Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DEFENDANT KEVIN TRUDEAUS OPPOSITION TO THE FTCS AND THE RECEIVERS STATEMENTS REGARDING THE NEED FOR COERCIVE SANCTIONS I. Introduction Coercive 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.
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
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. See Gompers 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.
Contrary 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 Bank Account.
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. 5 See Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v.
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 Online Gaming 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 inperson 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 6
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 login 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 login 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 Is Irrelevant 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. 7
not 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 purchased
and 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 about
certain 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
Trudeau does not have the ability to compel any of these individuals to cooperate with the Receiver. To the extent these individuals assert their constitutional rights, Trudeau cannot be lawfully incarcerated because others assert their constitutional rights. 8
apartment 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 in
the 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 owned
by 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
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 should not 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
10
The Receiver also mentions a pair of womens cufflinks. These cufflinks were purchased by Trudeaus 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 a significant asset and certainly not worth $37 million. 11
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 12
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 Van Roon 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 to provide documentation regarding any monies paid to Trudeau); See Ex 5 (September 22, 2013 email from Trudeau to Hybrid Group seeking data on physical assets); See Ex 6 (September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow asking Dow to provide Trudeau with a list of loans he made to the company); See Ex 7 (September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Babenko strongly encouraging her to contact Michael Van Roon and ask him to turn over to the Receiver all information about the companies set up in her name); See Ex 8 (September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Barbara Schoop asking her to send information about monies paid to Trudeau from Website Solutions, and transmitting such information to the Receiver); See Ex 9 (September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Ari Wasserman asking him to 13
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. Conclusion This 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 14
Respectfully submitted, KEVIN TRUDEAU By: /s/ Kimball R. Anderson One of His Attorneys
15
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 1 Description
September 30, 2013 email from Trudeau to the Global Bank of Commerce Antigua Copies of the direction letters signed by Trudeau during the September 18, 2013 meeting with the receiver September 05, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Van Roon September 20, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow September 22, 2013 email from Trudeau to Hybrid Group September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Michael Dow September 23, 2013 email from Trudeau to Babenko September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Barbara Schoop September 24, 2013 email from Trudeau to Ari Wasserman September 26, 2013 email from Trudeau to Anthony Balistreri Copies of direction letters signed by Trudeau on October 11, 2013
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Exhibit 11