Talk:Inslaw/Archive 1

Untitled
Hag2, ThsQ and Anne Teedham have all been blocked as sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, this is one of several severely damaged pages. This is not a typical case of mischief, this editor has made allegations of involvement in homicides against one of the subjects of editing, a known witness who's documents have been featured in recently breaking news stories regarding arrest of an organized crime suspect in a triple homicide. www.nbclosangeles.com/station/as-seen-on/Suspect_Arrested_in_Triple_Murder__Had_Been_Given_Immunity_Los_Angeles.html Note the Cabazon Arms document at the end of this news story is from the files of Michael Riconosciuto, last document on this page. The Riconosciuto page has also been severely vandalized by these and other sockpuppets. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/jpn/ Winksatfriend (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

Deaths allegedly related to the Inslaw case
[Note: ''This discussion has been moved to a separate talk-subpage (Talk:Inslaw/Deaths allegedly related to the Inslaw case). Go there to continue all discussion on all related and suspicious deaths e.g. Alvarez, Ralph Boger, Patricia Castro, Anson Ng, Bill McCoy, Dennis Eisman, Ian Spiro...etcetera. That discussion was moved solely for the purpose of freeing space for other discussions here on the primary Inslaw-talk page.-- Hag2 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * I've restored the comments here in order to archive the material properly. - Location (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * An unsolved triple homicide involving Fred Alvarez, Ralph Boger, and Patricia Castro June 29, 1981: Alvarez was an Deputy Tribal Chairman of the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. He had become outspoken regarding corruption and shadowy U.S. government ties to the Cabazon tribe. He expressed these views to the local press before meeting his death. He and his friend, Ralph Boger, were scheduled to meet with an unknown party to present proof of many of the alleged misuses of tribal land. Their bodies, along with the body of Alvarez's girlfriend Patricia Castro, were discovered on the eve of this meeting. Allegedly, they  had information regarding illegal arms deals, weapons manufacturing and testing, and illegal modifications made to the PROMIS software, all taking place on tribal land. The daughter of Ralph Boger continues a quest for justice and has documents on her website relating to the Cabazon Indian Tribe's involvement in arms manufacture and export. There, she explains the bizarre circumstances surrounding her father's murder: the police never notified her family of the murders; the family learned from watching the local news; moreover, authorities refused to show the family Boger's body, and allegedly had him cremated without consent; lastly, the house in which the murders occurred was bulldozed within two days, and mysterious "guys in black suits" were said to have appeared at the funeral.
 * The shooting death of Anson Ng (a reporter and friend of Casolaro): According to a 1991 issue of the TC Technical Consultant, "In July, Anson Ng, a reporter for the Financial Times of London was shot dead in Guatemala. He had reportedly been trying to interview an American there named Jimmy Hughes, a one- time director of security for the Cabazon Indian Reservation secret projects." Alvarez's son and Boger's daughter were able to confront Hughes in Feb. 2008 with a hidden camera. Videos of this confrontation can be seen at the daughter's website.
 * The shooting death of Dennis Eisman (an attorney for Michael Riconosciuto, who was a material witness in the House Investigation 102-857): According to the same TC Technical Consultant article, "In April, a Philadelphia attorney named Dennis Eisman was found dead, killed by a single bullet in his chest. According to a former federal official who worked with Eisman, the attorney was found dead in the parking lot where he had been due to meet with a woman who had crucial evidence to share substantiating Riconosciuto's claims [regarding Inslaw]."
 * The poisoning death of Ian Spiro, who was supposedly a Casolaro informant and was allegedly involved in the Inslaw affair: Spiro's wife and children had been killed a few days before Spiro's body was found. In 1995, Kevin Brass reported in San Diego magazine that Spiro's brother-in-law Greg Quarton suspected the Mossad was involved in Spiro's death, while "Ex-hostage Peter Jacobsen confirmed to the media that Spiro was indeed involved in the release of hostages in the Middle East," referring to the October Surprise scandal. Brass further notes that "According to court documents filed shortly after the murders, Spiro was holding computer equipment essential . . . to prove a Justice Department conspiracy to steal sophisticated computer software."
 * The mysterious death of Bill McCoy, a retired Chief Warrant Officer from the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Division:  McCoy  had been involved in the Casolaro investigation of the PROMIS software saga.  He died at home in 1997, and his body was cremated within 48 hours, despite his saying several times over the previous years that he wanted to be buried next to his wife. In less than four days all of McCoy's furniture, records and personal belongings were removed from his home by his son, a full Colonel in the Army. The house was sanitized and repainted and, "aside from the Zen garden in the back yard, there was no trace that McCoy had ever lived there."

Please discuss these suspicious deaths individually&mdash;that is, in separate sections BELOW, one for each. [marked by Level 2 formating ==== ] Desertfae (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Triple homicide: (Fred Alvarez et al)
The 1996 book Return of the Buffalo by Ambrose Lane clearly disputes many points alleged in the triple homicide of Fred Alvarez, R. Boger, and Patricia Castro. Until a good investigation of that crime is performed, it is premature to conclude that the triple homicide is related to Inslaw. As I understand from reading the website of Boger's daughter, the Riverside District Attorney's Office has reopened the case due to new evidence. At present, I have been unable to confirm this claim. Since the crime is a cold case of over ten years, I suspect that it will be next to impossible to find any true and conclusive evidence suggesting that the murders were related&mdash;even remotely&mdash;to Inslaw. Anne Teedham (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alvarez Murders

Hi Anne, I'm not sure who you are, or anything, but apparently you made some comments on my dad's murder in relation to the Inslaw case? I'm not sure who initially added my dad's case to the wiki page but I happened to look today and it was all gone as well as a lot of other things in relation to it. First, I would like to say my dad's name is RALPH Boger. You also went on to quote a book called Return of the Buffalo.. were you aware that old man Nichols (who was involved in the murders) paid to have that book written to discredit everything? Have you read any other books on the subject that clearly show the connections? You also said you went on my site-I am here to first confirm that the case IS reopened. Had you actually looked at my site and spent some time there you would have easily seen where the connection was based on the documented evidence I have there. Everything I have on my site is verifiable and I do have either a)documented evidence to back it up or b)taped phone conversations. Perhaps checking out the TV station in California KESQ would be of help to you. Instead of just deleting everything you don't agree with, since you were on my site anyway, a nice email asking the questions you had would have helped to remedy this issue. Rachel Begley aka desertfae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfae (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Desertfae, The comment that I made is not in contradiction to any known verifiable facts. Although the book Return of the Buffalo may have been a commissioned work, this does not mean that Ambrose's conclusions must be disregarded altogether.  At times (and I might add at very relevant times), Ambrose does fail to support his remarks with verifiable and supporting documentation.  However, until a direct relationship can be drawn between the Inslaw Case and the triple homicide, then a claim that they are related must be questioned as "dubious", and as original research. If the case has been reopened, then perhaps you can link the various editors to any supporting evidence which may help them in deciding whether or not the triple homicide is "directly related to the Inslaw Case".  You have mistakenly concluded that it was I who deleted the reference to the murders from the main article.  I have tracked down that deletion to this timeframe 16:49, 13 September 2008, and you may find it helpful to contact We663r, the other editor Hag2 merely seems to have collapsed that material into a box which he then duplicated HERE (at the talkpage) .    I will take a look at the California KESQ TV station; however if you know exact url-linking to reliable public information, it is sometimes helpful (to the editors) to link them directly to the source of a claim. Anne Teedham (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * followup [14:52 (UTC)]  I have pursued the KESQ search engine with the criteria "Fred Alvarez" and found eight references to that name.  It will take some time to digest the material.  Anne Teedham (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhapes you didn't search correctly- http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8687765&nav=menu191_1_1_3 http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8766891&nav=menu191_1_1_3 (talks about Inslaw) http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8993895&nav=menu191_1_1_3 wow, it even has video.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.56.3 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

User 96.28.56.3, Wikipedia's primary interest is to report an encyclopedic analysis of people, places, and events. It is not to report incendiary issues, or titillating speculation, or innuendo, or gossip. The article on Inslaw is an attempt to provide accurate factual information which is backed by reliable, verifiable, and credible reference material. At present, I do not see Inslaw lacking in those regards.

The triple homicide of Fred Alvarez, Ralph Boger, and Patricia Castro may be related; however, to date, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest such a relationship. The KESQ 33-part series does not report anything about Inslaw that has not been investigated widely through the past thirty-years. On July 31, 2008 11:21 AM EDT, KESQ, in fact, even reports inaccurately that the congressional hearings on Inslaw "ended inconclusively."

By 1997, Congress had accepted the ruling of the Federal Court of Claims and had adopted the three-panel judges decision on the matter. KESQ further reports that: "Cabazon business manager John Phillip Nichols later went to prison for a separate case of murder solicitation, but tribal officials say that any connection to the Alvarez triple murder was "ridiculous and malicious."

Wackenhut corporation declined to comment to News Channel 3, but denied any wrongdoing in the book "Return of the Buffalo: The Story Behind America's Indian Gaming Explosion."

The murder case has been reopened and closed multiple times in the past 27 years. Sheriff's investigators have asked friends and former partners of District Attorney Investigator David McGowan whether he was working the case in 2005.

An investigation concluded that McGowan murdered his family of five before shooting himself on May 10th, 2005. Surviving family members tell News Channel 3 they believe the investigation was rushed and incomplete.

Sheriff's officials now tell News Channel 3 the District Attorney's office was not investigating the Alvarez case.

Another document says otherwise:

Former DA Investigator and current Indio Councilman Gene Gilbert handled the case in the early 1990's."

- paragraphs 20-27, EXCLUSIVE: 1981 Triple Murder Tied to McGowan Murders-Suicide?

This hardly suggests that the Riverside County District Attorney's Office has been moved forward too much by the Cold Case Division's investigation of anything related to Inslaw. The above even suggests that the district attorney's office is not convinced that the murders of either Alvarez, or McGowan are related to one another.

Moreover, KESQ's suggestions that the new documents which it has in its possession are revealing is hardly responsible journalism unless those documents can be authenticated and can be accepted by primary investigators as sufficient evidence upon which to bring forth a charge against someone.

Finally, KESQ posts on September 11, 2008 04:29 PM EDT that: "Fred Alvarez was planning to blow the whistle on a business partnership between defense contractor Wackenhut Services and Cabazon Manager John Phillip Nichols to form Cabazon Arms. Nichols allegedly planned on using Indian land to test and build pistols, assault rifles, sniper guns and rocket launchers. The partnership was interested in biological weapons that could be deployed in small countries."

- Part 31: Secret Government Program Linked To Local Murders?

There is no conclusive evidence to establish these remarks as fact. If there were, then multitudes of past investigators would have pursued the above as highly significant evidence. To date, a fact that there are websleuth conspiracy theorists who feel that this material is factual, and writing as such on bulletin boards across the Internet...is irrelevant.

On the whole, I doubt very seriously that any editors of an article in Wikipedia would be willing to include in Inslaw such unreliable innuendo, or fanciful speculation. Hag2 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hag

-perhaps you should learn to search better, or are you purposely trying to distort the facts?

Sheriff's officials now tell News Channel 3 the District Attorney's office was not investigating the Alvarez case. There is a difference between the District Attorney's office and the Riverside County Homicide Cold Case dept. If you read this completely through, it is talking about a connection to the McGowan murders in relation to my dad's murder case, if McGowan was looking into my dad's case or not. Not if the case was reopened, which it is.

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=8766891&nav=menu191_1_1_3 Part 31: Secret Government Program Linked To Local Murders? "Now, we are learning the murders may be a cover up for one of the federal government's most secret computer programs.

"PROMIS" is the name of one of the government's most secret computer database programs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertfae (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I reiterate, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to report "incendiary issues, or titillating speculation, or innuendo, or gossip." The ONLY reason Danny Casolaro is included in the Inslaw article is due to a fact that there is direct evidence (supported by House Report 102 - 857) to connect his death to the events involving Inslaw.   There is no direct evidence in the case of Alvarez: KESQ is merely speculating, and basing that speculation upon little.  I do not wish (nor intend) to debate issues which involve nothing concrete.  Also, I would like to suggest that you take the time to create an account with Wikipedia, and that you please sign and date your messages by typing four tildes (~) . Hag2 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"TC-Technical Consultant" article (Anson Ng)
Is there even a magazine called "TC - Technical Consultant"? I can't seem to find anything on it except for this one article in this one nov-dec 1991 issue mentioned here, and even that seems only to be on conspiracy theory websites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Berry2k (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Excellent point. I too have attempted to find details surrounding TC Technical.  To date, I have discovered&mdash;outside of the reference to the 1991 Nov/Dec issue&mdash;no mention anywhere of a magazine called TC Technical .  Using both Yahoo and Google with parameters set for date-seeking either side of that period NOV/DEC 1991 produces zero hits. Hag2 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I found another "doubting thomas" named Rose at a forum called Parallel Universe. See her Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:22 pm remarks. There is however reference to Anson Ng's murder in these two references 1 and 2. Both corroborate Senator Alan Cranston's remarks on the Senate floor. Anne Teedham (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anne, I followed your lead on Anson Ng in the Guatemalan weekly CERIGUA, and have come to the conclusion that someone in the United States mistakenly identified "Anson Ng Yong " as Anson Ng. I believe this mistake began with the publication of the TC Technical document which appears to me to be a false document.  Once this mistake was made, the internet repeatedly circulated the name Anson Ng.  Before publication of the TC Technical document, I believe the news media correctly reported Mr. Yong's name (which is Anson Ng Yong).  In reading through the reference to TC Technical (as provided by you) at Parallel Universe I was struck by how peculiarly supportive it was of Michael Riconosciuto's allegations and claims regarding matters relevant to Inslaw, Danny Casolaro, and October Surprise conspiracy. I strongly believe that TC Technical is a load of codswallop.   Hag2 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Further investigation into TC Technical appears to me to be the work of Bruce Alan Walton (more commonly known as "Branton" in the World of the Illuminati); and if this is the case, this entire episode of TC Technical and perhaps the entire story of Michael Riconosciuto in general seem to be the work of clever but wasteful pranksters. Hag2 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CERIGUA details
 * (note: you will need to use your browser's Edit/Find with keyword Anson.)
 * July 28, 1991
 * August 4, 1991
 * August 18, 1991
 * –Hag2 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,Dixie. No, I am more inclined to believe that Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) was responsible for the name change. His remarks were delivered on August 8, 1991, according to McCullough's article. ThsQ (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Theo, I agree with you. It looks as though Sen. Cranston used Anson Ng very early on.  Obviously there is something wrong in McCullough's date though: Casolaro was found dead on August 10, and most of the U.S. media reports on Anson Ng Yong began after Casolaro's death.  The McCullough article uses the Senate subcommittee statement, and then attempts to relate Yong and Casolaro together citing unnamed "sources" for details surrounding the triple homicides.  The Cerigua Weekly details confirm speculation about BCCI, gun running, Sikorski helicopters, wayward Guatemalan army generals, and murderous hitmen but makes no mention to stolen software, or to associations with the Wackenhut/Cabazon Joint venture.  It looks as though someone needs to find some reliable source for McCullough's claim that Jimmy Hughes was "also in Guatemala City to interview the bag man for the CIA sponsored hit of three people in Rancho Mirage, California on or about June 30, 1981."  I would be willing to accept McCullough's claim if she backed that claim with a  reliable source. Hag2 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerigua Weekly [reference #1] is a good find, Anne. It helps to further substantiate the deadlink reference to miamitopics.com [in the collapsed box...See above]. The Newsmakingnews.com [reference #2] cites specific information about Jimmy Hughes. I think there is a reference somewhere in Elliot Richardson's Bua Rebuttal to investigators' inquiries about the connections to Hughes and the triple Alvarez murders. If Richardson's investigation found a link between Inslaw and the triple homicide, then that link must have been Jimmy Hughes, and there must be a whole detail of reliable information surrounding Hughes somewhere. I do not think that we can accept the videos of Ralph Boger's daughter as unbiased material. I'll see what I can find. ThsQ (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The videos are interesting: Hughes speaks freely of past involvement and his admissions support Rachel Begley's allegations.  As I understand the Hughes involvement, he acted as an agent between the murderer(s) of Alvarez, Boger, and Castro and between the man who paid to have them murdered.  Supposedly, Hughes delivered $10,000 into the hands of the murderer after-the-fact. Then Hughes provided detailed background, admissions, and video-taped confession to the Riverside homicide investigators during the initial stages of their investigations into the triple homicide.  Hughes then fled to Guatemala when the "heat got too much" (that is, the investigation into the Cabazon/Wackenhut Joint Venture, by that time, had begun to unravel during Senate investigations into the Iran/Contra Affair).  According to what I have been able to uncover, Fred Alvarez is alleged to have written an explosive letter to President Reagan detailing misuse of tribal funds by the tribal administrator, John Philip Nichols.  According to media reports, Reagan wrote a return letter which addressed Alvarez's concerns of arms manufacturing, bio-weapon research, and participation by members of Reagan's California "kitchen cabinet" (i.e. in the Cabazon/Wackenhut Joint Venture).  According to interesting information available but NOT substantiated, Alvarez gave a long interview to the newspapers The Desert Sun and the The Press Enterprise (I could be wrong about these two names), but no one to date has produced on the internet any supporting documentation for those interviews.  Additionally, the alleged Alvarez/Reagan correspondence is supported ONLY by an envelope seen here .  All of this background has been investigated for over 27 years by the Riverside, California, investigators and NOTHING has materialized from it!  It would seem to me that Ambrose Lane's argument in Return of the Buffalo is the argument to which one must give the heaviest weight&mdash;that is, the allegations against the Cabazon Nation are scurrilous, libelous, and slanderous and are supported by media reports which fail miserably to document any evidence.  Lane devotes his final chapter to harsh criticism of the principal perpetrators of these accusations.  If there is any truth to the Alvarez interviews, (and to the Alvarez/Reagan letter and the Jimmy Hughes "bagman scenario"), then someone somewhere  (such as Rachel Begley aka Desertfae)  must produce the evidence.  Without evidence but merely criticizing Lane  as a puppet or a ghost-writing apologist for crimes committed by John Philip Nichols and the CIA is a copout.  An easy approach to this would be for someone with access to the archives of  The Desert Sun, and The Press Enterprise, and the Los Angeles Times, to photocopy the interviews (and the articles) and then make them available online.  If the newspapers cited above require payment for these materials, then I find that an extraordinarily self-serving and repugnant position for any newspaper publisher to maintain when peoples lives have been taken by murderers.  Anne Teedham (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. I'd like to see the Alvarez interviews.  According to some literature, Jonathan Littman of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote a 3-part series (dated Sept. 4, 6, and 13, 1991) on gun-running, gambling, and murder at the Cabazon reservation; but I can't find anything other than numerous references to the fact that it was  published.  Strangely, that series won Littman a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize but neither Pulitzer nor Chronicle make that series available.  Moreover, when I tried to find a reference to the articles using both  the nl.newsbank.com search engine  and the Chronicle search engine, I drew a blank.  There's no lack of references citing Littman's nomination (i.e. the series) for the Pulitzer though. Hag2 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elliot Richardson's link between the Rancho Mirage triple homicide and Inslaw seems to be the sworn affidavits of Michael Riconosciuto and Robert Booth Nichols. In section III of the "Rebuttal to Bua's Report", Richardson wrote the following statement --

Then, in the same section III but subsection 4, he added --

But this makes no mention of Anson Ng.

That connection appears later, in section III, E-1 "Evidence that Casolaro broke the INSLAW Case the week he died", pg.62. Richardson quoted Lynn Knowles who, in turn, paraphrased a remark that was then attributed to Joseph Cuellar --

So, it seems as if the triple homicides and Anson Ng and Inslaw are all related through secondary information from sources Robert Booth Nichols, Michael Riconosciuto, and Lynn Knowles. But the first two quotes say only that a colonel was sent to the reservation to assure that classified information was not compromised by FBI investigators looking into the homicides. The quotes make no mention that the homicides are related to the stolen software investigation. And in the Knowles quote, the remark was never investigated apparently by Bua, or anyone else for that matter. I suppose the "Rebuttal to the Bua Report" could be used as VERIFICATION for a connection between the triple homicides and Inslaw, and that rebuttal would obviously be considered RELIABLE, but CREDIBILITY, mates, that is another matter. :p ThsQ (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Awkward (incorrect?) phrasing
(1) What does it mean when it says that in 1995 the Senate ordered a court to do something? Congress and the Judiciary are two separate branches of government. I don't believe the Senate can order a court to do anything (although the House and Senate together can change the jurisdiction of courts). I think the author has misunderstood or misstated what happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.148.120.84 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Phrasing changed to asked. Hag2 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of the first paragraph is a sentence fragment!Persse O&#39;Reilly (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then fix it.--Rojerts (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did some serious editing for the sake of grammar and continuity. The content has remained basically the same. I think this and related articles need more attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.27.47 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

(2) "The conflict centered on the question of whether the Justice Department owed INSLAW license fees for the 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version of PROMIS which the Justice Department obtained in April 1983 at the start of the second year of the three-year PROMIS implementation contract by modifying the contract and promising to negotiate the payment of license fees if the government substituted the new version of PROMIS for the 16-bit architecture PRIME computer version of PROMIS, which was the subject of the original contract."

This is a terribly confusing addition to an otherwise simple sentence. The original sentence said: "The conflict centered on the question of whether Inslaw held proprietary ownership of its privately-funded Enhanced PROMIS or if the disputed software was entirely within the public-domain." By adding the additional information (e.g. "the 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version of PROMIS which the Justice Department obtained in April 1983 at the start of the second year of the three-year PROMIS implementation contract by modifying the contract"), things begin to become obscure. Changing Enhanced PROMIS into "32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version of PROMIS which the Justice Department obtained in April 1983 at the start of the second year of the three-year PROMIS implementation contract by modifying..." is partly the problem. The addition of this phraseology is unnecessary: it is repetitive. The same information is provided earlier in the article in the section called "Origins", and then further clarified in a simple sentence structure: e.g. "In April 1983, the DOJ modified Inslaw's three-year Implementation Contract to obtain delivery of a new, 32-bit architecture version of Enhanced PROMIS for which the DOJ then waived its need to secure a proper license." 71.178.226.81, I believe that it is not necessary to try to explain the entire distinction between PROMIS, PROMIS '82, PRIME PROMIS and Enhanced PROMIS all in one sentence. If there needs to be this kind of clarification, then we need to work together to make that distinction less confusing to lay readers. Simplicity should be the rule. Hag2 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) (3) 71.178.226.81, by changing "In March 1982 the Department of Justice awarded Inslaw Inc. a $9.6 million, three-year contract to implement a pilot program in twenty-two United States Attorneys' Offices." into "In March 1982, the Department of Justice awarded Inslaw Inc. a $9.6 million, three-year contract to implement an older version of PROMIS, which the government had a license to use, in twenty-two of the largest U.S. Attorneys' Offices." you have completely altered the meaning of the original sentence. The intent of the sentence is to imply that the DOJ initiated a "pilot program", not that the DOJ initiated a contract to "implement an older version...".

Your desire to continually add distinction between Old PROMIS and Enhanced PROMIS is confusing the article. Also, you are frequently adding in repetitive phraseology e.g. "which the government had a license to use." Hag2 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The sentence is a classic "run-on sentence".  Everything after "11/780 version" should be struck.  For example, "The conflict centered on the question of whether the Justice Department owed INSLAW license fees for the 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version of PROMIS which the Justice Department obtained in April 1983 at the start of the second year of the three-year PROMIS implementation contract by modifying the contract and [by] promising to negotiate the payment of license fees if the government substituted the new version of PROMIS for the 16-bit architecture PRIME computer version of PROMIS, which was the subject of the original contract."...


 * But that is saying only "a question of whether OR"... what?????


 * I think what the writer is trying to say is that the "conflict centered on the question of " whether or not the DOJ owned Inslaw license fees for the VAX-version if the DOJ elected to substitute the VAX-version for the PRIME-version (i.e. the 16-bit architecture of the original contract).


 * Consequently it appears as if there needs to be (in the main body of the article) a greater elaboration of these different versions.  Anne Teedham (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try this:

"In March 1982, the Department of Justice awarded Inslaw Inc. a $9.6 million, three-year contract to implement a pilot program in twenty-two of the largest U.S. Attorneys' Offices using an older 16-bit PRIME version of PROMIS which the government had a license to use.

While PROMIS could have gone a long way toward correcting the Department's longstanding need for a standardized case-management system, the contract between Inslaw and Justice quickly became embroiled for over two decades in bitter controversy. The conflict centered on the question of whether the Justice Department owed INSLAW license fees for a new 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version which the Justice Department obtained at the start of the second year of the implementation contract by modifying that contract and by promising to negotiate the payment of license fees if the government substituted the new 32-bit VAX version for the old 16-bit PRIME version which had been the subject of the original contract."

It is truly a mouthful but I think it contains all the necessary ingredients to explain the situation. Anne Teedham (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anne, I like the rewording of the first paragraph and think that you should substitute it into the main body. I've tried repeatedly to get 71.178.226.81 into this discussion about the second paragraph because I think that he is an inside expert on Inslaw, but 71.178.226.81 has ignored my efforts.  Although your rewritten version is great, I'd still like to try to simplify that really long sentence.  I think that it is just tooooo much for one sentence. Hag2 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the changes that you have made. I believe that they clarify some of the confusion.  It is nice to see "Enhanced PROMIS" returned to the main article.  The addition of the "32-bit architecture VAX 11/780" language was exhausting. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts. Anne Teedham (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(4) Dixie, since you're the principal editor on the article right now, I think you need to rewrite footnote 5 (i.e. the details about Hadron). It's very jumbled and chaotic. I'm not entirely certain what should stay and what should go, but the phrasing jumps all over the place.Anne Teedham (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Annie, I agree. Footnote 5 is more or less a jumble of temporary material until I can write a stub for Hadron, but it should be written well enough so someone can read it.  I'll rework it a bit.  Take a look tomorrow and see what you think.&mdash;Dixie Brown (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of three judges' review
71.178.226.81, You have inserted several interesting additions to the main article but you have not supplied any validation for those additions (references, citations, etc.). For example, you have provided much deeper insight into the three judges Review by the Court of Federal Claims; yet you have asserted that the review board did not agree with the hearing officer's decision. The "Conclusion" of the three panel review board states otherwise: ""After careful consideration of plaintiffs' exceptions, the hearing officer's report, and the record in this case, the review panel is satisfied that the hearing officer did not err in determining that any award to the plaintiffs would be a gratuity. The panel unanimously adopts the report of the hearing officer, subject to the minor modifications noted herein. This report shall be forwarded to the Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2509.""

- see Conclusion—No. 95-338X (Filed: May 11, 1998), page 17.

Then you further provide information regarding the Chief Judge's "Advisory Report to the Senate in August 1998"; yet I have been unable to find any further material anywhere other than the above "This report shall be forwarded to the Chief Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2509" regarding that Advisory Report. Would you please try to provide sufficient references for your additions to the article? It helps the rest of us when trying to verify your claims. It is obvious to me that you have more than a layman's understanding of the entire case. I do not understand though why there is this misunderstanding between your interpretation of the three panel review's decision and mine. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I now believe that our differences of opinion on this matter can be summed up in one word: your choice of the word however in describing the events surrounding the three-panel review board's decision. Therefore, I am going to delete that word, then remove the template notice about dubious material.  It is a fact that the three-panel review board ruled what they ruled.  It is not a fact though that is in contradiction to the prior statements leading into that sentence; therefore the word however is a misuse of the word. Hag2 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

William Hamilton
Anyone have a wiki page for this William Hamilton. Was he mentioned as the founder before my edit? I noticed Hamilton was referenced under PROMIS contract and allegations of theft but did not see reference to him elsewhere in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.82.93 (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)