IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DONALD F. McGAHN II, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 07cv1227 

Judge Pallmeyer 

Mag. Judge Cole 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) moves for 

Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the Court’s May 

28, 2009 Order. The Court should enter judgment for the Commission because there is 

no genuine issue of fact as to whether anyone at the Department of Justice transferred, or 

anyone at the Commission ever received, any private financial information belonging to 

Jack Beam or Renee Beam in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 

12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq. In support of this motion, the Commission has also filed a 

memorandum of law and its statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine 

issue supported by two Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) affidavits and uncontradicted deposition 

testimony, pursuant to Northern District of Illinois LR56.1(a)(3). 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomasenia P. Duncan_ 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 2
/s/ David Kolker_________

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

/s/ Harry J. Summers_____

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

July 10, 2009 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DONALD F. McGAHN II, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendant. 

Civil No. 07cv1227 

Judge Pallmeyer 

Mag. Judge Cole 

Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) files this brief in 

support of its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and 

the Court’s May 28, 2009 Order (Docket # 140). The Court should enter judgment for the 

Commission because there is no genuine issue as to whether anyone at the Commission ever 

received from the Department of Justice (“Department”) any private financial information 

belonging to Jack Beam or Renee Beam in violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act 

(“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq., which is the only claim remaining in this case following 

the Court’s October 15, 2008 order (Docket # 108). In support of this motion, the Commission 

files two Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) affidavits, uncontradicted deposition testimony, and a statement of 

material facts as to which there is no genuine issue pursuant to Northern District of Illinois 

LR56.1(a)(3). 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 13
I. BACKGROUND 

On March 2, 2007, attorney Jack Beam and his spouse, Renee Beam, filed their 

Application for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint (Docket #1) in this case. The plaintiffs 

alleged that they were the targets of an ongoing grand jury investigation centered on the 

Michigan law firm with which Mr. Beam is affiliated (Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson) 

involving alleged illegal contributions made during the 2004 Presidential election campaign 

cycle to candidate John Edwards. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Department of Justice violated 

the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-55 (“FECA” or “Act”) by pursuing its own 

criminal investigation in the absence of a Commission referral of the matter to the Department 

pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6). 

This Court issued a Minute Order (Docket # 46) on June 22, 2007, granting defendants’ 

motions to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed their Amended Complaint (“Am. 

Comp.”) (Docket #47) on June 29, 2007. The Amended Complaint alleged for the first time that 

defendants had violated the Right to Financial Privacy Act by “secretly accessing Plaintiffs’ 

financial records and/or suppressing the existence of its [sic] acts” (Am. Compl. ¶ 26), and 

failing to inform plaintiffs of the alleged access (id. ¶ 12), and also alleged that defendants had 

“conspired to retaliate” (id. ¶¶ 32, 40) against plaintiffs for exercising their First Amendment 

rights. Plaintiffs also renewed their claims that defendants had failed to comply with the alleged 

requirement that a referral occur before the Department could pursue a criminal prosecution. 

On March 7, 2008, the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint, ruling that plaintiffs 

had “not pleaded a violation of FECA’s referral provision.” Memorandum Opinion and Order 

(“Mem. Op.”) (Docket #90) at 18. See id. at 13-22. With respect to plaintiffs’ other claims, the 

Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs lacked standing and 

2

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 13
because their claims were not ripe. Id. at 6-13. Plaintiffs filed their three-count Second 

Amended Complaint (Docket #91) on March 24, 2008. Count I again alleges that defendants 

have violated the RFPA, adding a more direct allegation that federal agents seized plaintiffs’ 

private financial records. 

On October 15, 2008, the Court dismissed all claims against the Department with 

prejudice. October Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Oct. Mem. Op.”) (Docket #108). With 

respect to the FEC, the Court dismissed all but one of plaintiffs’ claims, leaving open the 

possibility that plaintiffs might prevail on their RFPA claim that their private financial 

information had improperly been received by the Commission from the Department, even if the 

Department had properly obtained the information in the first instance. See 12 U.S.C. § 3412(a). 

The Court stated that “[a]n agency that obtained financial records from another department or 

agency could thus be liable under § 3417, even if the original agency obtained the documents 

legally.... although Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Attorney General obtained their financial 

records illegally fails, the FEC could still be liable for obtaining the records from the Department 

of Justice without following the procedures outlined in § 3412.” Oct. Mem. Op. at 14. The 

Court permitted discovery into any possible transfer of private financial information from the 

Department, but emphasized the tenuous nature of this remaining claim: “If Plaintiffs still lack 

any evidence that an RFPA violation occurred after they have had the chance to engage in 

discovery, summary judgment in favor of the FEC may well be appropriate.” (Id. at 15.) 

Extensive discovery directed at the Commission finally concluded on May 28, 2009. 

 

3

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 13
II. THE COMMISSION NEVER RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT 

ANY PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION OF JACK OR RENEE 

BEAM, SO PLAINTIFFS’ RFPA CLAIM MUST FAIL 

Because plaintiffs have failed to uncover any evidence that the Commission ever received 

any private financial information of Jack and Renee Beam from the Department of Justice, and 

because the only financial records the Commission possesses about the Beams are copies of three 

contribution checks they wrote to candidate John Edwards, which were received from the 

Edwards campaign as part of a statutorily mandated audit, no violation of the RFPA could have 

occurred. The Court should therefore enter summary judgment on behalf of the Commission on 

the remaining claim in this case. 

A. Summary Judgment Standards 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), the 

judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and 

disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. 

“In other words, the record must reveal that no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving 

party.” Nat’l Athletic Sportswear, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). The “court’s role is not to evaluate the weight of the 

evidence, to judge the credibility of witnesses, or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead 

to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact.” Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). 

 Ultimately, summary judgment is the “put up or shut up” moment in a lawsuit. Johnson 

v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). “Once a party has made a 

properly-supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing party may not simply rest upon 

4

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 13
the pleadings but must instead submit evidentiary materials that ‘set forth specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Harney v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 526 F.3d 

1099, 1104 (7th Cir. 2008); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). Indeed, “to avoid summary judgment a 

nonmovant must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to support his position that a genuine 

issue of material fact exists and must set forth specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue of 

triable fact.” LaBouve v. Boeing Co., 387 F. Supp. 2d 845, 847 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted); Morfin v. City of E. Chicago, 349 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2003). A 

court should draw all reasonable inferences from undisputed facts in favor of the nonmoving 

party, but “[i]rrelevant or unnecessary facts do not deter summary judgment, even when in 

dispute.” Harney, 526 F.3d at 1104. Nor can conclusory allegations alone bar a finding of 

summary judgment. Perez v. Globe Ground No. Amer. LLC., 482 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1028 (N.D. 

Ill. 2007).

B. Plaintiffs Have No Evidence That the Commission Received Any 

Private Financial Information from the Department in Violation of 

Section 3417 of the RFPA 

The gravamen of plaintiffs’ sole remaining claim is that the Department obtained their 

private financial information and “transmitted such illegally gathered documents to the Federal 

Election Commission.” Second Amended Complaint ¶ 18 (Docket # 91). However, following 

the completion of wide-ranging discovery by plaintiffs in this case, the undisputed evidence 

demonstrates that no one at the FEC ever possessed any private financial information belonging 

to the Beams other than three contribution checks they gave to the Edwards campaign. The 

Commission obtained these checks as part of a statutory audit of the Edwards for President 

Committee, not from the Department of Justice or plaintiffs’ bank. Declaration of Audra L. 

5

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 13
Wassom ¶ 7 (Exhibit 1 to the FEC’s Statement of Material Facts).1

 No credible evidence exists 

that the Department of Justice ever transferred any private financial information of the Beams to 

FEC staff, showed any such material to any FEC staffer, or even discussed such material with 

FEC staff, nor was such evidence found in documents provided to the Court for its in camera

review.2

 Indeed, the Commission’s primary contact with the Department on this matter has 

declared under oath that the Commission received no financial information about the Beams 

from the Department. Id. ¶¶ 2-8. The Department’s primary contact with the Commission has 

confirmed this under oath. Declaration of M. Kendall Day ¶¶ 3-4 (Exh. 2). See FEC’s 

Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 5-7. Moreover, no credible evidence shows that any grand jury 

material of any type was sent to the FEC staff by anyone, including any employee of the 

Department of Justice, and plaintiffs have never alleged that the Commission obtained any of 

their financial information directly from any bank. In short, because Jack and Renee Beam have 

completely failed to sustain their evidentiary burden in this case, the Court should enter summary 

judgment for the Commission. 

As discussed supra p. 3, the Court’s October 15, 2008 Order dismissed all of plaintiffs’ 

claims except for the very narrow allegation that the FEC may have violated the RFPA by 

allegedly receiving from the Department of Justice private financial information belonging to 

Plaintiffs. Such liability would apparently stem from the Department’s potential failure (as the 

transferring agency) to properly certify “in writing” that the Department believes that the transfer 

records “are relevant to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry ... within the jurisdiction of the 

 

1

 Audra Wassom left the Federal Election Commission in November 2008 and was married 

at approximately the same time. She later appeared for a deposition under her married name, 

Audra Wassom Bayes. Hereafter all citations to FEC exhibits refer to exhibits attached to the 

Commission’s Statement of Material Facts. 

2

 See Minute Order dated July 7, 2009 (Docket #141). 

6

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 13
[FEC],” 12 U.S.C. § 3412(a), even though that section apparently does not require a receiving 

agency [i.e., the Commission] to make any similar certification. The Court then permitted 

plaintiffs discovery to test only the factual basis for this narrow claim, while warning that the 

failure to uncover any evidence supporting plaintiffs’ RFPA claim would mean that “summary 

judgment in favor of the FEC may well be appropriate.” Oct. Mem. Op. at 15. 

 Plaintiffs have now had their discovery, including extensive document requests, 

interrogatories, and eight depositions of FEC staff.3 Plaintiffs uncovered no evidence that any 

private financial records or private financial information of the Beams — other than the three 

contribution checks to the Edwards campaign — had ever been in the possession of anyone at the 

Commission. Instead, the record demonstrates that no RFPA violation occurred: 

 a) No FEC staff has ever seen or has any information regarding any private financial 

information belonging to either Jack Beam or Renee Beam (other than the contribution checks to 

the Edwards campaign, see infra pp. 9-11). Deposition of Colleen T. Sealander 27:11-14 (Exh. 

3); Deposition of Roger Hearron 56:2-5 (Exh. 4); Deposition of Audra Wassom Bayes 23:7-12, 

75:2-5, 77:3-7 (Exh. 5); Deposition of Mark D. Shonkwiler 48:13-16 (Exh. 6). 

 b) No FEC staff has seen any bank checking account statement containing the names 

Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise relating to their private financial information. Sealander 

Dep. 26:11-18 (Exh. 3); Bayes Dep. 76:4-11 (Exh. 5). 

c) No FEC staff has seen any bank savings account statement containing the names 

Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them. Hearron Dep. 55:10-13 (Exh. 4); 

Shonkwiler Dep. 51:17-52:1 (Exh. 6). 

 

3

 On March 10, 2009, plaintiffs deposed Audra Wassom Bayes, Colleen T. Sealander, and 

Roger Hearron. On March 11, 2009, plaintiffs deposed Philip Olaya, Mark Shonkwiler, 

Madelynn Lane, Thomas Andersen, and Peter Blumberg. 

7

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 13
d) No FEC staff has seen any mutual fund statement containing the names Jack 

Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them. Bayes Dep. 76:12-15 (Exh. 5); 

Shonkwiler Dep. 53:3-6 (Exh. 6). 

e) No FEC staff has seen any brokerage account statement containing the names 

Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them. Sealander Dep. 27:8-10 (Exh. 3); 

Hearron Dep. 55:19-56:1 (Exh. 4); Bayes Dep. 76:15-77:2 (Exh. 5); Shonkwiler Dep. 52:21-53:2 

(Exh. 6). 

f) No FEC staff has ever seen any grand jury transcripts from the criminal trial in 

Detroit, Michigan of persons related to the Fieger firm. Hearron Dep. 53:3-15, 54:2-8 (Exh. 4); 

Bayes Dep. 60:5-9 (Exh. 5); Shonkwiler Dep. 42:5-8 (Exh. 6). 

g) No FEC staff issued an administrative subpoena of any type, including any 

request for any private financial information belonging to either Jack Beam or Renee Beam. 

Bayes Dep. 67:12-22 (Exh. 5); Deposition of Peter G. Blumberg 22:7-15 (Exh. 7). 

h) No FEC staff has seen any private financial document containing the social 

security number or home address of Jack or Renee Beam. Sealander Dep. 26:6-10 (Exh. 3); 

Hearron Dep. 54:9-15, 55:14-18 (Exh. 4); Bayes Dep. 75:18-76:3 (Exh. 5); Shonkwiler Dep. 

52:2-20 (Exh. 6). 

 In short, the record contains no evidence that any private financial records of Jack or 

Renee Beam have been improperly obtained by anyone, that any “unwarranted intrusion” into 

the financial privacy of the Beams took place, see Anderson v. La Junta State Bank, 115 F.3d 

756, 758 (10th Cir. 1997), or that the Department ever transferred to the Commission financial 

8

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 13
information of any type belonging to the Beams for use in any FEC investigation. See FEC 

Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 14-23.4

 

Thus, plaintiffs’ discovery has failed to reveal any evidence demonstrating that the 

Department ever transferred, or that the Commission ever received from the Department, any 

private financial information belonging to plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs 

cannot establish any violation of the RFPA. Accordingly, summary judgment should be entered 

for the Commission.5 

C. The Only Personal Financial Information of the Plaintiffs in the 

 Possession of FEC Staff are the Three 2004 Contribution Checks 

 Not only have plaintiffs failed to prove that any transfer of private financial information 

occurred between the Department and the FEC, they also have failed to allege — let alone 

produce any evidence — that the Commission obtained the three contribution checks the Beams 

wrote to the 2004 Edwards campaign in violation of any law, including the RFPA. The RFPA 

prohibits any “Government authority” from having access to, or the information contained in, the 

financial records of any customer of a financial institution unless certain safeguards are met. 12 

 

4

 To the extent any FEC witness may appear to have been uncertain as to the source or 

nature of information he may (or may not) have seen, that cannot provide the evidence as to a 

transfer of private financial information of the Beams required for plaintiffs to prevail, given the 

clear testimony from the most knowledgeable witnesses that no such transfer occurred. Indeed, 

it appears that the Department did not introduce any financial records of Jack or Renee Beam in 

the related criminal jury trial of Geoffrey Fieger in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Michigan, and there is no evidence that the Department even issued a grand 

jury subpoena for any private financial information of the Beams. 

5

 The Commission respectfully disagrees with the Court’s earlier conclusion (Oct. Mem. 

Op. at 14) that the Commission could be liable under the RFPA — even if it had received 

financial information about the Beams from the Department — based on any alleged failure to 

make and provide notice of a certification as required under 12 U.S.C. § 3412. That provision 

places certain obligations on the transferring agency, and plaintiffs have not alleged that the 

Commission improperly transferred their financial information to another agency. As the alleged 

receiving agency, the Commission would have had no obligations under Section 3412. 

9

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 13
U.S.C. § 3402. Any Governmental authority “obtaining or disclosing financial records or 

information contained therein” may be liable to the customer to whom the records relate. 

12 U.S.C. § 3417. But not all information or records pertaining to a customer’s financial 

circumstances will implicate the civil liability provisions of the RFPA. Instead, the RFPA 

defines a “financial record” as an original or copy of information “known to [be] derived from, 

any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer’s relationship with the 

financial institution.” 12 U.S.C. § 3401(2) (emphasis added). Because it is undisputed that the 

Commission obtained the Beams’ contribution checks from the Edwards campaign committee 

during a statutorily-required audit of that committee, the RFPA does not apply to the 

Commission’s receipt of those checks. 

 The Commission’s primary enforcement attorney on this matter, Audra Wassom Bayes, 

explained that the Audit Division of the FEC “obtained the copies of those checks from the 

Edwards for President committee in conjunction with the 26 U.S.C. § 9038 audit of that 

committee.” Wassom Bayes Decl. ¶ 7 (Exh. 2). In addition, Colleen T. Sealander, a litigation 

supervisor who was one of the Commission’s attorneys defending this case, described how she 

contacted the Commission’s Audit Division soon after this case was filed in 2007. She spoke 

with either Marty Favor or Zuzana Parrish, FEC auditors, to request copies of anything relating 

to the alleged Jack or Renee Beam contributions to the Edwards 2004 campaign. Sealander Dep. 

24-25 (Exh. 3). Ms. Sealander understood that the Audit Division would have such information 

from its statutory audits of publicly-financed Presidential campaigns. Ms. Parrish responded to 

this inquiry with copies of the three checks. See FEC’s Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 8-13; Ex. 

8. 

10

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 13
 Although these checks contain certain private information, such as a P.O. Box address, 

checking account number, and bank routing number, they are not “financial records” as that term 

is used in the RFPA. The checks were not held by a financial institution and then obtained by 

the Commission directly from the institution or indirectly from the Department. See 12 U.S.C. 

§ 3401(2). No financial institution, or “officer, employees, or agent of a financial institution,” 12 

U.S.C. § 3403(a), had any role in the release of these checks to any “Government authority.” Id. 

Rather, these checks were executed by the Beams and then remitted to the Edwards campaign, 

which in turn transferred them to the Commission’s Audit staff pursuant to the 26 U.S.C. § 9038 

audit. The Beams themselves were thus responsible for the release of any private information 

contained on the face of those instruments when they sent the checks to the Edwards campaign, 

and that campaign then lawfully transferred those checks to the Commission for the statutory 

audit. Nothing in the RFPA prevents such checks from being reported to the Commission for 

statutorily-required audits. See 12 U.S.C. § 3413(d). 

 Accordingly, because the only financial records relating to Jack or Renee Beam in the 

possession of the FEC are the three contribution checks received from the Edwards campaign—

not from the Department or a financial institution—there is no evidence of an RFPA violation. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, no violation of the RFPA has occurred and this Court 

should enter summary judgment against plaintiffs and on behalf of the Federal Election 

Commission, dismissing Count I of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomasenia P. Duncan_ 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

11

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 13
12

/s/ David Kolker_________

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

/s/ Harry J. Summers_____

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

July 10, 2009 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AND 

ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing Memorandum in 

Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The 

Court’s Commission/ECF system will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail 

addresses: 

Michael R. Dezsi: m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Eric J. Beane: eric.beane@usdoj.gov 

United States Department of Justice 

Tamara Ulrich: tamara.Ulrich@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice 

Linda A. Wawzenski: linda.wawzenski@usdoj.gov

Assistant United States Attorney 

 /s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III

 Benjamin A. Streeter III 

 Attorney 

 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

13

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-2 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 13
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DONALD F. McGAHN II, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION 

CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendant. 

 Civil No. 07cv1227 

 Judge Pallmeyer 

 Mag. Judge Cole 

 LR56.1(a) Statement 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

LOCAL RULE 56.1(a)(3) STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE 

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed this date, defendant Federal 

Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) herewith submits its Local Rule 

56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts as to which there is no genuine issue and which 

entitle the Commission to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Commission’s 

Statement also includes a description of the parties and all facts supporting this Court’s 

venue and jurisdiction. LR 56.1(a)(3)(A) & (B). For the reasons stated in the FEC’s 

memorandum of law, there is no genuine dispute that the Department of Justice 

(“Department”) never transferred to the Commission, and that the FEC never received, 

any of the plaintiffs’ private financial information in violation of the Right to Financial 

Privacy Act (“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 3401 et seq. As a result, this Honorable Court 

should enter a finding of summary judgment for the Commission. 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 15
A. The Parties, Venue and the Court’s Jurisdiction 

1. Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam are residents of Cook County, Illinois, 

located in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Second Amended 

Complaint at ¶ 1 (Docket # 91). Plaintiffs allege that they have “documentary proof” that 

“federal agents of the Justice Department and/or FBI had, in fact, obtained [and 

transferred to the FEC their private] financial records in violation of the RFPA.” Id. at ¶¶ 

16 & 19. 

2. The Federal Election Commission is the independent agency of the United 

States government empowered to administer, interpret and enforce three federal statutes 

— the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-55 (“FECA” or “Act”),1

 the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013,2 and the Presidential 

Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031-9042.3 Pursuant to the 

FECA, the Commission has “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement” 

of the Act and the two presidential public funding statutes. 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1). 

 

1 The FECA imposes extensive requirements for comprehensive public disclosure 

of contributions and expenditures in connection with federal election campaigns. 

2 U.S.C. §§ 432-434. The Act places dollar limitations on contributions by individuals 

and multi-candidate political committees to candidates for federal office, 2 U.S.C. § 

441a(a), and prohibits campaign contributions by corporations and unions from their 

treasury funds. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a). The Act also prohibits contributions made in the 

name of another. 2 U.S.C. § 441f. Contributing money to a candidate in one’s own name 

using funds provided by someone else is an example of activity that violates 2 U.S.C. § 

441f. 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(2)(i). 

2

 The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013, provides 

for a voluntary program of public financing of the general election campaigns of eligible 

major and minor party nominees for the offices of President and Vice President of the 

United States.

3

 The Presidential Primary Matching Payment Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031-9042, 

provides partial federal financing for the campaigns of presidential primary candidates 

who choose to participate and satisfy certain eligibility requirements. 

2

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 15
3. Donald F. McGahn II, the former Chairman of the Commission, was sued 

here in his official capacity. But if plaintiffs have any cause of action, it is against the 

Commission itself, which alone has the powers and duties at issue in this case. See, e.g., 

2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(b), 437d(a), 437g(a). 

4. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1346(a)(2) because this action arises under the laws of the United States. 

Venue in the Northern District of Illinois is proper because the plaintiffs all reside here. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e) and 1402(a). 

B. The Department of Justice Never Transferred Any Bank 

Records of Jack or Renee Beam to the Commission 

5. M. Kendall Day, a trial attorney in the Public Integrity Section of the 

Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, swore in a declaration that he worked on 

the criminal prosecution involving allegations of campaign finance violations by Fieger 

firm associates in the Eastern District of Michigan and that he was additionally tasked 

with the job of communicating with the Commission. Declaration of M. Kendall Day at 

¶ 2 & 3 (Exh. 2). He clearly avers: “I did not provide any bank records for Jack and 

Rene Beam to the FEC.” Id. at ¶ 3. 

6. Mr. Day also confirmed that no other Department staff involved in this 

criminal prosecution for the Department (AUSAs Christopher Varner and Lynn Helland, 

as well as an unnamed FBI case agent) transferred any of the Beams’ bank records to the 

Commission. Id. at ¶ 4. 

7. Audra Wassom Bayes was a staff attorney for the Federal Election 

Commission who served as the primary staff attorney for Matter Under Review 5818, in 

which Jack and Renee Beam, among others, are respondents. Based upon a review of all 

3

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 15
e-mail communications between Commission staff and Department employees, all hard 

copy Department documents transferred to the FEC, and all Department CD-ROMs given 

to FEC staff, Ms. Bayes declared that the Commission received no private financial 

information of Jack or Renee Beam from the Department. Declaration of Audra L. 

Wassom at ¶ 6 (Exh. 1). 

C. The Only Personal Financial Information of the Beams in the 

Possession of the Commission Are Three Contribution Checks 

Written to the 2004 Edwards Presidential Campaign That Were 

Obtained in a Statutory Audit of that Campaign 

 

8. Commission staff is in possession of three checks made payable to the 

Edwards for President 2004 Committee: check # 195, written by Renee Beam on January 

30, 2003 for $2,000; check # 375, written by Jack Beam on January 20, 2003 for $1,000; 

and check # 377, written by Jack Beam on January 28, 2003 for $1,000. Bayes Decl. at ¶ 

7 (Exh. 1; Exh. 8). Ms. Bayes and other staff of the Commission’s Office of General 

Counsel obtained copies of these checks from the FEC’s Audit Division, which in turn 

had received those documents directly from the Edwards for President 2004 Committee 

pursuant to the 26 U.S.C. § 9038 audit of that committee. Id. 

9. These three checks are the only personal financial information of Jack and 

Renee Beam in the possession of the FEC, and they were not transmitted to the FEC from 

the Department. Bayes Decl. at ¶ 8 (Exh. 1). 

10. Colleen T. Sealander, who served as an Assistant General Counsel for 

Litigation prior to her departure from the FEC’s employ, see Deposition of Colleen T. 

Sealander 6:3-4 (Exh. 3), described how those three checks came into her possession. 

Soon after plaintiffs filed their suit in early 2007, Ms. Sealander “asked the [A]udit 

[D]ivision at the Federal Election Commission whether we had any records pertaining to 

4

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 15
contributions the Beams alleged in their complaint they had made to the Edwards 

campaign.” Id. 24:16-20. That request was tendered to either “Marty Favin or Suzzanna 

[sic] Parish.” Id. 25:4. 

11. Ms. Sealander understood that the Audit Division normally had such 

records for a Presidential campaign that was publicly funded because of statutory audit 

requirements. Id. 25:17-20. Audits of Presidential campaigns receiving public funding 

are authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 9038(a). 

12. In response to her inquiry, Ms. Sealander received copies of the three 

checks used to make the Edwards contributions. Id. 26:4-5. 

13. As a consequence, the check copies were not transferred to the 

Commission from the Department, but came from an internal Commission source, the 

authorized audit of the Edwards Committee. 

D. Aside from the Contribution Checks, the Commission Received No 

Private Financial Information that Belongs to Jack or Renee Beam 

14. FEC staff attorney Audra Wassom Bayes, the primary enforcement 

attorney assigned to the investigation at issue in this matter, received no personal 

financial information belonging to the Beams from the Department. 

11 During the course of your work on the 

12 matters that we’ve been discussing today, did you 

13 ever receive any of the type of financial 

14 information data I’ve just asked you about from 

15 the Department of Justice? 

16 A No. Not to my recollection. 

17 Q And this is with respect to either Jack 

18 or Renee Beam? 

19 A No. 

20 Q Have you ever received any financial 

21 information of any sort regarding Jack or Renee 

22 Beam from the Department of Justice? 

1 A No. 

5

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 15
 

 Deposition of Audra Wassom Bayes 77:11-78:1 (Exh. 5). 

15. No FEC staff has ever seen or has any information regarding any private 

financial information belonging to either Jack Beam or Renee Beam, as FEC witnesses 

confirmed. 

11 Q Is it fair to say you've never seen any 

12 private financial information belonging to either 

13 Jack or Renee Beam? 

14 A That's correct. 

Sealander Dep. 27:11-14 (Exh. 3). 

 2 Q Have you seen anything else that can be 

 3 considered private financial information that 

 4 belongs either to Jack or to Renee Beam? 

 5 A No. 

 Deposition of Roger Hearron 56:2-5 (Exh. 4). 

 7 Q Okay. So at no time were you aware that 

 8 the FEC personally gathered Jack or Renee Beam's 

 9 financial records, either by administrative 

10 subpoena or otherwise? 

11 A No. To my knowledge the FEC never 

12 gathered the Beams' personal financial records. 

 Bayes Dep. 23:7-12 (Exh. 5). 

 2 Q And what private information of the 

 3 Beams -- of what private information of the Beams 

 4 do you have direct knowledge? 

 5 A None. 

 Bayes Dep. 75:2-5 (Exh. 5). 

 3 Q Have you seen any type of private 

 4 financial information that would come from a bank 

 5 institution that belongs to either Jack Beam or 

 6 Renee Beam? 

 7 A No. 

 Bayes Dep. 77:3-7 (Exh. 5). 

6

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 15
12 Q Okay. Mr. Olaya testified this morning 

13 that he reviewed certain financial records with 

14 balance statements and credits and debits. 

15 Did you have occasion also to see those 

16 financial records? 

17 A These are from trial exhibits? 

18 Q That's unclear to me. 

19 MR. STREETER: That was his testimony. 

20 THE WITNESS: You know, I -- I may have 

21 flipped through a bunch of exhibits. And I may 

22 have seen -- I may have seen things marked as 

 1 trial exhibits that may have been financial 

 2 records. I don't have any specific -- I don't 

 3 have a recollection of specific ones. It may have 

 4 just have been that I clicked on a few exhibits to 

 5 see what sorts of things were on the disk. 

 6 BY MR. DEZSI: 

 7 Q Okay. And so you don't have any 

 8 recollection of -- of who -- who the 

 9 individuals -- 

10 A No. 

11 Q -- were to which those records 

12 pertained? 

13 A You know, actually, I think the records 

14 that I particularly recall looking at were records 

15 belonging to the law firm. I'm not sure that I 

16 saw any of the individuals' records. 

 Deposition of Mark Shonkwiler 47:12-48:16 (Exh. 6). 

16. No FEC staff has seen any bank checking account statement containing 

either the name Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise relating to their private financial 

information, as FEC witnesses confirmed.

11 Q Have you ever seen a check account from 

12 any financial institution for either Jack or Renee 

13 Beam? 

14 A I'm sorry. A check account? 

15 Q A checking account balance statement. 

16 A Oh, like a -- like your monthly -- 

17 Q Monthly statement. 

18 A -- statement from the bank? No. 

19 Q I'm sorry. My question was really 

7

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 15
20 unclear. 

21 A No, I've never seen that for either of 

22 the Beams. 

 Sealander Dep. 26:11-22 (Exh. 3). 

 4 Q Have you ever seen any checking account 

 5 from any institution, financial institution that 

 6 belongs to Jack Beam? 

 7 A No. 

 8 Q Have you ever seen any checking account 

 9 from any financial institution that belongs to 

10 Renee Beam? 

11 A No. 

 Bayes Dep. 76:4-11 (Exh. 5). 

17. No FEC staff has seen any document containing the social security 

number or home address of either Jack or Renee Beam, as FEC witnesses confirmed. 

 6 Q Okay. Have you ever seen a social 

 7 security number for Jack or for Renee Beam? 

 8 A Not that I remember. In fact, I think I 

 9 would remember that. So I -- I think -- feel 

10 fairly certain the answer is no. 

 

 Sealander Dep. 26:6-10 (Exh. 3). 

 9 Q With respect to Jack Beam, have you ever 

10 seen any document that contains a social security 

11 number -- the social security number of Mr. Beam? 

12 A Not to my knowledge. 

13 Q Have you ever seen any document that 

14 contains a social security number of Renee Beam? 

15 A Not to my knowledge. 

 Hearron Dep. 54:9-15 (Exh. 4). 

18 Q All right. Now, with respect to Jack 

19 Beam, have you ever seen any document whatsoever 

20 that contains his social security number? 

21 A Not to my recollection, no. 

22 Q Have you ever seen any document of any 

 1 sort whatsoever that contains the social security 

 2 number of Renee Beam? 

8

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 15
 3 A No, not to my recollection. 

 Bayes Dep. 75:18-76:3 (Exh. 5). 

 2 Q Do you recall seeing any document in 

 3 this case, in your involvement on this case, 

 4 containing a social security number for Jack or 

 5 Renee Beam? 

 6 A I do not. 

 7 Q Do you recall seeing any document 

 8 anywhere that contains a home address for Jack or 

 9 Renee Beam in this matter? 

10 A I recall seeing Jack and Renee Beam's 

11 response to the complaint. I don't recall what 

12 address was on it. I don't know if it was a 

13 business or a home address. It was a -- it was a 

14 colorful response, which is why it sticks in my 

15 mind. But I don't recall what the address was on 

16 the top of the letterhead. 

17 Q Have you seen any financial information 

18 that contains a home address for Jack or Renee 

19 Beam? 

20 A That that -- no. 

 Shonkwiler Dep. 52:2-20 (Exh. 6). 

18. No FEC staff has seen any bank savings statement containing either the 

name Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them, as FEC witnesses 

confirmed. 

10 Q Have you seen any savings account 

11 belonging to Jack or Renee Beam that contains 

12 their address or social security number? 

13 A No. 

14 Q Have you seen any savings account of 

15 Jack or Renee Beam from any source that contains 

16 their home address or their social security 

17 number? 

18 A No. 

 Hearron Dep. 55:10-18 (Exh. 4). 

17 Q Do you recall having ever seen any bank 

18 statement belonging to Jack Beam? 

9

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 15
19 A No, I do not. 

 Shonkwiler Dep. 51:17-19 (Exh. 6). 

20. No FEC staff has seen any mutual fund or money market statement 

containing either the name Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them, as 

FEC witnesses confirmed.

12 Q Have you ever seen any market -- money 

13 market statement from any account belonging to 

14 Jack or Renee Beam? 

15 A No. 

 Bayes Dep. 76:12-15 (Exh. 5). 

 3 Q Have you seen any money market accounts 

 4 for either Jack or Renee Beam? 

 5 A No. 

 Shonkwiler Dep. 53:3-5 (Exh. 6). 

21. No FEC staff has seen any brokerage account statement containing either 

the name Jack Beam or Renee Beam or otherwise belonging to them, as FEC witnesses 

confirmed. 

21 A No, I've never seen that for either of 

22 the Beams. 

 1 Q Or a checking account? 

 2 A No, not for any -- any bank account -- 

 3 Q Including a -- 

 4 A -- including -- including a checking 

 5 account, including a savings account, including 

 6 whatever other account one might have at a bank. 

 7 Q Money market? 

 8 A Exactly. No stock account -- 

 9 Q Brokerage account? 

10 A -- right. 

11 Q Is it fair to say you've never seen any 

12 private financial information belonging to either 

13 Jack or Renee Beam? 

14 A That's correct. 

10

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 15
 Sealander Dep. 26:21-27:14 (Exh. 3). 

19 Q Have you ever seen any stock brokerage 

20 accounts belonging to Jack or Renee Beam that 

21 contains either their social security number or 

22 their home address? 

1 A No. 

 Hearron Dep. 55:19 – 56:1 (Exh. 4). 

16 Q Have you ever seen any brokerage account 

17 statement belonging to either Jack or Renee Beam? 

18 A No. 

19 Q Have you seen -- I'm running out of 

20 types of financial instruments. 

21 Have you seen any -- any stock 

22 account -- stock brokerage account records 

 1 belonging to either Jack or Renee Beam? 

 2 A No. 

 Bayes Dep. 76:16-77:2 (Exh. 5). 

21 Q Have you seen any stock brokerage 

22 accounts containing -- any stock brokerage account 

 1 for either Jack or Renee Beam? 

 2 A No. 

 Shonkwiler Dep. 52:21-53:2 (Exh. 6). 

22. No FEC staff issued an administrative subpoena of any type, including any 

request for any private financial information belonging to either Jack Beam or Renee 

Beam, as FEC witnesses confirmed. 

12 Q Okay. Just to clarify, you had said 

13 that you didn't issue any administrative 

14 subpoenas; and you said that the FEC had not 

15 personally gathered with Jack and Renee Beam's 

16 bank records at any time that you're aware of; 

17 isn't that correct? 

18 A Well, those are two separate questions. 

19 We never issued any administrative subpoenas to my 

20 knowledge with respect to Jack and Renee Beam, and 

21 did not gather and Jack and Renee Beam's bank 

22 records. 

11

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 15
 Bayes Dep. 67:12-22 (Exh. 5). 

 7 Q At any time in -- during your work on 

 8 this matter, did you have occasion to review any 

 9 financial statements generated from banks or 

10 financial institutions? 

11 A I don't believe that I ever did review 

12 any financial records. 

 Deposition of Peter Blumberg 22:7-12 (Exh. 7). 

23. No FEC Staff has ever seen any grand jury transcripts from the criminal 

trial in Detroit, Michigan, related to allegations of campaign finance violations by Fieger 

firm associates, as FEC witness confirmed. 

 3 You also testified earlier that you may 

 4 have seen grand jury transcripts in this case. 

 5 Do you recall when that might have 

 6 happened? 

 7 A Thinking about that question now, I made 

 8 a mistake with my answer. I have never seen grand 

 9 jury transcripts. I have seen trial transcripts. 

10 Q All right. So the material that you 

11 previously referred to as grand jury transcripts 

12 were in actually transcripts from the criminal 

13 trial of various defendants in the Fieger case, 

14 thus related to this case? 

15 A That's correct. 

16 Q That's fair? 

17 Do you recall when you might have seen 

18 those transcripts? 

19 A No, not exactly. It was at some point 

20 after the end of the criminal trial. 

21 Q Which was in the summer of 2008, if you 

22 recall that? 

 1 A Yes. 

 2 Q Okay. Now, with respect to material 

 3 received from the Department of Justice, have you 

 4 seen any material from the Department of Justice 

 5 relating to the Beams or to anyone else in the 

 6 Fieger universe that had its origin in the grand 

 7 jury proceedings related to that criminal trial? 

 8 A No, I have not. 

12

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 15
 Hearron Dep. 53:3-54: 8 (Exh. 4). 

 5 Q Okay. Did you review or receive any 

 6 grand jury transcripts from the Department of 

 7 Justice? 

 8 MR. STREETER: You can answer that. 

 9 THE WITNESS: No. 

 Bayes Dep. 60:5-9 (Exh. 5). 

 5 Q Okay. How about have you had occasion 

 6 to see or review any grand jury transcripts from 

 7 this matter? 

 8 A No. 

 Shonkwiler Dep. 42:5 -8 (Exh. 6). 

24. As a result, the Commission received no private financial information 

belonging to plaintiffs other than the three contribution checks received during the 

statutory audit of the John Edwards campaign. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomasenia P. Duncan_ 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

/s/ David Kolker_________

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

/s/ Harry J. Summers_____

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

13

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 15
/s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

bstreeter@fec.gov 

July 10, 2009 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

14

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 15
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that he served the foregoing Defendant Federal 

Election Commission’s Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts as to Which 

There is No Genuine Issue via the Court’s ECF filing system this 10th day of July, 2009. 

The Court’s ECF system will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail 

addresses: 

Michael R. Dezsi: m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Eric J. Beane: eric.beane@usdoj.gov 

United States Department of Justice 

Tamara Ulrich: tamara.Ulrich@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice 

Linda A. Wawzenski: linda.wawzenski@usdoj.gov

Assistant United States Attorney 

 /s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III______________

 Benjamin A. Streeter III 

 Attorney 

 Federal Election Commission 

 999 E Street, NW 

 Washington, D.C. 20463 

 bstreeter@fec.gov 

 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-3 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 4 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 5 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 6 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 7 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 8 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 9 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 10 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 11 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 12 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 13 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 14 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 15 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 16 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 17 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 18 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 19 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 20 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 21 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 22 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 23 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 24 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 25 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 26 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 27 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 28 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 29 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 30 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 31 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 32 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 33 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 34 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 35 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 36 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 37 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 38 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 39 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 40 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 41 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 42 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 43 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 44 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 45 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 46 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 47 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 48 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 49 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 50 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 51 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 52 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 53 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 54 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 55 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 56 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 57 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 58 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 59 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 60 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 61 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 62 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 63 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 64 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 65 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 66 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 67 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 68 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 69 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 70 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 71 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 72 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 73 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 74 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 75 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 76 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 77 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 78 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 79 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 80 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 81 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 82 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 83 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 84 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 85 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 86 of 87
Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-4 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 87 of 87
 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK BEAM and RENEE BEAM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

and ROBERT LENHARD, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION 

CHAIRMAN, 

 Defendants. 

Civil No. 07cv1227 

Judge Pallmeyer 

Mag. Judge Cole 

NOTICE OF FILING 

To: Michael R. Deszi 

 Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson, PC 

 19390 West Ten Mile Road 

 Southfield, MI 48075 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 10, 2009 the Defendant Federal Election 

Commission filed electronically with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois its Motion for Summary Judgment, a Memorandum of Law in 

support thereof, and an accompanying Local Rule 56.1 Statement, copies of which are herewith 

served upon you. 

DATED this 10th day of July, 2009. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Thomasenia P. Duncan 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

General Counsel 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-5 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 1 of 3
2

/s/ David Kolker 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

/s/ Harry J. Summers 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

 

/s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AND ITS 

CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-5 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 10, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of Filing, 

the FEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment, a Memorandum of Law in support thereof and the 

Commission’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement 

. The Court’s Commission/ECF system will send notification of such filing to the 

following e-mail addresses: 

Michael R. Dezsi: m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Eric J. Beane: eric.beane@usdoj.gov 

United States Department of Justice 

Tamara Ulrich: tamara.Ulrich@usdoj.gov

United States Department of Justice 

Linda A. Wawzenski: linda.wawzenski@usdoj.gov

Assistant United States Attorney 

/s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Benjamin A. Streeter III _____ 

Attorney 

bstreeter@fec.gov 

 

3

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 142-5 Filed 07/10/2009 Page 3 of 3