disinfozone/The_Info_Web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
The_Info_Web/10 - PEOPLE/(T-Z)/Peter Videnieks.md

26 KiB
Raw Blame History

aliases category tags summary relations created updated
Videnieks
Intelligence & Government
Person
PROMIS
DoJ
INSLAW
Hadron
Cabazon
USCustoms
HouseJudiciary
Peter Videnieks was the Justice Department contracting officer on the INSLAW PROMIS implementation contract, whose handling of the contract and later denials of the allegations against him became central to the software theft claims.
type with start end role fn
employed_by U.S. Customs 1978 1981 supervising contracting officer 2
type with fn
employed_by Internal Revenue Service 3
type with fn
employed_by National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3
type with role fn
employed_by Department of Justice contracting officer, Justice Management Division 6
type with fn
participant_in PROMIS Software Scandal 5
type with role fn
employed_by Justice Management Division contracting officer 6
type with reverse start fn
investigated United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary true 1990 26
type with reverse role fn
investigated Nicholas J. Bua true Special Counsel on the INSLAW allegations 31
type with reverse start fn
represented Charles Ruff true 1991 26
2024-04-25 2026-10-15

Peter Videnieks was a contracting officer in the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice who administered the 1982 implementation contract between the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and INSLAW for the PROMIS case management software. His handling of that contract, his statements about Earl Brian and Hadron, and his alleged contacts with Michael Riconosciuto made him a central figure in the PROMIS Software Scandal. The writer Cheri Seymour wrote that he was never charged with any wrongdoing.1 Before he entered the Justice Department he worked as a supervising contracting officer in the U.S. Customs Service.2

Career before the INSLAW contract

In a 1987 deposition in the INSLAW adversary proceeding, Videnieks described employment with the Internal Revenue Service, then at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center, and then with the Customs Service in the field of procurement.3 The Nicholas J. Bua report recorded his account that during 1978 to 1981 he worked primarily as a supervising contracting officer at Customs.2 A former Customs employee in engineering services, John Schoolmeister, described him in the late 1970s as a "by-the-book" contracting officer who later moved to the Justice Department as a contracting officer.4 Seymour wrote that Robert Chasen, who had worked in the same Customs department for at least three years, claimed not to know him.1

The 1982 implementation contract

The implementation contract was signed on March 12, 1982. C. Madison Brewer was hired to oversee installation for the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and Jack Rugh was Brewer's deputy.5 The hearing officer in the later congressional reference case wrote that Videnieks was the full-time contracting officer for the larger PROMIS project, not only for the implementation contract, and that he was employed by the Justice Management Division rather than the Executive Office.6 The hearing officer also quoted Videnieks' personal notes, which asked: "Why do you need a signature if you got the goods?"6

In November 1982 Robert Whitely, the Justice Department's auditor on the contract, told Videnieks that he believed INSLAW was insolvent, and INSLAW's comptroller told Videnieks that the company had missed at least one payroll. On November 19, 1982, DOJ sent INSLAW a formal request for a copy of the software being used to perform the contract.7 On January 26, 1983, Videnieks wrote to INSLAW that DOJ would withhold further withdrawals from the special bank account and withdraw the balance, because INSLAW had assigned receivables to the Bank of Bethesda in violation of the advance payments clause.78 Modification 12, effective April 11, 1983, limited DOJ's distribution of the enhanced version of PROMIS to the Executive Office and the 94 United States Attorneys' offices covered by the contract, pending resolution of INSLAW's proprietary rights claim.8

In June 1983 Videnieks rejected INSLAW's proposed methodology for identifying privately funded enhancements. He and Rugh decided to reject the submission without proposing an acceptable alternative.9 The Bua report found no evidence that the two acted in bad faith in that decision.10 The hearing officer found that Modification 12 contemplated that INSLAW prove its enhancements in a manner consistent with Videnieks' March 18, 1983 letter, that INSLAW failed to do so within a reasonable time, and that DOJ did not impede, frustrate, or refuse to respond in bad faith to INSLAW's efforts.6 The hearing officer described Videnieks as "a creature of the contract" and found his testimony on that point credible, and described him as "taciturn and obdurate" on the witness stand. The hearing officer also found that Brewer had asked Videnieks to move his office into Brewer's area, and that "Mr. Brewer did not infect his staff or Mr. Videnieks."6

Bankruptcy findings

Bankruptcy Judge George Francis Bason, Jr. ruled orally on liability in the INSLAW adversary proceeding on September 28, 1987, and issued his written order on January 25, 1988, with findings of fact and conclusions of law.11 Bason found that the July 18, 1983 letter suspending payments to INSLAW listed Lowell Jensen, the Associate Attorney General designate, as the first copy, and that Videnieks testified he had never met Jensen and could not account for the copy.12 Bason found that DOJ converted INSLAW's enhanced PROMIS "by trickery, fraud and deceit."13

Bason's conclusions on the conduct of the department included the finding that the acts of DOJ "were done in bad faith, vexatiously, in wanton disregard of the law and the facts, and for oppressive reasons to drive INSLAW out of business and to convert, by trickery, fraud and deceit, INSLAW's PROMIS software."14 The United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary report quoted Bason's finding on Videnieks, which described him as "substantially unreliable" and stated that "Videnieks was under Brewer's domination and was thoroughly affected by Brewer's bias."15 The Bua report wrote that Bason had found DOJ "never intended to meet its commitment" under Modification 12 and stated that "We do not believe the evidence supports that finding."10

Bason also found that in February 1985, after Brewer had talked to Thomas Stanton, Rugh telephoned Videnieks and said there was "no way" the INSLAW bankruptcy would continue as a Chapter 11 case.16 Videnieks' handwritten note of the call, dated 2/20/85, is quoted in the Bua report, which also recorded that Rugh and Videnieks each said the note reflected Rugh's belief that INSLAW would end in chapter 7 liquidation, and that the report found their reading of the note reasonable and consistent with the other evidence.17

On March 14, 1986, shortly after INSLAW declared bankruptcy, INSLAW's counsel Leigh Ratiner wrote to Videnieks as the contracting officer that any continued use of the enhanced PROMIS software without INSLAW's consent contravened its property rights as a debtor and violated the automatic stay.18 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the stay-violation judgment on May 7, 1991, writing that the automatic stay "does not reach the Department's use of property in its possession under a claim of right at the time of the bankruptcy filing, even if that use may ultimately prove to violate the bankrupt's rights," and that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims asserted under section 362(a). Rehearing was denied on July 12, 1991.19

Customs and the Hadron allegation

The House Judiciary Committee received two sworn statements from Schoolmeister, which said that Videnieks, as a Customs contracting officer, handled several contracts with Hadron and would necessarily have met Dominic Laiti, Hadron's chief executive, because Laiti conducted business that way. Videnieks stated under oath to the committee that he did not know Laiti or Earl Brian and had no conversations with either of them.20

The Bua report found that Schoolmeister had no first-hand knowledge of any meeting between Videnieks and Laiti. Videnieks was not the contracting officer on either of two Hadron subsidiary contracts with Customs during the period Schoolmeister described, and Videnieks told investigators that he did not recall any Hadron contract. The report found one connection that it called extraordinarily tenuous: a 1978 and 1979 Customs contract administered by Videnieks with Universal Systems, which Hadron bought in December 1980.21 The report concluded that the Hadron connection, "by itself and in conjunction with the other evidence reflected in this report, falls far short of anything that could fairly be called evidence of a conspiracy."22

A former employee of Brian's Financial News Network gave a sworn statement to the Customs Service Internal Affairs Division in February 1993 that Videnieks and Riconosciuto had made calls to the network in the first quarter of 1987 asking for Brian's chief financial officer or Brian. The Justice Department's 1994 review of the Bua report recorded that the witness had sued Brian and the network after her own discharge, and wrote that it was unclear whether the Special Counsel had investigated her allegations.23

Riconosciuto's affidavit and the Cabazon allegation

In a March 21, 1991 affidavit filed in the INSLAW adversary proceeding, Michael Riconosciuto said that Videnieks was a frequent visitor to the Cabazon Indian Reservation and a "close associate" of Brian. He stated that Brian made a copy of PROMIS available to him through Wackenhut Corporation after acquiring it from Videnieks, and that he modified the software in Indio, California, Silver Spring, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, to support a plan for worldwide implementation in law enforcement and intelligence agencies.24 Riconosciuto stated that in a February 1991 telephone call Videnieks told him not to cooperate with the House Judiciary Committee and that, if he did, he would be punished, including by indictment for savings and loan fraud and for perjury.24

According to the House report, Riconosciuto stated in the same affidavit that Videnieks had told him in the February 1991 call that it would be beneficial to refuse a committee request for an interview, and he gave the committee a sworn statement on April 4, 1991 connecting his PROMIS work to Brian and Videnieks.25 The committee was unable to schedule a second deposition with Videnieks. On March 25, 1991, his attorney, Charles Ruff, said Videnieks would not agree to one. At the request of the Justice Department, Videnieks testified at Riconosciuto's trial.26

At the Tacoma trial in January 1992, Riconosciuto testified that he first learned of PROMIS on the Cabazon reservation, where he said he received three versions of the software from Dr. John Philip Nichols when "Peter Videnieks showed up on the reservation."27 Asked whether he had met Videnieks, he answered that he had met him at least a dozen times, and that the first place was "In Indio, California." The House report recorded that he had earlier told the committee that the first meeting was at Picatinny Arsenal.28

The House report stated that Riconosciuto alleged that he had two copies of a tape of his conversation with Videnieks at the time of his March 29, 1991 arrest, that the DEA agents who arrested him held the tapes, and that the tape showed Videnieks threatening him. The report said the timing of the arrest, together with the tape allegation, "raises serious questions concerning whether the Department's prosecution of Mr. Riconosciuto was related to his cooperation with the committee." The Department refused the committee access to its investigative files.29

The Bua report on Videnieks and Brian

The Bua report stated that Videnieks and Brian were each interviewed and that each "categorically and under oath denied all the allegations made by Riconosciuto about them." Both stated that they had never met Riconosciuto or each other and had never been to Indio, either to the reservation or to the Cabazon offices in the city.30 The report wrote that "we found both men to be credible witnesses, both in their demeanor and in the substance of their statements."31

The report examined the Lake Cahuilla weapons demonstration of September 10, 1981, which Riconosciuto placed in Indio. A Riverside County investigator's report titled "Nicaraguans and Earl Brian at Lake Cahuilla" named Brian among those present, and the Bua report states that the investigator prepared it in 1991 from Riconosciuto's account. Arthur Welmas, the Cabazon tribal chairman during the joint venture, and his wife said they never saw or met Brian at the reservation. Sam Cross, Indio's police chief during those years, said he had been in the mobile trailer behind the Cabazon casino, that there was never any computer equipment in it, and that he never heard the name Earl Brian.32 The report also cited Brian's 1981 personal calendar and expense records, which placed him in New York on September 10, 1981.33

The report's conclusion on Riconosciuto was that he was "a totally unreliable witness" in connection with the PROMIS allegations, and that his account was "a tale of total fiction woven against the background of accurate historical facts."34

Casolaro, Cuellar and the Byrd connection

The Justice Department's review of the Bua report, dated September 27, 1994, addressed the claim that Videnieks was involved in the death of Danny Casolaro in West Virginia. The review wrote that the allegation appeared to rest on the fact that Videnieks' wife works for Robert Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia, and that Videnieks was a friend of Joseph Cuellar, and it found "no evidence whatsoever" of his involvement.35

Joseph Cuellar, an Army Reserve major, met Casolaro by chance at a bar in Arlington, Virginia, in May 1991. Cuellar talked of his exploits in the Army special forces. He told investigators that he knew Videnieks because a former fiancée had worked with Videnieks' wife in Byrd's Capitol Hill office, and Cuellar and Videnieks each said their relationship was social.36 Casolaro asked Cuellar repeatedly to arrange a meeting with Videnieks so that he could ask about Riconosciuto's March 1991 affidavit. Cuellar called Videnieks, who refused.37

Casolaro's notes, a Justice Department memorandum records, reflect a telephone call he made to Videnieks on June 13, 1991. Videnieks refused to talk and referred him to his lawyer, Charles Ruff. Videnieks recalled a call from a reporter whose name sounded like "Kessler," which he said could have been "Casolaro," and said he could not remember whether he had ever spoken with Casolaro.38

The review recorded that Videnieks denied any involvement in Casolaro's death and said he had been at a summer cottage in New York state from August 5 to August 11, 1991. His personnel records showed leave in that period, a credit card receipt showed a purchase at a bookstore in Oneonta, New York, on August 9, and his telephone records showed a call from the cottage to his brother on August 9 at 8:35 p.m. The review found no reason to question his account that he was in New York on August 10, 1991, and was unaware of evidence linking him to the death.35 The review also recorded that a Kentucky salvage dealer told Martinsburg police that Videnieks and Brian had played a high-stakes poker game at a Sheraton in Martinsburg around the time of Casolaro's death. The police could not corroborate the account, and the review found the witness lacked credibility.35

Trial testimony and later accounts

At the Tacoma trial, Thomas Olmstead questioned Videnieks about the Wackenhut-Cabazon joint venture, about Brian, and about Hadron. The writer Cheri Seymour wrote that Videnieks denied ever hearing of the joint venture or meeting Brian, was evasive about his familiarity with Hadron, and refused to discuss Modification 12 until the original contract was produced. Seymour also wrote that Videnieks acknowledged a bankruptcy court had ruled that DOJ had "stolen" PROMIS through his handling of Modification 12, and that the record of that ruling was later erased.1

Seymour wrote that Videnieks offered rewards for non-cooperation with the House committee and that the punishments he threatened included the prosecution of Riconosciuto's father. Seymour also wrote that the investigation of corruption in Customs by Scott Lawrence, a Customs internal affairs investigator, which involved Videnieks, was shut down after Lawrence and his supervisor asked to impanel grand juries to depose Central Intelligence Agency officials. Videnieks was never charged.1

Footnotes

  1. Seymour, Cheri. The Last Circle: Danny Casolaro's Investigation into the Octopus and the PROMIS Software Scandal. TrineDay, 2010. ↩︎

  2. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 103. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  3. Deposition of Peter Videnieks, In re INSLAW, Inc., Adversary Proceeding No. 86-0069 (Bankr. D.D.C.), 1987. https://archive.org/details/InslawVidenieksDepositions1987 ↩︎

  4. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 102. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  5. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 20, 33 n.18. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 The opinion in In re INSLAW, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1991), para. 3, dates the contract (No. JVUSA-82-C-0074) March 16, 1982. https://openjurist.org/932/f2d/1467/in-re-inslaw-inc ↩︎

  6. INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, Cong. Ref. No. 95-338X, Report of the Hearing Officer (Miller), July 31, 1997, 39 Fed. Cl. 307. https://static.case.law/fed-cl/39/cases/0307-01.json ↩︎

  7. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 25-26. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  8. INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, Cong. Ref. No. 95-338X, Report of the Hearing Officer (Miller), July 31, 1997, 39 Fed. Cl. 307, quoting the January 26, 1983 letter and the terms and effect of Modification 12. https://static.case.law/fed-cl/39/cases/0307-01.json ↩︎

  9. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 33-34. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  10. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 137-139. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  11. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, pp. 34-35. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  12. In re INSLAW, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Adv. Proc. No. 86-0069, Finding 313. https://archive.org/details/Inslaw-FindingsOfFact ↩︎

  13. In re INSLAW, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Adv. Proc. No. 86-0069, Finding 362. https://archive.org/details/Inslaw-FindingsOfFact ↩︎

  14. In re INSLAW, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Adv. Proc. No. 86-0069, Finding 399 (83 B.R. at 158, as cited in H. Rept. 102-857, p. 4). https://archive.org/details/Inslaw-FindingsOfFact ↩︎

  15. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 90, quoting the bankruptcy court findings. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  16. In re INSLAW, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Adv. Proc. No. 86-0069, Finding 351. https://archive.org/details/Inslaw-FindingsOfFact ↩︎

  17. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 211-212. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  18. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 35 n. 85, quoting the letter of Leigh S. Ratiner to Peter Videnieks, March 14, 1986. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  19. In re INSLAW, Inc., 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Williams, J.), decided May 7, 1991, rehearing denied July 12, 1991, paras. 1 and 33. https://openjurist.org/932/f2d/1467/in-re-inslaw-inc ↩︎

  20. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 68, citing the sworn statement of Peter Videnieks, November 5, 1990, p. 104. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  21. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 102-103. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  22. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 104. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  23. U.S. Department of Justice. Review of the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, September 27, 1994, pp. 54-55, quoting the Customs Internal Affairs statement of February 7, 1993. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  24. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 44-46, summarizing the affidavit of Michael Riconosciuto dated March 21, 1991. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  25. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 51. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  26. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, p. 48 n. 113. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  27. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 47, summarizing Riconosciuto's trial testimony in Tacoma, Washington, January 1992. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  28. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 53. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  29. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report. H. Rept. 102-857, 102d Cong., 2d sess., September 10, 1992, pp. 51, 100-101. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport ↩︎

  30. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 53. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  31. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 54. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  32. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, pp. 59-66. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  33. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 66. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  34. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua to the Attorney General of the United States Regarding the Allegations of Inslaw, Inc. March 1993, p. 72. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  35. U.S. Department of Justice. Review of the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, September 27, 1994, pp. 159-160. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  36. U.S. Department of Justice. Review of the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, September 27, 1994, p. 161. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  37. U.S. Department of Justice. Review of the Report of Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, September 27, 1994, p. 162. https://archive.org/details/doj-oip-inslaw-1993 ↩︎

  38. U.S. Department of Justice, memorandum on the BCCI and INSLAW special prosecutor contacts, undated, [1994], release p. 42 (printed p. 26), DOCID 70002067. https://archive.org/details/INSLAW-Casolaro ↩︎