1:13-cv-01225 #75

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendant.

Civ. No. 13-cv-1225-JCC/IDD

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number (“PEX”)

Description

1

Response to NOM’s Privacy Act Request (NOM-001131-NOM-001132)

2

Excerpts from Deposition of Chris Cheippa (March 11, 2014)

3

Excerpts of Report of Investigation of Treasury Inspection General for Tax Administration

4

Notice of Deposition of Defendant United States of America, Internal Revenue Service

5

Excerpts from Deposition of David Hamilton (March 11, 2014)

6

Excerpts from Deposition of Sherry Whitaker (March 11, 2014)

7

Excerpts of emails of IRS agents and officials

8

Excerpts from Deposition of Wendy Peters (January 29, 2014)

9

Excerpts of Internal Revenue Manuals

10

Excerpts from Deposition of David Hamilton (January 29, 2014)

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 75 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 1340

2

11

GOV-PROD-0002167-0002169 (Emails between Wendy Peters and Peggy Riley)

12

Excerpts from Deposition of Fred Karger (March 12, 2014)

13

Correspondence between NOM and California Fair Political Practices Commission

14

Excerpts from Deposition of Brian Brown (March 14, 2014)

15

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests (January 21, 2014)

16

GOV-PROD-0000220-0000221 (Statistics of Income/Exempt Organizations Imaging Flow Charts)

17

IRS Memorandum: “Submission Processing Programs Review of the EO RAVIS Photocopy Process”

18

IRS Response to NOM’s FOIA Request (August 6, 2013)

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 75 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 1341

Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 - Page 1

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 75-1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 1342







FRED KARGER, MARCH 12, 2014

Huntington Court Reporters & Transcription, Inc. 1301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 150, Pasadena, CA 91101 1-800-586-2988

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 FOR THE

3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

4

5 THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR ) MARRIAGE, INC., )

6 ) Plaintiffs, )

7 ) Civil Action No.: vs. ) 13-1225-JCC-IDD

8 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

9 ) Defendants. )

10 ) __________________________________)

11

12 CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT

13 THE DEPOSITION OF FRED KARGER, taken on behalf

14 of Defendants, at 300 North Los Angeles, Suite 7211,

15 Los Angeles, California 90012, at 1:37 P.M., Wednesday,

16 March 12, 2014, before HILDA GUTIERREZ, CSR No. 12714, RPR,

17 pursuant to Notice.

18

19 * * *

20

21

22

23

24

25





1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2 For the Plaintiff:

3 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY BY: JOHN C. EASTMAN

4 One University Drive Orange, California 92866

5 (714) 628-2587 [email protected]

6

7 ACT RIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION BY: KAYLAN L. PHILLIPS

8 209 West Main Street Plainfield, Indiana, 46168


10

11 For the Defendants:

12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY: BENJAMIN L. TOMPKINS

13 Tax Division P.O. Box 14198

14 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 514-5885

15 [email protected]

16

17 For the Deponent:

18 THE SUTTON LAW FIRM BY: BRADLEY W. HERTZ

19 22647 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California 91364


21

22

23

24

25





1 A. No. It was -- that's when the campaign reports

2 were filed on how much they spent. This was last fall when

3 I filed my complaint. I think it was September.

4 Q. I was just correcting for the record. You said

5 January 31, and I assume it was 2013?

6 A. Yes. Of this year.

7 Q. To make the record clear.

8 A. January 31, 2014.

9 Q. Now in California, how many complaints have you

10 filed?

11 A. Against NOM?

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. Just one.

14 Q. And when was that?

15 A. That was -- can I look at notes?

16 Q. Was that the one you produced to us?

17 A. Yes. It was -- I think it was about April 14 or

18 16 of 2012.

19 Q. Did you made any other complaints against NOM?

20 A. I did a supplemental.

21 Q. In '09?

22 A. In '09, no.

23 Q. Okay.

24 A. I may have done a supplemental complaint, as often

25 as the case in an ethics investigation. Once an initial





1 complaint is filed, you are allowed to file a supplemental

2 complaint if more evidence is gathered. I may have done

3 that with the Maine campaign. I don't recall.

4 Q. I was just asking about California.

5 A. California, I definitely did. My original

6 complaint was just citing Mitt Romney's 10,000-dollar

7 contribution which had not been reported on NOM's campaign

8 reports for 2008. And then, about a month later, I filed a

9 supplemental complaint with ten other donors that had not

10 been reported during the Prop. 8 campaign.

11 Q. But you had not done anything with regard to NOM

12 prior to 2012?

13 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the

14 "not done" anything.

15 Q. BY MR. TOMPKINS: Not filed a complaint with the

16 California Fair Political Practices Commission.

17 A. Correct. Against NOM, I have not.

18 Q. Had you filed a complaint against the Mormon

19 church?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Did that implicate NOM?

22 A. There are definite connections to NOM in that

23 complaint. But I don't believe I named them. I just named

24 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as one of

25 the offending party.





1 you see the contributions?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you -- the name, address, and ZIP are

4 redacted?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Have you ever seen an unredacted 2009 Form 990 for

7 NOM?

8 A. Yes. I saw on the Huffington Post.

9 Q. Was that 2009 or 2008?

10 A. Oh, I'm sorry. That was 2008.

11 Q. Have you ever seen a 2009 --

12 A. No.

13 Q. -- unredacted Schedule B?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Have you ever requested one from the IRS?

16 A. No. Unredacted?

17 Q. Have you requested a Form 990 --

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. -- from the IRS. But did you receive an

20 unredacted copy from the IRS?

21 A. No.

22 Q. And does looking at this document refresh your

23 recollection as to where you received it?

24 A. No.

25 Q. If you look on the first page, Karger 327, do you





1 A. May have.

2 Q. You don't recall any of these -- what was

3 submitted to the IRS?

4 A. No, I don't.

5 Q. Did you ever talk to the IRS about that

6 information?

7 A. I don't believe so.

8 Q. When you were deciding to file your complaint, did

9 you talk to anyone at the White House?

10 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

11 Do you mean the FPPC complaint?

12 MR. TOMPKINS: Yes. The California complaint in 2009.

13 THE WITNESS: No.

14 Q. BY MR. TOMPKINS: Did you talk to anyone at the --

15 with the United States?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Why did you file your complaint, the California

18 complaint related to NOM.

19 A. I had seen their dishonesty, their bigotry, their

20 hatred, their questionable reporting practices before. And

21 it appeared that they were doing it again, and it was a big

22 news item when it broke, with the Mitt Romney 10,000-dollar

23 contribution included.

24 And I very quickly filed my complaint with our

25 state Ethics Commission here because I believed that





1 there was a violation. They had not reported the Romney

2 10,000-dollar contribution which came just three weeks

3 prior to the election in 2008.

4 Q. When you say election, you mean the presidential

5 election?

6 A. The Proposition 8 election.

7 Q. The Proposition A election.

8 A. Which coincided with the presidential election.

9 Q. Let me show you what's marked as 81.

10

11 (Exhibit 81 was marked for identification.)

12

13 Q. BY MR. TOMPKINS: This is -- you had sticky notes

14 in your documents, and we took those and photocopied them

15 and numbered them. So you have the original FPPC complaint

16 and then there was a supplemental complaint?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And that's Karger 167 through 205.

19 And so you filed -- the original complaint focused

20 on the donation for Governor Romney through Free and Strong

21 America?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And if you look on Karger 168, the first paragraph

24 under the heading. Do you see that?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. You reference "unsealed documents by a federal

2 judge."

3 What are you referring to?

4 A. At that point, this was -- the news about Mitt

5 Romney's 10,000-dollar contribution was just three days

6 after a judge in the federal lawsuit that NOM filed against

7 Maine had released four exhibits, which were widely

8 publicized, including all of their campaign strategy,

9 memos, and got tremendous amount of attention. And then

10 three days later, when this 10,000-Romney contribution came

11 out as a result of their tax returns that were released,

12 that I assumed, I found out incorrectly, that that was part

13 of the unsealed records from the federal lawsuit in Maine.

14 Q. When you say tax returns, you are referring to tax

15 return, the 2008 return?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You're not referring to another tax return?

18 A. No. Correct.

19 Q. So when you filed the complaint, you thought this

20 document, the unredacted 2008 schedule -- or with the

21 Schedule B unredacted 2008 Form 990 was from that

22 unsealing?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Do you now have -- know something different?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. What do you know?

2 A. I know that it was not from those. Those were

3 four separate unsealed documents. This was coincidentally

4 around the very same period, but it was from apparently

5 illegally obtained IRS tax returns of NOM.

6 Q. Do you know how they were obtained? You said

7 "illegally obtained."

8 A. Just what I have read. They were retained by

9 someone who had requested them. And so I heard the IRS

10 testify it was an inadvertent mistake from the IRS.

11 Q. Did you -- how did you learn about the tax return,

12 the 2008 unredacted Form 990?

13 A. I assume I -- I read it like everyone else, either

14 in the Huffington Post or one of the dozen other web sites

15 it was published on.

16 Q. So you don't remember where?

17 A. I don't remember exactly. I was campaigning for

18 the president at the time and was very busy and in

19 California. But I do remember reading about it. It became

20 a very big news story very quickly.

21 Q. How long were you campaigning for president?

22 A. Two and a half years.

23 Q. When did you stop campaigning?

24 A. June 29, 2012.

25 Q. And when you -- we went through some names. But





1 Q. -- on the Alabama web site?

2 MR. EASTMAN: Objection as to form.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was publicly available, and

4 these are the links that I, now that I look at it, was able

5 to get that form from. The first one is from NOM Exposed.

6 They had published that. I cut and pasted it in the

7 release.

8 Q. BY MR. TOMPKINS: What was the second complaint,

9 the supplemental FPPC complaint?

10 A. After I looked at the full list of donor names to

11 NOM in 2008, we took the names that NOM had reported during

12 the Proposition 8 campaign and those that hadn't. And in

13 addition to Mitt Romney, we found ten other contributions

14 that we allege were not reported to the Proposition 8

15 campaign expenditures by NOM. And so that was the meat in

16 the second or supplemental, rather, complaint.

17 Q. Two of those were already publicly available,

18 those individuals?

19 A. Yes. They had reported partial contributions but

20 not full contributions.

21 Q. And -- and was there a -- strike that.

22 You include a sworn complaint form for the

23 supplemental complaint?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Was that supposed to be included with the first





1 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Is this an accurate copy of the

2 e-mail you had sent back to Mr. Wooledge in response to his

3 questions?

4 A. I believe so.

5 Q. Okay. Let's move on to the next one.

6 Okay. Because you claimed very specifically that

7 this came from Exhibit 10 in the Maine litigation, I want

8 to go through this briefly, the possibilities there.

9 When you referred to the Maine litigation earlier,

10 you were talking about the case, National Organization for

11 Marriage versus McKee?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. All right. And this is a docket report of that

14 litigation, and it lists every pleading that was filed in

15 that litigation. I am not going to ask you to go through

16 that whole thing. I am, however, going to short circuit

17 this a little bit.

18 We've searched through the entire pleading, and

19 the next couple of documents we'll identify -- I had them

20 highlighted. So I have them out of order.

21 There they are.

22 Put them both together as one exhibit.

23


25





1 MS. PHILLIPS: I gave you the wrong page.

2 MR. HERTZ: Okay. Now I see the three references.

3 MR. EASTMAN: Let's make sure we've got the right one

4 there with the exhibit.

5 MR. HERTZ: Yes.

6 MR. EASTMAN: 3806 and 3819?

7 MR. HERTZ: Yes.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes.

9 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. So there are Exhibit 10

10 referenced in Docket Number 1, Docket Number 129, and

11 Docket Number 133.

12 I will give you Exhibit 10 from Docket Number 1.

13 We'll mark this as --

14 MR. TOMPKINS: 101.

15 MR. EASTMAN: 101.

16


18

19 MR. HERTZ: Objection to the extent we don't know that

20 all exhibits made it into the docket sheet.

21 MR. TOMPKINS: Join.

22 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Karger, can you describe this

23 document?

24 A. I don't see what this has to do with the IRS

25 lawsuit. Seems beyond the scope of that.





1 Q. Please answer.

2 A. This was my original complaint I filed with the

3 State of Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and

4 Election Practices against The National Organization

5 Marriage.

6 Q. It's marked Exhibit 10. Is that correct? On the

7 front page.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Okay. And that's because it's Exhibit 10 in

10 Docket Number 1, in the NOM versus McKee case.

11 Take a quick -- take a look through this. Is

12 there anything in there that reveals the name of donors to

13 NOM that appeared on their 2008 tax return.

14 MR. HERTZ: Objection. The document speaks for

15 itself.

16 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

17 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Is there anything in there that

18 reveals the identity of donors to The National Organization

19 Of Marriage?

20 Here is -- to short circuit this -- I am not

21 trying to be clever here. You had earlier specifically

22 identified an Exhibit 10 from the Maine litigation as the

23 source of the Schedule B, unredacted Schedule B that you

24 filed with the FPPC complaint.

25 I am just trying to go through all of the





1 Exhibit 10 that existed in that litigation to confirm that

2 none of those were the unredacted Schedule B.

3 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. He's already answered that.

4 Asked and answered.

5 MR. EASTMAN: He has, but he can't bind the

6 Government. I am just trying to close out any possibility

7 that NOM is the source of this unredacted document being

8 made public.

9 THE WITNESS: I recall seeing a document that had 29

10 exhibits that were -- that came from the federal judge,

11 Judge Hornby in this case. And four of those were

12 unsealed. And it seemed like -- and I would have to see

13 that document -- Item 10, I might have misstated it. But

14 one talked about the 2008 NOM tax return.

15 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. That was not this Exhibit

16 10?

17 A. I don't know. I don't know if this is the exhibit

18 that was one of the 29 exhibits. I assume there are more

19 exhibits in that federal lawsuit.

20 Q. But it's not the NOM tax return you recall seeing?

21 A. Correct. It's not the NOM tax return.

22 Q. Okay. Bear with me a little bit. There is one

23 more Exhibit 10. It's actually the same Exhibit 10 that

24 appears on two different docket reports. So that will save

25 us a little bit. We'll only do one of them.





1 Mark as Exhibit 102.

2


4

5 This Exhibit 102 should only be the top two pages.

6 Okay. Exhibit 102 is NOM-3486 to 3487.

7 MR. HERTZ: Objection. I think it misstates the

8 numbers.

9 MR. EASTMAN: 3846. NOM-3846 to 3847.

10 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: At the top it references Docket

11 Number 129, dash, 10, in the NOM versus McKee case. Docket

12 Number 129. It's reflected back on Exhibit 99 and

13 highlighted on Exhibit 100.

14 This is an Exhibit 10. It purports to be a

15 Committee Termination For Political Action Committees.

16 Any -- any reference to NOM Schedule B there?

17 A. This -- there are 281 exhibits in the list you

18 gave. I think we're talking about different lists of

19 exhibit. 29, I recall.

20 Q. Just -- just bear with me.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. There are only three places that an Exhibit 10 is

23 referenced.

24 A. Okay.

25 Q. The last one is Docket 133. If you'd go back and





1 look at Exhibit 100. If you'd look at the two highlights

2 placed on that Exhibit 100.

3 A. Which page are we on?

4 Q. NOM-3819.

5 MR. HERTZ: The second page of Exhibit 100.

6 THE WITNESS: Okay. Second page of 100. Yes.

7 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. And you see the two

8 highlighted Exhibit 10s there?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. We just looked at Docket 129, which is Committee

11 Termination Report For Political Action Committee. You see

12 after the highlight where it titles that exhibit at the top

13 of the page?

14 A. In blue?

15 MR. HERTZ: Is this after the colon after Exhibit 10?

16 MR. EASTMAN: Yes.

17 THE WITNESS: Committee Termination -- yes.

18 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: All right. Now I am asking you

19 to look at the bottom in the highlight there. Exhibit 10.

20 Committee Termination Report for Political Action

21 Committee.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. The identical description?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. We don't have a copy of that document because it's





1 sealed because it's part of an affidavit that was sealed,

2 but it's the same Exhibit 10. I just want to clear that

3 for the record.

4 MR. TOMPKINS: I will object to the statement not

5 knowing what that sealed is.

6 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Now any of those three

7 Exhibit 10s, any of the two Exhibit 10's I've showed you

8 the unredacted Schedule B that you attached as Exhibit 1 to

9 your FEC complaint?

10 A. No.

11 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Supplemental or the

12 original? The original didn't have --

13 MR. EASTMAN: To the supplemental FPPC complaint.

14 THE WITNESS: No.

15 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Now there is other

16 litigation in Maine involving NOM and the Ethics

17 Commissions that you mentioned. Is that correct?

18 A. You sue them at the state and federal level.

19 Q. Okay. Well, the federal level is the NOM versus

20 McKee case that we've been talking about.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that was the one you recall seeing a copy of

23 the document?

24 A. I never saw a copy of the document. I just

25 surmised based on the titles of the 29 exhibits.





1 Q. Okay. Now the -- I just want to close out. The

2 other proceeding was in the state court. Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And there is a third proceeding which is the

5 investigation pending before the commission itself. Is

6 that correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Have you seen any documents produced from the

9 commission tied to that investigation?

10 MR. HERTZ: In Maine?

11 MR. EASTMAN: In Maine.

12 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question.

13 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Have you seen any of the

14 documents that have been submitted to the Maine

15 investigation at the Ethics Commission by NOM. I am not

16 talking about your document that you submitted, but the NOM

17 documents.

18 A. No.

19 Q. Okay. So that could not have been the source of

20 any copy of unredacted Schedule B for NOM. Correct?

21 A. Can you repeat the question.

22 Q. So the NOM commission documents which you have not

23 seen could not have been the source of you receiving the

24 unredacted version of NOM's Schedule B. Is that correct?

25 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to form.





1 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Asked and answered.

2 THE WITNESS: I certainly didn't see the redacted --

3 MR. EASTMAN: Okay.

4 THE WITNESS: -- IRS documents from that.

5 MR. EASTMAN: All right.

6 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: And then the other proceeding in

7 Maine is the state court proceeding.

8


10

11 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Just in case there was some

12 confusion about which Exhibit 10 we were talking about,

13 what case we were talking about, I wanted to look at the

14 Maine state case.

15 This is the document, the docket from National

16 Organization For Marriage versus the Maine Commission On

17 Governmental Ethics. I will represent to you that the only

18 reference to Exhibit 10 is on the first item, "Petition for

19 Review Of Agency Action. which had Exhibits 1 through 11."

20 MR. TOMPKINS: I will object to the extent I have not

21 seen this document until today.

22 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. And --

23 MR. TOMPKINS: Just on the Blackberry.

24 MR. EASTMAN: Hard to read on the Blackberry.

25 MR. HERTZ: Question. Do they still use typewriters





1 in Maine?

2 MR. EASTMAN: Apparently.

3 Let's mark as Exhibit 104 Exhibit 10 attached to

4 that petition.

5


7

8 MR. TOMPKINS: So what is this from? 105?

9 MR. EASTMAN: This is Exhibit 10 attached to the

10 petition that was filed in the state court action to

11 suppress the subpoena that had been issued by the Ethics

12 Commission. It's the only Exhibit 10 introduced in that

13 litigation.

14 MR. TOMPKINS: I will object. You said state court.

15 This is a federal action.

16 MR. EASTMAN: No. The exhibit -- it's an exhibit to

17 the petition in the state court that is referenced on

18 Exhibit 103.

19 MR. HERTZ: And it includes the state -- a state

20 court -- a federal court affidavit used in the state court

21 case?

22 MR. EASTMAN: Federal court affidavit is an exhibit to

23 the petition in the state court case.

24 MR. TOMPKINS: What page is that on?

25 MR. EASTMAN: Exhibit 103, first page.





1 MR. TOMPKINS: I am talking about 104. I was trying

2 to figure out where the reference was that you are

3 referring to on the state court docket.

4 MR. EASTMAN: State court docket is Exhibit 103.

5 MR. TOMPKINS: That was 104. Is it 103?

6 MR. HERTZ: 104 is the Bernatche affidavit.

7 MR. TOMPKINS: Okay. So this is 104.

8 103, where are we at?

9 MR. EASTMAN: First item on the docket, the petition

10 for review with Exhibits 1 through 11.

11 MR. TOMPKINS: Got it.

12 MR. EASTMAN: And Exhibit 10 is now Exhibit 104.

13 THE WITNESS: Make it 114.

14 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Would you look at Exhibit

15 104, which is marked as Exhibit 10 in the state court

16 action attached to the petition for review.

17 Any information about NOM's donors on the

18 unredacted Schedule B included in that exhibit?

19 A. Just looks like donors to Stand For Marriage

20 Maine.

21 Q. Okay. So that is not the Exhibit 10 that you

22 referenced when you were --

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. -- preparing your FPPC complaint.

25 Okay. Now I'm sorry. I told you it was going to





1 be a bit mundane, but I had to close it out.

2 Let's go back to the NOM versus McKee case. You

3 recall the full docket was Exhibit 99. Let me mark as --

4 MS. PHILLIPS: I think I have that.

5 MR. EASTMAN: You have that one?

6 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. What we now marked as

7 Exhibit 105 is a page from the lengthy docket that was

8 Exhibit 99. It's the docket in the NOM versus McKee case.

9 And we've highlighted, in Docket Entry 19, Exhibit 9 which

10 is the Form 990 for NOM.

11 Do you see that highlighted there?

12


14

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Okay. Now I want to introduce as Exhibit 106 that

17 document.

18


20

21 This is a copy of NOM's 2008 tax return. Is that

22 correct? 990 tax return.

23 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Calls for speculation.

24 THE WITNESS: It appears to be.

25 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay.





1 MR. TOMPKINS: I will object to the extent this is

2 redacted. Depends on your characterization of tax return.

3 MR. EASTMAN: Well, we can walk it through.

4 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Does the first page on the top of

5 Exhibit 106 say Form 990?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And it's marked 2008?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And does it say, "Open to Public Inspection,"

10 underneath 2008?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And is the taxpayer listed in the box at top

13 National Organization For Marriage, Inc.?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And when you -- let's look back on Exhibit 96 for

16 a moment. This is your Huffington Post article in May of

17 2012 when you filed the supplemental FPPC complaint.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you specifically say Exhibit 10 is where these

20 11 missing large contributions appeared. You said in the

21 Maine case the Attorney's General office subpoenaed 29

22 documents, including NOM's 2008 federal tax returns. Is it

23 this document that you are referring to in that article?

24 A. I am not sure. I -- my recollection is that I was

25 just going off -- there was a list of all 29 exhibits





1 before the unsealed were shown. And I was just going off a

2 one-sentence description of those 29 documents. And I

3 surmised, as I've said, that that was where this came from

4 because that was my belief at the time.

5 Q. So you never looked back at the document to make

6 sure that your statement that this is where the missing

7 large contributions appeared was accurate?

8 A. My recollection was that there were the 29

9 mentions in the federal case of documents and I note that

10 was not one of the unsealed documents. That would have

11 been a fifth unsealed document. I believe I speculated at

12 the time because I assumed three days later that's where

13 that tax return had come from; that that was the exhibit.

14 And that's why I -- I mention that in the press release.

15 Q. But you never actually looked back at the exhibit

16 to confirm that the missing large contributions appeared on

17 it?

18 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Argumentative.

19 THE WITNESS: It was impossible because that was -- I

20 am saying not one of the unsealed documents that was --

21 that was open to the public. There were four others. That

22 was not one.

23 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Let's finish this out. Let's

24 look at Schedule B of this 990 tax return, Exhibit 106. It

25 begins on page 3863.





1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Okay. And it continues to 3864. And are there

3 dollar amounts listed on there for the individual

4 donations?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay. Are names and addresses of the donors

7 listed?

8 A. No.

9 Q. No. So this could not have been the source of the

10 missing large contributions appeared -- that identified who

11 had donated to NOM?

12 A. It appears to be a different document.

13 Q. Okay. Now one other thing before we leave,

14 Exhibit 106 aside. Are there any IRS markings across the

15 page on that tax return?

16 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Calls for speculation that

17 Mr. Karger knows what IRS markings look like.

18 MR. EASTMAN: Do you recall which exhibit was his FPPC

19 complaint?

20 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Karger, look back at Exhibit

21 81.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That was your original FPPC complaint. Is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.





1 Q. All right. And Exhibit 1 was a copy of the 2008

2 990 tax return. Correct?

3 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

4 THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question.

5 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Exhibit 1 was identified as a

6 copy of the 2008 NOM 990 form. Correct?

7 MR. TOMPKINS: Same objection.

8 MR. HERTZ: Objection. An excerpt.

9 THE WITNESS: It appears to be.

10 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Now you had earlier

11 testified, in response to the Government's question --

12 It was not that that document.

13 MR. HERTZ: Supplemental.

14 MR. EASTMAN: The supplemental. What exhibit was

15 that?

16 MR. HERTZ: I think also 81.

17 MR. EASTMAN: This was a different document

18 altogether.

19 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Back on Exhibit 78. I'm sorry.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You had earlier discussed with the attorney for

22 the United States the header, the "Live Return from SMIPS."

23 Do you recall that conversation?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Do you recognize that header on that





1 document as language indicating it came from the Internal

2 Revenue Service?

3 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Calls for speculation.

4 THE WITNESS: I am not sure I assumed so. I am not

5 sure.

6 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Look at the -- look at the

7 header and look at the diagonal watermark across the middle

8 of the page. Do either of those appear on Exhibit 106?

9 A. The header?

10 Q. "This is a copy of live return from SMIPS."

11 A. That header.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. One is 2007 and one is 2008.

14 Q. Right.

15 A. But the -- the diagonal number does not appear on

16 Exhibit 106.

17 Q. Do you know what that diagonal number means?

18 A. I suspect it's an IRS marking because it's been

19 redacted on the other form.

20 Q. Okay. And it's not on Exhibit 106?

21 Okay. Now so let me just kind of close this out.

22 In April and May of 2006, when you repeatedly referred to

23 the documents that you had obtained NOM's unredacted

24 Schedule B that you attached as Exhibit 1 to your FPPC

25 supplemental complaint, that those documents came from the





1 Maine litigation, that was not correct?

2 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to the -- you said 2006.

3 MR. EASTMAN: Did I really? 2008 tax return. Thank

4 you.


6 THE WITNESS: Can you restate the question.

7 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: The repeated references that you

8 obtained the documents -- that the documents that were

9 attached to your 2012 FPPC supplemental complaint that was

10 filed in May 2012 as having come from the Maine litigation,

11 that was incorrect. True?

12 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection to the form. Misstates the

13 testimony.

14 THE WITNESS: It appears to be incorrect.

15 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. In fact, you got them from

16 the H -- Human Rights Campaign web site. Is that correct?

17 MR. HERTZ: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

18 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

19 THE WITNESS: I believe I got those from the

20 Huffington Post web site or Metro Weekly web site.

21 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Let me look to -- what are

22 we up to?

23 MS. PHILLIPS: 107.

24






1 MR. HERTZ: Same objection.

2 THE WITNESS: My recollection is I was trying to get

3 the required annual copy of the NOM tax returns and had

4 sent a letter to you after you were installed as the new

5 chairman.

6 Again, this went into my IRS file on NOM, and

7 this is nothing I would have read that closely.

8 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Are you aware today that NOM has

9 asserted that its donor list on its Schedule B from its 990

10 tax return is confidential information?

11 A. I am aware today. You've mentioned it.

12 Q. Okay. But you were not aware in April that the

13 disclosure of a confidential tax return information was

14 improper under the Internal Revenue Code?

15 MR. HERTZ: Objection.

16 MR. TOMPKINS: Objection. Vague and ambiguous.

17 MR. HERTZ: Asked and answered, and calls for a legal

18 conclusion.

19 THE WITNESS: This was in April 2012?

20 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: April 2012.

21 A. I was unaware.

22 Q. Let's look at -- mark as 109. This is Karger 230,

23 Exhibit 109.

24






1

2 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: Do you recognize that document

3 Mr. Karger?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Okay. What is it?

6 A. It appears to be an e-mail from Karen Ocamb to me

7 requesting a comment.

8 Q. Okay. Who is Karen Ocamb?

9 A. She is a journalist with Frontiers Magazine.

10 Q. All right. And if you would look at the second

11 page of that. Karger 231.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Second paragraph down?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Second sentence. This is referring to NOM's 2008

16 IRS 1990 -- 990 report, the unredacted Schedule B. It

17 says, "The document, the public version of which normally

18 has a donor names redacted, is available at" --

19 And then it gives a web site where that document

20 had been posted.

21 Do you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. Did you see that at the time you

24 received this e-mail?

25 A. I imagine I did. Yes.





1 Q. Okay. And are you aware that the public version

2 of 990 forms normally have the donor names redacted?

3 A. I --


5 MR. TOMPKINS: Same objection.

6 THE WITNESS: I was unaware.

7 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: This is dated March 30, 2012. Is

8 that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. So you had been sent an e-mail identifying

11 that before you filed your FPPC complaint in April 2012.

12 Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. Again, I assumed it was unsealed by a federal

16 judge in the Maine case at this time.

17 Q. Okay. Let's look at what we'll mark as Exhibit

18 110.

19


21

22 Q. BY MR. EASTMAN: This is marked as Karger 0006.

23 Do you recognize this document?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. TOMPKINS: You said Karger something. This is





1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss.

2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

3

4 I, HILDA GUTIERREZ, CSR No. 12714, RPR, do hereby

5 certify:

6 That prior to being examined, the witness named in

7 the foregoing deposition, FRED KARGER, was by me duly sworn

8 to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

9 truth;

10 That said deposition was taken before me at the time

11 and place therein set forth and was taken down by me in

12 shorthand and thereafter was transcribed into typewriting

13 under my direction and supervision, and I hereby certify

14 the foregoing transcript is a full, true and correct

15 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.

16 I further certify that I am neither counsel for nor

17 related to any party to said action, nor in any way

18 interested in the outcome thereof.

19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my

20 name this 24th day of March, 2014.

21

22 ____________________________

23 HILDA GUTIERREZ

24

25



CONFIDENTIALBrian Brown March 14, 2014

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.comHenderson Legal Services, Inc.

1

*** C O N F I D E N T I A L ***

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

-------------------------------- :THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR :MARRIAGE, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. : 13-1225-JCC-IDDTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :et al., : : Defendants. : :--------------------------------

Deposition of BRIAN BROWN, a witness herein, at

the offices of U.S. Department of Justice, Tax

Division, 555 Fourth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

commencing at 9:46 a.m. on Friday, March 14, 2014,

and the proceedings being taken down by stenotype and

transcribed by Catherine B. Crump, a Notary Public in

and for the District of Columbia.





2

1 APPEARANCES:2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:3 WILLIAM E. DAVIS, ESQ.

Foley & Lardner4 2 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900

Miami, Florida 331315 (305) 482-8404

[email protected]

JASON BRETT TORCHINSKY, ESQ.7 Holtzman, Vogel, Josefiak, PLLC

45 North Hill Drive, Suite 1008 Warrenton, Virginia 20186

(540) 341-88089 [email protected]

10 NOEL JOHNSON, ESQ. ActRight Legal Foundation

11

12 On behalf of the Defendants:13 PHILIP M. SCHREIBER, ESQ.

BENJAMIN L. TOMPKINS, ESQ.14 U.S. Department of Justice

Tax Division15 P.O. Box 14198

Washington, D.C. 2004416 (202) 514-6069

[email protected]

18

19

20

21

22





83

1 expenses were for and how they relate to the

2 disclosure?

3 A. There was a lot of work that had to be

4 done, obviously, in trying to find out how this

5 occurred, and that work, that's what these fees and

6 the invoices in the back represent, the work that was

7 done by ActRight Legal in order to find out how did

8 this happen.

9 Q. And the expenses paid to Mr. Eastman --

10 I guess it's Dr. Eastman. Right?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Dr. Eastman.

13 A. I believe that is for travel related to

14 answering the same question.

15 Q. What travel did he have that related to

16 the disclosure that occurred in this case?

17 A. I'm not aware of the specifics of this.

18 As I said, I believe it's travel, but I know that he

19 -- I know that there was travel. I don't know

20 exactly what it was, but he was involved in the same

21 effort to try and find out what had occurred.

22 Q. The final paragraph begins on page 2:





87

1 MR. TOMPKINS: Yes, 124.

2 [Witness peruses exhibit.]

3 THE WITNESS: Okay.

4 BY MR. SCHREIBER:

5 Q. Do you recognize any of these documents,

6 Mr. Brown?

7 A. I have not looked over these documents.

8 Q. It might help if you look at what's

9 Bates stamped NOM 1643. It appears to be an invoice

10 from Dr. Eastman. Do you have that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Have you ever seen this invoice before

13 from Mr. Eastman?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Were you aware that this invoice is

16 included in what you are claiming as expenses and

17 damages in this case?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you know how the $26,000 -- excuse me

20 -- the $2600 is related to NOM's actual damages in

21 this case?

22 A. Again, I believe this was for travel





88

1 related to investigating how the 990 disclosure

2 occurred. I don't know specifically what each of

3 these are for, no.

4 Q. It appears to be generally one trip in

5 the beginning of June of 2013. Do you recall why

6 Dr. Eastman came to D.C. from Los Angeles that first

7 week of June last year?

8 A. I don't.

9 Q. Did he testify on the Hill at that time?

10 A. Now that you mention it, I believe he

11 did.

12 Q. Do you recall what he was testifying

13 about?

14 A. This was the testimony over the IRS

15 investigation.

16 Q. Of NOM's disclosure or which

17 investigation?

18 A. Well, I believe it was -- it could have

19 been -- I don't actually remember whether it was the

20 -- which committee it was in. It was a committee

21 looking into the -- he was testifying on what had

22 occurred in the release of NOM's 990.





144

1 piece. It will have that code on it.

2 I shouldn't say every. Sometime they're more

3 highly personal, but the ones that go to a larger

4 group, the overwhelming majority have a code on it so

5 we can see what people are responding to, and then it

6 will be put into a database saying we got this much

7 money from this donor in response to this request.

8 Q. So if there are direct mailers that

9 either prominently or exclusively reference the

10 disclosure or this lawsuit and somebody gave in

11 response to that, there would be a source code that

12 NOM has that identified that individual having given

13 because of that mailer?

14 A. Well, I wouldn't accept the second part.

15 At the bottom of every mailer and E-mail, we say that

16 we do not accept designated gifts. So while we talk

17 about a number of things, I can't determine why

18 people give or what the motivation is and it's not

19 designated for anything.

20 Q. I'm not asking about earmarks, I guess.

21 A. Okay.

22 Q. I'm asking if you send out a mailer to





147

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. Would your record go back to March 30,

3 2012?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Would you keep a record of not just the

6 mailers, but this source code information?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. SCHREIBER: Off the record for a second.

9 [Mr. Schreiber confers with Mr. Tompkins.]

10 BY MR. SCHREIBER:

11 Q. Mr. Brown, the records relating to

12 direct mailers, did you review any of that

13 information in preparation for your deposition here

14 today?

15 A. I don't believe I did. No, I didn't. I

16 looked at the E-mail, but I'm not sure that direct

17 mail was in that.

18 Q. Any other records that you have that

19 would indicate in response to what particular

20 solicitation a donor is contributing money to NOM?

21 A. Well, the way that direct mail -- I

22 mean, direct mail works in such a way that you have,





148

1 you know, a theme that you're talking about, but I

2 don't know why people give.

3 Q. I understand.

4 A. They give for any reason. So what I

5 have is what we've said. I've got source codes.

6 So we can say that a particular mailer is tied

7 -- that the person gave in response to a particular

8 mailer. What I cannot say at all and I have no idea

9 of is why did the person give, for what purpose.

10 Q. I'm asking about the first category. I

11 think that's what my question was geared to, is are

12 there any other records that indicate in response to

13 what solicitations is a donor giving money to NOM?

14 A. I don't know how you could get any more

15 than the source code. That tells you why they --

16 what they responded to.

17 Q. Did the manner in which people donated

18 to NOM change from March 30, 2012 to the present?

19 A. To the present?

20 MR. DAVIS: Objection to form.

21 MR. SCHREIBER: Um-hum.

22 MR. DAVIS: You can answer.





152

1 MR. SCHREIBER: Whatever you want to do. You

2 can mark the deposition as confidential and we'll

3 deal with it if and when we ever get to trial on the

4 matter.

5 MR. DAVIS: Yes.

6 BY MR. SCHREIBER:

7 Q. No. 60, the foundation that's listed

8 there, do you have a sense about the timing of those

9 contributions for $1.5 million?

10 A. I can't remember the installments there,

11 but it wasn't just one donation.

12 Q. Looking at the rest on this page, are

13 there any that you recall occurred after March 30,

14 2012?

15 A. I think a number did. I believe 59 did

16 and possibly 57, but for the others, I don't know.

17 Q. Looking at these particular donors, did

18 any of these major donors ever tell you or anybody

19 working at NOM that they were donating at least in

20 part as a result of the disclosure in this case?

21 A. That they were giving because of it?

22 Q. Yes.





153

1 A. No.

2 Q. What about as a result of the lawsuit

3 against the United States?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Were any of the individuals, to your

6 knowledge, giving to NOM as a result of the lawsuit

7 against the government for wrongful disclosure of the

8 2008 Schedule B?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Let me broaden this. Have you ever had

11 a conversation with a donor or are you otherwise

12 aware of any conversation with a donor where the

13 donor said they were giving as a result of the

14 disclosure or the lawsuit?

15 A. I cannot recall a single conversation

16 with a donor in which they said they're giving to NOM

17 because of the lawsuit.

18 Q. Nobody ever said to you let me help you

19 fight the IRS with a contribution?

20 A. Well, people may have done that through

21 E-mail, like smaller donors, but the donors that are

22 here, I don't recall having a conversation with any





156

1 then that would mean different disclosure in a number

2 of states.

3 Q. Like Maine?

4 A. Like Maine, like California. So,

5 therefore, we make very clear to everyone we will not

6 accept any designated gifts, and when we operate in

7 states, like most recently in Minnesota or states

8 that have ballot initiatives, we work with others to

9 create a ballot initiative committee and we encourage

10 people to give to that committee. Then those

11 donations are public.

12 [Exhibit No. 134 was marked

13 for identification.]

14 BY MR. SCHREIBER:

15 Q. Mr. Brown, did you ever have any

16 conversations or otherwise aware of any conversations

17 between somebody at NOM and a contributor or a

18 potential contributor where you said I would like you

19 to contribute to help our mission and to fight the

20 Internal Revenue Service as part of this disclosure?

21 A. I cannot recall a conversation with a

22 major donor saying that.





157

1 Q. Or any donor?

2 A. I cannot recall, no.

3 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as

4 Exhibit 134. This is Bates stamped NOM 2781,

5 produced by your counsel in this case.

6 I have a couple of questions about this

7 document, Mr. Brown. At the very top, the top E-mail

8 from here up, it appears to be you forwarding this

9 E-mail to a Jamie Gruber. Do you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The E-mail is dated January 9, 2014. Am

12 I correct in saying that that E-mail was sent just in

13 response to our request for production of documents

14 in this case, that you were forwarding it to Jamie as

15 part of that?

16 A. Right. Yes.

17 Q. Okay. It was not connected to the

18 conversation that is threaded below, the E-mail

19 thread that's below?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Who is Jamie Gruber?

22 A. She's an administrative assistant at





190

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2

3 I, CATHERINE B. CRUMP, the officer before

4 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby

5 testify that the witness whose testimony appears in

6 the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that

7 the testimony of said witness was taken by me

8 stenographically and thereafter reduced to

9 typewriting under my direction; that said deposition

10 is a true record of the testimony given by said

11 witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to,

12 nor employed by any of the parties to the action in

13 which this deposition was taken; and further, that I

14 am not a relative or employee of any attorney or

15 counsel employed by the parties hereto nor

16 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of

17 the action.

18 ______________________________

19 CATHERINE B. CRUMP

20 Notary Public in and for the

21 District of Columbia

22 My Commission Expires: October 31, 2017



33

NOTE: If you do not provide an unqualified admission in response to each of Requests for Admission Nos. 3, 6, and 9, please respond to the following, additional requests for production of documents and interrogatories below. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 20:

All documents relating to or showing quarterly and monthly contributions by donors to NOM and all documents relating to NOM’s quarterly or monthly fundraising costs or expenses from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, or from August 3, 2013 through November 3, 2013. All electronic information responsive to this request shall be produced in its manipulable native format.

Objections: Plaintiff incorporates by reference its objections dated January 2, 2014, and

January 6, 2014.

Response: Plaintiff contends that this request seeks documents that are wholly irrelevant to any

party’s claim or defense. Documentation of quarterly or monthly contributions by donor or of

Plaintiff’s fundraising costs or expenses is not relevant to any claim or defense and is beyond the

scope of permissible discovery. Dispute this relevancy objection, in a showing of good faith,

Plaintiff provided a response to Request for Admission 3-17, above. With those responses, no

further documents should be sought.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 21:

All (a) transcriptions, texts or videos of speeches, testimony, or presentations given; (b) videos, DVDs, mailers, postcards, letters, e-mails, text messages, and SMS messages sent; (c) blog posts, Twitter tweets, Facebook posts, and other social media communications; (d) editorials authored or drafted, whether published or not; and (e) other documents that you or someone associated with NOM prepared, drafted, or created after you learned of the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B, and which document relates in any way to (or mentions) the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice, TIGTA, or this lawsuit.

Objections: Plaintiff incorporates by reference its objections dated January 2, 2014, and January

6, 2014.

Response: Subject to its objections, Plaintiff states that this request is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, immaterial, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and not reasonably



34

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nevertheless, responsive documents

have been produced in response to Request for Production 1-11, above.


All documents relating to fundraising activities, efforts, drives, matching gifts, capital gifts or contributions, etc. from March 30, 2012 through present.


January 6, 2014.


party’s claim or defense. Such documentation is not relevant to any claim or defense and is

beyond the scope of permissible discovery. In a showing of good faith, Plaintiff provided a

response to Request for Admission 3-17, above. With those responses, no further documents

should be sought.


All documents and data that relate to any donations or contributions that you sought or received in connection with or as a result of (whether in part or in whole) the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B or this lawsuit; this request includes any user traffic, server statistics, cookies, e-mail links, links that allow an individual to donate in a webpage or in an e-mail, data related to click-through rates, and data related to notification of payment processing. All electronic information responsive to this request shall be produced in its manipulable native format.


January 6, 2014.





should be sought.



35


All documents relating to or reflecting all individuals who or entities that contributed or donated to NOM, or whose donation or contribution you sought, in connection with or as a result of (whether in part or in whole) the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B or this lawsuit.


January 6, 2014.





should be sought.


All documents relating to or reflecting all individuals who or entities that contributed or donated to NOM from March 30, 2012 to present and: (a) who had never previously donated or contributed to NOM until on or after March 30, 2012; or (b) who had previously donated or contributed to NOM but did so after March 30, 2012 in a dollar amount (or in multiple dollar amounts) that was greater than they had in any prior calendar year.


January 6, 2014.





should be sought.



36

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Please identify each and every individual, entity, or donor: (1) that contributed or donated to NOM, or whose donation or contribution you sought, in connection with or as a result of (whether in part or in whole) the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B or this lawsuit; or (2) that had never previously donated or contributed to NOM until on or after March 30, 2012 or who had previously donated or contributed to NOM but did so after March 30, 2012 in a dollar amount (or in multiple dollar amounts) that was greater than they had in any prior calendar year.


January 6, 2014.

Response:

Plaintiff contends that this request seeks information that is wholly irrelevant to any



response to Request for Admission 3-17, above. With those responses, no further information

should be sought.

Further, to compel the identification of donors would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional

right to freedom of association and is likely to lead to harassment and other negative

consequences for Plaintiff. Further, the unauthorized release of donor information is the impetus

for this lawsuit and Plaintiff will not create further harm by publicly releasing more confidential

tax information pursuant to this request.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

Please state all actions you, or someone on your behalf, took on or after March 30, 2012 that relate to fundraising efforts or activities, or donations you sought or received, in connection with or as a result of the disclosure or alleged inspection of NOM’s 2008 Form 990, Schedule B, or this lawsuit.


January 6, 2014.



DO

C Prep

cart

Scan stamp

the

doc

the docs

non

scanables

and

envelopes

for

re

association later

Pull staples

Review each page

fo

Pull returns from batch

according

to

IRM

instruction that

do

not

need scanning with

that batch ex

No

EIN

Order sheets

by pages

schedules

Codes usedPperfect docs

G-7

go

to pg

Add barcoded

separator sheet

in

front

of each filing

Scan

Walk

to

scanner

Bring up/log

into

program

Open

and

wipe

off

scanner

Enter batch

nameStart

scanning

Monitor

scanning

Closeout

batch

Return

to

desk

Kodak

scanner

Verification

Re-Enter

EIN

Tax

period

Enter

nameSeparation

done

by

SEINfront

end

back

end

5EIN

Redaction/

Restriotion

Open batch

Follow

IRM

instructions

on Redaction/

restriction

Redact

Restrict

as

necessary

Close batch

Return batch

tocart

SEIN

Release

and

Commit to

Dbase

Puts

images tnto

file servers

Store index

info

in

database

Paper

to

Code Edit

Release

off BBTS

Clerk

delivers

cart

to

CE

Has

to

return

by

cycle

Public

State/city/county entities

Internal Users

964909 Returns

17421651 Pages

Delivery

by

RA

S

DM

D

Redacted Copy

for external use

publicCreate

CD

s

DVDsProvide paper

copies RAIVSOnline SEIN

Internal Review

unredacted

images

Annually file

Review method

of

delivery

to

Public

iyerExempt

Org

Returns

Mat Room

747956 Returns

11921583 PagesReturn

Doc

mailed

in

501 Statistics

of Income/Exempt

Organization Return Image

Net SEIN

Value Stream

Map

February 2012

Transported

to SEINBatched

by

RC unit

Retrieve folders from

-1

SEIN Unrt -Clerk Scans Validates

and Indexes Retu

A__

aa Unit- QuaUtyiwwbv RASIDMO-ClaSa0R11

Quality Control

Log into SEIN

Review every

page/image

for order

clarity

Re-Scan

pages

as

needed

Re-associate

docs

to

envelope

and

non

scanables

Rendered

images efile

Validationf

Indexing

Enter

the

EIN

Entity Info

Verify

and

update name

tax period

state

zip

if

necessary

Enter Assets

Enter

specified

indicators

such

as

schedule

if

necessary

SEIN

100% Quality

Review

by different

Clerk

FReview accuracy

of info

put into

validationA

ll pages

in

order

All pages legible

Review Redact/

Restrict

Ensure

all forms

within batch

are

same.

If no must delete

the

filing from

system

Bad filing sent

to

start

of

process

rebatchedRemove

çfication

-l

E-file returns

pushed into

SEIN

by

RA

S

DM

D

216953 Returns

LA00068 Pages

Only

one

Programmer

currently exists

Return

Doc.s

SEINGOV-PROD-0000220



SEN Imaging Process

Pre-Doc Prep

Remove staples Scan Stamp etc

Doc Prep

Count pages move restricted pages OFAC

Scan

Re-scan

Verify page count Image quality Re-associate

Validation

Edit EN Name Tax period OFAC Status

Verify

Re-edit EN Name Tax period

Restricting

Redact/Restrict according to IRM 3.20.12 Sch Letters etc

100% review of all

QCimages edited data etc

GOV-PROD-0000221















NOM-01199Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 - Page 1


1:13-cv-01225 #75

Documents