REC #2 HATONN
THU., MAY 5, 1994 12:53 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 262
THU., MAY 5, 1994
INSLAW AND CRIMES AT "JUSTICE"
We are going to "beat this old dog" again because when Ronn Jackson surfaces and "the coast is clear"--he will be telling you from eyewitness accounts--what happened in this circumstance. It is giving the Justice Department, the Banking Committee and, quite frankly, everyone in Washington, such stomach cramps that we need to continue our public presentation with "what IS" so that he can be a little less the WHOLE FOCUS. There are several incarcerated persons who need to be fetched OUT of prisons who are being held for no other reason than to silence them regarding "INSLAW". However, the main problem is that "Patriots" and others who focus on a specific criminal point are sent away on OTHER CHARGES, some of which will be valid enough to make it very difficult to go to court and win anything. This will include anything from cutting trees on your own property but claimed to be Forest Service land to having taken money from some other incident in the past. As with Gunther Russbacher, the "crime" he was sent away for will NOT MATCH THE REAL REASON FOR INCARCERATION--AND IT IS "THAT" VERY POINT WHICH MUST BE CONFRONTED. WHEN THAT PAST "CRIME" BEING UTILIZED IS, IN FACT, A FRACTURE OF THE LAWS AS SET FORTH BY THE "LAND"--THEN IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO CRY "UNCONSTITUTIONAL".
It becomes a bit like the difference between avoidance of taxes and evasion of taxes. The Constitutional "rights" are set aside if you make a "voluntary" form-filing in the Federal United States--after which, you are considered a United States (Federal) Citizen. Just to go forth and demand constitutional rights while breaking all "other" rules is certainly not showing good intent or honest effort. If there is a payoff of some kind from any of these Elite factions--don't expect to pull down "another" by crying Constitutional "Wolf". Unless, of course, as with Jackson--YOU HAVE THE BLACKMAIL GOODS ON THE POWER BROKERS. The old question: "Do you KNOW the difference in tax avoidance and tax evasion?" Answer: "15 years"! is quite applicable here.
We are going to devote another full paper to the INSLAW matter so that all background is fresh in your minds, readers, because it is in a swirl of controversy BEHIND THE SCENES TODAY.
An anonymous "A Crew Member" has written a long dissertation telling me what to run in the paper and whose work to use--at great length. I have pages of contradictions from my writings tossed back into my face and then I am told to only run "Jackson's stuff" and not McAlvany's, etc., because "...more people read McAlvany than your paper".... No, that is not so--there may well be more paid subscriptions to McAlvany's paper--but there is no paper of this type more READ than is CONTACT. In fact the intelligence community and/or the Elite Government couldn't care a damn less about McAlvany's "stuff". Furthermore, I had not realized we had asked for critique or instructions on information suitable for our readers. If the person in point cannot sort that which we offer, in clarity--then I believe we should not change our format to any great extent.
I am continually amused at ones who anonymously present such in-depth critique and note that they do not subscribe themselves but, rather, get the papers through conduits
--at no cost to selves. This is fine if it suits your conscience, friends, but I suggest that you consider your position as well as ours.
Besides, you will get flack from ones regarding Ronn Jackson. There was just a little gathering for one, Leon Fort, and the discussion came up about his relationship with the Institute, etc., and Mr. Fort pronounced that there "is no Ronn Jackson and that it is just more lies of the Institute and those people"! Those people, of course, are me and associated parties. Well, Mr. Jackson is obtaining some legal counsel to handle the trials and tribulations of "those people" and these lawyers are known for WINNING IN ALL CASES THEY ACCEPT. FURTHER, HE IS BACKING UP THE ACQUISITION WITH A POT-FULL OF MONEY SO PERHAPS THINGS WILL BEGIN TO CHANGE QUITE QUICKLY! Dharma is so weary of the harassment and insulting accusations as to suggest that perhaps Mr. Jackson might also enjoy giving the adversarial parties a NECK MASSAGE with a bit of a tweak.... Well, we don't want such endings to our problems because TRUTH IS SUFFICIENT. This fits with the joshing about having Mr. Green eat those pounds and pounds of gold he took and wants so badly and then take him swimming. Nobody told anyone here that this job would be easy--and surely enough--it is not. Further, what interests YOU may not be that which is needed for the readers at large. I appreciate all input and take it within for consideration--I trust you are likewise as generous when I respond. I am not picking--
I am acknowledging.
DEFRAUDING AMERICA, Part 21
by Rodney Stich
INSLAW AND CRIMES AT "JUSTICE"
Inslaw is the name of a small computer programming company owned by William and Nancy Hamilton that was subjected to criminal activities and a conspiracy by high Justice Department officials. By misusing the power of their office these officials, including the three U.S. Attorney Generals in the Reagan-Bush administrations, Edwin Meese, Richard Thornburgh, and William Barr, misappropriated, or aided and abetted the theft of the software called PROMIS. The tactics used by the highest law-enforcement officers in the United States to steal the software forced the small company into Chapter 11, after which Justice Department officials misused the U.S. Trustee division of the Justice Department and the federal courts, seeking to force the company into a Chapter 7 liquidation.
In 1982 the U.S. Department of Justice signed a $10 million contract with Inslaw to install an enhanced version of software known as PROMIS in 42 U.S. Attorney offices. The Inslaw company obtained a loan to complete the contract. After the software was installed, and found to be satisfactory, and its value recognized for an upcoming half-billion-dollar government contract, Justice Department officials refused to pay Inslaw, knowing that it would force them into bankruptcy. Once Inslaw filed for bankruptcy, Justice Department officials could force the company into a Chapter 7 liquidation through its control of the bankruptcy process.
As stated elsewhere in these pages, it is a standard practice for people in control of the CIA and other government agencies to target selected companies and force them into bankruptcy, and then business associates take over the assets. My CIA contacts have described this practice to me, misusing various government agencies including the Justice Department to carry out the scheme.
[H: Again I would like to point out that this is exactly what George Green has attempted to do THROUGH FEDERAL ENTITIES and claims against the Institute. I think, however, that you may find something interesting here in the last attack through the Associated Press against the Institute AND EKKERS. There is a fine journalist from the Las Vegas area who has called every party involved and named in this particular dispute (excellent journalism). He has done his homework and deserves honor for his research. He has now stated that he also called Horton, Green's attorney who stated that he "has found no evidence of dishonesty in Ekkers' dealings or claims". He further said that if it shows that Green is guilty of that which is now appearing to be--that he would have no problem coming to working terms with Ekkers. Well, that is nice and we appreciate any little bit of kindness--however, there are NOT ANY TERMS to "come to". There have been blatant, intentional and insidious criminal and civil attacks on our workings and our people and that is unacceptable. There certainly will be no "terms" implied or applied. When one will deliberately pull down and cause loss to many people to fill his own ego and greedy desires and acquisitions--I don't believe it is suitable to "just go away". So be it...! And, I repeat a request I asked to have done last Sunday--please make copies of the checks paid from the Institute to Leon Fort's attorney as payment agreements--endorsed and done something with, by that attorney. Fort claims that we lie about those payments, too. The fact is that his attorney took the payments for whatever reason and George Green, attorney Abbott and/or Fort ALL/or separately BROKE THE AGREEMENT AFTER ACCEPTING SOME 3 OR 4 PAYMENTS. Now, to claim lies in the face of ignorance is one thing--but how can there STILL be ignorance for this smacks of deliberate refusal to look at TRUTH. Further, to shout lies and the nonexistence of a perfectly presentable person such as Jackson as being "just another one of their lies, he doesn't exist--there is no Ronn Jackson" smacks of total absurdity! And further, in the face of such insulting characterizations I'm not sure why anyone would wish to pay-off such a party--when he came in through Green and Green had ample stashed GOLD to pay him off at any time. Is this valid intent of use of the "gift" Mr. Green claims? Possibly--but he didn't and doesn't plan to do any such reasonable deed now or ever. If Mr. Fort was not paid by Abbott who claims there were no payments--is this the FAULT of the ones making the payments? Where did the money go? Could not Mr. Fort demand explanation AND funds from his worthy attorney?? Mr. Fort has been told of the payments--perhaps he must SEE the cancelled checks with endorsements!?! The point is that MISUSE of the Justice System MUST STOP or you will have no shred of freedom upon which to base a nation.]
A close friend of Attorney General Edwin Meese, Earl Brian, had a controlling interest in another software company seeking to obtain the government computer contract, Hadron Incorporated. Meese and his wife had a financial interest in Hadron. The company was primarily owned by Earl Brian (Brian owned United Press International), who served in the White House as chairman of a task force which reported to Attorney General Edwin Meese.
The key Justice Department and White House people who were part of the conspiracy included the three U.S. Attorney Generals (starting with Edwin Meese), Earl Brian, Deputy Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen, among others. All were from California and, except for Brian, they were all California attorneys.
Hadron, a computer software company, was owned by Earl Brian, a close friend of Meese, both of whom were from California and in former Governor Ronald Reagan's administration. Brian wanted the Inslaw software, which would subsequently be sold to the Justice Department and other government agencies in a $500 million contract. Brian expected to obtain the contract through his influence with Meese, whose wife had stock in Hadron. The value of that stock, and the company's profits, would soar into the tens of millions of dollars upon obtaining the rights to Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS software and the government contract.
Earlier, the Chairman of Hadron, Dominic Laiti, attempted to purchase the PROMIS software from Inslaw, who refused to sell. Laiti reportedly told Nancy and Lee Hamilton that Hadron was politically connected to Attorney General Meese and, "We have ways of making you sell". After this threat was made, Justice Department officials refused to pay for the PROMIS software, knowingly forcing the Hamiltons to seek refuge in Chapter 11. [H: You are going to find that there are documents which are totally incriminating of your then President Ronald Reagan regarding this and other situations and which will undoubtedly be uncovered one of these days soon because the Big Boys are surely WORRIED!]
After installing the software as agreed in the contract, and after using the program which they found to be satisfactory, they realized that the program would probably win the half-billion dollar government contract that would soon be awarded. Justice Department officials knew that Inslaw had borrowed heavily to develop and install the PROMIS software in the government offices, and that refusing to pay for the program would force the company into bankruptcy, where Justice Department officials had the power to destroy the company.
Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen refused to pay the Inslaw corporation for the installed software, forcing them into bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee Division, a key part of Chapter 11, was a division in the U.S. Department of Justice, and gave Attorney General Ed Meese and Justice Department officials considerable control of both the process and federal judges. If corruptly used, the Inslaw company could be financially destroyed. And this is what the Justice department officials tried to do.
In what would probably be a quid pro quo for his cooperation in the scheme against Inslaw, Meese had president Ronald Reagan appoint Jensen a U.S. District Judge in San Francisco. (Jensen played key roles in the obstruction of justice when I sought to report the federal crimes to federal courts in the San Francisco area. He was one of several October Surprise and Inslaw participants who were rewarded with federal judgeships, and who helped to block any court action addressing these crimes).
Another federal official involved in the scheme against Inslaw was Edwin Thomas, assistant counsel to President Reagan, and a friend of Meese. Thomas loaned Meese's wife, Ursula, $15,000, in early 1981, to buy stock in Infotech (then operating under the name of Biotech Capital Corporation). Thomas was working directly for Meese as assistant counsel to the president, and was loaned $100,000 by Earl Brian in July 1981. Thomas, using his official White House position, then made calls to the Small Business Administration to have the SBA approve a loan application to a Biotech subsidiary owned by Thomas which was involved in computer software. Biotech hoped to obtain Justice Department software contracts worth an estimated half-billion dollars, using the stolen Inslaw software. The insiders to this scheme anticipated they would be multi-millionaires. But the scheme required that Infotech/Biotech/Hadron obtain the Enhanced PROMIS software from Inslaw, which the owners, Lee and Nancy Hamilton, refused to sell.
After Inslaw sought refuge in Chapter 11, Justice Department officials pressured the IRS to force Inslaw into a Chapter 7 liquidation, hoping to have Hadron acquire the PROMIS software, which would then be offered to the government for the estimated half-billion dollars in contracts. In an unusual refusal to cooperate with Justice Department dirty tricks, Chapter 11 Judge George F. Bason blocked that particular attempt.
SELLING THE STOLEN SOFTWARE
After receiving the leased software from Inslaw, Justice Department officials gave the software to Earl Brian (The Financial Post August 19, 1991, issue linked Brian to covert operations with the United States and Israeli intelligence communities. He was reportedly involved in the sale of weapons to Iran in the 1980s. He reportedly worked with the CIA. He was reportedly implicated in the many scandals involving Ed Meese.) who then used CIA contract agent Michael Riconosciuto to alter the program at the Wackenhut-operated facilities on the Cabazon Indian Reservation near Indio, California.
The Hamiltons, who owned the Inslaw Company, discovered the unlawful sale of their software by Justice Department officials and Earl Brian to Canada when Canadian government personnel inadvertently contacted Inslaw for information on the software which had been sold to them. The Hamiltons visited the Canadian offices that had requested information, discovering that numerous Canadian offices were using it. After the Hamiltons reported that they had not sold the software to any Canadian offices, and that they were not authorized to use it, Canadian officials falsely claimed that none of their offices were using the software.
Canadian authorities covered up for the theft and protected the corrupt Justice Department officials in the United states.
CIVIL SUIT AGAINST JUSTICE
While in Chapter 11 proceedings the Inslaw company filed a civil action (Inslaw v. Thornburgh, Civ. 89-3443) against the U.S. Department of Justice and the officials who stole the PROMIS software, suing for financial damages. In court filings, Inslaw and its attorney, former U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson, claimed that Inslaw was a victim of a conspiracy by Meese and his friends, who capitalized on their government positions for the purpose of stealing the software and converting it into private use and personal gains.
Justice Department officials, including U.S. Attorney Edwin Meese, sought to block this lawsuit by misusing the power of the Justice Department. The first attorney representing Inslaw against the Justice Department was Leigh Ratiner in the Washington law firm of Dickstein and Shapiro. As Ratiner discovered, Justice Department officials put pressure upon his bosses, causing them to dismiss him from the law firm. However, they agreed to pay him the fabulous sum of $600,000 for NOT working, payable $120,000 yearly for the next five years, on the condition that he NOT practice law during that time. In this way he could not represent the Inslaw company against the Justice Department. Talk about conspiracies!
Former Mossad agent Ari Ben-Menashe saw a cable from Israel's Joint Committee (Israel's Joint Committee was formed to deal with Iran-Israel relations) to the United States requesting that $600,000 be transferred from the CIA-Israel slush fund to Hadron. The cable stated that the money would be transferred to the law firm of Dickstein and Shapiro as compensation to remove Inslaw's attorney, Ratiner, from the case.
TWO FEDERAL JUDGES RULED
AGAINST JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
At the end of the civil trial against the Justice Department in the Inslaw case, Chapter 11 Judge George F. Bason, Jr., ruled in favor of Inslaw and awarded Inslaw $6.8 million. Bason lambasted Justice Department officials, stating he believed they were guilty of deceit, theft and trickery. Justice Department officials appealed the judgement to the U.S. District Court (The United States Court of Appeals in Washington vacated the judgment against the Justice Department, ruling that bankruptcy courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter.) where U.S. District Judge William Bryant upheld the decision, praising Judge Bason's "attention to detail and mastery of evidence".
That decision was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., where several of the October Surprise participants had received federal judgeships for their "loyalty" to the conspirators. The decision was reversed, claiming the lower court judges had no jurisdiction to render such a decision. A little understood practice in federal courts is to appoint U.S. Attorneys, loyal to the Justice Department controlling clique, to federal judicial positions, who then act to protect the dirty business in the Justice Department, the CIA, or any other federal agency. Judges who don't cooperate are sometimes charged with criminal offenses by Justice Department prosecutors for some real or fabricated minor offenses and removed from the bench.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RETALIATION
Bankruptcy court judges must be reappointed every fourteen years, and that reappointment was denied to Judge Bason after the unfavorable ruling against Justice Department officials. (It is risky for any federal judge to rule against the Justice Department in important cases.) Justice Department officials then recommended for appointment to Bason's former position the Justice Department attorney who represented Justice Department officials in the Inslaw law suit.
It is normal for over 90 percent of the incumbent bankruptcy judges who sought reappointment to be reappointed. Bason's replacement had no bankruptcy experience, but could be counted upon to carry out Justice Department wishes.
Judge Bason later testified to a Congressional committee, "I have come to believe that my non-reappointment as bankruptcy judge was the result of improper influence from within the Justice Department which the current appointment process failed to prevent" That certainly was an understatement.
ALTERING TESTIMONY, A GRIME
In March 1987, Justice Department officials pressured an important witness, a federal judge, to change testimony that he had previously given in the Inslaw matter.
A Justice Department attorney also was pressured to recant his previous testimony favorable to Inslaw. For them to have done so means that they lied under oath during their prior testimony, requiring Justice Department prosecutors to charge them with a crime. Actually, their prior testimony was the truth, and the recanted testimony was perjured testimony, suborned by Justice Department attorneys. We now had multiple crimes perpetrated by attorneys in the Justice Department and the federal judge. What else is new!
ALTERING THE PROMIS SOFTWARE
Prior to selling the software to foreign countries for use by their intelligence and military agencies, the CIA altered the PROMIS program to permit the CIA to secretly tap into it and extract information. The alterations were accomplished at the Cabazon Indian Reservation near Indio, California by CIA contract agent Michael Riconosciuto. [H: Well, a start is a start and obviously Michael Riconosciuto IS in prison to shush him up. I wonder if maybe some, like Riconosciuto can be bargaining chips in the current "negotiations" for silence?? Certainly without such leverage they are destined to perish in the burying efforts. I can promise you, however, that the important input to that computer ware was impressively accomplished by one other than Michael Riconosciuto.]
Riconosciuto stated to me that the Inslaw PROMIS software was brought to him at the Cabazon Indian Reservation near Indio, California, by Earl Brian while Riconosciuto was a contract agent with the CIA. Riconosciuto was skilled at computer programming and made modifications to the software in order to meet the requirements of the Canadian Mounties and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. He reported that it was Brian who sold Inslaw's software to the Canadians.
Another CIA operative knowing of the sale of the PROMIS software was Gunther Russbacher, who carried the software to Australia and provided me with a sworn statement to that effect, which I, in turn, provided to the Hamiltons and their attorney, Elliott Richardson.
Ari Ben-Menashe, a former member of Israel's Mossad, told the Hamiltons that he had obtained the enhanced PROMIS software from Brian and Robert McFarlane (who at that time was Reagan's National Security Adviser). McFarlane also played a role in the 1980 scheme and the following Iran-Contra scandal.
Ben-Menashe stated that he was at a meeting in Israel when Brian stated he owned the PROMIS software and was trying to sell it to Israel. Ben-Menashe stated that Chilean arms dealer Carlos Cardoen told him that "he brokered a deal between Brian and a representative of the Iraqi military intelligence for the use of PROMIS". Iranian arms dealer Richard Babayan stated in an affidavit that during 1987 he met a member of Iraqi intelligence who told him Iraq had acquired PROMIS from Brian on the recommendations of the Libyan government.
YEARS OF MEDIA EXPOSURE
An article from The American Lawyer (December 1987) referred to the Inslaw affair:
No sooner had the Justice Department awarded Inslaw a $10 million contract than things began to go wrong. Hamilton couldn't understand why. Suddenly Inslaw's finances were in shambles. By February 7, 1985, the government had withheld payments on $1.77 million in costs and fees. Inslaw, the market leader, filed for bankruptcy. Hamilton says he was mystified. How could everything he had built fall apart so fast--and with no explanation? [Inslaw said]
"I think, in a perverse way, I was ... slow to catch on. I feel silly. I wasn't paranoid enough".
A story of government conniving and manipulation ... and in Elliott Richardson's words, "complemented and allowed to run its course by ill will at the higher level", meaning former Deputy Attorney General Jensen. [Now a federal judge at San Francisco].
Many media articles appeared in the late 1980s addressing the Justice Department theft of the Inslaw software, forcing-congressional committees to go through the mechanics of conducting an investigation.
SERIES OF KILLINGS
PROTECTED FEDERAL OFFICIALS
As occurred in other scandals implicating federal officials, many people who posed a threat to these U.S. officials turned up dead. The most publicized killing was that of free-lance reporter and author, Danny Casolaro, who was writing a book and investigating criminal activities implicating Justice Department officials. Casolaro was killed in a motel room in Martinsburg, West Virginia (August 10, 1991) where he was to meet sources providing him with additional evidence linking Justice Department officials to Chapter 11 corruption, Inslaw, October Surprise, and BCCI.
Possibly in a set up, a CIA operative met Casolaro at a restaurant, advising Casolaro that he knew of a person who could give Casolaro additional evidence proving the link between Justice Department officials and the Inslaw scandal. Casolaro traveled to Martinsburg, West Virginia, about 40 miles from Washington, to meet the mysterious witness. On Saturday morning, August 11, 1991, Casolaro was found dead in the bathtub of his room in the Sheraton Hotel, his wrists slashed ten times. His briefcase and all notes were missing.
Despite identification in Casolaro's personal belongings, the police made no effort to contact his family before placing a suicide label on the death and embalming the body. No permission was sought from Casolaro's family and no check was made for incapacitating drugs that may have been given to him. This unusual response destroyed any evidence that might have linked Casolaro's death to others.
Casolaro had suspected that his life may be in danger and had said several times to his brother, a medical doctor, if anything happened to him that looked like an accident, for him not to believe it.
Shortly before his death, Casolaro had a chance meeting with a former CIA Special Forces operative who had worked for a company involved in the Inslaw case, and who was also a good friend of Justice Department official, Peter Videnieks.
Videnieks, a target of Casolaro's investigation, and a former CIA operative set up a meeting between Casolaro and Videnieks.
Casolaro had been talking almost daily with CIA contract agent Michael Riconosciuto, and had stayed with Riconosciuto and his wife, Bobbi, at their residence near Tacoma, Washington, obtaining additional evidence. Casolaro's death was one of at least half-a-dozen closely linked to the Inslaw matter. Casolaro's death bred numerous media articles linking Justice Department officials with Inslaw. (A typical article was entitled, The Dark World of Danny Casolaro, a four-page article in the October 28, 1991 issue of THE NATION).
After Casolaro's murder, Inslaw's attorney Elliott Richardson again demanded that the Justice Department conduct an investigation, citing the fact that Casolaro found evidence proving the existence of misconduct by high Justice Department officials over whom the Attorney General had supervisory responsibility. Richardson was in effect asking the U.S. Attorney General to investigate criminal misconduct implicating Attorney General Edwin Meese, and those working under him.
END QUOTING OF PART TWENTY-ONE
* * *
REC #3 HATONN
THU., MAY 5, 1994 3:43 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 262
THU., MAY 5, 1994
DEFRAUDING AMERICA, Part 22
by Rodney Stich
INSLAW AND CRIMES AT "JUSTICE"
Motivated by media attention to the Inslaw matter, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Sam Nunn, conducted a typical Congressional investigation (1989) into the theft of the software and problems in Chapter 11 courts. Justice Department officials blocked the investigation by refusing to produce documents and refusing to allow Justice Department personnel to be questioned under oath. Attorney General Thornburgh refused to appear before the committee, even though he had a duty to do so. The Senate committee also had a duty to force the Attorney General to appear. Instead, the committee prepared a report and then disbanded the investigation.
CONFIRMATION BY CIA INFORMANTS
Several former CIA operatives gave testimony and affidavits into the Inslaw litigation and to Congress, showing that the PROMIS software was given to Earl Brian by Justice Department officials and sold to numerous foreign countries, including Canada, Libya, Iran, Iraq (The PROMIS software was reportedly sold to Iraq in 1988, while the Bush Administration was supplying Iraq with billions of dollars in grain subsidies, that were diverted to arms purchases.) and South Korea. The Inslaw contract with the Justice Department did not constitute a sale, like most software purchasers, of the PROMIS software, and could only be used in the Justice Department offices specifically stated in the contract.
THREAT OF PRISON
IF THE TESTIMONY WAS FALSE
If Riconosciuto's testimony and declarations had been false, Justice Department officials would have probably charged him with perjury.
The Senate report described the stonewalling, stating that its inquiry into Inslaw's charges had been "hampered by the department's lack of cooperation". The report stated that it had found employees "who desired to speak to the subcommittee, but who chose not to, out of fear for their jobs". The report addressed not only the Justice Department's misconduct in the In-slaw affair but also its misuse of Chapter 11 through its U.S. Trustee Division. The report concluded that the Justice Department politicized the U.S. Trustee program, forcing the Inslaw company, with whom it did business, into bankruptcy, by refusing to pay for the PROMIS software program.
The report agreed with the findings of U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Bason, Jr., who blasted the Department of Justice in his decision, which stated in part:
[Justice Department officials] took, converted, stole, [the plaintiff's properly] by trickery, fraud and deceit... [made] an institutional decision... at the highest level simply to ignore serious questions of ethical impropriety, made repeatedly by persons of unquestioned probity and integrity, and this failure constitutes bad faith, vexatiousness, wantonness and oppressiveness. ...engaged in outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of cat and mouse, demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealing.
The Senate report included articles appearing in Barron's (March 21, and April 4, 1988) and The American Lawyer (December 1987) which went into great detail describing the Justice Department and U.S. Trustee misconduct. One article in Barron's (March 21, 1988) described the Justice Department's attempts to bankrupt and destroy Inslaw, misusing the U.S. Trustees and the bankruptcy judges to carry out their scheme. The article stated in part:
Justice officials proceeded to purposefully drive the small software company into bankruptcy, and then tried to push it into liquidation, engaging in an "outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of cat and mouse, demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealings". Ultimately, the series of "willful, wanton, and deceitful acts" led to a cover up. Bason called statements by top Justice Department officials "ludicrous...incredible...and totally unbelievable".
Some of the evidence against the department came from one of its own. During the course of the litigation, Anthony Pasciuto, Deputy Director of the department's Executive Office for United States Trustees, told... how the Justice Department had pressured Trustee officers to liquidate [Inslaw]. Later, a superior confirmed Pasciuto's story. But at the trial, a horrified Pasciuto listened while his superior changed his testimony. Close to tears, he, too, recanted.
Judge Bason... ordered Justice to pay Inslaw about $6.8 million in licensing fees and roughly another $1 million in legal fees. In November, Judge Bason rejected a Department of Justice motion to liquidate Inslaw. One month later, the Harvard Law School graduate and former law professor discovered that he was not being reappointed.
Describing how government officials hang in until the press drops the subject, and then continue the misconduct, the article stated:
It seemed as if the controversy was winding down. It would follow a natural course in the press, and then fade from view. Inslaw would become another shocking event that slinks off into obscurity: Someone occasionally might dimly remember and idly ask, "What ever did happen to Bill Hamilton and those Inslaw people? A real shame...I heard the judge was back teaching law somewhere....
The Barron's article described the efforts of Anthony Pasciuto, a Department of Justice insider, who blew the whistle on the Justice Department's misuse of this powerful federal agency against Inslaw and his small company:
In an interview with Barron's... Pasciuto explained how the Justice Department blacklisted Inslaw. It was a tale that involved two U.S. trustees, a federal judge who told two versions of the same story, and a Justice Department that routinely refused to pay certain suppliers.
Pattern of harassment [by the Justice Department] that helped drive Inslaw into Chapter 11.... the Justice Department was trying to starve Inslaw. They didn't just push to bankrupt the software firm,... they wanted to liquidate it, converting it from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, as soon as possible. Why?
Tony Pasciuto [said] that his boss, Thomas Stanton, director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, was pressuring the federal trustee overseeing the Inslaw case, William White, to liquidate Inslaw.
Cornelius Blackshear, the U.S. Trustee in New York at the time of Inslaw's Chapter 11 filing, knew all about Stanton's plan. Pasciuto said that Judge Blackshear had repeated this tale of pressure in the presence of United States Court of Appeals Judge Lawrence Pierce in the judge's chambers in Foley Square in New York.
Blackshear met with a Justice Department representative, and signed a sworn affidavit, recanting, and said that he had confused Inslaw with another case--United Press International, which had also been involved in bankruptcy proceedings in Judge Bason's court.
Cornelius Blackshear left his position as United States Trustee and became a United States bankruptcy judge the following fall. (For those who cooperate with the Justice Department, federal judgeship positions are the carrot).
"A lot dirtier than Watergate".
Chief investigator Ronald LeGrand for the Senate Judiciary Committee told William Hamilton and his attorney that a trusted Justice Department source confided that the Inslaw case was "a lot dirtier for the Department of Justice than Watergate had been, both in its breadth and its depth."
Despite the oversight responsibilities of this Senate group, despite the requirements of federal criminal statutes, the Senate committee refused to take any actions. In this way they aided and abetted the criminal activities, of which Inslaw was only the tip of the iceberg.
The Congressional Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary held hearings concerning the Inslaw matter and the related death of Danny Casolaro. Congressman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) chaired the committee investigation. U.S. Attorney Meese and the Justice Department group stonewalled the House committee just as they had done with the Senate committee, refusing to turn over requested documents and fraudulently stating the key documents had been accidentally destroyed or could not be found. How convenient! At the start of the hearings Congressman Brooks stated:
As incredible as this sounds, Federal Bankruptcy Judge George Bason, who will be testifying later, has already found much of the first part of the allegation to be true. In his decision on the Inslaw bankruptcy, Judge Bason ruled that the Department "took, converted and stole" Inslaw's proprietary software using "trickery, fraud and deceit". The judge also severely criticized the decisions by high-level Department officials to "ignore the ethical improprieties" on the part of the Justice Department officials involved in the case.
During the committee hearings over thirty people testified, revealing how Justice Department officials had stolen the software, schemed to force Inslaw into bankruptcy, and then stole the computer program. Among those who testified before the House committee was former Chapter 11 Judge Bason, who heard the case against the Justice Department. He testified:
The judicial opinions that I rendered reflected my sense of moral outrage that, as the evidence showed and as I held, the Justice Department stole Inslaw's property and tried to drive Inslaw out of business. Those opinions were upheld on appeal by Judge Bryant in a memorandum that noted my attention to detail and mastery of evidence.
Revealing Justice Department retaliation for rendering a decision unfavorable to the Justice Department group, Judge Bason testified:
Very soon after I rendered those opinions, my application for reappointment was turned down. One of the Justice Department attorneys who argued the Inslaw case before me was appointed in my stead. Although over 90 percent of the incumbent bankruptcy judges who sought reappointment were in fact reappointed, I was not among them.
By placing one of their own as a judge on the federal court system (a common practice), the Justice Department officials expanded their pattern of influence.
Congressman Brooks stated in the final committee report: "Despite the dramatic findings by the two courts, the department has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing by its officials, claiming that its conflict with Inslaw is nothing more than a simple contract dispute. I find this position a little hard to swallow".
The September 10, 1992, report accused high Justice Department officials of criminal misconduct and recommended appointment of a special prosecutor. The 122 page report stated in part:
There appears to be strong evidence, 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". (INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, Opinion of U.S. District Court Judge William Bryant, at p. 52a). It appears that these actions against Inslaw were implemented through the project manager from the beginning of the contract and under the direction of high level Justice Department officials.
What is strikingly apparent from the testimony and depositions of key witnesses and many documents is that...[The Department] engaged in an outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of cat and mouse, demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair dealing.... high level officials at the Department of Justice conspired to drive Inslaw into insolvency and steal the PROMIS software so it could be used by Dr. Earl Brian, a former associate and friend of then Attorney General Edwin Meese. Dr. Brian is a businessman and entrepreneur who owns or controls several businesses including Hadron, Inc. , which has contracts with the Justice Department, CIA, and other agencies. ...the circumstances involving the theft of the PROMIS software system constitute a possible criminal conspiracy involving Mr. Meese, Judge Jensen, Dr. Brian, and several current and former officials at the Department of Justice. ...the committee's investigation largely supports the findings of two Federal courts that the Department "took, converted, stole" Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by "trickery, fraud and deceit", and that this misappropriation involved officials at the highest levels of the Department of Justice.
One of the principal 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. 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 since 1988. [Fraudulent claims] that some of the documents held by the department's chief attorney in charge of the Inslaw litigation had been misplaced or accidentally destroyed.
The ultimate goal of the conspiracy was to position Hadron and the other companies owned or controlled by Dr. Brian to take advantage of the nearly
3 billion dollars' worth of automated data processing upgrade contracts planned to be awarded by the Department of Justice during the 1980s.
The Enhanced PROMIS software was stolen by high level Justice officials and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain to Dr. Brian and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives of the United States.
Numerous potential witnesses refused to cooperate, for the stated reason that they were fearful for their jobs and retaliation by the Justice Department, or that attempts had already been made to intimidate them against cooperating.
The Department's unwillingness to allow congressional oversight into its affairs, in spite of an alleged cover-up of wrong-doing, greatly hindered the committee's investigation of the Inslaw allegations. The committee also encountered serious problems with obtaining cooperation from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The committee also encountered virtually no cooperation in its investigation of the Inslaw matter beyond U.S. borders. The Government of Canada refused to make its officials available to committee investigators for interviews without strict limitations on the questioning.
Referring to an even worse level of corruption, the committee report stated:
According to LeGrand, a trusted source, described to the Hamiltons as a senior DOJ official with a title, had alleged that the two senior Criminal Division officials were witnesses to much greater malfeasance against Inslaw than that already found by the Bankruptcy Court, malfeasance on such a more serious scale than Watergate. LeGrand told the Hamiltons that D. Lowell Jensen did not merely fail to investigate the malfeasance of Videnieks and Brewer but instead had "engineered" the malfeasance "right from the start" so that Inslaw's software business could be made available to political friends of the Reagan/Bush administration.
Can identify about 300 places where the PROMIS software has been installed illegally by the Federal Government. Dr. Brian sold PROMIS to the Central Intelligence Agency in 1983 for implementation on computers purchased from Floating Point Systems and what the CIA called PROMIS "Datapoint". Dr. Brian has sold about $20 million of PROMIS licenses to the Federal Government. Department officials hinted to CIA officials that they should deny that they are using PROMIS.
[A DEA agent] reassignment in 1990 to a DEA intelligence position in the state of Washington prior to Michael Riconosciuto's March 1991 arrest there on drug charges was more than coincidental. ...the agent was assigned to Riconosciuto's home state to manufacture a case against him. Mr. Coleman stated he believes this was done to prevent Mr. Riconosciuto from becoming a credible witness concerning the U.S. Government's covert sale of PROMIS to foreign governments.
The committee encountered numerous situations that pointed to a concerted effort by Department officials to manipulate the litigation of the Inslaw bankruptcy, as alleged by the president of Inslaw. During this controversy, one key department witness was harassed and ultimately....
Unauthorized destruction of Government documents. ...Department employees were involved in the illegal destruction (shredding) of documents related to the Inslaw case.
Riconosciuto stated that a tape recording of the telephone threat was confiscated by DEA agents at the time of Riconosciuto's arrest. ...the timing of the arrest, coupled with Mr. Riconosciuto's allegations that tapes of a telephone conversation he had with Mr. Videnieks were confiscated by DEA agents, raises serious questions concerning whether the department's prosecution of Mr. Riconosciuto was related to his cooperation with the committee.
Based on the committee's investigation and two separate court rulings, it is clear that high level Department of Justice officials deliberately ignored Inslaw's proprietary rights in the enhanced version of PROMIS and misappropriated this software for use at locations not covered under contract with the company. Instead of conducting an investigation into Inslaw's claims that criminal wrongdoing by high level Government officials had occurred, Attorney Generals Meese and Thornburgh blocked or restricted congressional inquiries into the matter, ignored the findings of two courts and refused to ask for the appointment of an independent counsel. These actions were taken in the face of a growing body of evidence that serious wrongdoing had occurred which reached to the highest levels of the department. The evidence received by the committee during its investigation clearly raises serious concerns about the possibility that a high level conspiracy against Inslaw did exist and that great efforts have been expended by the department to block any outside investigation into the matter.
Finally, the committee believes that the only way the Inslaw allegations can be adequately and fully investigated is by the appointment of an independent counsel.
...the Department ignored Inslaw's data rights to its enhanced version of its PROMIS software and misused its prosecutorial and litigative resources to legitimize and cover-up its misdeeds. Several witnesses, including former Attorney General Elliott Richardson, have provided testimony, sworn statements or affidavits linking high level department officials to a conspiracy to steal Inslaw's PROMIS software and secretly transfer PROMIS to Dr. Brian. ...the PROMIS software was subsequently converted for use by domestic and foreign intelligence services. This testimony was provided by individuals who knew that the Justice Department would be inclined to prosecute them for perjury if they lied under oath. No such prosecutions have occurred.
The reviews of the Inslaw matter by Congress were hampered by department tactics designed to conceal many significant documents and otherwise interfere with an independent review. The department actions appear to have been motivated more by an intense desire to defend itself from Inslaw's charges of misconduct rather than investigating possible violations of the law. ...the department "stole through trickery, fraud and deceit" Inslaw's PROMIS software.
13. Further investigation into the circumstances surrounding Daniel Casolaro's death is needed.
14. The following criminal statutes may have been violated by certain high level Justice officials and private individuals:
18 U. S. C. sub 371--Conspiracy to commit an offense.
18 U. S. C. sub 654--Officer or employee of the United States converting the property of another.
18 U.S. C. sub 1341--Fraud.
18 U. S. C. sub 1343--Wire fraud.
18 U.S. C. sub 1505--Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees.
18 U.S. sub 1512--Tampering with a witness.
18 U.S. C. sub 1513--Retaliation against a witness.
18 U. S. C. sub 1621--Perjury
18 U.S. C. sub 1951--Interference with commerce by threats or violence (RICO).
18 U.S. C. sub 1961 et seq. --Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
18 U.S. C. sub 2314--Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys.
[H: Gosh, it seems like Mr. Green would fit into this 18 U.S.C. sub 2314 for transportation of stolen goods ($350,000 in GOLD), securities, moneys...??]
18 U. S. C. sub 2315--Receiving stolen goods.
* * * * * *
I dislike having to quit this evening but I believe I sense that my typist has finger-itismortis! And, a disposition that is increasingly "testy" by the minute. So, we will take up in the morning with "AIDING AND ABETTING". Thank you for a long day. Salu.