Trudeau Civil Case Document 766 0 and 766 1-10-11 13 Trudeau Opposition to Coercive Sanctions Plus Exhibits

7/27/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 766 0 and 766 1-10-11 13 Trudeau Opposition to Coercive Sanctions Plus Exhibits

1/57

GIN Network Truth (the smart group)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, )

Plaintiff, ))v. ) Civil Action No. 03-C-3904

)KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Defendant. )

DEFENDANT KEVIN TRUDEAUS OPPOSITION TO THE FTCS AND THE

RECEIVERS STATEMENTS REGARDING THE NEED FOR COERCIVE

SANCTIONS

I. IntroductionCoercive sanctions are not only unnecessary but unlawful under the circumstances of this

case. As demonstrated herein, Trudeau has fully cooperated with the Receiver and no valid

reason exists to believe that incarceration will somehow reveal substantial assets available to pay

the judgment. The FTC proposes that it will hold the keys to Trudeaus release. When the FTC

is subjectively satisfied that Trudeau proves beyond a reasonable doubt a negativethat there

are no more assets to be foundit might consent to his release. But this is not coercive

contempt. This is punishment that, as demonstrated below, cannot be countenanced under

Supreme Court precedent.

The FTC should not be heard every week with shrill motions to reconsider the Courts

Receivership order. Instead, the Receiver should do his job and complete the accounting

process. Trudeau will continue to cooperate fully with the Receiver. Incarceration not only will

be unlawful, it will be unproductive, because Trudeaus continued earnings ability (which is the

key to consumer remediation) will be totally destroyed.

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 766 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:13627


2/57


2

II. Coercive Civil Contempt Cannot Be Used To Punish Past Wrongs Or To DispelSpeculative Doubts.

Coercive civil contemptwhether in the form of imprisonment or finescannot be used

to punish past wrongs. See Intl Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S.

821, 829 (1994) (When a contempt involves the prior conduct of an isolated, prohibited act, the

resulting sanction has no coercive effect. [T]he defendant is furnished no key, and he cannot

shorten the term by promising not to repeat the offense.) (internal citations omitted); Maggio v.

Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56, 68 (1948) (Thus no punishment whatever was imposed for past

disobedience, and every penalty was contingent upon failure to obey. This is a decisive

characteristic of civil contempt and of the truly coercive commitment for enforcement purposes,

which, as often is said, leaves the contemnor to carry the key of his prison in his own pocket.).

Thus, remedies for civil contempt may not be penal in nature. Similarly, coercive civil contempt

cannot be used to deter future misconduct. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 280 F.3d 1103,

1107 (7th Cir. 2002) (A contempt order is considered . . . criminal if its purpose is to punish the

contemnor, vindicate the courts authority, or deter future misconduct.).

Coercive contempt also is not appropriate where there is no present ability to comply. As

Bagwell explains:

The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction, as set forth in Gompers,involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmativecommand such as an order to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to beturned over to a Receiver, or to make a conveyance. Imprisonment for a fixedterm similarly is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlierrelease if he complies. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370, n. 6, 86S.Ct., 1531, 1536, n. 6, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966) (upholding as civil a determinate[2-year] sentence which includes a purge clause). In these circumstances, thecontemnor is able to purge the contempt and obtain his release by committing anaffirmative act, and thus carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.[Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911)].

Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828; see alsoMaggio v. Zeitz, 333 U.S. 56 n.6 (1948) (The sole question is



3/57


3

whether the [defendant] is presently able to comply with the turnover order previously made and,

accordingly whether he is disobeying that order. . . . A contempt order should not be issued

unless there is a present ability to comply.); McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S.

245, 251 (1972) (Civil contempt is coercive in nature, and consequently there is no justification

for confining on a civil contempt theory a person who lacks thepresent ability to comply.).

Applying this settled law to the facts of this case compels the conclusion that Trudeau

cannot be civilly incarcerated in punishment for something that he may have done in past or to

deter speculative future misconduct. This is not a case where assets have been uncovered but not

turned over. Instead, Trudeau has voluntarily revealed all assets, has turned them over, but is

unable to prove to the FTCs satisfaction a negative namely that there are no substantial assets

available to pay the judgment. No court has ever approved incarceration under these

circumstances simply because a litigant stubbornly refuses to believe the debtor and to admit

reality. No court has ever approved coercive incarceration where the keys to the prison depend

on a third-party creditors subjective belief about the debtors credibility.

The FTC has no one to blame but itself for the current situation. As the FTC knows,

Trudeau never received the $37 million from the sales of the Weight Loss Cures book. That is

presumably why the FTC pursued the recipient of these funds, ITV Global, and waited almost

two years after entry of judgment to begin asset discovery of Trudeau. Only after Trudeau

proposed a consumer remediation plan did the FTC begin discovery of Trudeaus assets. The

FTC did not garnish Trudeaus wages, issue citations to discover assets, or otherwise follow the

procedures set forth in the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act. 28 U.S.C. 3001-3308,

Instead, the FTC issued dozens of subpoenas to everyone that did business with Trudeau and

even some of some of his friends and acquaintances. Those subpoenas revealed what Trudeau



4/57


4

has said all along. He never received $37 million from sales of the Weight Loss Cures book, has

not fraudulently transferred any assets, and does not have the funds to pay the judgment.

To be sure, Trudeau earned money after the judgment from speaking and writing

engagements. He also spent money on developing business opportunities and defending himself

in court from the FTCs incessant attacks and from unfounded prosecution by the United States

Government. The money that he earned is gone. No amount of incarceration or other forms of

punishment can get it back. Trudeau, however, can earn money to pay the judgment down in

installments. That is what he tried to do. The FTC, however, not only refused to cash his checks

and compensate any consumers, but has embarked on a course of conduct that destroyed

Trudeaus earnings capability. The FTC closed Trudeaus businesses, ruined his banking and

commercial relationships, and denied him the ability to work in his profession as a motivational

speaker and author. This has created a Kafkaesque situation where the FTC has made it

impossible for Trudeau to pay the judgment and now wants to imprison him for this

impossibility.

The law, however, does not permit this kind of incarceration. Trudeau cannot be civilly

incarcerated for months while the Receiver completes his accounting in the speculative hope that

something will turn up and until the FTC changes its subjective belief about Trudeaus candor.

This course of conduct will unlawfully deprive Trudeau of the key to his prison cell because

his release will be out of his control. SeeGompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418,

442 (1911).

III. The FTCs Assertion That Trudeau Violated The Order Five Times Is Incorrect.In support of its unrelenting campaign to incarcerate Trudeau, the FTC argues that

Trudeau has violated the Receivership order five times by: (1) allegedly failing to disclose the St.



5/57


5

George account; (2) allegedly spending and transferring assets from that account; (3) allegedly

destroying documents; (4) allegedly failing to disclose an offshore gaming account; and (5)

allegedly lying to the Receiver. As discussed below, these assertions are incorrect.

A. The FTCs Allegation Regarding The St. George AccountContrary to the FTCs assertion, Trudeau voluntarily disclosed the existence of the St.

George bank account in Trudeaus January 25, 2013 sworn financial statement. (Docket No. 535

at 4.) Acting on the advice of his attorney, Marc Lane, Trudeau listed the balance of this account

as $1,500 net of liabilities on his sworn financial statement because the account included monies

owed to Trudeaus wife, Website Solutions, and KTRN. At the time of the January 25, 2013

Financial Statement, there was no judicial finding and Trudeau vigorously contested that

monies owned by third parties were Trudeau assets. Indeed, neither his wife nor these entities

were judgment debtors. In that context, Trudeau believed that he should report the balance that

he owned and that it would be incorrect to report monies owned by others. In any event, there

are no, and never have been, any significant assets in this account, and certainly not $37 million.

B. The FTCs Allegation Regarding Spending From The Australian BankAccount.

This issue has already been adjudicated by this Court and Trudeau has already been

incarcerated for spending funds from this account. (See Docket No. 751 (holding Trudeau in

contempt and ordering his incarceration because defendant spent and transferred money for

attorneys fees that were not approved by the court and for expenses that were far beyond

ordinary and necessary living expenses.).) The FTCs attempt to re-litigate this issue is nothing

more than a motion to reconsider in disguise. The FTC apparently is unhappy that the Court did

not detain Trudeau for a longer period of time. But this renewed request for further detention

should be rejected because there are no new facts of law. See Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v.



6/57


6

Gulfco Indus. Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Moreover, Trudeau cannot be

incarcerated again for this same past conduct. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 280 F.3d 1103,

1107 (7th Cir. 2002) (A contempt order is considered . . . criminal if its purpose is to punish the

contemnor, vindicate the court's authority, or deter future misconduct.).

C. The FTCs Allegation Regarding The Destruction Of Documents.The FTC next alleges that Trudeau destroyed documents by deleting personal emails,

privileged emails with his attorneys, and spam. This allegation, however, is baseless and

certainly provides no proper basis for incarcerating Trudeau. The FTC is unable to identify any

relevant or material documents that were destroyed. Trudeau has provided all communications

requested by the Receiver. Moreover, once the Receiver raised this issue with Trudeau, Trudeau

readily agreed that he would not delete any emails going forward.

D. The FTCs Allegation Regarding The Failure To Disclose The OnlineGaming Account.

The FTC falsely represents that Trudeau did not disclose his online gaming account with

William Hill. In truth, Trudeau voluntarily disclosed the existence of this account in an in-

person meeting with the Receiver on September 20, 2013. Trudeau also provided the Receiver

with his username and password for this account. Accordingly, the Receiver has full access to

the account and complete control over any funds in the account.

Furthermore, these funds are the same funds that were provided to Trudeau by KTRN

and Website Solutions for research on his new book about winning the game of baccarat.

Trudeau voluntarily reported to the FTC by letter dated March 27, 2012, that he was researching

and writing this book and explained how the book was being funded. (Docket No. 508-4 at Ex.

E.) At the time, he believed that the funds in this account were not his assets because there were

provided him by KTRN and Website Solutions. He also assumed that the Receiver was in full



7/57


7

control of KTRN and Website Solutions funds. When it became apparent that the Receiver may

not have been in full control of these funds, Trudeau voluntarily reminded the Receiver about the

account on September 20, 2013. As with the other accounts, this one is not, and has not been, a

vehicle to hide any significant assets as falsely alleged by the FTC.

E. The FTCs Allegation Regarding Lying To The Receiver.The FTC claims that Trudeau lied to the Receiver by: (1) not disclosing his St. George

bank account and his William Hill account, and (2) denying that he had log-in information for

the St. George account. Both of these claims are demonstrably false. As discussed above,

Trudeau voluntarily disclosed the existence of both of these accounts to the Receiver. Neither

the FTC nor the Receiver independently discovered them. Moreover, Trudeau affirmatively

called the Receiver on September 11, 2013 only 48 hours after the Receiver requested the log-

in information and provided the Receiver with his username and password for that account.

The Receiver has since been able to download the bank statements from the inception of the

account and has full access to the account. (See Docket No. 750-1.)

Therefore, contrary to the FTCs allegations, Trudeau affirmatively disclosed the

existence of both the William Hill and St. George accounts and provided the Receiver with log-

in information for both accounts. This is not evidence of lying to the Receiver. Rather it

shows that Trudeau acted proactively to assist the Receiver.

IV. The FTCs Contention That Some Of Trudeaus Explanations Are Implausible IsIrrelevant And Provides No Basis For Incarcerating Trudeau.

The FTC next concedes that Trudeau provided substantial information to the Receiver but

contends that the information is implausible and useless. These contentions are unfounded

and provide no lawful basis for incarcerating Trudeau. We address each of the FTCs unfounded

contentions below.



8/57


8

Gold Bars The gold bars from Golden Lion Mint belong to Natalia Babenko, who isnot a judgment debtor. The FTCs exhibit makes clear that the gold purchases were billed to and

shipped to Natalia Babenko. See PXA5 at 5; PXA6 at 2. Moreover, the transactions were

handled by Neil Sant more than five years ago. PXA5 at 3; PXA6 at 4. Trudeau cannot be

faulted, and certainly should not be jailed, because he does not recall specific details of

transactions from five years ago in which he was not a direct participant. Also, at the request of

the Receiver, Trudeau contacted Natalia Babenko and Neil Sant and asked them to cooperate

with the Receiver.1 Trudeau also contacted Anthony Balistreri at Golden Lion Mint and asked

him to provide all details of any transactions involving Trudeau. Mr. Balistreri complied and

Trudeau provided this information to the Receiver. This information confirmed that Trudeau did

not purchase gold through Golden Lion Mint and does not possess the gold.

Gold Coins Similarly, the FTCs exhibit makes clear that Natalia Babenko purchasedand received the gold coins in 2008. PXA:7 at 1. Again, Trudeau, cannot be faulted for not

knowing the details or having perfect recollection of a transaction from many years ago in which

he was not a direct participant. No evidence exists that the gold coins were somehow the product

of consumer fraud, that Trudeau possesses gold coins, or that he in any way has refused to

cooperate with the Receivers inquiries regarding this transaction that happened many years ago

and, in any event, is financially immaterial.

Offshore Entities, Including NT Trading The FTC engages in pure conjecture aboutcertain offshore entities. No evidence exists that any of these companies ever had any accounts

or assets. Nor is there any evidence that Trudeau ever used his alleged power of attorney at NT

1 Trudeau does not have the ability to compel any of these individuals to cooperate with theReceiver. To the extent these individuals assert their constitutional rights, Trudeau cannot belawfully incarcerated because others assert their constitutional rights.



9/57


9

Trading, let alone that he used it to somehow conceal or transfer any assets. The FTC is just

making things up without any basis whatsoever. Trudeau cannot be lawfully incarcerated based

on the FTCs unsubstantiated and recklessly false conjecture.

The Ukrainian Apartment The transaction involving the payment of a mortgage on anapartment in Ukraine was handled by Website Solutions USA (WSU). Trudeau is not and

never has been an owner, officer, director, signer, or employee of WSU. The documents

provided the Receiver show that this entity is owned by Natalia Babenko (not a judgment debtor)

and directed by Neil Sant. Trudeau cannot be faulted, and certainly should not be jailed, because

he does not recall specific details of a transaction in which he was not directly involved.

Moreover, he cannot be coercively incarcerated until he turns over an apartment in Ukraine over

which he has no title and no ability to turn over.

Other Transfers The Receiver has urged caution that many transactions recorded inthe books of the GIN-related entities may never have occurred. (Docket No. 759 at 8-9.)

Throwing caution to wind, however, FTC speculates without any factual basis that Trudeau may

have received $4.2 million. Id. But no evidence exists that Trudeau received such a transfer.

Again, there is no $4.2 million pot of money that Trudeau could turn over but refuses to do so.

Consequently, coercive contempt is unlawful under U.S. Supreme Court authority.

The Antigua Account The FTC complains of a transfer of funds to an account ownedby Trudeaus wife in the Global Bank of Commerce in Antigua. By the FTCs own admission,

however, this account does not belong to Trudeau and he is not a signer on the account.

Moreover, the FTC fails to disclose to the Court that Trudeau provided the Receiver information

showing that he is not an account holder at this institution. See Ex 1. Trudeau has no ability if

incarcerated to turn over accounts that he does not own. All he can do is tell the Receiver



10/57


10

everything he knows about such accounts. Trudeau has done so.

V. The Receivers Statement Also Provides No Legal Basis To Incarcerate Trudeau.The Receivers Statement likewise provides no legal basis for incarcerating Trudeau.

The Receiver first states that incarcerating Trudeau would not impede the Receivers ability to

conduct a forensic accounting. (Docket No. 764 at 2 (Because such an accounting will

primarily involve obtaining and sifting through company and other financial records,

incarcerating Trudeau poses no obstacle to completing that accounting.).) This gratuitous

statement, however, provides no legal basis to incarcerate Trudeau.

Whether jailing Trudeau will pose an obstacle to an accounting is irrelevant to whether

Trudeau should be deprived of his liberty. Indeed, the Receivers concession that such an

accounting will primarily involve the review and analysis of third-party financial records

underscores why Trudeau shouldnot be coercively incarcerated. A forensic accounting is the

only means for Trudeau to prove a negative that he has no significant assets which can be

used to pay down the judgment. Trudeau already provided the Court with an independent

forensic accounting performed by a reputable accounting firm retained by his lawyers. Now the

Receiver is in the midst of another accounting. To incarcerate Trudeau now, before the

Receivers forensic accounting is complete, would place the keys to his prison in the pocket of

the FTC and its favorite, and hardly impartial, Receiver. That is an unlawful and impermissible

application of coercive contempt. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442

(1911).

Moreover, the Receiver misconstrues this Courts Receivership Order. Although the

Court appointed the Receiver to locate and administer the assets of the so-called Trudeau

Entities, the Court never concluded, nor could it based on the evidentiary record, that Trudeau



11/57


11

had the ability to turn-over assets legally owned by others or to force others to cooperate with the

Receiver. Nor did the Court find that Trudeau owned or controlled any specific asset that could

be turned over to the Receiver. The Court appointed a Receiver to find out if such assets exist.

The Receiver should complete his forensic accounting and report to the Court his findings. In

short, the Receiver should do his job, stick to the facts, and stop trying to curry favor with its

favorite employer, the FTC, by parroting the FTCs unlawful requests for incarceration.

The Receiver, who appears unfamiliar with the law of civil contempt, fails to appreciate

that Trudeau cannot be coercively incarcerated for failing to provide information which either

does not exist or of which he lacks personal knowledge or control. This is especially true given

that Trudeau is a creative person who spends a significant portion of his time writing books,

delivering speeches, and traveling for the seminars he conducts. Trudeau was rarely in the office

and relied on others typically Neil Sant, Michael Dow, and Marc Lane to handle his

accounting and financial affairs. That he may not recall every detail of transactions handled by

others years ago is hardly surprising and, in any event, not a proper basis for incarcerating

Trudeau.

The Receiver may be frustrated or embarrassed because he has spent much money that

otherwise could have been used for consumer remediation and has not discovered any significant

new assets.2 This frustration or embarrassment, however, is no ground for incarcerating

Trudeau.

Despite the Receivers frustration over spending so much money without producing any

results, the truth is that Trudeau has cooperated fully with the Receiver. In particular, Trudeau

2 The Receiver also mentions a pair of womens cufflinks. These cufflinks were purchased byTrudeaus wife through his eBay account in 2012 before the Receivership order was entered.Trudeau does not own these cufflinks, rather they belong to his wife. In any event, they are not asignificant asset and certainly not worth $37 million.



12/57


12

has (1) attended all meetings called by the Receiver and answered all of the Receivers questions

at those meetings; (2) signed all letters of direction that the Receiver has asked Trudeau to sign;

and (3) has contacted other third-parties to assist the Receiver.

A. Trudeau Has Attended All Meetings Called By The Receiver And AnsweredAll Of The Receivers Questions At Those Meetings.

When the Order Appointing a Receiver was issued on August 7, 2013, Trudeau, through

his counsel, immediately set up a meeting with the Receiver for the following day at the offices

of Winston & Strawn. At that meeting, Trudeau informed the Receiver of his intention to fully

cooperate with the Receiver and answer all questions. Trudeau agreed to provide all relevant

information that he possessed to the Receiver. That is exactly what Trudeau has done. During

all meetings with the Receiver, Trudeau never invoked his Fifth Amendment constitutional right

to refuse to answer questions. Instead, Trudeau answered all of the Receivers oral questions and

responded to the Receivers emails promptly, often within minutes.

Trudeau attended subsequent meetings with the Receiver on August 15, 2013, August 29,

2013 and September 17, 2013. At these meetings, Trudeau again answered all the Receivers

questions to the best of his memory and ability. Trudeau continued to ask if the Receiver needed

any additional information and volunteered to provide it promptly.

On September 18, 2013, Trudeau was taken into custody without legal justification.

While incarcerated, Trudeau was questioned for nearly three hours by the Receiver. Trudeau

again answered all of the Receivers questions and signed all documents the Receiver asked

Trudeau to sign. Trudeau was released from jail on September 19, 2013 and met with the

Receiver again on September 20, 2013 and September 25, 2013. Trudeau again fully cooperated

at these meetings, answered all of the Receivers questions, and signed all documents the

Receiver asked him to sign. If the Receiver has additional questions that will assist him in



13/57


13

identifying Trudeaus assets, Trudeau remains willing to cooperate fully.

B. Trudeau Signed All Letters Of Direction The Receiver Asked Trudeau ToSign.

Trudeau also signed all letters of direction requested by the Receiver. For example,

Trudeau signed letters of direction to at least the following persons and entities: Natalia

Babenko, Lee Kenny, Zurker Kantonal Bank, UBS Zurich, St. George Bank, and Migros Bank

AG. See Ex 2 (containing copies of the letters of direction signed by Trudeau during the

September 18, 2013 meeting); see also Ex 11 (containing additional direction letters executed by

Trudeau on October 11, 2013). Trudeau remains willing to sign additional letters at the request

of the Receiver.

C. Trudeau Contacted Additional Third-Parties To Aid The Receiver.In addition to the hard-copy letters, Trudeau also sent many emails at the behest of the

Receiver:

See Ex 3 (September 5, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Van Roon instructing VanRoon to turn over to the Receiver copies of all files related to various entities);

See Ex 4 (September 20, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow asking Dow toprovide documentation regarding any monies paid to Trudeau);

See Ex 5 (September 22, 2013 email from Trudeau to Hybrid Group seeking data onphysical assets);

See Ex 6 (September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow asking Dow toprovide Trudeau with a list of loans he made to the company);

See Ex 7 (September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Babenko strongly encouragingher to contact Michael Van Roon and ask him to turn over to the Receiver all informationabout the companies set up in her name);

See Ex 8 (September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Barbara Schoop asking her to sendinformation about monies paid to Trudeau from Website Solutions, and transmitting suchinformation to the Receiver);

See Ex 9 (September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Ari Wasserman asking him to



14/57


14

provide information about monies Trudeau received for doing infomercials since 2007,and transmitting such information to the Receiver);

See Ex 10 (September 26, 2013 email from Trudeau to Anthony Balistreri at GoldenLion Mint asking him to provide all details of any transactions involving Trudeau);

See Ex 1 (September 30, 2013 email from Trudeau to the Global Bank of CommerceAntigua asking for information whether Trudeau was ever a signer or an account holderon any accounts in that institution, transmitting response to Receiver that Trudeau neverwas a signer or an account holder).

Trudeau remains willing and able to contact additional third parties if doing so will assist the

Receiver.

In sum, the record is clear that Trudeau has cooperated fully with the Receiver. He

attended all meetings called by the Receiver and answered all of the Receivers questions. He

also signed all letters of direction requested by the Receiver and was proactive in contacting

third-parties to aid the Receiver.

VI. ConclusionThis Court should not incarcerate Trudeau coercively or otherwise while the forensic

accounting is ongoing. This accounting will show whether Trudeau has the present ability to

satisfy the $37 million judgment against him. To incarcerate Trudeau now on the basis of

conjecture and speculation would put the cart before the horse and place the keys to his prison in

the pocket of the FTC and its forensic accountants who may need several months to verify that

Trudeau is telling the truth that he has no significant assets. This incarceration is illegal under

settled precedent. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911).

The illegality the FTCs request is starkly illustrated by one of the FTCs purge

conditions, namely that Trudeau establish that he has no present ability to comply with the

Courts June 2, 2010 order beyond what he already has done. (Docket No. 759 at 11.) But

what else can he do? Until the forensic accounting is complete, Trudeau has no means to prove



15/57


15

a negative and establish that he lacks the present ability pay down the $37 million judgment.

His assets have been seized, his businesses have been destroyed, his bank accounts have been

closed, his employment has been terminated, and his travel has been restricted. He has answered

all the Receivers questions, provided all letters of direction, and done everything requested of

him by the Receiver.

Surely the Receiver, with his much vaunted forensic abilities to trace assets worldwide,

can now find assets available to pay the judgment if they exist. The Receivers failure to find

such assets to date strongly suggests that the failure is more due to the fact that such assets do not

exist than the fact that Trudeau recently spent an insignificant amount of money on a haircut and

cigars and that he cannot remember the details of his wifes purchases five years ago.

For the foregoing reasons, Trudeau respectfully asks this Court to deny the FTCs request

to immediately coercively incarcerate him. Rather, the forensic accounting should be allowed to

proceed and be completed before the Court makes any further decisions regarding Trudeaus

liberty.

October 11, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

KEVIN TRUDEAU

By: /s/ Kimball R. AndersonOne of His Attorneys



16/57


1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kimball R. Anderson, an attorney, hereby certify that on October 11, 2013, I caused tobe served true copies of DEFENDANT KEVIN TRUDEAUS OPPOSITION TO THE FTCSAND THE RECEIVERS STATEMENTS REGARDING THE NEED FOR COERCIVE

SANCTIONSby filing such documents through the Courts Electronic Case Filing System,which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record including:

Michael MoraJonathan CohenAmanda KostnerFederal Trade Commission601 New Jersey Avenue NW, Suite 2215Washington, DC 20001

David OToole

Federal Trade Commission55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825Chicago, IL 60603

/s/ Kimball R. AndersonKimball R. Anderson



17/57


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, )

Plaintiff, ))

v. ) Civil Action No. 03-C-3904

)

KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) Honorable Robert W. GettlemanDefendant. )

INDEX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KEVIN TRUDEAUS

OPPOSITION TO THE FTCS AND THE RECEIVERS STATEMENT REGARDING

THE NEED FOR COERCIVE SANCTIONS

Exhibit

Number

Description

1 September 30, 2013 email from Trudeau to the Global Bank of

Commerce Antigua

2 Copies of the direction letters signed by Trudeau during the

September 18, 2013 meeting with the receiver

3 September 05, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Van Roon

4 September 20, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow

5 September 22, 2013 email from Trudeau to Hybrid Group

6 September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow

7 September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Babenko

8 September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Barbara Schoop

9 September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Ari Wasserman

10 September 26, 2013 email from Trudeau to Anthony Balistreri

11 Copies of direction letters signed by Trudeau on October 11, 2013

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 766-1 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 1 of 41 PageID #:13643


18/57




19/57




20/57




21/57




22/57




23/57




24/57




25/57




26/57




27/57




28/57




29/57




30/57




31/57




32/57




33/57




34/57




35/57




36/57




37/57




38/57




39/57




40/57




41/57




42/57




43/57




44/57




45/57




46/57




47/57




48/57




49/57




50/57




51/57


Exhibit 11



52/57




53/57




54/57




55/57

GIN Network Truth (the smart group)Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 766-1 Filed: 10/11/13 Page 39 of 41 PageID #:13681


56/57




57/57

