[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4862 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4862

For the relief of INSLAW, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and William A. 
               Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton, individually.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 1994

   Mr. Rose introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
For the relief of INSLAW, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and William A. 
               Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton, individually.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction be, 
and the same is hereby, conferred upon the United States Court of 
Federal Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claims 
of INSLAW, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and William A. Hamilton and 
Nancy Hamilton, individually, as hereinafter described and in the 
manner set out, which claims arise out of the furnishing of computer 
software and services to the United States Department of Justice.

SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.

    That the findings of the House Committee on the Judiciary 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 implement a 
        standardized case management system, ignored advice from 
        vendors--including INSLAW--that PROMIS should not be adapted to 
        word processing 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 manage the PROMIS implementation 
        contract. Mr. Brewer had been asked to leave his position as 
        general 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 of high 
        level Department officials. The potential conflict of interest 
        in the hiring of Mr. Brewer was not considered by Department 
        officials. However, Mr. Brewer's past strained relationship 
        with Mr. Hamilton, and the fact that he lacked experience in 
        ADP management and understanding of Federal procurement 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 philosophy, led to the rapid 
        deterioration of relations between the Department and INSLAW. 
        Any semblance of fairness by key Department officials toward 
        INSLAW quickly evaporated when Mr. Hamilton 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 contract 
        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 full knowledge and support of high level 
        Department officials.
            ``(4) Peter Videnieks, the Department's contracting 
        officer, negotiated Modification 12 of the contract which 
        resulted in INSLAW agreeing to provide its proprietary Enhanced 
        PROMIS software for the Department's use. This negotiation was 
        conducted 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 Jensen and other high level officials, 
        Unilaterally concluded 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 litigation and an immense waste of 
        resources both for the Government and INSLAW. These action were 
        taken even though the Department had already determined that 
        INSLAW's claim was probably justified and that the Department 
        would lose in court. In 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 software was sent to domestic and 
        international entities including Israel. Given the Department's 
        position regarding 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 Attorney General 
        Elliot Richardson, have provided testimony, 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 witnesses, the 
        PROMIS software was subsequently converted for use by domestic 
        and foreign intelligence services. This testimony was provided 
        by individuals who knew that the Justice Department would be 
        inclined 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 by key departmental 
        witnesses about the alleged attempt 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 Responsibility was superficial.
            ``(9) The Department's response to INSLAW's requests for 
        investigations by an independent counsel and the Public 
        Integrity Section was cursory and incomplete.
            ``(10) The reviews of the INSLAW matter by Congress were 
        hampered by Department tactics designed 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 investigating 
        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 Judge George Bason and senior Judge 
        William Bryant of the District Court are no longer relevant. 
        The Appeals Court decision, in fact, did not dispute the 
        Bankruptcy Court's ruling that the Department ``stole . . . 
        through trickery, fraud and deceit'' INSLAW's PROMIS software. 
        Its decision was based primarily on the narrow question of 
        whether the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction; the Appeals 
        Court ruled that it did not. This decision in no way vindicates 
        the Department nor should it be used to insulate Justice from 
        the criticism it deserves over the mishandling of the INSLAW 
        contract.
            ``(12) The Justice Department continues to improperly use 
        INSLAW's proprietary software in blatant disregard of the 
        findings of two courts and well established property law. This 
        fact coupled with the general lack of fairness exhibited by 
        Justice officials throughout this affair is unbefitting of the 
        agency entrusted with enforcing our Nation's laws.
            ``(13) Further investigation into the circumstances 
        surrounding Daniel Casolaro's death is needed.
            ``(14) The following criminal statutes may have been 
        violated by certain high level Justice officials and private 
        individuals:
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 371--Conspiracy to commit an 
                offense.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 654--Officer or employee of the 
                United States converting the property of another.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341--Fraud.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343--Wire fraud.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505--Obstruction of proceedings 
                before departments, agencies and committees.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512--Tampering with a witness.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513--Retaliation against a 
                witness.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621--Perjury.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951--Interference with commerce 
                by threats or violence (RICO).
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq.--Racketeer Influenced 
                and Corrupt Organizations.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314--Transportation of stolen 
                goods, securities, moneys.
                    ``18 U.S.C. Sec. 2315--Receiving stolen goods.
            ``(15) Several key documents subpoenaed by the committee on 
        July 25, 1991, were reported missing or lost by the Department. 
        While Justice officials have indicated that this involves only 
        a limited number of documents, it was impossible to ascertain 
        how many documents or files were missing because the Department 
        did not have a complete index of the INSLAW materials. The 
        Department failed to conduct a formal investigation to 
        determine whether the subpoenaed documents were stolen or 
        illegally destroyed.'' Investigative Report by the Committee on 
        the Judiciary, THE INSLAW AFFAIR, Report 102-857, pp. 110-113.

SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated:
            (1) To INSLAW, INC. (INSLAW) an amount of money in 
        compensation for any and all direct, consequential, incidental 
        and/or punitive damages sustained by INSLAW as a result of a 
        negligent or wrongful act, or acts, or failure to act, on the 
        part of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), its 
        officials, officers, employees, and agents, and other United 
        States agencies, their officials, officers, employees and 
        agents. The negligent or wrongful acts of the aforestated 
        agencies of the United States government arise out of complex 
        issues of fact, and involve willful, wanton and malicious 
        breaches of contract, tortious activity, deceit, trickery, 
        conversion, copyright and trademark infringement, abuse of 
        software licensing agreements, and other such unjustified, 
        egregious and fraudulent conduct of officials and agents of the 
        United States government, relating to the unauthorized use and/
        or dissemination and/or conversion, theft or other 
        misappropriation, of computer software proprietary to INSLAW, 
        including INSLAW's PROMIS software and INSLAW's Enhanced PROMIS 
        software, and/or a conspiracy to sell, transfer and distribute 
        INSLAW's Enhanced PROMIS software to other Federal agencies 
        and/or foreign governments and/or agencies, all to the damage 
        of INSLAW in the loss of its software, service contracts, loss 
        or termination of business relationships with other companies 
        or entities, and the loss of the profits thereof, and the 
        prevention of growth that INSLAW would otherwise have had, all 
        to the unjust enrichment of the DOJ, other government agencies, 
        and officials, officers, agents and employees of such agencies, 
        as well as other persons, entities and conspirators.
            (2) To William A. Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton, 
        individually, any and all direct, consequential, incidental 
        and/or punitive damages, and/or all reasonable legal expenses 
        and other costs to the Hamiltons, not directly related to the 
        contract between INSLAW and DOJ, but caused by the actions 
        taken by DOJ, its officials, officers, employees and agents to 
        harm INSLAW or its officers and/or employees.

SEC. 3. WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND DEFENSES.

    (a) Any available defense of sovereign immunity of the United 
States, the DOJ, any other United States government agency, or any 
United States government official, officer, agent or employee is 
specifically waived as to the respective claims of INSLAW, William A. 
Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton, and the amounts payable to them under 
section 2 above.
    (b) INSLAW, INC., William A. Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton shall each 
be entitled to payment of said claims notwithstanding any defense 
pertaining to lack of personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction, 
statutes of limitation, statutes of repose, statute of frauds, laches, 
stare decisis, waiver, estoppel, including, but not limited to, 
judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel, collateral estoppel, estoppel by 
judgment and promissory estoppel, res judicata, failure to exhaust all 
legal remedies, administrative or otherwise, payment, accord and 
satisfaction, release, pendency of claims in others courts, tribunals 
or departments, or any other equitable or legal defense that might have 
otherwise been available to the United States, the Department of 
Justice, or any other United States agencies, and their respective 
officials, officers, employees, agents and/or conspirators, all such 
defenses being hereby waived with respect to the claims of INSLAW, and/
or William A. Hamilton and Nancy Hamilton, individually, and the 
amounts payable under section 2.
    (c) The amounts payable under section 2 shall be in satisfaction of 
all claims, legal or equitable, by INSLAW, William A. Hamilton and 
Nancy Hamilton, individually, against the United States of America, any 
agency thereof, or its officials, officers, employees, agents and/or 
conspirators, and shall include interest accrued on all damages, 
attorneys' fees and expenses.
                                 <all>