1:13-cv-01225 #1

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 1 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 25 PageID# 1
United States District Court

Eastern District of Virginia
Z
:n r''T -3
.\ ': "3 . l . ; .
r. .. , j -
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
MARRIAGE, INC.
606 South Taylor Street
Arlington, VA 22204
V.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Sere: Eric H. Holder
Attorey General for the United States
Department of Justice
Room B-103
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
Sere: Dana J. Boente
Plainti
United States Attorey for the Easter District of Virginia
ATTN: Civil Process Clerk
Justin W. Williams United States Attorey's Building
2100 Jamieson Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22314
Deendant.
Verifed Complaint
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND
Plaintif the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"), by and through its counsel,
complains against Defendant United States of America, Interal Revenue Service as follows:
Introduction
1. This is an action seeking damages pursuant to 26 U .S.C. 7431 for unlawfl
inspection and disclosure of confdential tax information by agents of the Interal Revenue
Service {"IRS") in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
2. I March 2012, individuals employed by the IS inspected and disclosed NOM's
confdential retur infonation, including its 2008 IRS Fon 990, Schedule B, which contains
the names, home addresses, and contribution amounts of NOM's 2008 donors, to one or more
third parties, including NOM's ideological opponent, the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC"), and
to one or more employees, agents, or volunteers of HRC. On infonation and belief, the
individuals from the IRS chose to make this disclosure to one or more third paries, including
HRC, specifcally intending that those third parties would widely publish the infonation on its
website, through media releases and interviews, and through other methods. NOM's confdential
retur infonation was subsequently published on the Interet by third parties, including HRC
and the Hufngton Post, an interet blog and public affairs website, making it available to
millions of people. These disclosures are part of a deliberate attempt to chill the First
Amendment activity of NOM, its donors, and others who associate with NOM. The IRS's
actions constitute gross violations of NOM's statutor and constitutional rights and have caused
appreciable han to NOM for which it must be compensated.
3. NOM brings this action against Defendant United States of America, IRS
pursuant to 26 U .S.C. 7431 for the recover of statutory and/or actual and punitive damages
caused by Defendant's willfl, unauthorized disclosures and inspections of NOM's confdential
tax retur and retur infonation in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the United States in this venue under 12 U.S.C.
139l(e) because NOM is a resident of this district.
5. This action is being brought within two years afer the date of discovery by NOM
of the unauthorized disclosures and inspections described herein. 26 U.S.C. 743l (d).
2
The Parties
6. Plaintif NOM is a nonproft cororation validly existing under the laws of the
State of Virginia. NOM's current mailing address is in care of its registered agent Paul Bothwell:
606 South Taylor Street
Arlington, VA 22204
7. Defendant the United States of America, IRS is a proper defendant pursuant to 26
U.S.C. 7431(a).
Factual Allegations
Unauthorized Inspection and Disclosure of NOM's Confdential Return Information
8. NOM was founded in 2007 to protect marriage and the faith communities that
sustain it across the United States. In furtherance of its mission, NOM serves a a national
resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level.
9. NOM is recognized by the IRS as a social welfare organization, exempt from
taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 50l (c)(4).
10. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6033, tax-exempt entities are required to fle annually
IRS Form 990 with the IRS.
11. Schedule B (Schedule of Contributors) to IRS Form 990 is the list of donors to
tax-exempt organizations who have contributed $5,000 or more during the reporting period and
includes the following retur information: the name of the donor, the address of the donor, and
the total amount of the donor's contributions to NOM.
12. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6104, certain portions ofiRS Form 990 must be made
available for public inspection. Accordingly, NOM posts these publicly available documents on
its website. However, Schedule B, in unredacted form, is fled solely with the IRS and is not a
publicly available document. Specifcally, the Interal Revenue Code ("IRC") provides,
3
"Nothing in this subsection shall authorize the Secretary to disclose the name or address of any
contributor to any organization or trust . . . which is required to frish such information." 26
u.s.c. 6104(b).
13. To date, NOM has timely fled its IRS Form 990 for each reporting period.
14. On March 30, 2012, NOM became aware that the unredacted Schedule B to its
2008 IRS Form 990, containing the names and addresses of its donors (hereinafer the
"Confdential Retur Information"), had been unlawflly inspected and disclosed by individuals
employed by the IRS to one or more persons at the HRC, which subsequently shared it with one
or more persons at the Hufngton Post, an interet blog and public affairs website. On
information and belief, the IRS employees chose to share the Confdential Retur Information
with HRC intending that HRC frher publish the information on its website, through media
releases, and through other means.
15. On or about March 30, 2012, HRC published the Confdential Retur Information
on its website.
16. On March 30, 2012, the Hufngton Post published the Confdential Retur
Inforation on its website. The Hufngton Post claimed to have received NOM's 2008 Schedule
B from HRC and stated that HRC received the document from a "whistleblower."
17. NOM has demanded that HRC and Hufngton Post remove the Confdential
Retur Inforation from their websites.
18. HRC has since removed the 2008 Schedule B document from its website, but
continues to publish the Confdential Retur Information gleaned from NOM's 2008 Schedule B.
19. The Hufngton Post has refused to remove any of the Confdential Retur
Inforation, including NOM's 2008 Schedule 8, from its website.
4
20. NOM's 2008 Schedule B document that appeared on HRC's website and
continues to appear on Hufngton Post's website is a PDF document on which original, interal
IRS markings and information have been obscured. By removing these obstrctions, NOM was
able to view the IRS markings and information that appear on the 2008 Schedule B.
21. Across the top of each page ofNOM's 2008 Schedule B appears "THIS IS A
COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS. OFFICIAL USE ONLY" and stamped diagonally
in the center of each page appears the number 100560209."
22. According to the Interal Revenue Manual, Section 3 .11.12.1.26 (0 l-0 1-20 12),
the language "THIS IS A COPY OF A LIVE RETURN FROM SMIPS" is the header that the
IRS's Central Information System inserts on documents that are electronically fled with the IRS.
23. These IRS ofcial markings that appear on the 2008 Schedule B published by
Hufngton Post and HRC were added by the IRS afer it was fled by NOM, thus confrming that
the 2008 Schedule B was disclosed ajier NOM had fled it with the IRS.
24. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of only the frst
page ofNOM's 2008 Schedule B that was posted on the website of HRC. To permit comparison,
Exhibit A includes the version of the 2008 Schedule B with the interal IRS markings obscured
and the version with the obstructions removed, which reveals the interal IRS markings.
25. The only persons legally authorized to request or permit another person to request
copies ofNOM's 2008 Schedule B from the IRS are NOM's ofcers. See 26 U.S.C.
61 03( e)( 1 )(D)(ii). Limited exceptions for disclosures to certain goverment ofcials also exist,
subject to strict conditions, including non-disclosure.
5
26. No foner or curent NOM ofcer has ever requested or penitted another person
to request a copy of any of NOM's tax returs from the IRS. (Afdavits of Brian S. Brown, John
C. Eastman, Margaret Gallagher, Robert George, and Neil Corkery, attached as Exhibit B.)
27. No faner or current NOM ofcer has ever been in possession of the 2008
Schedule B that was fled with the IRS and appeared on the web sites of HRC and the Hufngton
Post. (!d.)
28. Prior to its unauthorized release to HRC, the 2008 Schedule B that was fled with
the IRS was under the exclusive custody and control of the IRS.
29. Numerous other news entities have republished the Confdential Retur
Infonation, including New York Magazine, Mother Jones, and The Daily Beast. This mass
publication has led to further dissemination of NOM's Confdential Retur Infonation through
countless blogs and social media websites.
30. The disclosure and mass publication has led to other bans against NOM and its
donors, including lost contributions and the incurrence of legal fees.
31. I the wake of Proposition 8, and the wide-spread harassment of donors who
supported traditional marriage during the campaign to protect marriage in Califoria, more than
one NOM donor advised NOM that the donor would only contribute to NOM if the contributions
were not publicly disclosed, for fear of the harassment the donor would receive. (Second
Declaration of Brian Brown 3, attached as Exhibit C.)
32. One such donor, who specifcally contributed to NOM over severl years,
contributed on the specifc condition of anonymity. (ld. 4.)
33. Afer the IRS illegally released NOM's confdential Schedule B with the names
and addresses of donors to NOM's fercest political enemies, who then published and
6
disseminated it, and continue to do so, more than one ofNOM's previous donors stopped
fnancially supporting NOM. NOM is also aware of other prospective donors that have stepped
back from considering making contributions to NOM. (/d. 5.)
34. NOM's lost contributions exceed $50,000. (/d. 6.)
35. On May 15, 2012, Fred Karger, a self-proclaimed opponent ofNOM, fled a
complaint against NOM with the State of Califoria's Fair Political Practices Commission (the
"FPPC"), alleging that NOM had violated various state election laws during the year 2008. The
allegations made by Mr. Karger were based solely on confdential tax retur and donor
information Mr. Karger admittedly gleaned from the dissemination and subsequent publication
of the Confdential Retur Information, which Mr. Karger published as an exhibit to his
complaint. NOM has been forced to incur legal fees responding to Mr. Karger's baseless
accusations and removing NOM's confdential tax retur information from FPPC records.
36. To date, NOM estimates that it has incured in excess of $10,500 in legal fees and
costs as a result of the complaint fled by Mr. Karger with the FPPC. As the FPPC's
investigation has not yet been terminated, NOM likely will face additional costs associated with
Mr. Karger's complaint.
37. The publication of the Confdential Retur Information is a violation of federal
law. Puruant to 26 U .S.C. 7213(a)(3), it is "a felony, punishable by a fne in any amount not
exceeding $ 5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of
prosecution" for "any person to whom any retur or retur information (as defned in section
6l03(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by [Title 26] thereafer willflly to print or
publish in any manner not provided by law any such retur or retur information."
7
38. Title 26, U.S.C. 743l (e) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to notify a
taxpayer if any person is criminally charged with inspection or disclosure of a taxpayer's retur
information in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103. NOM has been provided no such notice, so
therefore alleges on information and belief that no IRS employee has been charged.
39. To the best ofNOM's knowledge, HRC has not been investigated or prosecuted
for publishing the Confdential Retur Information in violation of federal law.
40. To the best ofNOM's knowledge, the Hufngton Post has not been investigated
or prosecuted for publishing the Confdential Retur Information in violation of federal law.
41. On May 17, 2013, at a hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, then-
Acting Commissioner of the IRS Steven T. Miller was asked whether he was ever made aware of
the publication of NOM's confdential 2008 donor list and if he was ever made aware of the IRS
leak of confdential applications for the tax-exempt status of conservative groups to ProPublica.
IRS Targeting of Applications for Ta-Exempt Status Before the H Comm. On Ways and Means,
I 13th Cong. (2013), available at http://www.c-span. org!Events/Congress-Begins-Jnvestigation
into-IRS-Targeting-Conservative-Organizations-for-Extra-Scrutiny/ 1 073 7 439699-2/ (questions
of Dave Camp, Chairman, at 29:20 and 30:01 in video) (hereinafer, "Ways and Means
Hearing").
42. I response to those questions, Commissioner Miller testifed that he believed that
the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ("TIGTA") "found that those disclosures
were inadvertent and there's been discipline in one of those cases for somebody not following
procedures." Ways and Means Hearing at 31: 10.
43. At the same May 17, 2013 hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means,
Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George was asked if he was ever made
8
aware of the alleged publication of NOM's confdential 2008 donor list. Ways and Means
Hearing at 34:10.
44. Inspector George testifed that TIGT A had conducted a "review" of the disclosure
of NOM's confdential 2008 donor list and that the review was "not ongoing." Ways and Means
Hearing at 34: 55- 35:10.
NOM's Exhaustive Eforts to Determine the Source of the Confdential Return
Information Disclosure
45. NOM has undertaken signifcant and costly efforts to detenine which agents or
employees within the IRS are responsible for the unauthorized inspection and disclosure of the
Confdential Retur Infonation.
46. In a letter dated April 11, 2012, NOM notifed TIGT A of the illegal release of its
Confdential Retur Infonation, provided to TIGTA the proof of the disclosure of NOM's 2008
Schedule B by the IRS, and demanded an investigation into the source of the unlawfl
disclosure.
47. In a letter dated April 20, 2012, TIGTA confned receipt of NOM's April 11,
2012 letter and provided complaint number 63-1204-0051-C for the matter.
48. On April 16, 2012, NOM Chainan John Eastman conducted a telephone
interview with a TIGTA investigator regarding the incident and the investigation.
49. On April 27, 2012, NOM President Brian Brown and NOM's legal counsel met
with TIGT A investigators and provided infonation about the unauthorized disclosure of the
Confdential Retur Infonation.
50. In May 2012, Senator Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance
Committee, wrote to then-Commission of the IRS Douglas H. Shulman, requesting that the IRS
investigate the unauthorized disclosure of the Confdential Retur Infonation. Lewis, Sen.
9
Hatch Demands IRS Investigate Aleged NOM Donor Leak, May 8, 2012,
http:/ I dai I ycaller. com/20 12/0 5/08/ orrin-hatch-asks-irs-to-investigate-alleged-nom-donor-leak/.
51. I response to these requests, TIGT A apparently conducted an investigation into
the unauthorized disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information.
52. Neither TIGTA nor the IRS has revealed to NOM the results or conclusions of the
investigation(s), nor any details or inforation concering the illegal disclosure by the IRS of
NOM's Confdential Retur Information.
53. NOM and NOM ofcers Brian Brown and John C. Eastman have submitted three
(3) Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests to the IRS; two (2) FOIA requests to TIGTA;
and one (1) Privacy Act request to TIGTA, seeking the results ofTIGTA's investigation and to
obtain other inforation about the source of the unauthorized disclosure of the Confdential
Ret Information.
54. I response to NOM's frst two FOIA requests, the IRS has repeatedly refsed to
produce responsive records related to TIGT A's investigation, but referred all of them to TIGT A.
55. In response to NOM's frst two FOIA requests, TIGTA has consistently withheld
completely or redacted all materially relevant information with respect to its investigation of the
illegal disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information.
56. On May 9, 2013, NOM submitted a third FOIA request to the IRS seeking to
corroborate that no former or current NOM ofcer has ever requested or permitted another
person to request a copy of any of NOM's tax returs fom the IRS. See supra, 26. On May 31,
2013, the IRS acknowledged receipt of this FOIA request and granted expedited processing, yet
in a letter dated June 10, 2013, the IRS stated that it needed more than nine additional weeks or
until August 16, 2013, to respond.
10
57. On August 6, 2013, the IRS responded to this request, confrming that the IRS has
no records from any person, including any NOM representative, requesting copies of NOM's tax
returs or retur information. (Exhibit D.)
58. NOM timely fled administrative appeals of all FOIA requests for which
responsive documents were withheld, but these appeals were either denied in whole or resulted
in the production of records and information irrelevant to the results ofTIGTA's investigation or
the unauthorized inspection and disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information.
59. The Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a et se
q
., permits TIGTA to exempt fom the
provisions of the Privacy Act any record maintained by TIGTA if disclosure is made for certain
"routine uses," 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), as defned and published by TIGTA in the Federal
Register, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(D). Under this authority, TIGTA has defned and published as a
"routine use" of the TIGTA Files system of records:
(12) Disclos[ure of information to complainants, victims, or their representatives
(defned for puroses here to be a complainant's or victim's legal counsel or a
Senator or Representative whose assistance the complainant or victim has
solicited) concering the status and/or results of the investigation or case arising
from the matters of which they complained and/or of which they were a victim,
including, once the investigative subject has exhausted all reasonable appeals, any
action taken. Information concering the status of the investigation or case is
limited strictly to whether the investigation or case is open or closed. Information
concering the results of the investigation or case is limited strictly to whether the
allegations made in the complaint were substantiated or were not substantiated
and, if the subject has exhausted all reasonable appeals, any action taken.
75 Fed. Reg. 20715-16 (April 20, 20 I 0) (hereafer, the "Routine Use").
60. On April 15, 2013, pursuant to the Routine Use, NOM President Brian Brown and
NOM Chairan John C. Eastman submitted a Privacy Act request to TIGT A, which made the
following three (3) requests for information and records:
1. Whether the investigation of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C is open or
closed.
I I
2. Whether the allegations made in Complaint No. 63-1204-005 1-C, including
the allegations made in the April 11, 2012 letter from the Requestors to
TIGT A . . . were substantiated or were not substantiated.
3. If the subject(s) of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C has/have exhausted all
reasonable appeals, any action taken by TIGT A, or any other agency, as a
result of Complaint No. 63-1204-0051-C.
61. Notwithstanding the disclosures explicitly permitted by the Routine Use, in a
letter dated May 3, 2013, TIGTA claimed that it could not provide any of the requested
inforation, stating:
You have requested that TIGT A disclose this information pursuant to a routine
use in TIGTA's System of Records Notice under the Privacy Act. However, in
addition to the Privacy Act, the release of TIGTA Title 26 (I.R.C.) investigative
records, if any, is also govered by the confdentiality provisions of I.R.C. 6103.
Specially, records compiled pursuant to a Title 26 investigation, including even
the fact of an investigation, are the protected retur information of the subject(s)
of te investigation. Your complaint (#63-1204-0051-C) concered allegations of
an unauthorized disclosure of retur information by a third party, which is an
allegation of a potential violation of I.R.C. 7213. Therefore, pursuant to I.R.C.
6103, TIGTA can neither admit nor deny the existence of any records responsive
to your curent request.
62. Through these requests, NOM sought its own retur information, including the
results ofTIGTA's investigation of the illegal release by the IRS of NOM's Confdential Retur
Inforation. Despite the fact that such results constitute NOM's, not another taxpayer's, retur
inforation, and NOM is entitled to receive its own retur information, TIGT A and the IRS have
refsed to frish the information.
63. According to TIGTA, 26 U.S.C. 6103 prohibits it fom disclosing to NOM any
inforation concering its investigation, or even disclosing the existence of such investigation
regarding the unlawfl release to third parties of NOM's Confdential Retur Inforation.
64. As a result ofTIGTA's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 6103, NOM is unable to
lea how NOM's Confdential Retur Information was unlawflly released to third parties
12
andor which IRS agents or employees are responsible for the disclosure of NOM's Confdential
Retur Inforation, the date(s) on which the disclosure occured, or the circumstances
surrounding the disclosure.
65. On May 24, 2013, Brown and Eastman fled an administrative appeal of the
denial of their Privacy Act request.
66. On June 25, 2013, TIGT A denied Brown and Eastman's appeal, stating
Afer a carefl review of your request, we uphold the prior response by the
Disclosure Branch at the request level which indicated that TIGT A can neither
admit nor deny the existence of any records responsive to your request . . . .
Information concering potential non-tax Title 26 violations . . . constitutes the
retur information of the person(s) being investigated.
67. Despite their insistence that federal law prohibits them fom even acknowledging
the existence of the TIGTA investigation, TIGTA and the IRS have publicly disclosed in
hearings before the Congress information confrming TIGT A's investigation of the unlawfl
release to third parties of NOM's Confdential Retur Inforation. See supra, 41-44.
68. Prompted by the testimony of Commissioner Miller at the May 17, 2013 hearing
of the Committee on Ways and Means, the organization ProPublica sent an inquiry to the IRS
asking for further information about the disclosures referenced by then-Commissioner Miller.
Elliot and Barker, IRS Ofce That Targeted Tea Part Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From
Conservative Groups, May 13, 2012, http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-ofce-that-targeted-
tea-party-also-disclosed-confdential-docs.
69. In response to that inquiry, the IRS sent the following information to ProPublica:
When these two issues were previously raised concering the potential
unauthorized disclosures of 50 I (c)( 4) application information, we immediately
referred these cases to TIGTA for a comprehensive review. In both instances,
TIGT A found these instances to be inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by
the employees involved.
13
/d.
70. TIGTA and the IRS have deliberately denied NOM access to any information
concering the investigation of the disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information, but have
provided such information to third parties other than NOM.
71. The unauthorized inspection and disclosure of the Confdential Retur
Inforation is a violation of federl law, 26 U.S.C. 6103, for which the IRC imposes criminal
penalties, 26 U.S.C. 7213, and civil penalties, 26 U.S.C. 743 I .
A Pattern of Unscrupulous Behavior Toward Philosophically Conservative Organizations
72. One or more IRS employees illegally disclosed the Confdential Retur
Inforation to the NOM's ideological opponent, HRC, and to one or more HRC employees,
agents or volunteers.
73. HRC advocates nationwide for redefning "marriage" to include same-sex
couples. See HRC, Marriage Center, http://www.hrc.org/marriage-center (last visited September
27, 2013). Its mission is directly opposed to NOM's mission.
74. Since April 2009, HRC has conducted a "campaign-style operation" called "NOM
Exposed," which "tracks and challenges" NOM, its donors, and its members. See HRC, NOM
Exposed, http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed (last visited September 27, 2013).
75. HRC has continuously surveilled and reported on NOM's fnances and
eroneously claims that NOM "hides its donors." See e.g., The Facts, NOM Exposed, HRC,
http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed/section/the-facts (last visited September 27, 2013). For
example, HRC has published on its website the publicly-available portions of NOM's IRS Form
990s. The Mysterious Five Donors, NOM Exposed, HRC, http://hrc.org/nomexposedlsection
/the-mysterious-5-donors (last visited September 27, 2013). In January 2011, HRC employees
14
entered NOM's Washington, D.C. ofces and flmed themselves demanding copies of NOM's
IRS Form 990. !d. And two months prior to posting the Confdential Retur Information on its
website, HRC publicly attacked NOM, accusing it of "evading Minnesota public disclosure
laws" and urged the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board to investigate NOM.
Kevin Nix, HRC Calls on Minnesota Election Board to Investigate NOM's Financial Activit,
Feb. I , 20 12, http://w.hrc.orglblog/entry/hrc-calls-on-minnesota-election-board-to-
investigate-noms-fnancial-activit.
76. At the time HRC published the Confdential Retur Information, Joe Solmonese
was the President of HRC.
77. On March 31, 20 12-one day afer HRC published the Confdential Retur
Information -Solmonese stepped down as President of HRC to become a national co-chairman
of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
78. The Confdential Retur Information disclosed by the IRS to third parties,
including HRC, was published by HRC during President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.
79. As is stated above, NOM serves as a national resource for marriage-related
initiatives at the state and local level. The Confdential Retur Information disclosed by the IRS
to third parties, including HRC, was from 2008, the year that Proposition 8, the marriage
amendment, was on the ballot in Califoria. According to the Heritage Foundation,
Supporters of Proposition 8 in Califoria have been subjected to harassment,
intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment,
economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross
expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex mariage are based
fndamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife
is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual
persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and
institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a
price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.
15
Thomas M. Messner, Abstract to The Price of Prop 8, Heritage Foundation
Backgrounder, No. 2328 (Oct. 22, 2009), available at w.heritage.org/research/family/
bg2328.cfm.
80. HRC has also publicly accused one NOM donor of "funding NOM's strategy of
using racial division and unfounded scare tactics to attack LGBT equality."
81. The disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information is part of a larger patter of
behavior aimed at harassing, burdening, and retaliating against organizations and their donors
based upon the viewpoints and philosophical policy positions expressed by these organizations.
82. Besides the leak of the Confdential Retur Information, the IRS has recently
disclosed the confdential tax inforation of multiple conservative and Republican non-proft
organizations.
83. On August 24, 2012, the IRS gave the confdential donor list of Texas Public
Policy Foundation ("TPPF"), a 501(c)(3) organization seeking to "promote and defend liberty,
personal responsibility, and free enterprise in Texas and the nation" to GuideStar.org, a nonproft
organization that collects and distributes information about other nonprofts. GuideStar published
the list and, although it removed it shortly thereafer, the list was republished by others and
continues to be publicly-available today. On August 5, 2013, TPPF joined an existing law suit,
seeking damages for the unauthorized disclosure pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7431. NorCa/ Tea
Part Patriots, et a/. v. IRS, et a/., No. 1: 13-cv-00341 (S.D. Ohio, August 5, 2013).
84. In April 20l 3, the IRS unlawflly disclosed a portion of the Schedule B of the
Republican Goveror's Association Public Policy Committee. That Schedule B, along with a list
of major donors, was published on the Interet by the Center for Public Integrity. IRS 'outs '
16
Handful of Donors to Republican Group, Center for Public Integrity, April 4, 2013,
http://w .publicintegity.org/20 13/04/04/ 12426/irs-outs-handful-donors-republican-goup.
85. Around December 2012, the IRS disclosed the applications for tax-exempt status
of 31 conserative groups to the organization Pro Publica. Nine of those applications had not yet
been approved and therefore were confdential under federal law. ProPublica published six of the
unapproved applications on its website. Barker and Elliot, IRS Ofce That Targeted Tea Part
Also Disclosed Confdential Docs From Conservative Groups, ProPublica, May 13, 2013,
http://www.propublica.org/aricle/irs-ofce-that-targeted-tea-party-also-disclosed-confdential
docs. On August 8, 2013, one such organization fled suit seeking damages for the unauthorized
disclosure pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7431. Citizen Awareness Project, Inc. v. IRS. et al, No. 13-cv-
02127 (D .
.
Colo., August 8, 2013).
86. In July 2013, TIGT A revealed in a letter to Senator Chuck Grass ley (R-IA) that
on four occasions since 2006, goverment ofcials engaged in "unauthorized access or
disclosure of tax records of political donors or candidates, " including one case described as
"willfl unauthorized access." Caroline May, "Wi/(ful unauthorized access": Gov't Ofcials
Raided Ta Records of Political Candidates, Donors; DOJ Declined to Prosecute, July 16, 2013,
http:/ /dailycaller.cor20 13/07 I 16/willfl-unauthorized-access-govt -ofcials-raided-tax -records
of-political-candidates-donors-doj-declined-to-prosecute/. TIGT A also revealed that it had
referred one case to the Department of Justice, but the Department of Justice declined to
prosecute the case. !d.
87. In addition to these recurring illegal disclosures and inspections, the IRS recently
acknowledged that since 20 l 0, it has been systematically targeting applicants for tax-exempt
17
status for additional review and heightened scrutiny based on their perceived conservative
afliations, as well as their philosophical and political policy positions.
88. On or around May 14, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration issued a report entitled "Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-
Exempt Applications for Review" (hereafer "TIGT A Report"). TIGT A, Inappropriate Criteria
Were Used to Identi Ta-Exempt Applications for Review, May 14, 2013, available at
http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf.
89. The TIGTA Report concluded:
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identifed for review Tea Party and other
organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy
positions instead of indications of potential political campaign interention.
Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and
stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in
processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests
to be issued.
!d. at Highlights.
90. The IRS's targeting of conservative applicants for tax-exempt status is currently
the subject of four different congressional investigations, which have included multiple and
ongoing hearngs before congressional committees and interiews with IRS employees.
91. The IRC provides for punitive damages "in the case of a willfl inspection or
disclosure or an inspection or disclosure which is the result of goss negligence." 26 U.S.C.
743l(c)(I)(B)(ii).
92. These examples of similar IRS misconduct towards other groups perceived as
being aligned with conservative policy positions indicate that the disclosure of NOM's
Confdential Retur Information was made willflly, or at minimum, as a result of gross
negligence.
18
Claims for Relief
COUNT I
Violation of26 U.S.C. 6103-Willful or Grossly Negligent Unauthorized Disclosure
93. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this
Complaint as though flly set forth herein.
94. Title 26, U.S.C. 6103 provides that tax "[r]eturs and retur information shall
be confdential" and prohibits disclosure and inspection by United States employees and other
defned persons except as authorized by this prvision.
95. Title 26, U.S.C. 7431 provides taxpayers a cause of action for damages against
the United States for knowing or negligent unauthorized inspection or disclosure of tax retur
information in violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
96. "Retur" is defned as
any tax or information retur, declaration of estimated tax, or claim for refnd
required by, or provided for or peritted under, the provisions of this title which
is fled with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person, and any
amendment or supplement thereto, including supporting schedules, attachments,
or lists which are supplemental to, or part of the retur so fled.
26 u.s.c. 6103(b)(1).
97. "Retur information" is defned very broadly to include
{A) a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments,
receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability,
tax withheld, defciencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the
taxpayer's retur was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other
investigation or processing, or any other data, received by, recorded by, prepared
by, frished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a retur or with
respect to the determination of the existence, or possible existence, of liability (or
the amount thereof of any person under this title for any tax, penalty, interest,
fne, forfeiture, or other imposition, or ofense,
(B) any part of any written determination or any background fle document
relating to such written determination (as such terms are defned in section
19
6l lO(b) [IRC Sec. 61 JO(b)]) which is not open to public inspection under section
6110 [IRC Sec. 61 10][.]
26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(2)(A)-(B).
98. NOM's 2008 Schedule B is the "retur" of NOM pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
6l03(b )(l ).
99. NOM's 2008 Schedule B is made confdential and exempt from disclosure by 26
u.s.c. 6103.
100. Although certain returs and retur information are open to public inspection,
Congress specifcally stated that the IRS is not authorized to publicly disclose the "name or
address of any contributor to any organization or trust . . . which is required to furish such
information." 26 U.S.C. 6104(b).
10 I . The IRC defnes "disclosure" to mean "the making known to any person in any
manner whatever a retur or retur information." 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(8).
l 02. As described above, one or more IRS employees disclosed the Confdential
Retur Inforation to HRC and one or more employees, agents or volunteers of HRC. Such
disclosure was intentional, grossly negligent, or negligent.
103. On information and belief, the IRS employee or employees chose to disclose the
Confdential Retur Information to HRC with the intent that HRC would widely publish the
information through its website, media releases, and through other means.
104. To date, the United States has refsed NOM's requests for information as to the
circumstances of the disclosure of the Confdential Retur Information. Agents of the United
States have admitted, however, that such disclosure was made by IRS employees. Ways and
Means Hearing at 31: I 0.
105. Such disclosure was not authorized by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
20
106. Such disclosure did not result from a "good faith, but erroneous interretation of
section 61 03." 26 U.S.C. 7431 (b)( l ).
107. Such disclosure was not requested by NOM. 26 U.S.C. 7431(b)(2).
108. Such disclosure therefore violates 26 U.S.C. 6103.
109. Donors to 501(c)(4) organizations rely on the JRC's prohibition of disclosure of
information to protect their confdentiality and their right to the freedom of association. Potential
donors to NOM now know that they will not have the protection of those provisions of law. They
know that employees of the IRS intentionally and illegally disclosed the Confdential Retur
Inforation and that the IRS is protecting the identity of those employees and that the
Department of Justice is taking no action to prosecute the violation of law.
COUNT II
Violation of 26 U.S.C. 6103-Willful or Grossly Negligent Unauthorized Inspection
110. The Plaintif realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of
this Complaint as though flly set forth herein.
Ill. The IRC defnes "inspection" and "inspected" to mean "any examination of a
retur or retur information." 26 U.S.C. 6103(b)(7).
112. As described above, in the process of illegally disclosing the Confdential Retur
Inforation, one or more IRS employees inspected NOM's Confdential Retur Information.
113. Such inspections were intentional, grossly negligent, or negligent.
114. Such inspections were not authorized by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
115. Such inspections did not result from a "good faith, but erroneous interretation of
section 6103." 26 U.S.C. 7431(b)(l).
116. Such inspections were not requested by NOM. 26 U.S.C. 7431(b)(2).
21
117. Such inspections therefore violate 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Damages
118. Puruant to 26 U.S.C. 7431, NOM is entitled to the sum of actual and punitive
damages or statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 per each act of unauthorized inspection
and $1 000 per each act of unauthorized disclosure, whichever is greater.
119. The IRC provides for punitive damages "in the case of a willfl inspection or
disclosure or an inspection or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence." 26 U.S.C.
743l(c)( l )(B)(ii).
120. As described above, one or more IRS employees willflly, or as a result of gross
negligence, disclosed and inspected the Confdential Retur Information in violation of 26
u.s.c. 6103.
121. Due to TIGT A's and the IRS's refusals to provide any relevant information to
NOM concering TIGTA's investigation, the number of unauthorized inspections and
disclosures of the Confdential Retur Information cannot be completely and accurately
ascertained at this time, but will be more flly known afer the completion of discovery. At
minimum, Defendant United States of America is liable for $1 ,000 for each unauthorized
disclosure to each recipient of the disclosure and $1,000 for each inspection by employees of the
United States.
122. Because some or all of these disclosures and inspections were made willflly or
as a result of gross negligence, Defendant United States of America is liable to NOM for
punitive damages. 26 U.S.C. 7431(c)(1)(B)(ii).
123. As described above, 30-36, NOM has also suffered actual damages as a result
of the actions of one or more IRS employees.
22
124. NOM has calculated that it has lost in excess of $50,000 in contributions as a
result of the illegal disclosure of its Confdential Retr Information.
125. NOM has calculated that it has incurred in excess of $10,500 in legal fees and
costs as a result of the illegal disclosure of its Confdential Retur Information.
126. WHEREFORE, the Plaintif prays for the relief set forth below.
Prayer for Relief
Plaintif respectflly requests the following relief:
127. The Court's order that the IRS disclose to NOM the results of any and all IRS
andor TIGTA investigation(s) into the person(s) responsible for the release of NOM's
Confdential Retur Information, the circumstances and date(s) of such unlawfl actions,
together with the report(s) of the disciplinary action(s) taken by the IRS regarding the violation
of Code Section 6103 by the IS and its agents and employees;
128. Permanently enjoin the IRS and its agents and employees from frther release to
any third party of Plaintiff NOM's Confdential Retur Information;
129. Award Plaintiff NOM $1,000 in damages for each unauthorized disclosure of its
retur, including intentional subsequent disclosures;
130. Award Plaintif NOM $1,000 in damages for each unauthorized disclosure of its
retur information, including intentional subsequent disclosures;
retur;
131. Award Plaintif NOM $1 ,000 in damages for each unauthorized inspection of its
132. Award Plaintif NOM $1,000 in damages for each unauthorized inspection of its
retur information;
23
133. Award Plaintiff NOM actual damages according to proof incurred as a result of
the illegal disclosures and inspections of Plaintiff NOM's retur and retur inforation;
134. Award Plaintiff NOM punitive damages for willfl and grossly negligent
disclosures and inspections of NOM's retur and retur information;
135. Award Plaintiff NOM costs and reasonable attorey fees; and
136. Award such other relief as the Court deems just.
PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS A JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2013.
Cleta Mitchell, of counsel
(D.C. 433386)*
William E. Davis, of counsel
(D.C. 280057)*
Mathew D. Gutierrez, of counsel
(Fla. 00940 14)*
Kaylan L. Phillips (Ind. 30405-84)*
Noel H. Johnson (Wise. 1068004)*
ACTRIGHT LEGAL FOUNDATION
209 West Main Street
Plainfeld, I 46168
(317) 203-5599 (telephone)
(888) 815-5641 (fax)
cmitchell@foley.com
wdavis@foley.com
mgutierrez@foley.com
kphillips@actrightlegal.org
njohnson@actrightlegal.org
Counsel for Plainti
24
Jason Torchinsky (Va. 47481)
Shawn Sheehy (Va. 82630)
Holtzman, Vogel, Josefak, PLLC
45 North Hill Drive, Suite I 00
Warrenton, VA 20186
(540) 341-8808 (telephone)
(540) 341-8809 (fax)
jtorchinsky@hvj law .com
ssheehy@hvjlaw.com
Counsel for Plainti
John C. Eastman (Cal. 193726)*
Anthony T. Caso (Cal. 88561)*
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
c/o Chapman University School of Law
One University Drive
Orange, CA 92866
(877) 855-3330 x2 (telephone)
(714) 844-4817 (fax)
jeastman@chapman.edu
caso@chapman.edu
Counsel for Plaintif
* Pro Hac Vice Motions pending
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1746
I <cclarc under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
1xeuted DH September _.7 . 20 13
_, / ;
,

;
/.? __ _
Brian S. Brown
President. National Organization tor Marriage. Inc.
JS44 (Rev. 12/12)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
I:l3csi ^f
Mb
The JS44civilcoversheet andtheinformation contained herein neither replace norsupplement thefi!
provided bylocal rules ofcourt. This fonn, approved bytheJudicial Conference of theUnited States in
purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet (SEEINSTRUCTIONSONNEXTPAGEOF THIS FORM.)
pie
Un
ing and service ofpleadings orb'ttiiLpipetlai rffltjuki
inSeptember 1974, is requiredfor the useof the Clerk
. law, except as
of Court for the
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
The National Organization for Marriage, Inc.
(b) County ofResidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Arlington
(EXCEPTINUS PLAIN!IFFCASES)
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address, and Telephone Ntimher)
Jason Torchinsky, Shawn Sheehy
Holtzman, Vogel, Josefiak, PLLC, 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100
Warrenton, VA20186, (540) 341-8808 (continued on attachment)
DEFENDANTS
The United States of America, Internal Revenue Service
Z0I3 OCT -3 A It* 33
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(INi@J>lLAINTIFfCfqSESq/fl.r) . (JOURY
NOTE IN LANDCONDEMNAripftGAS^-'USETHEibpATlONPF
THE TRACT OFLANDWVefcVEO^ ' TK.': m. f/<
Attorneys (IfKnown)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Placean "X" to One Box Only)
O I US. Government
Plaintiff
O 3 Federal Question
{ll.S Government Nota Party)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES^, "X"mOne Boxfor Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) andOne BoxforDefendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
Citizen ofThisStale 0 1 O I Incorporated orPrincipal Place 4 O 4
of Business In This State
H 2 U.S. Government
Defcndanl
O 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of ParliesinItem III)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an"X"in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
O 110 Insurance
O 120 Marine
O 130 Miller Acl
140Negotiable Instrument
O ISO Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
O 151 Medicare Act
152Recoveryof Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
O 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
O 160 Stockholders'Suits
O 190 Other Contract
195Contract Product Liability
O 196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
D 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
O 240 Torts to Land
O 245 Tort Product Liability
O 290 All Other Real Property
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
D 310 Airplane
D 315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
O 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
O 340 Marine
O 345 Marine Product
Liability
D 350 Motor Vehicle
O 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
O 360 Other Personal
Injury
D 362 Personal Injury-
Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
O 440 Other Civil Rights
a 441 Voting
0 442 Employment
O 443 Housing/
Accommodations
O 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
D 446 Amer. w/Disabilities
Other
O 448 Education
PERSONAL INJURY
D 365 Personal Injury -
Product Liability
O 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
O 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
O 370 Other Fraud
O 371 Trulh in Lending
O 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
O 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
O 463 Alien Detainee
D 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
O 530 General
D 535 Death Penalty
Other:
O 540 Mandamus & Other
O 550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
O 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
Citizen ofAnother State
Citizen or Subjeci of a
Foreign Country
0 2 0 2 Incorporated andPrincipal Place
of Business In Another State
ID 3 0 2 ForeignNation
O 5 O 5
O 6 a 6
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
625 Drug Related Seizure
ofPropcrty2)USC881
ID 690 Other
_LAJH2E_
O 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
O 720 Labor/Management
Relations
O 740 RailwayLabor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Acl
O 790Other LaborLitigation
O 791 EmployeeRetirement
Income Security Act
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
ID 465 Other Immigration
Actions
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
O 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
O 820 Copyrights
O 830 Patent
D 840 Trademark
SOCIALSECURITY
ID 861 H1A(1395(1)
ID 862 Black Lung(923)
O 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
O 864 SSID Title XVI
O 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
O 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
, or Defendant)
O 871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
OTHERSTATUTES
O 375 False Claims Act
O 400 Slate Reapportionment
O 410 Antitrust
O 430 Banks and Banking
D 450 Commerce
O 460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
O 490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
M 890OtherStatutory Actions
3 891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionalityof
Stale Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" inOne Box Only)
Gfl Original 2 Removed from
' > Proceeding State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
O 4 Reinstated or O 5 Transferred from O 6 Multidistrict
Reopened Another District Litigation
ft/*"/ik)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CitetheU.S CivilStatute underwhich youarefiling (Do not diejurisdictional staiutes unless diversity)
26 U.S.C. 7431
Brief description of cause:
Civil damages for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of returns and return information.
D CHECK IFTHISISA CLASSACTION .DEMANDS j
UNDER RULE 23, F.RCvP. if (c^/ CM j-GWllU HL~
CHECK YESonly if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes D No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
f 0/3/201 3
CE USE ONLY FOR OFFICE
RECEIPTS AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 1-1 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 26
Court Haoe: United States District Court
Division: 1
Receipt Nutiber: 14683039086
Cashier ID: sbrowi
Transaction Me: 18/03/8013
Payer Natse: JflSQH TORCHIHSKY ___
CIVIL FILING FEE
For: JASON TORCHIHSKY
flnount: ' $400.00
CREDIT CARD
fiat Tendered: *400.0B
Total Due: $400.*
Total Tendered: $400.f
Change flat: 40.00
FILING FEE
113CV1E25
Exhibit A
NOM's 2008 Schedule B, page 1,
as posted on HRC's website,
with and without internal IRS markings
NlODl Ll@DlZODOlNll@0
ZOlD0XlC
Ppted by Human Rights Campaign with all masks turne on
8B
PWM
W
mw
PMWWW.
m
W W
MW Km +3wq
L mmmw~wsm
Lwm
L WWWw
L w mm mwWw
L wtwww
0 wuWWWM&@W
wmmwwwmWe-
WW
BwwtpW=m
K MWWMwW wW WMW .M=~=

MM*
^
M W
L MeM lMm WPM%P%*^MP%%
wwWAWW owmw.=WW.#WW
p=MMwMW=wmmWwWWNMWWWWWW@@
I.W1W&
L mamQmqWFWWW,WWWWw
Wy,@WmWWmWW WWWMW
WW@WWmum=m=mm14
L mewwp$whwMWMMWWWWNW,
Q W@,WWWw WW.WWWW
W@W=wttmmmmmmwmmwwm
mwwmwmmwMMWWWWWW
m=www mm WWWww
WMw1 . - . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .......--
wmwgWmwmqgg
WmmwmmwWWEWMWWwWWWMWWW$
fMWMWWWWW ,MMWwwmmwWm=mBW
w=W
MWmMMMMMWM WWW W9VWWwWW
WMWWm
l
:
l
.
.
As psted by Human Rights Campaign with all mask tured of
2 WT W WW.
8M
wWM
W
WM MDM
PP?WWWW
Wm
W W
K i@ +(q
L W WWWWWMW
Mm
M =wWw
L w mmmwW&W
LWwmw
WmW
-
W
-.
\
W MWW
WWy-WWWWP

@W
\
L
w WWWWWWWm
wwm mmNWMRW.#WW
NWWMWMwM@
I.WWJWB
L mw@m@WmwwW-WWWww
WWy. WMW W#WW #wWmwMW
W.WMW @wVumwm~ww
L wMM00MWNW=HWWmWmmw.
W@ ,Wwwww wmW.WWWW
M@WWWT mmwmwmmmwwm
wwmMmwmWMWWWWWWW
m www *mw=w.<WWW=
wWw . . . . . . . . . . . . --.. -......._......
mm mwwWMWWwWWWWw
WwWwmw.wt~wmmw
NW=WM#=mW=wwWmmwwWMWWWw
WMMMWWMWwWM OWW WWWWWW

*^WMMMM
Exhibit B
Afdavits of current and former NOM ofcers
Eastern District of Vir inia
MARRIAGE, INC.,
Plainti
Civ. No. 13-___ _
v.
Defendant.
DECLARTION OF BRIAN S. BROWN
I, Brian S. Brown, make the following declaration from personal knowledge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania.
2. I am an ofcer of the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"). I currently
sere a NOM's President.
3. I have never requested from the Interal Revenue Service ("IRS") a copy of any
of NOM's tx returs, including I RS Form 990 and accompanying schedules, in either my
personal capacity or my capacity as an ofcer of NOM.
4. I have never authorized a NOM employee to request from the I RS a copy of any
ofNOM's tx returs.
5. Prior to it being publicly posted in March of2012 on various websites, including
those of the Human Rights Campaign and The Hufngton Post, I had never viewed the version
of NOM's 2008 Form 990, Schedule B that bears IRS markings indicating it has been fled with
the IRS ("Ofcial 2008 Schedule B").
Exhibit B, Page 1
6. To the best of my knowledge, NOM's Offcial2008 Schedule B has never been in
the possession ofNOM or in the possession of any NOM ofcer or employee.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Executed on September 2 7, 20 13
2
5
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
Exhibit B, Page 2
MARRIAGE, INC.,
Plainti
Civ. No. 13-___ _
v.
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF JOHN C. EASTMAN
I, John C. Eastman, make the following declaration from personal knowledge pursuant to
28 u.s.c. 1 746:
I. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Califoria.
2 . I am an ofcer of the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"). I currently
serve as NOM's Chairman of the Board.
ofNOM's tax returs, including IRS Form 990 and accompanying schedules, in either my
4. I have never authorized a NOM employee to request from the IRS a copy of any
ofNOM's tax returs.
5. Prior to it being publicly posted in March of 2012 on various websites, including
ofNOM's 2008 Form 990, Schedule 8 that bears IRS markings indicating it has been fled with
the IRS (" Ofcial 2008 Schedule B").
Exhibit 8, Page 3
6. To the best of my knowledge, NOM's Ofcial2008 Schedule B has never been in
the possession of NOM or in the possession of any NOM ofcer or employee.
knowledge.
Executed on June _, 2013

Chairman
2
Exhibit B, Page 4
MARRIAGE, INC.,
Plainti
Civ. No. 13-___ _
V.
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF MARGARET GALLAGHER
I, Margaret Gallagher, make the following declaration from personal knowledge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maryland.
2 . I am a former ofcer of the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"). I
sered as NOM's Chairman of the Board from April22 , 2010 to September 12 , 2011.
ofNOM's tax returs, including IRS Form 990 and accompanying schedules, in either my
ofNOM's tax returs.
of NOM's 2008 Form 990, Schedule B that bears IRS markings indicating it has been fled with
the IRS (" Ofcial 2008 Schedule B").
Exhibit B, Page 5
6. To the best of my knowledge, NOM's Ofcial2008 Schedule B has never been in
the possession of NOM or in the possession of any NOM ofcer or employee.
I declare under penalty of perury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Executed on June 17,2013
2
Exhibit B, Page 6
MARRIAGE, INC.,
Plainti
Civ. No. 13-___ _
v.
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT GEORGE
I, Robert George, make the following declaration from personal knowledge pursuant to
28 u.s.c. 1746:
1. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State ofNew Jersey.
2 . I am a former ofcer of the National Organization for Marriage ("' NOM"). I
sered as NOM's Chairman of the Board from July 2007 to April22 , 2010 . I currently serve a
Chairman Emeritus.
of NOM's tax returs, including IRS Form 990 and accompanying schedules, in either my
personal capacity or my capacity a an ofcer of NOM.
ofNOM's tax returs.
Exhibit B, Page 7
of NOM's 2008 Fon 990, Schedule B that bears IRS markings indicating it has been filed with
the IRS ("Official 2008 Schedule 8").
6. To the best of my knowledge, NOM's Official2008 Schedule B has never been in
the possession of NOM or in the possession of any NOM officer or employee.
knowledge.
Executed on June 1. 2013
2
Exhibit B, Page 8
Exhibit C
Second Declaration of Brian S. Brown
MARRIAGE,
Plainti
Civ. No. 13-___ _
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Internal Revenue Service
Defendant.
SECOND DECLARATION OF BRIAN S. BROWN
I, Brian S. Brown, make the following declaration fom personal knowledge pursuant to
28 u.s.c. 1746:
l. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania.
2. I am an offcer of the National Organization for Marriage ('"NOM"). I currently
serve as NOM's President.
3. In the wake of Proposition 8, and the wide-spread harassment of donors who
supported traditional marriage during the campaign to protect marriage in Califoria, more than
one donor advised me that the donor would only contribute to NOM if the contributions were not
publicly disclosed, for fear of the harassment the donor would receive.
4. One such donor, who specifcally contributed to NOM over several years,
contributed on the specifc condition of anonymity.
5. Afer the IRS illegally released NOM's confdential Schedule B with the names
and addresses of donors to NOM's fercest political enemies, who then published and
disseminated it, and continue to do so, more than one of NOM's previous donors stopped
Exhibit C, Page l
fnancially supporting NOM. I am also aware of other prospective donors that have stepped back
from considering making contributions to NOM.
6. We have calculated those lost contributions to NOM to total in excess of$50,000.
knowledge.
Executed on September 2 7, 2013
2
Brian S. Brown
President
Exhibit C, Page 2
Exhibit D
IRS Response to FOIA Request of May 9, 2013
PRWAC,GOYRNMBNTA
LIAISN AND DISCLOBURB
Zachar S. Kester
Kaylan Phillips
Noel Johnson
.. ; .
DEPARTMEN OF THE TREASURY
WASHINGTON, DC 20224
August 6, 2013
C/o ActRight Legal Foundation
209 West Main St
Plainfeld, IN 46168
Re: National Organization for Marriage (NOM) - Brian Brw, President)
Dear Mr. Kester, Ms. Phillips and Mr. Johnson:
. .
I am responding to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated May 9, 2013
that we received on May 13, 2013.
You asked for copfes of any and all documents, corespondence, records and/or
communication frm Januar 2007 to the present in the pssession of the IRS from or
to any individual and/or organization, including, but not limited to, NOM or any oficer
or employee of NOM, related to requests to the IRS for copies of any of NOM's tax
returs or tax retur inforation, including, but not limited to NOM's For 990,
Schedule B. The requested documents include, but are not limited to, copies of IRS
Forms 4506, 4506-T and 4506-A that have been submited to the IRS.
Afer conducting a search, we located no rcrds responsive to your request for years
2007 t the present. To the extent that any recors may have existed prior to these
years, they would have been destroyed in accordance with our Records Retntion
Schedules.
I have enclosed Notice 393 explaining your appeal rights. If you have any questions
please call Tax Law Specialist Kathy Brewer, I D # 1000274244, at (410) 962-9209 or
wite to: Interal Revenue Serice, HQ Disclosure, 2980 Brndyine Road; Stop 211,
Chamblee, GA 30341. Please refer to case number F13134-0175.
Sincerely,
Exhibit D, Page I
""' :
Enclosure
Notice 393
2
Berrand Tzeng
Disclosure Manager
HQ Disclosure FOIA & Program Opertions
Exhibit D, Page 2

1:13-cv-01225 #1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1:13-cv-01225 #1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:13-cv-01225-JCC-IDD Document 1 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 25 PageID# 1

United States District Court

K MWWMwW wW WMW .M=~=

WMMMWWMWwWM OWW WWWWWW

You might also like