"PROMIS was in use at a 6,100-square-foot command center
built on the sixth floor of the Justice Department. Oliver North
had a similar, but smaller, White House operations room that was
connected by computer link to the DOJ's command center.
"Using the computers in his command center, North tracked
known dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United
States as part of "REX '84," a domestic emergency preparedness
program, commissioned under Reagan's Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), according to sources and published reports.
"Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have compiled
a database of everyone who had ever been surveilled for political
dissent, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their
taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Richard Nixon's enemies list or Sen.
Joe McCarthy's blacklist look downright crude.
"This operation was so sensitive that when Rep. Jack Brooks
asked North about it during the Iran-Contra hearings, the hearing
was immediately suspended pending a secret conference. When the
hearings were reconvened, the whole subject of North's FEMA
activities was excluded from further discussion."
-------------------------------------------------
The INSLAW Octopus
By Richard L. Fricker
Wired magazine, Mar 1993
The House Judiciary Committee lists these crimes as among the
possible violations perpetrated by "high-level Justice officials
and private individuals":
>> Conspiracy to commit an offense
>> Fraud
>> Wire fraud
>> Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and
committees
>> Tampering with a witness
>> Retaliation against a witness
>> Perjury
>> Interference with commerce by threats or violence
>> Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
violations
>> Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys
>> Receiving stolen goods
SIDEBARS to the Inslaw Article
Earl W. Brian - The Consumate Insider
Dr. Earl W. Brian has made quite a career of riding Reagan
and Meese's coattails. After a stint in Vietnam, where he worked
as a combat physician in the unit that supplied air support for
Operation Phoenix, Brian returned to California with a chest full
of ribbons and a waiting job - as Secretary of Health - with
then-Governor Reagan's administration. (Operation Phoenix,
a well-documented CIA political assassination program, used
computers to track "enemies" in Vietnam.)
In 1974, Brian resigned his cabinet post with Governor
Reagan to run for the Senate against Alan Cranston. After his
defeat, Brian moved into the world of business and soon ran into
trouble. His flagship company, Xionics, was cited by the Security
and Exchange Commission for issuing press releases designed to
boost stock prices with exaggerated or bloated information. The
SEC also accused Xionics of illegally paying "commissions"
to brokers, according to SEC documents.
At the close of the Reagan governorship, Brian was involved
in a public scandal having to do with - surprise - stolen
computer tapes. The tapes, which contained records of 70,000
state welfare files, were eventually returned - Brian claimed he
had a right to them under a contract signed in the last hours of
the administration. (Brian said he just wanted to develop
a better way of doing welfare business.)
In 1980, Brian formed Biotech Capital Corp., a venture
capital firm designed to invest in biological and medical
companies. Ultimately, Brian has invested in and owned several
companies, including FNN (Financial News Network) and UPI, both
of which ended up in dire financial straits.
Ursula Meese, who like her husband knew Brian from the
Reagan cabinet, was an early investor in Biotech, using $15,000
(borrowed from Edwin Thomas, a Meese aide in the White House and
another Reaganite from California) to purchase 2,000 shares on
behalf of the Meese's two children, according to information made
public during Meese's confirmation hearings for Attorney
General.
It is those Reagan-Meese connections that continue to drag
Brian into the Inslaw affair. For why would Brian, of all people,
be the recipient of stolen PROMIS? PROMIS, after all, was a major
part in government automation contracts estimated at $3 billion,
according to Inslaw President Bill Hamilton. That's quite a
political plum.
One possibility is Ed and Ursula Meese's financial
connections to Brian. Another is a payoff for Brian's role in
the October Surprise Even if he manages to evade the Inslaw
allegations, Brian may still be in hot water. As of this
writing, Financial News Network's financial dealings were under
investigation by a Los Angeles Grand Jury, according to sources
who have testified before it. - RLF
What A Surprise!
Earl W. Brian says he wasn't in Paris in October 1980, but
investors were told a different story
As Inslaw President Bill Hamilton moved his company from
non-profit status to the private sector in 1980, Ronald Reagan
was running for President, negotiations for the release of the
American hostages in Iran had apparently hit a snag, and Dr. Earl
W. Brian was touring Canada touting stock in his newly acquired
Clinical Sciences Inc.
History records that the hostages were released as Ronald
Reagan took the Presidential oath of office, and that shortly
thereafter, Inslaw received a $9.6 million contract from the
Department of Justice. At the same time, Earl Brian was appointed
to a White House post to advise on health-care issues. Brian
reported directly to Ed Meese. He also arranged White House
tours to woo investors in his government contracting company,
Hadron Inc., according to a Canadian investment banker who took a
tour.
But these seemingly random historical connections between
Inslaw, Hadron, the Reagan White House and Earl Brian take on a
new meaning when considered in light of the "October Surprise,"
the persistent allegation that the Reagan campaign negotiated
with Iranian officials to guarantee that US hostages would not be
released before Reagan won election in 1980.
The October Surprise theory hinges in part on alleged
negotiations between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians on the
weekend of Oct. 17-21, 1980, in Paris, among other places. The
deal, according to former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe, and a former CIA
contract agent interviewed by WIRED, included the payment of $40
million to the Iranians.
According to several sources, Earl Brian, one of Reagan's
close advisors, made it quite clear that he was planning to be in
Paris that very weekend. Ben Menashe, who says he was one of six
Israelis, 12 Americans and 16 Iranians present at the Paris
talks, said, "I saw Brian in Paris."
Brian was interviewed by Senate investigators on July 28,
1992, and denied under oath any connection with the alleged
negotiations. He told the investigators he did not have a valid
passport during the October 1980 dates. But according to court
documents and interviews, Brian told Canadian investors in his
newly acquired Clinical Sciences, Inc., that he would be
in Paris that weekend. Brian acquired controlling interest in
Clinical Sciences in the summer of 1980. Clinical Sciences was
then trading at around $2 a share. Brian worked with Janos P.
Pasztor, a vice president and special situations analyst with the
Canadian investment bank of Nesbitt, Thomson, Bongard Inc., to
create a market of Canadian investors for the stock.
Pasztor later testified in court documents that Brian said
he would be in Paris the weekend of October 17 to do a deal with
the Pasteur Institute (a medical research firm).
Two other brokers, Harry Scully, a broker based in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, and John Belton, a senior account executive with
Nesbitt-Thomson from 1968 to 1982 who is suing Nesbitt-Thomson
and Pasztor for securities fraud, also claim that they were told
that Brian was in Paris that weekend.
But if Brian went to Paris to see the Pasteur Institute, he
seems to have missed his appointment. An investigation by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police into Clinical Sciences stock
transactions revealed that the Pasteur Institute had never
conducted business with, or even heard of Brian.
When asked by WIRED to elaborate on Brian's 1980 trip,
Pasztor said, "These are political questions and I don't want to
become involved." He refused further comment.Brian contends that
the dates of his trip were in error and that he went to Paris in
April 1981, not October 1980. But the passport he turned over to
Senate investigators did not contain a French entry or exit
stamp for April 1981.
Through his lawyers, Brian refused to be interviewed for
this story. - RLF
Earl W. Brian: Closet Spook?
Michael Riconosciuto, a computer programmer and chemist who
surfs the spooky fringe of the guns-'n'-money crowd, is currently
serving a federal prison sentence for drug crimes. From his jail
cell he has given several interviews claiming knowledge of Inslaw
and the October Surprise (he also claims his jail term is the
DOJ's way of punishing him for his knowledge). Much of what he
claims cannot be verified, other statements have failed to be
verified conclusively.
But prior to his arrest in 1991, Riconosciuto provided the
Hamiltons with an affidavit that once again brought Brian into
the Inslaw picture. "I engaged in some software development and
modification work in 1983 and 1984 on proprietary PROMIS computer
software product," he stated. "The copy of PROMIS on which I
worked came from the US Department of Justice. Earl W. Brian made
it available to me through Wackenhut (a security company with
close FBI and CIA connections) after acquiring it from Peter
Videnieks, who was then a Department of Justice contracting
official with the responsibility for PROMIS software. I performed
the modifications to PROMIS in Indio, Calif.; Silver Springs,
Md.; and Miami, Fla."
The modifications included a telecommunications "trap door"
that would let the US Government eavesdrop on any other
organization using the pirated software, Riconosciuto said.
Videnieks and Brian both told House investigators that they
did not know Riconosciuto. After Riconosciuto was interviewed by
House investigators, Videnieks refused to give Congress further
interviews.
Although Brian denies any involvement with Inslaw or
Riconosciuto, the House Judiciary Committee received a report
from a special task force of the Riverside County, Calif.,
Sheriff's Office and District Attorney, stating that on the
evening of Sept. 10, 1981, arms dealers, buyers and various
intelligence operatives gathered at the Cabazon Indian
Reservation near Indio, Calif., for a demonstration of night
warfare weapons. The demonstration was orchestrated jointly by
Wackenhut and the Cabazon Indian tribe. (Many published reports
allege that the Wackenhut/Cabazon joint venture served as a
weapons fencing operation for Oliver North's Iran-Contra
dealings.)
According to Indio city police officers hired to provide
security, those attending included Earl W. Brian, who was
identified as "being with the CIA," and Michael Riconosciuto. -
RLF
"According to several intelligence community sources, PROMIS
was in use at a 6,100-square-foot command center built on the
sixth floor of the Justice Department. According to both a
contractor who helped design the center and information disclosed
during the Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North had a similar, but
smaller, White House operations room that was connected by
computer link to the DOJ's command center.
"Using the computers in his command center, North tracked
dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States
as part of a domestic emergency preparedness program,
commissioned under Reagan's Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), according to sources and published reports.
"Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up
lists of anyone ever arrested for a political protest, for
example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their taxes.
Compared to PROMIS, Richard Nixon's enemies list or Sen. Joe
McCarthy's blacklist look downright crude.
"This operation was so sensitive that when Rep. Jack Brooks
asked North about it during the Iran-Contra hearings, the hearing
was immediately suspended pending an executive (secret)
conference. When the hearings were reconvened, the issue of
North's FEMA dealings was dropped."
The INSLAW Octopus
By Richard L. Fricker
Wired magazine, Mar 1993
The House Judiciary Committee lists these crimes as among the
possible violations perpetrated by "high-level Justice officials
and private individuals":
>> Conspiracy to commit an offense
>> Fraud
>> Wire fraud
>> Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and
committees
>> Tampering with a witness
>> Retaliation against a witness
>> Perjury
>> Interference with commerce by threats or violence
>> Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
violations
>> Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys
>> Receiving stolen goods
Bill Hamilton, Inslaw & PROMIS
Who:
Bill Hamilton and his wife, Nancy Hamilton, start Inslaw to
nurture PROMIS (Prosecutors Management Information Systems).
Why #1:
The DOJ, aware that its case management system is in dire need of
automation, funds Inslaw and PROMIS. After creating a
public-domain version, Inslaw makes significant enhancements to
PROMIS and, aware that the US market for legal automation is
worth $3 billion, goes private in the early '80s.
Why #2:
Designed as case-management software for federal prosecutors,
PROMIS has the ability to combine disparate databases, and to
track people by their involvement with the legal system. Hamilton
and others now claim that the DOJ has modified PROMIS to monitor
intelligence operations, agents and targets, instead of legal
cases.
By late November, 1992 the nation had turned its attention
from the election-weary capital to Little Rock, Ark., where a new
generation of leaders conferred about the future. But in a small
Washington D.C. office, Bill Hamilton, president and founder of
Inslaw Inc., and Dean Merrill, a former Inslaw vice president,
were still very much concerned about the past.
The two men studied six photographs laid out before them.
"Have you ever seen any of these men?" Merrill was asked.
Immediately he singled out the second photo. In a separate line
up, Hamilton's secretary singled out the same photo.
Both said the man had visited Inslaw in February 1983 for a
presentation of PROMIS, Inslaw's bread-and-butter legal software.
Hamilton, who knew the purpose of the line-up, identified the
visitor as Dr. Ben Orr. At the time of his visit, Orr claimed to
be a public prosecutor from Israel.
Orr was impressed with the power of PROMIS (Prosecutors
Management Information Systems), which had recently been updated
by Inslaw to run on powerful 32-bit VAX computers from Digital
Equipment Corp. "He fell in love with the VAX version," Hamilton
recalled.
Dr. Orr never came back, and he never bought anything. No
one knew why at the time. But for Hamilton, who has fought the
Department of Justice (DOJ) for almost 10 years in an effort to
salvage his business, once his co-workers recognized the man in
the second photo, it all made perfect sense.
For the second photo was not of the mysterious Dr. Orr, it
was of Rafael Eitan, chief of the Israeli defense force's
anti-terrorism intelligence unit. The Department of Justice sent
him over for a look at the property they were about to
"misappropriate," and Eitan liked what he saw. Department of
Justice documents record that one Dr. Ben Orr left the DOJ on
May 6, 1983, with a computer tape containing PROMIS tucked under
his arm.
What for the past decade has been known as the Inslaw affair
began to unravel in the final, shredder-happy days of the Bush
administration. According to Federal court documents, PROMIS was
stolen from Inslaw by the Department of Justice directly after
Eitan's 1983 visit to Inslaw (a later congressional investigation
preferred to use the word "misappropriated"). And according to
sworn affidavits, PROMIS was then given or sold at a profit to
Israel and as many as 80 other countries by Dr. Earl W. Brian, a
man with close personal and business ties to then-President
Ronald Reagan and then-Presidential counsel Edwin Meese.
A House Judiciary Committee report released last September
found evidence raising "serious concerns" that high officials at
the Department of Justice executed a pre-meditated plan to
destroy Inslaw and co-opt the rights to its PROMIS software. The
committee's call for an independent counsel have fallen on deaf
ears. One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted
to tell the story (see sidebar), and boxes of documents relating
to the case have been destroyed, stolen, or conveniently "lost"
by the Department of Justice.
But so far, not a single person has been held accountable.
WIRED has spent two years searching for the answers to the
questions Inslaw poses: Why would Justice steal PROMIS? Did it
then cover up the theft? Did it let associates of government
officials sell PROMIS to foreign governments, which then used the
software to track political dissidents instead of legal cases?
(Israel has reportedly used PROMIS to track troublesome
Palestinians.)
The implications continue: that Meese profited from the
sales of the stolen property. That Brian, Meese's business
associate, may have been involved in the October Surprise (the
oft-debunked but persistent theory that the Reagan campaign
conspired to insure that US hostages in Iran were held until
after Reagan won the 1980 election, see sidebar). That some of
the moneys derived from the illegal sales of PROMIS furthered
covert and illegal government programs in Nicaragua. That Oliver
used PROMIS as a population tracking instrument for his White
House-based domestic emergency management program.
Each new set of allegations leads to a new set of
possibilities, which makes the story still more difficult to
comprehend. But one truth is obvious: What the Inslaw case
presents, in its broadest possible implications, is a painfully
clear snapshot of how the Justice Department operated during the
Reagan-Bush years.
This is the case that won't go away, the case that shows how
justice and public service gave way to profit and political
expediency, how those within the administration's circle of
privilege were allowed to violate private property and civil
rights for their own profit.
Sound like a conspiracy theorist's dream? Absolutely. But
the fact is, it's true.
The Background
Imagine you are in charge of the legal arm of the most
powerful government on the face of the globe, but your internal
information systems are mired in the archaic technology of the
1960s. There's a Department of Justice database, a CIA database,
an Attorney's General database, an IRS database, and so on, but
none of them can share information. That makes tracking
multiple offenders pretty darn difficult, and building cases
against them a long and bureaucratic task.
Along comes a computer program that can integrate all these
databases, and it turns out its development was originally funded
by the government under a Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration grant in the 1970s. That means the software is
public domain ... free!
Edwin Meese was apparently quite taken with PROMIS. He told
an April 1981 gathering of prosecutors that PROMIS was "one of
the greatest opportunities for [law enforcement] success in the
future." In March 1982, Inslaw won a $9.6 million contract from
the Justice Department to install the public domain version of
PROMIS in 20 US Attorney's offices as a pilot program. If
successful, the company would install PROMIS in the remaining 74
federal prosecutors' offices around the country. The eventual
market for complete automation of the Federal court system was
staggering: as much as $3 billion, according to Bill Hamilton.
But Hamilton would never see another federal contract.
Designed as a case-management system for prosecutors, PROMIS
has the ability to track people. "Every use of PROMIS in the
court system is tracking people," said Inslaw President Hamilton.
"You can rotate the file by case, defendant, arresting officer,
judge, defense lawyer, and it's tracking all the names of all the
people in all the cases."
What this means is that PROMIS can provide a complete
rundown of all federal cases in which a lawyer has been involved,
or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented defendant A,
or all the cases in which a lawyer has represented white-collar
criminals, at which stage in each of the cases the lawyer agreed
to a plea bargain, and so on. Based on this information, PROMIS
can help a prosecutor determine when a plea will be taken in a
particular type of case.
But the real power of PROMIS, according to Hamilton, is that
with a staggering 570,000 lines of computer code, PROMIS can
integrate innumerable databases without requiring any
reprogramming. In essence, PROMIS can turn blind data into
information. And anyone in government will tell you that
information, when wielded with finesse, begets power. Converted
to use by intelligence agencies, as has been alleged in
interviews by ex-CIA and Israeli Mossad agents, PROMIS can be a
powerful tracking device capable of monitoring intelligence
operations, agents and targets, instead of legal cases.
At the time of its inception, PROMIS was the most powerful
program of its type. But a similar program, DALITE, was developed
under another LEAA grant by D. Lowell Jensen, the Alameda County
(Calif.) District Attorney. In the mid-1970s, the two programs
vied for a lucrative Los Angeles County contract and Inslaw won
out. (Early in his career, Ed Meese worked under Jensen at the
Alameda County District Attorney's office. Jensen was later
appointed to Meese's Justice Department during the Reagan
presidency.)
In the final days of the Carter administration, the LEAA was
phased out. Inslaw had made a name for itself and Hamilton wanted
to stay in business, so he converted Inslaw to a for-profit,
private business. The new Inslaw did not own the public domain
version of PROMIS because it had been developed with LEAA funds.
But because it had funded a major upgrade with its own money,
Inslaw did claim ownership of the enhanced PROMIS.
Through his lawyers, Hamilton sent the Department of Justice
a letter outlining his company's decision to go private with the
enhanced PROMIS. The letter specifically asked the DOJ to waive
any proprietary rights it might claim to the enhanced version. In
a reply dated August 11, 1982, a DOJ lawyer wrote: "To the extent
that any other enhancements (beyond the public domain PROMIS)
were privately funded by Inslaw and not specified to be delivered
to the Department of Justice under any contract or other
agreement, Inslaw may assert whatever proprietary rights it may
have."
Arnold Burns, then a deputy attorney general, clarified the
DOJ's position in a now-critical 1988 deposition: "Our lawyers
were satisfied that Inslaw's lawyers could sustain the claim in
court, that we had waived those [proprietary] rights."
The enhancements Inslaw claimed were significant. In the
1970s the public-domain PROMIS was adapted to run on Burroughs,
Prime, Wang and IBM machines, all of which used less-powerful
16-bit architectures. With private funds, Inslaw converted that
version of PROMIS to a 32-bit architecture running on a DEC VAX
minicomputer. It was this version that Eitan saw in 1983. It was
this version that the DOJ stole later that year through a
pre-meditated plan, according to two court decisions.
The Dispute Grows
On a gorgeous spring morning in 1981, Lawrence McWhorter,
director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, put his feet
on his desk, lit an Italian cigar, eyed his subordinate Frank
Mallgrave and said through a haze of blue smoke: "We're out to
get Inslaw."
McWhorter had just asked Mallgrave to oversee the pilot
installation of PROMIS, a job Mallgrave refused, unaware at the
time that he was being asked to participate in Inslaw's
deliberate destruction.
"We were just in his office for what I call a B.S. type
discussion," Mallgrave told WIRED. "I remember it was a bright
sunny morning.... (McWhorter) asked me if I would be interested
in assuming the position of Assistant Director for Data
Processing...basically working with Inslaw. I told him...I just
had no interest in that job. And then, almost as an afterthought,
he said 'We're out to get Inslaw.' I remember it to this day."
After Mallgrave refused the job, McWhorter gave it to C.
Madison "Brick" Brewer. Brewer at one time worked for Inslaw, but
was allowed to resign when Hamilton found his performance
inadequate, according to court documents. Brewer was then hired
into the Department of Justice specifically to oversee the
contract of his former employer. (The DOJ's Office of
Professional Responsibility ruled there was no conflict of
interest.) He would later tell a federal court that everything he
did regarding Inslaw was approved by Deputy Attorney General
Lowell Jensen, the same man who once supervised DALITE, the
product which lost a major contract to Inslaw in the 1970s.
Brewer, who now refuses to comment on the Inslaw case, was
aided in his new DOJ job by Peter Videnieks. Videnieks was fresh
from the Customs Service, where he oversaw contracts between that
agency and Hadron, Inc., a company controlled by Meese and
Reagan-crony Earl Brian. Hadron, a closely held government
systems consulting firm, was to figure prominently in the
forthcoming scandal.
According to congressional and court documents, Brewer and
Videnieks didn't tarry in their efforts to destroy Inslaw. After
Inslaw's installation of public domain PROMIS had begun, the DOJ
claimed that Inslaw, which was supporting the installation with
its own computers running the enhanced version of PROMIS, was on
the brink of bankruptcy. Although Inslaw was contracted to
provide only the public domain PROMIS, the DOJ demanded that
Inslaw turn over the enhanced version of PROMIS in case the
company could not complete its contractual obligations. Inslaw
agreed to this contract modification, but on two conditions: that
the DOJ recognize Inslaw's proprietary rights to enhanced PROMIS,
and that the DOJ not distribute enhanced PROMIS beyond the
boundaries of the contract (the 94 US Attorney's offices.)
The DOJ agreed to these conditions, but requested Inslaw
prove it had indeed created enhanced PROMIS with private funds.
Inslaw said it would, and the enhanced software was given to the
DOJ.
Once the DOJ had control of PROMIS, it dogmatically refused
to verify that Inslaw had created the enhancements, essentially
rendering the contract modification useless. When Inslaw
protested, the DOJ began to withhold payments. Two years later,
Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy.
As the contract problems with DOJ emerged, Hamilton received
a phone call from Dominic Laiti, chief executive of Hadron. Laiti
wanted to buy Inslaw. Hamilton refused to sell. According to
Hamilton's statements in court documents, Laiti then warned him
that Hadron had friends in the government and if Inslaw didn't
sell willingly, it would be forced to sell.
Those government connections included Peter Videnieks over
at the Justice Department, according to John Schoolmeester,
Videnieks' former Customs Service supervisor. Laiti and Videnieks
both deny ever meeting or having any contact, but Schoolmeester
has told both WIRED and the House Judiciary Committee it was
"impossible" for the pair not to know each other because of the
type of work and oversight involved in Hadron's relationship with
the Customs Service. Schoolmeester also said that because of
Brian's relationship with then-President Reagan (see sidebar),
Hadron was considered an "inside" company.
The full-court press continued. In 1985 Allen & Co., a New
York investment banking concern with close business ties to Earl
Brian, helped finance a second company, SCT, which also attempted
to purchase Inslaw. That attempt also failed, but in the process
a number of Inslaw's customers were warned by SCT that Inslaw
would soon go bankrupt and would not survive reorganization,
Hamilton said in court documents.
Broke and with no friends in the government, on June 9,
1986, Inslaw filed a $30 million lawsuit against the DOJ in
bankruptcy court. Inslaw's attorney for the case (he was later
fired from his firm under extremely suspicious circumstances --
see sidebar) was Leigh Ratiner of the Washington firm Dickstein,
Shapiro & Morin. Ratiner chose bankruptcy court for the filing
based on the premise that Justice, the creditor, had control of
PROMIS. He explained recently, "It was forbidden by the
Bankruptcy Act for the creditor to exercise control over the
debtor property. And that theory -- that the Justice Department
was exercising control -- was the basis that the bankruptcy court
had jurisdiction.
"As far as I know, this was the first time this theory had
been used," Ratiner told WIRED. "This was ground-breaking. It
was, in fact, a legitimate use of the code."
It worked, but to only a point. In 1987, Washington, D.C.,
bankruptcy judge George Bason ruled in a scathing opinion that
Justice had stolen PROMIS through "trickery, fraud and deceit."
He awarded Inslaw $6.8 million in damages and, in the process,
found that Justice Department officials made a concerted effort
to bankrupt Inslaw and place the company's enhanced PROMIS
up for public auction (where it would then be fodder for Brian's
Hadron). Bason's findings of fact relied on testimony from
Justice employees and internal memoranda, some of which outlined
a plan to "get" PROMIS software.
Bason cited the testimony of a number of the government's
defense witnesses as being "unbelievable" and openly questioned
the credibility of others. In his 216-page ruling, Bason cites
numerous instances where testimony from government witnesses is
contradictory. (In a private interview with WIRED he noted that
as a bankruptcy judge he was precluded from bringing perjury
charges against government employees, but he had recommended to
various congressional panels that an inquiry was necessary.)
When the DOJ appealed, a federal district court affirmed
Bason, ruling that there was "convincing, perhaps compelling
support for the findings set forth by the bankruptcy court." But
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the case on a legal
technicality, finding that the bankruptcy court had no
jurisdiction to hear the damages claim. A petition to the
Supreme Court in October 1991 was denied review.
The IRS got into the act as well. Inslaw was audited several
times in the course of their battles with the Department of
Justice. In fact, the day following the bankruptcy trial, S.
Martin Teel, a lawyer for the IRS, requested that Judge Bason
liquidate Inslaw. Bason ruled against Teel. As a coda to the
lawsuit, Bason, a respected jurist, was not re-appointed to the
bench when his term expired. His replacement? S. Martin Teel.
(Bason has testified before Congress that the DOJ orchestrated
his replacement as punishment for his rulings in the Inslaw
case.)
But Inslaw's troubles did not end with bankruptcy.
Frustrated by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh's stubborn refusal
to investigate the DOJ or appoint an independent prosecutor,
Elliot Richardson, President Nixon's former attorney general and
a counsel to Inslaw for nearly 10 years (he retired this
January), filed a case in U.S. District Court demanding that
Thornburgh investigate the Inslaw affair. In 1990, the court
ruled that a prosecutor's decision not to investigate -- "no
matter how indefensible" -- cannot be corrected by any court.
Another loss for Inslaw.
Broke and still attempting to revive itself, Inslaw has not
refiled its suit, preferring to wait for a new administration and
a new DOJ.
By this time, the spinning jennies of the conspiracy network
had grasped the Inslaw story and were all-too-eager to put their
stitch in the unraveling yarn. According to documents and
affidavits filed during court cases and congressional inquiries,
the Hamiltons and their lawyers began receiving phone calls,
visits and memos from a string of shadowy sources, many of them
connected to international drug, spy and arms networks. Their
allegations: That Earl Brian helped orchestrate the October
Surprise for then-candidate Reagan, and that Brian's eventual
payment for that orchestration was a cut of the PROMIS action.
Brian and the DOJ then resold or gave PROMIS to as many as 80
foreign and domestic agencies. (Brian adamantly denies any
connection to Inslaw or the October Surprise.)
These sources, which include ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe
and a computer programmer of dubious reputation, Michael
Riconosciuto, allege that PROMIS had been further modified by the
DOJ so that any agency using it could be subject to undetected
DOJ eavesdropping -- a sort of software Trojan Horse. If these
allegations are true, by the late 1980s PROMIS could have become
the digital ears of the US Government's spy effort -- both
internal and external. Certainly something the administration
wouldn't want nosy congressional committees looking into.
The diaphanous web of more than 30 sources who offered
information to Inslaw were not "what a lawyer might consider
ideal witnesses," Richardson admitted. But their stories yielded
a surprising consistency. "The picture that emerges from the
individual statements is remarkably detailed and consistent," he
wrote in an Oct. 21, 1991 New York Times Op Ed.
The Congressional Investigation
The string of lawsuits and widening allegations caught the
eye of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas,
who in 1989 launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw
affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that
among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later
as attorney general, and D. Lowell Jensen, a former assistant and
deputy attorney general and now a US district judge in San
Francisco, conspired to steal PROMIS.
"High government officials were involved," the report
states. "... (S)everal individuals testified under oath that
Inslaw's PROMIS software was stolen and distributed
internationally in order to provide financial gain and to further
intelligence and foreign policy objectives."
"Actions against Inslaw were implemented through the Project
Manager (Brick Brewer) from the beginning of the contract and
under the direction of high-level Justice Department officials,"
the report says. "The evidence...demonstrates that high-level
Department officials deliberately ignored Inslaw proprietary
rights and misappropriated its PROMIS software for use at
locations not covered under contract with the company."
The Committee report accuses former Attorney General Dick
Thornburgh of stonewalling congressional inquiries, turning a
blind eye to the possible destruction of evidence within the
Justice Department, and ignoring the DOJ's harassment of
employees questioned by Congressional investigators.
Rep. Brooks told WIRED that the report should be the
starting point for a grand jury investigation. The owners of
Inslaw, Brooks said, were "ravaged by the Justice Department
...treated like dogs."
Brooks' committee voted along party lines, 21-13, to adopt
the investigative report on Aug. 11, 1992. The report asked
then-Attorney General William Barr to "immediately settle
Inslaw's claims in a fair and equitable manner" and "strongly
recommends that the Department seek the appointment of an
Independent Counsel."
As he did with the burgeoning Iraqgate scandal and as his
predecessor did before him, Barr refused to appoint an
independent counsel to the Inslaw case, relying instead on a
retired federal judge, in this case Nicholas Bua, who reported to
Barr alone. In other words, the DOJ was responsible for
investigating itself.
"The way in which the Department of Justice has treated this
case, to me, is inexplicable," Richardson told WIRED. "I think
the circumstances most strongly suggest that there must be wider
ramifications."
The Threads Unravel
Proof of those wider ramifications are just starting to leak
out, as DOJ and other agency employees begin to talk, although
for the most part they spoke to WIRED only on condition of
anonymity.
On Nov. 20, 1990, the Judiciary Committee wrote a letter
asking CIA director William Webster to help the committee "by
determining whether the CIA has the PROMIS software."
The official reply on December 11th: "We have checked with
Agency components that track data processing procurement or that
would be likely users of PROMIS, and we have been unable to find
any indication that the Agency ever obtained PROMIS software."
But a retired CIA official whose job it was to investigate
the Inslaw allegations internally told WIRED that the DOJ gave
PROMIS to the CIA. "Well," the retired official told WIRED, "the
congressional committees were after us to look into allegations
that somehow the agency had been culpable of what would have
been, in essence, taking advantage of, like stealing, the
technology [PROMIS]. We looked into it and there was enough to
it, the agency had been involved."
How was the CIA involved? According to the same source, who
requested anonymity, the agency accepted stolen goods, not aware
that a major scandal was brewing. In other words, the DOJ robbed
the bank, and the CIA took a share of the plunder.
But the CIA was not the only place where illegal versions of
PROMIS cropped up. Canadian documents (held by the House
Judiciary Committee and obtained by WIRED) place PROMIS in the
hands of various Canadian government agencies. These documents
include two letters to Inslaw from Canadian agencies requesting
detailed user manuals -- even though Inslaw has never sold PROMIS
to Canada. Canadian officials now claim the letters were in
error.
And, of course, the software was transferred to Rafael
Eitan's anti-terrorism unit in Israel. The DOJ claims it was the
LEAA version, but former Israeli spy Ben Menashe and others claim
it was the 32-bit version. According to Ben Menashe, other
government departments within Israel also saw PROMIS, and this
time the pitchman was Dr. Earl Brian. In a 1991 affidavit related
to the bankruptcy proceedings, Ben Menashe claimed: "I attended a
meeting at my Department's headquarters in Tel Aviv in 1987
during which Dr. Earl W. Brian of the United States made a
presentation intended to facilitate the use of the PROMIS
computer software."
"Dr. Brian stated during his presentation that all U.S.
Intelligence Agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency,
the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency
and the U.S. Department of Justice were then using the PROMIS
computer software," Ben Menashe continued. While the credibility
of his statements has been questioned, the Israeli government has
admitted that Ben Menashe had access to extremely sensitive
information during his tenure at the Mossad.
Asked why Israeli intelligence would have been so interested
in Inslaw and PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, "PROMIS was a very big
thing for us guys, a very, very big thing ... it was probably the
most important issue of the '80s because it just changed the
whole intelligence outlook. The whole form of intelligence
collection changed. This whole thing changed it." PROMIS, Ben
Menashe said, was perfect for tracking Palestinians and other
political dissidents.
(Ben Menashe's superior during this period was Rafael Eitan,
or Dr. Ben Orr, as he was known during his 1983 visit to Inslaw.)
Apparently, Israel was not the only country interested in
using PROMIS for internal security purposes. Lt. Col. Oliver
North also may have been using the program. According to several
intelligence community sources, PROMIS was in use at a
6,100-square-foot command center built on the sixth floor
of the Justice Department. According to both a contractor who
helped design the center and information disclosed during the
Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North had a similar, but smaller,
White House operations room that was connected by computer link
to the DOJ's command center.
Using the computers in his command center, North tracked
dissidents and potential troublemakers within the United States
as part of a domestic emergency preparedness program,
commissioned under Reagan's Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), according to sources and published reports. Using PROMIS,
sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyone ever
arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who
had ever refused to pay their taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Richard
Nixon's enemies list or Sen. Joe McCarthy's blacklist look
downright crude. This operation was so sensitive that when Rep.
Jack Brooks asked North about it during the Iran-Contra hearings,
the hearing was immediately suspended pending an executive
(secret) conference. When the hearings were reconvened, the issue
of North's FEMA dealings was dropped.
A Thorough Cleaning at the White House?
If the case against the Department of Justice is so solid,
why hasn't anything been done? The answer is timing. The next
move belongs to retired Federal Judge Bua, since he was given
oversight by Attorney General Barr in lieu of an independent
counsel. And everyone, including Judge Bua, whose non-binding
report was pending at WIRED's early December deadline, seems to
be waiting for the new administration. Both the Clinton/Gore
transition team and House majority leader Richard Gephardt had no
comment on the Inslaw case pending Clinton's inauguration.
But a source close to Bua's investigation said the retired
judge may present the DOJ with a bombshell. While not required to
suggest a settlement, the source believes Bua will reportedly
recommend that Inslaw be given between $25 million and $50
million for its mistreatment by the DOJ. (In last-minute
negotiations, Inslaw attorney Elliot Richardson held brief
meetings with DOJ officials in mid-December. Richardson pressed
for a settlement ranging from $25 million to $500 million, but
the DOJ balked, according to newspaper reports.)
But the question remains: Can the DOJ paper over the willful
destruction of a company, the plundering of its software, the
illegal resale of that software to further foreign policy
objectives, and the overt obstruction of justice with $25
million?
Bua's final recommendation, expected sometime before
Clinton's inauguration, is that the Inslaw Affair "requires
further investigation," the source said. That conclusion mirrors
the House Judiciary Committee's report. Privately, many
Democrats, including Gephardt, have expressed a strong desire to
get to the bottom of the Inslaw case. Rep. Brooks will be
pushing for yet another investigation of the scandal, this time
independent of the Justice Department, according to Congressional
sources. Once Bua's report is out, the next and possibly final
move will be up to a new president, a new Congress, and,
possibly, a renewed sense of justice.
SIDEBARS to the Inslaw Article
Earl W. Brian - The Consumate Insider
Dr. Earl W. Brian has made quite a career of riding Reagan
and Meese's coattails. After a stint in Vietnam, where he worked
as a combat physician in the unit that supplied air support for
Operation Phoenix, Brian returned to California with a chest full
of ribbons and a waiting job - as Secretary of Health - with
then-Governor Reagan's administration. (Operation Phoenix,
a well-documented CIA political assassination program, used
computers to track "enemies" in Vietnam.)
In 1974, Brian resigned his cabinet post with Governor
Reagan to run for the Senate against Alan Cranston. After his
defeat, Brian moved into the world of business and soon ran into
trouble. His flagship company, Xionics, was cited by the Security
and Exchange Commission for issuing press releases designed to
boost stock prices with exaggerated or bloated information. The
SEC also accused Xionics of illegally paying "commissions"
to brokers, according to SEC documents.
At the close of the Reagan governorship, Brian was involved
in a public scandal having to do with - surprise - stolen
computer tapes. The tapes, which contained records of 70,000
state welfare files, were eventually returned - Brian claimed he
had a right to them under a contract signed in the last hours of
the administration. (Brian said he just wanted to develop
a better way of doing welfare business.)
In 1980, Brian formed Biotech Capital Corp., a venture
capital firm designed to invest in biological and medical
companies. Ultimately, Brian has invested in and owned several
companies, including FNN (Financial News Network) and UPI, both
of which ended up in dire financial straits.
Ursula Meese, who like her husband knew Brian from the
Reagan cabinet, was an early investor in Biotech, using $15,000
(borrowed from Edwin Thomas, a Meese aide in the White House and
another Reaganite from California) to purchase 2,000 shares on
behalf of the Meese's two children, according to information made
public during Meese's confirmation hearings for Attorney
General.
It is those Reagan-Meese connections that continue to drag
Brian into the Inslaw affair. For why would Brian, of all people,
be the recipient of stolen PROMIS? PROMIS, after all, was a major
part in government automation contracts estimated at $3 billion,
according to Inslaw President Bill Hamilton. That's quite a
political plum.
One possibility is Ed and Ursula Meese's financial
connections to Brian. Another is a payoff for Brian's role in
the October Surprise Even if he manages to evade the Inslaw
allegations, Brian may still be in hot water. As of this
writing, Financial News Network's financial dealings were under
investigation by a Los Angeles Grand Jury, according to sources
who have testified before it. - RLF
What A Surprise!
Earl W. Brian says he wasn't in Paris in October 1980, but
investors were told a different story
As Inslaw President Bill Hamilton moved his company from
non-profit status to the private sector in 1980, Ronald Reagan
was running for President, negotiations for the release of the
American hostages in Iran had apparently hit a snag, and Dr. Earl
W. Brian was touring Canada touting stock in his newly acquired
Clinical Sciences Inc.
History records that the hostages were released as Ronald
Reagan took the Presidential oath of office, and that shortly
thereafter, Inslaw received a $9.6 million contract from the
Department of Justice. At the same time, Earl Brian was appointed
to a White House post to advise on health-care issues. Brian
reported directly to Ed Meese. He also arranged White House
tours to woo investors in his government contracting company,
Hadron Inc., according to a Canadian investment banker who took a
tour.
But these seemingly random historical connections between
Inslaw, Hadron, the Reagan White House and Earl Brian take on a
new meaning when considered in light of the "October Surprise,"
the persistent allegation that the Reagan campaign negotiated
with Iranian officials to guarantee that US hostages would not be
released before Reagan won election in 1980.
The October Surprise theory hinges in part on alleged
negotiations between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians on the
weekend of Oct. 17-21, 1980, in Paris, among other places. The
deal, according to former Iranian President Abol Hassan
Bani-Sadr, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe, and a former CIA
contract agent interviewed by WIRED, included the payment of $40
million to the Iranians.
According to several sources, Earl Brian, one of Reagan's
close advisors, made it quite clear that he was planning to be in
Paris that very weekend. Ben Menashe, who says he was one of six
Israelis, 12 Americans and 16 Iranians present at the Paris
talks, said, "I saw Brian in Paris."
Brian was interviewed by Senate investigators on July 28,
1992, and denied under oath any connection with the alleged
negotiations. He told the investigators he did not have a valid
passport during the October 1980 dates. But according to court
documents and interviews, Brian told Canadian investors in his
newly acquired Clinical Sciences, Inc., that he would be
in Paris that weekend. Brian acquired controlling interest in
Clinical Sciences in the summer of 1980. Clinical Sciences was
then trading at around $2 a share. Brian worked with Janos P.
Pasztor, a vice president and special situations analyst with the
Canadian investment bank of Nesbitt, Thomson, Bongard Inc., to
create a market of Canadian investors for the stock.
Pasztor later testified in court documents that Brian said
he would be in Paris the weekend of October 17 to do a deal with
the Pasteur Institute (a medical research firm).
Two other brokers, Harry Scully, a broker based in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, and John Belton, a senior account executive with
Nesbitt-Thomson from 1968 to 1982 who is suing Nesbitt-Thomson
and Pasztor for securities fraud, also claim that they were told
that Brian was in Paris that weekend.
But if Brian went to Paris to see the Pasteur Institute, he
seems to have missed his appointment. An investigation by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police into Clinical Sciences stock
transactions revealed that the Pasteur Institute had never
conducted business with, or even heard of Brian.
When asked by WIRED to elaborate on Brian's 1980 trip,
Pasztor said, "These are political questions and I don't want to
become involved." He refused further comment.Brian contends that
the dates of his trip were in error and that he went to Paris in
April 1981, not October 1980. But the passport he turned over to
Senate investigators did not contain a French entry or exit
stamp for April 1981.
Through his lawyers, Brian refused to be interviewed for
this story. - RLF
Earl W. Brian: Closet Spook?
Michael Riconosciuto, a computer programmer and chemist who
surfs the spooky fringe of the guns-'n'-money crowd, is currently
serving a federal prison sentence for drug crimes. From his jail
cell he has given several interviews claiming knowledge of Inslaw
and the October Surprise (he also claims his jail term is the
DOJ's way of punishing him for his knowledge). Much of what he
claims cannot be verified, other statements have failed to be
verified conclusively.
But prior to his arrest in 1991, Riconosciuto provided the
Hamiltons with an affidavit that once again brought Brian into
the Inslaw picture. "I engaged in some software development and
modification work in 1983 and 1984 on proprietary PROMIS computer
software product," he stated. "The copy of PROMIS on which I
worked came from the US Department of Justice. Earl W. Brian made
it available to me through Wackenhut (a security company with
close FBI and CIA connections) after acquiring it from Peter
Videnieks, who was then a Department of Justice contracting
official with the responsibility for PROMIS software. I performed
the modifications to PROMIS in Indio, Calif.; Silver Springs,
Md.; and Miami, Fla."
The modifications included a telecommunications "trap door"
that would let the US Government eavesdrop on any other
organization using the pirated software, Riconosciuto said.
Videnieks and Brian both told House investigators that they
did not know Riconosciuto. After Riconosciuto was interviewed by
House investigators, Videnieks refused to give Congress further
interviews.
Although Brian denies any involvement with Inslaw or
Riconosciuto, the House Judiciary Committee received a report
from a special task force of the Riverside County, Calif.,
Sheriff's Office and District Attorney, stating that on the
evening of Sept. 10, 1981, arms dealers, buyers and various
intelligence operatives gathered at the Cabazon Indian
Reservation near Indio, Calif., for a demonstration of night
warfare weapons. The demonstration was orchestrated jointly by
Wackenhut and the Cabazon Indian tribe. (Many published reports
allege that the Wackenhut/Cabazon joint venture served as a
weapons fencing operation for Oliver North's Iran-Contra
dealings.)
According to Indio city police officers hired to provide
security, those attending included Earl W. Brian, who was
identified as "being with the CIA," and Michael Riconosciuto. -
RLF
US Deputy Attorney General Jensen Lost Once To Inslaw
Could It Be He Wanted to Even The Score?
At the time of its inception, PROMIS was the most powerful
program of its type. But a similar program, DALITE, was developed
under another LEAA grant by D. Lowell Jensen, the Alameda County,
Calif., District Attorney. In the mid-1970s, the two programs
vied for a lucrative Los Angeles County contract and Inslaw won
out.
Early in his career, Attorney General-to-be Edwin Meese
worked under Jensen at the Alameda County District Attorney's
office. Jensen was later appointed as Deputy Attorney General
into Meese's Justice Department.
C. Madison "Brick" Brewer, accused by the House Judiciary
Committee of deliberately misappropriating PROMIS, testified in
federal court that everything he did regarding Inslaw was
approved by D. Lowell Jensen, the same man who once supervised
DALITE.
Was Israel's PROMIS to Crush the Infitada?
Asked why Israeli intelligence would have been so interested
in Inslaw and PROMIS, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe said:
"PROMIS was a very big thing for us guys, a very, very big thing
... it was probably the most important issue of the '80s because
it just changed the whole intelligence outlook. The whole form
of intelligence collection changed. This whole thing changed
it." Why? PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, was perfect for tracking the
Palestinian population and other political dissidents.
Did Oliver North Use PROMIS?
Apparently, Israel was not the only country interested in
using PROMIS for internal security purposes. Lt. Col. Oliver
North also may have been using the program. According to several
intelligence community sources, PROMIS was in use at a
6,100-square-foot command center built on the sixth floor
of the Justice Department. According to both a contractor who
helped design the center and information disclosed during the
Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North had a similar, but smaller,
White House operations room that was connected by computer link
to the DOJ's command center.
Who Fired Inslaw's Lawyer?
As the Inslaw-DOJ battle was joined in bankruptcy court,
Inslaw's chief attorney, Leigh Ratiner, was fired from Dickstein,
Shapiro & Morin, the firm where he had been a partner for 10
years. His firing came after another Dickstein partner, Leonard
Garment, met with Arnold Burns, then-deputy attorney general of
the DOJ.
Garment was counsel to President Richard Nixon and assistant
to President Gerald Ford. He testified before a Senate inquiry
that he and Meese discussed the Inslaw case in October 1986, and
afterward he met with Burns. Two days later Ratiner was fired.
The terms of the financial settlement between Ratiner and
his firm were kept confidential, but WIRED has been told by
ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe that Israeli intelligence paid to
have Ratiner fired, and that the money was transferred through
Hadron Inc., the same company that Earl Brian used to distribute
illegal copies of PROMIS. Through informed sources, WIRED has
independently confirmed portions of Ben Menashe's allegations.
Ben Menashe has told WIRED that he saw a memo in Israel,
written in Hebrew, requesting funds for "a lawyer." He claims to
have seen the memo at the office of a joint Mossad (Israeli CIA),
Internal Defense Forces and Military committee specializing in
Israeli-Iran relations. Israel admits that Ben Menashe handled
communications at this level and therefore would have had access
to such transmissions.
Ben Menashe said the money was used as Ratiner's settlement
payment. "The money was transferred, $600,000, to Hadron," he
said. As to why Hadron was used, Ben Menashe claims: "Because
[Brian] was involved quite deeply." He said Ratiner was unaware
of the source of the settlement funds.
Ratiner, contacted after the Ben Menashe interview, said he
had never disclosed the amount of the separation settlement to
anyone. He is limited contractually by his former firm from
discussing any specifics of the firing. Asked if Ben Menashe's
figures were correct, Ratiner said, "I can't comment because it
would be the same as revealing them." WIRED located a deep
background source who confirmed that the amount was "correct
almost to the penny."
Ratiner said he was shocked at the allegations of money
laundering. "Dickstein, Shapiro is the 10th largest firm in
Washington and I had no reason to think it was other than
reputable," he said. "Why is it that everyone who comes in
contact with the Inslaw case becomes a victim?" - RLF
A Dead Journalist Raises Some Eyebrows
Among the many strong conclusions of the "House Judiciary
Committee Report on the Inslaw Affair" was this rather startling
and brief recommendation: "Investigate Mr. Casolaro's death."
Freelance reporter Danny Casolaro spent the last few years
of his life investigating a pattern which he called "The
Octopus." According to Casolaro, Inslaw was only part of a
greater story of how intelligence agencies, the Department of
Justice and even the mob had subverted the government and its
various functions for their own profit.
Casolaro had hoped to write a book based on his reporting.
His theories, which some seasoned investigative journalists have
described as naive, led him into a Bermuda Triangle of spooks,
guns, drugs and organized crime. On August 10th, 1991, he was
found dead in a Martinsburg, W. Va., hotel room. Both wrists
were deeply slashed.
Casolaro's death has only deepened the mystery surrounding
Inslaw. Among the more unusual aspects of his death: He had gone
to Martinsburg to meet an informant whose name he never revealed.
He had called home the afternoon before his death to say he would
be late for a family gathering. Martinsburg police allowed his
body to be embalmed before family members were notified and
warned hotel employees not to speak to reporters. The hotel room
was immediately scrubbed by a cleaning service. Casolaro had
told several friends and his brother that if anything ever
happened to him, not to believe it was an accident. And his
notes, which witnesses saw him carry into the hotel, were
missing.
His death was ruled a suicide by Martinsburg and West
Virginia authorities several months later. Friends, relatives and
some investigators still cry foul.
A source close to retired Federal Judge Nicholas Bua (the
Bush Administration appointee who is investigating Inslaw) said
Bua will not come to any conclusions regarding Casolaro's fate.
"I don't know if he committed suicide or if it was murder," the
source said. "But the evidence is consistent with both theories.
There are things that bother me but ... certainly no one can be
indicted on the evidence that is available."
What does that mean? Either an independent investigation
drums up more evidence, or the case may never be solved.
The House Judiciary Committee may have written what could be
called the final word on Danny Casolaro's inexplicable death: "As
long as the possibility exists that Danny Casolaro died as a
result of his investigation into the Inslaw matter, it is
imperative that further investigation be conducted." - RLF
InslawGate?
Elliot Richardson, President Nixon's former attorney general
(he was fired when he refused to fire Archibald Cox during the
Watergate scandal) has been a counsel to Inslaw for nearly 10
years (he retired this January). In a Oct. 21, 1991 New York
Times Op Ed, Richardson wrote: "This is not the first time I have
had to think about the need for an independent investigator. I
had been a member of the Nixon Administration from the
beginning when I was nominated as Attorney General in 1973.
Confidence in the integrity of the Watergate investigation could
best be insured, I thought, by entrusting it to someone who had
no prior connection to the White House. With Inslaw, the charges
against the Justice Department make the same course even more
imperative.
"When the Watergate special prosecutor began his inquiry,
indications of the President's complicity were not as strong as
those that now point to a broad conspiracy implicating lesser
Government officials in the theft of Inslaw's technology."
A Well-Covered Coverup?
The House Committee Report contained some no-holds-barred
language on the issue of stonewalling:
"One of the principle reasons the committee could not reach
any definitive conclusion about Inslaw's allegations of a high
criminal conspiracy at Justice was the lack of cooperation from
the Department," the report states. "Throughout the two Inslaw
investigations, the Congress met with restrictions, delays and
outright denials to requests for information and to unobstructed
access to records and witnesses.
"During this committee's investigation, Attorney General
Thornburgh repeatedly reneged on agreements made with this
committee to provide full and open access to information and
witnesses ... the Department failed to provide all the documents
subpoenaed, claiming that some of the documents ... had been
misplaced or accidentally destroyed."
Rep. Jack Brooks and the House Committee On the Inslaw Case
The string of lawsuits and widening allegations caught the
eye of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas,
who in 1989 launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw
affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that
among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later
as attorney general, and D. Lowell Jensen, a former assistant and
deputy attorney general and now a U.S. district judge in San
Francisco, conspired to steal PROMIS.
"There appears to be strong evidence," the report states,
"as indicated by the findings in two Federal Court proceedings as
well as by the committee investigation, that the Department of
Justice 'acted willfully and fraudulently,' and 'took, converted
and stole,' Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by 'trickery fraud and
deceit.' "
"While refusing to engage in good faith negotiations with
Inslaw," the report continues, "Mr. Brewer and Mr. Videnieks,
with the approval of high-level Justice Department officials,
proceeded to take actions to misappropriate the Enhanced PROMIS
software."
Furthermore, the report states, "several individuals have
stated under oath that the Enhanced PROMIS software was stolen
and distributed internationally in order to provide financial
gain to Dr. Brian and to further intelligence and foreign policy
objectives for the United States."
Rep. Brooks told WIRED that the report should be the
starting point for a grand jury investigation. The owners of
Inslaw, Brooks said, were "ravaged by the Justice Department ...
treated like dogs."
Copyright (c) 1994-98 Wired Digital Inc. All rights reserved.
