Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline
The Inslaw Dispute and PROMIS Project: Loss of US Civil Liberties Open-Content project managed by Paul, KJF, PDevlinBuckley, blackmax
add event | references

Page 1 of 2 (135 events) previous | 1, 2 | next Mid-1970s: PROMIS Software Developed, Can Integrate Information from Multiple Databases
An application known as PROMIS, the Prosecutors Management Information System, is developed. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] It is designed to be used to keep track of criminal investigations through a powerful search engine that can quickly access all data items stored about a case. [SALON, 7/23/2008] William Hamilton, one of the applications developers, will describe what it can be used to do: Every use of PROMIS in the court system is tracking people. You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer, judge, defence lawyer, and its tracking all the names of all the people in all the cases. Wired magazine will describe its significance: What this means is that PROMIS can provide a complete rundown of all federal cases in which a lawyer has been involved, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented defendant A, or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented white-collar criminals, 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 taken in a particular type of case. In addition, PROMIS can integrate several databases without requiring any reprogramming, meaning it can turn blind data into information. PROMIS is developed by a private business entity that will later become the company Inslaw, Inc. Although there will later be a series of disputes over the applications use by the US government and others, this version of PROMIS is funded by a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration grant and is therefore in the public domain. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., William Hamilton Category Tags: Other Events
1976: Future Key Justice Department Official Leaves Inslaw, Circumstances of Departure under Dispute
C. Madison Brick 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 be transformed into the company Inslaw, will later be disputed. The departure is significant because Brewer will later be hired by the Justice Department to manage a contract with Inslaw (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 to leave because he is unable to perform his duties, but is given sufficient time to find another job instead of being forced out. Inslaw vice president John Gizarelli will corroborate Hamiltons account, telling the House Judiciary Committee under oath that Hamilton told him Brewer had been asked to resign. Contradictory Statements by Brewer - Brewer will give different accounts of his departure. He will tell investigators from the Justice Departments 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. He will repeat this line to investigators from the House committee: I never thought that he asked me to leave. It has always been my understanding that I was not asked to leave. I have never viewed my departure from the institute as either being a discharge, or forced. However, another statement he will make puts a different slant 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, since April, and it was now February, almost one year later, and I was still extricating myself. In addition, Brewer will say in a court appearance: On one occasion Mr. Hamilton came and said to me, can you go to lunch? I explained that I couldnt. And he said, Well, what I have to say over lunch I can say right now. I think you ought to find [an] alternativethat you ought to leave the Institute. Impact - The committee will comment, The circumstances surrounding Mr. Brewers departure from the institute appear to have had a major influence over his views about Inslaw and its president, Mr. Hamilton. Gizarelli will say that he had occasional contact with Brewer before his departure, and: [H]e thought that Mr. Hamilton was insane. And I think he meant that literally. He did make comments about his rationality, his sanity, thought he wasnt capable of leading an organization. The tenor of his remarks were to me very startling. [US
CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, William Hamilton, C. Madison Brick
Brewer, John Gizarelli Category 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 to track potential security threats in the United States. Intelligence officials will later tell Wired magazine that North has a command center connected to a larger Justice Department facility utilizing the software. According to both a contractor who helped design the center and information disclosed during the Iran-Contra hearings, North maintains a similar, but smaller, White House operations room connected by computer link to the [Justice Department]s command center. According to Wired, North uses computers in his operations center to track dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States as part of a domestic emergency preparedness program. North is assigned to work with FEMA on the secretive Continuity of Government (COG) program from 1982 to 1984 (see 1982-1984). Wired will later report, Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyone ever arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Wired notes, Richard Nixons enemies list or Sen. Joe McCarthys blacklist look downright crude. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Oliver North Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department
1980s or Before: Database of Potential Enemies Established as Part of Continuity of Government Plan
As a part of the plan to ensure Continuity of Government (COG) in the event of a Soviet nuclear strike or other emergency, the US government begins to maintain a database of people 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, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived enemies of the state almost instantaneously. He and other sources say that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core, and one says it was set up with help from the Defense Intelligence Agency. Alleged Link to PROMIS - The database will be said to be linked to a system known as PROMIS, the Prosecutors Management Information System, over which the US government conducts a long-lasting series of disputes with the private company Inslaw. The exact connection between Main Core and PROMIS is uncertain, but one option is that code from PROMIS is used to create Main Core. PROMIS is most noted for its ability to combine data from different databases, and an intelligence expert briefed by high-level contacts in the Department of Homeland Security will say that Main Core is less a mega-database than a way to search numerous other agency databases at the same time. Definition of National Emergency - It is unclear what kind of national emergency could trigger such detention. Executive orders issued over the next three decades define it as a natural disaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency, while Defense Department documents include eventualities like riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order. According to one news report, even national opposition to US military invasion abroad could be a trigger. How Does It Work? - A former military operative regularly briefed by members of the intelligence community will be told that the program utilizes software that makes predictive judgments of targets behavior and tracks their circle of associations using social network analysis and artificial intelligence modeling tools. The more data you have on a particular target, the better [the software] can predict what the target will do, where the target will go, who it will turn to for help, he will say. Main Core is the table of contents for all the illegal information that the US government has [compiled] on specific targets. Origin of Data - In 2008, sources will reportedly tell Radar magazine that a host of publicly disclosed programs now supply data to Main Core, in particular the NSAs domestic surveillance programs initiated after 9/11. [RADAR, 5/2008]
Entity Tags: Defense Intelligence Agency, Inslaw, Inc. Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department
Spring 1981: Justice Department Official Reportedly Says Were Out to Get Inslaw
Laurence McWhorter, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, tells one of his subordinates, Were out to get Inslaw. Inslaw developed the PROMIS database and search application (see Mid-1970s) and is soon to become embroiled in a dispute with the Justice Department over it. Mallgrave will later tell Wired magazine: We were just in his office for what 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 data processing basically working with Inslaw. I told him I just had no interest in that job. And then, almost as an afterthought, he said Were out to get Inslaw. I remember it to this day.
[WIRED NEWS, 3/1993]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., Frank Mallgrave, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Laurence McWhorter Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
April 1981: President Reagans Counsellor Praises PROMIS to Prosecutors
Edwin Meese, Counsellor to President Ronald Reagan, praises the PROMIS application at a gathering of prosecutors. He calls it one of the greatest opportunities for [law enforcement] success in the future. PROMIS is a database search system to help prosecutors find information 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 the implementation of the PROMIS software at US attorneys offices. The committees members are initially Associate Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani, Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris, Director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys William P. Tyson, and the Justice management divisions Assistant Attorney General for Administration Kevin D. Rooney. The associate attorney general is the chairman of the committee. The date on which the committee 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 involved in the committee, first as the associate attorney general for the criminal division until early 1983, and then as associate attorney general, meaning he also chairs the committee. The main official who reports to the committee is PROMIS project manager C. Madison Brick Brewer, although he will not be hired by the department until the start of the next year (see April 1982). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Justice Management Division, William P. Tyson, Executive Office for US Attorneys, US
Department of Justice, Criminal Division (DoJ), Kevin D. Rooney, Stanley E. Morris, Rudolph (Rudy) Giuliani, Lowell Jensen Category 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 public domain PROMIS software. Two of the 104 companies that ask for the request for proposals submit bids. However, one of them, Systems Architects, Inc., has problems in its bid and the contract will be awarded to the other, Inslaw (see March 1982). Problems with Installation Concept - The installation is to be on minicomputers and word processors, although both Inslaw, which developed PROMIS, and other potential bidders had previously advised the department not to try to perform PROMIS functions on word processing equipment, as it is not powerful enough. One reason for this is that PROMIS involves over 500,000 lines of Common Business Oriented Language (COBOL) program code and requires a very 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 and word processing. However, the department ignores the advice. Existence of Privately-Funded Enhancements 'Explicit' - There will later be an argument about how much the department should pay Inslaw for the software. This dispute will turn on privately-funded enhancements to the application Inslaw says it makes after an initial version of PROMIS was developed using government money. According to a report drafted by the House Judiciary Committee, during the contract negotiations, Inslaw is explicit in stating to the department that its version of PROMIS had been enhanced with private funds and future enhancements funded outside the departments contract were expected. Nevertheless, the
department will say that it owns the software, and will cite as support amendments to the RFP that make available to all bidders copies of the pilot project software, and state that the RFP does not anticipate redevelopment of the public domain PROMIS software used in the pilot offices. If any alterations are made under the contract, they are to be made available to the 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. [US CONGRESS,
9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, Systems
Architects, 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 a member of the National Security Council (NSC), North is assigned to the Emergency Mobilization Preparedness Board (EMPB), formed by President Reagan to coordinate civil defense planning among the NSC, FEMA, and White House (see December 29. 1981). According to the Miami Herald, the martial law plans would suspend the Constitution in the event of a national crisis, such as nuclear war, violent and widespread internal dissent, or national opposition to a US military invasion abroad. Sources will claim North is involved in a major domestic 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 barred from 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 Mobilization
Preparedness Board, National Security Council Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category 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 Money to track loans made by Western banks to the Soviet Union and its allies. The top-secret program is run for the National Security Council (NSC) by Norman Bailey, who uses NSA signals intelligence to track the loans. Bailey will later say that the PROMIS application is the principal software element used by the NSA and the Treasury Department in their electronic surveillance programs 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 to electronic surveillance, as a way to track money flows to suspected criminals and American enemies. [SALON, 7/23/2008]
Entity Tags: National Security Agency, US Department of the Treasury, National Security Council,
Norman Bailey
Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department
Early 1982: Justice Department Component Provides PROMIS Version to Colorado District Attorneys Office
Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Justice Departments Executive Office of US Attorneys provides a copy of a governmentowned 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 departments PROMIS project manager, Madison Brick Brewer. Rugh will later discuss the availability of other government-owned versions of PROMIS with Bussey and will provide him with a version for DEC computers early next year. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS provides versions of the software to entities outside the Justice Department (see April 22, 1983).
Entity Tags: Jack Rugh, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Office of Management Information Systems
Support, US Department of Justice, Bob Bussey Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department Between Early 1982 and April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Offers Government-Owned Version of PROMIS to Pennsylvania State Government
Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys repeatedly tells Jean Gollatz of the Pennsylvania State Government that a pilot government-owned version of the PROMIS software for Prime computers is available for her use, if she wants it. He also provides her with a copy of a request for proposal used by his office for a computer contract at some time in early 1982, and says that his offices enhanced Prime version should be available by midsummer 1983. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS discusses providing versions of the software to other entities (see April 22, 1983).
Entity Tags: Jean Gollatz, Jack Rugh, Office of Management Information Systems Support, US
Department of Justice, Executive Office for US Attorneys Category 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 domain vesion of PROMIS application in 20 US attorneys offices as a pilot program. PROMIS is an application 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 74 federal prosecutors offices around the country. The contract is also for the necessary training, maintenance, and support for three years. According to William Hamilton, one of Inslaws owners, the eventual market for complete automation of the Federal court system is worth up to $3 billion. However, this is the last contract Inslaw receives from the Justice Department 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 with Company
C. Madison Brick Brewer gets the job of supervising a contract with Inslaw for the installation 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, Brewer gets the job from William P. Tyson of the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, according to Wired magazine, Brewer is appointed by EOUSA Director Laurence McWhorter, who had told a previous candidate for the position that he was out to get Inslaw (see Spring 1981). [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Brewer had originally been hired by the EOUSA in January. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] He once worked for Inslaw, but was allowed to resign when its founder William Hamilton found his performance inadequate (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 MidApril 1982). Importance of Job - As the project manager, Brewer is involved in all major contract and technical decisions, including forming the departments position on Inslaws claim that it should be paid for privately-funded enhancements it makes to PROMIS. Brewer also reports on progress on the contract to the departments PROMIS Oversight Committee (see August 13, 1981 or Before). Comment by Assistant Attorney General - Assistant Attorney General Lowell Jensen will later comment: I would think that the better path of wisdom is not to do that [i.e. hire an allegedly fired employee to direct the contract of his former employer] if thats possible to do. I think that its better to have these kinds of issues undertaken by people who dont have questions raised about them one way or the other whether they are biased in favor of or against the people they deal with. However, this thinking apparently does not impact the departments decision to hire Brewer. House Judiciary Committee Investigation - In the light of these circumstances, the House Judiciary Committee will call the appointment a curious choice, partly because Brewer tells it: I was not a computer person. We talked about my role viewed as being liaison, the person who would make things happen, a coordinator. It was not contemplated that I would, by osmosis or otherwise, learn computer science. After interviewing Justice Department staff, the committee will find that it is unable to determine how Mr. Brewer came to be considered for the position. The committee will also point out: The potential conflict of interest was an unsatisfactory situation irrespective of his admittedly negative feelings about his forced resignation from the company. Had Mr. Brewer taken actions which could have been construed to unduly favor Inslaw throughout the life of the contract, similar questions of potential conflict could just as easily have arisen either from within the department or from outside competitors of the company. Findings of Government Accountability Office and Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - The Government Accountability Office and Congresss Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) will find that Brewers appointment as project manager creates an appearance of a conflict of interest that should have been avoided by the department. The PSI report will say, The staff finds that the department exercised poor judgment in ignoring the 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 standard procedures to investigate them in a timely manner. Courts' Opinions - During the legal proceedings that stem from a dispute between Inslaw and the department, two courts will comment on the issue. George Bason, of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, will say, On the basis of the evidence taken as a whole, this court is convinced beyond any doubt that Brewer was consumed by hatred for and an intense desire for revenge against Mr. Hamilton and Inslaw, and acted throughout this matter in a thoroughly biased and unfairly prejudicial manner toward Inslaw. William Bryant, of the
District Court for the District of Columbia, will add, The nature and circumstances of his separation from that employment are somewhat in dispute, but it is clear that Brewer was not happy in his job when he left it after being urged to do so by Hamilton. Brewer's Motivation - Inslaw attorney Harvey Sherzer will comment in court on one of the motivations apparently driving Brewer: [H]e seemed to think there was something wrong with 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 making an effort to expand the company. And there seemed to be a negative inference toward Inslaws ability to use the base created by this contract to expand. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Office of Professional Responsibility Conclusion - On the contrary, the Justice Departments Office of Professional Responsibility will examine the matter and rule there is no conflict of interest. Brewer will later tell a federal court that everything he does regarding Inslaw is approved by Jensen. Jensen had previously supervised a product known as DALITE, which lost a 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, House Committee on the Judiciary, Harvey Sherzer, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, C. Madison Brick Brewer, Inslaw, Inc., Executive Office for US Attorneys, George Bason, Government Accountability Office, Frank Mallgrave, William P. Tyson Category Tags: Origin of Dispute April 2, 1982: INSLAW Tells Justice Department It Intends to Market Enhanced PROMIS Commercially
A lawyer acting for Inslaw writes to the Justice Department telling it that Inslaw intends to market a version of the PROMIS software commercially. The lawyer, Roderick M. Hills of Latham & Watkins, tells Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris, who is also a member of the committee overseeing PROMIS, that, even though the software was initially developed with government money (see Mid-1970s), private enhancements to it mean that Inslaw can sell the improved version for a fee. The letter is accompanied by a memorandum from Inslaw owner William Hamilton explaining the situation. Inslaw and the department have just signed a contract for Inslaw to implement the public domain version of the software at US attorneys offices for the department (see March 1982). However, the privately-funded enhancements mean that if the department chose to use the latest version, it would have to pay 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 Hamilton Category 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 of PROMIS software (see March 1982), a departmental official raises the possibility of terminating the contract. At a meeting of the PROMIS Project Team, project manager C. Madison Brewer, the Justice Departments 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 to notes taken at the meeting. Discussed Inslaws PROMIS II memo, termination for convenience discussed, read Videnieks notes. When the contract becomes the subject of a series of legal actions, the three men begin to suffer from what the House Judiciary
Committee will call severe memory loss over what happened at the meeting. In a sworn statement, Brewer will say he does not recall the details of the meeting, but if this recommendation were made, it was made in jest. However, he will admit to being upset with Inslaws handling of the contract and its demand for payment for enhancements it had made privately to the application (see April 2, 1982). Bankruptcy Court Judge George Bason will comment: All 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 of any such meeting. This court disbelieves that testimony. None of them could offer any credible explanation, or indeed any explanation, of the meaning of Videnieks handwritten notes other than what this court finds to be their meaning. These notes constitute a smoking gun that clearly evidences Brewers intense bias against Inslaw, his single-minded intent to drive INSLAW out of business, and Rughs and Videnieks complicity. [US CONGRESS,
9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Peter Videnieks, Jack Rugh, C. Madison Brick Brewer, George
Bason
Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
Mid-April 1982: Inslaw Asks Justice Department for Different Project Manager for PROMIS Implementation, Department Refuses
Inslaw asks the Justice Department to appoint a manager other than C. Madison Brick Brewer to run the PROMIS project that Inslaw is working on for the department. Brewer had formerly worked for Inslaw, but had left under a cloud (see 1976), and later been hired by the department to supervise the contract between it and Inslaw (see April 1982). Following initial problems with Brewer (see April 14, 1982 and April 19, 1982), Inslaw asks Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris to replace him, as Inslaw owner William Hamilton thinks he has antagonistic feelings toward Inslaw due to their past. However, departmental officials say that Brewers skills and prior employment with Inslaw were important factors in his hiring by the department. Laurence McWhorter, deputy director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, will later say that Brewers employment by Inslaw qualified him to run the implementation of a case tracking system for US attorneys and to basically direct the implementation of a case tracking system in US attorneys offices. The House Judiciary Committee will comment, It is difficult to understand, however, how McWhorter could make this statement because Brewer himself admitted that at the time he left Inslaw, he had very little, if any, experience in managing computer projects and government ADP [automated data processing] procurement law, and he also admitted to a lack of experience or detailed understanding of computers or software. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: William Hamilton, Stanley E. Morris, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison
Brick Brewer, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Laurence McWhorter, House Committee on the Judiciary Category 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 a meeting to discuss the implementation of the PROMIS application. An Inslaw memorandum of the meeting says, Brewer seized upon this issue [that Inslaw wanted to be paid for privatelyfinanced enhancements it had made to the software] and launched into a tirade which was very emotional, unorganized, and quite illogical. Brewers complaints are:
The memo claiming the payments is typical of Inslaw and [Inslaw owner] Bill Hamilton and that it was self-serving and unnecessary. How 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 the Justice Department? A press release about a contract awarded to Inslaw was inaccurate because it 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. The memo had caused all kinds of problems in Justice and had many people upset. Illinois Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Andy Voight, and others, would say that Inslaw did not do good or successful work. 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 what right did Hamilton have to try to claim ownership of the software. The memo adds, All of these comments were based with an obvious dislike of Bill Hamilton and a resentment for the success of Inslaw personified in him. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison Brick Brewer, US Department of Justice Category 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, part of the Justice Department. The improvement, known as the printed inquiry enhancement, is delivered to the department on May 17, 1982. As the development of the original software and this enhancement is government-funded (see Mid-1970s), Inslaw cannot charge for providing 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 a fee 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
Inslaws attorney James Rogers writes to the Justice Department in an attempt to allay fears the department has about the implementation of the companys PROMIS software for it. Rogers provides Associate Deputy Attorney General Stanley E. Morris with a detailed description of what the company plans to do to market the software commercially from the next month, and asks that the department respond to Inslaw to ensure that these representations are correct. Rogers says that the version of PROMIS the company will market comprises three parts: (1) the original application developed with government money (see Mid-1970s); (2) enhancements made by Inslaw using private money (see April 2, 1982 and July 17, 1982); and (3) an enhancement made for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (see Before May 17, 1982). Parts (1) and (3) do not entitle Inslaw to market the software commercially themselves. However, part (2) does. At the Justice Department, both C. Madison Brick Brewer, who supervises the PROMIS contract, and Peter Videnieks, the departments contracting officer, are unhappy with this intention. The House Judiciary Committee will comment that this letter is followed by a very antagonistic meeting between Brewer and Inslaw representatives, and that Brewer and Videnieks continue to believe that, because the
department was currently funding the implementation of PROMIS, they could ignore Inslaws proprietary interest in the privately funded enhancements made to the PROMIS software. [US
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the Judiciary, Peter Videnieks, Stanley E. Morris, US
Department of Justice, C. Madison Brick Brewer Category Tags: Origin of Dispute July 1, 1982: Inslaw Memo Sets Out Justice Department Managers Attitude to Company
In an internal memo, Inslaw employee John Gizarelli outlines a problem concerning the PROMIS project with the Justice Department official handling the contract, C. Madison Brick Brewer (see April 14, 1982, April 19, 1982, and Mid-April 1982). Brewer had left Inslaw under a cloud in the mid-1970s (see 1976), but is now overseeing the PROMIS implementation project at the Justice Department. Gizarelli writes to Inslaw vice president Dean Merrill that Brewer has made no secret of his dislike of [Inslaw president] Bill Hamilton. He adds: In his present job, he is in a position to demonstrate his dislike. Bill, however, has kept his distance from the project and probably will continue to do so, until and unless there are large problems which Billin his role as presidentmust deal with personally. It is entirely possibleand I believe likelythat Brick will escalate the level of controversy until he draws Bill into the project, at which time he will be able to lord it over him and show whos boss. I dont think Brick will ever be at peace with his feelings about Bill and therefore, with us. [US
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., Dean Merrill, John Gizarelli, C. Madison Brick Brewer, William Hamilton Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
July 17, 1982: Inslaw Employee Says Company Has Made $1 Million in Private Enhancements to PROMIS over Last Year
Joyce Demy, an employee of the software company Inslaw, writes to the firms lawyer saying that it made enhancements to its PROMIS software worth $1 million between May 1981 and May 1982. She also tells the lawyer, James Rogers of Latham, Watkins & Hills, that no government money was used for the enhancements, which were paid for solely out of private funds. Prior to the enhancements, the original PROMIS software was in the public domain, as it had been paid for by government money (see Mid-1970s). However, the various privatelyfunded enhancements mean that Inslaw can claim ownership of it. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., James Rogers, Joyce Demy, Latham, Watkins & Hills Category 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 acting for Inslaw, and admits that the company owns privately funded improvements to the PROMIS software. 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 the public domain. This means that Inslaw could never charge the department for the use of software 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 other arrangement, Inslaw may assert whatever proprietary rights it may have. This means the department agrees that Inslaw can sell a version of the software with privately-funded enhancements. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This statement is made in response to a letter sent by lawyers acting for Inslaw founder William Hamilton, informing the department that Inslaw intends 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 which Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns will say, Our lawyers were satisfied that Inslaws lawyers could sustain the claim in court, that we had waived those [proprietary] rights.
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, William Hamilton, Arnold Burns, Inslaw, Inc., Stanley E. Morris Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
November 10, 1982: Justice Department Says Inslaw in Default of PROMIS Contract
Peter Videnieks, the Justice Departments contracting officer, writes to Inslaw and says that it 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, which Inslaw needs to receive for its work under the contract in order to keep on operating as a business. Due to Inslaws poor financial situation, the House Judiciary Committee will comment that withholding the advance payments would have a devastating impact on the company, and Videnieks will later say he was aware of this, stating, I think I was advised at the same time that Inslaw may indeed have difficulty in meeting the December payroll, and I think in general I was advised that they were in bad financial condition. Due to its lack of cash, Inslaw had assigned rights to the advance payments to a financial institution to secure a line of credit. Justice Department PROMIS project manager C. Madison Brick Brewer will say that the reason the department is considering terminating the advance payments is a loan Inslaw has from the Bank of Bethesda, under which a lien was placed on the advance payments 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. [US
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Peter Videnieks, Inslaw, Inc., C. Madison Brick Brewer, House
Committee on the Judiciary Category 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 the PROMIS software currently being used by US attorneys offices. The department will later say that this request is motivated by concern over the financial viability of Inslaw, although the company 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 the minicomputer hardware for each attorneys office and Inslaw has arranged for the largest US attorneys offices to use PROMIS on a time-sharing basis. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
December 6, 1982: Justice Department Demands Inslaw Hand over PROMIS Software, Inslaw Asks for Contract Modification
Peter Videnieks, the Justice Departments contracting officer, writes to Inslaw to demand that it turn over all computer programs and supporting documentation relating to a contract to install PROMIS software for the department (see March 1982). In response, Inslaw says it will not do this without the department modifying the contract between them to acknowledge that it has inserted privately-funded enhancements into a public domain version developed for the department. This modification is apparently required because the department is using a time-share version of the application in advance of full installation, and Inslaws other timesharing customers also use a version with the enhancements. The department then says that the original contract called for software in which the government has unlimited rights, and asks Inslaw to identify the parts of the software it claims are proprietary. Inslaw offers to provide the enhanced software to the 94 attorneys offices covered by the contract at no extra charge, provided the department agrees to Inslaws rights and does not disseminate the software beyond these offices. However, Videnieks will later tell investigators for the House Judiciary Committee that the department believed that it had unlimited rights to any versions of PROMIS, and if restrictions were placed on data rights, then this would not satisfy Inslaws 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, Says Department Should Get Copy of PROMIS
The Justice Departments PROMIS project manager, C. Madison Brick Brewer, writes a memo about potential developments in the project. In the memo, he says he is concerned about the possibility Inslaw, the company that is implementing the PROMIS software, may go bankrupt, and that staff at the Executive Office for US Attorneys may need to take over the project. Brewer also mentions the possibility that the contract with Inslaw could be terminated 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 Brick 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 Think about Acknowledging Inslaws Rights to Enhancements
The Justice Department makes a counter-proposal in the dispute over whether Inslaw should provide an enhanced version of the PROMIS software and documentation to the department to ensure against the companys bankruptcy (see December 6, 1982). The counter-proposal is made in a letter from Peter Videnieks, the departments contracting officer, to Harvey Sherzer, an attorney for Inslaw. Videnieks still wants a copy of the enhanced PROMIS software, but is willing to limit the softwares dissemination to the attorneys offices contemplated by the original contract. However, the department does not admit that Inslaw has made privately-funded enhancements to the software, so this limitation on dissemination will only apply if Inslaw can demonstrate the privately-funded enhancements that it claims have actually 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.

9/10/1992]
[US CONGRESS,
Entity Tags: Harvey Sherzer, Inslaw, Inc., Peter Videnieks, US Department of Justice Category 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 under which the company is to install PROMIS software for the department (March 1982). The modification appears to resolve a dispute that has arisen between the two parties (see December 6, 1982 and March 18, 1983), as the department wants Inslaw to give it a copy of the software, but Inslaw says it has made privately-funded enhancements to the code and wants the department to undertake not to disseminate the enhanced software beyond the locations specified in the original contract (the department is entitled to disseminate an earlier, public domain version of the contract any way it wants). The modification says that Inslaw will give the department a copy of the software, and the department undertakes not to 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 advance payments to Inslaw. It is this modification that leads to a series of legal disputes that will last well into the next decade, as the parties never come to an agreement on how the enhancements are to be demonstrated and the department begins to disseminate the software unchecked. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Shortly After April 11, 1983: Massachusetts Asks Justice Department Component about Availability of 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 created it. This follows a demonstration of PROMIS by Inslaw at the Boston US Attorneys office to a group of people from the State of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts request is passed on to Jack Rugh of the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys. Rugh replies that some government-owned versions of the software are available, but there is currently a dispute with Inslaw over ownership of an enhanced version of the software. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several 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 Attorneys Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Provides Government Versions of PROMIS to Potential Contractors
Various versions of PROMIS software owned by the government are made available to potential bidders who may offer to supply computer equipment to the government. Apparently, the versions are made available by the Office of Management Information Systems 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 to Jack Rugh of OMISS, the Justice Department may also tell the bidders a version of PROMIS 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 the software to entities 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 Attorneys Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Discusses Providing PROMIS to Departments Criminal Division
Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Executive Office for US Attorneys holds a number of informal discussions with personnel in the Justice Departments criminal division regarding the divisions possible use of OMISSs enhanced version of PROMIS, as well as its use of one of OMISSs 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 OMISS discusses providing versions of the software to other entities (see April 22, 1983).
Support, 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 Bureau of Justice Statistics
Jack Rugh of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys discusses the availability of a government-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 later memo drafted by Rugh, Manson is particularly interested in providing a copy of our enhanced software to the US Virgin Islands. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] This is one of several occasions when OMISS 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 Systems
Support, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jack Rugh, US Department of Justice Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department Before April 22, 1983: Justice Department Component Provides Government Version of PROMIS to Contractor for Benchmarking
The Justice Department makes a version of PROMIS software owned by the government available to a contractor named Dave Hudak. The version is a pilot copy for use on Prime computers and is provided to Hudak under a contract according to which he should develop benchmarking programs for computer purchases by the department. Apparently, the version is made available by the Office of Management Information Systems Support (OMISS) at the Executive 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 of PROMIS which Inslaw claims it owns may be made available to them at some future date. [US
This is one of several occasions when OMISS provides versions of the software to entities outside the Justice Department (see April 22, 1983).
Support, US Department of Justice, Dave Hudak Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department April 22, 1983: Justice Department Memo Documents Numerous Occasions PROMIS Versions Provided to Others
Jack Rugh, the acting assistant director of the Office of Management Information Systems Support at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys, drafts a memo summarizing occasions on which versions of PROMIS software have been provided to organizations other than US Attorneys offices by the department or such provision has been discussed. The memo is drafted in response to a request by PROMIS project manager Madison Brick Brewer, who asked Rugh about any discussions he may have had about such provision a week earlier. The memo lists various occasions on which versions of PROMIS were provided to 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 to other 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]
Support, C. Madison Brick Brewer, US Department of Justice Category 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 PROMIS application to an Israeli government representative. The official is Jack Rugh, the acting assistant director of the Office of Management Information Systems Support at the Executive Office of US Attorneys. The memo states that Reference my memorandum to file dated April 22, 1983, on the same subject. [C. Madison] Brick Brewer [PROMIS project manager at the Justice Department] recently instructed me to make a copy of an LEAA version of PROMIS [a version wholly owned by the Justice Department] available to Dr. Ben Orr, a representative of the government of Israel. Dr. Orr called me to discuss that request after my earlier memorandum was written. I have made a copy of the LEM DEC version of PROMIS and will provide it along with the corresponding documentation, to Dr. Orr before he leaves the United States for Israel on May 16. High Officials Possibly Involved - The House Judiciary Committee will comment: Given the international dimensions to the decisions, it is difficult to accept the notion that a group of low-level Department personnel decided independently to get in touch with the government of Israel to arrange for transfer of the PROMIS software. At the very least, it is unlikely that such a transaction occurred without the approval of high-level Department officials, including those on the PROMIS Oversight Committee. Actual Version of PROMIS Unclear - The committee will also later speculate that a version whose ownership is under dispute was also given to the Israelis, saying: [I]t is uncertain what version actually was transferred. Department managers believed that all versions of the Enhanced PROMIS software were the Departments property. The lack of detailed documentation on the transfer, therefore, only creates new questions surrounding allegations that Enhanced PROMIS may have been sold or transferred to Israel and other foreign
governments. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Rugh will pass the application to Brewer for handing over to Orr six days later (see May 12, 1983).
Entity Tags: Executive Office for US Attorneys, C. Madison Brick Brewer, US Department of Justice,
Office of Management Information Systems Support, Benjamin Orr, Jack Rugh Category 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 Systems Support at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys, writes a memo turning over the PROMIS application to a colleague, C. Madison Brewer. The application is for passage to 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 11/70 version of PROMIS on magnetic tape along with the printed specifications for that tape, as well as two printed volumes of PROMIS documentation for the LEAA version of the system.
[US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Office of Management Information Systems Support, Jack Rugh,
C. Madison Brick Brewer, Benjamin Orr, Executive Office for US Attorneys Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department July 21, 1983: Justice Department Says Dissemination of PROMIS Software Still Limited under Agreement with Inslaw
Peter Videnieks, the Justice Departments contracting officer, writes to Inslaw to set out the departments position on a significant modification to a contract between the two organizations. Videnieks agrees that modification 12 continues to limit dissemination of that version of the PROMIS computer software [a privately-enhanced version] specified in the modification. 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 limit dissemination pending a contracting officers final decision in the matter. [US CONGRESS,
9/10/1992]
Between August 29, 1983 and February 18, 1985: Inslaw Implements PROMIS in 20 US Attorneys Offices
Inslaw implements its enhanced PROMIS software at 20 US attorneys offices. The implementation is performed pursuant to a contract signed by the company and the Justice Department in 1982 (March 1982). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
December 29, 1983: Justice Department Decides to Terminate Part of PROMIS Contract
Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen and other members of the Justice Departments PROMIS 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 through despite a report that there was progress with Inslaws attorney on the resolution of contract problems, only concerns the part of the contract for the installation of PROMIS on word processing hardware in 74 small US attorneys offices. Inslaw will still be contracted to install the application in 20 other US attorneys offices. The termination is to be for default, as Inslaw 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 Justice Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
February 1984: Justice Department Counsel Finds Inslaw Has Not Failed to Perform PROMIS Contract, Portion Terminated Anyway
Justice Department procurement counsel William Snider issues a legal opinion stating that the department lacks legal justification to terminate part of a contract on the installation of PROMIS software for default. The departments PROMIS Oversight Committee had decided on this 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, the committee decides to terminate the portion of the contract anyway, but for convenience meaning Inslaw may receive some compensationnot default. PROMIS project manager C. Madison Brewer then notifies INSLAW owner William Hamilton that Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen has decided on partial termination. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Lowell Jensen, William Hamilton, C. Madison Brick Brewer,
William Snider
August 15, 1984: Justice Department Official Says Conceding Inslaws Ownership of Enhanced PROMIS Would Alter Departments Rights in Data
Madison Brick Brewer, director of the the Office of Management Information Systems Support at the Justice Departments Executive Office for US Attorneys, argues against accepting a proposal made by Inslaw to resolve the dispute that has arisen over rights to an enhanced version of the PROMIS application. In a memo to Kamal J. Rahal, director of the procurement and contracts staff, Justice Management Division, Brewer warns, The proposal would substantially alter our rights in data (e.g., we would become a licenseeand thus give up the unlimited rights we currently enjoy). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: C. Madison Brick Brewer, US Department of Justice, Kamal J. Rahal Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
1985: Private Companys Attempt to Purchase Inslaw Fails
A company called SCT attempts to purchase Inslaw, which designed the PROMIS database and search application. SCT is assisted by the New York investment bank Allen & Co., which helps with the finance for the proposed deal. The attempt fails, but, according to Inslaws founder William Hamilton, in the process a number of Inslaws customers are warned by SCT that Inslaw will soon go bankrupt and will not survive reorganization. Wired magazine will say that Allen & Co. has close business ties to Earl Brian, a businessman who is said to be interested in PROMIS software and who is well-connected inside the Ronald Reagan administration. [WIRED
NEWS, 3/1993]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., Earl Brian, Reagan administration, SCT, William Hamilton, Allen & Co. Category Tags: Other Events
February 1985: Inslaw Declares Bankruptcy
Inslaw, the owner and developer of the enhanced PROMIS software, declares bankruptcy, applying for Chapter 11 reorganization at the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. Inslaws poor financial condition is at least partly due to a dispute with the Justice Department over the software, as the department owes it a minimum of $1.6 million in contract payments for implementation, but is withholding them. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc. Category Tags: Origin of Dispute, Legal Proceedings
March 13, 1985: Inslaw Representatives Meet with Deputy Attorney General, Ask for Investigation of PROMIS Affair
Inslaw representatives Elliot Richardson and Donald Santarelli, a former administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, meet with acting Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen to discuss a resolution of the Inslaw affair concerning the Justice Departments alleged misappropriation of enhanced PROMIS software. Richardson and Santarelli ask for rapid talks to resolve disputes that have caused the department to withhold money from Inslaw and the company to go bankrupt, that the department consider a new proposal for work by Inslaw, and that Jensen appoint somebody to investigate Inslaws claims that some department officials, in particular C. Madison Brewer (see 1976 and April 1982), are biased against it. The business proposal is that Inslaw implement PROMIS in smaller US attorneys offices. This was originally covered by a contract between Inslaw and the department (see March 1982), but this part of the contract was terminated in 1984 (see December 29, 1983 and February 1984). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] The department rejects the proposal for additional work, but it is unclear whether the allegations against Brewer and others are investigated (see After March 13, 1985).
Entity Tags: Elliot Richardson, Donald Santarelli, Inslaw, Inc., Lowell Jensen, US Department of Justice Category Tags: Internal DoJ Investigations
After March 13, 1985: Justice Department Starts Internal Review of Inslaw Affair, Content of Review Disputed
The Justice Department starts an internal review of the Inslaw affair, but the content of the review will be disputed. The review follows a meeting at which Inslaw representatives made three requests (see March 13, 1985): that the department negotiate on a resolution of the disputes between it and Inslaw; that it consider a new proposal made by Inslaw for additional work; and that it investigate allegations of misconduct against departmental personnel. The review is ordered by Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen and performed by Deputy Associate Attorney General Jay Stephens. Jensen's Version - According to Jensen, the review is to look at the bias allegations. He will say he recalls discussing the results of Stephens review, adding that, based on Stephens assessment of the allegations, no review by the Office of Professional Responsibility is merited. Stephens' Version - However, Stephens will tell the House Judiciary Committee under oath
that he does not undertake a review of the misconduct allegations, but only looks at Inslaws business proposal. The committee will point out that this is in direct contradiction of Jensens version. While examining the proposal, Stephens receives several telephone calls from Inslaw attorneys Charles Work and Elliot Richardson. He feels they are lobbying the department very hard because they believe Inslaw has what the committee will call some special relationship with the department. According to a report by the committee, Work and Richardson attempt to convey that, based on a longstanding relationship between the department and Inslaw, the department should look favorably on Inslaws new business proposal. Outcome of Review - However, Stephens reports to Jensen that the need for Inslaws business proposal is questionable and the department thinks the work can be done in-house. Jensen then writes to Richardson, saying that the department does not have an immediate need for the work, and will not act on the proposal. Comment by House Committee - The committee will comment, Because the department did not adequately investigate Inslaws allegations, the company was forced into expensive, timeconsuming litigation as the only means by which the departments misappropriation of Inslaws enhanced PROMIS could be exposed. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., Elliot Richardson, Charles Work, Jay Stephens,
Lowell Jensen
Category Tags: Internal DoJ Investigations
April 30, 1985: Justice Department Analysis Says Inslaw Has Made No Proprietary Enhancements to PROMIS Software
In an analysis of an Inslaw proposal for the resolution of the PROMIS dispute, the Executive Office for US Attorneys (EOUSA), a Justice Department component, says that Inslaw has not made any proprietary enhancements to the software. It appears [to the department] that there are no proprietary enhancements, says the analysis sent by William P. Tyson, the EOUSA director, to Jay Stephens, the deputy associate attorney general. All proposals received from Inslaw attempt to force the department into acknowledging Inslaws proprietary interest in the US attorneys version of PROMIS by offering a license agreement for software maintenance, Tyson adds. According to the memo, accepting Inslaws proposal would, in effect, ratify Inslaws claim that the software is proprietary; not only the microcomputer version which Inslaw proposes to develop, but also the Prime mini-computer version currently operational in 20 districts. The Justice Departments position means that it would have unlimited rights to the software. The House Judiciary Committee will later comment that the department may have used its unlimited rights posture as a pretextual basis for its national and international distribution of Enhanced PROMIS outside of the department. [US
Entity Tags: William P. Tyson, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., House Committee on the
Judiciary, Executive Office for US Attorneys, Jay Stephens Category Tags: Origin of Dispute Between June 24, 1985 and September 2, 1987: Justice Department Installs Enhanced PROMIS at Attorneys 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 applications installation and over protests 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 Inslaws counsel Elliot Richardson, an enhanced version of the software is then illegally copied to support an additional two sites. Finally, 31 additional sites are brought on line via telecommunications. These additional, smaller US attorneys offices had initially been covered by the contract with Inslaw, but this portion of the 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 the law (see September 28, 1987), although this ruling will be overturned (see May 7, 1991). [US
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 Justice Department. Inslaw and the department had a contract for the company to install the software 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 in these smaller offices (see Between June 24, 1985 and September 2, 1987). The complaint is made in a letter by Inslaw president William Hamilton to H. Lawrence Wallace, the assistant attorney general for administration. I am extremely disturbed and disappointed to learn that the Executive Office for US Attorneys has begun to manufacture copies of the PROMIS software for customization and installation in additional US attorneys offices, specifically those in St. Louis, Missouri, and Sacramento, California, Hamilton writes. This action occurs at the very time that the Department of Justice and Inslaw are attempting to resolve, by negotiation, Inslaws claim that the US attorneys version of PROMIS contains millions of dollars of privately-financed enhancements that are proprietary products of Inslaw and for which Inslaw has, to date, received no compensation. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: H. Lawrence Wallace, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice, William Hamilton Category 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 an enhanced version of the PROMIS software. The principles of the settlement, set out by the Justice Management Divisions general counsel Janice A. Sposato in a letter to Inslaw lawyer Harvey 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 projects implemented 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 to PROMIS
Peter Vidieneks, the Justice Department contracting officer working on the PROMIS contract, declares that Inslaw has not made any proprietary enhancements to the software. He therefore denies Inslaws 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 it has improved through privately-funded enhancements. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
March 14, 1986: Inslaw Warns Justice Department against Use of Enhanced PROMIS Software
A lawyer acting for Inslaw warns the Justice Department that the departments use of the enhanced version of PROMIS software contravenes bankruptcy legislation. Inslaw, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to a dispute between itself and the department (see February 1985), writes to the departments contracting officer saying that the softwares use without Inslaws consent and the payment of licensing fees would contravene Inslaws property rights and its rights as a debtor in possession of the software under the bankruptcy code. In addition, Inslaw argues it is a wrongful exercise of control over property of the debtors estate in violation of the automatic stay now in effect. The automatic stay is a legal mechanism that prevents creditorssuch as the Justice Departmentharassing a debtorsuch as Inslawin bankruptcy. Inslaw also says that the departments dissemination of the software to third parties could damage or destroy the products commercial value, possibly wrecking the company. [US
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category 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 stay bankruptcy protection provisions, and damages against the Justice Department in the dispute over the departments alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software. The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by bankruptcy laws. It stops all collection efforts, harassments, and foreclosure actions, giving the debtor temporary relief from creditors. It is important because it allows a bankruptcy court to centralize all disputes concerning property of the debtors estate so that reorganization can proceed orderly and efficiently. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Inslaws attorney for the case, Leigh Ratiner of the Washington firm Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, chooses the bankruptcy court for the filing based on 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 control over the debtor property. And that theorythat the Justice Department was exercising controlwas the basis that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction. As far as I know, this was the first time this theory had been used. This was ground-breaking. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993] Inslaw claims that Justice Department manager C. Madison Brewer, who was responsible for implementing PROMIS in the department, was instrumental in propelling Inslaw into bankruptcy (see April 1982, April 14, 1982, and April 19, 1982), and that he then hindered Inslaw in its development of a reorganization plan. Inslaw also alleges that its concerns were
made known to the highest levels of Justice Departments management, without any response.
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Leigh Ratiner, C. Madison Brick Brewer, Inslaw, Inc.,
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia Category 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 for its 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 also refers to litigation recently initiated by Inslaw (see June 9, 1986), specifically the claim that Jensen 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 department employee. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] It is unclear what action the OPR takes in response to this matter. However, it conducts a preliminary investigation into whether Jensen was biased against Inslaw this year, and this may be in response to this letter (see 1986). It will also begin 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 Justice Category 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 Inslaw affair. The exact timing of the review is uncertain, although it may come after a query about the 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 made by acting OPR counsel Robert Lyon and assistant counsel David Bobzein to the House Judiciary Committee in 1990, the OPR does not perform a full review at this time because the allegations of bias are not an issue OPR would normally review. Therefore, it plans to rely on the findings of a bankruptcy court hearing the Inslaw case (see June 9, 1986). However, after the bankruptcy court finds in favour of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987), partly because it thinks 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 Lyon Category 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 its dispute over the Justice Departments use of enhanced PROMIS software. Further claims will be filed on September 19, 1986 and August 24, 1987. The claims are filed subsequent to notices of appeal submitted in February 1985, as well as May and November 1986. The monetary 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 and subsequent appeal courts, the matter will be held in abeyance and the board will not take any 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 Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns in the case (see After July 9, 1986). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Charles Mathias, US Department of Justice Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
After July 9, 1986: Deputy Attorney General Told Justice Department Has Waived Rights to Enhanced PROMIS Software
Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns is told that the Justice Department has waived its rights to enhanced PROMIS software (see August 11, 1982). Following a letter asking about the Inslaw case from Senator Charles Mathias (see July 9, 1986), Burns asks subordinates about the 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 Inslaw should be made for it to pay royalties to the government, which funded the development of the first version of PROMIS (see Mid-1970s). However, further research comes up with a result shocking to Burns, who will say in 1988, The answer that I got, which I wasnt terribly happy with but which I accepted, was that there had been a series of old correspondence and back and forthing [sic] and stuff, that in all of that, our lawyers were satisfied that Inslaw could sustain the claim in court, that we had waived those rights, not that I was wrong that we didnt have them but that somebody in the Department of Justice, in a letter or letters, as I say in this back and forthing [sic], had, in effect, waived those rights. The House Judiciary Committee will later comment, Considering that the deputy attorney general was aware of Inslaws proprietary rights, the departments pursuit of litigation can only be understood as a war of attrition between the departments massive, tax-supported resources and Inslaws desperate financial condition, with shrinking (courtesy of the department) income. The committee will add, In light of Mr. Burns revelation, it is important to note that committee investigators found no surviving documentation (from that time frame) which reveal the departments awareness of the relative legal positions of the department and Inslaw, on Inslaws claims to proprietary enhancements referred to by Mr. Burns. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Arnold Burns, House Committee on the Judiciary, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category Tags: Origin of Dispute
June 19, 1987: High Justice Department Official Says Inslaw Case Should Be Reassigned to Another Judge
Richard Willard, assistant attorney general of the civil division, writes a memo to Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns about the Inslaw affair. According to Willard, George Bason, the bankruptcy court judge dealing with the Justice Departments alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software, should be taken off the case. Willard writes that Basons conduct is so extraordinary that it warranted reassignment to another judge. The House Judiciary Committee will comment that department officials are concerned about Basons handling of the case very early in the litigation, and that they think Bason tends to believe statements made by Inslaw. The committee will add: The department believed that Judge Bason disregarded the sworn statements of department witnesses. The department also believed that Judge Bason made lengthy observations regarding the credibility of its witnesses and that Judge Basons uniformly negative conclusions were based on inferences not supported by the record. Therefore, by the summer of 1987, the department is actively seeking ways to remove Judge Bason from the case. Bason will rule in favor of Inslaw in the autumn (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 Committee Category 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 was informed about the Justice Departments dealings with Inslaw. He makes the statement in a sworn deposition to the Office of Professional Responsibility, a Justice Department unit investigating the departments alleged theft of the enhanced PROMIS case tracking software from Inslaw. Jensen says, I have had conversations with the attorney general [Meese] about the 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 with reference to that. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, Meese will tell the House Judiciary Committee 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 Professional
Responsibility
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 the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia is off his rocker, according to a sworn statement Meese will later make to the House Judiciary Committee. Bason is presiding over a dispute between the department and the software company Inslaw (see June 9, 1986) and will eventually rule against the department (see September 28, 1987). This comment appears to be part of a campaign to get Bason removed from the case (see June 19, 1987) and a judge more favorable to the department appointed. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Edwin Meese, US Department of Justice, George Bason Category Tags: Legal Proceedings
Second Half of 1987: Bankruptcy Court Hearing Inslaw Case up to Par Administratively, According to 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 by the clerks office is up to par by the latter part of 1987. Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson will agree with Bloom, complimenting the bankruptcy courts judge, George Bason, on improvements in the courts administrative condition in remarks to an annual judicial conference. Condition of Clerk's Office Later Becomes Important - The condition of the clerks office will later become significant because it will apparently be an important factor in the nonreappointment of Bason later this year (see December 15, 1987). For example, a confidential report about his possible reappointment (see December 8, 1987) will say, Judge Bason evidenced no inclination to come to grips personally with the management challenge posed by the terrible shortcomings of the Office of the Clerk of our Bankruptcy Court. Bason is currently 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 clerks office was not in good condition when Bason took over the bankruptcy court in the mid-1980s, although a May 1986 report said that the system was being brought under control and Bloom will blame the previous clerk for the problems. Bloom will also say that Bason takes an active role in providing 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 will somehow come to believe that it is still a mess at this time and that this is Basons fault, although an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee will find that most of the district and circuit judges interviewed [who were on the reappointment committee] said that they had little or no contact with Judge Bason and were not in a position to have firsthand knowledge of the condition of his court. Neither Bloom nor the previous clerk will be interviewed by the panel about the courts administration and, according to Bason, there is no mechanism in place for the judges to personally evaluate it. The committee will comment: Considering that poor administrative controls seemed to be one of the primary reasons for Judge Basons failed attempt at reappointment, it is unusual that neither Judge Bason nor the other individuals most responsible for the administration of the court were interviewed by the panel. Judge Robinson made a telling comment to committee investigators when he said it is unfortunate bankruptcy judges are selected by judges furthest removed from the bankruptcy court. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Martin Bloom, George Bason, Aubrey Robinson, Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Columbia, House Judiciary Committee Category 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 Departments civil division to consider initiatives for achieving a more favorable disposition of this matter [a legal dispute between the department and Inslaw over PROMIS software]. This is apparently a reference to the possible removal of Judge George Bason from the case, as the department thinks he is biased against it (see June 19, 1987). In response to the comments, the department 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,
US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings After July 7, 1987: Justice Department Report Says Inslaw Judge Cannot Be Removed over Alleged Bias
Following a request from the Justice Departments leadership (see July 7, 1987), Michael Hertz, the director of the civil divisions commercial litigation branch at the department, writes a memo entitled Feasibility of Motion to Disqualify the Judge in Inslaw. The department has come to believe that the judge, George Bason, is biased against it (see June 19, 1987) and hopes to challenge his findings of fact by saying they are unsupported by evidence and reflect a desire to reach a preordained conclusion. This position is mostly based on the departments observations that some of Basons findings of fact are rambling and based on deductions that are both strained and have flimsy support. However, Hertz writes to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart Schiffer that the facts simply do not support a case of bias strong enough to disqualify Bason from the remainder of the Inslaw case. Hertz adds that he is fairly confident that any motion to dismiss Bason would not succeed and the denial of any such motion could not be successfully challenged on appeal. He gives the following reasons: The department has no evidence that what it views as Basons incredible factual conclusions or alleged bias actually stem from an extrajudicial source, as the case law requires; Adverse factual findings and inferences against the government are not enough to support a claim of bias; and Adverse credibility rulings about some of the governments witnesses in a prior phase of the proceedings are not on their own sufficient to disqualify Bason from the rest of the proceedings. 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 the department may disagree with Basons findings: [T]hey are not mere conclusory statements. Instead they reflect a relatively detailed judicial analysis of the evidence, including reasons for believing certain witnesses and disbelieving others, as well as consideration of what inferences might or might not be drawn from the evidence. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Despite this, the department will twice attempt to get Bason recused, failing both times (see January 19, 1988 and January 25, 1988).
Entity Tags: Michael Hertz, Civil Division, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, Stuart Schiffer,
US Department of Justice Category 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 Burns about the Inslaw case. Willard says that the Justice Department has developed a good trial record, but: [T]here is virtually no reason for optimism about the judges ruling. Even though 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 our position. The department has been trying to have Bason removed from the case for some
time (see June 19, 1987) and he will soon rule in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987).
[US
Entity Tags: George Bason, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, Richard Willard, Arnold Burns,
US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings September 28, 1987: Bankruptcy Judge Rules Justice Department Obtained Enhanced PROMIS by Trickery, Fraud, and Deceit
Judge George Bason of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia issues an oral finding that the Justice Department took, converted, and stole the enhanced version of Inslaws PROMIS software by trickery, fraud, and deceit. The ruling is issued at the end of a trial that lasts over two weeks and involves sworn statements from over 40 witnesses and thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Bason finds that a key departmental official, project manager C. Madison Brewer, was biased against Inslaw (see April 1982, April 14, 1982, and April 19, 1982). In addition, Brewers boss Lowell Jensen (see December 29, 1983 and February 1984) is said to have a previously developed negative attitude about PROMIS and Inslaw, because he had been associated with the development of a rival case management system while he was a district attorney in California, and this affected his judgment throughout his oversight of the contract. Further, the department violated bankruptcy protection legislation that applied to Inslaw by using and exercising control over Inslaws propertythe enhanced PROMIS softwarewithout negotiating a license fee. This oral finding is confirmed in a written opinion issued on January 25, 1988. In the written finding, Bason adds, [T]his court finds and concludes that the department never intended to meet its commitment and that once the department had received enhanced PROMIS pursuant to Modification 12 (see April 11, 1983), the department thereafter refused to bargain in good faith with Inslaw and instead engaged in an outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of cat and mouse, demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealing. [US
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Lowell Jensen, George Bason, C. Madison Brick Brewer,
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, Inslaw, Inc. Category Tags: Legal Proceedings October 14, 1987: Justice Department Oversight Unit Again Begins to Investigate Inslaw Allegations
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an oversight component at the Justice Department, begins an investigation into allegations made by the software company Inslaw against some Justice Department staff. The OPR had conducted a preliminary investigation the previous year (see 1986), concluding the officials were not biased against the company. However, after a bankruptcy court finds serious wrongdoing by departmental officials (see September 28, 1987), Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns asks for a complete and thorough investigation into the allegation of bias and misconduct by various Justice Department officials against Inslaw. The full investigation will again conclude that the officials were not biased against Inslaw (see March 31, 1989). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Arnold Burns, Office of Professional Responsibility, Inslaw, Inc. Category Tags: Internal DoJ Investigations
October 29, 1987: Justice Department Memo Notes Possible Pending Removal of Inslaw Case Judge
Stuart Schiffer, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Departments civil division, writes to Richard Willard, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, about the Inslaw case. Schiffer writes: [Judge George] Bason has scheduled the next [Inslaw] trial for February 2 [1988]. Coincidentally, it has been my understanding that February 1 [1988] is the date on which he [Bason] will either be reappointed or replaced. Bason had ruled in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987) and the department had been trying to have him removed from the case for months (see June 19, 1987). After Basons bid for reappointment fails (see December 15, 1987), he will say that the department used its influence against him (see December 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 Columbia Category Tags: Legal Proceedings November 24, 1987: Official Report Drafted on Reappointment of Inslaw Judge; Does Not Criticize Him
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 the final four candidates, including the incumbent George Bason, who is, however, at loggerheads with the Justice Department over his handling of the Inslaw case (see June 19, 1987 and September 28, 1987). However, anotherlonger but unofficialreport will be drafted two weeks 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 Bason Category 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 destroy is drafted about the four final candidates for the position of judge at the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia. The memo is clearly critical of the incumbent, George Bason, who is up for reappointment. Bason recently displeased the Justice Department by ruling against it in the Inslaw 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 ranking the candidates as we did, and describes each of the four. The House Judiciary Committee will comment: What is striking about the memorandum is that the description of each candidate except Judge Bason begins with positive commentary about the individual. The section describing Judge Bason begins, I could not conclude that Judge Bason was incompetent. Other phrases used to describe Judge Bason include he is inclined to make mountains out of molehills, Judge Bason seems to have developed a pronounced and unrelenting reputation for favoring debtors, and finally, Judge Bason evidenced no inclination to come to grips personally with the management challenge posed by the terrible shortcomings of the Office of the Clerk of our Bankruptcy Court. The memo is addressed to Judge Norma Johnson, who Bason will allege may have been an instrument of a campaign waged against him by the Justice Department (see May 1988). The panel appointing the bankruptcy 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 (see December 15, 1987). After Bason asks appeals court judges to reconsider his nonreappointment (see January 12, 1988), the memo will be circulated to them. The memo is unsigned, 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 panel drafted it. However, this judge will deny having done so. When, some years later, several members of the panel are asked by the committee whether they saw this memo, they will say they do not recognize it. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Norma Johnson, George Bason, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, House
Judiciary 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 the Justice Departments alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987), is not reappointed to the bench. Bason had been appointed in February 1984 instead of another judge who had resigned mid-term, but a decision is now taken to replace him with a Justice Department 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 criticize Bason (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 there were shortcomings in Basons administration of the clerks office, although the office appears to be running smoothly by this time (see Second Half of 1987). Several judges on the selection council will later say they did not know much about the candidates, and therefore relied on Johnson and her interpretation of reports prepared about them. The House Judiciary Committee will find that Johnsons oral presentation played a large role in the selection, that Johnson ran the panel firmly, and that the other members relied on her judgment. Overall, it will call the selection process largely informal, undocumented, and highly subjective. Bason learns he will not be reappointed from Chief Judge Patricia Wald, of the US Court of Appeals, on December 28. Bason will later say that Teel was not qualified for the position (see January 12, 1988) and that the department had influenced the selection process in 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 a departmental 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 years from 1970, and that Murphy had later worked as the assistant director on the implementation of PROMIS at the Justice Department. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Tim Murphy, Stuart Schiffer, Norma Johnson, Martin Teel, Jr., George Bason, Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia, House Judiciary Committee Category 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 Justice Department over the alleged theft of PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987) and was subsequently not reappointed to the bench (see December 15, 1987), requests a hearing on his non-reappointment before the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia. Bason criticizes the other candidate, Justice Department official Martin Teel, who was given the position, saying he has a considerably shorter total period of legal experience, as he has mostly worked on taxation matters, not bankruptcy, and for the last few years has worked as a reviewer and then manager, without doing his own independent work. Teel will dispute this characterization in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, saying he was qualified and,
when appointed, had six years of fairly extensive bankruptcy experience. The request for a hearing 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 District
of 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 recuse himself from further participation in a case over the bankruptcy of Inslaw and the departments alleged theft of the enhanced PROMIS application, saying that he is biased against the department. Bason had ruled in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987) and the department 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 civil divisions commercial litigation branch at the department, saying that such a move would not succeed (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 Justice Category 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 case over the companys bankruptcy and the departments alleged theft of an enhanced version of the PROMIS software. Bason had ruled in favor of Inslaw (see September 28, 1987) and the department 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), the department argues a motion before Chief Judge of the District Court for Columbia Aubrey Robinson for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Bason to recuse himself over allegations of bias. Robinson denies the departments writ, ruling: I cant see anything in this record that measures up to the standards that would be applicable to force another judge to take over this case. There isnt any doubt in my mind, for example, that the declaration filed by the Justice Department in support of the original motion is inadequate. When the department appeals Basons ruling (see Between February 2, 1988 and November 22, 1989), it will again raise the issue of recusal, but District Court Judge William Bryant will say, This court like the courts before it can find no basis in fact to support a motion for recusal. [US CONGRESS,
9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: George Bason, Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia, US Department of Justice, US
District Court for the District of Columbia, William Bryant, Aubrey Robinson Category Tags: Legal Proceedings February 1988: Inslaw Submits Complaint to Justice Department Oversight Section
The software company Inslaw submits allegations about the Justice Departments conduct in the dispute over the enhanced PROMIS application to the Public Integrity Section (PIS), a departmental oversight component. The allegations follow on from the findings of a bankruptcy court favourable to Inslaw (see September 28, 1987 and January 25, 1988). In the complaint, Inslaw charges the department with:
Procurement fraud. Inslaw claims that Attorney General Edwin Meese and former Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen schemed to ensure that enhancements made to the PROMIS software by Inslaw would be obtained for free by the department, which would then make them 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 that the department committed such violation, an act that could constitute an obstruction of the bankruptcy proceedings; and Attempts to change Inslaws Chapter 11 bankruptcy, for the companys reorganization, into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, for the companys liquidation. Inslaw says that the department unsuccessfully attempted to have an official named Harry Jones detailed from the US Trustees office in New York to Washington to take over the Inslaw bankruptcy to get Inslaw liquidated. Inslaw also says unsuccessful pressure was exerted by departmental official Thomas Stanton on US Trustee William White to convert the bankruptcy case into a Chapter 7 liquidation. The PIS says it will examine some of the allegations, but in the end it will not open a formal preliminary investigation (see February 29, 1988). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: William White, Inslaw, Inc., Harry Jones, Edwin Meese, Lowell Jensen, US Department of
Justice, Public Integrity Section, Thomas Stanton Category 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 in the dispute over the Justice Departments use of the enhanced PROMIS software. The decision follows on from a ruling by the court that the department had violated Inslaws automatic stay bankruptcy protection rights by using and copying an enhanced version of Inslaws PROMIS 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 Adverse Bankruptcy Court Ruling in Inslaw Case
The Justice Department appeals an adverse ruling by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia in its dispute with Inslaw (see September 28, 1987). The main grounds of the appeal include 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 Inslaws 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 be overturned (see May 7, 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US District Court for the District of Columbia, Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings
February 29, 1988: Justice Department Oversight Unit Concludes No Need for Preliminary Investigation in Inslaw Matter
The Public Integrity Section (PIS), a Justice Department oversight component, decides not to open a preliminary investigation of the Inslaw affair over the departments alleged misappropriation of PROMIS software (see February 1988). The decision is communicated in a memo drafted by William F. Weld, the assistant attorney general for the departments criminal division, of which the PIS is a part. The PIS finds that at least some of the people Inslaw complains about, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, and Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, are appropriate targets of an 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 is because the PIS regards the facts Inslaw presented as unsupported speculation that the officials were involved in a scheme to get the enhanced PROMIS software. Therefore, the review should be closed due to lack of evidence of criminality. The House Judiciary Committee will be critical of the PISs finding, calling its investigation shallow and incomplete, and saying the department appeared to be more interested in constructing legal defenses for its managerial actions rather than investigating claims of wrongdoing which, if proved, could undermine or weaken its litigating posture. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Lowell Jensen, Arnold Burns, Criminal Division (DoJ), Edwin Meese, House Committee on
the Judiciary, Inslaw, Inc., William F. Weld, US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section Category 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 a dispute over the alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987), that his failure to be reappointed to the bench was because of pressure from the Justice Department. According to the House Judiciary Committee, Bason says that the reporter has excellent contacts and sources in the department. Bason will say the reporter suggests his removal from the bench could have been procured as follows: The district judge chairperson of 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 her old and trusted friends from her days in the Justice Department. He could have told her that I was 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 law firms might appear before her as litigating attorneys could cause them to vote with her. The reporter also tells Bason that a high-level department official has boasted to him that Basons removal 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 Bason Category 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 departments alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software. The report finds that allegations of bias made by Inslaw and seconded by a bankruptcy court (see September 28, 1987) against departmental officials are unsupported. Inslaw had questioned the performance of former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, former Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, and others. The OPR says that the courts findings on misconduct by department officials are clearly erroneous. In addition, the report says: There is no credible evidence that the department took or stole Inslaws enhanced PROMIS by trickery, fraud, and deceit. Additionally, we have found no credible evidence that there existed in the department a plot to move to convert Inslaws Chapter 11 bankruptcy to one under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. The House Judiciary Committee will be extremely critical of this investigation, commenting, During its investigation OPR chose to ignore the courts findings and conclusions that there was bias against Inslaw at the department. In addition, the committee will say that the OPR looked at the bias allegations in isolation and incredibly did not examine the merits of the contract dispute, meaning its conclusions on the taking of PROMIS and the type of bankruptcy were gratuitous, especially as Burns had told it the department agreed Inslaw owned the enhancements it made to PROMIS (see August 11, 1982). The committee will also point out that the OPRs deputy counsel, Richard M. Rogers, said he was recused from the investigation because of his association with Burns, although he was present when Meese provided a sworn statement. In this context, the committee will highlight problems found by the Government Accountability Office with OPR around this time (see February 7, 1992). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: House Committee on the Judiciary, Edwin Meese, Richard M. Rogers, US Department of
Justice, Arnold Burns, Inslaw, Inc., Lowell Jensen, Office of Professional Responsibility Category 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 Attorney General Richard Thornburgh about the dispute with the Justice Department over the departments alleged misappropriation of enhanced PROMIS software. Richardson complains about a review of the case by the Public Integrity Section (PIS), an oversight component at the department, which came down against Inslaws claims (see February 29, 1988). He says that there is a conflict of interest because the department is defending itself against a civil action by Inslaw while at the same time investigating itself over the allegations that form the basis of the action. If the internal investigation found wrongdoing by the department, this would destroy the departments case in court. His view is that the department has given priority 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 counsel Charles Work, some of the witnesses in the case, or Inslaws owners. Despite this, the owners provided the PIS with the names of 30 people who had information relevant to the investigation in December 1988. Therefore, Richardson concludes that the only solution is for the department to appoint an independent counsel. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Elliot Richardson, Inslaw, Inc., Public Integrity Section, Richard
Thornburgh
Category Tags: Internal DoJ Investigations
August 10, 1989: Inslaw Again Complains about Justice Departments Internal PROMIS Investigation
Charles Work, counsel for the software company Inslaw, writes to the Justice Department over the departments alleged misappropriation of enhanced PROMIS software. Work says that an investigation of the case by the Public Integrity Section, an oversight component at the department, 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 Justice Category 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 of Inslaw. The ruling concerned the dispute over the PROMIS software between Inslaw and the Justice Department, which was found to have violated bankruptcy protection provisions (see September 28, 1987 and February 2, 1988), but had appealed (see Between February 2, 1988 and November 22, 1989). Judge William Bryant finds that the department knew an enhanced version of PROMIS was Inslaws central asset, that ownership of the software was critical to the companys reorganization in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that the departments unilateral claim of ownership and its installation of the enhanced version in offices around the United States violated automatic stay bankruptcy provisions in multiple ways. In addition, Bryant agrees with the bankruptcy courts conclusion that the department never had any rights to the enhanced version and that the government acted willfully and fraudulently to obtain property that it was not entitled to under the contract. In addition, when Inslaw suggested mechanisms to determine whether the private enhancements had been made, the government rejected them, and when asked to provide an alternative methodology that would be acceptable, the government declined. The department could have used established procedures to get relief from the automatic stay provisions, but simply chose not to do so. Bryant, who also finds that the department tried to convert Inslaws bankruptcy to Chapter 7 liquidation, adds, What is strikingly apparent from the testimony and depositions of key witnesses and many documents is that Inslaw performed its contract in a hostile environment that extended from the higher echelons of the Justice Department to the officials who had the day-to-day responsibility for supervising its work. Finally, Bryant finds that, as the case was grounded in bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy court was an appropriate forum to hear the dispute and it did not have to be submitted to the Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, an arena for contract disputes. Although most of the damages awarded are upheld, as Bryant finds the bankruptcy court assessed damages based on the evidence it obtained, he reduces compensatory damages by $655,200.88. [US
Entity Tags: William Bryant, US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., US District Court for the District of
Columbia
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 a special prosecutor in the Inslaw affair. Inslaws attorney Elliot Richardson had filed the case because of a dispute with the Justice Department over allegations that the department had stolen a version of the PROMIS database and search application from the company. However,
the court rules against Inslaw, stating that a prosecutors decision not to investigateno matter how indefensiblecannot be corrected by any court. [WIRED NEWS, 3/1993]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Inslaw, Inc., Elliot Richardson, Richard Thornburgh Category 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 the enhanced PROMIS software for the Appellate Mediation Program. The program, which has been running for about two years, is intended to benefit parties to a dispute by providing a forum which encourages cases to be settled, or at least the resolution or simplification of some of the issues, through an independent and neutral mediator. However, the success of such attempts hinges on their confidentiality, as cases are not to be shared with judges or anyone outside the relevant court. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Despite this, the mediation attempts will fail when news of them is leaked to the Washington Post (see October 1, 1990).
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category 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 about the Inslaw affair. He says that he cannot recall any discussions with former Justice Department official Lowell Jensen about office automation or case tracking at the department. He adds that if there were such a discussion, it would have been casual conversation. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] However, Jensen previously said he discussed the whole Inslaw matter 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 PROMIS software 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 States and foreign intelligence communities, says that the Harris-Lanier word processing equipment he purchased came with 5 1/4-inch computer disks and he believes these disks contain the enhanced version of the PROMIS software. When the committee investigates, the Justice Department refuses to provide some computer equipment related to these allegations (see February 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 that should not have been disclosed, including grand jury material and information regarding confidential 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 that developed PROMIS, Hayes told him he can identify 300 locations where the software has been installed illegally by the government. In addition, a businessman named Earl Brian allegedly sold the software to the CIA in 1983 for implementation on computers purchased from Floating Point Systems and what the CIA called PROMIS Datapoint. Brian has supposedly sold about $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 received information from unnamed sources within the Canadian government saying that Brian sold the PROMIS software to the Canadian government in 1987. The committee will say that he makes numerous promises that confirming documentation will be provided by unnamed Canadian officials. However, on August 16, 1991, Hayes will say the Canadian officials have decided not to cooperate with the committee. In its final report, the committee will call the allegations intriguing, but point out that Hayes has not provided any corroborating documentation.
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Charles Hayes, Earl Brian, House Committee on the Judiciary,
William Hamilton Category 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 to consider its dispute with Inslaw over enhanced PROMIS software for mediation. The request was 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 Judiciary Committee will comment that the leak was completely contrary to the standards of the Appellate Program. The committee will add: It is difficult to understand the departments strategy by this action. It may be that the department wanted to maintain the facade of working diligently to settle a sticky contract dispute while working behind the scenes to sabotage it and keep pressure on Inslaw by forcing it to expend additional resources on legal support during the mediation process. If this is the case, the department was successful. But the department also succeeded in maintaining a near-flawless record of seeking delay over resolution and raising the level of suspicion about its motives to a point where the public trust in the untarnished pursuit of justice is subject to grave doubts. [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 the District of Columbia in the dispute with Inslaw over the alleged theft of the enhanced PROMIS application (see November 22, 1989). The department raises some of the same issues previously raised in its appeal of a bankruptcy court ruling to the District Court and requests a reversal on the basis of the facts found in the bankruptcy court, which it says made clear errors. 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 of Transportation 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; and That 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
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 the House Judiciary Committee, which is investigating allegations that the US Justice Department has misappropriated an enhanced version of the software from Inslaw and passed it on to other governments. The official, Marc Valois of the Canadian Department of Communications, apparently says that PROMIS is being used to support 900 locations around the Canadian government. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Another Canadian official will soon make a similar statement (see January 1991), but both he and Valois will later say they were not referring to Inslaws 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 of
Communications (Canada), Marc Valois Category 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 failure of Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to provide full access to all documents and records about the Inslaw case. At the hearing, Inslaw owner William Hamilton and its attorney Elliot Richardson air their complaints about an alleged criminal conspiracy in the Justice Departments handling of a contract with Inslaw and its alleged theft of an enhanced version of the PROMIS application. Steven Ross, the general counsel to the clerk of the US House of Representatives, refutes the Justice Departments rationale for withholding documents related to possible wrongdoing by its officials involved with the Inslaw contract. In addition, Government Accountability Office representatives describe deficiencies in the Justice Departments Information Resources Management Office and its administration of data processing contracts. Bason's Allegations - Judge George Bason, a bankruptcy judge who had found in favor of Inslaw in a dispute with the department (see September 28, 1987), testifies that he believes his failure to be reappointed as bankruptcy judge was the result of improper influence on the court selection process by the department because of his findings. Bason cites information provided to him by a reporter (see May 1988) and negative statements about him by departmental employees (see June 19, 1987 and June 1987 or Shortly After). After investigating these allegations, the committee will find: The committee could not substantiate Judge Basons allegations. If the Department of Justice had influence over the process, it was subtle, to say the least. Bason will point out that Norma Johnson, the judge who chaired the meeting at which he was not reappointed (see December 15, 1987), had previously worked with departmental official Stuart Schiffer, who was involved in the Inslaw case. However, the committee will comment that it has no information that Judge Johnson talked to Mr. Schiffer about Inslaw, Judge Bason, or the bankruptcy judge selection process. Thornburgh's Reaction - Following this hearing, Thornburgh agrees to cooperate with the subcommittee, 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 Disputes Claim
The CIA says that it does not have the PROMIS database and search application (see Mid1970s). The statement is made in response to a letter sent to CIA Director William Webster by the House Judiciary Committee on November 20 asking him to help them by determining whether the CIA has the PROMIS software. In response the CIA states, We have checked with Agency components that track data processing procurement or that would be likely users of PROMIS, and we have been unable to find any indication that the [CIA] ever obtained PROMIS software. However, information contradicting this will subsequently emerge. For example, a retired CIA official whose job it is to investigate the Inslaw allegations internally will tell Wired magazine that the Justice Department gave PROMIS to the CIA: Well, the Congressional committees were after us to look into allegations that somehow the agency had been culpable of what would have been, in essence, taking advantage of, like stealing, the technology [PROMIS]. We looked into it and there was enough to it, the agency had been involved. However, the official will say that when the CIA accepted PROMIS, it did not know that there was a serious dispute about the Justice Departments ownership of the software.
Entity Tags: William H. Webster, House Judiciary Committee, Central Intelligence Agency, US
Department of Justice Category 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 information on 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 passed it on to other governments. The official, Denis LaChance of the Canadian Department of Communications, apparently says that PROMIS is being used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to support its field offices. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Another Canadian official had previously made a similar statement (see November 1990), but both he and LaChance will later say they were not referring to Inslaws PROMIS, but to a product of the same name from a 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 Judiciary Committee about the distribution of PROMIS software. Aviv, who claims to be a former member of Mossad, says he can provide information that a businessman named Earl Brian sold the enhanced version of the PROMIS software to US government agencies outside the Justice Department, including the CIA, NSA, NASA, and the National Security Council. Aviv also claims Brian 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 the software was converted for use by both the United States and British Navy nuclear submarine intelligence data base. Aviv says there are witnesses and documents to corroborate his allegations, but refuses to repeat these claims under oath or provide any further information. These charges will be mentioned in the committees final report on the Inslaw affair, but the committee will not endorse them. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992] Aviv previously collaborated on the book Vengeance, which purports to describe Mossads assassination campaign after a terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The book will later be made into a film, Munich, by Steven Spielberg. However, intelligence writers Yossi Melman and Steven Hartov will call the book a Walter Mitty fabrication, adding: [O]ur investigations show that Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an Israeli Defence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early 70s. [GUARDIAN, 1/17/2006]
Entity Tags: Steven Hartov, Earl Brian, Juval Aviv, Yossi Melman, House Committee on the Judiciary Category 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 to testify before the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation into the alleged theft of PROMIS software. In return, however, he asks the committee to arrange an extension for his US 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 the illegal distribution and sale of an enhanced version of the software by businessman Earl Brian to the Israeli government. However, the committee refuses the request, and Ben-Menashe will 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-Menashe Category Tags: Oversight by Congress, Use Outside Justice Department
February 12, 1991: Justice Department Refuses to Provide Some Information about PROMIS Software
The Justice Department refuses to provide the House Judiciary Committee with some equipment and documentation relating to its alleged theft of an enhanced version of the PROMIS software. The refusal is in response to a request for access to the equipment and documents sent by the committee in November, following allegations by used computer dealer Charles Hayes (see August 1990). However, W. Lee Rawls, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legislative Affairs, says that although the committee can see the equipment 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 of the information contained in the equipment, as it does not have such a printout and disclosure of this information would compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. In addition, the committee cannot have access to some documents in civil division files, as providing them could harm a pending criminal investigation relating to the matter. These documents are non-public witness statements, attorneys notes about the statements and conversations with prosecutors, draft pleadings and memoranda, and other material, as well as 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 Rawls Category 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 attorneys office has mistakenly given him a copy of the PROMIS application (see August 1990), hands over to the House Judiciary Committee disks he says contain the software. Hayes also makes a sworn statement about his assertions, saying he thinks PROMIS was copied onto the disks from the original media by personnel at the attorneys office. However, when the committee examines the disks, it finds only training programs for the computers. In addition, William Hamilton, the owner of the company that developed the application, tells the committee it is highly implausible that the 5 1/4-inch disks could contain the enhanced version of the software. He adds that if PROMIS was being used on the computers Hayes purchased, it would have to be the public domain 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 Judiciary Category Tags: Oversight by Congress
Shortly After February 26, 1991: Canadians Express Reluctance to Help Congressional Investigation of PROMIS
A Canadian government official tells the US House Judiciary Committee that Canada is reluctant to cooperate with the committees inquiry into the alleged theft of a version of the PROMIS software by the US Justice Department and its subsequent passage to Canada. This is in response to a letter sent on February 26, 1991, in which the committee asked Canadian Ambassador Derek Burney for help determining what version of the software the Canadian government was using. The official, Jonathan Fried, counselor for congressional and legal affairs at Canadas Washington embassy, says that Canadians had been burned once before by Congress, and imposes conditions on Congressional questioning of Canadian officials. The conditions are that interviews of individuals be conducted only in the presence of lawyers for the relevant departments and their superiors and that no Canadian public servants would be witnesses in any foreign investigative proceedings. The committee accepts these conditions in mid-March, and identifies the two Canadian officials it wants to speak to (see November 1990 and January 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Derek Burney, Jonathan Fried, House Judiciary Committee Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress
Before March 22, 1991: Canadian Government Says Its Officials Will Not Answer Congressional Investigations Questions about PROMIS Derivatives
Shortly before the US House Judiciary Committee interviews two Canadian officials who have said 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 the interviews. The Canadians had already insisted the officials be accompanied by minders (see Shortly After February 26, 1991), but now says that, in addition, they will only answer questions specifically related to the software. They will not answer questions about any
allegations that four software programs that may have been acquired by the Canadian government may be derivates of the PROMIS software. If the committee wants information about such alleged derivatives, it will have to submit a written request. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: House Judiciary Committee Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department, Oversight by Congress
March 22, 1991: Canadian Officials Say Canada Is Not Using Inslaws PROMIS Software
Two Canadian officials who had previously said that the Canadian government was using Inslaws PROMIS software now tell the US House Judiciary Committee that it is not. In an interview with the committee, officials Denis LaChance and Marc Valois of the Canadian Department of Communications say that they had incorrectly identified software used by the Canadians as being Inslaws PROMIS (see November 1990 and January 1991), whereas in fact it was actually project management software from a company called the Strategic Software Planning Corporation that is also called PROMIS. Despite an objection by the Canadians to them being asked about PROMIS derivatives in Canada (see Before March 22, 1991), the two officials also say they do not use or know of a derivative of Inslaws PROMIS in Canada. The president of the Strategic Software Planning Corporation will later acknowledge in a sworn statement to committee investigators that his company had sold a few copies of his firms PROMIS 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 in the 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 of Columbia (see September 28, 1987) and the US District Court for the District of Columbia (see November 22, 1989). The reversal is granted on what a House Judiciary Committee report favorable to Inslaw will call primarily jurisdictional grounds. The appeal court says the bankruptcy court was the wrong place to litigate the issues it decided and, in any case, the department has not violated automatic stay bankruptcy provisions. However, the appeal court notes that both lower courts found that the department had fraudulently obtained and then converted Enhanced PROMIS to its own use, and that such conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: House Judiciary Committee, Inslaw, Inc., US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
US Department of Justice Category 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 the House Judiciary Committee on the PROMIS affair. He had previously said he would only tell what he knows under conditions (see February 6, 1991), but now waives this demand. BenMenashe says under oath that, in 1982, businessman Earl Brian and Robert McFarland, a former director of the National Security Council, provided the public domain version of
PROMIS software to the Israeli governments special intelligence operation Defense Forces. (This version was owned by the Justice Department; correspondence indicates the department provided a version of the software to Israel in 1983see May 6, 1983 and May 12, 1983). Ben-Menashe also alleges he was present in 1987 when Brian sold an enhanced version of the software (which would have been owned by Inslaw) to the Israeli intelligence community 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 intelligence organizations in Jordan in 1983 and to the Iraqi government in 1987, a transaction brokered by a businessman named Carlos Cardoen. Ben-Menashe further claims that he has information about the sale of a public domain version of PROMIS by Israel to the Soviet Union in 1986, and the sale of the enhanced version to the Canadian government coordinated by Brian. BenMenashe states that various unnamed Israeli officials would corroborate his statements, but refuses to identify these officials or provide evidence to corroborate his statements unless he is called as an official witness for the committee under a grant of immunity. The committee decides not to grant immunity and will include these claims in a section of its report that merely 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 Judiciary Category 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 be related, makes several calls to Thomas Gates, an FBI agent. According to sworn testimony Gates will later provide to the House Judiciary Committee, there are several such calls over a four week period that ends when Casolaro is found dead (see August 10, 1991). Although Casolaros death will be ruled a suicide, Gates will say that the journalist sounds upbeat during the calls. The reason Casolaro contacts Gates is unclear, although Gates may have been investigating Robert Nichols, a source for Casolaro (see Before August 10, 1991). [US
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro, Thomas Gates Category 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 not attend a committee hearing the next day, despite previously saying he would. The hearing is to discuss the committees access to departmental documents and the Inslaw affair, in which the department had allegedly stolen an enhanced version of the PROMIS application. According to a report by the committee, Thornburgh refuses to appear because a press release announcing the hearing had been unduly aggressive and contentious and not in keeping with the tenor of an oversight hearing. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: House Judiciary Committee, Richard Thornburgh Category 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 the issuance of a subpoena to the Department of Justice for documents related to the Inslaw affair. The subpoena follows on from a refusal by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to appear 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 Justice Category 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 sends most documents requested about the alleged theft of a version of the enhanced PROMIS software to the House Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law. However, the department 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 still not 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 Economic
and Commercial Law Category Tags: Oversight by Congress Around August 3, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Talks to Former Justice Department Prosecutor
Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to be related, 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 House Judiciary Committee, Stavin will later say: He spoke to me about Inslaw. He spoke to me about a group he called the Octopus. I believe he mentioned Robert Nichols [an important source for Casolaros 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 what he called the Octopus. He had indicated that he had met withagain I believe it was Robert Nichols on several occasions, that Robert Nichols was extremely talkative to a point, but when Mr. Casolaro would ask specific questions, he [Nichols] would become somewhat evasive. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro, Robert Booth Nichols, Richard Stavin Category 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 be related, is told to back off the story, according to his brother Anthony. In a statement made after Daniel is found dead (see August 10, 1991), Anthony Casolaro will say that on this date his brother tells him, someone else told me I better back off the story. [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 owner William Hamilton and Michael Riconosciuto, another figure who becomes involved in the Inslaw affair, Nichols is Casolaros primary source of information in his investigation into the alleged theft of the PROMIS software. However, in a later telephone interview with investigators for the House Judiciary Committee, Nichols will say that he was acting as a sounding board for Casolaro, and providing direction and insight for his investigation into the Inslaw affair. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro, Michael Riconosciuto, Robert Booth Nichols, William Hamilton Category Tags: Other Events
Shortly Before August 10, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Octopus Tells Friends Not to Believe Suicide in Event of His Death
Daniel Casolaro, a journalist investigating the Inslaw affair and matters he believes to be related, reportedly tells his family and friends that, if he were to be found dead, they should not believe he committed suicide. According to the House Judiciary Committee, Casolaro tells several people that he is receiving death threats because he was getting close to concluding his investigation. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro Category 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 he believed to be related, is found in a hotel room in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The body is found in the bathtub with both of its wrists slashed several times. There is no sign of forced entry into the hotel room nor of a struggle. A short suicide note is found. The police initially think the death is a suicide and the scene is not sealed and protected, which, according to the House Judiciary Committee, potentially allow[s] for the contamination of the possible crime scene. In addition, the room is reportedly cleaned before a thorough criminal investigation can be conducted. A brief preliminary investigation leads the police to confirm their initial suspicion of suicide. Casolaros work on a story about the alleged theft of an enhanced version of PROMIS software by the Justice Department from Inslaw had led him to believe that it was related to other scandals, such as those involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and Iran-Contra. Casolaro had told his family and friends that he was going to Martinsburg to meet a source who had important information, although the sources identity is unknown. Following his death, all Casolaros notes and papers disappear. A stack of typed pages that usually sat on top of his desk at home vanish. In addition, notes Casolaro always kept with him disappear. His brother Anthony will later say that he finds the disappearance of all the papers surprising. Somebody cleaned out his car and his room, Anthony will say. If my brother did that [killed himself], it seems as though [his papers] should have been found. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Anthony Casolaro, Daniel Casolaro Category Tags: Other Events
August 10, 1991 or Shortly After: Dead Reporters Body Embalmed, Possibly Hampering Investigations
The body of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist who had investigated the Inslaw affair and matters he believed to be related, is embalmed. This occurs before his family is notified and before a coroners investigation. The House Committee on the Judiciary will later comment that the embalming may have limited the effectiveness of autopsies or toxicological examinations.
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro, House Committee on the Judiciary Category Tags: Other Events
Shortly After August 10, 1991: FBI Agent Suspects Foul Play in Death of Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair
Thomas Gates, an FBI agent who had been contacted by recently deceased journalist Daniel Casolaro several times shortly before his death (see (July 13-August 10, 1991)), suspects that Casolaro has been murdered (see August 10, 1991). Gates communicates these suspicions to the local police in Martinsburg, West Virginia, where Casolaro died, and to the local FBI office. According to Gates, Casolaro sounded very upbeat and not like a person contemplating suicide in their conversations, even in the days before his death. In addition, Casolaros phone book, which had contained a number for Gates, has disappeared. Whats more, the local police tell Gates that the wounds on Casolaros wrists were hacking wounds, and Gates feels 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 Category Tags: Other Events
October 2, 1991: Former Justice Department Official Claims PROMIS Possibly Transferred from Department to Private Business
Lois Battistoni, a former employee of the Justice Departments criminal division, says that the PROMIS 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 criminal division employee had previously told her that there was a company chosen to take over PROMIS implementation contracts served by Inslaw at that time. This company was apparently connected to a top department official through a California relationship. Inslaw owner William Hamilton will speculate that this company is Hadron, Inc., as it was owned by businessman Earl Brian, who was linked to former Attorney General Edwin Meese. However, Battistoni says that she has little firsthand knowledge of the facts surrounding these allegations, and does not provide the committee with the name of the criminal division employee who made the claim to her, indicating department employees are afraid to cooperate with Congress for fear of reprisal. She also makes a number of allegations about the involvement of department employees in the destruction of documents related to the affair. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Hadron, Inc., Edwin Meese, William Hamilton, Lois Battistoni, Earl Brian, House Committee
on the Judiciary, US Department of Justice Category 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 certiorari to the Supreme Court. If the writ were granted, it would mean the Supreme Court agreed to hear a further appeal in the case. The appeals court had reversed bankruptcy and district court rulings favorable to Inslaw in its dispute with the Justice Department over the enhanced PROMIS software (see September 28, 1987, November 22, 1989, and May 7, 1991). The application will be denied (see January 13, 1992). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., US Supreme Court, US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings
October 10, 1991: Former Customs Services Officer Claims Key Justice Department Official Linked to Company Allegedly Involved in PROMIS Deals
John Schoolmeester, a former Customs Services program officer, says that Peter Videnieks, a Justice Department official who worked on the implementation of PROMIS software, is linked to a company called Hadron, Inc., owned by Earl Brian, a businessman involved in the PROMIS affair. Schoolmeester makes the claim in two sworn statements provided to the House Judiciary Committee on October 10 and November 6, 1991. Schoolmeester says he has direct knowledge of ties between Videnieks and Hadron, Inc., prior to Videnieks employment with the Justice Department. According to Schoolmeester, Videnieks, as a contracting officer for the Customs Service, was involved with several Hadron, Inc. contracts, and he would necessarily have met with Dominic Laiti (a former Hadron chief executive officer) on a regular basis, because that was the way Laiti conducted business. However, Videnieks tells the committee under oath that he does not know and has not had any conversations with Laiti or Brian. Schoolmeester also says that Brian is the behind-the-scenes guy at Hadron, but he is not certain whether Videnieks met with him. Finally, he says that Brian is well connected in Washington and had connections with former Attorney General Edwin Meese and several Congressional figures. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Hadron, Inc., Edwin Meese, House Committee on the Judiciary, John Schoolmeester, Peter
Videnieks, Dominic Laiti Category 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 has been running for nearly a decade and stems from a dispute over a contract signed by the Justice Department and Inslaw in 1982 (see March 1982). However, because Bua does not have independent status, the House Judiciary Committee will comment, as long as the investigation of wrongdoing by former and current high level Justice officials remains under the ultimate control of the department itself, there will always be serious doubt about the objectivity and thoroughness of the inquiry. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: House Committee on the Judiciary, Nicholas Bua, US Department of Justice, William P. Barr Category Tags: Other Events, Internal DoJ Investigations
November 13, 1991: Judge Says Findings of Fact in PROMIS Case Have Left Cloud over Justice Department
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 and the US District Court for the District of Columbia have left a cloud over the Justice Department. The two courts originally found for Inslaw (see September 28, 1987 and November 22, 1989), which is in dispute with the department over an enhanced version of the PROMIS software, but these rulings were overturned on appeal, mostly on jurisdictional grounds (see May 7, 1991). At a hearing, counsel for the department says, I think those trials speak for themselves, and every order has been vacated. However, the judge responds: There is one problem. The fact that a judge or a court doesnt have jurisdiction doesnt mean that the court is completely ignorant. True, Mr. Bason [the bankruptcy court judge] and Mr. Bryant [the judge that heard the initial appeal] did not have jurisdiction, but they did make 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 cant go anywhere. Those cases may be dead forever. But it has left a cloud over the respondent [the department]. The House Judiciary Committee will comment: As the DOTBCA judge concluded, there definitely remains a cloud over the departments handling of Inslaws proprietary software. Department officials should not be allowed to avoid accountability through a technicality or a jurisdiction ruling by the Appeals Court. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals, House Judiciary Committee,
Inslaw, Inc., US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings December 4, 1991: Canadian Ambassador Denies Canada Has PROMIS Software
Canadas ambassador to the US, Derek Burney, writes to the House Judiciary Committee saying that neither the Canadian Royal Mounted Police nor the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have the PROMIS software developed by Inslaw or derivatives thereof. The statement is in response to an October letter from the committee, which is investigating the alleged 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 use Inslaws PROMIS or any software believed to be a derivative of it, but that they do not use any case management software at all. The committee will comment: The ambassadors conclusory statement did not provide an offer or an opportunity for further verification of the allegations received concerning the government of Canada. Without direct access to [the Mounties], CSIS, and other Canadian officials, the committee has been effectively thwarted in its attempt to support or reject the contention that Inslaw software was transferred to the Canadian government. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Canadian Security Intelligence Service, House Judiciary Committee, Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, Derek Burney Category 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 a court hearing the dispute between Inslaw and the Justice Department about the alleged theft of PROMIS software. PROMIS Allegedly Provided to Middle Eastern Countries - Coleman says that in spring 1988 he worked with a DEA proprietary company in Nicosia, Cyprus. He found that the DEA was using the company to sell computer software called PROMISE or PROMIS to drug abuse control agencies in Cyprus, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Turkey. Coleman claims to have seen reels of computer tapes and computer hardware being unpacked at the Nicosia Police Force Narcotics Squad. The boxes allegedly bore the name and red logo of a Canadian corporation with the words PROMISE or PROMIS and Ltd. According to Coleman, the DEAs objective in aiding the 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 adds that a DEA agent was responsible for both the propriety company, Eurame Trading Company, Ltd., and its initiative to sell PROMIS(E) computer systems to Middle Eastern countries. Apparent Link to Case against Michael Riconosciuto - Coleman also says he believed the agents reassignment in 1990 to a DEA intelligence position in Washington State prior to the arrest 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 Riconosciutos home state to manufacture a case against him. Coleman says this was done to prevent Riconosciuto from becoming a credible witness concerning the US governments covert sale of PROMIS to foreign governments. Meeting with Danny Casolaro - Coleman also says he was contacted by the reporter Danny Casolaro on August 3, 1991. Casolaro apparently told him he had leads and hard information about (1) Justice Department groups operating overseas, (2) the sale of the PROMIS(E) software by the US government to foreign governments, (3) the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and (4) the Iran-Contra scandal. Mentioned by House Committee in Report - These charges will be mentioned in the House Judiciary Committees final report on the Inslaw affair, but the committee will not endorse them. [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, which was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Pleading guilty to five counts of perjury, he will say he lied for a variety of reasons: to obtain money, to evade pending federal charges that he filed a false passport application, to enhance his status as a consultant on international security and terrorism, and to get back at the United States Drug Enforcement Administration for firing him. [NEW YORK TIMES, 9/12/1997]
Entity Tags: House Committee on the Judiciary, Eurame Trading Company, Ltd., Daniel Casolaro, Lester
Coleman, Michael Riconosciuto Category 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, meaning that the court will not hear its case. The application had been filed the previous year (see October 9, 1991), as Inslaw wanted to overturn an adverse ruling by an appeals court in its dispute with the Justice Department over the alleged theft of enhanced PROMIS software (see May 7, 1991). [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., US Supreme Court, US Department of Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings
January 14, 1992: Inslaw Lawyer Argues for Renewed Investigation of Reporters Death
Inslaw counsel Elliot Richardson writes to Justice Department special counsel Judge Nicholas Bua urging further investigation into the death of reporter Daniel Casolaro (see August 10, 1991). Richardson writes: During the three days preceding his [Casolaros] death he told four friends 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 of what had happened to the PROMIS software and to Inslaw. There is no apparent reason why Casolaro would have lied to those four friends, nor is there any apparent reason why his friends 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 significance of 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 as any other of the investigative reporters then pursuing it that promises of hard evidence had often been made and just as often disappointed. In the light of these facts, the key question is, with whom was Danny Casolaro expecting to meet and with whom did he meet? [US
Entity Tags: Elliot Richardson, Nicholas Bua, Inslaw, Inc. Category Tags: Other Events
January 21, 1992: Key Inslaw Affair Witness Gives Telephone Interview to House Judiciary Committee, but No Sworn Statement
Robert Nichols, an apparently significant player in the Inslaw affair and a contact of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist who investigated the matter, provides a telephone interview to the House Judiciary Committee. Nichols was allegedly a key contact of Casolaros (see Before August 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.
Entity Tags: House Committee on the Judiciary, Robert Booth Nichols Category Tags: Other Events
January 25, 1992: Journalists Death Again Found to Be Suicide
The death of Daniel Casolaro, a journalist who investigated the Inslaw affair and matters he believed to be related, is again ruled a suicide by local authorities in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Casolaro died there in August of the previous year (see August 10, 1991), and his death was initially ruled a suicide. However, the investigation was reopened following numerous inquiries by Casolaros brother and others into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death. After expending over 1,000 man-hours investigating Casolaros death, the local authorities again rule it to be a suicide. [US CONGRESS, 9/10/1992]
Entity Tags: Daniel Casolaro Category Tags: Other Events
Spring 1992: US Intelligence Official Mentions Connection between PROMIS and Main Core Database to Businessman
An unnamed US intelligence official tells businessman William Hamilton that there is a connection 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 a series of disputes with the government over money he says it owes 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. This is one of three times officials will tell Hamilton 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 wrongdoing in the Inslaw affair, which concerned the alleged misappropriation of an enhanced version of PROMIS software. According to a department press release, there is no credible evidence that department officials conspired to steal computer software developed by Inslaw, Inc. or that the company is entitled to additional government payments. This concurs with a previous report by Nicolas Bua, a special counsel appointed by the department. The main points 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 additional compensation 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 Inslaws PROMIS software with the code in the FBIs FOIMS software, which Inslaw claimed was a pirated version 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 departmental press release calls them primary sources relied on by Inslaw; None of the anonymous sources that had previously been reported to have made statements supportive of Inslaw came forward, despite assurances from Attorney General Janet Reno that they would be protected from reprisals. The press release says, Individuals who were identified as sources denied making the statements attributed to them by Inslaw; 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 Inslaws PROMIS is being used elsewhere in the government (see 1982-1984, December 11, 1990, and May 2008), or has been improperly distributed 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 fund connected with the late British publisher Robert Maxwell, or in aid of a secret US intelligence agency 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 Justice Category Tags: Legal Proceedings, Internal DoJ Investigations
1995: Former NSA Official Tells Businessman about Connection between PROMIS and Main Core Database
A former NSA official tells businessman William Hamilton that there is a connection 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 a series of disputes with the government over money he says it owes 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. 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 firm Inslaw 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. The decision follows a three-week trial. The matter was sent to the court by Congress, which referred the case as a part of considerations about whether to pass a private bill to compensate Inslaw. The original contract required Inslaw to install in US attorneys 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 of the software and then asserted that the government could not use the software in other offices. (Note: the contract was signed in March 1982 (see March 1982), and Inslaw notified the department of the enhancements on April 2 (see April 2, 1982).) Millers 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 actually exist12 of the over 100 Inslaw says it madebut Inslaw cannot demonstrate it owns them; Neither has Inslaw shown that the department acted improperly in any way in connection with the software, as it had unlimited rights to the enhanced software it received and acted in good faith; Inslaws 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 Inslaws 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 parties benefit from having a decision from a court with authority to resolve the mattera court that has 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, the department benefits from the lifting of the cloud that has hung over it for a decade. As the court 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 same court beforehand. [US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 8/4/1997]
Entity Tags: Inslaw, Inc., Frank Hunger, Christine Miller, Court of Federal Claims, US Department of
Justice
Category Tags: Legal Proceedings, Use Outside Justice Department
July 2001: Former Official Possibly Alludes to Link between PROMIS and Main Core Database in Conversation with Businessman
Retired Admiral Dan Murphy, a former deputy director of the CIA, indicates to businessman William Hamilton that there is a connection between the PROMIS database and search program 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 it owes 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 does not specifically mention Main Core, but says that the NSAs use of PROMIS involves something so seriously wrong that money alone cannot cure the problem. Hamilton will later say, I believe in retrospect that Murphy was alluding to Main Core. This is one of three times officials 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 Hamilton Category 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 security official working as a senior intelligence analyst for a large domestic law enforcement agency inside the White House accidentally walks into a restricted room, where he finds a computer system logged on to what he recognizes to be the Main Core database. Main Core contains a list of potential enemies of the state for use by the Continuity of Government program (see 1980s or Before). He will refuse to be interviewed about the matter, but will tell the senior Justice Department official about it. The Justice Department official will add that when she mentions the specific name of the top-secret system during a conversation, he turns white as a sheet. [SALON, 7/23/2008]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category 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 of intelligence officials that the government needs new rules about how to balance privacy rights and investigative needs. Since many people routinely post details of their lives on social-networking sites such as MySpace, he says, their identity should not require the same protection as in the past. Instead, only their essential privacy, or what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs, should be veiled. Commenting on the speech, the Wall Street Journal will say that this is part of a project by intelligence agencies to change traditional definitions of how to balance privacy rights against investigative needs. [OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, 10/23/2007 ; WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/10/2008] According to some accounts, the prime repository of information about US citizens that the government has is a database known as Main Core, so if the government collected more information about citizens, the information would be placed in or accessed through this database (see 1980s or Before).
Entity Tags: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Don Kerr, Wall Street Journal Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Category Tags: Other Events
March 2008 or Shortly Before: National Security Lawyer Questions Legality of Information in US Government Databases
National security lawyer Suzanne Spaulding says that the constitutional question of whether the US government can examine a large array of information about citizens contained in its databases (see 1980s or Before) without violating an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy has never really been resolved. She adds that it is extremely questionable to assume Americans do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for data such as the subject-header of an e-mail or a Web address from an Internet search, because those are more like the content of a communication than a phone number. These are questions that require discussion and debate, she says. This is one of the problems with doing it all [collecting data on citizens] in secret. [WALL STREET JOURNAL, 3/10/2008]
Entity Tags: Suzanne Spaulding Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category Tags: Other Events
Spring-Summer 2008: New Church Committee Suggested to Investigate Possible Abuses of Power during Bush Administration and Before
A new investigation modeled on the Church Committee, which investigated government spying (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 to wiretapping laws that immunizes telecommunications companies from prosecution for illegally co-operating with the NSA. A detailed seven-page memo is drafted outlining the proposed inquiry by a former senior member of the original Church Committee. Congressional Investigative Body Proposed - The idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror that may have been illegal and then to implement reforms aimed at preventing future abusesand perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials. Key issues to investigate include: The NSAs domestic surveillance activities; The CIAs use of rendition and torture against terrorist suspects; The U.S. governments use of military assetsincluding satellites, Pentagon intelligence agencies, and U2 surveillance planesfor a spying apparatus that could be used against people in the US; and The NSAs 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 focus on how these lists feed on each other, as well as the governments inexorable trend towards treating everyone as a suspect, says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Proposers - The proposal is a product of talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress. People consulted about the committee include aides to House 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 Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), and former House Intelligence chairwoman Jane Harman (D-CA), approved the Bush administrations 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 the administrations 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 counterterrorism did not begin with this administration. However, the author later says in interviews that the scope of abuse under George W. Bush would likely be an order of magnitude greater than under preceding presidents. 'Imagine What We Don't Know' - Some of the people involved in the discussions comment on the rationale. If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons, and warrantless wiretapping despite the administrations attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we dont know, says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal. Steinhardt says: You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse. Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we dont know [the extent of] what laws have been violated. Its not just the Terrorist Surveillance Program, says Gregory Nojeim from the Center for Democracy and Technology. We need a broad investigation on the way all the moving parts fit together. It seems like were always looking at little chunks and missing the big picture. Effect on Presidential Race Unknown - It is unknown how the 2008 presidential race may affect whether the investigation ever begins, although some think that Democratic candidate Barack Obama (D-IL), said to favor open government, might be more cooperative with Congress than his Republican opponent John McCain (R-AZ). However, a participant in the discussions casts doubt on this: It may be the last thing a new president would want to do.
[SALON, 7/23/2008]
Entity Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Gregory Nojeim, Center for Democracy and Technology, American Civil
Liberties Union, Barry Steinhardt, Bush administration, Common Cause, Jane Harman Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category 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 the Main 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 it must be contained within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): If a master list is being compiled, it would have to be in a place where there are no legal issuesthe CIA and FBI would be restricted by oversight and accountability lawsso I suspect it is at DHS, which as far as I know operates with no such restraints. Giraldi notes that the DHS already maintains a central list of suspected terrorists and says it has been freely adding people who pose no reasonable threat to domestic security. Its clear that DHS has the mandate for controlling and owning master lists. The process is not transparent, and the criteria for getting on the list are not clear. Giraldi continues, I am certain that the content of such a master list [as Main Core] would not be carefully vetted, and there would be many names on it for many reasonsquite likely including the two of us. [RADAR, 5/2008]
Entity Tags: Philip Giraldi, US Department of Homeland Security Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties Category 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 the PROMIS database and search application has been given to the NSA. As Salon magazine points out: His admission is the first public acknowledgement by a former US intelligence official that the NSA used the PROMIS software. Bailey also says that the application was given to the Treasury Department for a financial tracking project in the early 1980s that also involved the National Security Council (see 1982-1984). Bailey worked for US governments from the Ronald Reagan era until the George W. Bush administration and, in addition to the 1980s tracking program, he headed a special unit within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 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 Bailey Category Tags: Use Outside Justice Department

Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inslaw and PROMIS Timeline

add event | references

April 1981: President Reagans Counsellor Praises PROMIS to Prosecutors

it to remove them, or negotiate regarding inclusion of the enhancements.

1985: Private Companys Attempt to Purchase Inslaw Fails

February 1985: Inslaw Declares Bankruptcy

September 9, 1985: Inslaw Complains about Additional PROMIS Installations

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

Category Tags: Legal Proceedings

November 1990: Official Says Canadian Government Has PROMIS Software

Category Tags: Oversight by Congress, Legal Proceedings

July 25, 1991: House Subcommittee Subpoenas PROMIS Documents

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

Entity Tags: Anthony Casolaro, Daniel Casolaro

Category Tags: Other Events

August 10, 1991: Journalist Investigating Inslaw Affair Found Dead

January 25, 1992: Journalists Death Again Found to Be Suicide

Category Tags: Other Events

May 2008: Former Official Admits PROMIS Application Given to NSA

You might also like