Trudeau Civil Case Document 721 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN TRUDEAU, Defendant.

))))))))))))

Case No. 03-C-3904 Hon. Robert W. Gettleman

FTC’S OPPOSITION TO TRUDEAU’S MOTION TO WAIVE HIS APPEARANCE AND

CROSS-MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF THE WRIT NE EXEAT I. INTRODUCTION

There is no reason for the Court to reconsider its July 1 decision requiring Trudeau to

appear on July 26. Nothing material has changed, and the same circumstances that existed

before continue to militate strongly in favor of continuing to require Trudeau’s presence at

Friday’s hearing. Moreover, the bond he posted previously in his criminal case for his travel to

Canada is woefully insufficient for a trip to his luxury residence in Zurich on the eve of the

Court’s decision in this matter. It is simply unconscionable that Trudeau’s 800,000 victims

would have to wait any longer or risk Trudeau fleeing the country and never obtaining redress.1

II. ARGUMENT A. The Court Should Not Reconsider Requiring Trudeau To Attend Friday’s

Proceeding.

Trudeau again asks to further delay, or be excused from, these proceedings so that he can

attend a Global Information Network (“GIN”) conference. See Trudeau Mtn., Ex. 1, J. Devine

Dec. ¶ 4. There is no more reason to grant this request now than when the Court previously

denied it, and there was ample reason to deny it last time. First, to prevail on a request for

1 The U.S. Attorney’s Office also opposes Trudeau’s return to Zurich, and accordingly

will oppose the motion Trudeau filed before Judge Guzman.

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 721-1 Filed: 07/22/13 of 5 PageID #:12086

2

reconsideration, Trudeau “must present newly discovered evidence,” see, e.g., LB Credit Corp. v.

Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995). There is simply nothing “newly

discovered” about his GIN conference. Second, Trudeau offers no reason why he failed to file

the instant motion shortly after the Court denied his request the first time. This delay is

significant because Trudeau made it impossible to reschedule the hearing at an earlier time, when

he could have attended without any asserted “conflict” with his Zurich trip.

Third, Jeff Devine’s declaration is not credible. Devine may be the owner of “The

Hybrid Group,” but he neglects to disclose that he also worked for Trudeau as Website Solutions

USA’s “Vice President.” PXA:1 (signature block identifying Devine’s work address as “130

Quail Ridge Drive” in Westmont, where WSU, GIN USA, KT Radio Network, and other of

Trudeau’s companies are located); PXA:2 (email from Trudeau to various parties including

[email protected]) (Trudeau writes: “All GIN dues will go to GIN non USA

accounts. GIN will pay affiliate commissions and bonuses…and will pay WSS [Website

Solutions Switzerland] a monthly fee and hybrid a fee.”) (Trudeau’s ellipses) (emphasis added).2

Fourth, the notion that “Trudeau’s employment would be in jeopardy if is he not allowed

to travel” is outlandish.3 During the evidentiary hearing, the FTC presented overwhelming,

uncontested evidence that Trudeau controls GIN. See FTC Br. (July 15, 2013) (DE716) at 5. He

will not be fired from his own company. Fifth, the interests of more than 800,000 injured

consumers are vastly greater than those of 160 supporters Trudeau supposedly wants to entertain

in Zurich. Finally, any inconvenience to Trudeau is solely a consequence of his own decision to

resist this Court’s orders. For all these reasons, the Court should not reconsider requiring

Trudeau to appear on July 26.

2 On information and belief, The Hybrid Group is an entity with “clean” merchant

accounts used to collect money from consumers that Hybrid then pays to hotels, cruise lines, and other vendors that host GIN events.

3 See Trudeau Mtn. at 3.


3

B. The Court Should Lift the Stay of the Writ Ne Exeat Until Trudeau Posts Collateral Sufficient To Protect Consumers.

Based on the likelihood that the FTC will prevail and Trudeau’s new home in Zurich, this

Court previously issued a Writ Ne Exeat and ordered that Trudeau surrender his passports. See

Writ Ne Exeat (June 25, 2013) (DE625). The Court later stayed that order because, in Trudeau’s

criminal contempt proceeding, he was allowed to travel to Winnipeg after his parents posted

their home (worth $209,000) as collateral. Order (July 1, 2013) (DE707); see also United States

v. Trudeau, No. 2010-cr-886 (July 1, 2013) (DE67-69).

This collateral is grossly insufficient. Trudeau could simply return to his luxury home in

Zurich, forfeit his parents’ home and then turn around and repurchase it for them. The $209,000

in equity is a small price to pay to avoid incarceration and the prospect of losing $37 million. To

put matters in perspective, $209,000 is less than Trudeau’s companies paid Marc Lane’s firm in

January this year (they paid Lane $271,809 in January). See PXA:3, FTCX 12C at 22-32.

Likewise, $209,000 is less than Trudeau’s Diner’s Club charges between August 14, 2012 and

December 13, 2012 (which were $211,739, not counting tens of thousands more in American

Express charges). See PXA:4, FTCX 89 at 14-32. In fact, the FTC understands that Trudeau’s

father appeared telephonically before Judge Guzman and inquired whether, if Trudeau flees, the

home could be repurchased. In short, the home’s value is so small relative to Trudeau’s vast

resources that it provides the consumers he owes $37.6 million essentially no security

whatsoever.

Trudeau returned from Canada, but a trip to Switzerland at this time poses substantially

greater risk. Trudeau established a luxury residence in Zurich shortly after the FTC moved to

have him incarcerated.4 He has no such home in Canada. More importantly, his return from

Canada posed no risk of immediate incarceration, while the July 26th hearing does just that,

greatly increasing his incentive to flee. Moreover, given Trudeau’s abysmal track record of

4 The United States has an extradition treaty with Switzerland, but the U.S. treaty with

Canada is considerably broader. Having someone extradited from Switzerland is difficult and uncertain.


4

resisting this Court’s orders, there is no reason to credit his promise that he will return

voluntarily from his lavish lifestyle overseas to face both civil and criminal incarceration.

III. CONCLUSION

The FTC, therefore, requests that this Court continue to expedite these proceedings and

take measures necessary to protect consumers’ substantial interests. Accordingly, the FTC asks

the Court not to reconsider its decision requiring Trudeau to attend Friday’s proceeding, and to

lift the stay of the Writ Ne Exeat until Trudeau posts sufficient collateral. Dated: July 22, 2013 David O’Toole ([email protected]) Federal Trade Commission 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825 Chicago, Illinois 60603-5001 Phone: (312) 960-5601 Fax: (312) 960-5600

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Jonathan Cohen Michael Mora ([email protected]) Jonathan Cohen ([email protected]) Amanda B. Kostner ([email protected]) Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B Washington, DC 20580 Phone: 202-326-3373; -2551; -2880 Fax: 202-326-2551


5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jonathan Cohen, hereby certify that on July 22, 2013, I caused to be served true copies of the foregoing by electronic means, by filing such documents through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: Kimball Richard Anderson [email protected] Thomas Lee Kirsch, II [email protected] Katherine E. Rohlf [email protected]

/s/ Jonathan Cohen Jonathan Cohen ([email protected]) Attorney for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission


Trudeau Civil Case Document 721 1

Documents

Transcript of Trudeau Civil Case Document 721 1