UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JACK and RENEE BEAM,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 07-cv-1227

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

vs.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, in his official capacity;

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN

DAVID M. MASON, in his official capacity;

UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, in their

individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, Jack and Renee Beam, bring this Complaint against the above named Defendants

seeking monetary damages, declaratory relief, and any equitable relief provided for by law. In

support of their complaint, Plaintiffs state the following:

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

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. 

2. Plaintiffs are the target of a politically motivated investigation initiated by Defendants

because of Plaintiffs’ political activities and support of former presidential and vice presidential

candidate John Edwards.

3. Defendant Michael Mukasey is the current United States Attorney General. At the

time of the facts giving rise to Plaintiffs’ complaint, Alberto R. Gonzales was the United States

Attorney General who served at the pleasure of President George W. Bush. Prior to his appointment

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 1 of 9
-2-

as United States Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales served as White House Counsel to President

George W. Bush, and prior to that, he was appointed by then Governor George W. Bush to serve as

a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

3. Defendant David M. Mason is the current Chairman of the Federal Election

Commission. At the time of facts giving rise to Plaintiffs’ complaint, the FEC was chaired by

Michael E. Toner who was appointed by President George W. Bush. Prior to his appointment by

President Bush, Toner served as Chief Counsel to the Republican National Committee, and prior to

that Mr. Toner served as General Counsel of the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and General Counsel

of the Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign. 

4. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Honorable Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this being

a civil action arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. 

5. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 & 2202, this being an action

for declaratory judgment and equitable relief authorized by law to redress deprivations under color

of law of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution. 

6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, and in taking all of the actions described

herein, Defendants have acted and threaten to act under color of law and were effecting, and will

effect, the custom, policies, rules, and laws of the United States of America.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

7. In February 2003, Jack Beam and his wife, Renee Beam, contributed to the 2004

presidential campaign of John Edwards. Jack Beam serves of counsel to the Michigan law firm of

Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 2 of 9
-3-

8. On November 30, 2005, Attorney General Gonzales personally authorized an

unprecedented nighttime raid upon the Michigan law offices of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson.

9. On the same evening of November 30, 2005, Gonzales authorized approximately 100

federal agents to simultaneously raid the homes of the associates and employees of the Fieger law

firm.

10. The ostensible reason for this unprecedented massive raid was that the employees,

associates, and family members of the Fieger law firm made contributions to Democratic presidential

candidate John Edwards.

11. While appearing at the homes of the Fieger firm employees, federal agents harassed

American citizens about who they voted for in the 2004 presidential election and about their

financial support of John Edwards. Federal agents also revealed that they had previously obtained

the Fieger firm employees’ and associates’ financial records.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT

12. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 11 above as though fully

set fort herein.

13. Following this unprecedented raid, Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam sought to

ascertain whether, and by what means, federal agents had raided their bank accounts and

obtained their private financial records.

14. Pursuant to federal law, a financial institution must inform, upon request of its

customer, whether federal agents have accessed its customer’s account. The Right to Financial

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 3 of 9
-4-

Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. §3401 et. seq., is intended to protect the privacy and security of account

holders such as Jack and Renee Beam.

15. Initially, Merrill Lynch refused to disclose to Plaintiffs whether federal agents had

accessed their financial records.

16. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam obtained documentary proof that

federal agents of the Justice Department and/or FBI had, in fact, obtained their financial records by

engaging in acts and/or omissions that violate the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

17. After secretly obtaining Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam’s private financial records,

federal agents sought to conceal their misconduct in violation of federal law.

18. Upon information and belief, sometime after Gonzales and his agents secretly

obtained Plaintiffs’ private banking records, Gonzales and his agent(s) transmitted such illegally

gathered documents to the Federal Election Commission.

19. The acts or omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, have resulted in the

deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the Constitution,

statutes, and regulations of the United States including acts that violate the Right to Financial Privacy

Act.

20. As a result of their deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by federal

law, Plaintiffs have been injured pursuant to § 3417 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act which

provides Plaintiffs with a statutory cause of action for civil penalties including actual and punitive

damages for their injuries arising from Defendants’ acts or omissions and/or failure to comply with

the provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 4 of 9
-5-

COUNT II

RETALIATION AND DEPRIVATION OF FIRST

AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH

21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 above as though fully set

forth herein.

22. Since June 2005, Mr. Gonzales, by and through the Justice Department, FBI, and

United States Attorneys, has undertaken the largest and most extensive politically motivated

campaign finance investigation in the history of America targeting Democratic contributors including

Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam.

23. In the course of Defendants’ politically motivated investigation, federal agents, under

the direction of Mr. Gonzales, have compelled numerous individuals to reveal for whom they voted

in the 2004 presidential election. Such strong arm tactics on the part of federal agents reek of

totalitarianism and serves no legitimate governmental purpose.

24. Defendants acts or omissions of illegally obtaining Plaintiffs’ private banking records

was carried out to instill fear and retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of their political activities and

support for Democratic candidates and without serving any legitimate law enforcement purpose. 

25. Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern, custom, practice, and official policy

of retaliating against Plaintiffs for no legitimate or valid reason but instead based on their political

support of past and present Democratic candidates for political office.

26. Defendants acts are not made with any expectation of securing valid convictions, but

rather are part of a plan to employ arrests, seizures, and threats of prosecution under color of law to

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 5 of 9
-6-

harass and discourage Plaintiffsfrom asserting and attempting to assert their constitutional rights to

freely engage in the political process. 

27. Defendants, and each of them, have violated the free speech rights of the Plaintiffs

guaranteed to them by the First Amendment by their attempts to silence them and/or to exert such

a chilling effect upon Plaintiffs’ free speech rights that their expression(s) of opinion will be

substantially diluted by the fear of further and future retaliation. As the Supreme Court has

emphasized, “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,

unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 353 (1976).

28. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in acts of bad faith by invoking and/or

threatening to invoke criminal process without any ultimate success, but only to discourage

Plaintiffs’ civil rights activities.

COUNT III

DEPRIVATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE FREE

FROM SELECTIVE AND VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION

29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 above as though fully set

forth herein.

30. At all times during the facts underlying this Complaint, Defendants were charged with

administering fairly and impartially the Federal Election Campaign Act.

31. However, with respect to Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam, Defendants, for reasons

of personal and political animosity, acted with discriminatory purpose and intent by selectively and

vindictively targeting Jack and Renee Beam with frivolous and demonstrably false claims of

campaign finance violations.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 6 of 9
-7-

32. Specifically, in September 2006, Defendant Toner accused Jack and Renee Beam of

making a contribution “in the name of another” in violation of 2 U.S.C. § 441f. Defendant Toner

also claimed, without any basis in fact, that Jack and/or Renee Beam have never before contributed

to a political campaign, when, in fact, both Jack and Renee Beam have been politically active and

have contributed to many federal candidates over the years.

33. The purpose of Defendant Toner’s letter was not to serve any legitimate governmental

purpose but rather was designed to threaten, intimidate, and chill the exercise of Plaintiffs’ First

Amendment rights.

34. Defendants have conspired to target individuals including Plaintiffs for frivolous and

demonstrably false claims of campaign finance violations in order to instill fear of further and future

retaliation and to chill Plaintiffs’ rights of free speech and expression.

35. The discriminatory acts or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, have resulted

in the deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to the Plaintiffs by the

Constitution of the United States.

36. Defendants acts of vindictively targeting Plaintiffs for demonstrably false campaign

finance violations was calculated solely to deter and/or punish Plaintiffs for the exercise of their

Constitutional rights. Defendants acts or omissions have caused, and continue to cause, substantial

injury and chilling effect to Plaintiffs’ rights secured by the Constitution and federal law.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled:

(a) a declaration that Defendants’ conduct is unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to the

provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act;

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 7 of 9
-8-

(b) monetary damages as authorized by law;

(c) any other relief, injunctive or otherwise, as the Court deems just and equitable including

costs and attorney fees;

Respectfully submitted,

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & JOHNSON, P.C.

 

/s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

19390 W. Ten Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48075

 (248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Dated: March 24, 2008

REAFFIRMATION OF JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby reaffirms their demand for trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted,

FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & JOHNSON, P.C.

 

/s/ Michael R. Dezsi 

MICHAEL R. DEZSI (P64530)

Attorney for Plaintiffs

19390 W. Ten Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48075

 (248) 355-5555

m.dezsi@fiegerlaw.com

Dated: March 24, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 24, 2008 she electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

Eric J. Beane at eric.bean@usdoj.gov

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

Tamra L. Ulrich at tamara.ulrich@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

Benjamin A. Streeter, III at bstreeter@fec.gov

Colleen T. Sealander at csealander@fec.gov

Attorneys for Robert Lenhard/Federal Election Commission

s/ Julie A. Nardone 

JULIE A. NARDONE 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 91 Filed 03/24/2008 Page 9 of 9