Hadron

Hadron, Inc. was a technology and information services company in which Earl Brian held both direct and indirect financial interests. INSLAW alleged that Hadron was the intended commercial beneficiary of the DOJ's alleged scheme to force INSLAW into liquidation: that DOJ employees delivered copies of INSLAW's proprietary PROMIS software to Brian and Hadron before INSLAW's bankruptcy, positioning Hadron to acquire INSLAW's assets and client base and then receive a "massive sweetheart contract" from DOJ in the aftermath.¹

INSLAW's conspiracy theory evolved over time, with later versions alleging that DOJ officials gave Brian and Hadron copies of PROMIS to reward Brian for his role in the alleged October Surprise conspiracy.¹

Specific Allegations

Bill Hamilton claimed that Dominic Laiti, Chairman of Hadron, telephoned him in April 1983 and stated that Hadron needed PROMIS for federal government contracts and intended to become a leading vendor of law enforcement software. Hamilton alleged Laiti threatened: "We have ways of making you sell." Laiti denied making these statements. The Special Counsel's investigation found Laiti's denial credible, concluding no evidence supported Hamilton's account.²

Hamilton further alleged that a 1983 Hadron fundraising trip to New York, involving Laiti, Paul Wormeli, and Brian, was conducted to raise capital for the purpose of buying PROMIS. Laiti, Wormeli, and Wormeli's secretary Marilyn Titus all denied this, stating the trip was to raise capital for Simeon, a Hadron subsidiary, and had no connection to acquiring INSLAW or PROMIS. The Special Counsel found no evidence supporting Hamilton's thesis.²

Hamilton claimed that Edward Hurley, a Hadron Vice President, stated in June 1985 that Hadron wanted to acquire INSLAW's "court software." An INSLAW employee, Theresa Bousquin, confirmed Hurley's general interest but stated his remark was made in passing and did not indicate an active acquisition effort. The Special Counsel found Hamilton's characterization inaccurate.²

Hamilton alleged that James L. Byrnes, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General with ties to Edwin Meese, spearheaded the award of a $40 million computer services contract to Accumenics, a Hadron subsidiary, in October 1987. Byrnes denied any knowledge of such a contract or any contact with Hadron or its subsidiaries. The Special Counsel found no evidence supporting this allegation.²

INSLAW alleged a connection between Peter Videnieks, DOJ's PROMIS contracting officer, and Hadron, claiming Videnieks had administered Customs Service contracts with Hadron. While a witness suggested a possible meeting between Videnieks and Laiti, Videnieks denied being the contracting officer for any Hadron contract or meeting Hadron management. The Special Counsel found no evidence of a conspiracy, concluding any connection was "tenuous and insignificant."²

Hamilton alleged that Systems and Computer Technology, Inc. (SCT)'s 1986 attempt to purchase INSLAW was encouraged by DOJ officials and indirectly linked to Brian. The Special Counsel found no evidence supporting these claims, noting that SCT's contacts with DOJ were for due diligence purposes only.²

Lois Battistoni claimed an unnamed DOJ employee told her that Hadron was connected to a top DOJ official and had been chosen to take over INSLAW's business. The Special Counsel found Battistoni's account unreliable and without corroboration.²

Congressional and Official Findings

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found "no proof of any connection between Earl Brian or Hadron and the Department with regard to the INSLAW contract" in its September 1989 report.³ The House Judiciary Committee's September 1992 report described Brian's alleged role in connection with Hadron as "intriguing...but without the requisite degree of causation," raising circumstantial concerns while stopping short of a direct finding.¹ The Special Counsel's report concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly showed no connection between Hadron and anything related to INSLAW or PROMIS, and that individuals claiming direct knowledge were "unworthy of belief" and contradicted by credible evidence.²