Simeon

Simeon, Inc. was a software and technology company that was acquired by Hadron, Inc. in 1982 and operated thereafter as a Hadron subsidiary. The company was involved in criminal justice information systems technology. Paul Wormeli served as Simeon's Vice President in charge of Product Development; he remained with Simeon for approximately two years following the Hadron acquisition. Marilyn Titus worked as a secretary at Simeon from September 1982 until January 1984, after which she joined Hadron directly.¹

PROMIS Scandal Allegations

Simeon appears in the PROMIS scandal through allegations made by Bill Hamilton, the founder of INSLAW (the company that developed PROMIS), in an affidavit filed in connection with INSLAW's bankruptcy and subsequent litigation against the Department of Justice.

Hamilton alleged that a 1983 fundraising trip to New York City by Dominic Laiti (Hadron's president) and Wormeli was undertaken for the purpose of raising capital to purchase the PROMIS court management software from INSLAW. Hamilton claimed that Titus had told him this was the purpose of the trip.

Both Wormeli and Titus contradicted Hamilton's account under questioning by investigators. Wormeli confirmed the New York trip took place and that he and Laiti met with Earl Brian and executives from Allen and Company (including Mark Kesselman) to discuss funding. However, Wormeli stated that neither Laiti nor Brian ever discussed the acquisition of PROMIS or INSLAW with him, and that Laiti never mentioned PROMIS at any of the meetings. Titus denied ever telling Hamilton that the trip's purpose was to acquire PROMIS, and stated she was not present at or party to any conversations about acquiring INSLAW's software or any unethical or illegal activities to obtain it. She noted that the only court-related software company Simeon/Hadron had discussed acquiring was a Southern California company called Responsive Design.¹

The Department of Justice Special Counsel Nicholas J. Bua, in his 1993 report on the INSLAW allegations, concluded that the evidence from Titus, Wormeli, and other interviewed witnesses did not support Hamilton's thesis and that there was no evidence Hadron or Simeon ever had any interest in obtaining INSLAW's PROMIS software.

The Bua report's findings were themselves contested by Hamilton and INSLAW, who maintained that the DOJ investigation could not be objective given the department's own alleged role in the PROMIS theft. The House Judiciary Committee's competing investigation reached more skeptical conclusions about the DOJ's handling of the INSLAW case and the Bua report's comprehensiveness.