Free Motion for Partial Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 1 of 33

EXHIBIT 8
DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 1 of 12
."," .
.".'

Page 2 of 33 EXHIBIT I DOCKET No. 16571-(

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r. \i' FOR TH NORTil DISJCT OF ILoisr i t" c. W'd

EASTERN DIVISION .

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA,) ..
Petitiôner;
) )
),

F- q:~ ? () 7004
.~\ -..¡,fo''''S

4;:il.~"f'..r.'¡t. ::,~ e vUg.~i:\" p . '. -..~.,.... ".OH~ ,-_ .". . 1~.~. o:.~~'~'"ui w .,v r

LLP, .
v.

)
)

No.O;'C.9355
Honòrable Matthew F. Kennelly

SIDLEY AUSTIN B)lÛWN ~ WOOD,

)

)
)

. Respondent.

)

Mag. Judge Mason

)
)

DOCKETED
MAR 1 5 2004

"BAKER" DOE 1 AND "BAKR" DOE 2

)
) )

Intervenors.

NOTICE OF MOtION
. . PLEASE TAKE N01:ICE that on March 3:t004, at 9:30 a.m., we shall appear before the .

Honorable Mattew F. Kennelly in the courtobm usuay occupied by him at the Everett
McKinley Dirksen Federa Building, :219 South Dearborn Stret, Chicago, Ilinois, and shall then

and there present "Baker" Doe 1 and "Baker" Doe 2'8 Motion to Intervene and Motion for
Protective Order) copies of which are attched hereto and

served upon you.

Gregory S. Lyna

Ljl..

Baker & McKenze One Prudential Plaza 130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, ilinois 60601

(312) 861-8229

z EXHIBIT

i 8
~ '"

..

z

h. \

II

~ì

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 3 of 33

Case 1 :0'3~ev-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 2 of 12
w.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHRN DISTRICT. OF ILLIOiS
EASTERN

DIVION
)
) ) ) )

UNITED STATES OF AMRICA,
Petitioner,
v.

No.02.C..9355

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD, LLP,

) )
)

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly
Mag. Judge Mason

)
Respondent.
)

"BAKR" DOE 1 AND "BAKR" DOE 2
Intervenors.

) ) ) )

)
CERTIFICAT& OF SERVICE

I, Gregory S. Lyna an attrney, cert. that I caused.copies of the: foregoing Notice of

Motion, "Baker" Doe 1 and "Baker" Doe 2'5 Motion to Intervene and Motion for
Protective Order "Baker" Doe 1 and "Bake.." Doe 2'8 Brièf in Support of Intervenor's

Motion To Intervene and Motion for a Protective Örderand Objection to United States's Motion for Summary Enforcement of Summons, "Baker" Doe i and "Bakern Doe 2'8
Proposed o.rder to be served upon the below listed pares by sending copies of same by the February, 2004. method desctibed below ths 26th day of

John Lindquist, Esq. U.S. Deparent of Justice

Post Offce Sox 55 Ben Franlin Station VVash~on, D.C. 20044
(via U.S. Express Mail)

Wiliàm F. Conlon, Esq. Sidley Austi Brown & Wood, LLP 10 South Dearborn
(via

Chicàgo, IL 60603 /
Gregory S. L am
Baker & McKenze
130 Eat Randolph Drive

MeSSe& ß :i
Chicago, Illinois 6060 i
(312) 861 ~8~29

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
::.

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 4 of 33

Case 1 :0~-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 3 of 12
.- .

UNTED STATES DISTRCT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTE:R DIVION
UNITED 8TA TE8 dF AMERlCA,
) )

0
tk..i'
III ~

.-' ,.,

1_ f.-

v C" ..
c--"

~;i

..,

t. ,~ ¡,
(,.) ~~ .~l-;

c.?

Petitioner,
v.

)
)
)
No. 03-C-93-S5

=
LL
Mag. Judge Mason

i&~

(,,,

ü: u.¡ lL

o:.-:

~~ .: ~i
l;~
...t

~ Q ..

.,

,..,

L. ,:

~~
(.1

)

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD

LLP,
Respondent.

)

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

)
)

)
)

)

DOCKErT~
MAR 1 5 ZU04

"BAKERn DOE 1 AND "BAKR" DOE 2,

)

)

Intervenors.
MOTION TO

)

INTERVEE AND

MOTION FORA.PROTECTIVE ORDER
"Baker" Doe 1 and "Bakei' Doe 2 (individually, the "Clìent;" collectively, the "Clients")

hereby move this Coùrfor an Order permttg them to intervene in the above-cäptiòned matter
in accordance with Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Proceure and for a protective order

to prevent disclosure by Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP (the "Law Firm") of the Clients'
identities.

Petitioner, United States of America, brought ths action to enforce a "John Doe"
sumons and to obtan from the Law Firm the identities of certain of

the Law Firm's clients that

the governent

clais have engaged in, among other thngs, "potentially abusive tax shelters."

This sumons was issued by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on October 9, 2003, and the

Court authorized service of the sumons on October 14, 2003; with servce to the Law Firm on
October 15,2003. On December 29, 2003, the goverrunent petitioned this Court to enforce this

summons. The Law Fir has advised the Clients in accordance with the Cour's Order of its

-~

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
0'

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 5 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 4 of 12

intent to provide to the IR the identities of the Clients uness this Couit protects their identities
thugh

application of some privilege. The governent moved on February 17, 2004, for
the John Doe sumons.

sumy enforcment of

The Clie~ts seek to intervene for the purose of asserting their privilege as to their
identities under the attrney-client privilege, and, if necessar, to assert their attomey-client

privilege with respect to documents in the Law Firm's possession aíd to demonstrate that the
Clients' tranactions and the related documents are not responsive to the JOM Doe sumons at
issue in this case, The Clients support this motion to Ì1itervene and for a protective order. as

follows and as set fort in the brief in support filed concurrently herewith. Each Client has

submitted declarations in support as welL. i
1. Thisactìon arises from the governent's petition to enforce the John Doe

summons that the IRS issued to the Law Firm as par of the IRS investigation into participants in
"listed tranactions" and "potentialy abusive tax shelters," as defied by the IRS. The sumons

demands that the Law Firm reveal the identities of clients that entered into certn specificaly
described traisactions.
2. Each Client is a client of the Law Firm, for whom Brown & Wood LLP,

preecessor to the Law Firm, provided legal advice.
3. Each Client requested legal advice from the Law Fir in 2000.

"Baker" Doe 1, the Law Firm
4. Iii response to a request for legal advice by

provided legal advice to "Baker" Doe 1 in connection with an investment tranaction undertkeIi

by him in 2000.

i The Declarations have been redacted given the nature of this motion. Should the Court wish copies of
the original, unredacted Declarations, they wil of course be made available for in camera review.

- 2-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
.-

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 6 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 5 of 12

5. In response to a request for legal advice by "Baket' Doe 2, the Law Firm

provided legal advice to "Baker" Doe 2 in GOrïection with an investment tranaction underten

by him in 2000.
6. The Clients intended and reasonably expecte that their communcatons with the

Law Firm with respect to theIrrespective investment transactions would be kept confdential by
the Law Firm.
7. The Clients understood that the Law Firm would keep such transactions and

communcations confidential and would not disclose the Clients' coinunications in breach of
ary privilege.

8. The Clients have not waived their privieges with respect to the legal ~dvice
received from the Law Firm, and, to the best of the Clients' knowledge; the Law Firm has not
disclosed such advice.

9. On January 13, 2004, the Law Firm advised the Client tht it was going to
disclose the Clients' names and the investment transactions upon which the Law Firm rendered

legal advice to the IRS unless "Baker" Doe 1 and "Baker" Doe 2 sought the protection of this

Cour.
10. On January 22, 2004, in accordance with this Cour's Januar 13, 2004, order,
"Baker" Doe 1 and "Baker" Doe 2 informed, in writing, Michael Sweeney of the Law Firm of

the Clients' intent to assert the attorney-client privilege with. respect to their communications,
which includes their identities.

i 1. The Clients are moving the Colirt to intervene in this matter for a protective order
to prevent the Law Fir from disclosing the Clients' confidential communcations, i.e., their
identities and the detals of the legal advice provided by the Law Firm. The attorney-client

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
-'

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 7 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02126/2004 Page 6 of 12

privilege applies to protect from disclosure to the IRS the Clients' identities and details

concernig the Law Firm's advice with respect to the investment tranactions in which the
Clients engaged.
12. Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure provides thatintervention as

of right shal be permtted --

when the applicant clai an interest relating to the property or transaction wlich is the subject of the action and the applicat is so situated th the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impai or impede the applicant's abilty to protect that interest,
unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing partes.

13. A th-pary's right to protect Its privileges is routinely recògnized as giving rise
to intervention as of right. In re Gräöd Jurv MattedABC)' 735 F.2d 1330; 1331 (11th Cir. 1984)

r'We have reognzed that a district couit should allow intervention by a client in the first
instance. . . as soon as the attorney-client privìlege issue is raised. That the

client refuses to give

his name is no bar to intervention.") (citations omitted); In re Grad Jurv Subpoena (Newparent),
274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Colorable claims of attorney-client and work product
privilege qualify as sufcient interest to ground intervention as of right."); United States v.

Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 597 (6th Cir. 1994) (a "John Doe'; taxpaýer rry intervene in a summons
enforcement proceeding brought by the IRS againt a third pary); In re Grand Jur Proceedings
(Malone), 655 F.2d 882, 885 (8th Cir. 1981) (the intervenor's "personal interest obviously Would

have warranted allowing him to intervene in the Distrct Cour. The attorney-client privilege, after ali, belongs to the client and exists for his benefit."). Similarly, the Supreme Court has

recognized the potential for intervention in a summons enforcement proceeding when the
tapayer's records Were in the hands öf his attorney or his accountant. Donaldson. FKA Sweet

v, United States, 400 U.S. 517, 523 (1971) (rejecting intervention for a tapayer who was not

- 4-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 8 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 7 of 12
.'

issued the suions directly, was not asserting a c1aÙl of privilege; and wa not seeking to
enjoin the release of

hi own records held by his atorney or hi accountat).

14. If the Cour permits the Law Firm to disclose to the IRS the identities of the
Clients, then the Clients wil lose any claims of privilege tht they had with respect to their
corrUricatiöns with the Law Firm. A "secret once.lost is, of course, lost forever." FMC Corp.
v. Taiwan Tainan Giant Ú1dus. Co., 730 F.2d61, 63 (2nd Cir. 19&4).

15. The paries to this action, the government and the Law Firm, are not in a position

to protect adequately the Clients' privileges with respect to their confdential communications

with the Law-Firm. Indeed, the Law Fir has advised the Clients "that it wil not protect their
communications unless the Clients affrmatively assert their rights in ths action.
16. if the Clients are not permitted to intervene in ths action, then they inay be left

with 110 recourse and no maner by which to protect that which is rightfly theirs - their
attrney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Clients should be permitted to intervene, and an

the Clients' privileged
appropriate protective order to prevent the disclosure by the Law Fir of

communcations, including their identities, should be grated.

-5.

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 9 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 8 of 12
..

WltREFORE. the Clients request that this Court grant them the right to

intervene in this

matter, grant an appropnate protective order to protect agaist the disclosure of privileged

communcations of the Clients. and grant such other and furer relief as tlus Cour deems just
and propèr.

February 26. 2004

Attorneys for "Bakr" Doe 1 and
"Baker" Doe 2

- 6-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 10 of 33

Case 1 :03~cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 9 of 12
.,.
;.

DECL

1, _ declare:

1. My çUt reside-ce is
2. In 200 an 2001, 1 was a clent of

the law fu Sidley Austin Bl'WD & Woo

LLP an sougt li:gal advie frm its prec, Brown" WOo, Lt?
3. In 2000. r eDsäQ BröW11r wòø in wrting as

my counel to p(vide legal

advie~ with rèspec \0 Fcdeil inome i:\aw.

4. I engage Brwn &; Wooto obta lecBl acMce speçific:1y icp:dig th
Federl incme ti consequences of an investment 1ranetioli wt I wa eortsidènngimd tht

had beeh deveLoped for me by anotb advisor.

S. Brown It WoOd did not maet the invesen tranaction to me an did .not pla

or develop theinvesbneiit trtin on my bèhar.
6. Puruat to the ~i'gaçmcii'Brown" Woo provide a wrttcu ~pinioQ to me

tht èontaed legà1 advice as tri'the Fedèra incónie ta consquence of th inVetment
transaction. The ~ £01 the legal advice wc~ not çoningc:t on the usucs" of thi: opinion in
any lat dispute with the InèI Revenue Service or any taxing autorty.

7. I engaged in th inveStent tii:tion upDnWhch Brown de WQo provided legal

advic:e an a wtinen opinon.

8. 1 unerood and belltved tht grown &. Wood would 'kep confdential all details
oftl legl .dvice that tho fi provided to me With repeCt to the Federa income ta

consequece aCme invesent tmfÏOlt an aU related documents.
9. I undersood and

believed th Brown & Wood did not have any obligalC)nto

dìsclose the fac th~t lobcied legal a~ice frm the firm or that I engaged In th i.vesi:in

.1.

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 11 of 33

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 10 of 12
...-/
..

tricuon upon which Bro &. woo pt\'ide me le¡al adce.
i o. ( Unertod an believed ~auhe investment triaction in which I engaged was

not a "lis.te trction.N a "t sheltr," ot a "poti:tiaUy abusive ta shelter" under the Fedl
iiomc ta low$.

11. Ncitl 1 nor, to my knwlese, Bro" Wood ha mad a noD-prvileged
disclo5\ ortb dctl or

my 'Pnvieg~ an cònG.detiûa1 cöturcations. iud 1 bavs nOt

¡iuthrizeBrown& Woad ~ insuch a tion.prvileged disclosure.
I declare unde penaty of perur thli1 to the best or my \cowltdßc, tne fC'egoing is true:

and contet. Eltecute ths..~fFcbr, 2004.

.,

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 12 of 33

oJ

Gase 1 :03-cv-09355

Document 48

Filed 02/26/2004 Page 11 of 12

;:.

:.

.",

- .. .'~."

OF

" _.
., .:.:"~ ':0(" ~'t!:~ .: .\-

, -t. l

'of. '. ",

';f' .~.

. . . 2. "'~t 'O~.. aø2001.'I_lçfOfil~tiS .id8YAus. .BrowidtWOOd

c' :f . ..t. ':;'.~. -, ".. -~. . ,....' I . ..l ..--i .', ...;.
.~ i. an so' ..... .. . adce :f it ~t, Brwn a: Wood. LLP.
; ,od v4 ~i:.. ii "' Ja.

'3. ' '2O i ~ Il &: Woo in wr IS my _I to pn loøo , 14'

~ 4. "' .... Bi.t woo to o\7 logo adVl .~Ry nii ii

Ii'~' e, .:i~.', . ~~'" . .i.' . io tI Pod inclI ~ or"" .._ tt \h wa.. ,ii i- ~, ii by 1I1I ai', '

a~

" " 5. :i"" &: Wood. .li1 --il invoa-i to me .. di no . ..~"_ did ro, or dcop ~~(r-Oi on my ii , '

pI""

: 6. '.t1Dth ~ _ &: Woo pi' wi~ to me
tbt contaneløaaccc uta 't Fedef;Hiiccmie ta co~ "" ......:.L: .~~."....!..... .' ,..t". oftheinVesei tr l '\0'" ,~. ..' ':" .,..:il.":, ;.."C~..".e. ."..'..~... 0\, ';'. .l... .,.. l'
'liani.,1! lopl ad .. ii co oi iI -" ofil opoi in

~'I \a ~~ 1J -- B, Scr.. .. on ta ai. ",'. I.
adviçc and a vi o;n.

7. I ei ii th ïn lriioi upon whch Bio .t Wood prvide lega

~,.,;,"" t
i ~.

8. í ~d io ¡,d th Brown &: Woo wod lc oo al il
~ofil leg ai~ iI fi ~ to DlI Jim tepc 111D p.. ui 1Ø
consuence of th inve,1: trctoi an al re1t documts. '," ~.-K
, 9. 1~' ei bec'd th Brown~ woo di DOt hae any obligan to ~ :t.'

. . .i.

'didos" th ii ib I ob1 1181 ad Iì th li or

.,~ .;; . .' , . 1 . a:.:i ".~. .; .i...-

!b i ea i1l1D-l

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 13 of 33

-

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 48 Filed 02/26/2004 Page 12 of 12

. ..

l:!on.J~~~!':':~~i ~.t l
DO "i,to a"" si," .¡ a"p :_ a ~ .' ..'. .'., .. .ioe 1I sI . -.-,' ..di
iDmJ ta l&wi; ....'
,P;,

l'T". .. ... l.i
.. :i
::.~ . : ~.

10. i ~ ai be1 tb th 1nCl tron in whch i~d wa

C-l ;tf¡: ;,

.~ . 1

p~

11. NCltb 1 aM, to my lcWlø, BioVt 8i Woo bü ma a. non-pñvie¡ed
.: itOSo.of~ #iäiis ofmy prvi1cièd .i c:nfdø cowUZciÏlOU. aD I have not

~~~~d. ~~. . :'~oc m. ~ :'n~.prMlcge dì~I~. .'... I

Gft . . ,-,. .

$I... .. .....¡#..~..,.
,,'
'¡'

A i d.eci¡¡' .;.:'.' ".': .;-: ~.17 otpi 1I iolh bc ~~ bii. ' ¡¡rc¡o¡ iltr :~dc~. ~ofre~,20~.", .' ", tI

. . .' .., .
~' "'Y!...~(~"

. :-c~ -

.. ...~
. .:~. .~~

'l'.'..'

......:..

., 0" '.~

ï.1Q~~"" " lr (,. ~ . . . .

,~l. ....,
,'r.

f:-."" ~.. ~
.6.' .

.
~~ ~

..l \~t :!-

~

l'i''' .Ail-'.

of'.

. ~.f' ....

;:;..

~

~

.;~

W l!
'..

'~'~':", i.

~ ~

'f

~

.,. ft~ ~

--.-i .

,¡-.¡.

~

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 14 of 33

EXHIBIT 9
DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 15 of 33

EXHIBIT K

DOCKET No, 16571-04
"

'-

,.

NORTH DISTRCT OF ILINOIS
EASTERN DIVION
UNTED STATES OF A\lRICA,
)

UNED STATES DISTRCT COURT

FILED
APR 1 4 2004
MICHAEL W DOBBINS
CLERK. U.S. DISmrcT COURT

letitioner,
v.

)

)
)

)
)

No.03-C-9355

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP,

)
)

Honorable Matthew F. Kennell
Mag. Judge Mason

Ilespondeøt.

) )
) ) ) )

"BAKR" DOlt i AND "'BAKR" DOE 2,

liitervenon.

)

Aíø1t-; .., .

..¡: /I I... . 'r

MOTION TO WrmDRA W MOTION TO INVENE AN MOTION FOR PROTECTI ORDER
"Baker" Doe 1 anè. "Baker" Doe 2 (the "Clients"), respectflly move ths Cour to alow

them to withdraw their Motion to Intervene and Motion for Protective Order in the abovecaptioned case c:n the following grounds:
i, On ::'~bru 26, 2004, the Clients fied their Motion to Intervene and Motion for

Prot.;ctive Order.

2. On ur about Apri 12,2004, the Clients' identities were disclosed to the Goverent
QY a person othr th Respondent.

3. On Apnl 13, 2004, counsel for the Governent, John Lindquist, inormed the
Clie:lts' counsel via telephone message tht in light of the disclosure to the

Gov::mment of the Clients' names, this "resolves your issues in ths case," and that

the Governent would not oppose a motion to withdrw.
4. As the Governent knows the identities of the "Baket' Does, i:s matter is moot.

5. Counsel for the Clients left a telephone message to Willam F. Conlon, counel for

- EXHIBIT z

I 9
í

fo~

I

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 16 of 33

,.

.,.

..
13, 2004, and informed hi tht the Clients'will no longer be

,.

Res)iondent. on. April

puriiig protetion of their identities and inb:cted hi 1D provide th Clients'

naes to the Goverent if Resondent believes the naes are rensive to the
Johi. Doe suons. On Apri

14, 2004, counl for the Clients spoke with Michael

J. S-;"eeney, coel for Reondent, who st tht Respondent had no objecton to

the i:iotion to withdraw,

Wtæ::FORE. it is prayed tha this Motion be grante and tht "Baker" Doe 1 and
"Baker" Doe ~, be alowed to withdraw their Motion to Intervene and Motion for Prtetive

Order.
Respectfly submitted

April 14, 2004

Thoma V.M. Linguti

~~ ,II/!

Gregory S. Lyn
Baker & McKenze

130 Eat Radolph Drve
Clucao, llinois 6060 i

(312) 861-2623

Attorneys for "Baket' Doe i and "Baker" Doe 2

~

.=

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 17 of 33

~

UNED STATES DISTRCT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRCT OF ILLIOiS

FILED
APR I 4 2004
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS

EASTE DIVION
) )
)

UNITED ST A"rES OF AMCA,
I

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR7

Jetiioner,

)

v.

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP,

) ) )
)

No.03-C-93S5
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

)

Mag. Judge Mason

Respondent.

)
)

"BAKR" DOE 1 AND "BAKR" DOE 2,
i:ntervenors.

)
) )

)

CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE
I, Grgory S, I -ynam, an attorney, ce~ that I caused copies of

the foregoin "Baker" Does'

Notice ofMot:Dn an Møtion to Withdraw Motion to Intervene and Motion for Protectve
Order and Pr(iposed Order to be served upon the below listed pares by sendig cppies of

same via facsimile and US, Mail ths 14th day of Apri, 2004.
John Lindquis1: Esq,

U.s. Deparent of Justce
Post Offce Bo:, 55

Harey Silets Kan Muchin ZavÎs Rosen
525 W. Momoe Strt

Ben Frain ~ tation
Wasgton, D.C. 20044

Suite 1660 Chicago, IL 60661-3693

FAX: (202) 51.4-5238
Wilia F, Co:ùon, Esq.

FAX: (312)902-1061

Sidley Ausn::3rown & Wood, LLP 10 South Dea60rn
Chicago, IL 6:)603

Ronad Safer Schiff Hadi LLP
6600 Seas Tower

FAX: (312) 8 :.3-7036

Chicago, II 60606 FAX: (312) 258-5600
Steven S. Brown

Michal I. Saltzman Kathleen M. Pakenham
Danelle M. Si:iith
Whte & Case LLP
n 55 Avenue .:ithe Americas

New York, N~:' 10036-2728 FAX: (212) 3~;4-8133

Danel T. Harett Royal B. Main Mar, Brown & Sullivan, Ltd 321 South Plymout. Cour Chicago, IL 60604
FAX: (3 12) 360-5026

-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 18 of 33

r

t
Rober E. McKenze

Richad 1( He:.ierm
Shekar Adiga
Arin &. Le:.ir LLP

Jaser o. Taylor il

Prescott B. Pohl

Richa Le Huo
Fulbnght & Jaworski LLP

120 S, Riversk.e PLaZ, Suite 1200
Chcao, IL 6 )606

.1301 McKey, Sui 5100
Houston, TX 77010-3095 FAX: (713) 651-5246

FAX: (312) 8';6-0288
George W. Co :inely

Jua F. VasUI:Z, Jr.

Chaberlan, Hrdlicka Whte,

William & M ¡u:
1200 SIlth St:eet, Suite (400
Houston, TX ;'7002 FAX: (713) 6.:;8-2553

Gregoiy S. Lynam

Baker & McKene 130 Eat Radolph Drive
Chicago, Ilnois 6060 i

h4L

(312) 861-8229

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 19 of 33

EXHIBIT 10
DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
\4m\JI~'()Ii:1 hllfli'Ilö7)

Document 16-5
Document 67

Filed 05/12/2006

EXHIBIT 33 Page 20 of L DOCKET No, 16571-04

Case 1 :03-cv-09355

Filed 04/15/2004

Page 1 of 1

United States District Court, Northern District of Illnois
:-ame

or Ássigned Judge ór Magln!"at" Judge

Matthew F. Kennelly
03 C 9355

Sitting J\ldge If Other than Assigned Judie

CASE NUMBER
CASE TITLE
MOTION:

DATE
USA VB. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood

4/15/2004

(In ihe following box (Ii) indicate the party fíingthe moûon, e,g., plaintilT, defendant, 3n1 par)' plainiiff, and (b) stale brieny the nalure of the motion being presenied. J

I

DOCKET ENTRY:
(1 )

(2)
(3 )

(4)

(5)
(6) (7) (8)
(9)

o o o o o o o o o

Filed motion of ( use listing in "Motion" box above.)

Brief in support of motion due _'
Answei' brief

to motion due_, Reply to anwer brief due_,

RulinglHearing on _ set fOf _ at_,
Status hearingfheldlcontinued to) (set for/re-set for) 00 _ set for _ at _' Pretrial conference(heldlcontinued to) (set for/re-set for) on _ set for _ at_,

Trial(set for/re-set for) on _ at_,
(Bench/Jury trial) (Hearing) held/contiued to _ at_,

This case is dismísseçl (with/without) prejudice and without costs(by/agreementJpursuat to)

OFRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41. 0 FRCP41(a)(I) 0 FRCP41(a)(2),
(10). (Other docket entr) Baker Does' motion to withdraw motion to intervene is granted.

Governent's oral motion to stay statute of limitations is granted, On the Government's oral motion, the statute of limited is tolled from now through the ruling date of 4/29/04.

r'./

(1 i)

o (For further detail see order (on reverse side oI7attached to) the original minute order.i

Nt) notices required. advised in open court,

No noiices required.
Noiiees mailed by judge's sian'.
Noii

z
..

EXHIBIT
10

Document Number
nun,ber ofnoice

lied counsel by ielephone,

..

i

!

APR d. . doc...d 2;: g¡~

Dockc:ling 10 mail noiièes.

i
..,

Mail AO 450 fonn,
Copy 10 judgeimogisiratc: judge.

1~ ibLàl
'::1 '~;ï¡

I

~1

courtrom
OR

daiiunailed notice

depuiy's initials

'Il :
Date/time received in

"", '.:. ~I (.
moilini doiy Îl;,"ib

central Clerk's Offce
I "\

...

v.. .

.....

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

EXHIBIT M Page 21 of 33 DOCKET No. 16571-0.

GR§iS~RQ,~.Q~% Ii c~ment 76 Filed 04/28/2004 Page 1 of 1

United States District Court
Northern District of Dlnois
Eastern Division

USA
v.

JUGMENT IN A CIV CASE
Case Number: 03 C 9355

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
for a tral by jur. The o Jur Verdct. This action came before the Cour issues have

ben

tred and the jur redere its verdict.
. Decision by Cour. Ths action cae to tral or heag before the Cour The issues
have been tred

or hear and a decision has been rendered

IT is HEREY ORDERED AN ADJUED th the Cour grts the Goverent's
petition to enforce the sumons. The

Govementts motion for rensideration of order

grting permissive intervention is denied. Judgment is entere orderng Sidley Austi Brown
&. Wood to comply with the sumons.

~T-(.... ,..,.....
.,~ ,.

. . ," .~.~,':,~1'.

\ :-... . ii'.'~~tl~1t.ii
,.... '... .. '~l

~PR i 9 1004
.,' :t

'.' ~.~~~4J
t . .,' " ,,.,,1¥. ~ . . .

. _-il' i.l' ~-,-_...jil:.-

Michael W. Dobbin Clerk of

Cour

Date: 4/28/2004

1

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 22 of 33

EXHIBIT 11

DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

Minule Orde Form (067)

Case 1 :03-cv-09355 Document 16-5 04/30/2004 Page 1 of 23 Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS Document 78 Filed Filed 05/12/2006 Page 3 of 33

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Napieor Asgned Judge
,-.' or Magistate Judge

Matthew Kennelly

SIttng Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMER
CASE

03 C 9355

DATE

4/30/2004

United States vs. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
(In the following box (a) indicate the part liling the motion, e.g., plainlÍff, defendant, 3rd part plaintiff, and (b) slate briefly the nature

TITLE
MOTION:
of

the motion being preented.)

I

DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) (2)

(3) (4)
(5) (6)

o o o

Filed motion of ( use listing in "Motion" box above.)
Brief in support of

motion due--,

Answer

brief

to motiondue_. Reply

to anwerbriefdue_.

(7)
(8)

(9)

o o o o o o

Ruling/earing on

setfor_at_

Statu hearing(held/contiued to) (set forlre-set for) on _ set for _ at_,
Pretrial conference(held/contiued to) (set for/re-set for) On _ set for

at_

Trial(set for/re-set for) on _ at_.
(Bench/Jur trial) (Hearig) held/continued to _ at _'

This case is dismissed (withwithout) prejudice and without costs(by/agreementlpursuant to)
o FRCP4(m) 0 Local Rule 41. 0 FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10). (Other docket entr) Enter order on motion for stay pending appeaL. Emergency motion of

Intervenors to issue a stay pending appeal is granted.

(11) .

(For furher detail see order attched to the original minute order.)

No notices reuire, advised in open court,

No notice reuire.

..

z

Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

.;

EXHIBIT
11

numb ofaoiic:

it -

i

Doketing to mail notice.
Mail AO 450 fonn,
Copy to judge/magistrte judge.

~ z ii
0"1 ' ...f\.

f J,,;.., , 0:1(,; 'S'

'. . ,-:;',: ! .! n
doie maied noce
. .....,

íJi
",¡Iins dety inials

courtoom
TP

deputy's initials
Date/time reived in

\::7

...

ceniràlCler's om .

," "
'I ....1

.ò-:.:' .;t_.
.j' . t-" d ;:;

. ..,:.'. ..:/'::':.'i :':.:'o'f,~~?!~~~Y.;-::7;~~",~':'p,RR,~:~n\:'t~:.o:j:!.j~H.~1gt:~~~~~g,t;:",::~,'~..'S:a;9~':t;:~f!p.C. ':;~r:::(~:,:;:;\:::,t~': '."::";'_ ; ....

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 24 of 33

..
...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT.COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IllNOIS

EAERN DMSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,
v.
SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD
LLP, with respect to the mattr of

.Case No. 03 C 9355
Judge Mattew F. Kennelly
i ~.. .'0:
~

the tax liabilties of:
JOHN DOES, United State

taxpayers who, during any part of the period January 1, 1996

.,,r:.rI.,;.Ji~ll",I¡ .. .:v . ~ ..'.~ ..
! ;.~ _#1 .

through Octber 15, 2003,
partcipated In a transacton which
was or later became a "list

Wii\~ () i 2\)04

'10' 'A~

transacton" or other ~potentlally abusive tax shelter" organized or
sold by the law firm of Sidley

, ~~~ .~,~.. ...... ".',.:,.,.. ....., ,_.,~..

Austin Brown &. Wood LLP and its predecessor, Brown 8& Woo LLP.

Respondent.
J

ØlUI8 ON ~OIl~t Plt.,_"; APPEA
Motion of

This matter having co~e before the. COurt on April 29, 2004, on the the Intervenor Do (specifically, Arnstin Doe 1 and Arstein Doe 2

(the "Arnstein Does"), Chamberlain Doe 1, Chamberlain Doe 2, Chamberlain
Doe Company 1 and Chamberlain Doe Company 2 (the irChamberiain Doesll),

Fulbright Doe 1, f~lbrightDQ,~ 2, Fulbright Do Corp., Fulbright Doe 3, Fulbright
. '. .. -,..:. ....'.....~,.-. ..... .._...... _..'._.~..., .......,:.:..:..~..:. . .~_..-.. .~...-.,...,. .....~

Doe Trust 1, Fulbright Do Trust 2 and Fulbright Doe L.L.C. (the "Fulbright
Does"), John and Jane Does 1-27, and Martin Doe 1, Martn Doe 3, Martin Doe 4 and Martin Doe 5 (the "Martin Does") (hereinafter referred to collecively as

Pag 1 of 2

-¡ï

,4

.:',. .""",v"""ßåse'1c'D3" C. ., ....;':i!tf: :,.J,i.. .o.'..l.'.''.'...:.-w''.."....:i'. ..,.. '.'..... ..... ... . ,, .. .....:,:; :..:.,... ..... j;.~:".'''.. ... ,".cv.09~o;-' ..ØôI-l:~S¡bb,:rg.. ".F:ll~d-04/30/2004 .. '. Page 3 of 3 .... . Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS Document 16-5 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 25 of 33

.... ,,", .1. .'. ",:... : "

'"

.. the l'Intervenor DoesI)) for a sty of this Court's Order of April 28,,2004,

enforcing the John Doe ~ummons issued to Sidley Austn Brown & Wood Ll,
pending appel, the United States having concurrntly requested a suspension

of all statutes of limitations with respect to the Does If the Court were to grant
such a stay, and the Court having considered the matter, It is hereby

. ORDERED that the Court's Order of April 28, 2004, enforcIng the
summons Issued to Sidley Austn Brown & Wood LLP Is styed with respect to

the Intervenor Does, and shall be stayed for the period during which this
proceeding remains pending, Indudlng all appeals, Including the period until all
appeals are disposed of, 'or until expiraton of the period

in which all appels may be taken or a request for rehearing may be made; and It Is further
ORDERED, pursuant to the authonty of 26 U.S.C. § 7402, that the

running of any period of limitations under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6501 and 6531 with
respe to each of the Intervenor Does continues to be suspended pursuant the

Court's Order of Apr1115, 2004 and shall remain suspended for 30 days after
the later of (1) the time for taking an appeal from this Court1s Order of April 28,

2004, has expired, or (2) If an appeal Is taken, the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari after disposition of the appeal by the
court of appeals, or (3) If a petition for certorari

Is filed and denied, t~e date

the petition for certorari IS denied, or (4) If á petition" for certlorart Is flied and
, granted, the date 30 days after the mandate of the Supreme Court Is Issued. This suspension IS in addition to any suspensions or extensions of such sttute
of limitations w1th respec to the Intervenor Does by virtue of the provisions of

any other provision of law or order of this Court.

DATED: 'i -3 ()- ti

~
Pag 2 of 2

u.s. DISTRIcr JUDGE

888534_2

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 26 of 33

EXHIBIT 12
DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
02/15/2005 14: 54 FAX 202 514 9849

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 27 of 33
Ia046/050

US DEPT OF JUSTICE. TAX

..
Lindquist, John A. çr :IU)
From:
To: Cc:
S'ent:

dgronsman~sldley.com
Tuesday. June 29. 2004 3:04 PM Undquist, John A. (TAX)

wcnlOSIdley.com; rpietrkOsdley.com; TMiler(lSidley.com

Subject:

tm.ht (1 KBSS67_1.00
C (40 KB

.

SAB&W Tax Matter - Final Discure

¡l

~.ohn: attached is the balance of the names and addresses of the interveners in the Jihn Doe action. Please let me know if you have any questions.
~~5561780 1.DOC~~
Sidley Austin Brown i Wood LLP maii server made the following annotations on 06/29/2004, 02:04:07 PM

------------ -------- --- -------------- ----------- --- ------ ------- -----

This e-mail is sent :iy a iaw firm and may contain ;Information that is priviieged or confidential. If yo~ are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail a~d any attachments and noti fy us imediately.

...."

; EXHIBIT ..

.l 12 l
i
02/15/05 TU 15:47 (TX/RX NO 9275)

g

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
02/15/2005 14: 54 FAX 202 514 9649
0\

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 28 of 33
11047/050

US DEPT OF JUSTICE. TAX

6/910

Arur A.dene il

CheDery - CARllS

Diversified - Spi ead Options

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
02/15/05 TU 15: (7 (TX/RI NO 9275)

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
02/15/2005 14:54 FAX 202 514 9649

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 29 of 33
ia 048/050

US DEPT OF JUSTICE. TAX

6/9/04

Mr. Keith Tuki~ c/o Waddell & !tee Financial, Inc.
6300 La A\ ~ue Shaanee Mission, KS 66202

Multi-National !~trategies - COMMON TRUST

Valdez - 43549.J

CONFIDENTIL _ ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
2

02/15/05 TU 15:47 tTX/RX NO 92751

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 30 of 33
1a04g/OSO

02/15/2005 14: 54 FAX 202 514 9649

US DEPT OF JUSTICE. TAX

6129/0

CONFIDENTIA.. - ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIILEGE - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
3

02/15/05 TU 15: 47 (TIIR NO 9275)

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS
02/15/2005 14: 55 FAX 202 514 9649

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 31 of 33
I2 050/0S0

US DEPT OF JUSTICE. TAX

.-

6/29/04

CONFIDENTiAl.. - ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRivilEGE - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
4

02/15/05 TU 15:47 (TI/Rl NO 9275)

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 16-5

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 32 of 33

EXHIBIT 13
DECLARATION OF JOHN LINDQUIST

'No. ,. Client Name
67 ITucker, Keith .
Cumbeidae Investments Limited Epsoln Limited Lehman Brothers

AJy OttirPenion or Entity Idl!ntified in Opinion a, Involved in Transaction SliQ(2000) Company, tne

68

69

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

70

i

Document 16-5

r
i

72

PE.BoOlne, N, I.

73

Filed 05/12/2006

)(

m

i I i J i

,. :: w

øi

Page 33 of 33

-l

~ d
OIVERSIFlEO