988] is thedate on which he [Bason] will either be reappointed or replaced.µ Bason had ruled in favor ofInslaw (see September 28, 1987) and the department had been trying to have him removed

from the case for months (see June 19, 1987). After Bason·s bid for reappointment fails (seeDecember 15, 1987), he will say that the department used its influence against him (seeDecember 5, 1990). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:George Bason, Civil Division, Richard Willard, Stuart Schiffer, US Department of Justice,Bankruptcy Court for the District of ColumbiaCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

November 24, 1987: Official Report Drafted on Reappointment of Inslaw Judge; Does Not CriticizeHim

An official written report is drafted for the panel considering the appointment of a judge to

the Bankruptcy Court to the District of Columbia. The two-page report briefly assesses thefinal four candidates, including the incumbent George Bason, who is, however, at loggerheadswith the Justice Department over his handling of the Inslaw case (see June 19, 1987 andSeptember 28, 1987). However, another³longer but unofficial³report will be drafted twoweeks later and will be critical of Bason (see December 8, 1987). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, George BasonCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

December 8, 1987: Unofficial Memo Drafted Criticizing Judge Who Ruled in Favor of Inslaw

An apparently unofficial, confidential memo marked ´read and destroyµ is drafted about thefour final candidates for the position of judge at the Bankruptcy Court for the District ofColumbia. The memo is clearly critical of the incumbent, George Bason, who is up forreappointment. Bason recently displeased the Justice Department by ruling against it in theInslaw affair over the alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987).The memo states that ´its purpose is to ¶help· elucidate in particular our reasoning in rankingthe candidates as we did,µ and describes each of the four. The House Judiciary Committeewill comment: ´What is striking about the memorandum is that the description of eachcandidate except Judge Bason begins with positive commentary about the individual. Thesection describing Judge Bason begins, ¶I could not conclude that Judge Bason wasincompetent.· Other phrases used to describe Judge Bason include ¶he is inclined to makemountains out of molehills,· ¶Judge Bason seems to have developed a pronounced andunrelenting reputation for favoring debtors,· and finally, ¶Judge Bason evidenced noinclination to come to grips personally with the management challenge posed by the terribleshortcomings of the Office of the Clerk of our Bankruptcy Court.·µ The memo is addressed toJudge Norma Johnson, who Bason will allege may have been an instrument of a campaignwaged against him by the Justice Department (see May 1988). The panel appointing thebankruptcy court judge will meet a week later and decide not to give the position to Bason,but to a Justice Department lawyer who represented the government in the Inslaw case (seeDecember 15, 1987). After Bason asks appeals court judges to reconsider his non-reappointment (see January 12, 1988), the memo will be circulated to them. The memo isunsigned, but an appeals court judge who later provides the memo to the House Judiciary



Committee investigating the Inslaw affair will say another judge on the appointment paneldrafted it. However, this judge will deny having done so. When, some years later, severalmembers of the panel are asked by the committee whether they saw this memo, they will saythey do not recognize it. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Norma Johnson, George Bason, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, HouseJudiciary Committee

Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

December 15, 1987: Inslaw Bankruptcy Judge Not Reappointed

George Bason, a bankruptcy judge who recently found in favor of Inslaw in a dispute over theJustice Department·s alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987), isnot reappointed to the bench. Bason had been appointed in February 1984 instead of anotherjudge who had resigned mid-term, but a decision is now taken to replace him with a JusticeDepartment attorney named Martin Teel, who had appeared before him in the Inslaw case.Although the official report for the appointments panel about the candidates did not criticizeBason (see November 24, 1987), a subsequent unofficial report addressed to Norma Johnson,

the head of the panel, did (see December 8, 1987). The unofficial report claimed that therewere shortcomings in Bason·s administration of the clerk·s office, although the office appearsto be running smoothly by this time (see Second Half of 1987). Several judges on the selectioncouncil will later say they did not know much about the candidates, and therefore relied onJohnson and her interpretation of reports prepared about them. The House JudiciaryCommittee will find that Johnson·s oral presentation ́ played a large role in the selection,µthat Johnson ran the panel ´firmly,µ and that the other members ´relied on her judgment.µOverall, it will call the selection process ́ largely informal, undocumented, and highlysubjective.µ Bason learns he will not be reappointed from Chief Judge Patricia Wald, of theUS Court of Appeals, on December 28. Bason will later say that Teel was not qualified for theposition (see January 12, 1988) and that the department had influenced the selection processin order to have him removed from the bench (see December 5, 1990). In this context, Bason

will point out to the House committee that Johnson had previously worked with adepartmental official named Stuart Schiffer, so he could have influenced her against Bason(see May 1988). Bason will also note that Johnson worked with Judge Tim Murphy for 10 yearsfrom 1970, and that Murphy had later worked as the assistant director on the implementationof PROMIS at the Justice Department. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Tim Murphy, Stuart Schiffer, Norma Johnson, Martin Teel, Jr., George Bason, BankruptcyCourt for the District of Columbia, House Judiciary CommitteeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

January 12, 1988: Inslaw Bankruptcy Judge Requests Hearing on Non-Reappointment

George Bason, a bankruptcy judge who ruled in favor of Inslaw in a dispute with the JusticeDepartment over the alleged theft of PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987) and wassubsequently not reappointed to the bench (see December 15, 1987), requests a hearing onhis non-reappointment before the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia. Bason criticizesthe other candidate, Justice Department official Martin Teel, who was given the position,saying he has ´a considerably shorter total period of legal experience,µ as he has mostlyworked on taxation matters, not bankruptcy, and for the last few years has worked as areviewer and then manager, without doing his own independent work. Teel will dispute thischaracterization in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, saying he was qualified and,



when appointed, had ´six years of fairly extensive bankruptcy experience.µ The request for ahearing will not change the decision to not reappoint Bason. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, George Bason, Judicial Council of the Districtof Columbia, Martin Teel, Jr.Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

January 19, 1988: Justice Department Asks for Recusal of Inslaw Case Judge, Application Is Denied

The Justice Department files a motion that bankruptcy court judge George Bason recusehimself from further participation in a case over the bankruptcy of Inslaw and thedepartment·s alleged theft of the enhanced PROMIS application, saying that he is biasedagainst the department. Bason had ruled in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987) and thedepartment has been trying to have him removed from the case for months (see June 19,1987). The motion is filed despite a report from Michael Hertz, the director of the civildivision·s commercial litigation branch at the department, saying that such a move would notsucceed (see After July 7, 1987). The bankruptcy court denies the motion three days later. [US

CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] The department will make a similar request later in the month (see

January 25, 1988).Entity Tags:Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, George Bason, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

January 25, 1988: Justice Department Again Asks for Recusal of Inslaw Judge; Motion Is Denied

The Justice Department again tries to get Judge George Bason removed from the Inslaw caseover the company·s bankruptcy and the department·s alleged theft of an enhanced version ofthe PROMIS software. Bason had ruled in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987) and thedepartment has been trying to have him removed from the case for months (see June 19,1987). Following the failure of a recusal motion to Bason (see January 19, 1988), thedepartment argues a motion before Chief Judge of the District Court for Columbia AubreyRobinson for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Bason to recuse himself over allegations ofbias. Robinson denies the department·s writ, ruling: ́ I can·t see anything in this record thatmeasures up to the standards that would be applicable to force another judge to take overthis case. There isn·t any doubt in my mind, for example, that the declaration filed by theJustice Department in support of the original motion is inadequate.µ When the departmentappeals Bason·s ruling (see Between February 2, 1988 and November 22, 1989), it will againraise the issue of recusal, but District Court Judge William Bryant will say, ´This court like thecourts before it can find no basis in fact to support a motion for recusal.µ [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:George Bason, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, US Department of Justice, USDistrict Court for the District of Columbia, William Bryant, Aubrey RobinsonCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

February 1988: Inslaw Submits Complaint to Justice Department Oversight Section

The software company Inslaw submits allegations about the Justice Department·s conduct inthe dispute over the enhanced PROMIS application to the Public Integrity Section (PIS), adepartmental oversight component. The allegations follow on from the findings of abankruptcy court favourable to Inslaw (see September 28, 1987 and January 25, 1988). In thecomplaint, Inslaw charges the department with:



Procurement fraud. Inslaw claims that Attorney General Edwin Meese and former DeputyAttorney General Lowell Jensen schemed to ensure that enhancements made to the PROMISsoftware by Inslaw would be obtained for free by the department, which would then makethem available to a businessman named Earl Brian;Violation of automatic stay debtor protection provisions invoked by the bankruptcy court.

Inslaw says that by using the enhancements it made to the software after the bankruptcy case

was filed, the department violated federal bankruptcy law. The bankruptcy court found thatthe department committed such violation, an act that could constitute an obstruction of thebankruptcy proceedings; andAttempts to change Inslaw·s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, for the company·s reorganization, into a

Chapter 7 bankruptcy, for the company·s liquidation. Inslaw says that the departmentunsuccessfully attempted to have an official named Harry Jones detailed from the USTrustee·s office in New York to Washington to take over the Inslaw bankruptcy to get Inslawliquidated. Inslaw also says unsuccessful pressure was exerted by departmental officialThomas Stanton on US Trustee William White to convert the bankruptcy case into a Chapter 7liquidation.The PIS says it will examine some of the allegations, but in the end it will not open a formalpreliminary investigation (see February 29, 1988). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:William White, Inslaw, Inc., Harry Jones, Edwin Meese, Lowell Jensen, US Department ofJustice, Public Integrity Section, Thomas StantonCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

February 2, 1988: Bankruptcy Court Awards Inslaw $8 Million in PROMIS Dispute

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia awards $8 million in damages to Inslaw inthe dispute over the Justice Department·s use of the enhanced PROMIS software. The decisionfollows on from a ruling by the court that the department had violated Inslaw·s automaticstay bankruptcy protection rights by using and copying an enhanced version of Inslaw·sPROMIS software (see September 28, 1987). The award consists of $6.8 million in actual and

punitive damages, as well as $1.2 million in attorneys· fees. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

Between February 2, 1988 and November 22, 1989: Justice Department Appeals AdverseBankruptcy Court Ruling in Inslaw Case

The Justice Department appeals an adverse ruling by the Bankruptcy Court for the District ofColumbia in its dispute with Inslaw (see September 28, 1987). The main grounds of the appealinclude the following claims:The bankruptcy court judge appeared to be biased and should have recused himself. In

addition, he used the bankruptcy proceedings to find culpability by the government;Inslaw did not prove that automatic stay protection provisions had been violated;The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Inslaw·s claim because the department had

not waived its immunity from monetary judgements against the United States;The dispute is really a contract dispute, not a bankruptcy argument, and should therefore

have been heard by the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals;The court exceeded its authority in the field of damages, and no attorney fees should have

been awarded.



The appeal court will find for Inslaw (see November 22, 1989), although its ruling will later beoverturned (see May 7, 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US District Court for the District of Columbia, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

February 29, 1988: Justice Department Oversight Unit Concludes No Need for PreliminaryInvestigation in Inslaw Matter

The Public Integrity Section (PIS), a Justice Department oversight component, decides not toopen a preliminary investigation of the Inslaw affair over the department·s allegedmisappropriation of PROMIS software (see February 1988). The decision is communicated in amemo drafted by William F. Weld, the assistant attorney general for the department·scriminal division, of which the PIS is a part. The PIS finds that at least some of the peopleInslaw complains about, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Deputy AttorneyGeneral Lowell Jensen, and Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, are appropriate targets ofan investigation and that Inslaw is generally a credible source for allegations. However,according to Weld, the information Inslaw provides is not specific enough to constitute

grounds to begin a preliminary investigation of the need for an independent counsel. This isbecause the PIS regards the facts Inslaw presented as unsupported speculation that theofficials were involved in a scheme to get the enhanced PROMIS software. Therefore, thereview should be closed ´due to lack of evidence of criminality.µ The House JudiciaryCommittee will be critical of the PIS·s finding, calling its investigation ́ shallow andincomplete,µ and saying the department appeared to be ´more interested in constructinglegal defenses for its managerial actions rather than investigating claims of wrongdoing which,if proved, could undermine or weaken its litigating posture.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Lowell Jensen, Arnold Burns, Criminal Division (DoJ), Edwin Meese, House Committee on theJudiciary, Inslaw, Inc., William F. Weld, US Department of Justice, Public Integrity SectionCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

May 1988: Reporter Tells Inslaw Judge Justice Department Had Him Removed over Inslaw Case

A news reporter tells George Bason, a bankruptcy judge who found in favor of Inslaw in adispute over the alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987), thathis failure to be reappointed to the bench was because of pressure from the JusticeDepartment. According to the House Judiciary Committee, Bason says that the reporter has´excellent contacts and sources in the department.µ Bason will say the reporter suggests hisremoval from the bench could have been procured as follows: ´The district judge chairpersonof the Merit Selection Panel [Judge Norma Johnson, who was crucial to his non-reappointment(see December 15, 1987)] could have been approached privately and informally by one of herold and trusted friends from her days in the Justice Department. He could have told her that Iwas mentally unbalanced, as evidenced by my unusually forceful ¶anti-government· opinions.Her persuasive powers coupled with the fact that other members of the panel or their lawfirms might appear before her as litigating attorneys could cause them to vote with her.µ Thereporter also tells Bason that a high-level department official has boasted to him that Bason·sremoval was because of his rulings on the Inslaw affair. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, Norma Johnson, George BasonCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

March 31, 1989: Justice Department Oversight Unit Finds No Bias in Inslaw Affair



The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an oversight unit at the Justice Department,issues a report on the Inslaw affair over the department·s alleged theft of enhanced PROMISsoftware. The report finds that allegations of bias made by Inslaw and seconded by abankruptcy court (see September 28, 1987) against departmental officials are unsupported.Inslaw had questioned the performance of former Attorney General Edwin Meese, formerDeputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, former Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, andothers. The OPR says that the court·s findings on misconduct by department officials are´clearly erroneous.µ In addition, the report says: ´There is no credible evidence that thedepartment took or stole Inslaw·s enhanced PROMIS by trickery, fraud, and deceit.Additionally, we have found no credible evidence that there existed in the department a plotto move to convert Inslaw·s Chapter 11 bankruptcy to one under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcycode.µ The House Judiciary Committee will be extremely critical of this investigation,commenting, ´During its investigation OPR chose to ignore the court·s findings andconclusions that there was bias against Inslaw at the department.µ In addition, the committeewill say that the OPR looked at the bias allegations in isolation and ´incrediblyµ did notexamine the merits of the contract dispute, meaning its conclusions on the taking of PROMISand the type of bankruptcy were ´gratuitous,µ especially as Burns had told it the departmentagreed Inslaw owned the enhancements it made to PROMIS (see August 11, 1982). Thecommittee will also point out that the OPR·s deputy counsel, Richard M. Rogers, said he wasrecused from the investigation because of his association with Burns, although he was presentwhen Meese provided a sworn statement. In this context, the committee will highlightproblems found by the Government Accountability Office with OPR around this time (seeFebruary 7, 1992). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Edwin Meese, Richard M. Rogers, US Department ofJustice, Arnold Burns, Inslaw, Inc., Lowell Jensen, Office of Professional ResponsibilityCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

May 11, 1989: Inslaw Complains about Internal Justice Department Probe of PROMIS Dispute,

Requests Appointment of Independent Counsel

Elliot Richardson, an attorney acting for the software company Inslaw, writes to AttorneyGeneral Richard Thornburgh about the dispute with the Justice Department over thedepartment·s alleged misappropriation of enhanced PROMIS software. Richardson complainsabout a review of the case by the Public Integrity Section (PIS), an oversight component atthe department, which came down against Inslaw·s claims (see February 29, 1988). He saysthat there is a conflict of interest because the department is defending itself against a civilaction by Inslaw while at the same time investigating itself over the allegations that form thebasis of the action. If the internal investigation found wrongdoing by the department, thiswould destroy the department·s case in court. His view is that the department has givenpriority to defending itself against the civil action, not the criminal investigation of its own

wrongdoing. Richardson adds that no one from the PIS has contacted him, Inslaw counselCharles Work, some of the witnesses in the case, or Inslaw·s owners. Despite this, the ownersprovided the PIS with the names of 30 people who had information relevant to theinvestigation in December 1988. Therefore, Richardson concludes that the only solution is forthe department to appoint an independent counsel. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Elliot Richardson, Inslaw, Inc., Public Integrity Section, RichardThornburghCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations



August 10, 1989: Inslaw Again Complains about Justice Department·s Internal PROMIS Investigation

Charles Work, counsel for the software company Inslaw, writes to the Justice Departmentover the department·s alleged misappropriation of enhanced PROMIS software. Work says thatan investigation of the case by the Public Integrity Section, an oversight component at thedepartment, is deficient, and he describes specific problems with it (see February 29, 1988).

However, the department does not re-open the inquiry. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Charles Work, Inslaw, Inc., Public Integrity Section, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Internal DoJ Investigations

November 22, 1989: District Court Upholds Bankruptcy Court Ruling in Favor of Inslaw

The US District Court for the District of Columbia upholds a bankruptcy court ruling in favor ofInslaw. The ruling concerned the dispute over the PROMIS software between Inslaw and theJustice Department, which was found to have violated bankruptcy protection provisions (seeSeptember 28, 1987 and February 2, 1988), but had appealed (see Between February 2, 1988and November 22, 1989). Judge William Bryant finds that the department knew an enhanced

version of PROMIS was Inslaw·s central asset, that ownership of the software was critical tothe company·s reorganization in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that the department·s unilateralclaim of ownership and its installation of the enhanced version in offices around the UnitedStates violated automatic stay bankruptcy provisions in multiple ways. In addition, Bryantagrees with the bankruptcy court·s conclusion that the department never had any rights tothe enhanced version and that ´the government acted willfully and fraudulently to obtainproperty that it was not entitled to under the contract.µ In addition, when Inslaw suggestedmechanisms to determine whether the private enhancements had been made, thegovernment rejected them, and ´when asked to provide an alternative methodology thatwould be acceptable, the government declined.µ The department could have usedestablished procedures to get relief from the automatic stay provisions, but simply chose notto do so. Bryant, who also finds that the department tried to convert Inslaw·s bankruptcy to

Chapter 7 liquidation, adds, ́ What is strikingly apparent from the testimony and depositionsof key witnesses and many documents is that Inslaw performed its contract in a hostileenvironment that extended from the higher echelons of the Justice Department to theofficials who had the day-to-day responsibility for supervising its work.µ Finally, Bryant findsthat, as the case was grounded in bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy court was an appropriateforum to hear the dispute and it did not have to be submitted to the Department ofTransportation Board of Contract Appeals, an arena for contract disputes. Although most ofthe damages awarded are upheld, as Bryant finds the bankruptcy court assessed damagesbased on the evidence it obtained, he reduces compensatory damages by $655,200.88. [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:William Bryant, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., US District Court for the District ofColumbiaCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

1990: Court Rules Attorney General Does Not Have to Appoint Special Prosecutor in Inslaw Affair

A US District Court rules that Attorney General Richard Thornburgh does not have to appoint aspecial prosecutor in the Inslaw affair. Inslaw·s attorney Elliot Richardson had filed the casebecause of a dispute with the Justice Department over allegations that the department hadstolen a version of the PROMIS database and search application from the company. However,



the court rules against Inslaw, stating that a prosecutor·s decision not to investigate³´nomatter how indefensibleµ³cannot be corrected by any court. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., Elliot Richardson, Richard ThornburghCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings, Internal DoJ Investigations

June 28, 1990: Justice Department Asks Court to Consider Inslaw Dispute for Mediation Program

The Justice Department asks an appellate court to consider its dispute with Inslaw over theenhanced PROMIS software for the Appellate Mediation Program. The program, which hasbeen running for about two years, is intended to benefit parties to a dispute by providing aforum which encourages cases to be settled, or at least the resolution or simplification ofsome of the issues, through an independent and neutral mediator. However, the success ofsuch attempts hinges on their confidentiality, as cases are not to be shared with judges oranyone outside the relevant court. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Despite this, the mediationattempts will fail when news of them is leaked to the Washington Post (see October 1, 1990).Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

July 12, 1990: Former Attorney General Denies Discussing Case Tracking with Subordinates

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese is interviewed by the House Judiciary Committee aboutthe Inslaw affair. He says that he cannot recall any discussions with former JusticeDepartment official Lowell Jensen about office automation or case tracking at thedepartment. He adds that if there were such a discussion, it would have been casualconversation. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, Jensen previously said he discussed the ´wholeInslaw matterµ with Meese (see June 19, 1987).Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Edwin Meese, Lowell Jensen, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Origin of Dispute, Oversight by Congress

August 1990: Computer Dealer Wrongly Claims Justice Department Gave Him PROMIS Software

Charles Hayes, a surplus computer dealer, claims he has purchased computers with PROMISsoftware installed on them from the US Attorneys· Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky.Hayes, who the House Judiciary Committee will say has ́ alleged ties to both United Statesand foreign intelligence communities,µ says that the Harris-Lanier word processing equipmenthe purchased came with 5 1/4-inch computer disks and he believes these disks contain theenhanced version of the PROMIS software. When the committee investigates, the JusticeDepartment refuses to provide some computer equipment related to these allegations (seeFebruary 12, 1991), but the disks turn out not to contain the software (see February 13, 1991).(However, the computer equipment Hayes purchased does contain sensitive information thatshould not have been disclosed, including grand jury material and information regardingconfidential informants.) Hayes will also make a number of other allegations about PROMIS.According to an October 1990 memo drafted by William Hamilton, owner of the company thatdeveloped PROMIS, Hayes told him he can identify 300 locations where the software has beeninstalled illegally by the government. In addition, a businessman named Earl Brian allegedlysold the software to the CIA in 1983 for implementation on computers purchased fromFloating Point Systems and what the CIA called PROMIS Datapoint. Brian has supposedly soldabout $20 million of PROMIS licenses to the government. Hayes will later make the same



claims in person to the committee on numerous occasions, adding that he has receivedinformation from unnamed sources within the Canadian government saying that Brian sold thePROMIS software to the Canadian government in 1987. The committee will say that he makesńumerous promisesµ that confirming documentation will be provided by unnamed Canadianofficials. However, on August 16, 1991, Hayes will say the Canadian officials have decided notto cooperate with the committee. In its final report, the committee will call the allegations

íntriguing,µ but point out that Hayes ´has not provided any corroborating documentation.µ[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Central Intelligence Agency, Charles Hayes, Earl Brian, House Committee on the Judiciary,William HamiltonCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

October 1, 1990: Mediation Attempt in PROMIS Dispute Sabotaged by Leak to Washington Post

The Washington Post reports that the Justice Department has asked an appeals court toconsider its dispute with Inslaw over enhanced PROMIS software for mediation. The requestwas made several months earlier (see June 28, 1990), but the process requires confidentially,so the leak forces Inslaw to withdraw and ends the mediation attempts. The House JudiciaryCommittee will comment that the leak was ćompletely contrary to the standards of theAppellate Program.µ The committee will add: Ít is difficult to understand the department·sstrategy by this action. It may be that the department wanted to maintain the facade ofworking diligently to settle a sticky contract dispute while working behind the scenes tosabotage it and keep pressure on Inslaw by forcing it to expend additional resources on legalsupport during the mediation process. If this is the case, the department was successful. Butthe department also succeeded in maintaining a near-flawless record of seeking delay overresolution and raising the level of suspicion about its motives to a point where the public trustin the untarnished pursuit of justice is subject to grave doubts.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

October 12, 1990: Justice Department Again Appeals Adverse Ruling in PROMIS Case

The US Justice Department appeals an adverse decision of the US District Court for theDistrict of Columbia in the dispute with Inslaw over the alleged theft of the enhanced PROMISapplication (see November 22, 1989). The department raises some of the same issuespreviously raised in its appeal of a bankruptcy court ruling to the District Court and requests areversal on the basis of the facts found in the bankruptcy court, which it says made ćlearerrors.µ In addition, it argues:That its use of enhanced PROMIS did not violate automatic stay bankruptcy protection, so

the argument should not have been in the bankruptcy court, but before the Department ofTransportation Board of Contract Appeals under the Contract Disputes Act;

That since no motion was filed to convert Inslaw from a chapter 11 bankruptcy to a chapter 7,there was no violation of the automatic stay protection in this respect;That the department has not filed a claim, so it is still entitled to sovereign immunity; andThat damage awards for violation of the automatic stay can only be paid to individuals, not

corporations.The department will be successful and the District Court ruling will be overturned (see May 7,1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia



Category Tags:Legal Proceedings

November 1990: Official Says Canadian Government Has PROMIS Software

A Canadian government official says that Canada is using the PROMIS software, according to

Inslaw owners William and Nancy Hamilton. The Hamiltons pass the information on to theHouse Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations that the US Justice Departmenthas misappropriated an enhanced version of the software from Inslaw and passed it on toother governments. The official, Marc Valois of the Canadian Department of Communications,apparently says that PROMIS is being used to support 900 locations around the Canadiangovernment. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Another Canadian official will soon make a similarstatement (see January 1991), but both he and Valois will later say they were not referring toInslaw·s PROMIS, but to a product of the same name from a different company (see March 22,1991).Entity Tags:William Hamilton, Nancy Hamilton, House Judiciary Committee, Department ofCommunications (Canada), Marc ValoisCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

December 5, 1990: House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Inslaw Affair

The House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law holds a hearing about the failureof Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to provide full access to all documents and recordsabout the Inslaw case. At the hearing, Inslaw owner William Hamilton and its attorney ElliotRichardson air their complaints about an alleged criminal conspiracy in the JusticeDepartment·s handling of a contract with Inslaw and its alleged theft of an enhanced versionof the PROMIS application. Steven Ross, the general counsel to the clerk of the US House ofRepresentatives, refutes the Justice Department·s rationale for withholding documentsrelated to possible wrongdoing by its officials involved with the Inslaw contract. In addition,

Government Accountability Office representatives describe deficiencies in the JusticeDepartment·s Information Resources Management Office and its administration of dataprocessing contracts.Bason's Allegations - Judge George Bason, a bankruptcy judge who had found in favor ofInslaw in a dispute with the department (see September 28, 1987), testifies that he believeshis failure to be reappointed as bankruptcy judge was the result of improper influence on thecourt selection process by the department because of his findings. Bason cites informationprovided to him by a reporter (see May 1988) and negative statements about him bydepartmental employees (see June 19, 1987 and June 1987 or Shortly After). Afterinvestigating these allegations, the committee will find: ´The committee could notsubstantiate Judge Bason·s allegations. If the Department of Justice had influence over theprocess, it was subtle, to say the least.µ Bason will point out that Norma Johnson, the judge

who chaired the meeting at which he was not reappointed (see December 15, 1987), hadpreviously worked with departmental official Stuart Schiffer, who was involved in the Inslawcase. However, the committee will comment that it has ´no information that Judge Johnsontalked to Mr. Schiffer about Inslaw, Judge Bason, or the bankruptcy judge selection process.µThornburgh's Reaction - Following this hearing, Thornburgh agrees to cooperate with thesubcommittee, but then fails to provide it with several documents it wants. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Steven Ross, William Hamilton, Richard Thornburgh, Government Accountability Office,Elliot Richardson, George Bason, House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law



Category Tags:Oversight by Congress, Legal Proceedings

December 11, 1990: CIA Says It Does Not Have PROMIS Application; Retired CIA Official DisputesClaim

The CIA says that it does not have the PROMIS database and search application (see Mid-1970s). The statement is made in response to a letter sent to CIA Director William Webster bythe House Judiciary Committee on November 20 asking him to help them ´by determiningwhether the CIA has the PROMIS software.µ In response the CIA states, ́ We have checkedwith Agency components that track data processing procurement or that would be likely usersof PROMIS, and we have been unable to find any indication that the [CIA] ever obtainedPROMIS software.µ However, information contradicting this will subsequently emerge. Forexample, a retired CIA official whose job it is to investigate the Inslaw allegations internallywill tell Wired magazine that the Justice Department gave PROMIS to the CIA: ´Well, theCongressional committees were after us to look into allegations that somehow the agency hadbeen culpable of what would have been, in essence, taking advantage of, like stealing, thetechnology [PROMIS]. We looked into it and there was enough to it, the agency had been

involved.µ However, the official will say that when the CIA accepted PROMIS, it did not knowthat there was a serious dispute about the Justice Department·s ownership of the software.[WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Entity Tags:William H. Webster, House Judiciary Committee, Central Intelligence Agency, USDepartment of JusticeCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

January 1991: Second Canadian Official Says INSLAW Has PROMIS Software

A second Canadian government official says that Canada is using the PROMIS software,according to Inslaw owners William and Nancy Hamilton. The Hamiltons pass the informationon to the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations that the US Justice

Department has misappropriated an enhanced version of the software from Inslaw and passedit on to other governments. The official, Denis LaChance of the Canadian Department ofCommunications, apparently says that PROMIS is being used by the Royal Canadian MountedPolice to support its field offices. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Another Canadian official hadpreviously made a similar statement (see November 1990), but both he and LaChance willlater say they were not referring to Inslaw·s PROMIS, but to a product of the same name froma different company (see March 22, 1991).Entity Tags:Nancy Hamilton, Denis LaChance, House Judiciary Committee, William Hamilton,Department of Communications (Canada)Category Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

January 26, 1991: Alleged Former Mossad Agent Makes Claims about Distribution of PROMIS,Refuses to Provide Sworn Statement

Juval Aviv, an Israeli businessman resident in the US, makes allegations to the House JudiciaryCommittee about the distribution of PROMIS software. Aviv, who claims to be a formermember of Mossad, says he can provide information that a businessman named Earl Brian soldthe enhanced version of the PROMIS software to US government agencies outside the JusticeDepartment, including the CIA, NSA, NASA, and the National Security Council. Aviv also claimsBrian sold the software to Interpol in France, the Israeli Air Force, and the Egyptian



government, the latter through the foreign military assistance program. He also says thesoftware was converted for use by both the United States and British Navy nuclear submarineintelligence data base. Aviv says there are witnesses and documents to corroborate hisallegations, but refuses to repeat these claims under oath or provide any further information.These charges will be mentioned in the committee·s final report on the Inslaw affair, but thecommittee will not endorse them. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Aviv previously collaborated on the

book Vengeance, which purports to describe Mossad·s assassination campaign after a terroristattack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The book will later be made into a film, Munich, bySteven Spielberg. However, intelligence writers Yossi Melman and Steven Hartov will call thebook a ´Walter Mitty fabrication,µ adding: ́ [O]ur investigations show that Aviv never servedin Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an IsraeliDefence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gateguard for the airline El Al in New York in the early ¶70s.µ [GUARDIAN, 1/17/2006] Entity Tags:Steven Hartov, Earl Brian, Juval Aviv, Yossi Melman, House Committee on the JudiciaryCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

February 6, 1991: Former Israeli Intelligence Agent Requests Visa Help, Immunity for PROMIS

Testimony

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former employee of an Israeli intelligence agency, says he is willing totestify before the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation into the alleged theft ofPROMIS software. In return, however, he asks the committee to arrange an extension for hisUS visa, which is about to expire, and to provide him with immunity from any prosecution.The immunity is to relate to information and documents he allegedly possesses regarding theillegal distribution and sale of an enhanced version of the software by businessman Earl Brianto the Israeli government. However, the committee refuses the request, and Ben-Menashewill later provide a sworn statement with no conditions (see May 29, 1991). [US CONGRESS,

9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Ari Ben-MenasheCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

February 12, 1991: Justice Department Refuses to Provide Some Information about PROMISSoftware

The Justice Department refuses to provide the House Judiciary Committee with someequipment and documentation relating to its alleged theft of an enhanced version of thePROMIS software. The refusal is in response to a request for access to the equipment anddocuments sent by the committee in November, following allegations by used computerdealer Charles Hayes (see August 1990). However, W. Lee Rawls, the assistant attorneygeneral for the Office of Legislative Affairs, says that although the committee can see theequipment and examine the documents that came with it based on a civil writ of possession,

the committee cannot operate the equipment. Nor can the department provide a printout ofthe information contained in the equipment, as it does not have such a printout and´disclosure of this information would compromise an ongoing criminal investigation.µ Inaddition, the committee cannot have access to some documents in civil division files, asproviding them could harm a pending criminal investigation relating to the matter. Thesedocuments are non-public witness statements, attorneys· notes about the statements andconversations with prosecutors, draft pleadings and memoranda, and other material, as wellas exhibits sealed by a court. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]



Entity Tags:Office of Legislative Affairs, House Committee on the Judiciary, US Department of Justice,Charles Hayes, W. Lee RawlsCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress

February 13, 1991: Disks Allegedly Containing PROMIS Handed Over to House Committee,Application Not Found

Charles Hayes, a computer dealer who claims a US attorney·s office has mistakenly given hima copy of the PROMIS application (see August 1990), hands over to the House JudiciaryCommittee disks he says contain the software. Hayes also makes a sworn statement about hisassertions, saying he thinks PROMIS was copied onto the disks from the original media bypersonnel at the attorney·s office. However, when the committee examines the disks, it findsonly training programs for the computers. In addition, William Hamilton, the owner of thecompany that developed the application, tells the committee it is ´highly implausibleµ thatthe 5 1/4-inch disks could contain the enhanced version of the software. He adds that ifPROMIS was being used on the computers Hayes purchased, it would have to be the publicdomain version, which is owned by the Justice Department, not the enhanced version owned

by Inslaw. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Charles Hayes, William Hamilton, House Committee on the JudiciaryCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress

Shortly After February 26, 1991: Canadians Express Reluctance to Help Congressional Investigationof PROMIS

A Canadian government official tells the US House Judiciary Committee that Canada isreluctant to cooperate with the committee·s inquiry into the alleged theft of a version of thePROMIS software by the US Justice Department and its subsequent passage to Canada. This isin response to a letter sent on February 26, 1991, in which the committee asked CanadianAmbassador Derek Burney for help determining what version of the software the Canadiangovernment was using. The official, Jonathan Fried, counselor for congressional and legalaffairs at Canada·s Washington embassy, says that ´Canadians had been burned once beforeby Congress,µ and imposes conditions on Congressional questioning of Canadian officials. Theconditions are that interviews of individuals be conducted only in the presence of lawyers forthe relevant departments and their superiors and that no Canadian public servants would bewitnesses in any foreign investigative proceedings. The committee accepts these conditions inmid-March, and identifies the two Canadian officials it wants to speak to (see November 1990and January 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Derek Burney, Jonathan Fried, House Judiciary CommitteeCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

Before March 22, 1991: Canadian Government Says Its Officials Will Not Answer CongressionalInvestigation·s Questions about PROMIS Derivatives

Shortly before the US House Judiciary Committee interviews two Canadian officials who havesaid Canada has the allegedly stolen PROMIS software (see November 1990 and January 1991),the Canadian government contacts the committee and imposes a further condition on theinterviews. The Canadians had already insisted the officials be accompanied by minders (seeShortly After February 26, 1991), but now says that, in addition, they will only answerquestions specifically related to the software. They will not answer questions about any



allegations that four software programs that may have been acquired by the Canadiangovernment may be derivates of the PROMIS software. If the committee wants informationabout such alleged derivatives, it will have to submit a written request. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Judiciary CommitteeCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

March 22, 1991: Canadian Officials Say Canada Is Not Using Inslaw·s PROMIS Software

Two Canadian officials who had previously said that the Canadian government was usingInslaw·s PROMIS software now tell the US House Judiciary Committee that it is not. In aninterview with the committee, officials Denis LaChance and Marc Valois of the CanadianDepartment of Communications say that they had incorrectly identified software used by theCanadians as being Inslaw·s PROMIS (see November 1990 and January 1991), whereas in fact itwas actually project management software from a company called the Strategic SoftwarePlanning Corporation that is also called PROMIS. Despite an objection by the Canadians tothem being asked about PROMIS derivatives in Canada (see Before March 22, 1991), the twoofficials also say they do not use or know of a derivative of Inslaw·s PROMIS in Canada. The

president of the Strategic Software Planning Corporation will later acknowledge in a swornstatement to committee investigators that his company had sold a few copies of his firm·sPROMIS software to the Canadian government in May 1986. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Denis LaChance, House Judiciary Committee, Marc Valois, Department of Communications(Canada)Category Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

May 7, 1991: Appeals Court Overturns Rulings in Favor of Inslaw, Finds for Justice Department

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reverses two rulings in favor of Inslaw inthe dispute over enhanced PROMIS software, following an appeal by the Justice Department(see October 12, 1990). The rulings had been issued by Bankruptcy Court for the District ofColumbia (see September 28, 1987) and the US District Court for the District of Columbia (seeNovember 22, 1989). The reversal is granted on what a House Judiciary Committee reportfavorable to Inslaw will call ́ primarily jurisdictional grounds.µ The appeal court says thebankruptcy court was the wrong place to litigate the issues it decided and, in any case, thedepartment has not violated automatic stay bankruptcy provisions. However, the appeal courtnotes that both lower courts found that the department had ´fraudulently obtained and thenconverted Enhanced PROMIS to its own use,µ and that ´such conduct, if it occurred, isinexcusable.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Judiciary Committee, Inslaw, Inc., US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

May 29, 1991: Former Israeli Intelligence Employee Makes Allegations about PROMIS Software

Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence employee, provides a sworn statement to theHouse Judiciary Committee on the PROMIS affair. He had previously said he would only tellwhat he knows under conditions (see February 6, 1991), but now waives this demand. Ben-Menashe says under oath that, in 1982, businessman Earl Brian and Robert McFarland, aformer director of the National Security Council, provided the public domain version of



PROMIS software to the Israeli government·s special intelligence operation Defense Forces.(This version was owned by the Justice Department; correspondence indicates thedepartment provided a version of the software to Israel in 1983³see May 6, 1983 and May 12,1983). Ben-Menashe also alleges he was present in 1987 when Brian sold an enhanced versionof the software (which would have been owned by Inslaw) to the Israeli intelligencecommunity and the Singapore armed forces and that, after these sales were completed,

approximately $5.5 million was placed in a foreign bank account to which Brian had access.He also says that Brian sold the public domain version of PROMIS to military intelligenceorganizations in Jordan in 1983 and to the Iraqi government in 1987, a transaction brokeredby a businessman named Carlos Cardoen. Ben-Menashe further claims that he has informationabout the sale of a public domain version of PROMIS by Israel to the Soviet Union in 1986, andthe sale of the enhanced version to the Canadian government coordinated by Brian. Ben-Menashe states that various unnamed Israeli officials would corroborate his statements, butrefuses to identify these officials or provide evidence to corroborate his statements unless heis called as an official witness for the committee under a grant of immunity. The committeedecides not to grant immunity and will include these claims in a section of its report thatmerely states what witnesses told it, without endorsing their claims. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Ben-Menashe will go on to be involved in numerous major and minor international scandals,

picking up a chequered reputation for honesty. [NEW STATESMAN, 2/25/2002] Entity Tags:Ari Ben-Menashe, House Committee on the JudiciaryCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

(July 13-August 10, 1991): Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Repeatedly Calls FBI Agent, Sounds¶Upbeat·

Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to berelated, makes several calls to Thomas Gates, an FBI agent. According to sworn testimonyGates will later provide to the House Judiciary Committee, there are several such calls over afour week period that ends when Casolaro is found dead (see August 10, 1991). Although

Casolaro·s death will be ruled a suicide, Gates will say that the journalist sounds ́ upbeatµduring the calls. The reason Casolaro contacts Gates is unclear, although Gates may havebeen investigating Robert Nichols, a source for Casolaro (see Before August 10, 1991). [US

CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel Casolaro, Thomas GatesCategory Tags:Other Events

July 17, 1991: Attorney General Refuses to Attend House Committee Hearing about PROMIS,Despite Prior Agreement

Attorney General Richard Thornburgh informs the House Judiciary Committee that he will notattend a committee hearing the next day, despite previously saying he would. The hearing is

to discuss the committee·s access to departmental documents and the Inslaw affair, in whichthe department had allegedly stolen an enhanced version of the PROMIS application.According to a report by the committee, Thornburgh refuses to appear because a ´pressrelease announcing the hearing had been unduly aggressive and contentious and not inkeeping with the tenor of an oversight hearing.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Judiciary Committee, Richard ThornburghCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress



July 25, 1991: House Subcommittee Subpoenas PROMIS Documents

The House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law votes 10 to six to authorize theissuance of a subpoena to the Department of Justice for documents related to the Inslawaffair. The subpoena follows on from a refusal by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh toappear before the House Judiciary Committee (see July 17, 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]

Some of the documents will be forthcoming, but others will be reported missing (see July 31,1991).Entity Tags:House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress

July 31, 1991: Justice Department Says 51 PROMIS Documents Are Missing

Responding to a Congressional subpoena (see July 25, 1991), the Justice Department sendsmost documents requested about the alleged theft of a version of the enhanced PROMISsoftware to the House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law. However, thedepartment says that 51 documents or files are missing and cannot be found. A report issued

by the House Judiciary Committee in September 1992 will say that the subcommittee has stillnot received an adequate explanation on how the documents came to be missing. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Judiciary Committee, US Department of Justice, House Subcommittee on Economicand Commercial LawCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress

Around August 3, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Talks to Former Justice DepartmentProsecutor

Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to berelated, calls Richard Stavin, a former Department of Justice Organized Crime Strike Force

prosecutor, to discuss his research into the matter. In a sworn statement to the HouseJudiciary Committee, Stavin will later say: ´He spoke to me about Inslaw. He spoke to meabout a group he called the Octopus. I believe he mentioned Robert Nichols [an importantsource for Casolaro·s research], and possibly also John Phillip Nichols, in this conversation,and was extremely interested, intrigued, and frustrated in his inability to get a grasp on whathe called the Octopus. He had indicated that he had met with³again I believe it was RobertNichols on several occasions, that Robert Nichols was extremely talkative to a point, butwhen Mr. Casolaro would ask specific questions, he [Nichols] would become somewhatevasive.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel Casolaro, Robert Booth Nichols, Richard StavinCategory Tags:Other Events

August 5, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Told to ¶Back Off·

Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to berelated, is told to ´back offµ the story, according to his brother Anthony. In a statementmade after Daniel is found dead (see August 10, 1991), Anthony Casolaro will say that on thisdate his brother tells him, ´someone else told me I better back off the story.µ [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Anthony Casolaro, Daniel Casolaro



Category Tags:Other Events

Before August 10, 1991: Source Provides Information for Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair

Robert Nichols, a businessman who is of interest to the FBI, provides information to Daniel

Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to be related.There is some dispute about the significance of this information. According to Inslaw ownerWilliam Hamilton and Michael Riconosciuto, another figure who becomes involved in theInslaw affair, Nichols is Casolaro·s primary source of information in his investigation into thealleged theft of the PROMIS software. However, in a later telephone interview withinvestigators for the House Judiciary Committee, Nichols will say that he was acting as asounding board for Casolaro, and providing direction and insight for his investigation into theInslaw affair. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, Robert Booth Nichols, William HamiltonCategory Tags:Other Events

Shortly Before August 10, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Octopus Tells Friends Not to BelieveSuicide in Event of His Death

Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to berelated, reportedly tells his family and friends that, if he were to be found dead, they shouldnot believe he committed suicide. According to the House Judiciary Committee, Casolaro tells´several peopleµ that he is receiving death threats ´because he was getting close toconcluding his investigation.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel CasolaroCategory Tags:Other Events

August 10, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Found Dead

The dead body of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters hebelieved to be related, is found in a hotel room in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The body isfound in the bathtub with both of its wrists slashed several times. There is no sign of forcedentry into the hotel room nor of a struggle. A short suicide note is found. The police initiallythink the death is a suicide and the scene is not sealed and protected, which, according tothe House Judiciary Committee, ´potentially allow[s] for the contamination of the possiblecrime scene.µ In addition, the room is reportedly cleaned before a thorough criminalinvestigation can be conducted. A brief preliminary investigation leads the police to confirmtheir initial suspicion of suicide. Casolaro·s work on a story about the alleged theft of anenhanced version of PROMIS software by the Justice Department from Inslaw had led him tobelieve that it was related to other scandals, such as those involving the Bank of Credit andCommerce International (BCCI) and Iran-Contra. Casolaro had told his family and friends thathe was going to Martinsburg to meet a source who had important information, although thesource·s identity is unknown. Following his death, all Casolaro·s notes and papers disappear.A stack of typed pages that usually sat on top of his desk at home vanish. In addition, notesCasolaro always kept with him disappear. His brother Anthony will later say that he finds thedisappearance of all the papers surprising. ́ Somebody cleaned out his car and his room,µAnthony will say. ´If my brother did that [killed himself], it seems as though [his papers]should have been found.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]



Entity Tags:Anthony Casolaro, Daniel CasolaroCategory Tags:Other Events

August 10, 1991 or Shortly After: Dead Reporter·s Body Embalmed, Possibly HamperingInvestigations

The body of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist who had investigated the Inslaw affair and mattershe believed to be related, is embalmed. This occurs before his family is notified and before acoroner·s investigation. The House Committee on the Judiciary will later comment that theembalming ́ may have limited the effectiveness of autopsies or toxicological examinations.µ[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel Casolaro, House Committee on the JudiciaryCategory Tags:Other Events

Shortly After August 10, 1991: FBI Agent Suspects Foul Play in Death of Journalist InvestigatingInslaw Affair

Thomas Gates, an FBI agent who had been contacted by recently deceased journalist DanielCasolaro several times shortly before his death (see (July 13-August 10, 1991)), suspects thatCasolaro has been murdered (see August 10, 1991). Gates communicates these suspicions tothe local police in Martinsburg, West Virginia, where Casolaro died, and to the local FBI office.According to Gates, Casolaro sounded very ´upbeatµ and not like a person contemplatingsuicide in their conversations, even in the days before his death. In addition, Casolaro·s phonebook, which had contained a number for Gates, has disappeared. What·s more, the localpolice tell Gates that the wounds on Casolaro·s wrists were ´hackingµ wounds, and Gatesfeels the amount of injury to the arms is not consistent with injuries inflicted by a suicide.Gates will also later share his suspicions with the House Judiciary Committee. [US CONGRESS,9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Daniel Casolaro, Thomas Gates


October 2, 1991: Former Justice Department Official Claims PROMIS Possibly Transferred fromDepartment to Private Business

Lois Battistoni, a former employee of the Justice Department·s criminal division, says that thePROMIS application may have been transferred from the department to a private business.She makes the claim in a sworn statement for the House Judiciary Committee in October 1991,and again in an interview in February of the next year. According to Battistoni, a criminaldivision employee had previously told her that there was a company chosen to take overPROMIS implementation contracts served by Inslaw at that time. This company was apparentlyconnected to a top department official through a California relationship. Inslaw ownerWilliam Hamilton will speculate that this company is Hadron, Inc., as it was owned bybusinessman Earl Brian, who was linked to former Attorney General Edwin Meese. However,Battistoni says that she has little firsthand knowledge of the facts surrounding theseallegations, and does not provide the committee with the name of the criminal divisionemployee who made the claim to her, indicating department employees are afraid tocooperate with Congress for fear of reprisal. She also makes a number of allegations aboutthe involvement of department employees in the destruction of documents related to theaffair. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]



Entity Tags:Hadron, Inc., Edwin Meese, William Hamilton, Lois Battistoni, Earl Brian, House Committeeon the Judiciary, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

October 9, 1991: Inslaw Files Application for Hearing by Supreme Court in PROMIS Case

Following an adverse ruling in an appeals court, Inslaw files an appeal for a writ of certiorarito the Supreme Court. If the writ were granted, it would mean the Supreme Court agreed tohear a further appeal in the case. The appeals court had reversed bankruptcy and districtcourt rulings favorable to Inslaw in its dispute with the Justice Department over the enhancedPROMIS software (see September 28, 1987, November 22, 1989, and May 7, 1991). Theapplication will be denied (see January 13, 1992). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Supreme Court, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

October 10, 1991: Former Customs Services Officer Claims Key Justice Department Official Linkedto Company Allegedly Involved in PROMIS Deals

John Schoolmeester, a former Customs Services program officer, says that Peter Videnieks, aJustice Department official who worked on the implementation of PROMIS software, is linkedto a company called Hadron, Inc., owned by Earl Brian, a businessman involved in the PROMISaffair. Schoolmeester makes the claim in two sworn statements provided to the HouseJudiciary Committee on October 10 and November 6, 1991. Schoolmeester says he has directknowledge of ties between Videnieks and Hadron, Inc., prior to Videnieks· employment withthe Justice Department. According to Schoolmeester, Videnieks, as a contracting officer forthe Customs Service, was involved with several Hadron, Inc. contracts, and he wouldnecessarily have met with Dominic Laiti (a former Hadron chief executive officer) on a regularbasis, because that was the way Laiti conducted business. However, Videnieks tells thecommittee under oath that he does not know and has not had any conversations with Laiti orBrian. Schoolmeester also says that Brian is ́ the behind-the-scenes guy at Hadron,µ but he isnot certain whether Videnieks met with him. Finally, he says that Brian is well connected inWashington and had connections with former Attorney General Edwin Meese and severalCongressional figures. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Hadron, Inc., Edwin Meese, House Committee on the Judiciary, John Schoolmeester, PeterVidenieks, Dominic LaitiCategory Tags:Oversight by Congress

November 13, 1991: Attorney General Appoints Special Counsel in Inslaw Affair

Attorney General William Barr appoints Nicholas Bua, a retired federal judge from Chicago, as

his special counsel to investigate and advise him on the Inslaw controversy. The affair hasbeen running for nearly a decade and stems from a dispute over a contract signed by theJustice Department and Inslaw in 1982 (see March 1982). However, because Bua does nothave independent status, the House Judiciary Committee will comment, ´as long as theinvestigation of wrongdoing by former and current high level Justice officials remains underthe ultimate control of the department itself, there will always be serious doubt about theobjectivity and thoroughness of the inquiry.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Nicholas Bua, US Department of Justice, William P. BarrCategory Tags:Other Events, Internal DoJ Investigations



November 13, 1991: Judge Says Findings of Fact in PROMIS Case Have Left ¶Cloud· over JusticeDepartment

A judge hearing the PROMIS case for the Department of Transportation Board of Contract

Appeals (DOTBCA) says that findings by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia andthe US District Court for the District of Columbia have left a ´cloudµ over the JusticeDepartment. The two courts originally found for Inslaw (see September 28, 1987 andNovember 22, 1989), which is in dispute with the department over an enhanced version of thePROMIS software, but these rulings were overturned on appeal, mostly on jurisdictionalgrounds (see May 7, 1991). At a hearing, counsel for the department says, ´I think those trialsspeak for themselves, and every order has been vacated.µ However, the judge responds:´There is one problem. The fact that a judge or a court doesn·t have jurisdiction doesn·tmean that the court is completely ignorant. True, Mr. Bason [the bankruptcy court judge] andMr. Bryant [the judge that heard the initial appeal] did not have jurisdiction, but they didmake some very serious findings on the basis of sworn testimony. They had been truly vacated,and it may be that all the statutes to run have run and they can·t go anywhere. Those cases

may be dead forever. But it has left a cloud over the respondent [the department].µ TheHouse Judiciary Committee will comment: ́ As the DOTBCA judge concluded, there definitelyremains a cloud over the department·s handling of Inslaw·s proprietary software. Departmentofficials should not be allowed to avoid accountability through a technicality or a jurisdictionruling by the Appeals Court.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, House Judiciary Committee,Inslaw, Inc., US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings

December 4, 1991: Canadian Ambassador Denies Canada Has PROMIS Software

Canada·s ambassador to the US, Derek Burney, writes to the House Judiciary Committeesaying that neither the Canadian Royal Mounted Police nor the Canadian Security IntelligenceService (CSIS) have the PROMIS software developed by Inslaw or derivatives thereof. Thestatement is in response to an October letter from the committee, which is investigating thealleged theft from Inslaw of a version of the software and its subsequent passage to Canada.According to Burney, both the Mounties and the CSIS told him that not only do they not useInslaw·s PROMIS or any software believed to be a derivative of it, but that they do not use anycase management software at all. The committee will comment: ´The ambassador·sconclusory statement did not provide an offer or an opportunity for further verification of theallegations received concerning the government of Canada. Without direct access to [theMounties], CSIS, and other Canadian officials, the committee has been effectively thwarted inits attempt to support or reject the contention that Inslaw software was transferred to the

Canadian government.µ [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Canadian Security Intelligence Service, House Judiciary Committee, Royal Canadian MountedPolice, Derek BurneyCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress

(1992): Former DEA Agent Makes Claims about PROMIS Software



Former Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent Lester Coleman submits a sworn affidavit to acourt hearing the dispute between Inslaw and the Justice Department about the alleged theftof PROMIS software.PROMIS Allegedly Provided to Middle Eastern Countries - Coleman says that in spring 1988 heworked with a DEA proprietary company in Nicosia, Cyprus. He found that the DEA was usingthe company to sell computer software called ´PROMISEµ or ´PROMISµ to drug abuse control

agencies in Cyprus, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkey. Coleman claims to have seen reels ofcomputer tapes and computer hardware being unpacked at the Nicosia Police Force NarcoticsSquad. The boxes allegedly bore the name and red logo of a Canadian corporation with thewords ´PROMISEµ or ´PROMISµ and ´Ltd.µ According to Coleman, the DEA·s objective in aidingthe implementation of this system in these countries was to enhance the United States·ability to access sensitive drug control law enforcement and intelligence files. Coleman addsthat a DEA agent was responsible for both the propriety company, Eurame Trading Company,Ltd., and its initiative to sell ́ PROMIS(E)µ computer systems to Middle Eastern countries.Apparent Link to Case against Michael Riconosciuto - Coleman also says he believed theagent·s reassignment in 1990 to a DEA intelligence position in Washington State prior to thearrest of Michael Riconosciuto in March 1991 on drug charges was more than coincidental.Riconosciuto has also made a number of claims about PROMIS. According to Coleman, the

agent was assigned to Riconosciuto·s home state to manufacture a case against him. Colemansays this was done to prevent Riconosciuto from becoming a credible witness concerning theUS government·s covert sale of PROMIS to foreign governments.Meeting with Danny Casolaro - Coleman also says he was contacted by the reporter DannyCasolaro on August 3, 1991. Casolaro apparently told him he had leads and hard informationabout (1) Justice Department groups operating overseas, (2) the sale of the ´PROMIS(E)µsoftware by the US government to foreign governments, (3) the Bank of Credit and CommerceInternational (BCCI), and (4) the Iran-Contra scandal.Mentioned by House Committee in Report - These charges will be mentioned in the HouseJudiciary Committee·s final report on the Inslaw affair, but the committee will not endorsethem. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Later Conviction for Perjury - Coleman will later admit fabricating a claim that a secret drug

sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, whichwas blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Pleading guilty to five counts of perjury, hewill say he lied for a variety of reasons: to obtain money, to evade pending federal chargesthat he filed a false passport application, to enhance his status as a consultant oninternational security and terrorism, and to get back at the United States Drug EnforcementAdministration for firing him. [NEW YORK TIMES, 9/12/1997] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Eurame Trading Company, Ltd., Daniel Casolaro, LesterColeman, Michael RiconosciutoCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings, Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department

January 13, 1992: Supreme Court Denies Inslaw Leave to Appeal

The US Supreme Court denies an application for a writ of certiorari made by Inslaw, meaningthat the court will not hear its case. The application had been filed the previous year (seeOctober 9, 1991), as Inslaw wanted to overturn an adverse ruling by an appeals court in itsdispute with the Justice Department over the alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (seeMay 7, 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., US Supreme Court, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings



January 14, 1992: Inslaw Lawyer Argues for Renewed Investigation of Reporter·s Death

Inslaw counsel Elliot Richardson writes to Justice Department special counsel Judge NicholasBua urging further investigation into the death of reporter Daniel Casolaro (see August 10,1991). Richardson writes: ́ During the three days preceding his [Casolaro·s] death he told fourfriends in the course of four different telephone conversations that he was about to go to

West Virginia to meet someone from whom he was confident of receiving definitive proof ofwhat had happened to the PROMIS software and to Inslaw. There is no apparent reason whyCasolaro would have lied to those four friends, nor is there any apparent reason why hisfriends would deliberately and concertedly misrepresent what he said to them. It is not likely,on the other hand, that Casolaro had unrealistic expectations either toward the significanceof the evidence he anticipated receiving or toward the prospect that it would be delivered.He had, after all, been on the Inslaw case for one year, and he was bound to know as well asany other of the investigative reporters then pursuing it that promises of hard evidence hadoften been made and just as often disappointed. In the light of these facts, the key questionis, with whom was Danny Casolaro expecting to meet and with whom did he meet?µ [USCONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:Elliot Richardson, Nicholas Bua, Inslaw, Inc.


January 21, 1992: Key Inslaw Affair Witness Gives Telephone Interview to House JudiciaryCommittee, but No Sworn Statement

Robert Nichols, an apparently significant player in the Inslaw affair and a contact of DanielCasolaro, a journalist who investigated the matter, provides a telephone interview to theHouse Judiciary Committee. Nichols was allegedly a key contact of Casolaro·s (see BeforeAugust 10, 1991), although the reporter was found dead the previous year (see August 10,1991). Despite providing the telephone interview, Nichols declines to make a sworn statement.[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Entity Tags:House Committee on the Judiciary, Robert Booth NicholsCategory Tags:Other Events

January 25, 1992: Journalist·s Death Again Found to Be Suicide

The death of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist who investigated the Inslaw affair and matters hebelieved to be related, is again ruled a suicide by local authorities in Martinsburg, WestVirginia. Casolaro died there in August of the previous year (see August 10, 1991), and hisdeath was initially ruled a suicide. However, the investigation was reopened followingnumerous inquiries by Casolaro·s brother and others into the suspicious circumstancessurrounding the death. After expending over 1,000 man-hours investigating Casolaro·s death,the local authorities again rule it to be a suicide. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]

Entity Tags:Daniel CasolaroCategory Tags:Other Events

Spring 1992: US Intelligence Official Mentions Connection between PROMIS and Main Core Databaseto Businessman

An unnamed US intelligence official tells businessman William Hamilton that there is aconnection between the PROMIS database and search program and the Main Core database.



Hamilton is a former NSA official who helped developed PROMIS, but is now involved in aseries of disputes with the government over money he says it owes his company, Inslaw. MainCore is a database that is said to collect sensitive information, including about US persons.The specific type of connection is not certain. This is one of three times officials will tellHamilton about the link (see 1995 and July 2001). [SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., William Hamilton

Category Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

September 27, 1994: Justice Department Issues Report Saying ¶No Credible Basis· for Inslaw Claims

The Justice Department issues a 187-page report clearing department officials of wrongdoingin the Inslaw affair, which concerned the alleged misappropriation of an enhanced version ofPROMIS software. According to a department press release, ´there is no credible evidencethat department officials conspired to steal computer software developed by Inslaw, Inc. orthat the company is entitled to additional government payments.µ This concurs with aprevious report by Nicolas Bua, a special counsel appointed by the department. The mainpoints of the report are:

The use of PROMIS by the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and in US attorneys·offices conforms with contractual agreements, and Inslaw is not entitled to additionalcompensation for the use of its PROMIS software;No independent counsel should be appointed and the matter should be closed;The investigative journalist Danny Casolaro, who died while investigating the Inslaw affair

and other issues, committed suicide;MIT professor Dr. Randall Davis was hired to compare the computer code in Inslaw·s PROMIS

software with the code in the FBI·s FOIMS software, which Inslaw claimed was a piratedversion of PROMIS. Davis concluded that there was no relation between FOIMS and PROMIS;Two of the people who made allegations about the distribution of PROMIS outside the Justice

Department, Michael Riconosciuto and Ari Ben-Menashe, are untrustworthy. The departmentalpress release calls them ́ primary sources relied on by Inslawµ;

None of the anonymous sources that had previously been reported to have made statementssupportive of Inslaw came forward, despite assurances from Attorney General Janet Reno thatthey would be protected from reprisals. The press release says, ´Individuals who wereidentified as sources denied making the statements attributed to them by Inslawµ;The department did not obstruct the reappointment of bankruptcy Judge George Bason, who

ruled in favour of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987, November 24, 1987, December 8, 1987,December 15, 1987, and January 12, 1988);No documents related to the matter have been destroyed by the Justice Department

command center;There is no credible evidence that Inslaw·s PROMIS is being used elsewhere in the

government (see 1982-1984, December 11, 1990, and May 2008), or has been improperlydistributed to a foreign government or entity (see May 6, 1983, May 12, 1983, November 1990,

and January 1991);PROMIS was not stolen to raise money to reward people working for the release of American

hostages in Iran, to penetrate foreign intelligence agencies, as part of a US-Israeli slush fundconnected with the late British publisher Robert Maxwell, or in aid of a secret US intelligenceagency concealed within the Office of Special Investigations Nazi-hunting unit. [US DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, 9/27/1994] Entity Tags:George Bason, Daniel Casolaro, Inslaw, Inc., Randall Davis, US Department of JusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings, Internal DoJ Investigations



1995: Former NSA Official Tells Businessman about Connection between PROMIS and Main CoreDatabase

A former NSA official tells businessman William Hamilton that there is a connection betweenthe PROMIS database and search program and the Main Core database. Hamilton is a formerNSA official who helped developed PROMIS, but is now involved in a series of disputes with

the government over money he says it owes his company, Inslaw. Main Core is a database thatis said to collect sensitive information, including about US persons. The specific type ofconnection is not certain. This is one of three times officials will tell Hamilton about the link(see Spring 1992 and July 2001). [SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:William Hamilton, Inslaw, Inc.Category Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

July 31, 1997: Court of Federal Claims Finds Inslaw Allegations Have ¶No Merit·

Judge Christine Miller of the Court of Federal Claims rejects allegations by the software firmInslaw that the Justice Department illegally stole its enhanced PROMIS software and

distributed it. The finding is contained in a 186-page opinion issued by Miller that says there is´no merit to the claims.µ The decision follows a three-week trial. The matter was sent to thecourt by Congress, which referred the case as a part of considerations about whether to passa private bill to compensate Inslaw. The original contract required Inslaw to install in USattorneys· offices a public domain version of PROMIS owned by the government. But,according to Miller, without notice to the government, Inslaw installed a different version ofthe software and then asserted that the government could not use the software in otheroffices. (Note: the contract was signed in March 1982 (see March 1982), and Inslaw notifiedthe department of the enhancements on April 2 (see April 2, 1982).) Miller·s findings are:Inslaw has not shown it has any ownership rights to the software and that the enhancements

it claims are not proprietary to it. Miller says that some of the enhancements do actuallyexist³12 of the over 100 Inslaw says it made³but Inslaw cannot demonstrate it owns them;

Neither has Inslaw shown that the department acted improperly in any way in connectionwith the software, as it had unlimited rights to the enhanced software it received and actedin good faith;Inslaw·s decision to take its case to the bankruptcy court, rather than courts with certain

jurisdiction to hear it, was a tactical one (see June 9, 1986);A panel of independent experts appointed by the judge to review other software applications

Inslaw claims are pirated versions of PROMIS found that Inslaw·s allegations were false;In addition to not having a legal claim against the US, Inslaw does not have an equitable

claim either, because it did not own the software and the Justice Department acted properly.Assistant Attorney General Frank Hunger, head of the civil division, comments: ́ Both partiesbenefit from having a decision from a court with authority to resolve the matter³a court thathas heard all the evidence. And the public benefits because all the evidence has been aired

and they can be confident that the facts have finally been revealed. Certainly, thedepartment benefits from the lifting of the cloud that has hung over it for a decade.µ As thecourt investigated the matter at the request of Congress, the decision will be sent back there,although Inslaw will have the chance to appeal the matter to a three-judge panel at the samecourt beforehand. [US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 8/4/1997] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., Frank Hunger, Christine Miller, Court of Federal Claims, US Department ofJusticeCategory Tags:Legal Proceedings, Use Outside Justice Department



July 2001: Former Official Possibly Alludes to Link between PROMIS and Main Core Database inConversation with Businessman

Retired Admiral Dan Murphy, a former deputy director of the CIA, indicates to businessmanWilliam Hamilton that there is a connection between the PROMIS database and searchprogram and the Main Core database. Hamilton is a former NSA official who helped develop

PROMIS, but is now involved in a series of disputes with the government over money he says itowes his company, Inslaw. Main Core is a database that is said to collect sensitive information,including about US persons. The specific type of connection is not certain and Murphy doesnot specifically mention Main Core, but says that the NSA·s use of PROMIS involves something´so seriously wrong that money alone cannot cure the problem.µ Hamilton will later say, ´Ibelieve in retrospect that Murphy was alluding to Main Core.µ This is one of three timesofficials will tell Hamilton about the link (see Spring 1992 and 1995). [SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:Inslaw, Inc., Daniel Murphy, National Security Agency, William HamiltonCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Shortly After September 11, 2001: Senior National Security Analyst Sees Main Core Database in Use

at White House

According to a former senior Justice Department official, a high-level former national securityofficial working as a senior intelligence analyst for a large domestic law enforcement agencyinside the White House accidentally walks into a restricted room, where he finds a computersystem logged on to what he recognizes to be the Main Core database. Main Core contains alist of potential enemies of the state for use by the Continuity of Government program (see1980s or Before). He will refuse to be interviewed about the matter, but will tell the seniorJustice Department official about it. The Justice Department official will add that when shementions the specific name of the top-secret system during a conversation, he turns ´whiteas a sheet.µ [SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:US Department of Justice

Timeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

October 23, 2007: National Intelligence Official Says Privacy Should be Redefined

Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, tells a conference ofintelligence officials that the government needs new rules about how to balance privacyrights and investigative needs. Since many people routinely post details of their lives onsocial-networking sites such as MySpace, he says, their identity should not require the sameprotection as in the past. Instead, only their ´essential privacy,µ or ´what they would wish toprotect about their lives and affairs,µ should be veiled. Commenting on the speech, the WallStreet Journal will say that this is part of a project by intelligence agencies ´to changetraditional definitions of how to balance privacy rights against investigative needs.µ [OFFICE OF

THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, 10/23/2007 ; WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/10/2008] According tosome accounts, the prime repository of information about US citizens that the governmenthas is a database known as Main Core, so if the government collected more information aboutcitizens, the information would be placed in or accessed through this database (see 1980s orBefore).Entity Tags:Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Don Kerr, Wall Street JournalTimeline Tags:Civil Liberties




March 2008 or Shortly Before: National Security Lawyer Questions Legality of Information in USGovernment Databases

National security lawyer Suzanne Spaulding says that the constitutional question of whetherthe US government can examine a large array of information about citizens contained in itsdatabases (see 1980s or Before) without violating an individual·s reasonable expectation ofprivacy ´has never really been resolved.µ She adds that it is ´extremely questionableµ toassume Americans do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for data such as thesubject-header of an e-mail or a Web address from an Internet search, because those aremore like the content of a communication than a phone number. ´These are questions thatrequire discussion and debate,µ she says. ´This is one of the problems with doing it all[collecting data on citizens] in secret.µ [WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/10/2008] Entity Tags:Suzanne SpauldingTimeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Other Events

Spring-Summer 2008: New Church Committee Suggested to Investigate Possible Abuses of Powerduring Bush Administration and Before

A new investigation modeled on the Church Committee, which investigated governmentspying (see April, 1976) and led to the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(FISA - see 1978) in the 1970s, is proposed. The proposal follows an amendment towiretapping laws that immunizes telecommunications companies from prosecution forillegally co-operating with the NSA. A detailed seven-page memo is drafted outlining theproposed inquiry by a former senior member of the original Church Committee.Congressional Investigative Body Proposed - The idea is to have Congress appoint aninvestigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war onterror that may have been illegal and then to implement reforms aimed at preventing futureabuses³and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials. Key issues toinvestigate include:The NSA·s domestic surveillance activities;The CIA·s use of rendition and torture against terrorist suspects;The U.S. government·s use of military assets³including satellites, Pentagon intelligence

agencies, and U2 surveillance planes³for a spying apparatus that could be used againstpeople in the US; andThe NSA·s use of databases and how its databases, such as the Main Core list of enemies,

mesh with other government lists, such as the no-fly list. A deeper investigation should focuson how these lists feed on each other, as well as the government·s ´inexorable trend towardstreating everyone as a suspect,µ says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program onTechnology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).Proposers - The proposal is a product of talks between civil liberties advocates and aides toDemocratic leaders in Congress. People consulted about the committee include aides toHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI).The civil liberties organizations include the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology,and Common Cause. However, some Democrats, such as Pelosi, Senate IntelligenceCommittee chairman John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), and former House Intelligence chairwomanJane Harman (D-CA), approved the Bush administration·s operations and would be made to



look bad by such investigation.Investigating Bush, Clinton Administrations - In order that the inquiry not be called partisan,it is to have a scope going back beyond the start of the Bush administration to include theadministrations of Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. The memo states that´[t]he rise of the ¶surveillance state· driven by new technologies and the demands of counter-terrorism did not begin with this administration.µ However, the author later says in interviews

that the scope of abuse under George W. Bush would likely be an order of magnitude greaterthan under preceding presidents.'Imagine What We Don't Know' - Some of the people involved in the discussions comment onthe rationale. Íf we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons, and warrantlesswiretapping despite the administration·s attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don·tknow,µ says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal.Steinhardt says: Ýou have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse. Becausethe Bush administration has been so opaque, we don·t know [the extent of] what laws havebeen violated.µ ́ It·s not just the ¶Terrorist Surveillance Program,·µ says Gregory Nojeim fromthe Center for Democracy and Technology. ´We need a broad investigation on the way all themoving parts fit together. It seems like we·re always looking at little chunks and missing thebig picture.µ

Effect on Presidential Race Unknown - It is unknown how the 2008 presidential race mayaffect whether the investigation ever begins, although some think that Democratic candidateBarack Obama (D-IL), said to favor open government, might be more cooperative withCongress than his Republican opponent John McCain (R-AZ). However, a participant in thediscussions casts doubt on this: Ít may be the last thing a new president would want to do.µ[SALON, 7/23/2008] Entity Tags:Nancy Pelosi, Gregory Nojeim, Center for Democracy and Technology, American CivilLiberties Union, Barry Steinhardt, Bush administration, Common Cause, Jane HarmanTimeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Other Events

May 2008 or Before: Former CIA Officer Speculates Main Core Database Resides within Homeland

Security

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi is interviewed by journalist Christopher Ketcham about theMain Core database, which apparently contains a list of potential enemies of the US state.Giraldi does not know any definite information about the database, but he speculates that itmust be contained within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Íf a master list isbeing compiled, it would have to be in a place where there are no legal issuesµ³the CIA andFBI would be restricted by oversight and accountability laws³´so I suspect it is at DHS, whichas far as I know operates with no such restraints.µ Giraldi notes that the DHS alreadymaintains a central list of suspected terrorists and says it has been freely adding people whopose no reasonable threat to domestic security. ́ It·s clear that DHS has the mandate forcontrolling and owning master lists. The process is not transparent, and the criteria forgetting on the list are not clear.µ Giraldi continues, Í am certain that the content of such amaster list [as Main Core] would not be carefully vetted, and there would be many names onit for many reasons³quite likely including the two of us.µ [RADAR, 5/2008] Entity Tags:Philip Giraldi, US Department of Homeland SecurityTimeline Tags:Civil LibertiesCategory Tags:Other Events

May 2008: Former Official Admits PROMIS Application Given to NSA



Former national security official Norman Bailey admits publicly and on the record that thePROMIS database and search application has been given to the NSA. As Salon magazine pointsout: ́ His admission is the first public acknowledgement by a former US intelligence officialthat the NSA used the PROMIS software.µ Bailey also says that the application was given tothe Treasury Department for a financial tracking project in the early 1980s that also involvedthe National Security Council (see 1982-1984). Bailey worked for US governments from theRonald Reagan era until the George W. Bush administration and, in addition to the 1980stracking program, he headed a special unit within the Office of the Director of NationalIntelligence focused on financial intelligence on Cuba and Venezuela in 2006 and 2007. [SALON,

7/23/2008] Entity Tags:US Department of the Treasury, National Security Agency, Norman BaileyCategory Tags:Use Outside Justice Department

Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

Documents

Transcript of Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline