Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

  • View
    218

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    1/70

    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

    PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVEINSTANTER

    TO FILE A CONSOLIDATEDRESPONSE TO TRUDEAUS PROPOSED ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO HIS

    REQUEST TO PAY HIS ATTORNEYS WITH MONEY BELONGING TO

    CONSUMERS

    Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moves the Court for leave to file a

    consolidated reply to (1) Trudeaus Motion for To Release Assets for Payment of Attorneys

    Fees (DE736) and (2) Trudeaus Response to the FTCs Proposed Order (DE735), both of which

    Trudeau filed late Friday. Given the importance of this case and significance of these issues to

    the receivership estate, good cause exists to permit the FTC to respond.

    Additionally, the FTC seeks leave for its Consolidated Response to exceed the fifteen-

    page limit by two pages. The Consolidated Response replies to two separate pleadings (one of

    which is nine pages, and the other eight pages). Thus, the FTCs Consolidated Response is the

    same length as Trudeaus two filings.

    Finally, the FTC notices this motion for Tuesday at 8:30 AM, which is when the Court

    scheduled a hearing regarding attorneys fees and the receiverships structure.

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:12818

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    2/70

    2

    Dated: August 5, 2013

    David OToole ([email protected])Federal Trade Commission55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825

    Chicago, Illinois 60603-5001Phone: (312) 960-5601Fax: (312) 960-5600

    Respectfully Submitted,

    /s/ Jonathan CohenMichael Mora ([email protected])Jonathan Cohen ([email protected])

    Amanda B. Kostner ([email protected])Federal Trade Commission600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102BWashington, DC 20580Phone: 202-326-3373; -2551Fax: 202-326-2558

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:12819

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    3/70

    3

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I, Jonathan Cohen, hereby certify that on August 5, 2013, I caused to beserved true copies of the foregoing by electronic means, by filing such documents through theCourts Electronic Case Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to:

    Kimball Richard [email protected]

    Thomas Lee Kirsch, [email protected]

    Katherine E. [email protected]

    /s/ Jonathan CohenJonathan Cohen ([email protected])

    Attorney for PlaintiffFederal Trade Commission

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:12820

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    4/70

    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

    FTCS CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO TRUDEAUS PROPOSED ORDER AND

    OPPOSITION TO HIS REQUEST TO PAY HIS ATTORNEYS WITH MONEY

    BELONGING TO CONSUMERS

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737-1 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:12821

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    5/70

    ii

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

    I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

    II. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CREATE A RECEIVERSHIP OVER ALL

    ASSETS TRUDEAU CONTROLS, BUT IF THE COURT HAS RESERVATIONS,

    THE COURT SHOULD INCARCERATE TRUDEAU .....................................................2

    A. The Court Has Authority To Include Any Asset Trudeau Controls Within the

    Receivership .............................................................................................................3

    B. If the Court Has Reservations About Its Authority, the Solution Is To

    Incarcerate Trudeau Until He Complies With the Order To Pay,

    Not To Give Him a Free Pass. ..............................................................................6

    III. THE COURT CANNOT ALLOW TRUDEAU TO USE CONSUMERS MONEY

    TO PAY TO DEFEND AGIANST THE CIVIL AND CRIMINALCONSEQUENCES OF THE MISCONDUCT THAT INJURED THEM ........................11

    A. Think AchievementAbsolutely Prohibits Trudeau From Using ConsumersMoney To Pay His Future Legal Bills ...................................................................11

    B. The Court Should Not Permit Trudeau To Use Consumers Money To PayExisting Legal Bills................................................................................................13

    C. The Court Should Not Release Assets from NCHI Without Substantial

    Additional Evidence...............................................................................................15

    IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................17

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................18

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737-1 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:12822

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    6/70

    iii

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    Cases

    American Freedom Train Found. v. Spurney, 747 F.2d 1069 (1st Cir. 1984) ................................ 4

    Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) ........................................................... 12

    CFTC v. Battoo, No. 12-cv-07127 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2012) ..................................................... 6, 9

    CFTC v. Lake Shore Asset Management Ltd., No. 07-3598 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2011) .................. 6

    CFTC v. Morse, 762 F.2d 60 (8th Cir. 1985) ............................................................................... 11

    DeGuelle v. Camilli, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 3942906 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013) ............................... 7

    FTC v. 2145183 Ontario Inc., No. 09-7423 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009)........................................... 6

    FTC v. Asia Pacific Telecom, Inc., No. 10-3168 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2010) .................................... 6

    FTC v. Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc., No. 13-cv-00578 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2013) ............... 6, 9

    FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp.2d 1171 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ....................................................................... 3

    FTC v. Image Sales & Consultants, No. 1:97-CV-131,1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18905, (N.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 1997) ....................................................... 14

    FTC v. Jordan Ashley, Inc., No. 93-2257,

    1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7577 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 1994) .............................................................. 14

    FTC v. Leshin, No. 06-61851, 2011 WL 617500, *15 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011) ........................ 10

    FTC v. Neovi, Inc., No. 06-CV-1952, 2012 WL 2859987 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) ..................... 3

    FTC v. NHS Systems, 708 F. Supp. 2d 456 (E.D. Pa. 2009) ........................................................... 4

    FTC v. Productive Marketing, 136 F. Supp.2d 1096, 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ............................ 4, 8

    FTC v. QT, Inc., 605 F. Supp.2d 999 (N.D. Ill. 2009) .................................................................. 12

    FTC v. Think Achievement Corp., 312 F.3d 259 (7th Cir. 2002)......................................... 2, 11-13

    In re San Vicente Med. Pners Ltd., 962 F.2d 1402 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................... 6

    Kokoraleis v. Gilmore, 131 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1997) ................................................................... 12

    Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 737-1 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:12823

  • 8/22/2019 Trudeau Civil Case Document 737 737 1 and 737 2 Partial 08-05-13

    7/70

    iv

    McGregor v. Chierico, 206 F.3d 1378 (11th Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 5

    SEC v. AMX, Intl, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 1541 (N.D. Tex. 1994) ..................................................... 10

    SEC v. Aragon Capital Advisors, LLC, 2011 WL 3278907 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2011) ................ 10

    SEC v. Bilzerian, 127 F. Supp. 2d 232 (D.D.C. 2000) ................................................................... 5

    SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188, 196-97 (3rd Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 4

    SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 3, 4

    SEC v. Levine, 671 F. Supp.2d 14, 36 (D.D.C. 2009) .................................................................... 3

    SEC v. Solow, 682 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ................................................................... 10

    SEC v. Universal Express Inc., No. 04-2322, 2007 WL 2469452 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2007) ....... 3

    SEC v. Universal Financial, 760 F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................ 4

    SEC v. Wencke, 622 F.2d 1363, 13

Search related