EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (Excerpt) by Inslaw, Inc. CEO, Bill Hamilton

"In May 1986, three years to the month after the Justice Department secretly turned over a copy of PROMIS to an Israeli Government official, INSLAW and senior partners in the law firm that was then serving as INSLAW's litigation counsel reviewed a complaint, drafted by INSLAW's lead counsel, for the lawsuit against the Justice Department about the theft of the proprietary version of PROMIS. The complaint contained over 50 references to Jensen; included was a 23-paragraph section that described the "personal involvement" of then Deputy Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen in the INSLAW affair, beginning with Jensen's tenure as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division during the first several years of the Reagan Administration. The law firm immediately rejected the complaint that had been drafted by the lead counsel and set about to redraft the complaint in its entirety, assigning two additional lawyers to the INSLAW case for that purpose. These lawyers soon produced a new complaint that omitted every reference to the role of D. Lowell Jensen. Prior to the filing of the revised complaint in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the lead counsel inserted, at INSLAW's insistence, a single parenthetical reference to Jensen's role. In October 1986, three months after INSLAW filed its lawsuit, the law firm fired INSLAW's lead counsel who had by then been a partner in the firm for 10 years. The lead counsel told INSLAW at the time that he had been fired for naming Jensen in the complaint. He also told INSLAW at the time that the Managing Partner had stated that Senior Partner Leonard Garment had instigated the firing. On October 6, 1986, one week before Leonard Garment and the other members of the law firm's Senior Policy Committee met to vote on the decision to expel INSLAW's lead counsel from the firm, Garment had a social luncheon regarding INSLAW with Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns. Garment never disclosed this fact either to INSLAW's lead counsel or to INSLAW. Burns had succeeded Jensen as Deputy Attorney General in the summer of 1986 when Jensen left the Justice Department to become a U.S. District Court Judge in San Francisco. During the luncheon, Burns complained to Garment about the litigation strategy that INSLAW's lead counsel was pursuing in its lawsuit against the Department and signalled to Garment his willingness to discuss a settlement, according to Burns' later disclosures to the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee. Attorney General Meese also talked to Garment in October 1986 about INSLAW and about Garment's conversation with Burns relating to INSLAW, according to later sworn Justice Department responses to INSLAW interrogatories. In early 1988, in statements to the press, Garment disclaimed any recollection of a discussion about INSLAW with Deputy Attorney General Burns and insisted that his October 1986 discussion with Attorney General Meese had been about Israel, not INSLAW. Moreover, Garment elaborated on this claim, reportedly telling at least one journalist that it was a discussion of a "back channel" communication that Garment had had with the Government of Israel about the Pollard case, which Garment described to the journalist as a national security problem affecting both Israel and the U.S. Justice Department. The Israeli Government had retained Garment in an effort to prevent the indictment by the U.S. Justice Department of other Israeli officials involved in the Pollard espionage scandal. The central role of Rafi Eitan and Israeli intelligence in both the INSLAW affair and the Pollard espionage scandal may account for why Meese and Burns characterized the October 1986 discussions with Garment as having to do with INSLAW, while Garment insisted they were really about a national security problem of concern to both Israel and the U.S. Justice Department. When Garment's law firm fired INSLAW's lead counsel, it agreed to make severance payments to him in excess of half-a-million dollars and contractually bound him to secrecy about the severance. Soon after firing INSLAW's lead counsel, the law firm, which had, by then, been representing INSLAW for almost a year, suddenly claimed to have discovered fatal deficiencies in the evidence available to prove the Justice Department's 1983 theft of PROMIS. The law firm presented INSLAW with a written ultimatum to concede to the Justice Department on that question or find new litigation counsel. INSLAW found new litigation counsel and proved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court that the Justice Department had stolen the PROMIS software in 1983.


In piecing together the puzzle of the Government's theft of the proprietary version of PROMIS from INSLAW, we have noted the role of the Government's PROMIS Project Manger in sending Rafi Eitan to INSLAW under false pretenses and the alleged role of a senior White House National Security official in giving the proprietary version of PROMIS to Rafi Eitan. The missing piece to the puzzle appears to be the piece that links the actions of the Justice Department's PROMIS Project Manager with the alleged actions of the senior White House National Security official. Based on the available evidence, the missing piece appears to be D. Lowell Jensen, who was Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the time of the theft. Jensen pre-approved virtually every decision taken by the Government's PROMIS Project Manager under INSLAW's contract, according to the latter's sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee. Jensen engineered INSLAW's problems with the Justice Department through specified top Criminal Division aides in order to give the PROMIS business to unidentified "friends," according to Justice Department officials whose statements and backgrounds INSLAW summarized in its July 11, 1993 rebuttal. At the time of the 1983 theft, Jensen in the Criminal Division and Edwin Meese at the White House were planning to award a massive sweetheart contract to unidentified "friends" for the installation of PROMIS in every litigative office of the Justice Department, according to statements made in June 1983 by a Justice Department whistleblower to the staff of a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. The award was allegedly to take place once Meese left the White House to become Attorney General. Jensen and Meese had been close friends since the 1960's when they served together in the Alameda County, California, District Attorney's Office. INSLAW has repeatedly given the Justice Department the names of senior Criminal Division officials under Jensen who either allegedly helped him implement the malfeasance against INSLAW or who allegedly witnessed it. On more than one occasion, INSLAW summarized for the Justice Department the circumstantial evidence that is at least partially corroborative of these allegations. Based on warnings from confidential informants in the Justice Department, INSLAW has repeatedly emphasized to the Justice Department the absolute necessity of placing these officials under oath before interrogating them, as well as the importance of a public statement by the Attorney General guaranteeing no reprisals. More than five years have elapsed since INSLAW began furnishing this information to the Justice Department. Not one of these Criminal Division officials has, it appears, ever been interrogated under oath regarding the INSLAW affair. And no Attorney General has seen fit to issue a public statement to Justice Department employees making it clear that the Attorney General wishes employees who have information about the INSLAW affair to come forward, and giving Justice Department employees the public assurance that reprisals will not be tolerated. One of the senior Criminal Division officials who allegedly knows the whole story of Jensen's malfeasance against INSLAW is Mark Richard, the career Deputy Assistant Attorney General who has responsibility for intelligence and national security matters. In May 1988, the Chief Investigator of the Senate Judiciary Committee told INSLAW that a trusted source, who was in a position to observe Jensen's malfeasance, had identified Mark Richard as someone who not only knew the whole story but who was also "pretty upset" about it.

One of the organizational units that reports to Mark Richard is the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). OSI's publicly-declared mission is to locate and deport Nazi war criminals. The Nazi war criminal program is, however, a front for the Justice Department's own covert intelligence service, according to disclosures recently made to INSLAW by several senior Justice Department career officials."


CLICK-INSLAW,BARRONS,1988 Beneath Contempt ©1988 Maggie Mahar, Barrons