UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KEVIN TRUDEAU No. 10 CR 886 Judge Ronald A. Guzmán GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA submits the following sentencing memorandum and respectfully requests that the Court sentence defendant to no less than ten years in prison. INTRODUCTION This is a unique case. Defendant was convicted of criminal contempt based on his violation of a court order, but this violation was just one example of defendant’s brazen defiance of the federal courts in Chicago, which has persisted for more than a decade. Defendant’s violation of the court order was also a massive consumer fraud that resulted in over $37 million in loss, and over $5 million in gain to defendant. And all of these events are part of a larger, thirty-year pattern of defendant’s fraud and deceit. Throughout his career, defendant has been motivated by simple greed, and he has funded and protected a lavish lifestyle by bilking consumers and defying court orders. The government is aware of no comparable criminal contempt case in this district. Defendant’s crime, the harm it caused to the courts and to his victims, and his history of fraud, lies, and contempt, warrant a significant prison term, which the government believes should be no less than ten years. PSR AND GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS The government agrees with the advisory guidelines calculation contained in the PSR. That calculation is as follows (PSR ¶¶ 29-58). Offense Level 6: Base offense level – § 2B1.1(a)(2) +22: Loss greater than $20 million and less than $50 million –§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(L) +6: More than 250 victims – § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) +2: Violation of a prior, specific judicial order – § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) ________________________________ Adjusted Offense Level: 36 Criminal History Category III Advisory Guidelines Range 235-293 months Defendant objects to two of these calculations: the enhancement relating to loss, and the enhancement relating to the number of victims. A. Applicable Law and PSR Loss Calculation This Court is not required to “compute the loss with precision; the [C]ourt need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss based on the information available.” United States v. Bhutani, 266 F.3d 661, 668 (7th Cir. 2001). Loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss. United States v. Rosen, 726 F.3d 1017, 1024 2 (7th Cir. 2013); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)). Actual loss means the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense, and intended loss means the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense, including harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur. United States v. Dokich, 614 F.3d 314, 319 (7th Cir. 2010); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(i) and (ii). “In determining the intended loss amount, the district court must consider the defendant’s subjective intent.” United States v. Middlebrook, 553 F.3d 572, 578 (7th Cir. 2009). The PSR adopted the loss calculation endorsed by the Seventh Circuit in the civil case, FTC v. Trudeau, 662 F.3d 947, 950-51 (7th Cir. 2011) (Trudeau II). That calculation is based on the total amount of money consumers spent on books purchased through the 1-800 number listed in defendant’s infomercials, including shipping and handling, minus returns. See Trudeau II, 662 F.3d at 951; PSR ¶ 1920. Over 850,000 books were sold through the 1-800 number, totaling over $39 million, and over 57,000 books were returned for partial refunds, totaling over $1.4 million. Government Exhibit 1; PSR ¶¶ 19-20. 1 The difference, and the total amount of loss calculated by the Seventh Circuit and PSR, is over $37 million. Trudeau II, 662 F.3d at 951; PSR ¶ 19. The PSR found that the actual and intended losses from defendant’s crime were the same. PSR ¶ 35. In addition, defendant’s profit from books sold through the fraudulent infomercials was at least $5 million. Government The refunds were partial because customers were not refunded money they had already paid for shipping and handling when the customers received the books. Customers also had to pay for additional shipping and handling to return the books. See pages 26-28 below. 1 3 Exhibit 2; PSR ¶ 2; FTC v. Trudeau, 572 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (noting that this is a conservative figure that defendant has not contested). Defendant does not object to the accuracy of the figures the PSR used to calculate loss, and those figures are not in dispute. But defendant objects to the $37 million loss amount on the grounds that (1) some unknown number of customers were happy with the Weight Loss book and suffered no loss, Dkt. 165 at 12-13; (2) some unknown number of customers might have bought the Weight Loss book for reasons other than the lies defendant told about the book in the infomercials, and these customers suffered no loss, Dkt. 165 at 10-12; and (3) even customers who were unhappy received some value from the book, and their loss should be something less than the full price of the book, Dkt. 165 at 13-14. These arguments are meritless. B. $37 Million is a Reasonable Estimate of Actual Loss. 1. Defendant Defrauded the Vast Majority of People Who Bought the Book Through the Infomercial. While there may be a small number of people who were indifferent to the lies defendant told in his infomercials, most people who bought the book after watching the infomercials were victims of defendant’s fraud. This is because defendant’s misrepresentations in the infomercials were not little fibs—they were bald-faced lies that were at the heart of defendant’s scheme to defraud everyone who was listening. Defendant’s infomercials promised a dramatic and permanent cure for weight loss based on a simple and inexpensive protocol that was not a diet, but that involved an easy-to-obtain “miracle, all natural substance.” The infomercials told 4 customers that after completing this protocol, customers could eat whatever they wanted and never gain the weight back. These claims were the essence of defendant’s sales pitch, and they appeared consistently in each of the three infomercials at issue in this case. All of these claims were false, and blatantly so. As the Seventh Circuit concluded, rather than describing the book accurately, defendant “loaded” his infomercials with “statements that were patently false,” “outright lied,” made “blatant misrepresentations,” and “repeatedly distorted” the content of his book, “thereby inducing consumers to purchase the book on false hopes and assumptions.” See FTC v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754, 766, 767, 768 (7th Cir. 2009) (Trudeau I). The actual book contains a grueling diet and a labyrinth of often confusing, sometimes contradictory do’s and don’ts; involves daily injections of a hormone, hCG, that can only be prescribed by a doctor and that has not been approved for weight loss in the United States; and requires a lifetime ban on foods that most Americans eat every day. If defendant had described his book accurately in the infomercials, book sales would have been close to zero. Defendant, who has made millions defrauding consumers over the course of decades, see pages 15-17 below, knew what he was doing. Motivated by greed, defendant lied about the book in the infomercials to convince people to buy the book. In doing so, he not only committed contempt of court, he defrauded nearly everyone who bought the book through the infomercials, and he is accountable for the over $37 million they spent. 5 The Seventh Circuit has already reached the same conclusion in the civil case, explaining that: The consent order was intended to protect customers from deceptive infomercials. The protections, unfortunately, were too weak: Trudeau aired infomercials in violation of the order at least 32,000 times. He should not now be surprised that he must pay for the loss he caused. At a minimum, it was easily within the district court's discretion to conclude that he should. And $37.6 million correctly measures the loss. The figure is conservative—it only considers sales from the 800– number, not sales in bookstores carrying his “As Seen on TV” titles— and reliable—Trudeau cited this figure himself in briefing Trudeau I. Trudeau II, 662 F.3d 950-51. With few exceptions, those who bought defendant’s book through the 1-800 number were defrauded by defendant’s infomercials, and $37 million is a reasonable estimate of that loss. 2. If Anything, $37 Million Underestimates the Actual Loss. The PSR’s loss calculation does not include books customers returned for a partial refund, or books sold in retail stores or on the Internet. For these reasons, the actual loss is likely even higher. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that loss should be reduced by the amount of money returned to the victim “before the offense was detected.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.3(E)(i)). An offense is detected at the earlier of the time a victim or government agency detects it, or the time the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the offense was detected or about to be detected. Id. The customers who returned the Weight Loss book discovered their loss based on defendant’s fraudulent infomercials when they received the books, read them, 6 and subsequently demanded a refund. These victims did not need to understand the full scope of defendant’s offense, or that his conduct was a crime; they just needed to detect their loss that resulted from defendant’s contempt and fraud. See United States v. Philpot, 733 F.3d 734, 748-49 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that defendant was not entitled to credit for paying back stolen government funds after victim discovered loss); United States v. Peugh, 675 F.3d 736, 742 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that defendant was not entitled to credit for paying back proceeds from check-kiting scheme after victim bank demanded repayment) (reversed on other grounds by Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013)). As in Philpot and Peugh, “the time to determine the loss . . . is the moment the loss is detected.” Philpot, 733 F.3d at 748 (quoting Peugh, 675 F.3d at 742). The victims who were unhappy with the Weight Loss book and returned it had discovered their loss from defendant’s fraudulent infomercials by the time they demanded a refund. The full amount of the returned books should count toward loss, and the figure should be at least $39 million, rather than $37 million. See Government Exhibit 1; PSR ¶¶ 19-20. In addition, the $37 million loss includes only sales through the 1-800 number advertised in the infomercials, and does not include any book sales through retail stores or the Internet. Total sales of the book through all channels were over $49 million. PSR ¶ 19. The loss amount should include some of the books sold in stores, because in the infomercials defendant explicitly encouraged people to buy his books in stores, saying, “You can buy this in, in Wal-Marts, in Costcos, in Sam’s 7 Club. You can go to Borders or Waldenbooks.” Government Trial Exhibit 3A at 11. As the Seventh Circuit has explained: [I]t is worth emphasizing that the district court showed restraint in calculating the remedial sanction based only on 800–number sales. Most of the sales caused by Trudeau's violation of the court order may have been made through the 800–number, but not all. Out of an abundance of caution—in order to avoid using any questionable figures—the district court decided not to include internet sales or instore sales of the Weight Loss Cure, even though those books were sold with a conspicuous “As Seen on TV” sticker, making the link between those sales and the infomercial less than speculative. In the end, the district court's careful approach has left us with a reliable and conservative figure—$37.6 million—that is comfortably within its discretion. Trudeau II, 662 F.3d at 951. In light of the Seventh Circuit’s holding, defendant’s contention that the loss in this case is $2,000—based on the theory that the only consumers who suffered loss were those who filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau and the FTC, see Dkt. 165 at 18-19—is absurd. 3. Loss Should Not Be Reduced Based on Customers’ Reliance on Defendant’s Personal Story. Defendant suggests that some customers might have bought his book not because of the lies defendant told in the infomercials, but because of the “compelling story” defendant told in the infomercials about his own experiences losing weight under the protocol described in the book. Based on this possibility, defendant contends that the total sales of the book cannot be tied to his misrepresentations of the book. Dkt. 165 at 11-12. The Court should reject this argument. 8 First, it is impossible to separate defendant’s personal story from the lies he told in the infomercial. As demonstrated by the infomercial transcripts admitted at trial, defendant frequently ornamented his personal story with lies about the book. Among other things, he said: • “I personally did the protocol. No hunger, no deprivation, no exercise.” Government Trial Exhibit 1A, p. 12 ln 31-32. • “I’ve been off the program now . . . guess what I can eat? . . . Anything.” Government Trial Exhibit 1A, p.8 ln 9-17. • “I can eat whatever I want now, anything and as much as I want any time I want. No restrictions now. And the weight’s not coming back. You don’t gain the weight back.” Government Trial Exhibit 1A, p. 12 ln 32-34. • “When I finished this protocol . . . I’m eating anything I want.” Government Trial Exhibit 2A, p. 13 ln 15-17. More fundamentally, defendant’s central contention in the infomercials—that he tried the protocol, lost 45 pounds in 45 days, and then decided to write the book to share this knowledge with the world—is a simple lie. As discussed in more detail below, defendant concocted the idea of making infomercials to sell a weight loss book before he ever lost any weight, and when defendant started making infomercials to sell the book, the book did not yet exist. Defendant’ personal story, like his other statements in the infomercials, was a fraud designed to make him money. 4. Loss Should Not Be Reduced Based on the Value of the Book. Defendant contends that customers whom defendant defrauded by inducing them to buy his book based on lies might have nevertheless received some value 9 from the book, and this value should offset the amount of loss. Dkt 165 at 8. Defendant does not specify how much the loss should be reduced, or how the Court would calculate this figure. In fact, no such reduction in loss is appropriate. Defendant’s book was admitted as an exhibit at trial, and the Court can make its own determination of the book’s value. In light of what defendant claimed about his book in the fraudulent infomercials, the actual book is worthless. As described above, defendant promised an easy, permanent cure for obesity, but delivered a punishing diet and a crippling list of food restrictions that last for the rest of your life. The book was not what defendant said it was, and it failed to deliver on any of the central promises defendant made about it in the infomercials. The Court should not reduce the loss amount based on the supposed value of the book. In the civil case, the Seventh Circuit has already held that $37 million is a reliable and conservative estimate of the actual loss defendant’s contempt caused to consumers. That the present case involves criminal rather than civil contempt does not change consumers’ loss. There is no doubt that the actual loss from the offense was over $20 million, and the PSR correctly applied a 22-level enhancement. C. $37 Million is a Reasonable Estimate of Intended Loss. If the Court is uncertain about the proper measure of actual loss, the Court may look to intended loss, where $37 million is again a reliable figure. As discussed above, in the infomercials, defendant chose to lie repeatedly about his book in order to sell more books, and make more money. The jury properly found that defendant’s subjective intent was to willfully violate the court order by 10 misrepresenting the content of the book: when defendant lied in the infomercials, he did so knowing, or recklessly disregarding, that his conduct was wrong. And defendant intended his lies to induce as many listeners as possible to buy the book. Therefore, defendant’s intended loss—the pecuniary harm he intended to result from the offense—is, at a minimum, the full amount customers paid for the books through the 1-800 number from the infomercials. For purposes of calculating intended loss, it does not matter that some customers might have actually been happy with the book, or that some customers might have bought the book for reasons other than defendant’s lies in the infomercials. While those issues could affect actual loss, they do not affect the loss defendant intended when he made the infomercials. In order to sell more books, defendant wanted every potential consumer to believe he or she was buying a simple and permanent weight loss cure, that this cure was not a diet, and that when customers were finished, they could eat anything they wanted and never gain the weight back, when, in fact, all of these claims were false. This is parallel to other instances of consumer fraud, such as the crime in United States v. Kimoto, 588 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2009), where the defendant created telemarketing scripts designed to make consumers believe they were buying a credit card when, in fact, they were buying a debit card. Id. at 496 n.37. In Kimoto, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s calculation of $39 million in intended loss, which was the total revenue generated by the sale of defendant’s products, and the Court rejected many of the same arguments defendant makes here. Id. at 495-96 & n.37. 11 Specifically, the court of appeals explained, “that some prospective purchasers did not want the card, could not purchase the card, or were not fooled does not affect [defendant’s] intent.” Id. The same is true here. The Seventh Circuit has explained intended loss as follows: [T]he amount of the intended loss, for purposes of sentencing, is the amount that the defendant placed at risk by misappropriating money or other property. That amount measures the gravity of his crime; that he may have hoped or even expected a miracle that would deliver his intended victim from harm is both impossible to verify and peripheral to the danger that the crime poses to the community. United States v. Lauer, 148 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 1998). Defendant placed at risk the full amount of money of every customer who bought his book as a result of the lies in the infomercial. The customers’ loss of that money was not simply reasonably foreseeable to defendant, it is the amount defendant intended to induce from his listeners through fraud. This amount is at least $37 million. D. The PSR Correctly Concluded There Were More Than 250 Victims. Defendant claims that even though he sold over 850,000 books through fraudulent infomercials, there were only 67 victims of defendant’s fraud, because that is the number of people who complained to the Better Business Bureau or the FTC about the book. Dkt. 165 at 21. The Court should not take this contention seriously. The guidelines define a “victim” to include “any person who sustained any part of the actual loss determined under subsection [§2B1.1](b)(1).” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 12 comment. (n.1). “In other words, whereas the loss calculation can be based on either actual or intended loss, the estimation of the number of victims is limited to those who incurred part of the actual loss.” Kimoto, 588 F.3d at 496. Thus, this Court’s task is to make a reasonable estimate of the number of people who bought defendant’s book as a result of defendant’s deceptive infomercials. Id. at 496-97. As discussed at length above, the vast majority of the approximately 850,000 who bought defendants book through the infomercials were victims of defendant’s fraud. The requirement of 250 victims is 0.029% of 850,000. That defendant’s infomercials defrauded more than 0.029% of the book’s customers is a certainty. Even if the Court took the most conservative possible approach and counted as victims only those who discovered defendant’s fraud and returned the book for a partial refund, the number of books returned was 57,000—more than 200 times the required 250 victims. See Government Exhibit 1. Given the difficulty of returning the books (described in more detail on page 27 below), the number of people who wanted their money back but did not make returns was certainly much higher. The Court should apply the enhancement for more than 250 victims. THE § 3553(a) FACTORS SUPPORT A SENTENCE OF AT LEAST TEN YEARS. The advisory guidelines range is 235-293 months, and that range is driven primarily by the loss amount of $37 million. While $37 million is the proper measure of loss under the guidelines, it may overstate the seriousness of the offense. Among other things, the guidelines are indifferent to whether defendant’s crime caused many victims to lose a relatively small amount of money, as happened 13 here, or whether defendant caused a smaller number of victims to lose large sums, thereby causing those victims catastrophic harm and perhaps even financial ruin. Defendant’s crime did not cause such harm, and, for that and other reasons, the Court may choose to impose a sentence below the advisory guidelines range. (On the other side of the coin, the guidelines enhancement based on the number of victims cuts off at 250, and defendant victimized many times that number of people.) If the Court is inclined to sentence below the guidelines, one possibility would be to use as a reference what the advisory guidelines range would be based on defendant’s gain from the offense, which is approximately $5 million. 2 See Government Exhibit 2; PSR ¶ 2. In that case, defendant would be at offense level 32 and criminal history category III, for an advisory guidelines range of 151-188 months. Alternatively, the Court could use as a reference a range based on the most conservative loss amount possible—counting only the books customers returned for refunds—which would produce a loss amount of $1.4 million. See Government Exhibit 1; PSR ¶¶ 19-20. In that case, defendant would be at offense level 30 and criminal history category III, for an advisory guidelines range of 121-151 months. Whatever approach is adopted, the Court should treat the low end of the lowest possible guidelines range, 121 months, as a floor for any potential sentence. Put another way, the Court should impose a sentence of at least ten years. Such a Judge Gettleman ultimately rejected this approach in the civil case, finding that defendant “has made it next to impossible to determine his gain and, as a result, any sanction based on disgorgement of profits would be a wholly ineffectual remedy and would do nothing to deter (and indeed might encourage) further contempt.” FTC v. Trudeau, 708 F. Supp. 2d 711, 715 (N.D. Ill. 2010). 2 14 sentence would be consistent with recent sentences imposed in this district involving fraud cases with loss amounts far less than $37 million. 3 It would also be consistent with sentences in other districts involving frauds comparable to defendant’s. 4 Moreover, the §3553(a) factors support a sentence of a least ten years, if not higher. I. History and Characteristics of Defendant As is discussed in greater detail in the Government’s Version of the Offense and the PSR, defendant is an inveterate fraudster and liar. Specifically, defendant’s many schemes (which began as far back as 1984) have included: 1. Obtaining credit cards using multiple names, addresses, and social security cards. 2. Using the names and credit card numbers of other people to make unauthorized purchases. See, e.g., United States v. Fluker, 08 CR 540 (Feinerman, J.) (180-month sentence for defendant who defrauded approximately 2,000 victims out of approximately $10 million); United States v. Anglin, 06 CR 197 (Gettleman, J.) (180-month sentence for defendant who defrauded over sixty investors out of approximately $10 million); United States v. Grosky, 06 CR 359 (Shadur, J.) (168-month sentence for defendant who defrauded investors of $32 million). 3 See, e.g., United States v. Chavis, 04 CR 00009 (W.D. Ok. 2005) (292-month sentence for leader of envelope-stuffing scheme involving approximately 100,000 victims who each lost $25) (sentence affirmed on appeal in United States v Chavis, 461 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2006)); United States v. Pappalardo, 11-60190 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (twenty-year sentence for leader of telemarketing timeshare fraud involving $5 million in loss and approximately 3,000 victims); United States v. Adams, 10 CR 006 (N.D. Ga. 2012) (seventeen-year sentence for leader, and ten-year sentence for co-defendant, in telemarketing fraud involving over $10 million in loss, with individual victims typically losing between $749 and $1,495); United States v. Garten, 12-30320 (S.D. Ill. 2013) (fourteen-year sentence for defendant in telemarketing fraud involving thousands of victims who lost a total of approximately $6 million); United States v. Holmes, 12-30085 (S.D. Ill. 2013) (180-month sentence for defendant in telemarketing timeshare scheme involving 22,000 victims and $30 million loss). 4 15 3. Opening a bank account using a false Social Security number and representing himself to be a doctor, then depositing bad checks into the account and attempting to withdraw money. 4. Offering to pay a witness against him to withdraw his testimony. 5. Filing a fraudulent application for lost or stolen traveler’s checks. 6. Taking money from consumers for services never provided. 7. Failing to file tax returns. 8. Claiming to be a reverend who has the power to grant wishes in exchange for money. 9. Running an illegal pyramid scheme. 10. Deceptively marketing products that ostensibly cure depression, immune suppression, baldness, reading deficiencies, addictions (including addictions to heroin, alcohol, smoking, and overeating), cancer, multiple sclerosis, lupus, heart disease, high blood pressure, and severe pain. 11. Recruiting individuals to join an organization that defendant falsely claimed was formed by 30 billionaires, collecting thousands of dollars from those individuals, and recruiting still more individuals with promised payouts that were never made. Additionally, the Weight Loss book was not defendant’s first attempt to make money by claiming he had a cure for obesity. As an example, as early as 1995, defendant claimed that he had discovered mental techniques that allowed him to lose 48 pounds in two months. See Kevin Trudeau’s Mega Memory: How to Release 16 Your Superpower Memory in 30 Minutes Or Less a Day, pg. 315. Defendant further claimed that these techniques caused him to never be hungry, and to always be full of energy. Id. The Weight Loss infomercials also are not the first time defendant has lied about his weight loss products. With respect to exercise products, defendant has admitted: “I have been in the TV infomercial and direct response industry for over twenty years . . . The advertisements for these products are all false and misleading. I should know because I was involved in the production of many of them.” See The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, pg. 138. Defendant further acknowledged that, with respect to diet pills, patches, and products that claim to burn fat, reduce hunger, increase metabolism, and burn carbohydrates: “For years I was involved in the production of the labels and advertising of these products. Everything about these products is false, misleading, and deceptive.” Id. at 139. In the last two decades, defendant has been ordered to pay more than $2,500,000 in consumer redress (not including the $37 million he was ordered to pay in connection with the Weight Loss book and infomercial), and to post bonds before selling anything else. Still, he has continued to perpetrate more frauds against consumers. And, as discussed more below, defendant has also engaged in repeated and brazen civil contempts and lies to the Court. Defendant’s crimes have not been victimless. In addition to the obvious monetary loss associated with the above-described schemes, defendant has also hurt 17 people who relied upon his advice about their health and well-being. Defendant preys upon the sick who want to be made healthy, the poor who want to become rich, and the insecure who want to feel better about themselves. He exploits consumers’ insecurities and weaknesses, promising them an easy fix for whatever hurts or embarrasses them. Certainly, for some of those people, the power of hope and positive thinking carries benefits. But for many, defendant’s promises are unfulfilled and even dangerous. For example, the government anticipates that at sentencing an individual will choose to speak about his now-deceased brother’s reliance on defendant’s Natural Cures book when deciding to stop taking his heart medication. The defendant’s background and characteristics include numerous frauds and schemes to make himself wealthy at the expense of others. Given his long history of criminal conduct, he should receive a sentence of no less than ten years in prison. II. Seriousness of the Offense The seriousness of the offense further weighs in favor of a sentence of at least ten years’ imprisonment. First, despite defendant’s claims that he is not responsible for the full severity of the offense because it was ITV that produced and marketed the Weight Loss infomercials, the evidence shows that it was defendant who helped organize and lead ITV’s sales efforts. Second, despite defendant’s claims that the offense was not serious because he was motivated purely by a desire to tell his personal story and help others rather than a desire to gain financially, the evidence instead shows that defendant’s plan for profit preceded his book, and that his 18 motive was greed. Third, both the harm to consumers and the harm to the judicial system weigh in favor of a substantial term of imprisonment. A. Defendant’s Work With ITV Both at trial and throughout his sentencing pleadings, defendant has attempted to distance himself from the offense by claiming that it was ITV, and not defendant, that was really to blame for the Weight Loss infomercials. Among other things, defendant claims that “ITV and not Trudeau, was in charge of all of the administration of the sales, shipping, charges and returns for the books.” Dkt. 165-1 at 2. Defendant further claims that “Trudeau was not involved in the mechanics of the sales effort, which was indisputably managed exclusively by ITV.” Dkt. 165 at 10. Defendant’s statements are false. Defendant’s emails prove that he was intimately involved in operating ITV, and helped organize and lead ITV’s sales and marketing of the Weight Loss book. On November 15, 2006, Donald Barrett, the founder and president of ITV, sent an email to defendant asking for defendant’s “help and guidance” with ITV. See Government Exhibit 3. Specifically, Barrett asked for “a strategy meeting with [defendant] for current and future campaigns.” Id. Defendant responded and told Barrett, “I will be in Beverly 5 Sunday and will be at ITV Monday for as long as you guys need me! Looking forward to getting things organized and running smoothly!” See Government Exhibit 4. Two days later, defendant confirmed that he would drive According to Donald Barrett’s signature block on his emails, ITV was based in Beverly, Massachusetts. See Government Exhibit 3. 5 19 from Chicago to ITV’s headquarters in Massachusetts to “organize roll out of weight loss show” and “shoot another 1-4 shows for weight loss” as well as “anything else you need.” See Government Exhibit 5. From that point forward, defendant was intimately involved with every aspect of ITV’s business. In December 2006, defendant and ITV held a “combined ITV and Kevin Trudeau companies holiday dinner.” See Government Exhibit 6. In January 2007, defendant told Barrett that he intended “on staying here for a few more months to make sure things are under control and operaating 6 smoothly and we get out of the financial hole. Then I plan on being here about 1 week per month…maybe more. I really like it here and love coming to the office working with all the guys and you!” Defendant further stated, “We have 2 infomercials that work that we will push hard. More NC and Weight loss.” See Government Exhibit 7. By the end of January 2007, defendant declared to Barrett, “Lets work together as a team and make it happen!!! Next week I am focusing on the finance dept as sales are coming in stronger.” See Government Exhibit 8. Defendant also stated, “It should be a firm objective to get the cash scene for all ITV companies good enough so that there has to be only 1 cash call per week…..lets FOCUS on getting things cleaned up to make that happen in Feb!! We need to get out of crisis management mode!!” Id. During this time period defendant: Spelling and grammar within emails are replicated as they originally appeared. 6 20 • Was copied on the media buys for the Weight Loss shows. See Government Exhibit 9. • Attended meetings regarding ITV’s order forms, commission pay plans, and sales flow. See Government Exhibit 10. • Obtained information regarding how the Weight Loss shows were doing in various markets. See Government Exhibit 11, 12. • Obtained customer service statistics. See Government Exhibit 13. • Held mandatory meetings with the ITV sales staff to discuss what they should say when answering sales calls. See Government Exhibit 14. • Advised Barrett about how Barrett should deal with ITV’s lawyers, stating “I suggest you again let legal know that they DO NOT tell sales what to do…but rather give OPINIONS and the EXECS make the decision.” See Government Exhibit 15. In March 2007, Barrett acknowledged defendant’s key role in ITV’s success, stating, “I just wanted again to let you know how forever grateful I am to you for what life has become. Building this ITV Ventures is going to be so much fucking fun and I’m so glad we are doing it together.” See Government Exhibit 16. Defendant responded that “the feeling is mutual” and that he would be “back in beverly” by the end of the week. Id. By April 2007, defendant was aware that customers were returning the Weight Loss book at an unusually high rate. Defendant’s suggestions to Barrett included shooting “another weight loss show, or edit the ones we have with a lower 21 price?” See Government Exhibit 17. Defendant remarked, “Maybe people don’t like this book?” Id. By the next day, defendant had another potential solution, suggesting, “is there a way we can get hundreds of GOOD comments wriiten on a daily basis on sites like amazon and others? for weight loss and my other books?” See Government Exhibit 18. 7 In short, defendant was an organizer and leader of ITV’s efforts to market and sell the Weight Loss book. Defendant’s claims that ITV was making all of the decisions without defendant’s input are just more misrepresentations designed to mislead the Court and minimize the seriousness of defendant’s offense. B. Defendant’s Financial Motive Defendant’s claims that his only motive in writing the Weight Loss book was to tell a “compelling story” based upon his “personal experience,” and that he had no financial motive to commit the crime are also misrepresentations made in an effort to lessen the seriousness of defendant’s offense. Dkt. 165 at 12. Defendant’s emails show that what he truly cared about was making money off of a weight loss cure. Specifically, the emails show that defendant planned to make infomercials selling a weight loss product before he wrote the Weight Loss book and even before he “discovered” the supposed weight loss cure. Defendant’s attempts to manufacture hundreds of positive reviews for his book counsel against using the online reviews that defendant cites in his sentencing memorandum as evidence that customers derived value from the book. See Dkt. 165 at 13. Another email written by defendant on this same topic stated, “can we start a kevin trudeau fan club website….and a natural cures fan club website..and a weight loss cure fan club web site? With POSITIVE stuff!?” See Government Exhibit 19. 7 22 In August 2006, defendant wrote to Donald Barrett that he had “put on 30 pounds over the last few months and was thinking of going to a spa for 3 weeks to get in shape for future weight loss info with you.” See Government Exhibit 20. By September 2006, defendant had settled on a plan to go “to germany to lose weight and when I come back coming right to boston to shoot weight loss show.” See Government Exhibit 21. Thus, as of September 2006, defendant had not yet gone to Germany to try the Simeons protocol, and therefore had no idea if the protocol would cause him to lose weight, 8 but he already had plans to shoot an infomercial about having lost weight. Shortly after coming back to the United States, defendant followed through with his plan to film infomercials about a weight loss cure, and specifically began pitching the Weight Loss book. One such infomercial was filmed on October 12, 2006. See Government Exhibit 22. 9 In that infomercial, the defendant discusses his Weight Loss book. Id. The problem is that defendant had not yet written the book. In an email two weeks after defendant filmed the infomercial, he wrote, “working nonstop writing the WL book.” See Government Exhibit 23. Still, defendant’s infomercial was released for market testing less than three weeks later. See Government Exhibit 24. Defendant followed up about the infomercial’s success on Defendant has falsely stated that his inspiration for the Weight Loss book was this trip to Germany: “I went to Germany to test this out. I did not invent this, I did not discover it, I found it. I found it and I thought, if it works for me, I’ve been struggling with weight my whole life, I said, then I can tell people about it.” See Government Trial Exhibit 1A. Defendant also stated, “I went to Germany to, to really evaluate this and I researched it.” Id. 8 9 trial. This is a separate infomercial from the infomercials charged and relied upon at 23 November 16, 2006 (“lets hope the WL show tests well this weekend!!” Government Exhibit 25), November 17, 2006 (“any results yet from the WL show tests?” Government Exhibit 24), and November 18, 2006 (“any results from WL test? Anything over 30 CPT is a profitable show…” Government Exhibit 26). Though defendant implies in his infomercials that his personal weight loss discovery in Germany caused him to write a book, which then caused him to film infomercials promoting that book, the truth is that defendant’s greed inspired a plan to make infomercials, which led to a trip to Germany, which eventually led to a book. 10 And the reason that defendant did things in this reverse order was that ITV owed defendant a significant sum of money in the months leading up to the fall of 2006, and defendant wanted to collect. According to the Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement admitted at trial, on June 16, 2006, defendant sold a number of assets to ITV for $121 million. Under that agreement, $1 million was due monthly to defendant. However, ITV was not able to make those payments prior to defendant’s Weight Loss infomercials and trip to Massachusetts to organize the roll out of those infomercials. For example, in July 2006, defendant wrote to Donald Barrett, “I have an URGENT need for the 1 million promised this week. Again…I feel bad about having to ask you again and again for payment.” See Government Exhibit 27. Defendant wrote again in September 2006, “even with the 400k Friday..I am 1.5 million short The Weight Loss book itself further claims that defendant first tried the protocol, and then decided to write a book about it. Defendant wrote on page 15: “First it had to work for me before I investigated further and told the world about this medical weight loss miracle cure.” Defendant repeated this lie to the Probation Officer. See PSR ¶ 22. 10 24 of what I had planned for by this date. which is making things VERY difficult. PLEASE do the best you can…as soon as you can!!” See Government Exhibit 28. In October 2006, defendant’s need for money was still on his mind. In an email to Barrett recommending that Barrett “test 2 weight loss shows ASAP or sooner,” defendant concluded that this and other things he told Barrett to do “will bring in HUGE $$$$$$$$$$ NOW and set up HUGE $$$$$$$$$$ on a going forward monthly basis.” See Government Exhibit 29. But, after the Weight Loss infomercials began airing and defendant started working at ITV, things changed. In January 2007, defendant wrote to Barrett, “Thanks so much for getting me some money each week…that is VERY needed! I love working here with you….and feel good about getting paid….it gives me more energy!! :) Things are coming together VERY well!!! 3 more months and ITV all all your companies will be running like a swiss watch!!!!!” See Government Exhibit 30. After sales of the Weight Loss book started to decline, defendant’s financial condition again deteriorated. In June 2007, defendant emailed Barrett, “I really do need to get some money. I really need to get money now and on a consistent weekly basis. PLEASE.” See Government Exhibit 30. Defendant followed up with Barrett a few days later, telling Barrett, “need some money in a big way.” See Government Exhibit 31. To quote the defendant: “If you want to get rich, write a book on how to lose weight.” See Government Exhibit 32. Defendant himself has admitted that “[d]eceptions, lies, and false and misleading advertising are at an all[-time high. 25 Remember, it’s always all about the money.” The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, pg. 69. He has further admitted that “everyone who endorses products does so for three reasons. Money…money…and money.” Id. at 140. At least in these three instances, defendant told the truth. In June 2006, he sold all of his assets to ITV, which allowed him to claim that it was ITV, and not defendant, that was producing and marketing defendant’s infomercials. When ITV could not pay the $1 million a month it owed him, defendant first developed a plan to make ITV and himself more money and then helped ITV to carry it out. Defendant did so claiming that his only motive was to help people who were struggling with their weight as he had, when in fact defendant was desperate for the money that he knew the book and infomercials would generate. This extensive planning and deception demonstrates that defendant’s crime is far more serious than he will acknowledge, and that a considerable sentence is appropriate. C. Harm to Consumers and the Court The harm to consumers and the harm to the judicial system also demonstrate the seriousness of the offense. With respect to the harm to consumers, defendant continues to deny that he misled or injured anyone by his conduct. However, as is discussed in greater detail above, at the very least there were 57,000 customers who did not see any value in defendant’s book. For those 57,000 customers who were able to return the book, each still lost the shipping and handling charges ITV imposed, which were a hefty $9.95 for each book (customers also had to ship the book back, paying the return 26 shipping fees on their own). Thus, even when a customer was able to return the book, ITV and the defendant made money, because ITV kept the $9.95 less the nominal amount it actually cost to ship the book in the first place. 11 But where ITV and defendant really made money was by making the process of returning the book so difficult that it discouraged returns at all—allowing ITV and defendant to keep the full price of the book as well as shipping and handling (between $24.90 and $39.90). Among other things, the customer complaints speak to ITV not answering the phones during business hours and not returning messages, thereby preventing the customer from receiving the required “Return Authorization number,” and either not acknowledging that the return had been received and/or not refunding the money for several months after several customer attempts. See, e.g., FTC_002-001261, 1265, 1272, 1278 (submitted on CD with the Government’s Version of the Offense). Additionally, for each of the “free” books that defendant advertised in his infomercials, customers had to pay another $9.95 shipping and handling for each book. Thus, some customer complaints discussed ordering one book for $29.95, and then ending up with $59.95 in charges – nearly $30 of which was non-refundable. See, e.g., FTC_002-000002, 1339 (ITV’s VP of Customer Service states in response to a customer complaint, “shipping is nonrefundable as per our written return policy”). Defendant’s argument that ITV could not have profited because the $9.95 also includes “handling” is absurd. ITV paid less than $4.00 per Weight Loss book. See Government Exhibit 33. Thus, the $29.95 price tag – or even the $14.95 price tag—more than accounted for the limited overhead associated with the book’s distribution. 11 27 Finally, as ITV’s sales script shows, and customer complaints confirm, numerous customers also received recurring monthly bills of $5.95 for a “free” newsletter they did not want but found it nearly impossible to cancel. See, e.g., Government Exhibit 34, FTC_002-000008, 14, 17. By spreading out the charges for shipping and handling, “free” books, and “free” newsletters, and making the cancellation or return of these items actually or nearly impossible, ITV and defendant were able to bleed money from consumers a little at a time, while still making millions of dollars for themselves. The government acknowledges that this type of fraud is less egregious than stealing a victim’s life savings, but it is still serious because of the aggregate harm to consumers, and the costs and difficulty associated with investigating and prosecuting schemes of this type. With respect to harm to the court, as is discussed in further detail below, defendant has repeatedly lied to this and other courts and disobeyed court orders, and then bragged about his refusal to follow the law, turning his contumacious conduct into a revenue-generating machine. Defendant’s constant disrespect for the Court and refusal to follow the law has a significant effect on the efficient operation of the court system, requiring many hours of judicial resources that could be spent elsewhere. Moreover, defendant’s use of his contempt for the Court as a moneymaking scheme negatively affects the public’s perception of the Court and its ability to enforce its orders. In these ways, defendant’s contempt is far more serious than the “typical” contempt case, which is limited in scope and duration, and is easily 28 and quickly resolved. A sentence of no less than ten years’ imprisonment is appropriate here. III. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law A. Defendant’s Lack of Remorse. As befits a man who has been held in contempt of court a total of seven times (six in the civil case and once in the criminal case), defendant has, over the course of years, shown nothing but contempt for the law. As a starting point, defendant has no remorse for the crime he committed in this case. Defendant told the probation officer that he was only “technically” found guilty of making misrepresentations in infomercials, but that he “did not do anything wrong.” PSR ¶ 27. In a Facebook message defendant caused to be sent to supporters on December 19, 2013, he again proclaimed his innocence and likened himself to “all the people that stood silent and did not speak in their own defense...Jesus, Mandela, Gandhi, Chavez.” See https://www.facebook.com/TheKevinTrudeau. In the defendant’s version of the offense, he continues to insist that he committed no crime because everything he said about the book in the infomercials was contained in the book, Def. Version at 11-12, a claim that every fact finder—Judge Gettleman, the Seventh Circuit, and the jury—has rejected as a transparent sham. In public interviews, defendant has belittled the entire contempt case, stating, “I have an insane, ridiculous $37 million personal judgment against me because I wrote a book and said the diet was easy.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnPnnZvYNw (from 23:10 to 23:28). 29 Defendant’s lack of remorse is part of a pattern: he has never shown genuine remorse in his long history of frauds. In 1990, defendant was convicted of seven counts of larceny, after he posed as a doctor, opened a checking account using a false social security number, deposited over $80,000 worth of bad checks into the account, and withdrew over $27,000. PSR ¶ 56. At the time, defendant blamed his conduct on his housekeeper/governess and his accountant, claimed that he had paid restitution by getting a second mortgage on his house, and said he pleaded guilty to keep his record under seal so that he could run for public office. Id. Defendant later told a federal probation officer in Massachusetts that this crime was the fault of his secretary, who had embezzled money from defendant’s account, and the probation officer noted that defendant had not, in fact, paid restitution as he had claimed. Id. During the presentence investigation in the present case, defendant concocted a third explanation of this offense: he chalked it up to a “banking error.” Id. In 1991, defendant was convicted of credit card fraud in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, after he racked up over $100,000 in fraudulent credit card bills. PSR ¶ 57. According to the presentence report, defendant attempted to pay a $5,000 bribe to get a witness, one of defendant’s employees, to recant his statement implicating defendant in the crime. Id. In the intervening twenty years, defendant’s view of the criminal justice system does not appear to have changed. In his Natural Cures, book, defendant wrote that the government and the courts are “corrupt, out of control, and operating un-policed.” Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, 237-246. In a 30 radio program on January 9, 2012, defendant told his audience, “a federal judge said to me directly that if I didn’t give money to certain lobbyists, then my case would never end that the judges would never rule in my favor. If you don’t think judges are corrupt, then you need to read information on our website.” Defendant further elaborated that dozens of the top lawyers in the country had examined his contempt case and told him, “KT this is political. These judges are being told what to do. This is not a judge ruling. This is the politicians and the powers that be controlling the judges and getting them to rule a certain way.” See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOHUb18I5d8&feature=player_embedded (15:54-16:01, and 17:30-18:10). After his conviction in the present case, defendant sent emails to a supporter stating, “maybe ed can get to someone in the justice department to get me a short sentence or get to the president for a pardon.” PSR ¶70. When he isn’t attempting to bribe witnesses, accusing the judges who preside over his cases of corruption, or discussing how to pull political strings to obtain leniency, defendant compares his career of defrauding consumers and violating court orders to the accomplishments of civil rights heroes. Defendant wrote the following in Natural Cures: I have done the unthinkable against the Federal Trade Commission. I said enough is enough. Throughout history there were people that stood up to the Goliaths of the day and said “enough is enough.” Rosa Parks said I am not going to sit on the back of a bus just because I’m black. She stood up to the powers that be and changed a nation. People like Ceasar Chavez, Martin Luther King, and Mhandas [sic] Gandhi stood up to the suppression and tyranny at the time and changed the world for the better. 31 Natural Cures, 59. Statements such as this might suggest that defendant is delusional, but a simpler explanation is that he is merely a fraud. Defendant portrays himself as a whistleblower and dissident who is standing up to an oppressive government because this is a successful strategy for promoting and selling his products. As the jacket of Natural Cures touts, “Kevin has risked government prosecution to bring you the full story of an intricate conspiracy.” And as defendant declared in infomercials selling the Weight Loss book, “Call and get this before the FTC takes it off the market,” and “You can call now before the FTC tries to ban it. I’m sure they’re gonna try to ban the book and smash it.” See Government Exhibit 22 at 10. Defendant’s track record demonstrates that he violates the law without remorse, and then brags about his crimes to promote himself and his products. But all of this pales in comparison to the contempt for the law defendant has shown in his ongoing civil case. B. Defendant’s Repeated Civil Contempt It is difficult to count the number of court orders defendant has violated, and the lies defendant has told, in the civil case. What follows is an attempt to summarize defendant’s actions, which demonstrate a contempt for the law that may be unique. In June 2010, Judge Gettleman ordered defendant to pay the $37 million judgment against him “forthwith.” 03 CV 3904, Dkt 372. From that date until approximately the fall of 2012, defendant made no payments toward the 32 judgment. 12 Instead, defendant lived a lavish lifestyle, spending at least $12 million from June 2010 to March 2013. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 729 at 1 (adopting findings in Dkt. 713); Dkt 713 at 20. For example, one week after Judge Gettleman’s “forthwith” order, defendant spent over $4,000 on draperies. 03 CV 3904, Dkt 713 at 20. More generally, from 2010 to 2013, defendant racked up over $3 million in credit card charges, including for first class airfare, hotels such as the Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons, groceries from Whole Foods, gym memberships, and trips to the salon. Id. In 2011, defendant’s company paid over $340,000 for a Bentley. Id. at 21. Defendant lived in a mansion in Oak Brook, Illinois, whose rent was $12,000 per month, and also had a house in Ojai, California, that carried a mortgage of $3,500 per month. Id. at 10, 12. After defendant moved to Switzlerland, he spent nearly $150,000 in 2012 and 2013 to furnish his apartment. Id. at 21. And between June 2010 and March 2013, defendant paid more than $6.7 million in legal fees, including more than $1.7 million to Winston & Strawn, and over $5 million to defendant’s asset protection specialist, Marc Lane. Judge Gettleman found that the “sole purpose” of the $5 million paid to Lane was to protect defendant’s assets from the $37 million judgment, in other words, to evade Judge Gettleman’s June 2010 order. July 26, 2013 Tr. at 27. Lane earned his $5 million by helping defendant create over two dozen domestic and offshore entities, which were nominally run by figureheads such as In the fall of 2012, after the FTC filed a motion to hold defendant in contempt for failing to pay the judgment, defendant submitted a nominal payment of $53,951 to the FTC. This remains the only payment defendant has made toward the judgment. 12 33 defendant’s wife, and which were registered or incorporated in, among other places, Belize, Mauritius, the Isle of Man, the Cook Islands, Panama, and Seychelles. 03 CV 3904, Dkt 713 at 3-9. Through these entities and other measures, defendant went to elaborate lengths to hide his money and avoid paying the judgment against him. In September 2010, three months after Judge Gettleman’s “forthwith” order, Marc Lane advised defendant about “opening a bank account in a country which has been identified as not enforcing foreign judgments, and particularly U.S. judgments.” Id. at 18. After the FTC began asset discovery in an attempt to recover money for consumers, defendant repeatedly instructed associates to move assets overseas, stating: • “you need to take the lead on getting the gin website on servers outside the USA. . . . anyplace is better than usa.” • “GIN needs a Swiss bank account in Swiss francs[.]” • “All GIN dues will go to GIN non USA accounts.” • “gin MUST get money out of the usa and into banks overseas…never keep more money in the usa than needed… every company NEEDS accounts OFF SHORE!!!!!!!!!!!!” 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 713 at 19. In July 2012, the FTC moved to hold defendant in contempt for violating the June 2010 order to pay. 03 CV 3904, Dkt 481. Defendant responded by proposing a consumer remediation plan that would allow him to resume making infomercials, a prospect that Judge Gettleman rejected. The notion that this court would allow, not to mention trust, Trudeau to participate in any fashion in the administration of the court’s remedial sanction by re-enter[ing] the infomercial business is 34 preposterous in light of Trudeau’s duplicitous and contumacious history with this court and the thousands of consumers he has deceived. Trudeau has little to no credibility with the court. . . . 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 494. On January 25, 2013, defendant filed a sworn financial statement in the civil case. In the statement, defendant claimed that a bank account he controlled in Australia contained “under $1,500,” when, in fact, it contained over $130,000. Government Exhibit 35 at 2. Defendant claimed that his only personal property was $2,000 worth of clothing, even though he spent more than $15,000 in one trip to a men’s clothing store in Switzerland only months before. 03 CV 3904, Dkt 713 at 23. Defendant failed to disclose that he owned any jewelry, even though less than a year before he had purchased $12,000 cufflinks. Government Exhibit 36. Defendant also denied knowing his wife’s address, whether she was employed, and whether she owned any personal property, including jewelry. 03 CV 3904, Dkt 713 at 23. Judge Gettleman found that the financial statement was “a sham,” January 26, 2013 Tr. 32-33, and that it contained a “false representation under oath.” October 16, 2013 Tr. 35. This echoed Judge Gettleman’s finding that one of defendant’s previous sworn financial statements was “not worth the paper it is printed on.” FTC v. Trudeau, 572 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Ill. 2008). In May 2013, defendant was interviewed by ABC News. During the interview, defendant acknowledged living a lavish lifestyle, boasted about his success in avoiding the $37 million judgment, and defiantly stated that the money he was spending was “not my asset.” 35 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgnPnnZvYNw (from 20:57 to 21:45, and from 23:10 to 23:28). The government encourages the Court to watch the video of these exchanges, as defendant’s words and demeanor demonstrate his defiance, lack of remorse, and contempt for the law better than quotations on a page ever could. 13 On July 26, 2013, Judge Gettleman held defendant in contempt of court for violating the Court’s June 2, 2010 order to pay the $37 million judgment— defendant’s third civil contempt. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 729. Specifically, Judge Gettleman found that defendant had engaged in an “elaborate scheme” to put his assets “beyond the reach of the FTC,” 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 713 at 18, that defendant’s violation of the court order was “willful,” and that defendant “took every effort that he could to hide, conceal and remove from the United States any assets or revenues that might have given him the ability to comply with the order.” July 26, 2013 Tr. at 27-28. Judge Gettleman further concluded that defendant “used [his] money—or at least a substantial portion of it—to live a lavish lifestyle. . . . This is not a man who has made any effort to meet his obligation. And, remember, that obligation stems from what I found to be, and what the Court of Appeals has affirmed to be, deliberate contempt by misrepresenting the nature of the book that he wrote. It’s just one lie after the other after the other.” Id. at 29. As part of the contempt order, Judge Gettleman also ordered that a receiver be appointed to “marshal and hold Trudeau’s assets for the purpose of paying the FTC” the $37 million judgment, and 13 The government will provide these clips on a CD before the sentencing hearing. 36 ordered defendant “to cooperate fully with the Receiver and comply with the Receiver’s directions. . . .” 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 729 at 2-3. On September 18, 2013, Judge Gettleman held defendant in contempt for a fourth time for having spent and transferred money for attorney’s fees that were not approved by the court, spending money that went far beyond ordinary living expenses, and failing to be “fully cooperative or candid” with the receiver. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 751. Judge Gettleman ordered defendant to be incarcerated overnight to coerce him to cooperate with the receiver, and defendant was released from prison the next day. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 751, 753. On October 17, 2013, Judge Gettleman held defendant in contempt for a fifth time, explaining that defendant “has continued to claim falsely that he has and controls no assets,” when in fact defendant “attempted to conceal foreign bank accounts and tangible assets that . . . he controls or is able to control.” The Court also noted that defendant “has failed to account for millions of dollars paid to him as commissions and funneled to entities that . . . are in his control.” 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 773 at 2. Judge Gettleman explained, “When I entered that receivership order, I thought I gave the message loud and clear to Mr. Trudeau. It didn’t work. . . . I put him in the MCC for one night only to give him the message that I expected full cooperation. . . . That didn’t work either. I don’t really have any alternative but to order Mr. Trudeau incarcerated until he complies with the conditions that I set out in that order. And I hope that the message finally gets through to him.” October 16, 2013 Tr. at 37. Judge Gettleman again ordered defendant into custody, and 37 defendant was incarcerated from October 22 to October 28, 2013, days before his criminal trial began. PSR ¶ 101. After the jury convicted defendant of criminal contempt on November 12, 2013, this Court ordered him detained pending sentencing. On November 21, 2013, Judge Gettleman held defendant in contempt for a sixth time. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 801. This finding followed the receiver’s report that on September 20, 2013, defendant told the receiver for the first time that defendant had “just remembered” a bank account in Zurich, Switzerland. But bank records showed that as recently as August 2013, defendant caused to be transferred approximately $74,000 out of the account, despite Judge Gettleman’s orders to defendant not to dispose of any of his assets. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 796. Judge Gettleman again ordered defendant incarcerated to coerce his compliance with the $37 million judgment, and ordered that defendant not receive credit in his criminal case for any time served. 03 CV 3904, Dkt. 801. In January 2014, Judge Gettleman explained why defendant remained incarcerated for civil contempt. We’ve had a history of Mr. Trudeau violating Court orders and being held in contempt. We’ve had a history of Mr. Trudeau making statements that are just not true. We’ve had a history of Mr. Trudeau making partial disclosures, and then we find that maybe a little bit of it was right, but it wasn't right. We have a history of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Lane trying to foist off this ridiculous financial statement that I've already found is not worth the paper it’s written on. 38 January 30, 2014 Tr. at 41. The Court went on to note that, “I beseeched Mr. Trudeau to be more honest with us. And when it didn’t happen, this is the result.” Id. at 44. Defendant’s conduct in the civil case—and the contempt he has shown for the law and the orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—is breathtaking. To date, defendant has been punished for none of this conduct. Indeed, defendant has repeatedly insisted that Judge Gettleman has no civil contempt power to punish him for previous bad acts, such as dissipating his assets on luxury goods, or hiding his assets from the FTC and the Court, in the face of a $37 million judgment. Rather, Judge Gettleman has ordered defendant incarcerated solely to coerce him to comply with the court’s orders, which he has still failed to do. This Court should consider defendant’s defiance, obstruction, and perjury in the civil case as part of defendant’s history and characteristics and the need to promote respect for the law, and should weigh it as a significant aggravating factor that favors a hefty prison sentence. 14 Defendant insists that a significant sentence of incarceration is unreasonable because when Judge Gettleman issued the original criminal show cause order in 2010, he capped the potential sentence at six months. E.g., Dkt. 165 at 3-4. This ignores that: (a) this Court, not Judge Gettleman will decide what is the appropriate sentence, and this Court decided long ago to lift the six-month cap; (b) six months is plainly an inadequate sentence in light of the sentencing guidelines and § 3553(a) factors described above; (c) Judge Gettleman capped the sentence without the benefit of a PSR or a full accounting of defendant’s thirty-year career of fraud; and (d) over the last four years, defendant has been busy hiding assets, filing false financial statements, and violating court orders, and Judge Gettleman has held defendant in civil contempt four times and has incarcerated defendant for four months to coerce defendant’s compliance with his orders. 14 39 IV. The Need To Protect the Public From Defendant and For Deterrence Defendant is an unrepentant, untiring, and uncontrollable huckster who has defrauded the unsuspecting for thirty years. He is the type of person the Court should expect to defraud his fellow inmates while in custody, and to continue to commit fraud into old age. He appears capable of nothing else. Defendant has lied, repeatedly, to state and federal judges and probation officers. He has repeatedly filed false sworn statements in court. He has violated more court orders than one can count. He has been held in contempt of court seven times. Given this, it is probably naïve to think that any criminal sentence will deter defendant. Defendant’s two previous criminal convictions and sentences of two years in state prison and two years in federal prison did not deter him from devoting years of his life to consumer fraud and contempt of court. None of Judge Gettleman’s repeated threats to incarcerate defendant stopped him from lying and violating the court’s orders. The most this Court can hope to accomplish is to incapacitate defendant during the time he is in prison. This sentencing factor strongly favors a sentence that is measured in a decade or more. The need for general deterrence also favors a stiff sentence. Defendant is a public figure, profiled in the national media, and covered closely by the press in Chicago. For years, the media has exposed defendant’s lies to consumers, and his violations of court orders. This Court’s sentence will send a message about those 40 who prey on the vulnerable and unsophisticated, and who treat orders from federal judges as mere suggestions that may be ignored with impunity. The message should be that people who engage in such conduct—and who celebrate their crimes to make more money for themselves—will pay a significant price. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court sentence defendant to at least ten years in prison. Respectfully submitted, ZACHARY T. FARDON United States Attorney By: /s/ April M. Perry APRIL M. PERRY MARC KRICKBAUM Assistant United States Attorneys 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 41