disinfozone/The_Info_Web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

vault backup: 2026-09-22 17:42:28

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
disinfo.zone 2026-09-22 17:42:28 -04:00
parent 38d5eec140
commit 5b12b43bb6
No known key found for this signature in database
130 changed files with 821 additions and 367 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

6
20 - ORGANIZATIONS/PRIVATE/INSLAW.md
View file

@ -48,13 +48,13 @@ Senior District Judge [[William Bryant, Jr.|William Bryant]] of the district cou
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) issued a report in September 1989 finding "no proof" that [[Lowell Jensen]] and [[Edwin Meese]] had conspired to ruin INSLAW or steal its software. The Senate report nonetheless found that DOJ official Thomas Stanton had improperly sought special handling for INSLAW's bankruptcy and criticized the Department for placing Brewer in charge of the implementation contract given his prior employment by INSLAW.[^3]
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative [[Jack Brooks]], conducted a three-year investigation from 1989 to 1992. Its September 1992 report (House Report 102-857) found "strong evidence...that the Department of Justice 'acted willfully and fraudulently,' and 'took, converted and stole,' Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by 'trickery fraud and deceit.'" A key basis for this conclusion was testimony from Deputy Attorney General [[Arnold Burns]], who had told DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility in 1986 that INSLAW's proprietary rights claim was "legitimate" and that the government "would probably lose the case in court on this issue," yet DOJ continued litigating against INSLAW for another decade.[^1]
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative [[Jack Brooks]], conducted a three-year investigation from 1989 to 1992. Its September 1992 report (House Report 102-857) found "strong evidence...that the Department of Justice 'acted willfully and fraudulently,' and 'took, converted and stole,' Inslaw's Enhanced PROMIS by 'trickery fraud and deceit.'" A key basis for this conclusion was testimony from Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, who had told DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility in 1986 that INSLAW's proprietary rights claim was "legitimate" and that the government "would probably lose the case in court on this issue," yet DOJ continued litigating against INSLAW for another decade.[^1]
Special Counsel [[Nicholas J. Bua]] issued a 267-page report in March 1993 finding no credible evidence that any DOJ official had committed criminal wrongdoing in connection with the INSLAW matter. The Senate subsequently referred INSLAW's remaining claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in May 1995. Judge [[Christine Odell Cook Miller|Christine Miller]] ruled on July 31, 1997, that all versions of PROMIS were in the public domain and that the government had always been entitled to use the software as it wished. A three-judge Review Panel upheld that ruling in August 1998. INSLAW received no compensation from the federal government.[^2][^6]
Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua issued a 267-page report in March 1993 finding no credible evidence that any DOJ official had committed criminal wrongdoing in connection with the INSLAW matter. The Senate subsequently referred INSLAW's remaining claims to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in May 1995. Judge [[Christine Odell Cook Miller|Christine Miller]] ruled on July 31, 1997, that all versions of PROMIS were in the public domain and that the government had always been entitled to use the software as it wished. A three-judge Review Panel upheld that ruling in August 1998. INSLAW received no compensation from the federal government.[^2][^6]
### FBI Systems Analysis
In mid-1979, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] sought congressional approval for acquisition of a new front-end processor, a communications controller device that manages data flows into and out of a central computer. To evaluate the request, the Senate Judiciary Committee commissioned independent technical analyses from both the [[OTA|Office of Technology Assessment]] and INSLAW. INSLAW's involvement in this evaluation demonstrated the organization's recognized expertise in criminal justice information systems during the period preceding the DOJ contract dispute.[^7]
In mid-1979, the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] sought congressional approval for acquisition of a new front-end processor, a communications controller device that manages data flows into and out of a central computer. To evaluate the request, the [[Senate Judiciary Committee]] commissioned independent technical analyses from both the [[OTA|Office of Technology Assessment]] and INSLAW. INSLAW's involvement in this evaluation demonstrated the organization's recognized expertise in criminal justice information systems during the period preceding the DOJ contract dispute.[^7]
### Later Operations