Kevin Trudeau SENTENCED: Infomercial King To Jail For Contempt Of Court

[Michael Scally MD]

Kevin Trudeau SENTENCED: Infomercial King To Jail For Contempt Of Court
Kevin Trudeau SENTENCED: Infomercial King To Jail For Contempt Of Court

Infomercial king Kevin Trudeau has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for contempt of court. The sentence comes after Trudeau persuaded visitors to his website to help him launch an e-attack on a federal judge's computer -- so many people emailed the judge that his computer in Chicago crashed. AP has more details of the attack and subsequent charges:

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman's computer became hopelessly clogged with e-mails from admirers of Trudeau's diet book and other volumes, the judge told a hearing. Court technicians had to be called in to make his inbox usable again. Something similar happened to his BlackBerry, Gettleman said.

Gettleman has overseen Trudeau's long-running legal battle with the Federal Trade Commission, which claims ads for Trudeau's books offering cures for dozens of ailments -- from faltering memory to hair loss -- misrepresent the facts.

The judge said Trudeau urging the deluge of e-mails was harassment.

"The penalty I will impose will probably include some custody and a fine," the calm, soft-spoken Gettleman said after holding Trudeau in direct criminal contempt. He ordered Trudeau to post a $50,000 bond and surrender his passport.

Gettleman said the glut of e-mails delayed court business and will force the U.S. Marshals Service to do a threat assessment.

Trudeau arrived in court voluntarily after Gettleman threatened to send marshals to bring him in. He sat silently through the hearing before being led away for fingerprinting and a mug shot.

Chief defense counsel Kimball R. Anderson told Gettleman that Trudeau had posted an apology on his Web site and urged visitors not to attempt further contact.

"I am confident this incident will not occur again," Anderson said.

The apology message posted on Trudeau's Web site admitted asking visitors to the site Wednesday to communicate with Gettleman but added "that was a mistake."

"It was wrong to make that request," Trudeau's posting said. "Please do not under any circumstances communicate with the court or the judge. I apologize for the mistake."

 

[Michael Scally MD]

F.T.C. v. Trudeau

Background: After Federal Trade Commission (FTC) obtained permanent injunction barring weight-loss book's author/marketer from misrepresenting his products on television infomercials, FTC sought to hold marketer in contempt for violating injunction with respect to his book. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 567 F.Supp.2d 1016, Robert W. Gettleman, J., entered order finding marketer in contempt, and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration, 572 F.Supp.2d 919. Marketer appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Tinder, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) district court did not abuse its discretion in finding marketer in contempt, but

(2) remand was required for sanction.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded.

 

[Ra Ether]

wow, this dude stays in trouble!

Is he really a fraud though? I haven't followed the claims over the years but I remember seeing an infomercial of his long ago and he seemed to make sense...to me at least.

 

[Meathead27]

Man, I hate that guy. Good to hear he's finally getting what's coming to him

 

[Michael Scally MD]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEVIN TRUDEAU, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 03-c-03904—Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.
ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2010—DECIDED NOVEMBER 29, 2011
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/DV0MFD0A.pdf

TINDER, Circuit Judge. Infomercialist Kevin Trudeau violated a court-approved settlement with the Federal Trade Commission by misrepresenting the content of his book The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About. FTC v. Trudeau, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The district court held Trudeau in contempt and ordered him to pay $37.6 million to the FTC and banned him from making infomercials for three years. On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s finding of contempt but vacated the sanctions. We noted that although a $37.6 million fine “might be correct,” the district court needed to explain its math and how the funds would be administered.

We did not question the imposition of a coercive sanction in addition to a remedial sanction, but we held that the infomercial ban was inappropriate as a civil sanction because it did not give Trudeau an opportunity to purge, that is, to comply with the underlying order not to misrepresent his publications. FTC v. Trudeau, 579 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Trudeau I”). (We assume familiarity with the contempt proceedings discussed in Trudeau I and so do not repeat that background here.) On remand, the district court reinstated the $37.6 million remedial fine. This time, however, the court explained that it reached that figure by multiplying the price of the book by the 800-number orders, plus the cost of shipping, less returns. Addressing our questions about administration, the court instructed the FTC to distribute the funds to those who bought Trudeau’s book using the 800-number; any remainder not paid to those victims or used in the administration of the sanction was to be returned to Trudeau. In addition, as a coercive sanction, the district court imposed a $2 million performance bond, effective for at least five years.

Trudeau appeals the sanctions. He argues that the $37.6 million remedial sanction was improperly based on consumer loss rather than his unjust gain. Against the coercive sanction, he argues that the district court’s modification of the consent order to include a performance bond was beyond its authority and, even if it had authority to modify the order, the bond requirement violates the First Amendment.

We disagree and therefore affirm the district court. 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. As for the coercive sanction, the district court properly modified the 2004 order to increase the likelihood that Trudeau will comply going forward. After so many violations, the district court did not have to stick with the old plan. And the new plan, and the performance bond in particular, does not violate the First Amendment. The government is not impotent to protect consumers—nor is the court powerless to enforce its orders—by imposing narrowly tailored restrictions on commercial speech.

 

[alterntego]

what is there to hate about that guy except for his enormous I.Q . he has been a huge asset in my life for health reasons and has opened many peoples eyes as to what is happening in the world . dogs dont bark at parked cars . now do they , dog

Man, I hate that guy. Good to hear he's finally getting what's coming to him

 

[BBC3]

I have to say after reading the post about hating him again. The guy really seemed like a jerkoff on first watch, but really he has actually let success in his natural charisma go to his head I suspect and blasted powers to high. I actually stubled on one of his books at a imbucile friend of mine's and he really blasts some powerful shit, right down to Rumsfeld being the god father of aspartame... Some pretty good shit that no one else is willing to speak. I have to salute him for this. If he is really in trouble he should probably be supported by guys like us, cause he's not gonna get a lot of help elsewhere, and more likely he would help you - cause wise....

He appears to be much more than an "infomercial king" cause he's got to have the $bank$ already... He's on a mission probably still unclear at this time. But its off the normal beat... And he's apparently got a SET. I vote for support...