IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GEOFFREY N. FIEGER, 

NANCY FISHER, and FIEGER, 

FIEGER, KENNEDY & JOHNSON, P.C., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 

ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

and MICHAEL E. TONER, FEDERAL 

ELECTION COMMISSION 

CHAIRMAN, 

Civil Action No. 07-10533 

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

ANSWER 

ANSWER OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

The Commission responds to the numbered paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ Application for Writ 

of Mandamus and Complaint as follows and denies everything not specifically given a response. 

1. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the first two sentences. To the extent the third sentence of this paragraph makes 

a factual allegation regarding the Commission, the Commission DENIES the allegation. 

2. ADMIT. 

3. The Commission DENIES the first sentence. Robert D. Lenhard is the current 

chairman of the Commission and was the chairman when plaintiffs filed their complaint. Mr. 

Toner is no longer a member of the Commission. In any event, it is the Commission, not its 

chairman that has statutory authority to administer the Act. The Commission ADMITS the 

second sentence of this paragraph. 

4. DENY. 

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 1 of 6
2

 5. This paragraph describes plaintiffs’ complaint and legal conclusions, to which no 

response is required. 

 6. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the allegations in this paragraph regarding the Attorney General. To the extent this 

paragraph purports to make a factual allegation regarding the Commission, it is unintelligible and 

vague so that no response is possible. If a response is deemed required, the Commission 

DENIES the allegation. 

 7-10. These paragraphs purport to describe statutory provisions that speak for 

themselves and to which no response is required. The Commission ADMITS that it has 

exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Act. 

 11. The Commission ADMITS that it made reason-to-believe findings to the extent 

plaintiffs have already publicly disclosed those findings in Exhibit B to their Motion for 

Declaratory Judgment. 

 12. The Commission DENIES that it has failed to do anything required by the Act. 

 13. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and purports to describe 

statutory provisions, which speak for themselves. No response is therefore required. 

 14. The Commission can neither admit nor deny the allegation in this paragraph 

because the Act prohibits the Commission or “any person” — which includes the Commission’s 

attorneys, as well as plaintiffs and their attorneys — from making public any notification or any 

investigation by the Commission in any administrative enforcement proceeding, without the 

written consent of the recipient(s) of the notification(s) or the subjects of the investigation(s). 

2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(12).

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 2 of 6
3

15-17. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of these allegations. 

 18. In this paragraph plaintiffs’ re-allege paragraphs 1-17. Likewise, the Commission 

incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-17. 

 19. There is no statute entitled the “Federal Campaign Finance Act.” To the extent 

that plaintiffs intend to refer to the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended, 2 U.S.C. 431-

55, that statute speaks for itself and no response is required. 

 20. The Commission ADMITS that it has opened an investigation, to the extent 

plaintiffs have already publicly disclosed that fact in Exhibit B to their Motion for Declaratory 

Judgment. The Commission can neither admit nor deny any other allegations in this paragraph 

for the reasons stated in the response to paragraph 14, supra.

21. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the allegations in the first sentence regarding the Attorney General. The Commission 

DENIES the remainder of the paragraph. 

 22-24. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and legal argument. The 

statutes plaintiffs purport to describe speak for themselves and no response, therefore, is 

required. To the extent these paragraphs contains any factual allegations regarding the 

Commission, the Commission DENIES them. 

 25. In this paragraph plaintiffs’ re-allege paragraphs 1-24. Likewise, the Commission 

incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-24. 

 26. This paragraph purports to describe a statutory provision which speaks for itself, 

therefore no response is required. 

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 3 of 6
4

 27. The Commission DENIES the first sentence, to the extent it suggests the 

Commission has failed to comply with the law; plaintiffs have already publicly disclosed that the 

Commission has instituted an investigation in Exhibit B to their Motion for Declaratory 

Judgment. The Commission DENIES the second sentence. 

 28. DENY. 

 29. In this paragraph plaintiffs’ re-allege paragraphs 1-28. Likewise, the Commission 

incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-28. 

 30. DENY. 

 31. This paragraph quotes a statutory provision that speaks for itself and to which no 

response is required. 

 The final paragraph contains a request for relief to which no response is required. 

However, if an answer may be deemed necessary, the Commission DENIES that any relief 

should be granted against the Commission and requests that plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed as 

to the Commission, and that the Commission be awarded any additional relief that may be 

authorized by law. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Affirmative Defenses 

1. The Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim plaintiffs have asserted against the 

Commission. 

2. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim against the Commission upon which relief 

can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomasenia P. Duncan 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Thomasenia P. Duncan 

Acting General Counsel 

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 4 of 6
5

 /s/ Colleen T. Sealander _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 Colleen T. Sealander 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Benjamin A. Streeter III _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

 /s/ Greg J. Mueller _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Greg J. Mueller 

Attorney 

April 9, 2007 FOR THE DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

 

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 5 of 6
6

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that on April 9, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the 

Clerk of the Court using the ECF System, which will send notification of such filing to the 

following. 

Michael R. Dezsi 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Peter A. Caplan 

Counsel for the United States 

 I further certify that I have mailed by U.S. mail the paper to the following non-ECF 

participant: 

Alan M. Dershowitz 

26 Reservoir Street 

Cambridge, MA 02138 

 /s/ Greg J. Mueller 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Greg J. Mueller 

Attorney 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

AND ITS CHAIRMAN 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 2:07-cv-10533-LPZ-MKM Document 16 Filed 04/09/2007 Page 6 of 6