D
Chester who has long since matured past the ordinary grind of being a lawyer was written up in the New York times recently. How One Man Used Corporate Affirmative Action in Ameritech Deal, Section C (4/12/99). The following are some portions of the article:
Chester C. Davenport, the managing director of a private investment firm in Bethesda, Md., does not deny that he got a piece of the Ameritech Corporation's $3.3 billion sale of half of its wireless telephone business, at least in part, because he is black.
But he will also tell you that after years of struggle, he has no problem with the concept of corporate affirmative action.
* * * *
Mr. Davenport is one of the wealthiest black entrepreneurs in the nation with a net worth of perhaps as much as $100 million. Ask him whether he believes that he would have been invited into the Ameritech deal if he were white and his answer opens a revealing window on a new sort of corporate affirmative action that people from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to C. Michael Armstrong, chairman of the AT&T Corporation, are seizing on to bring blacks into the traditionally white worlds of telecommunications and finance.
"I think if I were white, I would own one of these damn telephone companies, O.K.?" Mr. Davenport said in an interview last week. "All the time I've spent here, whatever money I have now, if I were white, doing everything I've done, I would have 100 times more money than I have now, O.K.?"
* * * *
After graduating in the top 5 percent of his class, he began his career in the tax division of the Justice Department, followed by stints on the Senate Banking Committee staff and with a mortgage banking venture backed partly by Salomon Brothers. "Back then, for an African-American you always had to be the best," he said. "It was always, if you're not better than everybody you're not going to get anything."
He added, "It was my mentality then, it is my mentality today, that you have to be better and you have to be smarter."Chester was also written up in Ebony Magazine (The New Black Money Men, Ebony (August 1999). The article covers much of the same ground as the New York Times article quoted above, but some new points are::
Davenport's arena is the world of high-flying corporate finance. At 58, he is managing director of Georgetown Partners, a private investment firm in Bethesda, Md., that acquired a 7 percent interest in one of the biggest corporate deals of the year -- the $3.3 billion acquisition by GTE Corporation of the Ameritech Corporation's wireless telephone business.
Like most of today's money men, Davenport refuses to discuss the deal or its worth. Industry-watchers, however, estimate that Georgetown's stake in the megamerger is worth more than a whopping $230 million.
* * * *
Davenport was the first Black student to enroll in the University of Georgia Law School in 1963, where on the first day of class, he discovered that not one of his fellow students would sit within 15 chairs of him. Still, he went on to graduate in the top 5 percent of his class.Bob Davis Joins the IRS Bashing Chorus
One of our alumni was a witness in the most recent Senate Finance hearings on oversight of the IRS. His testimony was in part as follows:
Release Date: April 28, 1998
STATEMENT BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
BY
ROBERT EDWIN DAVIS OF DALLAS, TEXAS
April 28, 1998MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE:
Identification and Personal Background
My name is Robert Edwin Davis. I am an attorney, and I have practiced law in Dallas, Texas for almost 40 years. During most of those years, the greatest part of my practice has been devoted to representing taxpayers in civil and criminal tax litigation and controversies with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Justice. During the years 1982 and 1983, however, I served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Tax Division of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. I was then responsible for overseeing the functions of the Criminal Section and Review Section (large civil case settlements) of the Tax Division. I think it would be fair to say that there are few attorneys in the United States who have handled more civil and criminal tax cases on behalf of taxpayers than I have since 1960.
Description of Issues to be Discussed
Tax collecting has always been an unpopular calling. From biblical times to the present, there have been few -- or no -- warmly regarded tax collectors. Most of the employees in the IRS are sincere and honorable people, going about their thankless work of administering the rules and policies adopted by Congress, the Treasury Department and senior IRS officials. However, my personal experience is that all is not well with our tax system, and I believe that (1) the IRS has, to a significant extent, strayed from its proper path; (2) there is excessive use and misuse of intrusive and even oppressive investigative techniques within the Criminal Investigation Division (IRS CID); and (3) there are sometimes serious integrity issues within the agency, but that the IRS Inspection Service (IRS-Inspection) is simply not up to the task of investigating and correcting IRS agent misconduct when it does occur. I would like to present my views on these subjects to the Committee over the next several minutes, and in a supplemental written statement.
Excessive Use and Misuse of Intrusive Investigative Techniques by the IRS CID
Fifteen years ago, when I was the Criminal Deputy in the Tax Division, criminal tax enforcement practices were almost totally different from those which are encountered today.
o "Undercover" investigative techniques were almost entirely unknown in criminal tax matters;
o Search warrants were used in criminal tax cases only a dozen times in an entire calendar year;
o Grand jury investigations were a rare exception, and administrative investigations were the rule.
Today that is dramatically changed, and the use of these much more intimidating and intrusive techniques is commonly encountered. For example, search warrants are executed in criminal tax investigations today some TWENTY TIMES as frequently as they were then.
It is not surprising that these changes have occurred. As the IRS CID has been increasingly used in the suppression of drug and organized criminal activity, its special agents have learned the investigative techniques which are employed by the DEA, the FBI and local law enforcement to deal with violent and dangerous criminals. These investigative strategies are then "borrowed" and used by IRS CID in routine criminal tax investigations of taxpayers who are neither dangerous nor violent. Many of us believe that this is a very bad tax enforcement policy. Today, we see too many "cowboy" agents, as they are called, who are undisciplined and inadequately controlled, and who think that the end (putting away the "bad guys") justifies the means (intrusive, intimidating and oppressive investigations). Let me give you an example of the kind of abuses which concern me.
An Example: Executing A Search Warrant to Obtain An Appraisal of Residential Furnishings.
One summer morning in June of 1994, approximately ten IRS special agents appeared at a private residence at 7:30 a.m. They knocked on the door, which roused the only resident of the home from her bath. This resident, "Sally," was a 45-year old woman who was living in a home which had formerly been owned by her grandmother. She put on a bath robe and responded to the knock at the door. There were approximately ten IRS special agents in her yard and on her porch, one of whom presented a warrant to search her house. The agents then entered her house. She was told she could either leave or stay, but if she left she would not be permitted to return so long as they were at the house. She elected to remain, and she was confined to one bedroom, where she remained in the presence of a female IRS agent. The remaining agents searched her home for about eight hours, and then left. The only property which they "seized" and took with them when they left were some 86 old family photographs, many of them taken at Christmas gatherings. Sally was very upset by this forceful intrusion into her home. She missed an entire day of work, and had no idea why the ten agents had entered her house and taken the family photographs.
Later, Sally discovered the real reason for the invasive search. It was not to seize contraband, weapons, drugs or evidence of any crime. Instead, the agents had brought with them a furniture appraiser who went from room to room valuing the beds, sofas, chairs, tables and other personal effects which had been left in the house by her grandmother at the time of her death two and one-half years earlier. The Internal Revenue Service agents believed that Sally's father, the executor, had undervalued the furniture on her grandmother's estate tax return. Sally was not a suspect or in any way involved in the estate tax issues, and her father did not live in the house with her. The criminal investigation of Sally's father was later abandoned by IRS CID.
The extravagant loss of agent time in preparing for and executing this "raid" on the home of an admittedly innocent party who was not a suspect at all was utterly needless. A simple telephone call to Sally would have resulted in consent for the IRS appraiser to inspect and appraise the furniture. Intimidating and intrusive "searches and seizures" are wholly unnecessary to develop valuation cases involving household furnishings. That was, in my opinion, one "search and seizure operation" which should never have been authorized or executed.
Several years later, after I demanded their return, the IRS belatedly gave back the 86 family photographs.
Intrusive Investigative Techniques Should Not Be Used in Routine Criminal Tax Investigations.
I believe, as do many others, that kicking down doors, wearing body armor, carrying automatic weapons and bursting into people's homes with large raiding parties are techniques which should -- if used at all -- be reserved for investigations of dangerous and violent criminals. IRS CID should do what it was created to do: pursue the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and it should leave violent and dangerous criminals to the DEA, FBI and local law enforcement authorities. The exceptions to this rule should be very limited.
I would also like to speak briefly on the subject of undercover operations. Some of us also believe that the deceit and misrepresentation which are inherent in undercover investigations and "sting" operations have no proper place in routine criminal tax investigations. Successful criminal tax prosecutions have long been made in this country without them. The IRS does serious and needless damage to its image and relationship with the public -- and government as a whole -- when it lies to and deceives taxpayers in routine criminal tax investigations.
One Final Appeal: Simplify Our Tax Laws
There is a pervasive national frustration with our federal income tax system, which is far too complex and unintelligible to be fairly and uniformly administered by the IRS. Further, our tax laws cannot be understood or complied with by the great majority of our taxpayers. Indeed, it is my observation that even well-trained tax professionals frequently cannot comprehend and work competently with the Internal Revenue Code. I would respectfully urge that it is time for a major simplification, or some other fundamental change in our income tax laws.
**************** End of Document ****************
Dowd has been cited as a "heavy-hitting Washington lawyer" and "harrumpher of the first order." The Arizona Republic, 5/11/97 edition. The article written in conjunction with his representation of Fife Symington in a fraud trial, cites many characteristics. A sampling, including quotes from his colleagues:
- "bearishly charming or bluntly overbearing,"
- "Tough," "plenty of substance beneath the bluster,"
- "fierce warrior who is also a sweet, honorable, decent guy,"
- a "teddy bear,"
- a family man, with five adopted children, three of them African-American,
- sense of humor, quick wit and a love of food and drink,
- oversaw Major League Baseball's investigation of Pete Rose and George Steinbrenner,
- a persuader as evidenced by convincing Ted Williams (remember him, the baseball player) to wear a tie to a White House luncheon with then President Bush.
All in all, a strong tribute to this Tax Division Alum.
In April 2002, Washingtonian Magazine named John among Washington's 75 best lawyers. The write-up on John is:
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld
IF YOU'VE EVER WONDERED WHY PETE ROSE can't get into baseball's Hall of Fame, you have to look no farther than attorney John Dowd, for whom keeping Rose out has become a cottage industry. Dowd was the investigator Major League Baseball brought in years ago to look into Rose's gambling. One of the toughest and most stubborn members of Washington's white-collar bar, Dowd has never wavered in his conviction that Rose damaged baseball. Every time Rose makes a public plea, Dowd is there to swat him down.
Working at the firm headed by legendary Washington power broker Robert Strauss, Dowd has represented such political powerhouses as then-Senate majority leader Trent Lott, who discovered that an employee of his political-action fund stole $850,000 to buy drugs. Dowd got the money returned, the employee into a drug program, and the investigation concluded with no damage to Lott.
John Murray advised on 10/15/98 that Bob and his partner Frank Blanchfield have joined Mayer, Brown & Platt, a major national law firm with an outstanding tax section. We have not yet received any change of address information and will post that when we do.
Jane Edmisten advises that Ann Durney died 10/23. The following is from an obituary submitted to the Washington Post (but not printed as of the date of this posting)
Ann Belanger Durney, 58, a senior reviewer with the Appellate Section of the Tax Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, died at her home in Bethesda, Maryland on October 23. The cause of death was breast cancer.
Mrs. Durney was born in Rodessa, Louisiana, and grew up in Guymon, Oklahoma. She graduated from Oklahoma University with an undergraduate and a law degree. She was one of two women in her graduating law school class, the other being a career student in her seventies. Mrs. Durney served on the law review and was a member of the Order of the Coif.
Upon her graduation from law school in 1967, Mrs. Durney joined the Appellate Section of the Tax Division. In 1970, Mrs. Durney volunteered to be detailed to the Civil Rights Division when the Department was trying to integrate high schools in Alabama and Florida and spent most of the summer and fall of 1970 in Alabama. She was involved in hearings before the famous Judge Frank Johnson, a district judge in Alabama, on the enforcement of integration orders.
As an attorney in the Appellate Section, Mrs. Durney wrote briefs and presented oral argument on behalf of the government in the federal courts of appeals in cases involving federal income, estate and gift taxes; since 1976, she served in a supervisory capacity, and she was the recipient of several Tax Division outstanding attorney awards. Among her more memorable cases was a landmark case decided in 1992 in which the Supreme Court ruled that a back-pay award, stemming from a sex-discrimination case brought against the Tennessee Valley Authority, was taxable to the plaintiffs.
Mrs. Durney loved traveling, especially to Italy, skiing, tennis and watching Oklahoma football games. She combined a great mix of her father's French-Cajun love of life and sense of humor with her mother's German strength of character and stoicism. She was an active member of St. Patrick's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C.
Mrs. Durney is survived by her husband of 30 years, Michael C. Durney, and her daughter, Christine, of Bethesda, Maryland, her mother, Elleen Bollenbach, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and two brothers, Michael Belanger of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Steven Belanger of Norman, Oklahoma.n April 2002, Washingtonian Magazine named Mike among Washington's 75 best lawyers. The write-up on Mike is:
71. MICHAEL DURNEY
Law Offices of Michael C. Durney
MIKE DURNEY, ONE OF THE BEST TAX LAW-yers in Washington, thinks of himself as a firefighter. "I try to find out where the problem is, and then we go attack it," he says. Before beginning private practice, Durney was deputy assistant attorney general for the tax division at the Department of Justice, and he has written one of the best-known manuals on criminal tax procedure. The Bethesda resident is easy to reach and easy to talk to. His approach to solving problems is sensible: He first finds out what you have done, then develops a strategy to get you out of it. Whether the investigation was triggered at Justice or the IRS, he knows the players.
According to a White House press release on 4/1/98, Dyk has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dyk was a special assistant to the AAG in the Tax Division for one year. Prior to that Dyk clerked for Justices Reed, Burton and Warren. He is currently a partner and chairman of the Issues and Appeals Section of the Washington office of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.