HR 4862 IH
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.
That the findings of the House Committee on the Ju-
diciary in the INSLAW Affairs, dated September 10,
1992, and committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union are hereby reaffirmed
and adopted, verbatim herein, as follows:
‘‘(1) The Department, in an attempt to imple-
ment a standardized case management system, ig-
nored advice from vendors—including INSLAW—
that PROMIS should not be adapted to word proc-
essing equipment. As predicted, problems arose with
adapting PROMIS to word processing equipment.
The Department immediately set out to terminate
that portion of the contract and blamed INSLAW
for its failure.
‘‘(2) The Department exhibited extremely poor
judgment by assigning C. Madison Brewer to man-
age the PROMIS implementation contract. Mr.
Brewer had been asked to leave his position as gen-
eral counsel of INSLAW under strained relations
with INSLAW’s owner, Mr. William Hamilton.
INSLAW’s problems with the Department, which
started almost immediately after the award of the
contract in March 1982, were generated in large
part by Mr. Brewer, with the support and direction
HR 4862 IH
of high level Department officials. The potential con-
flict of interest in the hiring of Mr. Brewer was not
considered by Department officials. However, Mr.
Brewer’s past strained relationship with Mr. Hamil-
ton, and the fact that he lacked experience in ADP
management and understanding of Federal procure-
ment laws, raises serious questions about why he
was selected as the PROMIS project manager.
‘‘(3) Mr. Brewer’s attitude toward INSLAW,
combined with Mr. Videnieks’ harsh contract philos-
ophy, led to the rapid deterioration of relations be-
tween the Department and INSLAW. Any sem-
blance of fairness by key Department officials to-
ward INSLAW quickly evaporated when Mr. Hamil-
ton attempted to protect his companies’ proprietary
rights to a privately funded enhanced version of the
PROMIS software. In a highly unusual move, Mr.
Brewer recommended just 1 month after the con-
tract was signed that INSLAW be terminated for
convenience 
of 
the 
Government 
even 
though
INSLAW was performing under the contract. From
that point forward there is no indication that Mr.
Brewer or Mr. Videnieks ever deviated from their
plan to harm INSLAW. The actions taken by
Messrs. Brewer and Videnieks were done with the
HR 4862 IH
full knowledge and support of high level Department
officials.
‘‘(4) Peter Videnieks, the Department’s con-
tracting officer, negotiated Modification 12 of the
contract which resulted in INSLAW agreeing to pro-
vide its proprietary Enhanced PROMIS software for
the Department’s use. This negotiation was con-
ducted in bad faith because Justice later refused to
recognize INSLAW’s rights to privately financed
PROMIS enhancements. Mr. Videnieks and Mr.
Brewer, supported by Deputy Attorney General Jen-
sen and other high level officials, Unilaterally con-
cluded that the Department was not bound by the
property laws that applied to privately developed and
financed software.
‘‘(5) 
Therefore, 
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. This resulted in extremely protracted liti-
gation and an immense waste of resources both for
the Government and INSLAW. These action were
taken even though the Department had already de-
termined that INSLAW’s claim was probably justi-
fied and that the Department would lose in court. In
HR 4862 IH
fact, Deputy Attorney General Burns acknowledged
this fact to OPR investigators.
‘‘(6) Department of Justice documents show
that a ‘public domain’ version of the PROMIS soft-
ware was sent to domestic and international entities
including Israel. Given the Department’s position re-
garding its ownership of all versions of PROMIS,
questions remain whether INSLAW’s Enhanced
PROMIS was distributed by Department officials to
numerous sources outside the Department, including
foreign governments.
‘‘(7) Several witnesses, including former Attor-
ney General Elliot Richardson, have provided testi-
mony, 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. According to these wit-
nesses, the PROMIS software was subsequently con-
verted for use by domestic and foreign intelligence
services. This testimony was provided by individuals
who knew that the Justice Department would be in-
clined to prosecute them for perjury if they lied
under oath. No such prosecutions have occurred.
‘‘(8) Justice had made little effort to resolve
conflicting and possibly perjurious sworn statements
HR 4862 IH
by key departmental witnesses about the alleged at-
tempt by high level Department officials to liquidate
INSLAW and steal its software. It is very possible
that Judge Blackshear may have perjured himself
and even today his explanations for his recantation
of his sworn statement provided to INSLAW are
highly suspicious. The investigation of this matter by
the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibil-
ity was superficial.
‘‘(9) The Department’s response to INSLAW’s
requests for investigations by an independent coun-
sel and the Public Integrity Section was cursory and
incomplete.
‘‘(10) The reviews of the INSLAW matter by
Congress were hampered by Department tactics de-
signed 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 inves-
tigating possible violations of the law.
‘‘(11) Justice officials have asserted that, as a
result of the recent ruling by the Appeals Court and
the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear INSLAW’s
appeal, the Findings and Conclusions of Bankruptcy