UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff -Appellee, 

 v. 

JODY L. NOVACEK, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

No. 10-10516 

 RESPONSE 

APPELLEE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

RESPONSE TO APPELLANT’S MOTION TO 

REPRESENT CORPORATE ENTITIES 

The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) files this response in 

opposition to Appellant Jody L. Novacek’s motion to represent certain corporate 

entities before this Court. Fifth Circuit precedent is dispositive on the question 

raised within Novacek’s motion. As a non-attorney, Novacek cannot represent the 

Republican Victory Committee, Inc., BPO, Inc., or BPO Advantage LP. “[T]he 

‘clear’ rule is ‘that a corporation as a fictional legal person can only be represented 

by licensed counsel.’” Donovan v. Road Rangers Country Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 

1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting K.M.A., Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance 

Corp., 652 F.2d 398, 399 (5th Cir.1982)); accord Southwest Express Co. v. 

Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 670 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1982). The Supreme 

Court has consistently applied this long-standing rule, which “for the better part of 

Case: 10-10516 Document: 00511224657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2010
2 

two centuries . . . [has required] that a corporation may appear in the federal courts 

only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 

202-203 (1993); accord Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 U.S. 738, 830 (1824) 

(“A corporation, it is true, can appear only by attorney, while a natural person may 

appear for himself”).1

 Requiring licensed counsel subject to legal knowledge requirements and 

standards of professional responsibility helps to insure the proper administration of 

justice. See Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook County, 543 

F.2d 32, 33-34 (7th Cir. 1976); Fed. R. App. P. 46(a)-(c) (attorney admission 

requirements and disciplinary provisions). This Court has emphasized the 

importance “of the [c]enturies-old concept of a Court having a lawyer before it 

who has been qualified to practice, and who is subject to the Court’s control[.]” 

Southwest Express Co., 670 F.2d at 55. These considerations are appropriate in 

this case. For example, Novacek has not provided a physical mailing address or 

 

1

 Other circuits have uniformly applied this rule. See In re Victor Publ’ers, 

Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 (1st Cir. 1976); Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.,

722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373, 374 

(3d Cir. 1966); Tamojira, Inc. v. Lubman, 20 Fed. Appx. 133, 133-34 (4th Cir. 

2001); United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (6th Cir. 1969);

Strong Delivery Ministry Ass’n v. Bd. of Appeals of Cook County, 543 F.2d 32, 34 

(7th Cir. 1976); Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1989); TAL v. 

Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2004); Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 

901 F.2d 165, 166 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 

1366 (Fed Cir. 1983).

Case: 10-10516 Document: 00511224657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2010
3 

telephone number to opposing counsel, the district court, or this Court. See FEC v. 

Novacek, Civ. No. 09- 444, (N.D. Tex.) (Docket Nos. 17, 34, 37, showing mail 

undeliverable to Novacek and the corporate entities at 1221 Lakeridge Lane, Irving 

Texas); Appellant’s Mot. to Extended Deadline, No. 10-10516, at 2 (5th Cir. July 

13, 2010). The nonworking Texas address on record with the district court and this 

Court has never been updated by Novacek. 

 Novacek argues that since the Republican Victory Committee, Inc., and the 

BPO entities “are mere pass-through, single member entities that are wholly owned 

and operated by Novacek” that she should be allowed to represent them before this 

Court. Appellant’s Mot. to Represent Corporate Entities, at 2 (Aug. 24, 2010) 

(citing FEC’s Mot. for Summ. J., Civ. No. 09-444, at 16 (N.D. Tex., Nov. 30, 

2009)).2

 However, Novacek’s argument only speaks to whether she observed 

corporate formalities on behalf of the corporations in the past and does not 

constitute a reason for this Court to depart from long-standing precedent. The 

legal benefits of corporate status come along with responsibilities that corporations 

observe certain formalities, which include appearing through counsel before the 

 

2

 Although the Commission sought below to hold the defendants jointly and 

severally liable for the violations because “Novacek was solely responsible for 

RVC and BPO” and to “facilitate collection of the penalty”(id. at 19 n.5), the 

Commission did not question the corporate entities’ separate legal status. The 

Commission has consistently objected to the corporate defendants’ failure to 

appear through counsel. Id. at 16.

Case: 10-10516 Document: 00511224657 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2010
4 

courts. See generally TAL v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1255 (10th Cir. 2004). This 

Court has considered and rejected Novacek’s argument, explaining that the counsel 

requirement remains in force “even when the person seeking to represent the 

corporation is its president and major stockholder.” K.M.A., Inc., 652 F.2d at 399 

(citations omitted); accord Southwest Express Co., Inc., 670 F.2d at 55 

(appearance through non-lawyer “consistently rejected when raised”). This 

requirement is enforced “regardless of how close [the layperson’s] association [is] 

with the partnership or corporation.” Id. at 56. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission requests that this Court deny 

appellant’s motion to represent corporate entities before this Court. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Christopher Hughey 

Acting General Counsel 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 s/ Greg J. Mueller 

 Greg J. Mueller 

Attorney 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20463 

September 3, 2010 (202) 694-1650 

Case: 10-10516 Document: 00511224657 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/03/2010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 3, 2010, I will cause the Appellee 

Federal Election Commission’s Response to Appellant’s Motion to 

Represent Corporate Entities to be filed electronically using the Court’s 

CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to any 

counsel or party using the system. I further certify that I caused the 

foregoing to be served by email on Defendant-Appellant Jody L. Novacek 

at: jodylnovacek@hotmail.com. 

s/ Greg J. Mueller 

Greg J. Mueller 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

gmueller@fec.gov 

Case: 10-10516 Document: 00511224657 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/03/2010