The Inslaw Case: Conspiracy, Software, and the Shadowy Depths of Government

The Inslaw case remains one of the most controversial and complex legal battles in American history. At its heart, it’s a story of a small software company, Inslaw, Inc., alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) conspired to steal its proprietary software, PROMIS (Prosecutor’s Management Information System), and then drove the company into bankruptcy. The accusations spiraled into allegations of government corruption, espionage, and even connections to the Iran-Contra affair. Understanding the ins and outs of the Inslaw case requires delving into its convoluted history, the key players involved, and the various investigations and legal rulings that have followed.

The Origins of Inslaw and PROMIS

Inslaw was founded in the 1970s by William A. Hamilton, a former Justice Department official, and his wife, Nancy B. Hamilton. The company developed PROMIS, a case-management software designed to track and manage court cases efficiently. The software was initially created for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. and quickly gained recognition for its ability to streamline court operations. Its advanced features, including cross-referencing capabilities and data analysis tools, made it highly sought after by law enforcement agencies.

PROMIS was particularly innovative because it could link different cases, identify patterns, and provide insights that were previously difficult to obtain manually. This made it a valuable asset for prosecutors and investigators dealing with complex criminal networks. The initial success of PROMIS led to contracts with various state and local governments, establishing Inslaw as a promising player in the burgeoning field of legal software.

The Dispute with the Department of Justice

The core of the Inslaw case revolves around a 1982 contract between Inslaw and the DOJ. Inslaw was contracted to provide PROMIS to 20 U.S. Attorney’s offices. However, Inslaw alleged that the DOJ deliberately sabotaged the implementation of PROMIS, withheld payments, and ultimately conspired to steal the software. The Hamiltons claimed that the DOJ intended to acquire PROMIS for its own use and to distribute it to other countries through a secret back door.

Inslaw argued that the DOJ modified PROMIS to include a hidden function allowing unauthorized access to case data. They further contended that this modified version of PROMIS was then provided to foreign intelligence agencies, potentially compromising national security and violating international law. These allegations formed the basis of Inslaw’s legal battle against the DOJ.

The Bankruptcy and Legal Battles

As a result of the alleged sabotage and withholding of payments, Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985. The company then filed a lawsuit against the DOJ, accusing the department of breach of contract, fraud, and conversion of property. The bankruptcy court ruled in Inslaw’s favor in 1988, finding that the DOJ had indeed acted “willfully and fraudulently” to take PROMIS. The court awarded Inslaw millions of dollars in damages.

However, the DOJ appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision. In 1991, a federal district court overturned the bankruptcy court’s ruling, citing insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. This reversal was a significant setback for Inslaw, but the company continued to pursue its claims through various legal channels. The legal proceedings were complex and drawn out, spanning multiple jurisdictions and involving numerous investigations.

Congressional and Independent Investigations

The Inslaw case attracted significant attention from Congress and independent investigators. Several congressional committees held hearings to examine the allegations of DOJ misconduct and the potential misuse of PROMIS. These investigations sought to uncover the truth behind Inslaw’s claims and to determine whether the DOJ had acted improperly.

One notable investigation was conducted by the House Judiciary Committee, which concluded that there was “credible evidence” to support Inslaw’s allegations. The committee found that the DOJ had engaged in a pattern of misconduct and that there were serious questions about the department’s handling of the PROMIS software. However, these findings did not lead to any criminal charges or further legal action against the DOJ.

Additionally, Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua was appointed to investigate the Inslaw case. Bua’s investigation, which lasted several years, produced a lengthy report that detailed the complex web of allegations and counter-allegations. While Bua’s report did not definitively conclude that the DOJ had stolen PROMIS, it did raise serious concerns about the department’s conduct and the potential for abuse of power. [See also: The Iran-Contra Affair: A Tangled Web of Conspiracy]

The Iran-Contra Connection

One of the most intriguing and controversial aspects of the Inslaw case is its alleged connection to the Iran-Contra affair. Some individuals involved in the case claimed that PROMIS was used to track illegal arms sales and money laundering activities related to the Iran-Contra scandal. They alleged that the DOJ intentionally sabotaged Inslaw to prevent the software from uncovering these illicit operations.

These allegations were fueled by the fact that some individuals associated with the Iran-Contra affair, such as Michael Riconosciuto, claimed to have knowledge of the DOJ’s involvement in the theft of PROMIS and its subsequent use in covert operations. Riconosciuto’s testimony, however, was often considered unreliable due to his history of criminal activity and his tendency to make outlandish claims. Despite the skepticism surrounding his testimony, the alleged Iran-Contra connection added another layer of complexity to the Inslaw case.

Key Players in the Inslaw Saga

Understanding the Inslaw case requires an understanding of the key players involved. William and Nancy Hamilton, the founders of Inslaw, were central figures in the legal battle. Their persistence in pursuing their claims against the DOJ kept the case alive for many years.

Other key figures include:

• Edwin Meese III: Attorney General during the Reagan administration, Meese was accused of having a conflict of interest in the Inslaw case due to his prior business dealings with individuals who allegedly benefited from the theft of PROMIS.
• Michael Riconosciuto: A computer expert and alleged intelligence operative, Riconosciuto claimed to have firsthand knowledge of the DOJ’s involvement in the theft of PROMIS and its subsequent use in covert operations.
• Nicholas J. Bua: The Special Counsel appointed to investigate the Inslaw case. His report, while not definitive, raised serious concerns about the DOJ’s conduct.

The Lingering Questions and Conspiracy Theories

Despite numerous investigations and legal rulings, the Inslaw case remains shrouded in mystery and controversy. Many questions remain unanswered, and the case has spawned numerous conspiracy theories. Some believe that the DOJ intentionally stole PROMIS to use it for intelligence gathering and covert operations. Others suggest that the case was part of a larger political conspiracy to protect powerful individuals and institutions.

One persistent conspiracy theory is that PROMIS was modified to include a back door that allowed foreign intelligence agencies to access sensitive information. This theory gained traction after several reports suggested that PROMIS was sold to countries around the world, including some that were considered adversaries of the United States. The fact that PROMIS was allegedly used in various intelligence operations further fueled these conspiracy theories. [See also: Project MKUltra: Mind Control and Government Secrets]

The Impact of the Inslaw Case

Regardless of the truth behind the allegations, the Inslaw case has had a significant impact on American legal and political history. It raised serious questions about government accountability, the potential for abuse of power, and the protection of intellectual property rights. The case also highlighted the importance of independent oversight and the need for transparency in government operations.

The Inslaw case also served as a cautionary tale for small businesses that contract with the government. It demonstrated the potential risks involved in dealing with powerful government agencies and the challenges of protecting intellectual property rights in the face of government misconduct. The case has been cited in numerous legal and academic articles as an example of the potential for government abuse and the importance of holding government officials accountable.

The Legacy of Inslaw

The Inslaw case continues to fascinate and intrigue researchers, journalists, and conspiracy theorists alike. The complex web of allegations, the involvement of powerful government officials, and the potential for far-reaching consequences make it a compelling story. While the truth behind the Inslaw case may never be fully known, its legacy as a symbol of government misconduct and the struggle for justice remains intact.

The story of Inslaw serves as a reminder of the importance of vigilance and the need to hold those in power accountable. It highlights the potential for abuse of power within government and the importance of protecting intellectual property rights. The Inslaw case is a complex and multifaceted story that continues to resonate today, serving as a cautionary tale about the potential for government overreach and the importance of safeguarding individual rights.

In conclusion, the Inslaw case is a deeply complex and controversial story. It involves allegations of stolen software, government conspiracy, and potential connections to the Iran-Contra affair. Whether or not all the claims are true, the case highlights important issues about government accountability, intellectual property rights, and the potential for abuse of power. The legacy of Inslaw continues to provoke discussion and debate, solidifying its place in American legal and political history.