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

vault backup: 2026-09-22 19:33:49

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
disinfo.zone 2026-09-22 19:33:49 -04:00
parent bdd3b6bbfb
commit c84d8b2dd5
No known key found for this signature in database
72 changed files with 861 additions and 167 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
20 - ORGANIZATIONS/PRIVATE/Simeon.md
View file

@ -22,9 +22,9 @@ Hamilton alleged that a 1983 fundraising trip to New York City by [[Dominic Lait
Both Wormeli and Titus contradicted Hamilton's account under questioning by investigators. Wormeli confirmed the New York trip took place and that he and Laiti met with [[Earl Brian]] and executives from [[Allen and Company]] (including Mark Kesselman) to discuss funding. However, Wormeli stated that neither Laiti nor Brian ever discussed the acquisition of PROMIS or INSLAW with him, and that Laiti never mentioned PROMIS at any of the meetings. Titus denied ever telling Hamilton that the trip's purpose was to acquire PROMIS, and stated she was not present at or party to any conversations about acquiring INSLAW's software or any unethical or illegal activities to obtain it. She noted that the only court-related software company Simeon/Hadron had discussed acquiring was a Southern California company called Responsive Design.[^1]
The [[Department of Justice]] Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, in his 1993 report on the INSLAW allegations, concluded that the evidence from Titus, Wormeli, and other interviewed witnesses did not support Hamilton's thesis and that there was no evidence Hadron or Simeon ever had any interest in obtaining INSLAW's PROMIS software.
The Department of Justice Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, in his 1993 report on the INSLAW allegations, concluded that the evidence from Titus, Wormeli, and other interviewed witnesses did not support Hamilton's thesis and that there was no evidence Hadron or Simeon ever had any interest in obtaining INSLAW's PROMIS software.
The Bua report's findings were themselves contested by Hamilton and INSLAW, who maintained that the DOJ investigation could not be objective given the department's own alleged role in the PROMIS theft. The House Judiciary Committee's competing investigation reached more skeptical conclusions about the DOJ's handling of the INSLAW case and the Bua report's comprehensiveness.
The Bua report's findings were themselves contested by Hamilton and INSLAW, who maintained that the DOJ investigation could not be objective given the department's own alleged role in the PROMIS theft. The [[House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee]]'s competing investigation reached more skeptical conclusions about the DOJ's handling of the INSLAW case and the Bua report's comprehensiveness.
### Footnotes