Trudeau Criminal Case Document 157-0-4 Trial November 2013

GIN Network Truth (the smart group)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 10 CR 886

)

KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) Chicago, Illinois

) November 5, 2013

Defendant. ) 1:30 o'clock p.m.

VOLUME 1

EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD A. GUZMAN, AND A JURY

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: HON. ZACHARY T. FARDON

United States Attorney

BY: MR. MARC KRICKBAUM

MS. APRIL M. PERRY

Assistant United States Attorneys

219 South Dearborn Street

Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300

For the Defendant: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

BY: MR. THOMAS LEE KIRSCH II

35 West Wacker Drive


(312) 558-5600

MS. CAROLYN PELLING GURLAND

Attorney at Law

2 North LaSalle Street

17th Floor


(312) 420-9263

Case: 1:10-cr-00886 Document #: 157 Filed: 12/09/13 Page 1 of 39 PageID #:1498


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

APPEARANCES (Cont'd):

Court Reporter: MR. JOSEPH RICKHOFF

Official Court Reporter

219 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1222


(312) 435-6890

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY

MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY COMPUTER



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Krickbaum - Opening Statement

3

(Proceedings heard in open court:)

THE CLERK: 10 CR 886, United States vs. Kevin

Trudeau.

* * * * *

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

BY MR. KRICKBAUM:

In 2006 and 2007, the defendant, Kevin Trudeau,

willfully violated an order of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. And when the

defendant violated that court order, he was in contempt of

court; and, that's why we're here today.

Now, throughout the course of this trial, you will

learn that the defendant was an author and a salesman. He

wrote books, and he sold those books through infomercials,

which are commercials that you sometimes see on television

late at night or in the early hours of the morning.

And in 2004, you will learn that the defendant

settled a lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission, which is

a government agency. And as part of settling that lawsuit,

the defendant agreed to abide by a court order; and, that is

the court order that is at issue in this case.

The defendant signed that order, and he agreed that

he would follow all of its provisions. And there are several

different provisions that the order had, but one of those

provisions will be relevant to this case. And that provision



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

said that if the defendant made infomercials in which he

promoted a book, the infomercial could not misrepresent the

content of the book. That's the key language: The

infomercial could not misrepresent the content of the book.

Another way to say it is that the infomercials had to

accurately reflect what was in the book.

Unfortunately, the defendant did not comply with that

court order, and, in 2006 and 2007, he willfully violated that

order by making infomercials that misrepresented the content

of his book, which was called The Weight Loss Cure Protocol

They Don't Want You to Know About.

Let's talk for a minute about what was in that book.

Excuse me. I think I misstated the name of the book

itself. It was called The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want

You to Know About.

So, let's talk about what was in it.

The defendant called the book a cure, but you will

see that what it really was was a diet. And that diet had

four different phases to it, and you'll hear more about those

phases as the trial goes on.

For at least three weeks of that diet, you were

limited to eating only 500 calories per day. The diet is, you

will see, loaded with restrictions. Foods that you cannot

eat.

You will also see that the diet is loaded with



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

requirements, things you have to do: Exercise, pills and

cleanses, and supplements that you have to take. And you will

see that many of these requirements and many of these

restrictions last for the rest of your life.

But you will also see that when the defendant

promoted his book in those infomercials, he told a very

different story. You will see he didn't tell people what was

actually involved in the diet contained in the book. He told

listeners that he had a weight loss cure. He told them it was

not a diet. He said there was no exercise required. And he

said that when you finish with this cure, you can eat anything

you want and never gain the weight back.

And the evidence in this trial will show that when

the defendant made those statements in his infomercials, he

lied about what was in his book. He chose to make his book

sound way better than it really was. And he did that for a

simple reason: So that he could sell more books and so that

he could make more money.

He also did that knowing that a federal court had

ordered him not to misrepresent the content of his book. And

when the defendant willfully violated that order, that is when

he was in contempt of court. And that is what he is charged

with in this case: Contempt of court. And that is the charge

that we, the government, have the burden to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

Now, I want to take a minute to address a few things

that this case is not about. This case is not about whether

the defendant's diet was effective. I can let you in on a

secret. If you only eat 500 calories a day, you will lose

weight. That's not what this case is about.

This case is not about whether the diet is safe.

It's not about whether it's recommended. It's not about

whether it's a good idea. Those are not the issues.

The issue is whether the defendant's infomercials

accurately represented what was in the book. Did the

defendant tell the truth in those infomercials about the book

or did he misrepresent the content of the book? Did he

willfully violate that court order and was he in contempt of

court? That's what this case is about.

And I want to take a few minutes to explain to you in

a little bit more detail how the government is going to prove

the charge in this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, let's talk about the infomercials.

There are three infomercials that the defendant is

charged with making, and they were on television in 2006 and

2007. You will see them during this trial. And when you

watch those infomercials, you will see the defendant making

fantastic claims about his book.

You'll hear him say that the weight loss cure that's

in the book is not a diet, it's not portion control, it's not



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

calorie counting. You will hear him say, "You'll have no

hunger. There is no deprivation. You can do it at home.

There's no exercise required. There's no crazy potions,

powders or pills. And when you finish the protocol,"

according to the defendant in the infomercials, "you can eat

anything you want and never gain the weight back."

Those are some of the things that you will hear the

defendant say in the infomercials. That's the dream that you

will hear him selling. But then you will see the reality.

And the reality is what is actually in that book.

You will get to see the book. We will go through it. And

after seeing the book, you will recognize the lies that the

defendant told about his book in those infomercials. I want

to talk about a few different examples.

So, first, in the infomercials, the defendant says

what's contained in the book is not a diet, it's not portion

control, it's not calorie counting. But then in the book --

in Phase 2 of the book -- it says that you can only eat, as I

said before, 500 calories a day; you have to measure the

portions of the food you eat; and, you can only eat food from

a very restricted list.

You can have coffee. You can have tea. You can have

two pieces of meat that are each about the size of a deck of

cards. You can have two handfuls of vegetables. You can have

one small apple. You can have one small grapefruit. And you



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

can have water. And that's it. That's all you get all day,

every day, for at least 21 days. And that's set forth in

Phase 2 of the book: A diet, portion control and calorie

counting.

Another example: In the infomercials, the defendant

says that no exercise is required. But then in the book, the

defendant says that you must walk for one hour outside every

day for the rest of your life. Exercise.

Another example: The book describes a substance that

you have to take as part of this protocol. It's called hCG.

And according to the book, hCG is a hormone. You can only get

it through a prescription from a doctor. It has not been

approved for weight loss in the United States. And you have

to inject it into your body with a needle at least 21 times.

Every day for at least 21 days. That's what the book says

about hCG.

So, what does the defendant say about hCG in those

infomercials? Nothing. He never mentions hCG in those

infomercials. He never says that you have to inject it in

your body; that you can only get it from a doctor's

prescription; that it's not been approved for weight loss.

In one of the infomercials, the defendant says

nothing at all about any substance that you have to take as

part of this diet. In a second infomercial, he mentions a

substance in a single sentence; provides no details about it.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

And in a third infomercial, here's what the defendant

says about this substance. He says, "It's an all-natural

miracle substance and you can get it anywhere." This is what

the book describes as a hormone you inject into your body and

you can only get from a doctor's prescription.

That is the difference between the book and the

infomercials. That is a difference.

Now, I want to address an important point about the

infomercials that, I think, you will see throughout this

trial, and that is this: Most of what the defendant says in

those infomercials is in the book in some form or another.

What do I mean by that? Well, let me give you a couple of

examples.

When the defendant says in those infomercials that

this is not a diet, he repeats that in places in the book.

And when he says no exercise is required, he repeats that in

the book. Or you can eat anything you want. There are

sentences in the book that say that, as well. There's no

disagreement about that. We agree those things are in the

book.

But the important point is that the defendant is not

charged in this case with misquoting a book. The government's

case is not about him not putting the right sentences in his

book from the infomercials. He is charged with

misrepresenting the content of his book.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

And the evidence will show that in the book, after

the book says it's not a diet, the book then lays out what the

book itself calls a very strict and specific diet. That's

what the book calls it. And, then, the book lays out the

500-calorie limit, measuring your portions, only eating those

small quantities of food.

After the book says there's no exercise required, the

book then says that you have to walk outside for an hour every

day for the rest of your life.

And perhaps the best example of this, in the

infomercials, the defendant says when you finish this

protocol, you can eat whatever you want and not gain the

weight back, period, end of story.

In the book, the defendant says when you finish this

protocol, you can eat whatever you want and not gain the

weight back; and, then, in the very next sentence, the book

says, "But you can only eat 100 percent organic food."

And, then, after that, it lists more things that you

can never eat, again: No fast food; no food from chain

restaurants; no brand-name food; no white sugar, either by

itself or as an ingredient in something else; no medication.

No prescription medication and no over-the-counter medication,

including an aspirin.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case will

show that the book and the infomercials are not the same. And



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

the evidence will also show that in those infomercials, the

defendant deceived people about what was contained in his

book.

Now that you've heard a little bit about what this

case is about, I want to talk for just a few minutes about

some of the evidence that the government will use to prove the

charge in this case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are

several different types of evidence that you will hear and

see. You will see exhibits. Some of them will be documents.

Some of them will be photographs.

You will see and hear stipulations, which is just a

word for agreements between the parties that certain facts are

true. You will hear about those agreements.

But the government's case is really going to come

down to two main pieces of evidence, and you can probably

already guess what they are: The book and the infomercials.

That's what the government's case is about.

You will get to see the book. As I said, we will go

through it together. We will look at large portions of it

together. And you will get copies of the book during your

deliberations, I expect.

You will also get to watch the infomercials, all

three of them. And after seeing the book and watching the

infomercials, you will be able to decide whether in those

infomercials the defendant told the truth about that book or



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

whether the defendant misrepresented that book.

And in addition to seeing the book and watching the

infomercials, you will also hear from a dietician, an expert

in the field of nutrition. And she will talk some about what

is actually involved in this diet.

So, for example, you'll get to see what 500 calories

of food actually looks like. You'll get to see what the

portions of meat and vegetables that you're allowed to eat

look like. And the dietician will also explain to you some of

the types of foods that the defendant's diet prohibits a

person from ever eating, again.

And after you've heard that evidence, you can decide

whether the defendant told the truth in the infomercials when

he said this was not a diet, when he said that you can eat

anything you want with no restrictions.

I expect that the government's case will be a

straightforward one. And I expect the evidence will show that

when the defendant made those infomercials, he lied about the

content of his book. He lied about it so that he could sell

more books and so that he could make more money. And when he

did that, he misrepresented the content of the book and he

willfully violated that court order and he was in contempt of

court.

That's what I expect the evidence to show.

And because of that evidence, at the end of this case



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kirsch - Opening Statement

13

in our closing argument, the government will stand in front of

you, again, and we will ask you to find that the defendant is

guilty of criminal contempt.

Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Counsel.

MR. KIRSCH: Yes, your Honor.

Can you turn the power point on, your Honor, please.

(Brief pause.)

OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

BY MR. KIRSCH:

May it please the Court.

Counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

My name is Tom Kirsch and, along with Carolyn

Gurland, we'll be representing the defendant, Kevin Trudeau,

throughout the course of the trial.

So, you've now heard the government's opening

statement. So, what does that mean? That means you have

heard half the story. And I'm going to tell you what I think

the other half of the story would be.

In our lives -- when we make important decisions in

our lives or when we make even unimportant decisions in our

lives, it's usually important to hear both sides of the story

before we make that decision. I have little kids and if one

of my kids came running down the stairs and said, "Dad, Nick

hit me," well, if I punish Nick based upon what Jack had just



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

told me, I might be punishing the wrong kid.

So, in our lives, we like to hear the full side of

the -- both sides of the story before we make important

decisions. And I suspect, ladies and gentlemen -- I represent

to you, this is the most important thing in his life. So, I

ask you to keep an open mind, as the Judge instructed you to

do.

So, what is this case about? I think we agree on

what the issue in the case is going to be. The government

contends that it's going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that Kevin Trudeau willfully represented the content of his --

or willfully misrepresented the content of his -- book in paid

television advertisements in 2006 and 2007.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's our defense to this charge

that he did not willfully misrepresent the content of the

book. Rather, the representations that he made in the

infomercials, of which the government complains, are written

right in the book.

The government talked to you a lot about the fact

that Trudeau called the weight loss protocol a cure in the

infomercial. And the government takes issues with that, the

fact that he called it a cure in the infomercial. Ladies and

gentlemen, the title of the book is The Weight Loss Cure

"They" Don't Want You to Know About.

So, it's our defense that the representations made in



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

the infomercial were also in the book. And I'm going to go

through every single one of them with you. Not only in my

opening statement, but during the course of the trial. I'm

going to go through every single one of them.

And, ladies and gentlemen, they were statements of

opinion.

Now, the government didn't talk to you about certain

things that I'm going to talk to you about during my opening

statement. So, I suspect I'm going to talk to you a little

bit longer than the government lawyer talked to you, because I

want you to know additional things.

What is it that the government is going to have to

prove in this case? There's three elements that the

government is going to have to prove. They have to prove each

element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Number one, that there was a reasonably specific

order that was entered by a judge.

And I'm going to go through exactly what that order

says. The government referenced the order. Ladies and

gentlemen, it was a 29-page order. One clause is at issue

here. About six words are at issue.

The second requirement that the government has to

prove is that Trudeau violated the order by misrepresenting

the content of his book. So, they have to prove that he

misrepresented: What he said in the infomercial, different



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

than what he said in the book.

The third thing they have to prove is that he did it

willfully. So, they have to prove that he knew or reasonably

was aware that his conduct was wrongful. It's not just that

he made misrepresentations, but that he did it willfully.

That's what they have to prove.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to touch on

this, and then I'm going to move on. The Court has instructed

you twice now about the three basic rules upon which our

entire criminal justice system is based.

The presumption of innocence. The defendant is

presumed innocent. That's Rule No. 1. As he sits here, he's

presumed innocent. That presumption of innocence does not

leave him unless the government proves each of those three

elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The second element is that the burden of proof never

leaves -- never leaves -- this table (indicating). Never.

The Court indicated to you I don't even have to give

an opening statement. I don't have to cross-examine the

government's witnesses. I don't have to call witnesses in the

defense. And I don't even have to give a closing argument.

And the government would still be required to prove to you

beyond a reasonable doubt each of those elements.

And the third rule that the Court discussed with

you -- ladies and gentlemen, again, these are the rules that



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

have been the bedrock of our criminal justice system for over

200 years -- is that the government must prove its case beyond

a reasonable doubt. That is a very heavy burden, but that is

the burden that our system of justice requires when the

government hauls somebody into court and requires them to

answer charges, the consequences of which could have a

devastating effect on their lives.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to talk to you over

the course of the next half hour or so about what I believe is

substantial evidence that will show that the defendant did not

willfully misrepresent the content of his book in The Weight

Loss Cure infomercials.

The first thing that I'm going to talk about is

that -- and I already mentioned this to you, is that -- the

representations in the infomercials were in the book. And I'm

going to show you the representations that the government

compares -- complains -- about, and I'm going to show you some

examples of the references in the book. But you're going to

see those over and over and over, again, during the course of

the trial, particularly when I cross-examine the government's

agent -- witness.

Second, the representations in the infomercial

included Trudeau's views and opinions. He's an author, ladies

and gentlemen. He wrote a book. He has views and opinions,

and they're in the book and they're in the infomercial.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

Three -- the government didn't mention this company

at all, but I'm going to talk quite a bit about this

company -- there's a company called ITV. They owned a company

called Shop America. And when you watch the infomercials, pay

attention to that because it's ITV -- not Trudeau, it's ITV --

that exclusively produced the infomercials and marketed the

book through those infomercials.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you'll see the

infomercials, and you'll see the multiple disclaimers that ITV

put in those infomercials, including that they were paid

advertisements -- and I'm going to show you those

disclaimers -- and that you should consult your doctor before

acting on any of the recommendations.

Now, another thing that the government didn't mention

to you that I'm going to talk to you about, ladies and

gentlemen, is that full refunds were available to customers

that wanted one. If you bought a book from ITV and you wanted

a refund, you got one.

Now, the government said in its opening statement

that Trudeau misrepresented -- willfully misrepresented -- the

content of his book in the infomercial because he was

motivated by profit. But if somebody bought the book and they

didn't like it, they got a refund. Not much profit when you

give somebody a refund.

Now, as the prosecutor indicated to you, there are



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

numerous facts, ladies and gentlemen, that are not at issue in

this case -- and I just want to walk through some of them --

or not in dispute.

First of all, in the 2004 consent order, which I'm

going to show you -- I'm going to show you; you're going to

have back in the jury room; you can read every word of it, all

29 pages in it -- nowhere in that consent order did Trudeau

admit any wrongdoing. Nowhere.

Now, the government also told you that the

effectiveness of the protocol described in the book is not at

issue. It's not -- you're not going to be asked to decide

whether it's wise or whether other folks should do it or

whether you would or would not lose weight if you did the

protocol. That's not at issue at all in this case.

Now, again, you'll see -- and there will be a

stipulation to this effect. I tell you, in the infomercial

you're going to hear Trudeau say -- and listen for these words

-- "In my opinion, I believe," several times. But Trudeau was

permitted under the 2004 consent order -- and the government

agrees -- that he could state his views and opinions in the

infomercial.

I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that when you

say "in my opinion," that is an opinion. And he could do

that, as long as he didn't misrepresent the content of the

book. But if what he said was also in the book and he's



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

expressing it as an opinion, I think that's not going to be an

issue in the case; we're not going to be arguing it.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the truth or falsity of

the book is not an issue in the case. That is a very

important point, and I put it down here (indicating) in red.

When you see this book, you may disagree with every

single word in the book. It doesn't matter. It doesn't

matter. The question is whether Trudeau willfully

misrepresented the content of the book in the infomercial, not

if you agree with what was in the book.

In America, we can write whatever we want in books.

I could write a book arguing that the moon is made of cheese,

and there's nothing wrong with that. You can write whatever

you want in a book. So, the question is not whether what was

written in the book is true or false. It's only whether he

misrepresented the content of the book in the infomercial.

Now, let's talk a little bit about this 2004 consent

order that Trudeau is alleged to have willfully violated.

A consent order is like a contract. It's a

negotiation between two parties. In this case, a negotiation

between Trudeau and the FTC -- the Federal Trade Commission.

Some of you may have heard of the Federal Trade Commission.

They're a government regulatory office that is in Washington.

And you'll hear it throughout the trial referred to as the

FTC. It's the Federal Trade Commission.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

And it's signed by a judge. It wasn't Judge Guzman.

It was a different judge -- Judge Gettleman -- and you'll see

his signature on the paper.

Trudeau did not admit any wrongdoing when he entered

into the consent order. I already told you that.

The consent order allowed Trudeau to write whatever

he wanted to in a book. If he wanted to write a book that

said the moon is made of cheese, he could do it. Anybody can

do that. Anybody can do it.

The consent order also allowed Trudeau to state his

opinions and his views in his infomercials. I talked about

that for -- a minute ago.

And among those 29 pages in that consent order, which

I'm going to talk about in some detail, the order provided

that, quote -- this is all it said on this subject -- "The

infomercial for any book must not misrepresent the content of

the book." That's what it said. That's what the order said.

Now, I'm going to walk through just very briefly with

you some of the major participants that are involved in this

case and tell you a little bit about them, starting with my

client, Kevin Trudeau.

Kevin is 50 years old. He's 50 years old this year.

Ladies and gentlemen, he is a New York Times No. 1 best-

selling author. That means not just that his books made the

New York Times Best Seller List, but that they were No. 1 on



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

the New York Times Best Seller List.

He is a motivational, self-help speaker. He is a

natural health advocate. You'll see that in the book. He's

very much into natural cures and natural health advocacy. And

he's an author. He's authored several books.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you are going to see in

this book -- I have on the screen here that he's made

statements in the past critical of government censorship and

large corporations.

Ladies and gentlemen, he is very critical of the

government. He is very critical of the FDA.

He is critical of large corporations, including food

companies that -- the ones that are putting ingredients and

the chemicals in your food. He is very critical of these

entities, and you're going to see that come through in his

book.

He's critical of the government in many respects.

He grew up in Massachusetts, and he spent most of his

adult life here living in the Chicagoland area.

ITV. ITV is the company that I told you about that

exclusively produced and marketed the infomercials that are

the subject of this lawsuit. ITV is a direct response

marketing company that's located in Massachusetts, outside of

Boston. They specialized in producing and marketing

television infomercials in the live interview format. You're



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

going to see that the infomercial, Trudeau is sitting at a

couch or a table with somebody else and it's an interview

format infomercial.

ITV exclusively produced and marketed The Weight Loss

Cures book. They were the one that sold the book. And I'm

going to show you here their refund policy. They offered

refunds to any customers who wanted a refund.

The Federal Trade Commission, I told you, is a large

agency of the United States government located in Washington,

and they regulate advertising. They're represented by lawyers

in courts in civil litigation. This is a criminal case.

That's totally different than a civil case.

The consent order was entered into in a civil case,

not a criminal case. The FTC lawyers, they signed that

consent order. They represent the United States government in

federal courts just like the U.S. Attorney's Office does, only

they do it in civil cases. The U.S. Attorney's Office does it

in criminal cases.

And like I said, they were one of the two parties

with Trudeau to the negotiated consent order in 2004.

I want to talk to you a little bit about The Weight

Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About, and I'm going

to tell you a little bit more about the book than, I think,

the government did. It was published in 2007. The book

describes -- largely describes -- Trudeau's weight loss story.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

By the way, just so you know, this weight loss

protocol that's described in the book, this is not Trudeau's

weight loss protocol, and I'm going to talk to you about that.

But there are four phases to the weight loss

protocol. When the government was talking to you about

exercise, you can eat all you want, they did not distinguish

between what is recommended in the book and what is required

in the weight loss protocol. And I submit to you that that is

a big distinction.

Phase 1. I submit to you most of the government's

evidence is going to be on Phase 1 of the diet -- or the

protocol -- which is the first 30 days. It's entirely

recommended. It's just recommended. It's not required. You

can start with Phase 2 if you want to. And, then, lists --

Phase 1, which is recommended, lists -- if you're going to do

Phase 1, it lists a bunch of dos and bunch of don'ts, but it's

recommended.

Phase 2 and 3 is the protocol itself. Phase 2 and 3

is a weight loss protocol developed in the 1950s by a medical

doctor -- a British medical doctor -- named Dr. Simeons. And

you're going to see all kinds of references to Dr. Simeons in

the book. Dr. Simeons is the one who came up with the weight

loss protocol, not Trudeau. This is not his weight loss

protocol.

Phase 4. The government talked a lot about Phase 4.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

You can eat whatever you want for the rest of your life and

not keep -- and keep the weight off. If you want to do that

in Phase 4, Phase 4 is recommended. It contains suggestions.

And you're going to see the quotes. And, then, if you want to

do Phase 4 and keep the weight off for the rest of your life,

it contains several dos and don'ts.

But it's important to remember and to distinguish

when the government is talking about the book what is required

under Simeons' weight loss protocol in Phases 2 and 3 and what

is recommended in Phases 1 and 4.

Now, Trudeau advertised this book in infomercials,

which we all know; and, you're going to see the infomercials

in court.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think and I submit to you --

I submit to you -- and I want you to consider these things as

you hear the evidence in the case -- I submit to you that the

evidence is going to show five critical facts in this case

that will prevent the government from meeting its burden of

proof of proving that my client willfully misrepresented the

content of the consent order beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm

going to walk through each of these with you briefly.

The first one is Trudeau did not misrepresent the

content of the book. Remember, the order said you can't

misrepresent the content. Well, the representations in the

infomercial were in the book. They were in the book. And I'm



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

going to show you that.

So, the first fact that the government can't prove,

that Trudeau misrepresented the content of the book in the

infomercial, is because he didn't. What he said in the

infomercial is in the book.

The second fact -- I mentioned this before -- is that

it contained his views and opinions. The infomercial contains

his views and opinions, which is permitted under the 2004

consent order.

I think the evidence is going to show that ITV was

the company that exclusively produced and marketed the book.

And I have two little sub-points here, that ITV made the

decision to air the infomercials and was aware of and in

possession of the consent order when they did it.

So, think about that, ladies and gentlemen. The

defendant is charged with willfully violating a consent order

by misrepresenting the content of a book in an infomercial. I

think the evidence is going to show to you that ITV produced

and distributed the infomercial. ITV, a company located in

Massachusetts. And when they did it, they had the consent

order. They knew exactly what the consent order said about

prohibiting anybody from willfully misrepresenting the content

of a book in an infomercial.

And, ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you the

government is not going to call a single witness, not one,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

who's from ITV. Not one person from ITV is going to testify

that anybody at ITV told Trudeau that the infomercials

violated the consent order when they produced them and

marketed them.

The fourth fact is what I mentioned to you before:

The Weight Loss Cure infomercials contained several

disclaimers, which I'm going to show you.

And the fifth fact is that ITV policy allowed full

refunds to customers that wanted one.

So, I'm going to take the first two facts together,

that the representations made in the infomercials were in the

book and that they were statements of opinions.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, the government's position

is that the representations in the infomercial were not in the

book and they misrepresented the content of the book.

Our position, as I told you, is that the

representations were in the book and that they were his views

and opinions. So, the infomercial did not misrepresent the

content of the book, and Trudeau was permitted to state his

views and opinions, which I've mentioned.

Now, I'm going to talk to you about some of the --

and I'm going to go -- I'm not going to -- I'm going to go

through these slides so you can see them. I'm not going to go

through every quote on every slide. I'll have a chance to

address you, again, in closing argument, and I will. And



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

that's when I'll do it. And I'll do it through the

cross-examination of the government agent.

But if I went through every quote in the book that

was consistent with what was in the infomercial, we'd be here

for hours. And nobody wants to be here for hours.

But the first complaint that the government has is

that Trudeau misrepresented the content of his book in the

infomercials when he described the weight loss protocol as a

cure. If you see on the left-hand side of the screen, that's

the government's allegation: That the statement that the

weight loss protocol was a cure misrepresented what was in the

book. And, then, the government has other similar allegations

with respect to that one allegation.

Well, here are some quotes from The Weight Loss Cure

book. First of all, as I mentioned to you, the title of the

book is The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know

About. So, the government has alleged he misrepresented the

content of the book in the infomercial by calling it a cure

when the title of the book is The Weight Loss Cure.

But throughout the book, there are dozens of

statements similar to ones that I've quoted on the screen.

"The Weight Loss Cure is not a diet," "not an exercise

program." You see the second sentence: "The Weight Loss Cure

addresses and corrects the physiological cause of obesity,

weight gain, the inability to lose weight."



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

The third bullet point: "This weight loss cure

protocol does, in fact, cure and correct these problems."

The fourth bullet point: "You will be cured."

Now, ladies and gentlemen, these quotes are not

quotes from the infomercial. They're quotes from the book.

So, remember the government has alleged that when he called it

a cure in the infomercial, he misrepresented the content of

the book. The quotes are all from the book, where he calls it

a cure dozens of times.

The government -- one of the allegations in the

protocol is inexpensive. But I'm going to skip over that for

now because I want to talk to you about what the government

talked about in its opening statement particularly. But

you'll see -- you're going to see all of these in some great

detail.

No exercise is required. Trudeau, in the

infomercial, said this is not an exercise protocol. It's not

an exercise protocol.

And throughout the book, he talks about -- and these

are the quotes: "The Weight Loss Cure is not an exercise

program."

"No exercise is required."

"No exercise is required."

"Although exercise is encouraged, you do not need to

exercise."



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

"There's no hunger or feeling of deprivation during

the treatment. No exercise was required."

Over and over in the book, he talks about no exercise

being required.

Now, the government mentioned to you after the

protocol is finished, you can eat whatever you want. The

government talked about that in some detail. And remember, I

told you Phases 2 and 3 are the protocol. Phase 4 is after

the protocol is complete, and it's suggestions and

recommended.

But throughout the book, he talks about no

restrictions. It does not mean you'll be restricted to

certain types of food. "You'll be cured." "When you're

finished, you'll be able to eat any kinds of food you want."

And, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to hear about

the cure. The cure basically talks about resetting your

hypothalamus gland and also increasing metabolism. So, what

it does is it makes you less hungry so you eat less, and then

it speeds up the processing of the food. That's the idea of

Simeons. This is not Trudeau. This is Simeons' weight loss

cure.

But the idea is to make you fuller faster and then to

make you -- your metabolism -- speed your metabolism so you

break down the food faster. So, you eat whatever you want;

you're just going to eat smaller. You're going to get hungry



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

faster. Instead of eating three pieces of pizza, you're going

to eat two.

Now, Mr. Krickbaum talked about the organic food.

You remember during his opening statement he mentioned that

Phase 4 requires you eat a hundred percent organic food and

that that was somehow an alleged misrepresentation. Well, I

think the evidence -- I got the book, and the book is going to

be in evidence. I think the evidence is going to show the

following: That Trudeau, in the book, wrote, "The simplest

rule to follow is to eat anything you want, as much as you

want, as often as you want. The only caveat is only eat a

hundred percent organic food."

The next sentence is irrelevant.

The very next sentence after that, Trudeau writes,

"In real life, in the real world, eating only 100 percent

organic food can be next to impossible." He recognizes that

right in the book.

And, then, he says, "Basically, then, what you work

to achieve is to avoid as best you can the man-made

ingredients that cause obesity." That's what Mr. Trudeau said

in the book.

So, although the government is right that he said you

have to eat a hundred percent organic food, in the very next

phrase he recognizes that may be impossible; and, if it is,

just avoid the man-made ingredients that cause obesity.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

The protocol is not a diet. That was one of the

things that the government talked about in its opening

statement. What you're going to see time and time, again, in

the book -- the references to "The Weight Loss Cure is not a

diet"; "although it's not a diet"; "the simplest rule you

follow is to eat anything you want. It's not a diet."

So, over and over in the book, he says it's not a

diet.

The next one that Mr. Krickbaum talked about is hCG.

And, ladies and gentlemen, I'm just going to talk very briefly

about hCG. hCG is a hormone. It's produced -- it's a natural

hormone. It's produced in women during pregnancy. Their body

produces hCG. In fact, it's a common treatment for women who

are going through infertility treatment. hCG is a common

treatment. It comes in a powdery substance. You mix it with

water. It's a very small amount. You take a syringe, you

pull it up, and then you inject it in your butt. That's what

you do. That's hCG.

So, Trudeau talks about it as being a natural

substance, and he talks about miracle all-natural substances

that you use during the weight loss protocol. Well, it is a

natural substance. There will be no dispute about that.

But, ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk to you

about the last bullet point here on the screen.

The government says Trudeau didn't mention hCG at all



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

in the infomercial, and they say that by not doing that, he

willfully -- willfully -- he knew it was wrong -- he willfully

misrepresented the content of the book. But in multiple

passages in the book, he tells you that if hCG is unavailable

to you, if you don't want to use hCG, there's an alternative.

And I can think of three places off the top of my

head when he says that in the book. When I cross-examine the

government agent, I'm going to show you all three of them.

So, he talks about a substitute for hCG, and that will be the

evidence.

Now, I want to talk to you briefly about ITV.

That takes me through Points 1 and 2 of my five

facts.

I want to talk to you about ITV and their decision to

air the infomercials.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what the evidence will

be on that. The evidence will show that the parties -- that's

the government and the defense -- we all agree that ITV

exclusively produced and marketed The Weight Loss Cure's

program. It's not in dispute. ITV produced it. ITV marketed

it. That's not in dispute.

It's also not in dispute that at the time they did

so, they were aware of and in possession of the 2004 court

order. ITV produced the infomercial. They marketed the

infomercial. And they had the court order -- the 2004 consent



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


34

order -- when they did it. And, then, I told you earlier

there's no evidence that anyone at ITV told Trudeau that the

infomercial violated the court order.

No. 4, the disclaimers. Remember I told you there

were disclaimers. And you're going to see these disclaimers

while the advertisement is shown to you -- while the

infomercials are shown to you. There could be no dispute as

to what this was. There's no dispute as to what the

infomercial did. You're going to see -- I can read that to

you -- the disclaimer that came on: "The following is a paid

advertisement for The Weight Loss Cure brought to you by Shop

America."

Remember I told you Shop America is a company that

was owned by ITV. There was a stock purchase agreement

sometime in the summer of 2006. And Shop America was sold --

Trudeau signed on behalf of Shop America, sold the company to

ITV. So, ITV -- there's no dispute ITV owns Shop America.

And Trudeau never owned ITV or anything like that.

He sold some subsidiary -- or some small entities in which he

was a manager. He signed -- you're going to see the consent

order.

But ITV owned Shop America. ITV was the one that

produced and distributed the infomercial. No dispute about

that.

The next disclaimer you're going to see is: "It is



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


35

recommended that you consult with a licensed medical doctor or

physician before acting upon any recommendation that is made

in the book or in this paid advertisement."

Another disclaimer that's going to appear in the

infomercial: "Trudeau's weight loss cure has not been

approved by the Food and Drug Administration or any other

government agency."

He says that right in the infomercial.

"The following is a paid program."

"The preceding was a paid program."

Multiple disclaimers in the infomercial.

The fifth fact, and the last one that I'm going to

talk to you. Ladies and gentlemen, the government argued to

you that Trudeau was motivated by profit in misrepresenting

the content of his book because he wanted to sell more books.

But it's undisputed that ITV offered a refund to customers who

bought the book and didn't want it for any reason at all. If

they didn't like it, they didn't agree with it, they didn't

want it, they got a refund.

And this policy is going to be admitted in evidence.

This is a document that you're going to have back with you in

the jury room: "Your ITV product purchase comes with a 30-day

money back satisfaction guarantee that starts upon delivery of

this shipment. If you are not completely satisfied with your

purchase, contact our Customer Satisfaction Department Monday



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


36

through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard

Time."

Now, you're going to hear Trudeau even in the

infomercial, he talks about how it's unconditionally

guaranteed. When he's talking about the book, "Buy the book

for $29.95 and I'll throw in all the other books that I wrote

on natural cures. It's unconditionally guaranteed. If you

don't like the book, if you don't want the book, you call and

send it back."

ITV had a policy where they offered refunds.

And, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of my

opening statement. I'm coming to the end of my opening

statement, and you're going to see me and you're going to see

Ms. Gurland during the course of the government's case. We're

going to cross-examine the government's witnesses.

And, then, the government is going to do a closing

argument. They get to go first and they get to go last

because they have the burden of proof. But in between when

they go first and when they go last, I'm going to go back in

front of you and I'm going to give a closing argument.

But, ladies and gentlemen, I requested the very

beginning of my opening statement to please keep an open mind.

When you hear the direct examination of the government's

witnesses, don't form opinions and conclusions until you hear

my cross-examination of the government's witnesses. And the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


37

same with closing argument: Keep an open mind.

And I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that you

please keep in mind these five critical facts which, I

believe, will prevent you from concluding that the government

has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt --

beyond a reasonable doubt -- on all three of the elements that

the government must prove.

And at the end of the case, ladies and gentlemen, I

will be back up here and I will ask you to return a not guilty

verdict as to Kevin Trudeau.

THE COURT: Folks, you have now heard the opening

statements of the attorneys. The next thing that happens in

sequence is the introduction of the actual evidence itself.

We will not begin that today. It is almost 4:00 o'clock. We

quit at 4:30. It would be almost counterproductive to do so.

We are going to let you go home today. Get a good

night's rest. Come back tomorrow at 9:30 sharp. We will

begin with the evidence in this case.

I want to remind you -- and I will try to do this

every day, but if I forget, the admonishment is still there

for you to follow -- you are not to read, listen to or view

any news reports or any other information about this case.

You are not to talk to anyone or discuss with anyone this

case, and if anyone should try to do so, you are to report

that to the Court.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

We begin tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. You know which bank

of elevators you are supposed to use.

Any questions?

(No response.)

THE COURT: Have a good evening. We will see you

tomorrow morning.

(Jury out.)

THE COURT: Be ready to begin tomorrow at 9:30.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.


THE COURT: All right.

Are there any issues that you foresee that we should

address now?

MR. KRICKBAUM: No, your Honor.

MR. KIRSCH: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Well, I am not going to require you to be here early,

but if between now -- as has happened several times during the

course of these proceedings, between now -- and tomorrow

morning you perceive an issue that needs to be addressed, do

not come at 9:30 and tell me you want to address it then. Let

the Court and opposing counsel know ahead of time and get here

early so we can do this without making the jury wait.

MR. KRICKBAUM: We understand, Judge.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

THE COURT: Okay. Have a good evening.

We are adjourned.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Thank you.

MR. KIRSCH: Thank you, your Honor.

(Whereupon, an adjournment was taken at 3:53 o'clock p.m.,

until 9:30 o'clock a.m., the following day, November 6,

2013.)

* * * * *

I certify that the foregoing is a correct excerpt from the

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/ Joseph Rickhoff November 5, 2013




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 10 CR 886

)

KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) Chicago, Illinois

) November 6, 2013

Defendant. ) 9:30 a.m.

VOLUME 2

TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD A. GUZMAN, AND A JURY

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: HON. ZACHARY T. FARDON

United States Attorney

BY: MR. MARC KRICKBAUM

MS. APRIL M. PERRY

Assistant United States Attorneys

219 South Dearborn Street

Suite 500


(312) 353-5300

For the Defendant: WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

BY: MR. THOMAS LEE KIRSCH II

35 West Wacker Drive


(312) 558-5600

MS. CAROLYN PELLING GURLAND

Attorney at Law

2 North LaSalle Street

17th Floor


(312) 420-9263

Court Reporter: NANCY C. LaBELLA


219 S. Dearborn Street

Suite 1222


(312) 435-6890

Case: 1:10-cr-00886 Document #: 157-1 Filed: 12/09/13 Page 1 of 159 PageID #:1537


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

THE CLERK: 10 CR 886, United States of America v.

Trudeau.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Good morning, your Honor. Marc

Krickbaum and April Perry on behalf of the United States.

MR. KIRSCH: Tom Kirsch and Carolyn Gurland on behalf

of the defendant, your Honor.

Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning. We are one juror short. I

believe that is a juror who has called in and indicated he is

stuck in terrible traffic and is still, I think at last call,

nine miles away.

MR. KIRSCH: Maybe we should just wait, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't think we have much choice. So

we'll adjourn until that juror comes in, at which point the

parties are ready to proceed with the evidence?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes, Judge.


THE COURT: All right.

(Recess taken.)

THE COURT: We have -- I'm sorry. Call the case

again.

THE CLERK: 10 CR 886, United States of America v.

Trudeau.

THE COURT: We have a full complement of jurors now,

so we are ready to proceed.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

42

MR. KIRSCH: Yes, your Honor. We're ready.

THE COURT: Let's bring out the jury, please.

(Jury in.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

Glad to have you back. We are ready to proceed with

the evidence.

Government.

MS. PERRY: The United States calls Silvia Carrier.

THE COURT: Please remain standing and raise your

right hand.

SILVIA CARRIER, GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS, SWORN

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Could you please state your name and spell it for the

court reporter.

A. Silvia Carrier, S-i-l-v-i-a, C-a-r-r-i-e-r.

Q. What do you do for a living?

A. I'm a federal agent for the U.S. Postal Inspection

Service.

Q. And what does it mean to be a federal agent for the U.S.

Postal Inspection Service?

A. I investigate crimes involving statutes related to the

U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Mail.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

43

Q. How long have you been a postal inspector?

A. 18 years.

Q. What did you do before that?

A. I was a support employee for the FBI.

Q. And what did you do prior to that?

A. I was a student.

Q. What's your educational background?

A. I have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and a

master's in public administration.

Q. And do you have a particular assignment at the United

States Postal Inspection Service now?

A. I'm on the mail fraud team.

Q. What does that mean?

A. We investigate crimes involving -- anything where the mail

is used to commit fraud, such as documents being mailed or

products being sent through the mail is something that would

constitute mail fraud.

Q. All right. I'd like to start today by talking to you

about the court order that's at issue in this case. And I'm

going to hand you what's been marked as Government Exhibit 5.

MS. PERRY: And, Judge, I'd request permission to

publish a stipulation between the parties at this time.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. KIRSCH: No objection.

MS. PERRY: The parties agree that Government



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

44

Exhibit 5 is an accurate copy of the September 2, 2004, court

order.

The parties agree that Government Exhibit 5 should be

admitted into evidence.

So stipulated?


MS. PERRY: At this time the government moves

Exhibit 5 into evidence.

THE COURT: Government Exhibit 5 may be admitted in

evidence without objection pursuant to the stipulation.

MS. PERRY: And, Judge, we request permission to

publish portions of that through the Elmo.

THE COURT: It may be published.

BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Inspector Carrier, I'd like to direct your attention first

to the first page of the court order, which I'm going to put

up on the screen.

And can you please tell me, according to this first

page of the document, who the parties were that were subject

to this court order?

A. Federal Trade Commission, plaintiff, versus Kevin Trudeau,

Shop America (USA), LLC, Shop America Marketing Group, LLC,

TruStar Global Media, Limited, Robert Barefoot, Deonna

Enterprises, Inc., and Karbo Enterprises, Inc., defendants,

and K.T. Corporation, Limited and TruCom, LLC, relief



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

45

defendants.

Q. All right. And directing your attention to the very last

page of the court order, I'm going to be asking you who signed

this order, first, on behalf of the plaintiffs?

A. Heather Hippsley, Daniel Kaufman, Laura M. Sullivan, Peter

Miller, Federal Trade Commission.

Q. And on behalf of the defendants, how many signatures are

there on the right side of that page?

A. Three.

Q. And who signed on the first line?

A. Kevin Trudeau.

Q. And is that as a person or as a number of different

groups?

A. Both.

Q. Okay. So what's the first one?

A. Individually.

Q. And then what is the second signature?

A. Manager or director of Shop America (USA), LLC, Shop

America Marketing Group, TruStar Global Media, Limited, K.T.

Corp. and TruCom, LLC.

Q. And is there also a judge's signature on this particular

court order?

A. Yes.

Q. And whose signature is that?

A. United States District Judge Robert W. Gettleman.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

46

Q. All right. I'm going to direct your attention now to the

second page. And I'll ask if you can read just the portion

that is on your screen there?

Can you read that?

A. Plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission, Commission, has

filed a complaint for permanent injunction and other equitable

relief, complaint, against Kevin Trudeau, Shop America (USA),

LLC, Shop America Marketing Group and TruStar Global Media,

defendants, and K.T. Corp. and TruCom, LLC, relief defendants,

pursuant to Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 53(b), alleging deceptive acts or practices

and false advertisements, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 12

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a) and 52.

Additionally, on June 9, 2003, the Commission moved

this court for entry of an order holding Kevin Trudeau in

contempt of the stipulated order for permanent injunction and

final judgment against Kevin Trudeau entered by this court on

January 14, 1998, in connection with civil No. 98-C-0168.

The Commission, defendants and relief defendants have

stipulated to the entry of the following stipulated final

order for permanent injunction and settlement of claims for

monetary relief as to defendants Kevin Trudeau, Shop America

(USA), LLC, Shop America Marketing Group, LLC, TruStar Global

Media, Limited, and relief defendants K.T. Corporation,

Limited and TruCom, LLC, order, in settlement of the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

47

Commission's complaint against defendants and relief

defendants and the Commission's civil contempt action against

Kevin Trudeau.

Q. All right. Now, I'm going to direct your attention to

page 8 of that particular court order and just ask you to read

the highlighted portion.

A. Additionally, the infomercial for any such book,

newsletter or informational publication must also comply with

the requirements of Part X herein and must not misrepresent

the content of the book, newsletter or informational

publication.

Q. All right. Now, moving away from the court order. Were

you asked to review a number of items in connection with your

work on this case?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked as Government

Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Do you recognize those documents?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what are Government Exhibits 1, 2 and 3?

A. Copies of three infomercials.

Q. And did you review those infomercials?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what is Government Exhibit 4?

A. A book.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

48

Q. All right.

MS. PERRY: At this time the government would like to

read two other stipulations, your Honor.

THE COURT: Before you proceed, let me simply advise

the jury.

Folks, a stipulation, which the attorneys have now

referred to, is nothing more than an agreement between the

parties that you may consider the facts in the stipulation as

being proven and true for purposes of this trial.

Go ahead.

MS. PERRY: Thank you.

It is stipulated between the parties that in 2006 and

2007, the defendant appeared in infomercials promoting his

book The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About.

Government Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are accurate copies of

those infomercials.

Government Exhibit 1 aired, among other times, on

December 23rd, 2006. Government Exhibit 2 aired, among other

times, on January 8, 2007. And Government Exhibit 3 aired,

among other times, on July 6, 2007.

The parties agree that Government Exhibits 1, 2 and 3

should be admitted into evidence.

Additionally, in 2006, the defendant authored a book

called the The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know

About. Government Exhibit 4 is an accurate copy of that book.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

49

The parties agree that Government Exhibit 4 should be

admitted into evidence.

So stipulated, counsel?

MR. KIRSCH: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

MS. PERRY: Pursuant to stipulation, the government

moves Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 into evidence.

THE COURT: Government Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be

admitted in evidence without objection pursuant to the

stipulation.

BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Inspector Carrier, I'm going to retrieve 1, 2 and 3 from

you.

Did you review all three of these infomercials?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how do you know that these particular copies are the

ones that you reviewed?

A. I initialed them.

Q. All right. Let's go ahead and talk first about the

infomercial that aired last in time.

So Government Exhibit 3 aired on what date?

A. July 6, 2007.

Q. And was that the first or only time that Government

Exhibit 3 aired or was that just one time on which that

particular infomercial aired?

A. One time.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

50

Q. All right. And who are the parties who appear in that

particular infomercial?

A. Chloe Marshall and Kevin Trudeau.

MS. PERRY: The government requests permission to

publish Government Exhibit 3. That would be through the

computer and the screens.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. KIRSCH: No objection, your Honor.


The source will be the prosecution computer?

MS. PERRY: Correct.

(Whereupon said recording was played in open court.)

BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Inspector Carrier, I'd like to next ask you about

Government Exhibit 2, which was the infomercial that aired

previous to this one that we just watched.

On what date did that particular infomercial air?

A. January 8, 2007.

Q. And was that the first or only date on which it aired or

just one of the dates on which it aired?

A. Just one of the dates.

Q. And who are the people who appear in that particular

infomercial?

A. Donald Barrett and Kevin Trudeau.

MS. PERRY: At this time the government requests



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

51

permission to publish Exhibit 2 through the computer at our

table.



BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Okay. Let's move on to Government's Exhibit 1, the

infomercial that aired earliest in time. What was one of the

dates on which that particular infomercial aired?

A. December 23, 2006.

Q. And was December 23rd, 2006, the first or only date on

which it aired or just one of the dates?

A. Just one of the dates.

Q. And who are the people that appear in that particular

infomercial?

A. Chloe Marshall and Kevin Trudeau.

MS. PERRY: The government requests permission to

publish Exhibit 1 through the computer at our table.



BY MS. PERRY:

Q. Inspector Carrier, you've now identified Kevin Trudeau in

three separate infomercials. Do you see him here in court

today?

A. Yes, I do.

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, we stipulate that the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

52

defendant is here -- we stipulate that she can identify the

defendant in court.

MS. PERRY: That's fine.

THE COURT: The record will reflect that the witness

has identified the defendant in open court.

BY MS. PERRY:

Q. I am now going to hand you what's been marked as

Government Exhibits 1A, 2A and 3A.

MS. PERRY: And, Judge, I'm going to read another

stipulation.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. PERRY: Government Exhibits 1A, 2A and 3A are

accurate transcripts of the infomercials contained in

Government Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

These transcripts accurately identify the speakers in

the infomercial and the words that were spoken.

The parties agree that Government Exhibits 1A, 2A and

3A should be admitted into evidence.

So stipulated, counsel?

MR. KIRSCH: Yes, your Honor, we stipulate.

MS. PERRY: At this time the government moves

Exhibits 1A, 2A and 3A into evidence.

THE COURT: Government Exhibits 1A, 2A and 3A are

admitted in evidence without objection by stipulation.

MS. PERRY: And, Judge, we're going to hand out



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Carrier - direct

53

exhibit binders at this time.

THE COURT: Containing?

MS. PERRY: Containing 1A, 2A and 3A, as well as some

other exhibits that will be admitted in a few minutes.

MR. KIRSCH: What other exhibits that will be

admitted?

THE COURT: Show them to opposing counsel first,

please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, we have the book here. If

they want to hand out the book, the entire book --

(Brief pause.)

MR. KIRSCH: Well, the government is proposing to

give the jury three chapters of the book; and we've got the

whole book. We've got 14 copies of the whole book. We can

give

Documents

Trudeau Criminal Case Document 157-0-4 Trial November 2013