IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, gt al., 
Plaintiffs, 
1 
1 
V. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, al., gt 
) 
) 
) 
) Defendants. 
NOTICE OF FILING OF THE FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY RlEPORT 
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
The Department of the Treasury has prepared its Fourteenth Quarterly Report on Actions 
Taken By the Department of the Treasury to Retain IIM-Reluted Documents Necessary For an 
Accounting and submits it to the Court in accordance with this Court’s Order of December 21, 
1999. 
A copy of the report is attached hereto. 
Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 2,2003 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
r 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
SANDRA P. SPOONER 
D.C. Bar No. 261495 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Scnior Trial Counsel JOHN J. SIEMIETKOWSKI 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
(202) 514-3368 (phone) 
(202) 514-9163 ( f a ) 
I 3 June 2,2003 
MEMORANDUM FOR: 
FROM: 
SUBJECT: 
Included with this cover memorandum is the “Fourteenth Quarterly Report on Actions 
Taken by the Department of the Treasury to Retain IEM-Related Documents Necessary 
for an Accounting” (the “Report”). The Report has been prepared by the Department of 
the Treasury pursuant to the Court Order and Opinion in Cobell, et al. v. Babbitt, et crl. 
(D.D.C. CV No. 96-1285), filed December 21, 1999. 
The Report includes information concerning the Financial Management Service, 
(“FMS’’), Bureau of the Public Debt (“RPD”) and certain Departmental Offices (“DO”). 
The Report was prepared based on information provided by a number of program offices 
from the above-described organizations. The preparation of the Report included 
circulation of drafts of the Report to program offices that are responsible for the actions 
described in the Report. Comments were received from those offices and incorporated in 
the Report. 
Prior to submitting the Report to the Department of Justice, senior officials of FMS, BPD 
and DO reviewed a final draft of the Report. 
The Department of the Treasury stands ready, in accordance with the Court’s order, to 
respond to any questions or concerns thc Court may have after reviewing the Report itiid 
FOURTEENTHQUARTERLYREPORT 
COBELL, ET AL. v. NORTON, ETAL. 
attachments thereto. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
B U R E A U OF THE PUBLIC DEBT 
W A S H I N G T O N , DC 20239-0001 
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
CIVIL DIVISION 
BRIAN L. FERREL 
CHIEF COUNSEL 
BUREAU OF THE 
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
www.publicdebt.troas.gov INTRODUCTION 
tiad ol’the Ircasury 
I. 
This is the Department of the Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Fourteenth Quarterly Report, filed 
pursuant to the Court’s December .2 1, 1999 Order (“Order”) in the above-captioned case. It 
covers activities occurring over a three-month period from March 1, 2003 through May 3 1,2003. 
The Order states that “[elach quarterly report shall be limited, to the extent practical, to actions 
taken since the issuance of the preceding quarterly report.” Cobell, et al. v. Babbitt, et al., 91 F. 
Supp. 2d 1,59 (D.D.C. 1999). 
During the trial in 1999 on issues related to the operation of the system for handling ITM 
assets, Treasury agreed to a series of eight stipulations designed to address matters involving IIM 
under Treasury’s control. In its Memorandum and Opinion: Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
of Law (“Opinion”), also issued on December 21, 1999 [91 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999)], the 
Court held that Treasury committed a single breach of its trust responsibilities by destroying IIM 
trust materials “after their age exceeded six years and seven months, without regard to the fact 
that the United States (through its trustee-delegates) has not rendered an accounting of plaintiffs’ 
IIM trust money.” Id. at 50. The Court further stated in its Opinion: “It may very well be that 
the agreement reached in that instance [Stipulation paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, addressing record 
retention] would satisfactorily discharge Treasury’s duty to retain these [IIM-related trust] 
documents beyond this litigation.” Id. at 5 1. The Court held that Treasury’s stipulations mooted 
the plaintiffs’ concerns regarding non-segregability of IIM trust checks by payee name and the 
“front-end float” (Stipulation paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 7). Id. at 34-35. Stipulation 8 addressed 
“back-end float.’’ 
In previous Quarterly Reports, Treasury reported on steps it had taken to address the 
single breach the Court had found with respect to Treasury and to report Treasury’s progress on 
all of the Stipulations. Treasury restated in its Ninth Quarterly Report how and when 
Stipulations 1,2, 3, 4, 5 , 7 and 8 were completed. Pending approval of Treasury’s proposed 
revised retention schedules (which Treasury submitted to the National Archives and Records 
Administration at the end of September 2000) and Treasury’s proposed new retention order and 
proposed amendment of Stipulation 6 (which Treasury fled July 9, 2001), Treasury continues to 
take steps to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that records are retaincd as required by the Court’s 
August 12, 1999 retention order arid in fulfillment of Stipulation 6. In light of these actions, 
Treasuri. filed a motion ivitli tlic Court on Jan~iary 20, 200 1 seeking a determination that the 
Secretar). rectified the single brcach of h i s trust responsibilities found by the 
Court and seeking to be released from the quarterly reporting obligation. On September 28, 
200 1, thc Court denied the motion, without opinion. Accordingly, this Fourteenth Quarterly 
Report sets forth the status ol’ Stipulation 6 dealing with record retention. 
FOURTEENTH QUARTERLY REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN 
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TO RETAIN 
IIM-RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR AN ACCOUNTING 
Cobell, et al. v. Norton, et al. 
D.D.C. CV NO. 96-1285 
June 2,2003 
1 The full text of Treasury’s Stipulation is set forth as Attachment A. 
STIPULATION 6 (RECORD RETENTION) 11. 
Stipulation 6 provides: 
6. Until the new retention schedules are in effect, Treasury will preserve: 
original checks, and digitized and microfilm copies of 
negotiated checks; 
check information from these same checks in electronic form 
(i.e., check serial number, date and amount); 
a. 
b. 
c. monthly reports of canceled checks (either in electronic form 
or hard copy as retained in the normal course of business); 
and, 
IIM deposit fund investment records (either in electronic form 
or hard copy as retained in the normal course of business), 
specifically requests for invcstment/redemption, transaction 
confirmations, and monthly account statements. 
I 
d. 
As previously reported in Treasury’s Thirteenth Quarterly Report filed February 28, 
2003, on February 20,2003 the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 
transmitted its response with respect to the proposed revised retention schedules that Treasury 
submitted to NARA at the end of September 2000, in fulfillment of Stipulation 5.’ NARA’s 
response was that NARA will hold those schedules in abeyance “pending further developments 
in the Cobell case,” although NARA appraisers concur with the dispositions stated in the 
schedules. Regardless of any future action NARA may take, Treasury’s retention schedules will 
remain subject to the Court’s August 12, 1999 Order Regarding Treasury Department IIM 
Records Retention (“August 12, 1999 Order”), or any modifications of, or rcplacements to, that 
August 12, 1999 Order. 
exclude 
Treasury continues to preserve its IIM-related documentation pursuant to the August 12, 
1999 Order. As previously reported in Treasury’s Seventh Quarterly report filed September 4, 
2001, on July 9, 2001, the Department of Justice (“Ju~tice’~) filed the “hlotion for a pew1 
Treasury Department Document Retention Order and Replacement of I’aragraph 6 of the 
Stipulntion Ihtcrccl July 6, 1999” ivhicli is still pcnding. ‘lhe proposed new rctcntion order 
lvould non-IIM records and certain duplicativc l l h l records, hut otherwise \\auld include 
all records that contain or could contain IIhf information, including sum mar^ Icvel infbnnation. 
Stipulation 5 provided: “Following consultation with Interior, Treasuy will evaluate and submit its proposed 
rctcntion schedules for IIM-related doctittietits revised record to thc .Arcliivist of the United States, piirsuarit to 44 
chapters 29, 3 1 and 33, and the corresponding regulations ... .” U.S.C. 
2 This quarter, Treasury continued taking steps to ensure the retention of the records 
described in Stipulation 6. Throughout this quarterly reporting period, Treasury kept the Special 
Master apprised of developments. 
By letter dated March 27, 2003, the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), through Justice, 
requested approval from the Special Master to implement a system based on scanning and 
storing paid savings bond images digitally rather than on microfilm. The Special Master orally 
approved the request, which Justice confirmed in a letter to the Special Master on April 7,2003. 
(See Attachment B.) 
As set forth on pages 29, 36-37 and 60-61 of Interior’s Thirteenth Report to the Court, 
filed May 1,2003, Interior’s Office of Special Trustee (OST) submitted necessary forms and 
information to enable Financial Management Service (FMS) to process adjustments to the pool- 
level IIM account at Treasury, 14x6039, effective March 3 1 , 2003. The adjustments eliminated 
the approximately $2.5 million difference in the IIM trust fund balance between Interior and 
Treasury. In addition, OST has committed to follow necessary reconciliation procedures and to 
correct differences in a timely manner to keep the balances aligned. 
On April 7, 2003, Treasury, through Justice, informed the Special Master of the status of 
pending legislation known as the Check Truncation Act and the impact it would have on 
Treasury’s handling of Cobell-related checks, if enacted. (& Attachment C.) 
With respect to the 55 findings cited by GAO in its January 3 1, 2002 report titled 
“Financial Management Service: Significant Weaknesses in Computer Controls Continue” 
(GAO-02-3 17), one finding remains outstanding, and it is not specific to IIM-related systems.2 
On May 16, 2003, the Special Master requested that FMS stand ready to provide additional 
information to his information technology (IT) expert regarding FMS’ IT security. 
Treasury continucs to support and provide assistance to Interior in its ongoing trust 
management and accounting efforts. As it has in the past, Treasury continues to work closely 
with Interior’s Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OE-ITA) to produce checks and check- 
related information from FMS’ Check Payment and Reconciliation (CP&R) System, upon 
receipt of necessary predicate information to conduct such searches. In March 2003, FMS 
received two requests for check records from OHTA along with tapcs of predicate information. 
One request was for check copies for Interior’s Alaska pilot. The second request was for check 
information for Interior’s Southwest pilot and Per Capita accounts. After processing the tapes 
through CP&R, FMS provided the search results to OHTA on May 15, 2003, consisting of check 
data on more than 13,000 checks and photocopies of33 checks. In May 2003, FMS received 
if1 ii itiotioii h i - ii Chi 
coiiccrriirig 
regard to (I) 
paper. 
potectitx order 
the 
Fh’lS’ position paper 
motioii, 
’ Fchruai-1, 27, 2003, Trcasury fiicd 
C i i l C ) report ;tiid 011 tlie I’endiiig rtilirig the ;ittactmerits to 
kzep the 
a blotivri to adopt the recommendations iiiade tilcd 
( 2 ) the a Iwsitioii the 
Spccial blaster directed the Plaintiffs. in a letter dated h4arch 14, 7001. to contents of the Fh4S position 
paper confidential. On November 27, 2002, the Special hlaster granted, in part, Treasury’s motion arid issued a 
Protective Order and Opinion, providing that FMS‘ March I , 2002 position paper and one attachment (Attachmcnt 
A) are “protected material” and iinposing limitations oil their disclosure. On December 10, 2002, Treasury, throttgli 
in the Special Mastcr’s November 27, the Department of Justice, 
2002 Opinion. 
3 two additional requests and tapes of predicate information from OHTA, requesting check records 
for Interior’s Alaska pilot and Judgment accounts. FMS is currently processing those tapes 
through CP&R. Interior and Treasury representatives have discussed suggested approaches for 
coordinating OHTA’s requests for check records on an ongoing basis. 
On March 4-6,2003 and May 14-15,2003, Treasury representatives attended sessions of 
two accounting conferences provided by OHTA, in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Washington, 
D.C., respectively, for personnel and contractors working on various aspects of the historical 
accounting project. On March 18-20,2003, Treasury representatives attended sessions of a trust 
foundations training conference conducted by Upper Mohawk, Inc. through Interior in 
Washington, D.C. 
On May 27, 2003, Treasury transmitted, through Justice, a report from its Chief 
information Officer to the Special Master regarding an e-mail system upgrade and a possible 
data loss during a system failure at the Departmental Offices. This report followed telephonic 
notice to the Special Master of this possible data loss on May 20,2003, and telephonic notice to 
Plaintiffs’ Counsel on May 22, 2003. Treasury is currently assessing whether any data was lost 
during that failure. (See Attachment D.) 
4 INDEX TO ATTACHMENTS 
The Department ojthe Treasury s Fourteenth Quarterly Report 
June 2, 2003 
Attachment A 
Attachment B 
Attachment C 
Attachment D 
The Department of the Treasury’s Stipulation dated July 6, 1999 
Letters dated March 27, 2003 and April 7, 2003, from Brian L. 
Ferrell, Special Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and John J. 
Siemietkowski, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 
respectively, to Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, requesting and 
confirming Mr. Balaran’s approval to implement digital imaging of 
paid savings bonds 
April 7,2003 letter from Brian L. Ferrell, Special Attorney, U.S. 
Department of Justice, to Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, 
regarding the pending Check Truncation Act 
May 27, 2003 letter from John J. Siemietkowski, Trial Attorney, 
U.S. Department of Justice, to Alan L. Balaran, Special Master, 
transmitting a report regarding an e-mail system upgrade and 
possible data loss at Treasury’s Departmental Offices (without 
attachments) ,' . ATTACHMENT A 
1 
) 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
authority, the Deparunent of the Treasury has cngagcd 
IN TBIE: 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA 
UNlTED STATES DrSTRLCr COURT 
) 
) PlainMs. 
Civil Action 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ct. ai., 
V. 
c 
Chccks - Within 
to retrievc by instidl new system 
BRUCE BABBITT, et aJ., 
1. 
New 2. 
. Defendmnts. 
statutory and regulatory 
comprchcnsive avscssrncnt 
RECORDS 
RS to haw to 
thc 'Treasury hcrcby stipuiatt-s a i d agrees to the following: Thus. defendant Dcpartmmt of 
RETRWLVAL: DEVELOPMENT OF N EW SYSTEMS 
Treasluy's cutrcni system docs not allow l'rwnuy to search and retricvc IIM chccks 
drawn on h e Treasury for itididdud payccs without predicate information (i,e., c.heck 
symbol, serial number) from Tntcrior. 
System for Neeotiatcd 
Trmury will a 
additional 
Case No. 96-185 (RCL) 
a in 
addross the issucs belweeri Trcasury and thc plaintiffs. 
onc year of the filing o f this stipulation, 
payee name (and potentiauv m 
uniquc identifier such as an alplla-numeric designation h n l hterior) 
inlomutian horn IIM checks ncgotiated nftcr the new'systcrn becoincs opcrtttional 4. 
5. 
6 . 
the 
identifier to Treasury (as it prGscntly providcs olhcr 
will install, within Tmury ouc 
retrieve by prtycc 
new systcm h o m e s opcrationd. 
Treasury will consult with 
documents maintained 
obligations 
rcviscd record 
United States, 
rcgulativm. 
ycat ofthc fib of this stipulation, a uew system to 
name (and potentidly an additional unique 
This systcm 
have been issucd but not negotiated. 
RECORD RE‘- 
Deparhent of the Interior to identify 
Trcnsury necessary to mect thc govermocnt’s trust 
will evaluate 
29’3 I and 33, and corresponding 
numcric designation from Interior) information far lIM chccks issucd by OTFM after thc 
schedules will address the cxisring undiEercntiated check 
onginal chccks, and digitized <and microfilm copies ol‘negotiatcd checks; 
monthly reports of canceled checks (cithcr in clcctronic form or hard L C I ~ Y 
;u retained in the riomid coww uf business), tuid, 
the 
IIM check information is segrcgated. See 
effect, Treasury will preserve: 
these samc-checcks in clcctronic form (Lc. check 
idcntifier such as an alph- 
infomation on chccks that 
TIM-relatcd 
and submit its proposed 
will provide 
01- crcatcd by 
Following cormdtcttion with Interior, Tmsury 
rctcntiori schedulcs for ILM-related documents to ttic Archivist ~ f t t l e 
pursuant to 44 U.S.C. chapters 
lhc revised 
records as well as dtffcrcntiated records once 
cher;k information 
scrial number, date nod amount); 
from 
‘liq 2-3. 
Until the new rctcntion schedules are In 
a. 
b. 
c. 
infomation on disbursed check), d. IlM daposit AuEd 
copy as cttainod 
iuvcstment/rcdcmptiun, 
statements . 
7. 
were 
Treasury 
issuancc 
posslble 
8 
Dated: July 6, L999 
W B KITY OF DEPOSITS F OR INVESTMENT 
Although current OTFM practiccs 
industry standards, Treasury will neverthclcss, within fiRccn (15) days of the filing of this 
liming of investment confiirm to 
stipulation, allow OTFM, on the morning 
prior busincss 
wiil 
and 
day, dl dcposits 
not included in. that 
thc &tc 
dny’s OTFM ovmight invcslment request. 
SrrrOY TO J ) E T m M CJE€L , ’ NEGoTLsrlo PRACTICES 
undertake a study, 
filing of this stipulation, to 
N 
which it tmticipates completing vithin 
ofrhosc chccks lo thc 
c 
of prcscntaion 
Thc results of this study could bc wed in analyzing the feasibility and deshbitiy of 
modifications fo 
dis invostm ent of fwiitc, 
thc cxirring practiccs 
with rcspcct to 
of the next busincss &y, to invest 
Twaty the prior that wcrc available to 
Respectfuily subiittcd, 
LOIS J. SCHTFFEK 
Assistnril Attoracy C?encml- 
-3 - 
invwtment records (cithos in electronic form or baud 
in the normal c~wst of business), specifically rcquests. for 
transaction confirmations, and monthly account 
‘‘a of’ the 
busiacss day but 
one yew of thc 
d e t e d e thc average timc betwccu thc date v f OTEM check 
Fedcrnl Reserve for payrncut, 
for disburscmenr of KIM checks or thc Y 
‘ I 
OF COUNSEL: 
Edith R. Blaehcll 
Conuie Lunclgren 
Michacl S . Carr 
Dcpartmcnt of the Xntcrior 
Officc of thc Solicitor 
~. 
LkRK 11, Calif Bar No, 10909 TOM C. 4 
Scnior Counsel 
U.S. Dqwttncnt of Justice 
h v h n m e n t & N a t d Rcsourccs Division 
R.O. Box 761 1 
Washington, D.C, 20044-761 1 
(202) 514-3553 
Trial Attorney 
U.S. DepartJncnt of Justice 
Environment & Natural Resources Division 
P.O. Box 663 
Wa~&.~~gtOti, D.C. 20044-0663 
(202) 305-0428 
Francinc Kcmcr 
Departrncrit ofthe Trcasury 
Office of thc CcncraI Counsel 
-4- ATTACHMENT B 
(1 of 2) 
B r n V L. FERRELL 
SPECIAL ATTORNEY 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Nan L. Balaran, Special Master 
United States Depattnlent of JusCice 
Civil Division 
Coramercinl Litigarion Branch 
TKL. a 2 ) 691-3715 
FAX' IIm) 205-1566 D c. 2 W 8 7 j 
P.O. BOX 875. BEsRCANX~~E~ ST,\TlbG 
\vASUlIiGTON, 
Much 27, 2003 
et 
at the Federal Reserve ofice in 
are neanng implementation o f Pittsburph 
RBI. Tfus initiative calls for the eIirninarion of 
to resume routine desmction was 
approval ro 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
12' Floor 
W ashingron. D .C. 20006 
RE: - Cobell al. v. Norton al. Civil Action No. 96-1285 
Dear Mr. Balaran: 
et 
In a Ierrer dared August 6, 1999 (attached heretoj. you authorized the destruction of 
hard copies of savings bonds submitted for credit by paying agents through the commercial 
the paid bonds are filmed check collecrion system after 
Pittsburgh. Your letter specified that consent to resumption of destruction of physical 
securities was conditioned on &e understanding that Public Debt would maintain microfilnl 
copies of thr bands and that microfilm copies would be subject ro your inspection at any time. 
the Federal Reserve office in Public Debt md 
a project called Retired Bond Imaging, or 
microfilming of redeemed securities in favor of digiral imaging. The digital images will be 
electronically retrievable. reduce workloads in Public Debt's microfilm recrieval operation, 
and accelerate case processing. Digital images are of higher quslity than microfilm images, 
and the RBI system has been designed to meet established systems security and management 
However. since your permission control srandards. 
explicitly predicated on &e creation of microfilm copies, Public Debt is seeking 
implement a sysrem based on scanning and storing paid bond images digitally rather than on 
microfilm. 
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me a t 691-3715. Enclosure 
cc: Dennis Gingold, Esq.(via facsimile) 
Respectfully submitted, 
Special Attorney 
2 ALAN L. BALARAN 
L A . oma 
SUIT€ 225 
m a C m AQNE V.W. 
20m9 
1666 
WASJ-LIh’CT0T-L - D.C. 
(202) 666-SO10 
August 6,1999 
POS-&GE Em V A FACS)iEaTt 
Findlay, Esq. Charles W. 
Unired 
P. 0. aOx 663 
51. B W et Civil Acdon No. 96-1285 RE: 
Dear Mr. Findlay. 
considd this 
-&5s 
Srates Dcpzment of Justice 
Enyiroment and Platursl Resources Division 
’(t Y’ 
letter my 
Wa~hmgt~q DC 20044-0663 
Cobdl ct 41, 
Please 
pen-nir 
cmscnt TO your rqucsts dared Jdy I6 and JuIy 29,1999 to 
the Dqmmcnt of thc Treasury zo rtsumc thur savings 
of its r n d d o f prcscrving records of chc bonds and its rcprcsarradan that the 
the 
the of 
rhc had copiss Qf 
Dcpartma will 
will bc mbjcct KO my 
rcdecmcd mahod of microfilming 
bonds in lieu of inailahkg Ihern in hard copy. Based on rbe kasury Depmcnr’s 
explanation 
samples f o p d c d TO microfib& g a d condirion 
imzgcs of the bonds. the Dcpmtment may resume its p a t k c of destroying 
moinrain 
cc: 
my office an rcprcrcntativc of Thc 
bonds. My cornat is conditioned on fhe explicir u n d m d k g that &c 
rhar the microfilm copics h e microfilm copies of the bonds ar.d 
inspscdon at my rime. 
S inccrcly . 
A h L. Baldran 
SPECIAL MASTER 
DnuzicGhgold 
KeirbHarpcr 
F L . . . . . . . . .‘ Trial Attorney 
This i s to confirm our understanding that you have given your permission to Treasury to 
implement its system of scanning and storing paid savings bond images digitally rather than on 
microfilm. If this is not your understanding, please let me know at your earliest convenience. 
April 7,2003 
S i ncerel y, 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
TcL: (202) 514-3368 
Facsimile: (202) 514-9163 
E-mail: John.Siernietkowski@usdoj.gov 
DC 20005 
Regular Mail: 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washingtoil, DC 20044-0675 
John J. Siemietkowski 
BY FACSIMILE 
Alan L. Balaran, Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 13th Floor 
Washington, DC 20006 
Re: Digital Imaging of Checks 
Dear Mr. Balaran 
Thank you for your attention to this matter. 
cc: Dennis M. Gingold (by facsimile) 
Brian Ferrell (by fac,siinile) 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
Express Delivery 
Room 10050 
Washinnton, 
1100 L Street, N.W. 
ATTACHMENT B 
(2 of 2) BRIAN L. FERRELL 
SPECIAL ATTORNEY 
VIA FACSIMILE 
Alan L. Balaran, Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
12" Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
RE: Cobell et al. v. Norton et al. Civil Action No. 96-1285 
Dear Mr. Balaran: 
Pleased be advised that there is legislation being considered by Congress that would 
change the way checks are processed in the United States. This act, referred to as the Check 
Truncation Act, is being proposed to address the virtual standstill in check movement in the 
days following September 11, 2001. The act would encourage the use of information 
technology to make check processing and collection more efficient by enabling banks of first 
deposit to capture the digital image of checks, present the data electronically for collection and 
to destroy the checks. There is more detailed information about this proposed legislation on 
~~~~.federalreserve.~ov/boarddocs/testimon~/2003. There you will find Cdngressional testimony 
from April 3, 2003, of Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. 
This legislation, if enacted, would impact Treasury's handling of Cobell-related checks 
because Treasury checks, like all other checks, would be subject to this legislation. Treasury 
officials have met with Congressional staffers on both the House and Senate sides to discuss 
the affect this legislation would have on Treasury's responsibilities under the Cobell litigation. 
If the Check Truncation Act passes and Treasury checks are no longer being forwarded 
to Federal Reserve Banks, Treasury would plan to obtain fie digital image of Cubell-related 
checks and include the data from those checks in the ODES and OATS systems. 
1 nil1 keep you informed 011 the status of this proposed Iegislation. 
ATTACHMENT c 
United States Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
P.O. B o x 875. BEN FRANKLIN STATION TEL: (202) 691-3715 
WASHINGTON, FAX: (202) 208-1566 D.C. 20044-0875 
April 7, 2003 -. ., 
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
cc: Dennis 
Respectfully submitted, 
Gingold, Esq. (via facsimile) 
2 Regular Mall: 
P.O. Box 875 
Bcn Franklin Station 
Wyhington, DC 20044-0875 
John J . Siemictkowski 
Trid Arlorney 
BY FACSIMILE 
Man L. Balaran, Special Master 
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 13th Floar 
Washington, DC 20006 
Re: Hardware Failure and E-Mail System Upgrade at Treasury Departmental 
Dear Mr. Balaran: 
notification 
CC: 
I am attaching a letter to me from Brim Ferrell regaxding a hardware failure, the 
possibility of some data loss, and an e-mail system upgrade at Treasury's Departmental Offices, 1 
am also attaching a report on the hardware failure and the e-mail system upgrade written by 
Chief Information Officer. This letter and report follow telephonic notification of Treasury's 
these issues to you by Mr, Ferrcll, as a Special Attorney, on May 20,2003, and telephonic 
KO Mr. Gingold by Mr. FerrelI and I an May 22,2003. 
We will keep you informed about the progress of these issues. In the meantime, please do 
not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 
Dennis M. Gingold (by facsimile) 
Ofices 
i ATTACHMENT D 
4 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Civil Division 
Express Delivery 
L Strcmt, N-W. 1 100 
Room I0050 
Washington. DC 20005 
Td.; (202) 5 14-3368 
Fpcsimile: (202) 514-91 63 
E-mail: 3ohn.Si~icthowskiOusdoj.yov 
May 27,2003 
Trial Attorney ' 
Commercid Lifigation Branch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I declare under penalty of perjury that, on June 2,2003 I served the foregoing Notice of 
Filing of the Fourteenth Quarterly Report for the Department of the Treasury by facsimile in 
accordance with their written request of October 3 1,200 1 upon: 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW 
Box 6 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
(202) 822-0068 Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 3 18-2372 
By U.S. Mail upon: 
Elliott Levitas, Esq 
1 100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Per the Court’s Order of April 17,2003, 
by facsimile and by US. Mail upon: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530 
By facsimile and U.S. Mail upon: 
Alan L. Balaran, Esq. 
Special Master 
17 I 7 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 
13 th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 986-8477 
W a n P. Schmergel