The Inslaw Scandal - the Department of Justice Gets Caught Stealing

Text and abstracts from 22 articles published in computer periodicals, containing references to the Inslaw scandal.

Journal: Federal Computer Week Dec 17 1990 v4 n41 p11(1).

Title: Justice faces subpoena for documents on Inslaw. (Department of Justice, Inslaw Inc.)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: In the initial hearing on the subject, the House Judiciary Committee considers issuing a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for internal documents pertaining to the Inslaw case. Inslaw Inc has already won two court rulings that the DOJ used fraud and deceit to steal its case-tracking software and bankrupt it. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh has denied the request to produce some 200 documents as part of the investigation, claiming they are part of the DOJ's litigation strategy and therefore are shielded from Congress. Committee Chmn Jack Brooks criticized DOJ for invoking a claim to 'sovereign immunity' and requested that DOJ's office automation contract, called Project Eagle, be cut pending a committee investigation; Project Eagle hardware is purportedly the platform on which the stolen Inslaw software will be run. DOJ had allowed the Judiciary Committee to interview employees and review files on Project Eagle and the Inslaw contract, but Asst Attorney General W. Lee Rawls refused to provide access to what he called 'litigation work product' pertinent to the case. House Council Steven Ross argued for Congress' established right to conduct far-ranging investigations and considered that DOJ funds should be withheld as a penalty for not turning over the documents. Brooks also brought up the investigation of possible favoritism towards Tisoft Inc, the winner of the Project Eagle award.

Journal: Government Computer News Dec 10 1990 v9 n26 p8(1)

Title: Brooks says Justice has 'thwarted' investigators. (Rep. Jack Brooks criticizes Department of Justice for withholding documents involving the Inslaw Inc. case)

Author: Seaborn, Margaret M.; Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: Rep Jack Brooks criticizes the automatic data processing (ADP) management at the Department of Justice (DOJ), particularly with regard to the controversial Inslaw Inc case. Staff investigators of Brooks' House Judiciary Committee have spent nearly a year examining the Inslaw case in which Inslaw Pres William Hamilton contends that DOJ officials tried to steal his company's case management software, Promis, and force Inslaw into bankruptcy. Hamilton has since won bankruptcy and civil suits against DOJ, which the agency is appealing. The Justice department is denying congressional investigators access to more than 200 Inslaw documents located in its files, claiming it has the right to withhold them under attorney-client and work product privilege. In reviewing the Inslaw case, Brooks has also expressed concern over other contracting and management problems within DOJ.

Full Text:

Brooks Says Justice Has 'Thwarted' Investigators

Rep. Jack Brooks last week chastised the Justice Department for refusing congressional investigators access to documents involving the controversial Inslaw case. He called these problems symptomatic of deeper flaws in ADP management at Justice.

"The department does not have the managerial or technical capabilities to conduct large-scale ADP acquisitions," Brooks said, citing a series of General Accounting Office reports critical of Justice's ADP management and security.

For nearly a year, the staff investigators of Brook's House Judiciary Committee have been looking into the case of Inslaw Inc. The president of the Washington software company, William Hamilton, has alleged Justice officials tried to steal its case management software, Promis, and force the company into bankruptcy.

Despite promises from Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh that Justice would cooperate fully, "the department has thwarted attempts by Congress to learn the complete truth concerning the Inslaw case," Brooks said. "Now the department is blocking our efforts to see more than 200 Inslaw documents located in its files, claiming that these documents are privileged."

As litigation in the case is continuing, Thornburgh has maintained that the department has the right to withhold documents because of attorney-client and work product privilege.

"I know of no basis upon which the department can withhold information from the Congress," said Elliott Richardson, a former attorney general who is representing Inslaw. He argued that Congress' oversight authority supersedes the confidentiality claimed by Thornburgh, although the congressional authority would not extend to giving Inslaw the information.

The Inslaw case goes back to Justice's early termination of a $10 million contract to provide case management software that Inslaw won in 1982. Since then Hamilton has taken his charges into the courtroom, succeeding in both bankruptcy and civil suits.

Justice attorneys are continuing to appeal these decisions. So far, Hamilton has not seen any of the $6.8 million that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ruled Inslaw was entitled to.

Brooks (D-Texas) said the hearing last week of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law gave him an opportunity not only to consider the Inslaw case, but also to look "at other contracting and management problems that are currently plaguing the department."

The GAO staff has been working with the committee to review Justice ADP management since Brooks became chairman two years ago. "Believe me, it's not a pretty picture," Brooks said.

He has raised serious doubts about the department's office automation program, Project Eagle. Earlier this year he cut the 1991 Eagle budget.

Recently, Justice announced plans to create a new IRM position in the agency. Previously, the ADP and IRM oversight fell to the deputy assistant attorney general for information and administrative services. This latest move appears to be an effort by top Justice management to break out ADP oversight from the administrative umbrella.

Justice officials did not testify at the hearing, which is expected to continue next year. Rep. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R-N.Y.) said that without the department's testimony it would be premature for the committee to conclude that the department had acted wrongly.

Journal: Computerworld Dec 3 1990 v24 n49 p28(1).

Title: IS helps juvenile system. ( New York's Juvenile Justice Information Services)

Author: Cusack, Sally.

Summary: New York City's Juvenile Justice Information Services (JJIS) uses a Wang 7150 minicomputer as a hardware hub to help the juvenile court system in all city boroughs. For JJIS' two chief applications, probation and corporation counsel, JJIS customized the Promis case-management system from Inslaw Inc of Washington, DC. The Wang 7150 links about 120 terminals citywide; other Wang VS minicomputers are in use or being installed in the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens family courts. One major concern is protecting the privacy of juveniles, which is strictly protected by federal, state and local law.

Journal: Government Computer News Oct 29 1990 v9 n23 p8(1)

Title: Inslaw owner counts wins, suffers losses.

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: Bill Hamilton, the owner of Inslaw Inc claims the Justice Department may be breaking a court order banning dissemination of his case management software, Promis. Inslaw attorneys have ascertained from a retired Justice official that the attorney general's office gave orders in the summer of 1988 for dissemination of Promis source code to Justice offices. A June 1988 court ruled that Justice officials stole 44 copies of Promis and Inslaw was awarded over $6 million based on previous court findings. The Bankruptcy Court prohibited the department from distributing copies of the software beyond what was legally acquired through the original 1982 contract. The Justice Department refuses to comment about Inslaw and is appealing the court decision. The department's own investigations into the matter have turned up no wrongdoing.

Full Text:

Inslaw Owner Counts Wins, Suffers Losses

It has been a time of mixed blessings for Bill Hamilton.

The man who has waged a six-year legal battle with the Justice Department over rights to case management software produced by his Washington company, Inslaw Inc., says he discovered last month that the department may be breadking a court order banning dissemination of his software, Promis.

This latest discovery, Hamilton says, supports his allegations of wrongdoing by Justice officials.

Inslaw's problems began during the tenure of Attorney General Edwin Meese, and Hamilton now claims nothing has chnaged under Meese's successor, richard Thorburgh.

Hamilton has urged the Reagan and Bush administrations and Congress to investigate his allegations, and recently he has turned to the courts for redress. The Justice Department has maintained that its own internal investigations turned up no wrongdoing.

"It is increasingly obvious that the evidence in the Inslaw case points to the highest levels of the Department of Justice itself," Hamilton said. "It is long past time for Attorney General Thornburgh to recuse DOJ from the Inslaw case and ask the U.S. Court of Appeals to appoint an independent counsel."

Since 1984, Hamilton lhas accused Justice officials of attempting to steal Promis and drive Inslaw into bankruptcy. Disputes first arose over payments fvor a 1982 contract Inslaw won to provide case management software, a deal the department later canceled.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in June 1988 that Justice officials had stolen 44 copies of Promis. The Bankruptcy Court then enjoined Justice from distributing Promis beyond those copies legitimately obtained through the original contract and awarded Inslaw more than $6 million based on the earlier court's findings.

The department is appealing this decision, and Justice attorneys filed arguments supporting the department's appeal this month.

Violations Alleged

Hamilton said Inslaw attorneys last month learned from a retired, high-ranking Justice official that the attorney general's office "issued orders in the summer of 1988 for the dissemination of the Promis source code to Justice offices other than U.S. attorneys' offices." They said such distribution clearly would violate the court-ordered ban.

Inslaw lawyers also said the order came out in August and so possibly could have been approved by the then-newly appointed Thornburgh. According to a source close to the investigation, Inslaw suspects the department has disseminated Promis throughout the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Justice officials continue to refuse comment about Inslaw or Promis. "I'm not privy to Mr. Hamilton's press releases or allegations," said Justice spokesman Michael Robinson.

Though Hamilton and his attorneys were encouraged by their latest findings, Inslaw also suffered a court defeat last month. The same U.S. District Court denied Inslaw's request that the department be forced to reopen investigation into Hamilton's allegations.

He says two earlier reviews by the department were only half-hearted.

But the court disagreed with Hamilton's claim and said he had no standing to request a new investigation. The court, however, was not without its questions concerning the department's actions.

"The court is not unmindful that the department's seemingly cursory investigation smacks of the possibility of conflict of interest," Senior U.S. District Court Judge William B. Bryant concluded in his decision. Nevertheless, he added, Inslaw has cited no substantive laws to support its request or give the court jurisdiction to act on the company's behalf.

Despite the recent ruling, Hamilton vowed to continue pushing for investigations into Justice's activities involving Promis. He said he is waiting eagerly for the results of a re view begun by the House Judiciary Committee.

But with the coming holidays, the budget crunch and November elections, a committee investigator said the likelihood of any action by this year is slim. Hamilton says he can wait.

Meanwhile, Inslaw and Justice have been holding mediation discussions. Neither Justice officials nor Hamilton would discuss these meetings. But after so many years of struggle, it seems unlikely that Hamilton would walk away pleased with a settlement agreement unless Justice agreed to acknowledge at least some of the improprieties he has alleged.

Journal: Federal Computer Week Oct 1 1990 v4 n35 p8(1).

Title: Inslaw claims DOJ violated injunction on distribution. (Department of Justice's use of Inslaw's Promis case management software)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: Inslaw Inc charges that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) violated an injunction against disseminating its Promis case management software source code. The 1988 Bankruptcy Court mandated that DOJ's use of the software be restricted to offices covered by the original contract with Inslaw. The company believes that DOJ did not set the policy to disseminate Promis until after the 1988 injunction; in two court rulings, judges have concluded that DOJ intentionally stole Promis and tried to drive Inslaw into bankruptcy. DOJ claims the alleged dissemination was inadvertent and has appealed the rulings. While DOJ denies that Inslaw pressured it into withdrawing the Land and Natural Resources RFP, the department claims that the division was exempt from the injunction and that Promis source code was crucial to the development of its new case management software.

Journal: Government Computer News Sept 3 1990 v9 n18 p6(1)

Title: GAO criticizes justice system's security. (General Accounting Office)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: The General Accounting Office (GAO), a Congressional watchdog organization, has determined that the Justice Department's protection of its sensitive data is ineffectual. A GAO report states that the computer systems at the Justice Department's center in Rockville, MD, need to be altered to correct security weaknesses. The report also notes that important information is stored near exits and in places where unauthorized viewers could enter and search for it. Training programs on data security for employees are insufficient, and the GAO also faults the department's risk assessment software program.

Full Text:

GAO Criticizes Justice Systems' Security

Justice Department systems risk abuse, unauthorized access and data tampring because of long-standing and flagrant computer security weaknesses, the General Accounting Office concluded recently.

"Justice is not ensuring that its highly sensitive computer systems are adequately protected," GAO reported late last month. "We identified many disturbing weaknesses in existing security which, if not corrected, could severely compromise both the computer systems and the sensitive information they possess."

The congressional watchdog agency said the department had breached the Computer Security Act, the Federal IRM Regulations and Office of Management and Budget polices. The weaknesses are so pervasive that GAO recommended Justice officials include them as deficiencies in the department's next annual Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act report.

Justice officials are preparing a response to the report and already have begun correcting some of the problems, said Stephen R. Colgate, deputy assistant attorney general for information and administrative services.

"Our bottom line is that the report was not balanced at all," he said. Justice officials are not denying that security problems exist, but GAO failed to cite corrective actions the department has taken, he said.

"The report didn't acknowledge that we had any of these programs or projects under way," Colgate said, adding that Justice officials explained their plans when pointing out security weaknesses to GAO auditors.

Focusing on the department's litigation units, GAO faulted Justice for computer security flaws at all levels, ranging from failure to train Justice employees properly to ineffectual physical controls at the department's new data center in Rockville, Md.

The report chastised the Justice Management Division for failing to oversee computer security within the department. The division's security staff failed to audit and evaluate the department's systms as required by OMB and the FIRMR, sai the report, Justice Automation: Tighter Computer Security Needed.

Training programs either did not exist or were insufficient, GAO found. "With the exception of some new systems users, who generally receive security awareness briefings as part of their introductory system training, we found little evidence that employees are being trained in computer security," the report said.

In a number of offices, Justice officials were not conducting audits or enforcing security procedures. The department's contingency plans also failed to met federal guidelines for detailed emergency response, backup and recovery procedures.

Program Questioned

The report raises yet more questions about Project Eagle, a program to provide office automation systems agencywide, including the 94 U.S. district attorneys. GAO found the risk analysis software Justice has been using to analyze Eagle systems could not measure security adequacy, network risks or security costs.

"By followign this generalized approach, Justice stands to overlook critical security vulnerabilities and risks, and may not recognize the need for protective measures that might be found durig a more extensive analysis," the report said. The software should aid, not replace, a more extensive, custom review by department administrators, GAO said.

Colgate defended the software and said the National Institute for Sandards and Technology had asked to use the program as a model for other agencies.

"As far as we're concerned, we've got a good product here," he said. He said 4,000 Eagle users will hae received security training by this fall.

Eagle has been the subject of an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee, which is reviewing the procurement. The Washington software company Inslaw Inc. continues to allege, despite Justice officials' denials, that the Eagle procurement is part of a epartmental conspiracy to steal the company's software product.

Meanwhile, GAO also found a number of physical security problems at the deparmtent's new Rockville center rivaling those at its old Washington center. Unauthorized people could enter and roam the center easily without dtection, GAO said.

"We also found magnetic tapes containing sensitive data stored in an open area of the data center and directly along the path of individuals entering and exiting the center through the main door," the report said.

Colgate said the department is aware of deficiencies at the center and a contact for improvements is awaiting clearance by the General Services Administration.

Fueled by Budget

Tight budgets may have fueled some of the departmenths security problems. GAO noted comments from several Justice officials explaining that they had too little money and too few employees to oversee the department's systems.

Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Hosue Government Operations Subcommittee on General Information, Justice and Agriculture, requested the report last summer after earlier GAO reports decried the lack of security eatures in the Project Eagle request for proposals.

"It is ironic how much energy Justice devotes to shielding basic information from congressional review, yet when it comes to protecting its own highly sensitive information from common criminals, the department appears to expend very little energy," Wise said. "It's time for Justice to take swift action to protect its truly sensitive information."

Journal: Government Computer News August 6 1990 v9 n16 p92(2)

Title: Inslaw charges take their toll at Justice. (Inslaw Inc. accusations that Justice Department stole is case management software)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: Inslaw Inc's accusation that the Justice Department stole its Promis case management software under the massive Project Eagle office automation program has led the House Judiciary Committee to cut the Eagle budget in half pending investigation into the small software firm's allegations. Judiciary chmn Representative Jack Brooks froze Eagle project spending at the 1990 level. Inslaw pres William Hamilton is pursuing legal action against the department and accuses Justice of trying to drive its company into bankruptcy and of 'wiring' the $76 million Eagle contract, awarded to Tisoft Inc, to benefit cronies of Edwin Meese. Brooks calls Eagle a 'procurement in trouble.'

Full Text:

Inslaw Charges Take Their Toll at Justice

Inslaw Inc., the small Washington software company that has accused the Justice Department of stealing its case management software, may not have won its legal war with the department, but its actions affected a pair of Justice programs.

Most recently, the House Judiciary Committee authorized halvig the budget of Justice's massive office automation program, Project Eagle, becuase of the committee's pending investigation into Inslaw's allegations. Meanwhile, the department canceled a procurement for case management software in the face of a departmental protest by Inslaw.

The Judiciary chairman, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), slashed Eagle's 1991 spending authority from $23 million to 12 million, freezing project spending at its 1990 level. He said the project needed to be slowed down until committee investigations establish there was nothing inappropriate about the Project Eagle procurement.

"I have been overseeing ADP procurements for almost 25 years, and it is always hard to recommend delaying an agency's efforts to automate," Brooks said. "I would much rahter be on the advocate's side of this fight."

Justice officials are confident they can assure Brooks of Project Eagle's legitimacy, said Stephen R. Colgate, deputy assistant attorney general for information and administrative services. The department has installed almost 3,000 workstations and wanted to complete 9,000 installations by next fall.

"There is unequivocally no relation between Eagle and Inslaw," he said. "When the smoke clears and we can get away from crazy allegations, regulators outside of the department will truly see how important Eagle is to the federal law enforcement efforts."

Project Eagle is Justice's effort to provide office automation to its 90 district attorney offices and many other users. The department awarded the $76 million contract to Tisoft Inc. of Fairfax, Va., last June.

Charges of Mismanagement

Since before its award, Eagle has been surround by investigations and charges of department mismanagement involving a $10 million 1982 contract Justice awarded Inslaw to develop a case management system.

Inslaw president William Hamilton, who continues to pursue his grievances in a series of court cases, alleged the department stole his Promis case management software and tried to drive his company into bankruptcy. He also has claimed the department "wired" the Eagle award to benefit cronies of former Attorney General Edwin Meese.

Brooks jumped on the Inslaw bandwagon late last year and has a team of investigators reviewing Hamilton's allegations and exploring the Eagle procurement. "It has all the signs of a procurement in trouble -- schedule changes, cost overruns and numerous equipment modifications," Brooks said. "As a result, the department's original price tag of $76 million for the procurement may be greatly exceeded."

Brooks is facing a strong challenger in the November election. It appears unlikely Judiciary will complete its Inslaw and Eagle probe, issue a report or hold hearings before next year.

"It's too early in the process to start jumping off the roof," Colgate said. "We're fully cooperating with the committee, letting them interview our people and providing them with all the documents they request. We're shipping it out by the truckload."

The fate of Eagle funding will not be decided before budget conference hearings in the fall.

On the case management front, Justice killed plans to procure case management software for the Land and Natural Resources Division. In April, Inslaw protested the department's request for proposals and called the procurement a new attempt by the department to steal Promis.

Inslaw's Allegations

In its protest, Inslaw said the department was requesting the capabilities available through Promis buy keeping Inslaw out of the procurement by forbidding vendors to bid off-the-shelf products. Inslaw also alleged that through the procurement Justice was attempting to convert existing Promis source code in use at the department but owned by Inslaw.

Justice officials repeatedly denied these charges. The department halted the procurement but also dismissed the protest as moot.

Colgate said the decision depended on changes in department plans, not on Inslaw's allegations. A number of Justice divisions want to procure case management packages, he said.

"We're seeing if there's a more efficient approach," he said. Colgate said department officials had wanted to decide on an acquisition strategy before the end of July.

In a letter to Inslaw attorney David S. Cohen, the department said, "We have no immediate plans to resolicit the Lands Division requirement, but in all likelihood, we will issue a new RFP for development of some case management system at a future date."

Journal: Federal Computer Week July 9 1990 v4 n26 p4(1).

Title: DOJ kills case management procurement. (Department of Justice.)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: The Justice Department (DOJ) has canceled purchasing a case management software package for its Land and Natural Resources Division pending a department-wide review of its case management software activities. However, adversary Inslaw Inc had protested that the software was intended to clone the company's own case tracking software, and has claimed the cancellation as a victory. Since 1988 courts ruled that DOJ attempted to steal Inslaw's software and force the company out of business, but DOJ is currently appealing the case. DOJ is under a court injunction forbidding replication of Promis to use within the department.

Journal: The Wall Street Journal May 18 1990 pA12(W) pA12(E) 25 col in.

Title: Software maker finds wheels of justice grind slowly when Justice Department is the accused. (Politics and Policy)

Author: Barrett, Paul M.

Summary: The case between the United States Department of Justice and Inslaw Inc has been dragging on in the courts for the better part of a decade since the Department contracted with Inslaw to provide the Department a computer program to track court cases. Two federal courts have affirmed Inslaw's claim that the Justice Department stole Inslaw's Promis case-management software that is now used by nearly half of the regional US attorney's offices. Inslaw was awarded $6 million in damages by one court, but the Justice Department has appealed and the case is still pending. Observers feel the Department may be in the mood to settle, but Inslaw wants the case to receive a full public airing, and it may get the chance if the House Judiciary Committee decides to investigate.

Journal: Federal Computer Week April 30 1990 v4 n17 p3(1).

Title: Inslaw charges Justice's purchase would clone Promis software.(Inslaw Inc.; Department of Justice; case management software)

Author: Smithmidford, Robert.

Summary: Inslaw Inc is protesting a Jan, 1990, Department of Justice RFP that Inslaw claims is aimed at replicating the firm's Prosecutor Management Information System (Promis) case management software. The Justice Department originally purchased the software from Inslaw in 1980. In 1988 the US Bankruptcy Court ruled that Justice could not convert the software for other platforms because Inslaw retained sole rights to the code. Inslaw further charges that the contract, which Inslaw can not bid on because of commercial licensing arrangements, is tailored to give an advantage to Software Development and Services Corp, a firm founded by a former Inslaw vice president and said to employ other former Inslaw personnel.

Journal: Government Computer News April 30 1990 v9 n9 p4(1)

Title: Inslaw accuses Justice of trying to steal Promis. (Inslaw Inc. sues over Dept. of Justice conversion of Promis case management software)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: Inslaw Inc files a protest with the US Dept of Justice, alleging that the latter is attempting to steal Inslaw's Promis case management system software. Inslaw charges that Justice's Land and Natural Resources Div, which issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in Jan 1990, is attempting to disguise a conversion contract as a development attempt. The agency had been using an older version of the Promis computer graphics software. The RFP called for a vendor to integrate existing automated and manual case software programs. Inslaw and the Dept of Justice have been in dispute since 1983 over the status of Promis, which Inslaw accuses the Justice Dept of stealing by telling vendors it owns sole rights to the source code.

Full Text:

Inslaw Accuses Justice of Trying To Steal Promis

Inslaw Inc. president William A. Hamilton launched a new attack against the Justice Department last week, alleging a case management system procurement is a thinly veiled attempt by Justice to steal the Washington company's much-disputed Promis software.

In a protest filed with Justice's procurement services office, Inslaw alleged that the Land and Natural Resources Division's acquisition of case management software is "a conversion contract masquerading as a development effort."

Inslaw claimed Justice officials, by denying vendors the right to bid off-the-shelf products, rigged the request for proposals to restrict competition and keep Inslaw out.

Further, by requiring the contractor to supply a system with the capabilities of Promis, the protest said Justice simply was finding a way to obtain ownership of Promis by converting existing Promis software that the department is using.

The Land and Natural Resources Division issued an RFP in January calling for a vendor to develop and install software that would integrate several existing automated and manual case management functions. Justice officials said the division has been using an old version of Promis that it legitimately licenses, but that can no longer support the division's needs.

"In this case, Justice's minimum needs are not development and ownership of case management software," the protest said. "Rather, Justice simply needs case management software to perform the functions indicated in the solicitation -- functions Inslaw's product can fully perform."

The department declined comment because of continuing litigation involving Promis. Justice spokesman Michael Robinson confirmed the protest was filed and said the department took no immediate action. The protest asks Justice to scrap the current acquisition and rewrite the RFP.

Wrangling Over Rights

Inslaw and Justice have been wrangling since 1983 over Justice's rights to Promis, a case management software Inslaw developed and installed in a number of Justice offices. Inslaw has accused the department of stealing some versions of the software and trying to force the company into bankruptcy. The dispute remains unresolved in appellate court, but two earlier decisions sided with Inslaw.

In this latest action, Inslaw accused the department of falsely identifying existing versions of Promis in use and telling interested vendors the department owns the source code for all its systems.

Inslaw claimed it has sole rights to all Promis versions operating at Justice now and that the department cannot provide this source code. The protest said department officials told Inslaw the RFP involved only a 1979 version of Promis. Inslaw disputed that this is the Promis version the Land and Natural Resources Division uses.

The procurement is "an outgrowth of a continuing bias against Inslaw which has been fueled by a lack of regard for Inslaw's legitimate proprietary rights in case management software now installed in the Department of Justice," the protest said.

Journal: Government Computer News April 30 1990 v9 n9 p47(1)

Title: Third-party software runs on IBM's RISC family. (reduced-instruction-set computing)

Author: Ambrosio, Johanna.

Summary: IBM announces that more than 170 software packages developed by third-party vendors will be available at the May 1990 introduction of its RISC System/6000 workstation family. The reduced-instruction-set computing workstation will be bolstered by the end of 1990 by the introduction of some 1,500 software packages. Among the products geared for governmental users are on-line workflow management software aimed at courts and public agencies, scheduling software for use at military installations, geographic information systems for a wide range of military and government agency applications and the X Window System Server family, which establishes connectivity between the RS/6000 and Unix-based IBM RT, Digital and Sun computers.

Full Text:

Third-Party Software Runs on IBM's RISC Family

IBM Corp. has announced more than 170 third-party software packages to run on its new reduced-instruction-set computing workstation family.

Although not all of them are available immediately, the RISC System/6000 itself generally will be available next month. And most of the applications still being ported will be ready when the machine is, said spokesmen for some of the third-party companies.

IBM executives said that when the machine is shipped in May, 1,100 software packages will run on it. And by year-end, 1,500 packages will be out for the RS/6000.

Some of the software that already is available is targeted specifically to the government. Others are general applications or development tools.

Among those specifically targeted at the federal government:

* Predictor from Management Sciences Inc. of Albuquerque, N.M. This family of packages helps design and safety engineers predict stages of system development.

* On-line software from Inslaw Inc. in Washington, D.C., for case tracking and workflow management in courts, public protection agencies and correctional institutions. The software now is running at the Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Legal Services Agency, an Inslaw spokeswoman said.

* Sportslog, a package from Gawiser Associates of Westport, Conn., used by military bases to schedule athletic and other recreation programs. Sportslog is used by the Groton Naval Base, Conn., and by the Army at Fort Lewis, Wash., a company spokeswoman said.

* Ada development tools from Verdix Corp. of Chantilly, Va.; Alsys Inc. of Burlington, Mass; and Rational of Santa Clara, Calif.

* Geographic information systems for military and other government use from five vendors: Tydac Technologies Corp. of Arlington, Va.; GeoVision Corp. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. of Redlands, Calif.; Digital Matrix Services of Miami; and ACDS Graphic Systems Inc. of Hull, Quebec, Canada.

Government users also might find some connectivity tools helpful. Among them:

* AGS Information Services Inc. of New York will help agencies and commercial users port UNIX and other applications to the RS/6000.

* Connector boards from 3Com Corp. link RS/6000s to Ethernet local area networks.

* KInet from KI Research Inc. of Belmont, Calif., connects the RS/6000 to Digital Equipment Corp. computers. This allows the IBM machine to become a DECnet node.

* The X Window System Server family from Advanced Graphics Engineering of San Diego. These packages connect the RS/6000 to IBM RT, Digital and Sun computers running implementations of UNIX.

* Mass11 from Microsystems Engineering Co. of Hoffman Estates, Ill., which provides editable compound document interchange between systems and software from different vendors.

* The AFS distributed file system from Transarc Corp. of Pittsburgh to allow users to share files.

A wealth of general applications already are used widely on other platforms in the federal government. They include:

* Electronic publishing systems from Frame Technology Corp. of San Jose, Calif. and Interleaf Inc. of Cambridge, Mass. Also, Adobe Systems Inc. said it will port its PostScript language and its Illustrator drawing package to the RS/6000.

* The SAS System from SAS Institute Inc. of Cary, N.C., which includes software for data access, management and analysis.

* The SPSS statistical data analysis package from SPSS Inc. of Chicago.

* Database management systems from many vendors, including Ingres and other tools from Ingres Corp. of Alameda, Calif.; Oracle's distributed DBMS from Oracle Corp., Belmont, Calif.; GemStone from Servio Corp. of Alameda, Calif.; Sybase from Sybase Inc. of Emeryville, Calif.; the Ult/ix Pick-compatible DBMS from the Ultimate Corp. of East Hanover, N.J.; and tools from Informix Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif.

Also, combination DBMS/fourth-generation languages will be available.

Journal: Federal Computer Week April 16 1990 v4 n15 p9(1).

Title: DOJ seeks mediation in Inslaw case. (Department of Justice; software theft case)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: DOJ attorneys have requested a mediator in United States v. Inslaw Inc. The case that charges the DOJ with software theft must now go before an appeals court, which will decide if the case will then go on to mediation. However, Chief Staff Counsel Mark Langer stated, 'The fact that a party asks to be included in mediation almost always assures that the case will go to mediation.' Two court decisions have sided with Inslaw, backing the company's claims that the DOJ 'stole its case management software and conspired to drive the company out of business.' No date for the court's mediation decision has been announced.

Journal: Newsbytes April 3 1990

Title: Justice Department asks for Inslaw mediator.

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

JUSTICE DEPT. ASKS FOR INSLAW MEDIATOR WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,1990 MAR 29 (NB) -- The Justice Department, found guilty in September, 1987 of trying to drive a computer software firm out of business by "trickery, fraud and deceit," today asked an appeals court to appoint a neutral mediator to examine the case.

In a statement accompanying its petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the Justice Department said that it "'believes that a neutral, court-appointed mediator may facilitate an expeditious and fair resolution of what has been a long-standing and contentious dispute without the need for further litigation."

Spokesmen for both Inslaw and the Justice Department were quoted as saying that a mediator, if appointed by the appeals court, would not sidetrack the ongoing litigation. The appeal would continue to proceed through the legal system while there was an attempt to solve the dispute.

In addition to the appeal, there is another lawsuit concerning the case, filed by Inslaw President William Hamilton, asking the court to force Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to conduct a criminal investigation of Justice Department officials.

The original ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Bason Jr. that the Justice Department "took, converted, stole" Inslaw's enhanced software program "by trickery fraud and deceit," was upheld by a November 12, 1989 ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge William Bryant who, although allowing a slight reduction of the damages to $7.4 million, upheld all of Bason's legal findings.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19900331)

Journal: Government Computer News March 19 1990 v9 n6 p110(1)

Title: Justice agency seeks case management system. (the Justice Department Land and Natural Resources Division issues an RFP for a case management system prior to installation of the Project Eagle office automation system)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Full Text:

Justice Agency Seeks Case Management System

At least one Justice Department agency has issued a request for proposals for a case management system before new office automation hardware is installed.

The Land and Natural Resources Division, which has nine litigation units, issued the RFP in January. Other divisions likely will follow suit, said Stephen R. Colgate, deputy assistant attorney general for information and administrative services.

Justice information resources management officials have not scheduled the installation of the new Project Eagle system for Land and Natural Resources. But division officials wanted to get a jump on the development of a new case management system, said Philip Stieness, the division's deputy executive assistant.

The division's 500 staff members now use the Automated Management Information Civil User System (AMICUS), the Justice office automation system. Justice IRM officials have said they would install Eagle first in Justice offices with little or no automated support.

Last spring Justice awarded the Eagle contract to Tisoft Inc. of Fairfax, Va. Tisoft will install a new office automation system throughout Justice that integrates Data General Corp. minicomputers, Wyse Technology microcomputers and Hewlett-Packard Co. laser printers. Depending on the size of the office, Tisoft will install one of three configurations. Eagle uses ORacle Corp.'s database management system.

Eagle is to create an office automation platform that Justice agencies could use as a base for their specific computing needs.

"Each division will have its own nuances because each handles a different type of legal case," Colgate said. "We're trying to push them all toward uniformity of design and uniformity of DBMS software."

But even before the Eagle contract, Stieness said, Lands and Natural Resources needed to upgrade its case management software. More than half the division regularly uses the AMICUS system, but potentially all employees can use it, he said.

Since 1980, the division has been using an early version of the Presecutors Management Information System, or Promis, the case management software provided by Inslaw Inc. of Washington.

"With the increase and complexity of the cases we handle, Promis just won't do it anymore," Stieness said.

The division wants a system to track cases, expenses, debt collection, expert witness records and Freedom of Information Act filings. The winning vendor also must provide the capability for attorney and paralegal timekeeping and aiding in case planning.

The new system must replace the Lands Docket Tracking System, the Attorney and Paralegal Timekeeping System and the Environmental Enforcement Case Management System. The RFP also calls for the vendor to convert to the new system case records that now are stored manually.

The system will be housed on the Justice Computer Center's IBM 3090 mainframes. Engineers will use fourth-generation Structured Query Language-based database management tools to develop the system. The division staff will have access to the case management system through AMICUS initially and later through Eagle.

The deadline for bids is March 5, but Stieness estimated the division would not award a contract before July. The contract would be for five years and would be worth from $400,000 to $500,000 in the first year.

As for Eagle, Tisoft has installed the system in Justice's Public Integrity and Criminal Divisions and the offices of the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. The Tax Division should be on line in April, Colgate said.

The first field installation in the offices for the U.S. attorney in the eastern district of Pennsylvania is nearly complete.

Journal: Government Computer News Feb 5 1990 v9 n3 p6(1)

* Full Text COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Co. 1990.

Title: Justice Dept. will appeal ruling that it stole company's software. (Justice Department to appeal federal court ruling that it stole case management software from Inslaw Inc)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Full Text:

Justice Dept. Will Appeal Ruling That It Stole Company's Software

The Justice Department late last month announced it will appeal a federal court ruling that the department stole case management software from Inslaw Inc.

The Department filed the notice with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The notice marks the latest round in the four-year battle between Justice and the Washington software company.

Late last fall, senior District Court Judge William B. Bryant agreed with a 1987 Bankruptcy Court ruling that Jutice officials stole from Inslaw advanced versions of the case management software, known as the Prosecutors Management Information System or Promis. Justice officials continually have denied wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, Inslaw has filed a motion with the Transportation Department Board of contract Appeals asking that Justice be forced to pay about $2 million in back payments from the company's 1982 contract with the department.

The appeals board has jurisdiction over Justice contract disputes and heard the original complaints made by Inslaw.

Inslaw and Justice also are awaiting an audit report on the contract from the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

Inslaw has asked the board to require Justice to assign the settling up of the contract to a contracting officer in another agency.

Justice awarded Inslaw a contract in 1982 to provide case management software for U.S. attorneys' offices. But after halting much of the contract in 1985, Justice stopped payments to Inslaw.

Inslaw president William A. Hamilton has charged that Justice tried to force the company into bankruptcy and get Promis into the public domain.

THe Inslaw motion said in similar cases the DOT board has ruled that Bankruptcy Court rulings are binding. The District Court ruling should be enough grounds for the board to order Justice to release the $2 million, Inslaw said.

Justice officials would not comment on Inslaw's DOT appeals board filing because the case still is being litigated.

Journal: Government Computer News Jan 22 1990 v9 n2 p4(1)

Title: House to review Inslaw charges against Justice. (Inslaw Inc. charges against Dept. of Justice) (House Judiciary Committee)

Author: Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: The US House Judiciary Committee is reviewing allegations of Inslaw Inc pertaining to charges the small software engineering and integrative services firm has leveled against the US Dept of Justice. The decision supports a Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee ruling that Justice acted improperly in its dealings with Inslaw. Inslaw alleges that Justice Dept officials first contracted it to develop a CASE management software package known as the Prosecutors Management Information System (Promis) in 1982, then cancelled the contract in 1983. The suit also charges that Justice Dept officials conspired to drive the small company into bankruptcy in order to force the software program into public domain status. A Senior District Court Judge and a Bankruptcy Judge have supported Inslaw's charges.

Full Text:

House to Review Inslaw Charges Against Justice

Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas) had directed his House Judiciary Committee investigators to review the allegations Inslaw Inc. has lodged against the Justice Department.

The review follows a lengthy investigation by the Senate Government Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The subcommittee concluded Justice's actions involving Inslaw "seriously undercut the department's integrity in the public eye."

In a report last October, The subcommittee faulted Justice officials for mishandling a contract dispute with Inslaw, a small Washington sofware and services company. The report, however, rejected allegations by Inslaw that Justice officials conspired to force the company into bankruptcy.

Later the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court's 1987 ruling that Justice officials stole from Inslaw advanced versions of case management sofware known as the Procesutors Management Information System, or Promis.

The Justice Department retained Inslaw in 1982 to install Promis in U.S. attorneys' offices across the country, but in late 1983 the department canceled part of the contract and halted payments.

Inslaw president William A. Hamilton alledged department officials knowingly tried to force the company into bankruptcy and by so doing force Promis into the public domain.

Senior District Court Judge William B. Bryant agreed with Bankruptcy Judge George F. Bason Jr. that "the government acted willfully and fraudulenty to obtain property that it was not entitled to under the contract." Bryant threw out the arguments made by Justice in its appeal of the bankruptcy ruling and approved compensatory damages of $6.1 million. Punitive damages are yet to be established.

In the appeal, Justice attorneys accused Bason of overstepping the Bankruptcy Court's boundaries and delving into culpability. But Bryant disagreed.

"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," Bryant found.

Justice officials have until Friday to appeal Bryant's ruling. Justice Department spokesman Michael Robinson last week said no decision has been reached on an appeal.

Hamilton, though pleased wtih the court's ruling, said he wants the congressional inquiries to continue.

"The Justice Department has vilified the [banktruptcy] judge in the press and before Congress, professed the innocence of its officials, and stonewalled all attempts by Congress, and the press for a public accounting," he said.

Meanwhile, Hamilton and Inslaw have filed another suit with the District Court. With the latest suit, filed last last month, Hamilton hopes to force Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh to investigate the Inslaw situation again.

"It's our position that they never conducted an investigation," Hamilton said. "They just pretended to."

Journal: Federal Computer Week Dec 4 1989 v3 n49 p4(1).

Title: Court confirms DOJ drove Inslaw to bankruptcy. (the Department of Justice stole software from Inslaw Inc and tried to force the company into bankruptcy)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: US District Judge William Bryant upholds a bankruptcy court's decision finding that the US Department of Justice stole software from Inslaw Inc and tried to drive the company into bankruptcy using 'trickery, fraud and deceit' against the company. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report in Sep 1989 stating that the department's 1982 contract with Inslaw for case-management software went bad because of personal animosities and bad judgement by DOJ officials. The bankruptcy court found that the DOJ tried to convert Inslaw's Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy into a Chapter 7 liquidation; Bryant's opinion admonished the DOJ for 'willfully and fraudulently' trying to obtain property to which it was not entitled under the contract. The DOJ's options in light of the rulings are discussed.

Journal: Newsbytes Nov 28 1989

* Full Text COPYRIGHT Newsbytes Inc. 1989.

Title: Court cites Justice Department as software thief. (Department of Justice)

Author: McMullen, Barbara; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

COURT CITES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AS SOFTWARE THIEF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, U.S.A., 1989 NOV 22 (NB) -- A 1987 finding by a bankruptcy court that the Department of Justice used fraud and deceit to steal software from Inslaw Inc., a software company, was upheld by United States District Judge William B. Bryant.

The ruling upheld then-bankruptcy judge George Bason Jr., ruling that the Department of Justice through "trickery, fraud and deceit" stole enhancements to a word processing system for U.S. attorneys' offices that had been developed by Inslaw.

In rejecting the Department of Justice's appeal, Judge Bryant upheld Bason's ruling that the department never negotiated in good faith to settle Inslaw's claims that it owned the enhanced software and also upheld Bason's ruling that Inslaw was the victim of animosity by C. Madison Brewster, the DOJ official who oversaw the contract, and other officials of the department. Judge Bryant did, however, reduce the original award of $6.79 million plus attorney fees by $655,200, the amount of the software license fee earmarked for maintenance, saying that the Justice Department should not have to pay for services that Inslaw did not perform.

Justice Department spokesperson Amy Brown said that agency lawyers were reviewing the decision while Nancy Hamilton, Inslaw vice president, said that the company will continue its lawsuit to obtain punitive damages against the Justice Department.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19891124)

Journal: Government Computer News Oct 16 1989 v8 n21 p8(1)

Title: Justice Dept. flouts its rules, panel says.

Author: Power, Kevin; Grimm, Vanessa Jo.

Summary: The Justice Department, according to the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, did not conspire to force a small software company, Inslaw Inc, into bankruptcy. Serious conflict-of-interest problems were involved. Because of this a report from the subcommittee called for the General Accounting Office to review the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. Justice department officials did, according to the report, exercise poor judgement in hiring a former Inslaw employee as project director. The department also failed to follow standard procedures in investigating allegations of bias against the director of the project.

Full Text:

Justice Dept. Flouts Its Rules, Panel Says

Justice Department officials did not conspire to force a small software company into bankruptcy for personal financial gain, but they did ignore serious conflict-of-interest problems, a Senate subcommittee recently reported.

The Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found no evidence of a Justice conspiracy to ruin Inslaw Inc., a Washington software company.

But because the department flouted its own conflict-of-interest rules, a report from the subcommittee called for the General Accounting Office to review the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The subcommittee has been looking into the four-year legal battle between Justice and Inslaw.

Justice officials "exercised poor judgment" in hiring a former Inslaw employee as project director to administer the company's 1982 contract for legal case-tracking software, subcommittee investigators found.

Justice officials also failed to follow standard procedures in investigating allegations of bias against the project director, the report said. Such action indicates a breakdown in the department's own accountability procedures, the subcommittee concluded.

"When the department, for whatever reason, allows that kind of situation to persist, it opens the door for the kinds of allegations that eventually arose in the Inslaw case and which, ultimately, seriously undercut the department's integrity in the public eye," the report said.

Justice officials would not comment on the conflict-of-interest or bias findings by the subcommittee, but spokeswoman Amy Brown said, "We are pleased that the staff report found no proof to the numerous conspiracies alleged by Inslaw."

The department is continuing a review of the report but is limiting its comments because of continuing litigation, Brown said.

The subcommittee's investigation was triggered by a 1987 ruling by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia that said Justice "took, converted, stole,...by trickery, fraud and deceit" software developed by Inslaw.

The court said Justice "engaged in an outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of cat and mouse, demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealing."

The department is appealing this decision.

Justice gave Inslaw a contract in 1982 to install case-management software in U.S. attorneys' offices throughout the country. But in late 1983 Justice terminated a portion of the contract and halted payments to the company.

Inslaw president William A. Hamilton alleged department officials conspired to force Inslaw into bankruptcy and force its legal case-tracking software, known as the Prosecutors Management Information System, or Promis, into the public domain.

In 1986 the company filed suit against Justice alleging the agency improperly took and controlled advanced versions of Promis.

Justice officials refused to cooperate in the subcommittee's investigation, and only a contempt warning prompted the department to provide witnesses for depositions, the report said.

At first, Justice attorneys told the subcommittee they feared the investigation would jeopardize the department's appeals and any future litigation regarding Inslaw, the report said.

Hamilton said the investigations into the case should continue.

The subcommittee "says the department did not permit them to look for the facts," he said. "It can't be very healthy for our concept of government for it to be a dead issue. The court has made findings of malfeasance that the Justice Department refuses to treat seriously."

For a time last year, the Inslaw controversy threatened to bog down Justice's already delayed office automation program, Project Eagle.

Inslaw attorneys questioned the legitimacy of the $200 million program to provide office automation across the department and to U.S. attorneys, because they said Justice planned to use the disputed Promis software on Eagle machines.

Justice officials denied any connection between the Inslaw contract and Project Eagle. Justice awarded the Eagle contract late this summer.

Subcommittee investigators "found no proof that Inslaw's problems with the department were connected to the Project Eagle procurement," the report said.

Because Eagle system will access Promis, the report warned of possible problems should the courts eventually rule that Promis software is not in the public domain but does belong to Inslaw.

Journal: Federal Computer Week Oct 2 1989 v3 n40 p1(2).

Title: Senate panel finds no conspiracy in Inslaw case.

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: The Senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations has decided in a report released Sep 29, 1989, that there was no conspiracy in the Department of Justice (DOJ) to put Inslaw Inc out of business, despite its claims to the contrary. The subcommittee did find, however, that the department allowed personal biases to compromise its integrity. The subcommittee also found fault with DOJ's use of DOJ counsel for DOJ witnesses and accused the department of hindering its investigation. The report was critical of the executive director of the Office for US Trustees, who sought special handling for the case. The report recommends an investigation into the trustees office and the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility.

Journal: Federal Computer Week July 10 1989 v3 n28 p40(1).

Title: Justice seeks minis' upgrade to bridge gap to Eagle award. (Department of Justice Project Eagle automation contract--upgrading Prime minicomputers)

Author: Rivenbark, Leigh.

Summary: The Department of Justice is seeking to upgrade its aging Prime minicomputers while awaiting the beginning of its $76 million Project Eagle office automation contract. The contract, awarded to Tisoft Inc in Jun 1989, will include new Data General MV-class minis, but these may take up to two years to implement. An immediate upgrade is necessary because the existing Prime units are wearing out and are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The DOJ needs such standard Prime systems as the 4050-31C, 4050-32C and 2455-095, tape drives, peripheral cabinets, printers, cable kits and communication lines, as well as the current revision of Prime's CBL, Midasplus, and Primos software. It uses Inslaw Inc's Promis case-management software. An ongoing court battle between DOJ and Inslaw over rights to the software is preventing the department from disseminating Promis.

Journal: Newsbytes March 5 1992

Title: Justice Dept. allegedly blocks Inslaw investigation.

Author: McCormick, John.

Full Text:

****Justice Dept Allegedly Blocks Inslaw Investigation 03/05/92 WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1992 MAR 5 (NB) -- According to a CNN Business report today, the U.S. Justice Department is harassing individuals who talk with investigators who are looking into the Inslaw software case. Inslaw, a Washington based software company, has charged that the Justice Department made illegal copies of its PROMIS legal case tracking software and sold or gave it to various countries.

Former Attorney General and defeated Pennsylvania candidate for the U.S. Senate, Richard Thornburgh, fought a futile battle to keep congressional investigators from obtaining Justice Department files relating to the case, and although a spokesperson for the Department of Justice is saying that current head William P. Barr has ordered Department employees to provide "full support" to the investigation, CNN reports that Judge Bua said he is aware of the allegations that Justice is harassing people who talk to his investigators.

Judge Bua was appointed by Barr in November of 1991 to investigate the allegations against his Department but there has been some confusion over just how much authority the retired federal judge has to force cooperation.

The Justice Department says that the Attorney General's office is not aware of any allegations of harassment, but CNN today carried an interview with former Justice Department staffer Lois Battastoni who said that she knows about such cases and that employees are in fear of losing their jobs if they talk to the investigators.

Courts have already ruled in favor of Inslaw on several occasions, but the $8 million award to the small ($6 million gross) company was overturned on a technicality.

More recently there have been suspicions voiced that the death of James D. "Danny" Casolaro, a freelance writer who was investigating the Inslaw case, was not a suicide as originally reported.

(John McCormick/19920305)

Journal: Government Computer News Feb 17 1992 v11 n4 p10(1)

Title: Writing is on the wall for the move to open systems. (U.S. Justice Department Information Resources Management Chief Roger M. Cooper) (GCN Interview) (Interview)

Author: Quindlen, Terrey Hatcher.

Summary: US Justice Department Information Resources Management (IRM) Chief Roger M. Cooper has guided the department toward embracing open systems. Currently, the department is putting together a policy paper that addresses multiuser systems below the level of mainframes. Cooper would like systems to comply with Posix and to use the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile. The local area network standard will be the 10M-bps twisted-pair Ethernet servers and the word processing standard will be Word Perfect Corp's WordPerfect 5.1 software package. Cooper and his staff are looking for ways to procure equipment and supplies, and he may investigate working with other agencies. He supports the General Services Administration's policy of leaving 10 percent of big procurement contracts for other agencies.

Full Text:

GCN: You have a reputation for supporting open systems. Have you made any efforts at the Justice Department to move toward an open environment?

COOPER: We basically have done a lot of work with the IRM directors and the components in the agencies. We are putting together a policy paper that covers multiuser systems below the mainframe level, because we've got a lot of IBM-compatible mainframes.

Systems will be Posix-complaint and use the Government Open systems Interconnection Profile. The department's default for local area network transmission media will be 10-megabit/sec, twisted-pair Ethernet servers. It's a very flexible way to transmit.

For office automation, since everybody uses WordPerfect, we've said you've got to use WordPerfect or at least have compatibility. We mostly use Version 5.1.

We're also working at bringing some version of Unix up on the IBM-compatible mainframes.

Justice, like most agencies, is very paperwork-oriented. So we're trying to come up with standards on how we image documents.

We've got a coordinating group for image standards that's met twice now. The group focuses on joint procurements because that's a growth industry.

GCN: When you say joint procurements, do you mean with other Justice bureaus or with other agencies?

COOPER: I mean mostly within Justice. But we're always looking for other procurement vehicles. I've had lots of discussions with Thomas Buckholtz, commissioner of the General Services Administration's IRM Service, and Frank McDonough, the assistant commissioner, about using every vehicle. We were the first people that called on Desktop IV, I think, to see if we could be on it. That was before it got protested. But that's the way it goes.

I think GSA's proposed policy of leaving 10 percent of certain big procurements for other agencies is a good idea. We had a very good experience at the Farmers Home Administration. We had some AT&T 3B2 computers we got through a big office automation contract. The Air Force's AFCAC 251 had a similar set of hardware and software. But there was a big difference in the prices.

So we wanted the Agriculture contractor to change his prices. He wasn't very responsive until we bought a hundred or so computers from the Air Force contract. Then he got a lot more responsive.

Procurements are so tough that any time you can leverage back and forth, I think it's a good idea. So I'm glad GSA's doing it.

The down side is if you've got a tightly integrated system and someone picks out one part of it and says, "Gee, you can buy a PC cheaper here." Certainly some of the criticism we've had on our Project Eagle microcomputers is not fair. It's all bundled up with software and everything.

You've got to be careful that you're not cream-skimming on the whole thing. It has to be a judgment call. When the guy priced the thing, maybe he unloaded part of the development costs in the price of the PC.

GCN: When you came to Justice, the department's IRM had been under fire from many sides, including Congress and the General Accounting Office. What goals do you have for improving IRM?

COOPER: We have had criticism, but I think a lot of it has not been justified. Certainly we've had some problems. The press Justice has had is not commensurate with the level of sophistication of the systems or the people. I was pleasantly surprised at the competence level at Justice.

One area we're going to work on, and I think we probably did need a little more work on, is computer security. We have done a tremendous amount of training and education, and gotten a lot tougher. It has gotten further up on the list of things we worry about.

I'm proposing putting together a computer security organization reporting directly to me. We're thinking about it, but I've got union negotiations.

In other areas, we've done some really neat things. On our Eagle system, every morning when you fire up you PC, the local area network server scans your hard disk to see if there's any viruses. It takes a little longer. When you turn the thing on, it is not available for about 5 minutes while the network interrogates the PC.

We have found some viruses here, as everybody else in town has. What's nice is, when you find it, you know about it instantly. Somebody doesn't have to remember to turn the virus program on; it's done automatically. If we get a new change to the virus protection software, it goes on the system. Eventually, 15,000 PCs are going to be interrogated every morning for viruses.

There's a lot of ways they could be introduced. We probably have had less viruses than most folks, but I'd say in the nine months I've been here, we've had at least a half-dozen to a dozen instances. A lot of them I don't even have to worry about, because the system in many cases fixes them automatically.

GCN: Last year, GAO said the U.S. attorneys' offices were not getting enough training in security procedures. This year the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture said sensitive data in the Bureau of Prisons Sentry system was not getting adequate protection. Do you think those situations have improved?

COOPER: I don't necessarily agree with their assessment, but we've improved those situations. In the U.S. attorneys' officers we've done a massive education process. A couple of months ago, they had a big computer security conference here in Washington. They had, I think, 200 people there. We have had lots of training and have improved awareness in that organization by two orders of magnitude.

In addition, we're going to be encrypting all the communications between the U.S. attorneys' offices. Anytime they do communications outside the controlled area, we're using some encryption. It's not classified data, but it's certainly very sensitive.

GCN: How do you respond to the recent criticism of the Project Eagle office automation buy from Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee?

COOPER: A great many reports have a particular political spin out there. I've heard the arguments about the particular spin on the thing, but that's not unusual. There have been some recommendations, and we will address them back to the regular channels. We're not getting into some kind of dialogue. Enough has been said about the whole issue.

Sometimes I think we lose sight of what we're doing here. We get hung up on the process. The question we ultimately should ask is: Is the customer getting what he wanted? I think with Eagle, the answer would be a resounding yes. A lot of systems in town don't have happy customers.

GCN: How is Eagle giving the customers what they want?

COOPER: It's easy to use. It's got great connectivity. It's reasonably inexpensive. It's modular. It's upgradeable. And it has minimized the use of proprietary technology. It's been so successful that we've beat our best projections for installing it. We're talking 12,000 workstations installed in less than two years. Within six months, we'll probably have them all talking to each other.

GCN: You said it's inexpensive. One of the things the House report said is that you could go out in the stores and get computers cheaper than through Eagle.

COOPER: An analogy would be like saying, "A tank weighs 60 tons and it's made mostly of steel. I could buy steel at $ 60 a ton."

The federal procurement system says you buy an integrated solution. It doesn't say you can go out and price the parts individually. That would be like taking a laptop computer and weighing all the silicon and all the solder. If you added up a $2,000 lapto with all the raw materials or component parts, you would not get the value added in there.

GSA publishers a report on PC prices. The Justice Department PC prices, which are mostly Eagle, are right in the middle of that. They're not the lowest and they're not the highest.

GCN: Are you still planning an agencywide case management software buy for the Eagle machines?

COOPER: Well, we didn't get any money, so we're re-evaluating that. We're taking a look at our options, given no money.

GCN: That's tied in with Inslaw Inc. and the company's Promis case management software. Have you met with Judge Nicholas J. Bua, the special counsel the attorney general appointed to investigate Inslaw's claim that Justice stole copies of Promis and tried to drive the company into bankruptcy?

COOPER: I have not met him. He has not talked to me. Most of the Inslaw thing happened years and years ago. It has gone to numerous courts. Our position all along has been that it's a contract dispute that's gotten out of hand.

The Civil Division is handlign that. The judge will do as the attorney general wants him to do, and that's fine. I think all of us in the department would like to get it behind us. It's sort of an albatross.

GCN: What else is Justice doing in IRM?

COOPER: We're trying to work the open systems thing. We're not making everybody run their PC with Unix. We're not making everybody take the proprietary system and convert it over. What we're saying is, if you buy something new, this is what you should do. We're trying to get a rational move to open systems without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I've been very pleased with the response. Justice has a heavily IBM-compatible mainframe background, yet I've found great interest in going to open systems. I think the handwriting is on the wall.

Journal: Government Computer News Jan 20 1992 v11 n2 p4(1)

Title: Inslaw owners vow to continue software battle. (Inslaw Inc. battles U.S. Justice Department) (Brief Article)

Author: Quindlen, Terrey Hatcher.

Full Text:

Even though the Supreme Court last week decided not to hear Inslaw Inc.'s complaint against the Justice Department, the company's owners said they will not give up their fight over rights to the Promis case management software.

Inslaw owners Nancy B. and William A. Hamilton said they plan to file a new suit against the Justice Department, probably in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Hamiltons have alleged that Justice officials stole versions of the company's Promis software and tried to force Inslaw into bankruptcy.

"If you don't punish wrongdoing, it's going to come and bite you again," William Hamilton said last week at a briefing sponsored by Federal Sources Inc., a consulting firm in McLean, Va.

Justice spokesman Joseph Krovisky said the department had no comment on the Supreme Court decision nor on the prospect of more litigation.

In November, Attorney General William P. Barr appointed Nicholas J. Bua, a retired judge, to act as a special counsel to investigate the Hamilton's 8-year-old charges of wrongdoing by Justice officials.

Hamilton said Justice's primary motivation in stealing Inslaw's software was money, but surveillance of foreign governments might have been another motive.

He said he has been told that the Iraqis, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and British intelligence have had Promis software installed on their computers.

Hamilton speculated that someone might have sold copies of Promis illegally to foreign governments. Those copies of the software might have had a hidden feature that could transmit information to U.S. surveillance systems, he suggested.

Justice officials have denied these allegations repeatedly.

The Hamiltons' case has been heard in three courts. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 1987 found in Inslaw's favor. The U.S. District Court for D.C. affirmed that ruling in 1988 and awarded Inslaw $6 million.

Last year, the U.S. Appeals Court for D.C. overturned those rulings, saying the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to rule on the matter.

Inslaw came out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1988 with a loan from IBM Corp., Nancy Hamilton said. The company still sells Promis to state and local governments, William Hamilton said.

The company also sells software for legal and insurance workload management as well as Promis.

Journal: Newsbytes Jan 14 1992

Title: Supreme Court denies Inslaw petition. (court case against US Department of Justice)

Author: McCormick, John.

Full Text:

****Supreme Court Denies Inslaw Petition 01/14/92 WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1992 JAN 14 (NB) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to reinstate the nearly $8 million fine which Inslaw had won against the U.S. Justice Department in earlier cases.

Inslaw had charged that during the Reagan administration the Justice Department had stolen the company's legal case-tracking software and sold it to other agencies in the United States and abroad.

The Supreme Court had been petitioned to reinstate the $7.8 million fine which had earlier be overturned because of a procedural error in which the company had sued and won its case, but in the wrong court.

The ball is now back in Inslaw's court and the company has expressed confidence that a retrial in the correct court will again result in its winning a major award against the U.S. government. The Justice Department would not comment on the Supreme Court's decision or Inslaw's statement that it would continue to pursue the case.

(John McCormick/19920114)

Journal: Newsbytes Dec 6 1991

Title: Suspect TISOFT contract given Eagle-eye. (United States' Department of Justice contract)

Author: McCormick, John.

Full Text:

****Suspect TISOFT Contract Given Eagle-Eye 12/06/91 WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1991 DEC 6 (NB) -- Eagle, a multi- billion dollar computer system being installed by the U.S. Department of Justice, was apparently a gold-plated contract, according to a Congressional investigation by Democrat Jack Brooks' Judiciary Committee. A Virginia-based firm, TISOFT was awarded the contract for approximately 15,000 workstations despite the fact that it had submitted not the lowest but the second highest bid.

Among the charges investigated by the committee were a possible relationship between the Eagle computer system and INSLAW-like software which was originally specified for the system. CNN reports that investigators contend the Department of Justice gave the winning bidder, TISOFT, a $200,000 payment which was allegedly used to pay off losing bidders who would otherwise have contested the award to TISOFT.

The committee is still holding hearings on the possible INSLAW connection but it has reported that the $200,000 payment did take place and that, in its estimation, Justice paid $18 million too much for the Project Eagle system.

In a televised interview seen on Friday's CNN Business Morning, Texas' 9th District Representative Jack Brooks stated, "We didn't find them stealing any money, of course - we found ... neglect. It took the Justice Department two and one-half years to award a contract for equipment that was available in stores."

As for the special payment, Rep. Brooks said, "It doesn't sound right that the Justice Department of the United States gave them (TISOFT) $200,000 to pay off these people."

As for the Justice Department, spokesmen have pointed out that they did nothing illegal.

According to CNN, Patrick Gallager, president of TISOFT, says that Rep. Brooks doesn't understand the difference between buying commodity items off the shelf and purchasing a complete integrated system. He also reportedly said that the payoffs were legal.

(John McCormick/19911206/Press Contact: Jack Brooks, 202-225-6565 or fax 202-225-1584)

Journal: Government Computer News Nov 25 1991 v10 n24 p60(1)

Title: Special counsel appointed to review Inslaw claims. (Justice Department investigation involving Inslaw Corp.)

Author: Quindlen, Terrey Hatcher.

Summary: The Justice Department will investigate allegations by Inslaw Inc owners, Nancy B. Hamilton and William A. Hamilton, who say that the Justice Department stole computer software that belongs to them and tried to push their company into bankruptcy. William P. Barr, the newly appointed attorney general, has appointed a special counsel, Nicholas J. Bua, to look into the Hamiltons' claims. The Hamiltons are skeptical, saying that an investigator from outside the Justice Department is needed. It is not reasonable to expect, say the Hamiltons, that the Justice Department will do an adequate job if it is investigating itself. Nevertheless, the Hamiltons are pleased that there is renewed activity and interest in the matter.

Full Text:

Inslaw Inc. owners Nancy B. and William A. Hamilton are expecting the worst, yet hoping for the best out of anew Justice Department investigation into the couple's allegations that Justice stole Inslaw software and attempted to drive the Washington company into bankruptcy.

When the newly designated attorney general, William P. Barr, announced this month that he had appointed a special counsel to check out the Hamiltons' claims, Nancy Hamilton expressed doubts about the outcome of such an investigation.

A special prosecutor appointed outside the department is sorely needed, she said. It is unreasonable "to think that the Department of Justice could investigate itself," she said.

For nearly eight years, the Hamiltons have been fighting to get compensation from Justice for the alleged theft of enhanced versions of the company's case management software, Promis.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in 1987 found in Inslaw's favor and said Justice had tried to force the company into bankruptcy. The following year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the bankruptcy court ruling and awarded Inslaw $6 million.

But in May, the U.S. Appeals Court for D.C. threw out those rulings, saying the bankruptcy court had exceeded its authority.

Now Barr has asked Nicholas J. Bua, a retired federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois, to "review all the information related to the Inslaw case and advise the attorney general of any further action that may be required," Justice spokesman Joseph Krovisky said.

Bua, who will serve as special counsel and assistant U.S. attorney, said he had "no idea at this time" how long his investigation might take.

Hamilton said she was glad for the renewed interest but questioned whether Bua could accomplish anything. Justice employees who know of wrongdoing will be reluctant to volunteer information because Bua will report directly to Barr, she said.

"They are not going to tell someone representing the attorney general of the criminal misconduct of their superior. It simply won't happen," Hamilton said.

Barr appointed Bua "in an effort to resolve fairly and conclusively the ongoing litigation," Krovisky said. Barr gave Bua carte blanche to gather any information he seeks, Krovisky added.

"We are in the embryonic stage of the matter," Bua said, adding that it was too early to give a reading on the situation. Bua, a partner in a Chicago law firm, said he plans to begin looking into the charges in Washington by early December.

Although the appointment is "a step in the right direction," Hamilton said, she questioned Bua's ability to bring witnesses forward. "People in law enforcement know that to uncover official corruption you need subpoena power and the power of a grand jury," she said.

The special counsel does not have subpoena power now. But if Bua runs into problems getting the information he needs, he can "lay out what the problem is and then request subpoena power from the attorney general," Krovisky said.

Meanwhile, the Hamiltons have filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to consider their case. "We're hoping that there will be a decision sometime before the end of the year" on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case, Hamilton said.

On the congressional front, the House Judiciary Committee still has the record open on its Inslaw investigation. The committee has been seeking several documents from the department. When Attorney General Richard L. Thornburgh resigned, several documents relating to Inslaw had not been turned over. The committee chairman, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), has not said how he will proceed.

Journal: Newsbytes Nov 15 1991

Title: Special counsel appointed in Inslaw case. (Nicholas J. Bua)

Author: McCormick, John.

Full Text:

Special Counsel Appointed in Inslaw Case 11/15/91 WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1991 NOV 15 (NB) -- Just a few days after the White House suffered a major public defeat when its hand- picked Senate candidate for Pennsylvania, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who had blocked all investigations into the Inslaw/Justice Department scandal, was defeated by Harris Wofford, President Bush's Attorney General-designate, William P. Barr, has appointed a special counsel to look into charges that the Justice Department defrauded and attempted to bankrupt the Inslaw company.

Allegations surround Inslaw and claims that the Justice Department and intelligence agencies illegally copied, modified, and sold the law enforcement-related software PROMIS, which was marketed by Inslaw. One prominent claim is that the software was modified to allow U.S. intelligence agencies to penetrate foreign law-enforcement and intelligence computers running the software through what is called a trap-door, a secret way around the usual password access permission systems used to prevent such access.

Saying during his confirmation hearing testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, "I want to get to the bottom of this," Mr. Barr went on to tell the Senate that he had appointed retired U.S. District judge Nicholas J. Bua (Chicago) to investigate the situation which goes back to 1984. Judge Bua was a Democratic appointee to the bench.

The U.S. House of Representatives tried to investigate the Inslaw case last year when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) subpoenaed Justice Department documents which former Attorney General Thornburgh only grudgingly released early this year.

A court had earlier found the Justice Department guilty of "fraud, deceit, and trickery" and awarded Inslaw $8 million in damages, but that ruling was overturned on a minor technicality by another court and the case is now being put before the Supreme Court.

(John McCormick/19911115)

Journal: Newsbytes Sept 24 1991

* Full Text COPYRIGHT Newsbytes Inc. 1991.

Title: Wackenhut denies Inslaw connection.

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

****WACKENHUT DENIES INSLAW CONNECTION 09/24/91 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, U.S.A., 1991 SEP 24 (NB) -- Wackenhut Corp.'s director of publications, Patrick Cannan, in a conversation with Newsbytes, has denied any connection between Wackenhut and the so-called "Inslaw case."

Wackenhut's name has come up consistently in relation to claims made by Michael Riconosciuto that he, while a research director for a joint venture between Wackenhut and the Cabazon Indians, modified a stolen copy of Inslaw's Promis software for sale by Earl Brian to the Canadian government. These claims, which surfaced most recently in a Village Voice article by James Ridgeway ("Software To Die For", Village Voice, September 24th), also portray the joint venture as one which manufactured weapons (including biological and chemical) for foreign governments, including the "contras."

Cannan told Newsbytes: "When these claims first came up, we did an extensive check of our records on Riconosciuto and can say, without fear of contradiction, that he was never an employee of Wackenhut. I believe that he did make some proposals to the management of the joint venture and, if they had been accepted, he would have played a role in the project. Things like this are common in this type of business but his proposals were never accepted."

Cannan, continued, commenting on the relationship of Wackenhut and the Cabazon Indians, saying: "We were involved in a joint venture in the early 1980s. The purpose of the venture was to attempt to obtain contracts in our base business - the security business. The Indians, I guess because of their minority status, were believed to have good opportunities of obtaining this type of contract. It turned out that we never got any contracts and, after two years, the venture was cancelled."

The Inslaw case involves the alleged theft of software by the Justice Deptartment from the Inslaw Corp. and, has grown from a tile and bankruptcy case to one that includes allegations of sales of the software to foreign governments (such as Canada, Iraq, South Korea, Libya and Israel) by such Watergate figures as Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord.

The case attracted more public attention following the apparent suicide death of journalist Joseph D. "Danny" Casolaro on mid-August in a Martinsburg motel room. Casolaro had told friends that he had made connections between Inslaw, IranContra and the so-called "October Surprise" (allegations that representatives of the Reagan-Bush campaign team had convinced the Iranian government to delay release of American hostages until after the 1980 U.S. elections).

Casolaro also allegedly told his brother, that, if he reportedly had an accident, it was not to be believed. Former US Attorney General Elliot Richardson, now attorney for Inslaw, has demanded a federal investigation of Casolaro's death and has been quoted that Inslaw "is far worse than Watergate."

Cannan also responded to Newsbytes questions concerning rumors that William Casey, ex-CIA Director often named in the "October Surprise" allegations was legal counsel to Wackenhut before joining the government and that former CIA officials Frank Carlucci and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman were Wackenhut directors. Cannan said: "Although Casey's law firm represented Wackenhut, Casey himself never had any connection with us. Carlucci was a director of the firm -- he is no longer -- but Inman was not. We did have another director with a similar background to Inman, an admiral who was chief of naval operations, and that might have lead to the incorrect rumor."

The Wackenhut Corp. is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (ticker symbol - WAK) and is a conglomerate with subsidiaries throughout the world, including Canada, Liberia, El Salvador, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Australia, and Central Europe. Its enterprises include the providing of security and investigative services to business, management of correctional facilities, nuclear material auditing, training of security and fire and crash rescue personnel, and the sale of electronic security systems. It also owns a casualty reinsurance firm, a travel service and an airline services company.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910924)

Journal: The New York Times Sept 3 1991 v140 pA17(N) pD12(L) 27 col in.

Title: As U.S. battles computer company, writer takes vision of evil to grave. (the Inslaw case)(Danny Casolaro)

Author: Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr.

Summary: The mysterious death of Danny Casolaro, a novelist and magazine writer, generates attention to the long-running Justice Department vs Inslaw Inc court case. Inslaw, a small Washington DC-based software company, has accused Justice Department officials of fraud and theft. Officials allegedly schemed to steal Inslaw's software that was developed for tracking the government's record of criminal cases, and withheld payments on the pretext of contract violations, thereby driving Inslaw to insolvency. The Justice Department denies the allegations. Casolaro, who was openly investigating the case, reportedly believed the Inslaw case was part of a government-wide scandal involving Reagan administration officials. Inslaw's lawyer, Elliot L. Richardson, has called for an investigation on Casolaro's death and the Inslaw case.

Journal: Newsbytes August 27 1991

Title: Casolaro source charges gov't procurement scandal. (William Turner; James D. Casolaro died while investigating charges of government involvement in Inslaw Inc.)

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

****CASOLARO SOURCE CHARGES GOV'T PROCUREMENT SCANDAL 08/27/91 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1991 AUG 27 (NB) -- "Bill," the mysterious Newsbytes source who met with investigative journalist James D. "Danny" Casolaro on the night before Casolaro's death in a Martinsburg, W. VA motel, has come forward on the August 26th "Inside Edition" television show and discussed his meeting with Casolaro.

By coming forward, "Bill" identified himself as William Turner, a former quality assurance manager for Hughes Aircraft. In Turner's previous interviews with Newsbytes, he had requested anonymity because of both a commitment to Inside Edition and what he said was the advice of counsel. Turner has alleged that Hughes Aircraft, with the assistance of U.S. government personnel, has covered up the deliverance of systems for military use that were below the procurement specifications.

While Turner's participation on the television broadcast dealt almost exclusively with his meeting with Casolaro, he told Newsbytes that he had over three hours of discussion with the show's interviewers on all aspects of his charges. Casolaro has told Newsbytes that his attempts to call public attention to what he calls a "procurement scandal" have resulted in his harassment by the government. He claims that "all of a sudden the Veteran's Administration found that it had been overpaying my pension. Even after I agreed with them on a schedule for me to make installment repayment of the overage, I was sued for the entire amount."

Turner also told Newsbytes that threats have been made against him personally, resulting in his obtaining of police protection. He said that, prior to the police protection, his house had been under obvious surveillance from autos parked near his home. He said that his phone frequently rings and, when he picks it up, there is an audible "hang-up" from the other end. He also alleges that his telephone is "tapped" and that his conversations are often interrupted by clicks and that conversations are terminated.

During his conversation with Newsbytes, at a point when he was discussing the details of the alleged procurement scandal, a click similar to that of an extension being picked up was clearly heard and our conversation was cut off. When Newsbytes called back, Turner said that the interruption had become an "on-going thing" and that he was "sure that it related to his phone being tapped."

Turner said that he has had contact with ex-U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson's law firm, which is also representing Inslaw Inc., the firm whose charges against the Justice Dept. has been a major subject of Casolaro's investigation. According to Turner, the law firm has advised him to refuse to discuss the Casolaro death with the Martinsburg, W. VA police who have been trying to contact him. Turner, who criticized the police investigation of the death, said that he will discuss his meeting with Casolaro with the police when his attorneys are present.

Turner told Newsbytes that on the day before Casolaro was found dead of an apparent suicide, he had met with him and turned over papers documenting his charges about the Hughes cover-up. He said that he was shown other material that Casolaro had received -- material that Casolaro felt would substantiate "Octopus" theory. (According to friends of Casolaro, "octopus" referred to his belief that there was a connection between the various cases, or "tentacles," that he was investigating: Inslaw, government procurement, IranContra, "October Surprise.")

Reports from the Martinsburg death scene did not report the finding of papers mentioned by Turner and their absence has led to charges that Casolaro met with foul play. Richardson has called for a federal investigation of the death, as has Casolaro's brother, a Virginia physician.

Turner also told Newsbytes that he has additional copies of the documentation supporting his charges secure in a safe place and that the "truth will come out even if something happens to me."

The so-called "Inslaw Case" involves charges by Inslaw, Inc. that the Justice Department purposely drove it into bankruptcy so that it could steal Inslaw's Promis software. While bankruptcy counts on two decisions found the allegations to be factual and fined the Justice Dept., saying that the government agency had practiced "trickery, fraud and deceit," the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 7, 1991 overturned the award, saying that the courts had overstepped their jurisdiction. The appeals court said, at the time, that Inslaw CEO William Hamilton was free to pursue his claims in the proper federal court and that the Justice Department's "conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable."

During the appeal process, Inslaw broadened its charges to claim that Iran Contra figures Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord had played a role is disseminating the software to intelligence agencies of Israel, Libya, Iraq, South Korea, and Canada. These charges, substantiated by Ari Ben-Menashe, who claims to be a former Israeli intelligence officer, Iranian arms dealer Richard Babayan, and Michael Riconosciuto, who said that he was hired to modify the software for use in law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide, led to a investigation of the case by the House Judiciary Committee and a confrontation between committee chairman Jack Brooks and Attorney General Richard Thornburgh over the release to the committee of material relating to the case. The investigation continues at this time.

Turner told Newsbytes that he has confidence in Casolaro's theory of a connection between Inslaw and his charges concerning Hughes.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910827)

Journal: Newsbytes August 22 1991

Title: Inslaw "source" speaks to Newsbytes.

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

INSLAW "SOURCE" SPEAKS TO NEWSBYTES 08/22/91 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1991 AUG 22 (NB) -- "Bill," the person who reportedly met with journalist James D. "Danny" Casolaro on the night before Casolaro's death in a Martinsburg, W. VA motel, has confirmed to Newsbytes that he provided Casolaro with evidence of U.S. government malfeasance in the procurement of technology.

Bill, speaking to Newsbytes under the promise of anonymity, said that Casolaro found this information to be related to Casolaro's year- long investigation of accusations made by the Inslaw, Inc. against the United States Department of Justice. Casolaro had told friends shortly before his death that he had taken to calling the investigation the "Octopus" because of connections that he had allegedly found between the Inslaw case and such things as "IranContra," the "October Surprise," investigation and Bill's charges.

Bill, who is now scheduled to "go public" with his charges in an appearance on the television show "Inside Edition" on Monday, August 26th, told Newsbytes that he had promised the producers of the show that he would make no statements to the media on these matters until Tuesday, August 27th. He additionally said that he had discussed this commitment with Inslaw, Inc. attorney Elliot Richardson who also advised him to make no public statements until that date.

Bill further told Newsbytes that the Martinsburg police investigators are aware of his identity and have attempted to interrogate him concerning his conversations with Casolaro. He, to this date, has refused to meet with them and stated that this decision was also made in consultation with Richardson's firm. He also told Newsbytes that he has reason to believe that he is under surveillance, saying, "There are many more cars on my street than usual and I am sure that my phone is tapped. I'm getting calls at all hours of the night and, when I pick up the phone, the caller hangs up. They are not only watching me but are trying to scare me off. They won't succeed, however; I will get the truth out. I have copies of the documentation in a safe place and it will come out even if something happens to me."

Another Inslaw-related allegation came to light when a Newsbytes source said that Casolaro had told her/him that a person that was about to furnish him with important documentation had been murdered last January 31st. According to the source, Casolaro had identified ex-National Security Agency (NSA) employee Alan David Standoff, found at Washington National Airport in a car, as a contact tied to the case. According to investigators, Standoff had been murdered by beating with a blunt instrument at some other location and then transported to the airport. He, according to the Newsbytes source, had resigned from the NSA on December 19th (effective 01/14/91) because of his call-up by his National Guard unit.

Casolaro's death, initially ruled a suicide, has been referred to as possibly a murder by friends and relatives as well as by Richardson who has called for a federal inquiry. The so-called "Inslaw Case" involves charges by Inslaw, Inc., that the Justice Department purposely drove it into bankruptcy so that it could steal Inslaw's Promis software. While bankruptcy counts on two decisions found the allegations to be factual and fined the Justice Dept., saying that the government agency had practiced "trickery, fraud and deceit." The U.S. Court of Appeals on May 7, 1991 overturned the award, saying that the courts had overstepped their jurisdiction. The appeals court said, at the time, that Inslaw CEO William Hamilton was free to pursue his claims in the proper federal court and that the Justice Department's "conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable."

During the appeal process, Inslaw broadened its charges to claim that Iran Contra figures Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord had played a role is disseminating the software to intelligence agencies of Israel, Libya, Iraq, South Korea, and Canada. These charges, substantiated by Ari Ben-Menashe, who claims to be a former Israeli intelligence officer, Iranian arms dealer Richard Babayan, and Michael Riconosciuto, who said that he was hired to modify the software for use in law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide, led to a investigation of the case by the House Judiciary Committee and a confrontation between committee chairman Jack Brooks and Attorney General Richard Thornburgh over the release to the committee of material relating to the case. The investigation continues at this time.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/1991082)

Journal: Newsbytes August 19 1991

Title: Inslaw death investigation continues. (death of reporter Joseph D. Casolaro investigating Inslaw Inc.'s suit against government)

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

****INSLAW DEATH INVESTIGATION CONTINUES 08/19/91 MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA, U.S.A., AUG 19 (NB) -- The Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg, West Virginia, the scene of the death of Washington, D.C. journalist Joseph D. "Danny" Casolaro, has received more press attention than ever before in its history as reporters from ABC-TV, Newsbytes News Network, and the Washington Post roamed the halls interrogating bell-hops, waitresses, and desk clerks for information regarding the death of Casolaro.

Employees, supposedly under the cloak of Sheraton-forced silence, told Newsbytes that, while some prospective guests have specifically requested the room in which Casolaro died, their instructions have been to leave the room vacant for an unspecified time.

Casolaro, 44, had been investigating the "Inslaw" case, a rather tangled web of allegations relating to the charges brought by Inslaw Inc., that the Justice Department had first stolen its software product, "Promis," and then driven the firm into bankruptcy. Casolaro had told friends and family that he was about to receive material that would provide him with documentation linking Inslaw to other alleged incidents of Reagan-Bush administration wrong-doing. Casolaro was said to have referred to the alleged conspiracy as the "Octopus" and stated that there were links between the Inslaw theft, the "October Surprise," and Iran- Contra allegations.

The "October surprise" refers to allegations that representatives of the Reagan-Bush campaign team, through meetings with Iranian representatives, delayed the release of the hostages in Iran until after the 1980 elections. These charges are currently being investigated by Congressional committee.

Casolaro was found dead, an apparent suicide, in Room 517 of the Sheraton on Saturday, August 10th, two days after his arrival in Martinsburg. He was found in the bathtub at approximately 1:00 pm with both wrists slashed. His body was released within three hours to a local funeral parlor for embalming, an action that Berkeley County Medical Examiner Sandra Brining was quoted as saying was normal in the case of a suicide. "Everything was consistent with a self-inflicted wound."

When Casolaro's family became aware of his death on Monday, August 14th, it immediately called for an expanded investigation and his brother, Dr. Anthony Casolaro, an Arlington, Virginia physician, was quoted as saying, "In my heart I remember Danny telling us that in case of an accident, don't believe it." Dr. Casolaro also discounted statements made by his brother in a letter to a publisher in which he seemed financially strapped and despondent. Dr. Casolaro attributed Casolaro's remarks to a desire to convince the would-be publisher of the importance of extending a book contract to him. Casolaro had been immersed in the Inslaw case for over a year and had been unsuccessful in two proposals to the publishing firm of Little, Brown & Co.

The clamor for a fuller investigation caused an autopsy to be subsequently performed on Casolaro, an action that Assistant Berkeley County prosecutor Cynthia Gaither said was not hindered by the previous embalming.

Casolaro was buried on Friday, October 16th after a funeral service at St. Ann's Catholic Church in Arlington, Virginia attended by over 100 people.

At a press conference held on Thursday, August 15th, Dr. James Frost, assistant West Virginia medical examiner, said that, while the results of the examination bore out the preliminary findings of suicide, the investigation would be continued. Brining and Gaither also participated in the hour-long press conference held in the meeting room of the Martinsburg City Council.

Newsbytes has obtained conflicting reports on the state of Casolaro's mental condition. A California free-lance journalist, Virginia McCullough, with whom Casolaro had allegedly shared information, told Newsbytes, "It is ludicrous to think that Danny took his life. He was excited about his new contact and said that 'For the first time I really believe that the government was involved.'" McCullough, herself, claims to be the victim of a government action that drove her electronics firm into bankruptcy and she is presently writing a book on her case and other similar cases, including Inslaw.

McCullough's comments on the unlikelihood of a Casolaro suicide were echoed in quotes from Pat Clawson, president of Washington- based Metrowest Broadcasting Co., and Richard O'Connell, editor of the Washington Crime News, a newsletter published in Arlington, VA. Nancy Hamilton, vice president of Inslaw, also took issue with the suicide finding telling the Martinsburg Morning Journal, "We don't accept that. They are saying that here is a man, totally sober, mutilating himself."

Martinsburg residents interviewed by Newsbytes paint a slightly different picture and depict Casolaro as seemingly depressed and drinking pitchers of beer by himself in a local Pizza Hut on the Thursday evening before his death (although a wine bottle was found in his room, there was no evidence of alcohol found in the body by the autopsy). Additionally, a Washington Post piece of Saturday, August 17th by Gary Lee and Robert O'Harrow, Jr., shows Casolaro to be debt-ridden and despondent. According to the Post report, "Casolaro had no independent means of income and had invested heavily in the book project for at least eight months, financing several trips to the West Coast and long-distance telephone calls."

The Post article also revealed that Casolaro's sister had committed suicide in California 20 years ago. While confirming the sister's suicide and his brother's financial difficulties, Dr. Casolaro said that these facts still did not support a conclusion of suicide for his brother. He told the Post, "Danny was the sort of guy who was always broke but he knew that he had a lot of resources for money in the family if he needed it."

Dr. Casolaro also told the Post that he had received a call from a man who purported to have met with Casolaro in Martinsburg on the day before the death and turned over documents relating to computer hardware thefts. Dr. Casolaro said that the man was willing to meet with investigators under the cloak of anonymity. Newsbytes has confirmed, from multiple sources, the existence of the contact, a man called "Bill," but has not yet obtained information concerning the content or the validity of the purported documentation.

The so-called "Inslaw Case" began in 1982 when Inslaw signed a $10 million contract to provide an enhanced version of its case tracking software to the U.S. Department of Justice. According to Inslaw, shortly after it rebuffed attempts by a company owned by Earl Brian, a close friend of former US. Attorney General Edwin Meese, to buy Inslaw, the government stopped its contract payments and eventually forced the firm into bankruptcy. In January 1988, a federal bankruptcy judge upheld the claims of Inslaw President William Hamilton and awarded Inslaw damages of $6.8 million, saying that the Justice Department has stolen the Promis software by "trickery, fraud and deceit." A second federal judge later upheld the ruling.

The Justice Dept. continued to appeal the verdicts and, on May 7, 1991, was successful when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the bankruptcy court had claimed extraordinary and improper jurisdiction in the case. The court said that Hamilton was free to pursue his claims in the proper federal court and that the Justice Department's "conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable."

During the appeal process, Inslaw broadened its charges to claim that Iran Contra figures Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord had played a role is disseminating the software to intelligence agencies of Israel, Libya, Iraq, South Korea, and Canada. These charges were substantiated by Ari Ben-Menashe, who claims to be a former Israeli intelligence officer, Iranian arms dealer Richard Babayan, and Michael Riconosciuto, who said that he was hired to modify the software for use in law enforcement and intelligence agencies worldwide.

Riconosciuto, who was arrested in March of this year and is being held in the state of Washington, also claimed to be involved in a now-defunct joint venture between the Wachenhut Corp. of Coral Gables, FL and the Southern California Cabazon Indian tribe. According to Riconosciuto's affidavit, the joint venture developed sophisticated weapons for the Contras. McFarlane and Brian have denied all charges.

There have also been reports that the software, allegedly used by the foreign intelligence services for maintaining dissidents, contained a "Trojan horse" that would allow U.S. security agencies to have undetected access to the computer system of the foreign agency. It was also revealed during this time that Inslaw President Hamilton is a former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA).

As the long appeal process continued, the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) began its own investigation of the case and became embroiled in a year-long battle with then Attorney General Richard Thornburgh who refused to turn over Justice Department documents to the committee. Shortly before Thornburgh's departure to run for the Senate from Pennsylvania, an agreement was reached between the committee and the Justice Department on the release of certain documents and the investigation is now continuing. During the controversy, another former U.S. Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, now serving as counsel for Inslaw, said, "Evidence of the widespread ramifications of the Inslaw case comes from many sources and keeps accumulating. It remains inexplicable why the Justice Department refuses to pursue this evidence and resists cooperation with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives."

On Wednesday, August 14th, Richardson called for a federal investigation of Casolaro's death and was quoted as suspecting murder in the case.

In an interview with Newsbytes, an investigative reporter who has been tracking Inslaw and related cases for a few years said that he had met with Casolaro within the last six months and that Casolaro had no material at that time that the investigative reporter deemed as new. The reporter, speaking to Newsbytes under the promise of non-attribution, also said, "I believe that the Justice Department stole Inslaw's software. I have not seen, however, compelling evidence to support the charges that it was linked to the so-called 'October Surprise.'"

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910819)

Journal: Computergram International August 16 1991 n1742

Title: Minigrams.

Full Text:

Remember the InsLaw Inc case - well it looks set to blow up into a high profile and potentially far-reaching scandal: InsLaw is a tiny Washington DC company that was awarded a $10m contract with the US Justice Department for software designed to make it easier for the police and the authorities to track cases and keep tabs on dissidents, and in 1983, it sued Justice claiming that theer ain't no such thing and that the Department had stolen its software; a House of Representatives judiciary subcommittee is still investigating the case, but meantime Joseph Casolaro, an investigative reporter of Fairfax, Virginia who had been working for a year researching a book on the InsLaw case, was found in a hotel bathtub with both wrists slashed; a suicide note was found nearby, but an autopsy has been ordered after suspicions were aroused that the death was a murder disguised to look like suicide after the family told police he had no reason to kill himself.

Journal: Newsbytes August 15 1991

Title: "Suicide" of Inslaw reporter questioned. (Joseph D. 'Danny' Casolaro may have been murdered during investigation of Inslaw suit against U.S. Justice Dept.)

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

"SUICIDE" OF INSLAW REPORTER QUESTIONED 08/15/91 SUNOL, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A., 1991 AUG 15 (NB) -- The verdict of suicide in the death of reporter Joseph D. "Danny" Casolaro on Saturday, August 10th has been challenged by friends and relatives.

Casolaro, 44, of Fairfax, Va., had been, according to reports, involved in an investigation of the allegations surrounding government activities in the Inslaw software case.

Casolaro was, according to reports, found dead in the bathtub of his Martinsburg, West Virginia hotel room Saturday with his wrists cut. Dr. James Frost, an assistant state medical examiner was quoted as saying: "The wounds are consistent with being self- inflicted, but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't have done this if he were not able to defend himself."

Virginia McCullough, a freelance journalist and friend of Casolaro, told Newsbytes that Casolaro was working for over a year on a book concerning the allegations by Inslaw president William Hamilton that the Justice Department first broke a $10 million contract with his firm, then stole the firm's software and subsequently sold and donated it to foreign intelligence agencies.

McCullough said: "It is ludicrous to think that Danny would kill himself. He had recently told me that he was looking forward to a trip that would give him the documentation to prove the Justice Department's involvement. He said: 'For the first time, I've become a real believer that the government was involved in these things.'"

McCullough went on to say that Casolaro was never depressed in his conversations with her and that they often spoke, sharing information in relation to the case. McCullough, herself involved with a company that she says had very similar experiences to Inslaw, is currently writing a book detailing what she says have been questionable acts by government agencies in the use of bankruptcy proceedings to stifle the development of technology.

Casolaro's brother, Dr. M. Anthony Casolaro, was quoted by news services as also doubting the suicide reports. He said that police told him a handwritten note saying: "I'm sorry, especially to my son," was found at the scene.

The House Judiciary Committee is presently investigating the Inslaw charges and had announced in April of this year that the Justice Department, after long delays, has agreed to turn over documentation relating to the case.

The case began in 1985 when Inslaw filed for bankruptcy claiming that the Justice Dept. had stopped payment on a 1982 contract for the installation of Inslaw's legal case management software, "Promis" into 97 U.S. Attorney's offices. Inslaw claimed that the government contract represented 70 percent of Inslaw's income and that the government action forced it into bankruptcy.

Inslaw was successful and a bankruptcy judge found that the department "took, converted and stole" the company's property "by trickery, fraud and deceit" and further said that the government's conduct demonstrated "bad faith, vexatiousness, wantonness and oppressiveness."

The Justice Department appealed the ruling and, in 1989, U.S. District Court Judge William Bryant upheld the decision and ordered the government to pay Inslaw $8 million plus attorney's fees.

The Justice Department continued to appeal the case and, on May 7, 1991, was successful when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the bankruptcy rulings saying that the bankruptcy court's rulings were too broad and inappropriate for a bankruptcy ruling.

The court said that, while Inslaw is entitled to go to another court to press its claim,. the U.S. Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction. Commenting on Inslaw's allegations of misbehavior, the court said: "Such conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable."

During the appeals, stories of illegal sales of the allegedly stolen software to foreign governments including Iraq, Libya, South Korea, Israel and Canada, and involvement of Reagan Washington and California appointees Earl Brian, Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord in the transactions have caused the House Judiciary Committee to seek involvement -- an involvement that the Justice Department has resisted.

Elliot Richardson, former United States Attorney General who now represents Hamilton, was quoted during the appeal process as saying: "Evidence of the widespread ramifications of the Inslaw case comes from many sources and keeps accumulating."

"It remains inexplicable why the Justice Department consistently refuses to pursue this evidence and resists co-operation with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives," he added.

The case took still another turn when witness Ari Ben-Menashe reportedly testified that the owner of Inslaw, William Hamilton, is a former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) and that the software was modified into a "Trojan Horse" in order to allow the NSA and the Mossad to listen in on the transactions of other intelligence services.

The attraction of the case management software to these intelligence agencies was, according to witnesses, that, rather than its intended use of tracking case witnesses and legal opinions, it lent itself to the tracking of dissidents and foreign agents.

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen/19910815)

Journal: Government Computer News August 5 1991 v10 n16 p1(2)

Title: Thornburgh bows on Inslaw papers. (Attorney General Richard Thornburgh turns over to House Judiciary Committee documents on the Justice Department's dealings with Inslaw Inc.)

Author: Seaborn, Margaret M.

Summary: Attorney General Richard Thornburgh submitted to the House Judiciary most of the 456 subpoenaed documents concerning the Justice Department's dealings with Inslaw Inc, a software publisher. Thornburgh had been threatened with a contempt-of-Congress charge if he did not turn over the documents. Inslaw and the Justice Department have been locked in lawsuits over Inslaw's case management software, Promis. Justice has been accused of stealing later versions of the software and attempting to force the company into bankruptcy. The House committee, chaired by Rep John Brooks, has been investigating the case for two years but Brooks said that Thornburgh has stalled its progress by withholding documents. Justice officials have declared 51 documents lost but have reconstructed most of them.

Full Text:

Threatened with a contempt-of-Congress charge, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh last week turned over to House investigators several hundred subpoenaed documents concerning the Justice Department's dealings with Inslaw Inc.

Last Tuesday night, Thornburgh handed over most but not all of the 456 documents. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, had warned that if the department failed to hand over the documents by Wednesday, he would ask Congress to act to hold Thornburgh in contempt.

After the partial delivery, Brooks said the contempt proceedings were "merely suspended." He said he expects Thornburgh to turn over the remaining documents by Sept. 11, when Congress reconvenes after its summer holiday.

The missing documents are from one file of the chief litigating attorney in the Inslaw case. Justice officials have been telling the committee since May that the department had misplaced 51 of that attorney's documents.

Justice reconstructed most of these documents, but at least 12 still are missing, Brooks said, adding that the committee has not been able to assess the thoroughness of the reconstructed material. Also, Brooks said, at least another 40 documents submitted last week are incomplete.

Justice said in a letter that it had searched "meticulously" for the missing documents. Brooks said the department has been unable to explain to the committee how the records were misplaced.

"By the department's own admission, these documents are highly sensitive. I hope they are not lost somewhere," he said last week. "I remain concerned that no action has been taken [by the department] to investigate the possibility that this material was destroyed, stolen or shredded in order to obstruct the committee's investigation."

For the past several years, Justice and Inslaw, a small Washington software company, have been battling in courts over the company's case management software, Promis. Inslaw first provided its software to Justice through a 1982 contract.

Brooks' committee has been investigating allegations that Justice stole later versions of the software and tried to force the company into bankruptcy. But Brooks said Thornburgh has stalled Judiciary's two-year investigation by denying committee investigators access to documents.

Finally, late last month, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law voted 10 to 6 to subpoena the Inslaw files from Thornburgh.

Although the department had promised repeatedly to supply the missing documents, Brooks said, the subpoena was necessary because Justice had reneged at least three times.

"At this rate, the investigation could drag on for another two years," Brooks said. "I simply cannot permit legitimate oversight to be forestalled by dilatory or evasive steps."

To hold Thornburgh in contempt of Congress, Brooks would have to gain the votes of a majority of the full House. If the House were to approve such a charge, theoretically the sergeant-at-arms would be empowered to arrest the attorney general and hold him in a one-room cell in the Capitol.

Justice officials tried to avoid the subpoena by making an 11th-hour promise last month to provide the documents. Brooks said Thornburgh had assured him on six occasions that the department would cooperate. But Brooks said he no longer would accept such assurances, and the subcommittee went ahead with the subpoena.

The Judiciary Committee's relationship with Thornburgh has grown increasingly testly during the past few weeks, culminating with the Inslaw subpoena.

Thornburgh refused to appear at an earlier committee hearing concerning Justice's 1992 budget request [GCN, July 22]. Brooks has said the committee may cut finding for several Justice programs, including its massive Project Eagle office automation initiative, if that is what is necessary to get the department's attention.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has denied Inslaw's petition for a rehearing by the 11-judge bench.

An appeals court panel in May ruled that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction in 1988 when it concluded that Justice attempted to drive Inslaw out of business.

Nancy Hamilton, Inslaw vice president, said the company plans to petition the Supreme Court to hear its case.

Journal: Computerworld July 29 1991 v25 n30 p12(1).

Title: Inslaw papers subpoenaed. (Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issues subpoena to access records thought to be important in case between Inslaw Inc. and the U.S. Department of Justice)

Author: Anthes, Gary H.

Summary: The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the US Justice Department to turn over records thought to be relevant to the on-going dispute initiated in 1983 between the Justice Department and Inslaw Inc. The Judiciary Committee is investigating charges that the US Justice Department stole software and tried to force Inslaw out of business. The subpoena asked Attorney General Richard Thornburgh to release 456 documents thought to be connected to the case. Thornburgh has promised to release the documents on several occasions, but he has not done so. The Justice Department now claims that several of the requested documents are missing, and no explanation has been offered to explain their absence.

Journal: Government Computer News July 22 1991 v10 n15 p76(1)

Title: Inslaw asks court to reinstate $6M judgement against Justice. (Inslaw Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Department of Justice)

Full Text:

Inslaw Inc. has asked the 11-judge bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reinstate a lower court's decision to award Inslaw $6 million in damages from the Justice Department.

For several years, the small Washington software company has alleged that following a dispute over a 1982 contract, Justice officials tried to force Inslaw into bankruptcy and to steal enhanced versions of the company's case management software, Promis.

In 1987, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court substantially upheld these arguments. The U.S. District Court in Washington then affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling and awarded Inslaw more than $6 million in damages, which Justice never paid.

An appeals court panel in May said the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to rule that Justice used "trickery, fraud and deceit" to drive Inslaw out of business.

Inslaw's petition for reconsideration said the appeals court decision "rejects the well-accepted authority of a bankruptcy court to hear actions that directly affect the administration of a bankruptcy estate."

In reversing the ruling, the appeals court said it was not ruling on the validity of Inslaw's allegations and suggested the company file its complaints anew in a court other than bankruptcy court.

Journal: PC Week June 10 1991 v8 n23 p130(1)

Title: The verdict on Cal? he's 'a nice fellow,' but the jury's still out. (Rumor Central) (column)

Text:

As the Furry One maneuvered his Winnebago into a rest area off I-95, Cal pulled out a copy of In These Times, which last month told of alleged injustices by the U.S. Justice Department. As the story goes, the Feds asked a company called Inslaw to develop a case-tracking database called Promis, which Inslaw then developed. The Feds rejected the package on technical grounds --but then used it anyway, selling it to several foreign nations without cutting the vendor in on the profits.

"I don't believe a word of it," Spencer harrumphed. "It's a matter of public record. Look it up," responded Cal.

Journal: Government Computer News May 13 1991 v10 n10 p3(2)

Title: Appeals Court tosses finding that Justice stole from Inslaw. (Department of Justice)

Author: Seaborn, Margaret M.

Summary: A federal appeals court has dismissed the ruling of a lower court that the Department of Justice stole case management software from Inslaw Inc. The District of Columbia US Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Bankruptcy Court overstepped its jurisdiction in 1987 when it ruled that the Justice Department used fraud, trickery and deceit to force the Washington-based software company out of business. The US District court affirmed the bankruptcy ruling and awarded Inslaw a $6 million judgement which the Justice Department never paid. The appeals court suggested that Inslaw start over in the federal court system after five years of legal actions stemming from a contract awarded by Justice to Inslaw for the development of case management software. The court's decision said the Justice Department was brought into the Bankruptcy court because Inslaw filed for bankruptcy and the company succeeded in convincing the court to adjudicate the contract, though the court had no jurisdiction to do so. The court did not rule on the validity of the charges and criticized the bankruptcy court for its ruling.

Full Text:

A federal appeals court last week threw out a lower court's findings that the Justice Department had stolen case management software from Inslaw Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court had overstepped its jurisdiction in 1987 when it ruled Justice used "trickery, fraud and deceit" to drive the small Washington software company out of business.

A U.S. District Court later affirmed the bankruptcy ruling and awarded Inslaw $6 million. Justice never paid the money.

After five years of legal actions stemming from a contract Justice awarded to Inslaw in 1982 for development of case management software, the appeals court suggested that Inslaw start over in the federal court system.

The appeals court's decision said Justice was "hauled in front of the bankruptcy court simply because Inslaw filed for bankruptcy, and Inslaw has succeeded in convincing the bankruptcy court to adjudicate its contract... disputes although the court had no basis to do so."

The court did not rule on the validity of the Inslaw charges and criticized the bankruptcy court for its "extraordinary" ruling. "Such conduct, if it occurred, is inexcusable," the appeals court said of Inslaw's complaints against Justice. But, "offensive as lawless conduct by one branch of government may be, however, it does not justify another's lawlessness."

The reversal also means Justice need not comply with a discovery ruling last month in which an appeals court judge ordered Justice to turn over information about whether the software, Promis, was being used at several Justice bureaus.

Inslaw vice president Nancy Hamilton said the company "will fight to the end." She said Inslaw either will file a new suit or appeal the decision. The company has gathered more evidence against Justice since it filed the original suit, she said.

Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general in charge of Justice's Civil Division, said the department was "gratified" by the court's dismissal of Inslaw's complaint.

Gerson said it "vindicates the position the government has taken from the outset -- that notwithstanding the intensity of the underlying dispute between Inslaw and the department, this is fundamentally a . . . contractual disagreement."

Inslaw president William A. Hamilton said, "The Justice Department has consistently hidden behind technical defenses to avoid its duty to enforce the laws in regard to the misconduct of its own officials against Inslaw."

Meanwhile, a congressional investigation of the Inslaw-Justice dispute is continuing. After months of stalling, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh has agreed to make several hundred documents about the department's dealings with Inslaw available to House Judiciary Committee investigators.

The committee was allowed access to the materials only after agreeing to several stipulations Thornburgh laid out last month in a letter to the committee chairman, Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Texas).

Judiciary investigators agreed to review the documents on Justice's premises, formally request copies and, at least initially, withhold the documents from the public.

Since last July, Brooks had been trying to obtain some 200 department documents his committee investigators said pertained to the legal dispute.

It now appears the committee will examine many more than 200 documents. The first of 15 sets of documents, which investigators began reviewing May 1, alone contained 193 items.

The committee considers access to the documents a major breakthrough in its investigation.

The issue of access to the documents came to a head late last year. Brooks, frustrated by Justice's continual delays in providing the materials to his committee, threatened to issue subpoenas and said he would use whatever means necessary to force Justice to turn over the documents.

Subsequently, Thornburgh assured Brooks he would give him the documents and the department would cooperate fully.

Journal: Federal Computer Week May 6 1991 v5 n12 p4(1).

Title: Justice screens Inslaw document release. (Department of Justice limits access to documents in conspiracy case)

Author: Sweeney, Shahida.

Summary: The Department of Justice limits House Judiciary Committee access to papers relating to an investigation of government conspiracy against software developer INSLAW. The Justice Department claims that releasing all documents would jeopardize its appeal against INSLAW. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the Justice Department's award of a $212 million office automation contract to TiSoft Inc. House investigators are being allowed by the Justice Department to view relating papers, but may only take notes from them for future reference or permission to obtain copies. INSLAW is granted permission to examine Department of Justice tapes in order to ascertain if the agency is illegally using copies if INSLAW's Promise office automation software.

Journal: Newsbytes April 29 1991

Title: Washington Post calls for Inslaw progress. (software publisher's case against the justice Department)

Author: McMullen, Barbara E.; McMullen, John F.

Full Text:

WASHINGTON POST CALLS FOR INSLAW PROGRESS 04/29/91 WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1991 APR 29 (NB) -- The Washington Post, in an April 27th editorial, has criticized the Justice Department for the lengthy lack of progress in cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee's investigation of the Inslaw case.

Recalling that it had editorially praised Attorney General Dick Thornburgh a year ago for agreeing to cooperate, the Post said, "We wrote too soon. The department continued to resist the committee's request for some documents, and the investigation has been hamstrung while lawyers argued over what should be shared and what should remain secret. This week agreement was finally achieved - or so we think - and after seven years of stonewalling the department has pledged full cooperation."

Inslaw, a small computer software firm signed a contract in 1982 to supply all 94 U.S. attorney's offices with "Promis" software it had developed to track the progress of cases and compile information about caseloads. According to the Post story, the government contract accounted for 70% of Inslaw's business and, when the Justice Dept. stopped payment and terminated the contract in 1984, the firm went into bankruptcy.

William Hamilton, Inslaw owner, brought suit against the Justice Dept., claiming that it had stolen the firm's software and willfully driven the firm into bankruptcy. Hamilton was successful in his suit and a judge in the initial case found that the department "took, converted and stole" the company's property "by trickery, fraud and deceit" and further said that the government's conduct demonstrated "bad faith, vexatiousness, wantonness and oppressiveness."

The Justice Dept. appealed the ruling and, in 1989, U.S. District Court Judge William Bryant upheld the decision and ordered the government to pay Inslaw $8 million plus attorney's fees. Bryant's decision has since been appealed.

During the appeals, stories of illegal sales of the allegedly stolen software to foreign governments including Iraq, Libya, South Korea, Israel and Canada, and involvement of Reagan Washington and California appointees Earl Brian, Robert McFarlane and Richard Secord in the transactions have caused the House Judiciary Committee to seek involvement -- an involvement that the Justice Dept. has resisted. Elliot Richardson, former United States Attorney General who now represents Hamilton, was quoted recently as saying, "Evidence of the widespread ramifications of the Inslaw case comes from many sources and keeps accumulating. It remains inexplicable why the Justice Department consistently refuses to pursue this evidence and resists cooperation with the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives."

The Post editorial concludes, "The House Judiciary Committee has been more insistent, and now Chairman Jack Brooks' (D-Tex.) persistence has paid off. The attorney general will let committee investigators see every document, though it is understood that some material sensitive to the litigation will be treated in confidence. This simple arrangement should not have taken nearly so long. The breakthrough is welcome. We hope it is for real this time."

(Barbara E. McMullen & John F. McMullen//19910429)

Journal: Government Computer News April 15 1991 v10 n8 p6(1)

Title: Panel questions Justice Dept. on Inslaw. (House Judiciary Committee investigates Inslaw Inc. accusation that Justice Dept. illegally used and distributed Promis case management system)

Author: Seaborn, Margaret M.

Full Text:

Panel Questions Justice Dept. on Inslaw

Despite the Justice Department's recent appointment of an IRM chief, the House Judiciary Committee continues to question the department's ability to keep its ADP house in order, especially where it concerns Inslaw and Project Eagle.

Next month Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) intends to ask Justice officials in a hearing to justify their $35.2 million fiscal 1992 request for Eagle. The committee first raised questions about the office automation project last year and voiced concerns about general ADP oversight.

Justice last month took steps to address some of these management issues when it named longtime IRM veteran Roger M. Cooper as the first deputy assistant attorney general for IRM. But Cooper has said he needs some time on the job before outlining his priorities.

Meanwhile, committee investigators are continuing to prod Justice to provide them with information for their continuing review of the Inslaw case, in which Justice is accused of using proprietary software without a license. Recently the department also has been accused of distributing the product to other organizations.

Although Brooks has threatened to issue subpoenas, investigators might piggyback on the subpoena power recently won by Inslaw Inc. president William A. Hamilton.

The committee's investigation has been hamstrung by Justice's unwillingness to turn over some 200 documents concerning Promis, the case management system Hamilton alleges Justice officials stole from his company. The committee anticipates these documents will raise more questions and will point to its next move, a congressional staff member said.

The committee is conducting its investigation independent of information Inslaw uncovers, but if the company's discovery process turns up evidence that would be useful, "we will certainly look at it," he said.

Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson of the U.S. District Court granted Inslaw limited discovery authority this month. It will allow the small Washington software company to subpoena information from certain Justice bureaus to determine whether the department illegally distributed Promis.

Robinson gave Justice 30 days to respond to the subpoenas.

Inslaw will subpoena information from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Justice Management Division, Hamilton said.

Before granting the motion, Robinson said, "This case has had so many skirmishes, I don't know whether you will ever get to the major battle." He also said the court should not have to monitor Justice continuously to ensure it obeys the law.

At Hamilton's request, Robinson last month agreed to take over the case from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Hamilton said Inslaw may request more subpoenas if the discovery process shows that Justice violated a court injunction against distributing Promis beyond the 44 copies to which it is entitled under a 1982 contract.

Justice officials continually have denied Inslaw's allegations of wrongdoing.

Robinson noted Justice's argument that some of Inslaw's affidavits include "second- or third-hand hearsay."

But Inslaw attorney Charles Work said, "I've got a lot of proof that something is going on. I don't have linkage, but if I did I wouldn't be asking for discovery."

Although Brooks has not resorted to subpoenaing Justice officials, he made it clear in December that he would force Justice to produce the documents he seeks. Brooks has threatened Justice with subpoenas as well as ADP funding cuts.

Last year, Brooks recommended that Eagle's fiscal 1991 funding be cut back to the previous year's spending level. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee restricted Eagle installations to management and litigating agencies and cut funding by $6.1 million to $16.9 million.

Journal: Computerworld April 1 1991 v25 n13 p1(2).

Title: Spies linked to software scam. (former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane implicated)

Author: Anthes, Gary H.

Summary: Small software developer Inslaw Inc has been fighting since 1983 to prove that the US Department of Justice misappropriated its product, but the case has taken a new twist with the revelation that former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane might be linked to case-tracking software allegedly fraudulently obtained from Inslaw. A former Israeli intelligence officer has alleged in a sworn statement filed in the US Bankruptcy Court that McFarlane gave the software to the Israeli government. Inslaw claims officials of the Justice Department and their friends stole its Promis law-enforcement case-tracking software for use in a complex series of business arrangements. Federal bankruptcy judge George Bason Jr ruled in favor of Inslaw in 1987, but the Justice Department has filed a series of appeals in the intervening years.

Journal: Government Computer News April 1 1991 v10 n7 p66(2)

Title: Inslaw head says software passed like a hot potato. (Department of Justice accused of stealing software)

Author: Seaborn, Margaret M.

Full Text:

Inslaw Head Says Software Passed Like a Hot Potato

Saying four federal judges have passed its Promis software case around like a "hot potato," Inslaw Inc. has persuaded the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to allow the U.S. District Court to consider an unsettled discovery motion.

The small Washington company had wanted senior District Court Judge William B. Bryant to decide a discovery motion filed last September. In 1989, Bryant agreed with a 1987 bankruptcy court ruling that Justice Department officials stole 44 copies of enhanced Promis from Inslaw.

In February, Judge James F. Schneider, the bannruptcy judge who had handled the case for the past two and a half years, recused himself from the case citing potential conflicts of interest.

"Now some six months after Inslaw initially asked for limited discovery to determine whether the injunction had been violated... Inslaw still has had no ruling on its motion, and worse still, has no judge to hear it," Inslaw said in an emergency motion filed last month.

If a court granted Inslaw's motion for discovery, the company could subpoena information to determine whether Justice had violated an injunction against distributing copies of Promis beyond what the department acquired through a 1982 contract.

Inslaw officials said they want to withdraw the motion from the bankruptcy court and resubmit it to the district court because the discovery request is not a bankruptcy question.

Inslaw president William A. Hamilton said he now believes Promis has been illegally distributed to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI.

Meanwhile, Inslaw has submitted to the bankruptcy court an affidavit from regional sales manager Patricia Hamilton that claims Canadian government officials told her their government was using pirated copies of Promis in as many as 905 locations. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police could be using Promis in 900 of those locations, she said.

A former Israeli intelligence officer alleged in a second affidavit that Earl W. Brian, a friend of former Attorney General Edwin Meese, told him that U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies were using Promis. The Israeli, Ari Ben-Menashe, also said in the affidavit he had learned that Brian sold Promis to Iraqi military intelligence.

Brian has denied these allegations.

Schneider is the third judge to recuse himself from the case, which has been pending almost five years. A fourth judge and the first to hear the case, Judge George F. Bason Jr., "has come to believe that his failure to be reappointed to the bench was due to the opinions he rendered in this case," Inslaw said.

The emergency motion said, "Judge Bryant remains the only sitting judge who has not removed himself and has knowledge of the facts of the case."

Bryant awarded Inslaw more than $6 million in 1988. Justice is appealing the U.S. District Court judge's 1989 affirmation of the bankruptcy court's ruling and has not paid Inslaw any of the awarded money.

Product: Docketrac

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Category: Software, Applications
Legal Services

Specs:

Pricing: $40,000-$150,000

Number sold: 18

Release date: 1983

Application: Legal Services-Docket Scheduling

Compatible with: IBM 9370, 30XX, 43XX/DOS, OS, MVS, CICS; DEC VAX/ULTRIX; Wang/VS; Unisys; AT&T 3B/UNIX System V; HP/HP-UX Minimum RAM required: 2 MB

Source language: COBOL

Customer support: Maint. fee 12% of licensing fee per yr.

Summary: On-line docketing and calendaring. Trial court information system. Tracks cases, litigants, case parties, causes of action and charges from filing to disposition. Debt Collection module.

Descriptors: scheduling

Product: Jailtrac

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Category: Software, Applications
Government/Public Administration

Specs:

Pricing: $30,000-$125,000

Number sold: 14

Release date: 1982

Application: Law Enforcement/Emergency Services

Compatible with: IBM 9370, 30XX, 43XX/DOS, OS, MVS, CICS; DEC VAX/ULTRIX; Wang/VS; Unisys; AT&T 3B/UNIX System V; HP/HP-UX

Minimum RAM required: 2 MB

Source language: COBOL

Customer support: Maint. fee 12% of licensing fee per yr.

Summary: Arrest booking and jail management. Tracks arrestees, inmates and cases. On-line data entry, updating and retrieval. Produces user-defined forms. Includes inmate tracking, cell assignment, property, inmate accounting, visitor control, scheduling, inmate history, medical information and release date calculation. Tailorable.

Descriptors: scheduling

Product: Modulaw Corporate/Lawfirm Public

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Category: Software, Applications
Legal Services

Specs:

Pricing: $30,000-$125,000

Number sold: 15

Release date: 1983

Application: Legal Services-Practice Management

Compatible with: IBM 9370, 30XX, 43XX/DOS, OS, MVS, CICS; DEC VAX/ULTRIX; Wang/VS; Unisys; AT&T 3B/UNIX System V; HP/HP-UX

Minimum RAM required: 2 MB

Source language: COBOL

Customer support: Maint. fee 12% of licensing fee per yr.

Summary: Performs claims/matter tracking, attorney timekeeping, outside counsel tracking, work product retrieval, docket control and calendaring, corporate secretary management, person/organization tracking, law library management, legislation tracking, loan recovery and records management. User designed screens, forms and reports.

Descriptors: scheduling; personnel; office automation; professional time accounting

Product: Modulaw Insurance

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Category: Software, Applications
Legal Services

Specs:

Pricing: $30,000-$125,000 per office

Number sold: 13

Release date: 1986

Application: Legal Services

Compatible with: IBM 9370, 30XX, 43XX/DOS, OS, MVS, CICS; DEC VAX/ULTRIX; Wang/VS; Unisys; AT&T 3B/UNIX System V; HP/HP-UX

Minimum RAM required: 2 MB

Source language: COBOL

Customer support: Maint. fee 12% of licensing fee per yr.

Summary: On-line information system. Supports claims litigation tracking, claims evaluation, reserve tracking, party and expert witness cross referencing, outside counsel management, docket control and scheduling, staff workload management, staff timekeeping and document and issue indexing.

Descriptors: scheduling; professional time accounting

Product: Promis

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Category: Software, Applications
Government/Public Administration

Specs:

Pricing: $30,000-$125,000

Number sold: 75

Release date: 1980

Application: Law Enforcement/Emergency Services

Compatible with: IBM 9370, 30XX, 43XX/DOS, OS, MVS, CICS; DEC VAX/ULTRIX; Wang/VS; Unisys; AT&T 3B/UNIX System V; HP/HP-UX

Minimum RAM required: 2 MB

Source language: COBOL

Customer support: Maint. fee 12% of licensing fee per yr.

Summary: Tracks cases, defendants and charges in public prosecutor's office. Data entry, updating and retrieval. Produces user-defined forms. Defines reports for ad hoc or periodic production.

Company: INSLAW, Inc.

Address: 1125 15th St., NW, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20005
800-221-3187; 202-828-8600

FAX: 202-659-0755

Summary:

Gross annual sales: $6,000,000

No. of employees: 55

Year established: 1972

Chairman/CEO/President: William A. Hamilton

Controller: Bellie Ling

Marketing Dir.: Edward M. Durham

Personnel Dir.: Elizabeth Davis

Marketing/Comm. Mgr.: Evelyn L. Millhouse

VP Product Development: Marian Holton

Category: Software, Applications
Government/Public Administration
Legal Services