Trudeau Criminal Case Document 204 Sentencing 03-17-14 Filed 05-28-14

8/11/2019 Trudeau Criminal Case Document 204 Sentencing 03-17-14 Filed 05-28-14

1/91GIN Network Truth (the smart group)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Nancy C. LaBella, CSR, RMR, CRROfficial Court Reporter

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 1222Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-6890Nanc [email protected]. ov

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

Plaintiff, ))

v. ) No. 10 CR 886)

KEVIN TRUDEAU, ) Chicago, Illinois) March 17, 2014

Defendant. ) 2:00 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - SENTENCINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD A. GUZMAN

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: HON. ZACHARY T. FARDONUnited States AttorneyBY: MR. MARC KRICKBAUM

MS. APRIL M. PERRYAssistant United States Attorneys219 South Dearborn StreetSuite 500Chicago, Illinois 60604(312) 353-5300

For the Defendant: WINSTON & STRAWN LLPBY: MR. THOMAS LEE KIRSCH II35 West Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601(312) 558-5600

MS. CAROLYN PELLING GURLANDAttorney at Law2 North LaSalle Street17th FloorChicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 420-9263

Case: 1:10-cr-00886 Document #: 204 Filed: 05/28/14 Page 1 of 91 PageID #:5150



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

THE CLERK: 10 CR 886, United States of America v.

Trudeau.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Good afternoon, your Honor. Marc

Krickbaum and April Perry on behalf of the United States.

MR. KIRSCH: Good afternoon, your Honor. Tom Kirsch

and Carolyn Gurland for the defendant, Kevin Trudeau.

THE PROBATION OFFICER: Good afternoon, your Honor.

Sarah Kieckhafer from Probation.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone.

Are we prepared to proceed to sentencing?

MS. PERRY: Yes, Judge, we are.

THE COURT: Defense?

MR. KIRSCH: Judge, we are. I'm not sure exactly

what the government's intentions are. They just handed me

some paperwork ten minutes ago, which I had not seen before.

I haven't completed reading it, but I'm not sure what they're

intending to --

THE COURT: Do you want to complete reading it before

we commence?

MR. KIRSCH: Well, if they would just -- I -- I'm not

sure what they -- what they're going to do with it. If

they're just going to submit it to the Court --

THE COURT: Neither am I.

MR. KIRSCH: Pardon?

THE COURT: Neither am I.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

MR. KIRSCH: So maybe we could just hear that. If

they're just going to submit it to the Court, that's fine.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Judge, Mr. Kirsch and I spoke about

this a few minutes ago. We have an individual, Mr. Frank

Bowden, who would like to make a victim impact statement to

the Court. He has written that statement out and would like

to read it to the Court.

He also brought with him today letters from a few of

his family members on the same topic, which he would like the

Court to consider at sentencing.

So what we've tendered the defense and to the

probation office, I think it's perhaps three letters in

addition to Mr. Bowden's statement. But Mr. Bowden would like

to speak to the Court. He traveled here today from California

for that purpose.

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, we would -- I think there

are five or six letters that I just received. But, in any

event, we would object to his testimony. He -- he claims in

his letter that at some point in time, his brother read the

book Natural Cures, one of -- a book written by the defendant;

and that his brother then stopped taking his heart med- --

THE COURT: Is that one of the books that was

advertised in the infomercial?

MR. KIRSCH: No. It has nothing to do with the

infomercial. It's just censorship, Judge. They want -- they




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

want this man to testify that he read a book written by

Trudeau; and at some point in time, his brother stopped taking

heart medication and then at some point in time, his brother

had a heart attack and died.

And so the government's argument is the things that

Trudeau wrote in the book are not true. And that's just

censorship. And it has nothing to do with the Weight Loss

Cure. It has nothing to do with Judge Gettleman's order. It

has nothing to do with misrepresenting the content of the book

in the infomercial. It has nothing to do with anything that

we're here to do today.

THE COURT: Does it have to do with the 3553

considerations --

MR. KIRSCH: No.

THE COURT: -- your defendant's background and

history and character?

MR. KIRSCH: No. I don't -- I don't even think

that's the argument that they make. When they make the

argument in their -- in their sentencing memo, they say --

they talk about him in one sentence. And they talk about, In

addition to the obvious monetary loss associated with the

above-described schemes, defendant has also hurt people who

relied upon his advice.

But we're not -- in the book, we're not -- I mean, in

the 3553, we don't argue that his -- we don't argue his




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

advice. They talk about his -- his -- their -- anyway, they

talk about -- in their sentencing memorandum, they talk about

how they don't like the things that he wrote in his book. And

that's what this guy is going to talk about. But we don't --

in our 3553, we don't argue that you should somehow depart

because the things he says in his book --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. KIRSCH: We don't argue the truth or falsity of

the book. I mean, that's just censorship, your Honor. You

repeatedly told the jury throughout the trial that the truth

or falsity of the book is not at issue. And he has a First

Amendment right to write whatever he wants.

Now, if the government wants to submit the letters, I

guess they could submit the letters and the Court can view

them. But full-blown testimony -- I mean, Judge, I walked

into court. I just got a 302 five minutes ago that was

drafted on February 20th, 2014. That's 3500 material. They

just produced it to me five minutes ago. The letters -- I

haven't even read all the letters. I just got them.

THE COURT: I --

MR. KIRSCH: So we would object.

THE COURT: I started out by asking you if you want

time to read the letters.

MR. KIRSCH: Well --

THE COURT: I would like an answer to that question.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

MR. KIRSCH: Well, your Honor, I object. If the

Court sustains my objection, there is no point in me reading

the letters. The objection really has nothing to do with the

letters.

THE COURT: Well, I have here some 75 -- no. More.

MR. KIRSCH: 87.

THE COURT: Thank you. 87 letters that you have

submitted on behalf of your client -- which I assume are 3553

material factors, correct?

MR. KIRSCH: Well, yes. We provided those to the

government I think --

THE COURT: Which talk about --

MR. KIRSCH: -- weeks ago, maybe a month ago.

THE COURT: Which talk about things that have nothing

to do with the book or the infomercials. They talk about his

public service as a community activist, his praying, his being

a benevolent angel. They talk about he's personally involved

in the learning and services of helping his rabbi. They talk

about things that have nothing to do with anything except his

character. Should the government not be allowed to do the

same?

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, if this person has met

Mr. Trudeau and can testify about his character, I have no

objection.

THE COURT: Some of these people testify in your




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

letters merely from hearsay and from reading his books and his

videos.

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, this man never read

Trudeau's book. I have no objection to you reading the letter

to see what he has to say. But I think full-blown testimony

in this issue is -- is just a little bit too far. And, your

Honor, that's my objection.

THE COURT: Government?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Judge, I don't think this is a

particularly complicated matter. Mr. Bowden wants to offer

testimony about the impact of the Natural Cures book on his

family. He wants to read you a statement on that topic.

Now, the defense has stated in their sentencing memo

that Mr. Trudeau's ideas are unconventional but they are not

harmful, which is an issue that we are in dispute about. In

the government's view, much of the content of the Natural

Cures book, much of the advice or the instructions the

defendant provides in that book is harmful, is dangerous. And

that is something that the Court can consider as part of the

3553(a) factors.

This has nothing to do with censorship. Mr. Trudeau

is free to give whatever advice he wants. But if he gives

people dangerous advice, then he should -- the Court should at

least be allowed to hear the consequences or the possible

consequences of that advice. So we think Mr. Bowden should be




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

permitted to read his statement to the Court, and there's no

basis for the objection.

MR. KIRSCH: Judge, that is exactly the definition of

censorship. He wrote a book, they don't like what he says,

and you should punish him for it. That is censorship. That's

what it is. That's the definition.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?

MR. KIRSCH: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Since there is no objection, I'll allow

the letters into evidence. At this point I'm not prepared to

allow his testimony, given the rather lack of prior disclosure

in this case.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Judge, could I speak to that briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. KRICKBAUM: We did state in our sentencing memo,

which was filed a week ago, that we were planning on offering

victim impact testimony from Mr. Bowden.

Now, today at around noon, Mr. Kirsch asked whether

there were any reports out of our interviews with Mr. Bowden,

which we provided him within the hour. It's a one-page 302.

I'm not even sure, Judge, if we're required to produce that

under 3500, but we did as soon as Mr. Kirsch asked for it.

And we informed the defense at least a week ago in our public

filing that he would be speaking today. So I'm not sure what

else we were supposed to do.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

We received many of the letters from the defense side

last week. So I don't think there's a notice issue here, your

Honor.

THE COURT: I understand. But letters are letters

and testimony is testimony. Preparing for testimony is

different than preparing for letters. So I will allow the

letters. I will consider the letters. I believe I have them

in the binder that you submitted; is that correct?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Along with the photographs. I will give

them full consideration. But live testimony I think would be

unfair to counsel, even though it would, it seems to me, be

appropriate in determining the character issues that are

required by the 3553 considerations. And the testimony would

be no different or further or further afield than some of the

letters -- the 80-some letters that we've received and I have

read regarding Mr. Trudeau's exploits that have nothing to do

with books or infomercials. But I think, given the issue of

live testimony, that will be the Court's ruling.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Prepared to go to sentencing at this

point then?

MR. KIRSCH: Yes, your Honor, we are.

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You don't need more time to read the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

letters?

MR. KIRSCH: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Finally we --

MR. KIRSCH: By the way, can I just ask a question?

THE COURT: Oh, you want to equivocate on your

answer?

MR. KIRSCH: No, I just want to verify --

(Counsel conferring.)

MR. KIRSCH: Okay. I didn't get a binder. I just

got these -- I just wanted to make sure I got everything that

you had, your Honor. That's all.

THE COURT: Very well.

Mr. Trudeau, have you had an opportunity and have you

reviewed the presentence investigation report with your

attorneys?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: After doing that are you satisfied that

you understand the information in the report and you are

prepared to go forward with sentencing?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.


Objections to the guideline calculation?

MR. KRICKBAUM: None from the government, your Honor.

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, we've made -- we have made

objections -- we made objections to the presentence report.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

And, your Honor, we filed quite a bit on this. And my

intention today was not to just -- my intention is not to

repeat all the arguments that we've made in our filing.

Of course if the Court has questions on those

objections, we would be happy to address any questions the

Court may have.

But we object, your Honor, to the $37 million loss

figure.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KIRSCH: And we object to the number of victims.

THE COURT: Well, why don't you tell us briefly what

your objection to the $37 million loss calculation figure is.

MR. KIRSCH: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: First, to make sure we have the issue

framed correctly, the loss calculation is important because it

impacts the total offense level calculation and the sentencing

guidelines, which, in turn, impacts significantly the

sentencing guideline range.

The government and the presentence investigation

report by the Probation Department have both concurred that

the appropriate loss calculation in this case is $37,616,161.

And I believe that the defense has calculated the loss

calculation at somewhere around $2 million; is that correct?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: So if you have an objection to that, why




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

don't you explain it briefly.

MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, if I might? Carolyn

Gurland on behalf of Kevin Trudeau.

Our objection is that -- starting off with the

$37.6 million loss figure from the --

THE COURT: Don't touch the mike. Adjust yourself

instead. And by that I mean, sir, you could move over and

allow counsel to stand in front of the mike.

MR. KIRSCH: That's fine. We'll share the same

podium.


MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, the $37.6 million loss

figure comes from the civil case, as your Honor is aware.

There's a bit -- there's a different standard when one is

calculating the advisory guideline calculation. And there is

law that we have cited in detail in our filing which

establishes that the government must prove loss by a

preponderance of the evidence.

THE COURT: Not so in the civil case?

MS. GURLAND: In a civil case -- I guess you're

talking about damages rather than loss so --

THE COURT: But must it be proven by a preponderance

of the evidence?

MS. GURLAND: Also in a civil case, yes, your Honor.

But guidelines loss is, I think, a different concept than




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

civil damages. And guidelines loss demands that the

government established by a preponderance that there are

individuals who were victims and that they were victimized by

the particular misrepresentations that the jury found to have

existed in this case. But there's simply not any evidence of

it.

THE COURT: How is that different from the

guideline -- from the calculation that the Seventh Circuit

made?

MS. GURLAND: Of -- the --

THE COURT: As I understand it, the Seventh Circuit's

calculation was based upon the fact that your client sold,

through his 1-800 number advertised in his infomercials, some

$37.6 million worth of books, after subtracting the value of

the books that were returned and without taking into account

all of the books that were sold through other means that were

related to the infomercials. Why is that not a valid place to

commence the loss calculation in this case?

MS. GURLAND: I think the reason that's not a valid

place to commence, your Honor, is because we know that the

$37.6 million figure cannot possibly be right. And that's

because in the binders that you have, amongst the 87 letters,

are numerous people that would tell your Honor, I watched the

infomercial for the weight loss book and I bought the book;

and I found the book valuable; and I bought many copies of the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

book for other people; and I gave those copies of the book

to -- to those people; and I found the book -- book to be

valuable; I enjoyed the book; I am not victimized by this

book.

So we know that whatever the number is, it can't

possibly be $37.6 million. That's for a start, your Honor.

But basically we have no concept because there's not

been any evidence since this was charged -- and it was tried

as a contempt case and not a fraud case -- we don't have any

idea whether or not victims would take the stand and say, I

saw, I heard, I relied on the particular misrepresentations

that the jury found in this case; that's why I bought the

book; I bought the book relying on those misrepresentations;

and I derived no value from the book.

There's been not a single piece of testimony -- and,

indeed, in a case that I cited in the 3553 submission, your

Honor, FTC v. Freecom, in that case -- it was a civil fraud

case, but the court decided that they weren't going to hear

from three witnesses because the particular witnesses weren't

able to say that they actually watched the particular

misrepresentation with which the defendant was charged. And

the court said we're not going to -- we're not going to hear

from them because they aren't able to tell me that they relied

on the things that the FTC said in their complaint.

So in this situation, your Honor, we have zero




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

evidence that a single person relied on the particular

misrepresentations that the jury found. Indeed, because of

our jury form, we don't even know the -- whether or not there

was one or more than one. And we don't know what the

misrepresentation was that they did find.

But we certainly don't have any idea --

THE COURT: That doesn't matter, does it, which

misrepresentation it was, does it?

MS. GURLAND: Well, he would -- he would --

THE COURT: If it was a misrepresentation, it was a

misrepresentation, right?

MS. GURLAND: Not from the standpoint of the

conviction, your Honor, it wouldn't matter. But from the

standpoint of being able to establish $37.6 million of loss,

it would matter because we would have to know what the

misrepresentation was. And then there would have to have been

an effort to say to each of the individuals who bought the

book, Okay, why did you buy it. Because I think some of the

people bought it because of his reputation. And, indeed, in

the 87 letters, many of the people say, I didn't even care; I

bought it from the infomercial because it was easy; but I

didn't buy it because of that; I bought it because I own

Natural Cures, More Natural Cures, Debt Cures; I own his

memory tapes, his audiotapes; I was going to buy anything the

guy wrote; and it had nothing to do with what he said in the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

infomercial.

THE COURT: As a matter of curiosity, do you know how

many of these 87 letters were written by people who did, in

fact, buy the book?

MS. GURLAND: As a number, your Honor? No. I know

that a substantial portion were written by people --

THE COURT: What does substantial mean?

MS. GURLAND: If I -- I think more -- more than a

dozen, more than 20 --

THE COURT: 20?

MS. GURLAND: -- of the 87 were people who watched

the infomercial for The Weight Loss Cure book and bought it.

But of those, your Honor, many talked about the fact that they

liked it so much that they bought multiple copies and gave

them out as gifts.

THE COURT: But just to be sure of what we have here,

you were able to find some 20 persons out of a total sale of

some 37, almost $38 million worth of books who have --

MS. GURLAND: Well, your Honor, it wasn't --

THE COURT: -- indicated that they liked the book?

MS. GURLAND: Well, I think, first of all, your

Honor, with -- I think the basis that we proceed from in our

filing is that it's the government's burden to establish

loss --

THE COURT: I understand that. I'm just --




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

MS. GURLAND: -- by a preponderance and not our --

THE COURT: I understand that. I'm just inquiring

about what you're presenting now and --

MS. GURLAND: What I'm presenting --

THE COURT: -- the exact significance it has.

MS. GURLAND: Of course, your Honor.

THE COURT: And so far what I understand is that you

have submitted to me 20 letters from people who say they like

the books; some of whom said they bought the book for other

people.

MS. GURLAND: Yes. But, your Honor, as a point of

clarification, I think it's important that I didn't go out

seeking people to establish what the loss was or wasn't

because it wasn't my burden to do it.

What we did was ask people who were willing to write

letters for Mr. Trudeau -- in his support at sentencing -- to

come forward. And of -- of those people that wanted to write

letters and wanted to come forward -- and I didn't even -- I

mean, I believe that there were, you know, hundreds and

thousands more people who are writing to Trudeau and writing

to people close to Trudeau expressing their support of him.

But I didn't think it appropriate to, you know, pile this up

on your Honor at the -- in the context of a sentencing.

THE COURT: Why not?

MS. GURLAND: To have thousands of Facebook postings




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

and other things? Because I wanted to restrict it to things

that were -- that were pertinent and not just go for sheer

numbers. But there are thousands of people.

THE COURT: As a matter of curiosity, how did you ask

people who were willing to come forward on behalf of

Mr. Trudeau?

MS. GURLAND: Somebody who is a close friend of

Mr. Trudeau's took on asking people that she knew were

familiar with him whether or not they would write letters. So

she knew --

THE COURT: By word of mouth?

MS. GURLAND: I believe by word of mouth and probably

she e-mailed people as well to find out who was willing to

come forward for him. She --

THE COURT: Was there a database used for that

e-mailing?

MS. GURLAND: Were there?

THE COURT: Was there a database used for that

e-mailing?

I ask you these questions because Mr. Trudeau has in

the past confessed to sending out what he calls blast e-mails

to his database of followers asking them to send letters of

support in his court cases and has gone on his Web site and

used it essentially as an infomercial to ask for supporting

letters. And what I want to know is, was that done in this




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

case?

MS. GURLAND: It's not my understanding that that was

done, but I wasn't the one who was doing it, so I -- what I

know is that what we -- what the lawyers asked for was to have

people who wanted to and were willing to write for

Mr. Trudeau; and the only further instruction that we gave is

that we'd like them to be people who are personally familiar

with him to the largest extent possible because that's what we

found that your Honor might find the most relevant, are people

who knew him well.

MR. KIRSCH: Your Honor, if I could just add one

thing on that point.

The last time Trudeau did something like that, as far

as I'm aware of -- I don't believe that was done. The last

time he did something like that was on a radio show asking for

people to write Judge Gettleman in support of him in saying

that their books actually helped him. And for that Trudeau

got 30 days in jail. Judge Gettleman's e-mail crashed. Judge

Gettleman held him in contempt, sentenced him to 30 days in

jail.

THE COURT: I think that --

MR. KIRSCH: And that was reversed by the Seventh

Circuit. So I don't think there was any e-mail blast here

asking for letters.

THE COURT: I don't know if there was or not --




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

MR. KIRSCH: I don't think so.

THE COURT: -- but I think somebody should know. And

if anyone should know, it should be, I think, Mr. Trudeau's

lawyers.

MR. KIRSCH: Yeah. I'm not -- well, I don't know

what everybody does who is associated or friends with Trudeau.

But I'm not aware of any --

THE COURT: But in preparation for the material

you're presenting to this Court, you don't know?

MR. KIRSCH: Well, your Honor, just from reading

those letters, they're not -- they're not in -- they're not

the result of any blast e-mail that I'm aware of. But if

somebody were -- if somebody sent an e-mail or posted

something on Facebook, I might not necessarily aware of it.

But I suspect that if that had happened, we would have

received hundreds or thousands of letters, as Judge Gettleman

did.

THE COURT: Well, I think your co-counsel has said

you have.

MS. GURLAND: Mr. Trudeau has received them directly.

MR. KIRSCH: These are Facebook postings and things

like that, of supporters of his, wishing him support. And

we -- I'm not -- I don't have access to his Facebook page,

Judge, so I see some of it, but I don't see it all.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

MS. GURLAND: So, your Honor, the -- what we had done

to try to come up with some kind of calculation of loss in

this case that was provable rather than speculative, we went

through -- and the government produced to us a CD at the

time -- early on in the time that we were preparing for our

submissions to the probation office in advance of the

presentence report.

And I went through all of those complaints. There

was not any way to really make sense of the ones that were

just sort of postings and chat rooms and discussion because a

lot of times, you wouldn't even know were they the same person

who is making multiple posts; were they talking about some

other book. Some of these people were supporters. You

couldn't -- you couldn't really get your hands around any of

that.

So I stepped back and thought, all right, what would

be a way to analyze this then that would be fair. If you take

the -- all of the complaints that came in to the Federal Trade

Commission, plus all the complaints that came in to the Better

Business Bureau, those complaints have more of an indicia of

reliability because they're not just sort of somebody having a

conversation in a room. These are actual people who are

putting pen to paper and saying, I have a complaint about the

book. And you could tell whether or not it was the weight

loss book or some other book, and so you had some ability




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

to -- to tell. Now, you couldn't tell if they made multiple

complaints and that they overlapped with each other, but you

could at least tell that they were -- what they were talking

about in some kind of coherent fashion.

And if you took the FTC complaints and took the

Better Business Bureau complaints and if you looked at those

and separated out people who complained about things like, It

took me too long to get the shipment, it took -- I didn't like

waiting so long, or there was some problem with delivery, or

it was damaged when it came to me, if you took out the things

like that -- if you focused only on the people who complained

and said, I didn't like the content of the book -- now not

that they didn't like the particular misrepresentation because

that we can't know, but we were overinclusive and we said, all

right, anybody who complained about the content of the book

should be construed as a victim. And that's how we did our --

our loss calculation that came to our guideline because

that -- I would submit, your Honor, that is what is provable

and establishable and it was done in a -- in as close to a

scientific way as could be done to show who are these people

that are -- that are actually complaining that they lost

something based on the contents of the book. And that's --

that's the number -- that's who they were.

THE COURT: Government?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Judge, the defense objection here is




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

misplaced. And it is misplaced for several reasons, but I'll

start with intended loss.

So the issue -- as the Court is well aware, loss

amount for purposes of the guidelines is the larger of either

the intended loss or the actual loss. And in this case, I

think the Court can decide this issue by looking at intended

loss. So what is the pecuniary harm that the defendant

intended when he made these infomercials. And in order to

answer that question, you don't need to determine how many

actual customers relied on the defendant's representations,

did they believe the lies in the infomercials, which lie did

they believe. You don't have to decide any of those issues.

The issue is what did the defendant intend at the

time he committed the crime. And the answer is that Kevin

Trudeau intended to defraud every single person who was

listening at the time that he made those infomercials. And

that is why he told the lies that he did about the book. That

is --

THE COURT: And by that you mean that his intent was

that everyone who heard his infomercials rely upon his lies

and purchase the book?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Of course it was.

THE COURT: And if that was his intent, then the

value of the intended loss would be the value of the books

sold; is that correct?




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

MR. KRICKBAUM: Yes.

THE COURT: And that would be $37.6 million, correct?

MR. KRICKBAUM: A number that is almost certainly

low, but it would be at least $37 million.

THE COURT: I think the Seventh Circuit put it this

way: "In fact, it is worth emphasizing that the district

court showed restraint in calculating the remedial sanction

based only on 1-800 number sales. Most of the sales caused by

Trudeau's violation of the court order may have been made

through the 1-800 number but not all. Out of an abundance of

caution, in order to avoid using questionable figures, the

district court decided not to include Internet sales or in-

store sales of The Weight Loss Cure, even though those books

were sold with a conspicuous, quote, As Seen on TV, end quote,

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 that is comfortably within its

discretion."

Go ahead. What else did you have to say?

MR. KRICKBAUM: I think I've covered the intended

loss issue. And what your Honor just read from the Seventh

Circuit also supports a finding that $37 million is a reliable

estimate of actual loss as well.

We don't dispute that there are some people who were




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

happy with this book after watching the infomercial. But we

think the Court can reliably reach the conclusion that the

vast majority of people who bought this book after watching

the infomercial were defrauded because the lies that the

defendant told in the infomercials, as we said in our

sentencing memo, were not little footnotes to those

infomercials. They were at the heart of those infomercials.

And the reason the defendant lied, as we argued to

the jury, is so that he could sell more books. And the reason

he described this book as something very different than what

it was was because if he had told the truth about it, he would

have sold almost nothing because the actual book is something

that you probably wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. It's

impossible to follow, to begin with. It's impossible to

actually figure out what you're supposed to do as part of this

protocol. But if you are able to puzzle it out, the actual

protocol is -- to call it grueling, I think, would be an

understatement; to call these lifetime restrictions severe is

an understatement. And so the defendant lied about all of

that and sold it as something far better than it really was so

that he could defraud these consumers.

And even if you allow for the fact that there may

have been some people who were happy, this 37 million number

is already so low because it doesn't include sales through

stores, even though there's a "As Seen on TV" sticker on this




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

book and even though in these very infomercials, the defendant

is saying, You can get this at Borders; You can get this at

Waldenbooks. So he's using the lies in the infomercials to

sell books in stores, but the 37 million doesn't count that.

And it doesn't count the people who returned the books after

they discovered that they had been lied to by the defendant in

these infomercials. Those people discovered the fraud. They

asked for a refund. Their returns should count for loss.

That's another $1.4 million. And if you count the books sold

in stores and on the Internet, it's $49 million.

And that's why the Seventh Circuit said -- and they

were answering the same question that this Court has to

answer, which is, what is consumer loss; what is the harm to

consumers based on this book. And they said $37 million is

not just reliable, but it is conservative. So we think that's

a number this Court can easily rely on either as actual loss

or as intended loss.

MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, can I respond briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

MS. GURLAND: On the point of intended -- intended

loss, there's not been any evidence that Kevin Trudeau

intended that particular misrepresentation defrauded people.

There -- there certainly has been a finding by the

jury that he intended to say the things that he said and that

the things that he said were misrepresentations of the content




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

of the book. But there has not been a finding that Kevin

Trudeau intended to make particular misrepresentations to

defraud individuals into buying the book. There's not -- the

government speculates that there has, but there --

THE COURT: I've had several trials since this one,

so I have to ask you to remind me. What was the requirement

of intent that the jury was instructed on in this case?

MS. GURLAND: Willfulness, your Honor.

THE COURT: So they had to find that he willfully

misrepresented --

MS. GURLAND: Yes, that he --

THE COURT: -- the book --

MS. GURLAND: Yes.

THE COURT: -- in his infomercial. Doesn't that mean

that he intended to fool, defraud and deceive them?

MS. GURLAND: Well, I don't think it means that he

intended that they rely on the particular misrepresentations

that --

THE COURT: Well, how do you defraud someone with a

misrepresentation if you don't intend for them to rely on it?

How does that happen?

MS. GURLAND: There certainly isn't a dispute that

they made a finding that he said the things that he said on

purpose. But the --

THE COURT: With the intent to defraud the consumers,




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

correct? That's what willful means, doesn't it?

MS. GURLAND: I -- I don't believe that they made a

finding that he intended that they should lose money by

purchasing the book. I don't believe that that was part of

the jury's finding, your Honor. I don't.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MS. GURLAND: And I just wanted to draw the Court's

attention to the government's, again, you know,

characterization of The Weight Loss Cure, that they wouldn't

wish this book on their worst enemy. You know -- and again

and again in the government's filing, you know, it's infused

with their opinion of the book. And, respectfully, I think we

have to be -- we're getting into an area that's very dangerous

because I understand that what is at issue here is whether or

not Kevin Trudeau willfully violated a court order. The jury

found that he did. And now he's got to be punished for that.

But I think, your Honor, we're in a very dangerous area if we

start punishing him for the ways in which the government

disagrees with and dislikes his book.

THE COURT: Well, the problem is that your argument

as to how to calculate loss brings into consideration the

actual value of the book, doesn't it?

MS. GURLAND: Well, my argument would bring into

consideration that the government hasn't established

$37 million worth of loss because they haven't shown me a




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

single victim who came in and said, I relied on the particular

misrepresentation that was charged and that's why I bought

this book. And what we don't have is any of that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that there is a problem

with the government's description of the book, in that, it

tends to be somewhat colorful and I guess a bit personalized,

which happens during these cases. But I think at the bottom

of it is a very important point that is particular to this

case, in addition to the intended loss, which is, I think,

frankly, dispositive of the issue.

Simply put, your client's infomercials were so

saturated from beginning to end with fundamental

misrepresentations about the very core of the product he was

selling that having seen those infomercials and read the book,

all of which were in evidence in this case, neither I nor any

other court I know of would have any trouble concluding, as a

reasonable inference of that evidence, that it could only be

an extremely small number of persons who purchased the book in

response to that infomercial for some reason other than the

huge number of outright lies and misrepresentations about the

wonders of his miraculous weight loss program that was not a

diet.

It would indeed be a very small number -- very, very

small number -- of persons who would be happy or who would

have obtained some significant value from a product so




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

drastically and significantly different from that which they

were promised when they made their purchase. They were

promised a painless, simple, no-hunger, safe and diet-free

method of losing weight which could be done at home with the

use of a miracle substance available almost anywhere and

which, after they finished, would allow them to eat literally

anything they wanted in the future without regaining any of

the lost weight. That's what he said he was selling.

What he sold was a grueling 500-calorie-a-day diet

requiring daily injections of a prescription hormone

medication not approved in this country for diet use, which,

after they finished, was to be followed by a lifetime of

drastic restrictions of foods that they could consume.

Reason and common sense alone tells us that the vast

majority of consumers who desire to purchase what your client

promised and instead received what he sold would be unhappy in

the extreme with what they received and would have perceived

no significant value from such a product. I have no trouble

drawing a reasonable inference to that effect from the

evidence in this case.

Mr. Trudeau has produced some letters, apparently a

dozen or maybe as many as 20, of people who claim they were

happy with the book and received some value from it. That is

not nearly significant. It does not in any way persuade me

that the reasonable inference I have described is




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

inappropriate in this case.

I find your last argument the most perplexing of all.

Apparently the concept is that the book -- again, sold as this

painless, simple, no-hunger, safe, diet-free method of losing

weight forever, which fails to do any of that -- would

nevertheless have some unknown residual value of some sort

which the government is required to quantify and then deduct

from the pecuniary loss of the sale of the books, a sort of

accidental value that was not expected.

I find that concept overwhelmingly theoretical,

without any basis and providing no reason whatsoever to doubt

what the Seventh Circuit court concluded, which is that

$37.6 million is clearly a reasonable and conservative

estimate of the amount of pecuniary loss and, even more

clearly, a reasonable and conservative estimate of the amount

of intended loss in this case.

Why, in determining that figure, the amount of money

refunded to dissatisfied consumers was deducted, I don't know.

Because even there the law is clear that only -- only -- that

refund of monies which is made before the fraud is discovered

should be deducted from the calculation of loss. And every

single one of those refunds was done after the victim

discovered the fraud and demanded the return of the money.

None of it qualifies for a deduction.

The loss calculation in the presentence investigation




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

report is accepted by the Court.

What other objections does the defense have to the

guideline calculation?

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Judge, I'm a former United

States congressman.

THE COURT: Well, you're going to have to sit down,

Congressman.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'm one of the --

THE COURT: You're going to have to sit down,

Congressman. You will have to sit down, please, sir. Do not

disturb the decorum of this court.

(Brief pause.)

MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, if you're asking for other

objections, we had put another objection in our papers, which

was on exactly the same basis -- we don't have to go into it

again -- and it was on the number of victims.

The calculation that we gave for them for victims was

consistent with the calculation that I discussed with your

Honor about relying not on all the -- not on every single

person who bought the book but rather on people who complained

to the FTC or Better Business Bureau. And so your Honor has

already made findings. But we would stand on our -- on our

papers on that issue, your Honor.

THE COURT: Does the government have anything it

wishes to say in that regard?




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

MR. KRICKBAUM: No, Judge. I think you have, as a

practical matter, decided that issue based on your finding

about loss. There were clearly many multiples of 250 victims

here. So I think the Court has settled that matter.

THE COURT: Very well. The Court agrees with the

presentence investigation report in that respect as well.

Are there any other objections with respect to the

guideline calculation?

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Anywhere in the room?

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MS. GURLAND: No, your Honor, not to the -- not to

the guideline calculations, there are no other objections. We

included --

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: I --

(Brief interruption.)

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Leave him alone.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was responding to the question

of the judge here.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: The judge asked if anybody had

any other --


THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Sir, please --

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: You should not be here.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: I was responding to the --




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: He responded to the question.

THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: Sir, would you kindly

stand up and --


AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: It was a question that --

THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER: This is your last

request. Kindly stand up and --

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Don't touch him.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Unbelievable.


THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, sit down and let

the marshals do their job.

You will sit down.


AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Please don't.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: Come on. Really? You are fine

gentlemen.

AN AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's actually going to be

arrested.


THE COURT: Folks, this is a public courtroom. We

have a tradition in this country of public courtrooms. The

reason for that is so that you can see precisely what is going

on and to decide for yourselves whether you like it or not.

You're entitled to do that. But you are not entitled to




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

disrupt the proceedings. If you do that, I will not hesitate

to clear the courtroom. You will then be without the

privilege of knowing precisely what is going on in a case in

which you seem very interested.

So I urge you -- I urge you -- to simply keep quiet

and listen. If you cannot do that, you will be removed. And

if that removal causes a disruption, you may very well be

charged and prosecuted as well. And that would be a tragic

thing.

I'm sorry, counsel. Were you saying something?

MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, I was.

You had asked whether or not there were any further

guideline objections. There are not further guideline

objections. The defense and the government are in agreement

with the rest of the calculations.

However, I wanted to bring your Honor's attention to

Exhibit A of our defendant's objections to presentence

investigation report, which contain a set of non-substantive,

from the standpoint that they don't affect the calculation,

objections to things in the report. It's on the record.

THE COURT: Is there anything in the non-substantive

objections that the government objects to?

MR. KRICKBAUM: Well, Judge, I think several of these

are just not a proper basis for an objection to the PSR. And

others don't require any change to the PSR. So I suppose in




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

that sense, the answer is yes.

THE COURT: Is there anything you want the Court to

consider?

MR. KRICKBAUM: No, Judge. There's nothing further

we need to say about these objections.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's move on then to the 3553

factors and the government's position with respect to the

appropriate sentence in this case.

MR. KRICKBAUM: One moment, please, Judge.

(Brief pause.)

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Judge.

I'd like to start by responding to the sentencing

submissions that were received by the -- from the defense in

the middle of last week.

First of all, with respect to the defendant's letter

to this particular Court -- and the letter, like the

sentencing memo that was filed on the 3553(a) factors, is

replete with misstatements, with understatements and with

lies.

The defendant's letter begins, "This has never

happened before and will never happen again." It's hard to

know what he's referring to by that. If he's referring to the

contempt, that has happened before and is currently happening.

He is under a sentence of coercive contempt as we speak. If

he's speaking about the misrepresentation of products in order




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

to sell things, by his own admission in the Weight Loss Cures

book, he has done that for decades. All of the defendant's

conduct has happened before.

The defendant's letter, as well as many of the

character letters and the defendant's sentencing memo on

3553(a) factors also speaks to the defendant's high character,

his loyalty, the fact that he is a good, ethical, moral

person, the fact that he would like to start a family with his

wife. Judge, to the extent he is relying on his good

character, his loyalty and his high moral conduct, those

traits too are highly, highly overstated.

And we've got a series of e-mails --

(Tendered.)

MS. PERRY: -- from the defendant over the last three

months. And I will let the Court read those on your own. But

suffice it to say that in his personal life, as well as in his

public one, he is not a good, loyal person of high moral

character. So even setting aside the lies, the frauds and the

contempts, he should not be relying on his high character in

this courtroom.

Similarly, his memo speaks to acts of charity.

Several of the letters talk about anonymous acts of charity.

And his memo itself states that it is impossible to know how

the people who wrote those letters possibly found out about

those acts of charity given that he has been so private about




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

them.

But, your Honor, a simple Google search of Kevin

Trudeau and the word "charities" shows that on March 12th,

2011, he made a YouTube video -- well, he went on the radio,

which was later made into a YouTube video, in which he first

said that virtually all charities are set up as a fraud and a

scam; and if you give any money to a charity, you are a fool.

And he named specifically the American Cancer Society and the

American Heart Association. And then he went on to say, I

don't publicize my own good works, but -- and he talked about

those very same acts of charity that the people talked about

in their character letters.

So even to the extent that those acts of charity are

true and actually happened, which would, by the way, be the

very least he could do considering he's a multimillionaire,

they are, too, certainly not anonymous acts of charity.

He goes on in that YouTube video to say, I'm not on

the radio to pat myself on the back, but -- and then talks

about the same things that those letters spoke about.

With respect to the defendant's attempts to comply

with the order, he speaks first of the Natural Cures model he

supposedly followed and then of his continuous dealings with

the FTC showing his good faith.

Your Honor, we filed a memo on this prior to the

trial, and the Seventh Circuit has spoken on it as well. But




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

with respect to Natural Cures, the Seventh Circuit said -- and

I quote -- The extent to which Trudeau could reasonably rely

on the FTC's approval of the Natural Cures infomercial ended

when Trudeau began uttering false statements and quotes that

mischaracterize the content of the weight loss book. Simply

put, there was no model for him there to rely on and he

didn't.

With respect to his continuous dealings with the FTC,

it is true that he was under daily contact with the FTC. It

is also true that there are about 30 infomercials that he

asked the FTC about after Natural Cures came out. Not one of

those was The Weight Loss Cure infomercial. And he never gave

the FTC The Weight Loss Cures book. Simply put, there is no

evidence that the defendant was trying to comply with the

order.

With respect to the definite statement in the

sentencing memo that the FTC didn't act for a year and a half

and that that is somehow a mitigating factor, first of all,

the book wasn't published until January of 2007. In the

Seventh Circuit opinion, it states that the defendant did not

give the FTC a copy of the order until March of 2007. The FTC

filed its contempt motion in September of that year. So, at

most, the FTC had six months to act in this case. Now, how

six months on the cold hard facts goes to a year and a half in

the defendant's sentencing memorandum I do not know. But the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

fact of the matter is that that is a reasonable amount of time

for the government to analyze a case and to act. It is not a

mitigating factor that the FTC did not act sooner here and

certainly not for a year and a half.

The defendant's sentencing memo also mentions his

personal experiences, and we've discussed that in our

sentencing memo. The e-mail traffic clearly shows that the

defendant did not have any personal experiences to share when

he decided to create an infomercial. He did not have any

personal experiences to share when he decided to create a

book. He did not go to Germany to try The Weight Loss Cure

until after both of those things were planned. So it's not a

matter of him getting excited about something he had

experienced himself. It was a matter of him deciding he

wanted to make money and then trying to figure out a way to do

it.

With respect to ITV's lawyers, the defense says in

their sentencing memo that it is clear that the defendant

relied upon the ITV lawyers when deciding he could do this.

Well, first of all, there is no evidence that the ITV lawyers

had the defendant's book and that they were judging the book

and the infomercials to see that they were in compliance with

the order.

If there was to be evidence presented on this matter,

the government could show, first of all, that at the time of




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41

the infomercials, ITV was being sued for deceptive acts and

false advertisements by the FTC.

Secondly, that in 2002, the defendant sued Donald

Barrett, the president and founder of ITV, for failing to

submit an infomercial for legal review before airing it.

Thirdly, that ITV's lawyer at the time had been

practicing law for approximately two years, which is in stark

contrast to the defendant's own lawyers who he had from Jenner

& Block and who Judge Gettleman told them -- him to rely on

before he did anything with any infomercials.

Additionally, ITV did not have the book at all until

December after the infomercial started airing. And the

defendant didn't speak to his own lawyers about this until

after the infomercial started airing.

So once again, whenever you look below the surface of

this argument that the defendant relied upon ITV's lawyers,

there's simply nothing to it.

Mr. Krickbaum spoke earlier to this idea that's in

the defendant's sentencing memo that the defendant's ideas are

unconventional but not harmful. And you will see from

Mr. Bowden and his family's letters, that is not true either.

In some cases the ideas are harmful and people are hurt by

this type of advertising and these comments about what people

should be doing and how they should be living their lives.

As we set forth in our own sentencing memo, the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

defendant has engaged in numerous fraud schemes dating back to

1984. His two fraud convictions have not deterred him.

Multiple civil settlements in multiple courts have not

deterred him. Millions of dollars in consumer remediation

payments have not deterred him. And numerous civil contempt

findings have not deterred him. Everything about the

defendant's past and present speaks to the need for a lengthy

term of incarceration in order to deter him, deter others and

to protect the public.

With respect to the seriousness of the offense, the

evidence has shown, as laid out in our sentencing memo, that

the defendant was running the show at ITV; that he hoped to

make millions of dollars off of this particular infomercial

and book; and that he hoped to defraud millions of people.

The defendant at the time did not care about his lengthy

history with the courts or his promises that he had made to

this particular Court when he went forward.

And up until this very moment, Judge, the defendant

has refused to acknowledge his guilt in this matter. Now, his

letter speaks to a certain amount of remorse for the

consequences that all of this has brought him, but still he

has not acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

And, as I mentioned at the very beginning of this, he

is a repeat contemnor. Both before and after his conviction,

up until this very moment when he is in jail under a sanction




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

of contempt meant to purge him, he is a contemnor. He is a

habitual liar and a fraudster.

His sentencing papers contain even more lies about

who he is as a person and what his crime entails.

And for those reason, we are asking that your Honor

set as a base, a floor, a sentence of ten years imprisonment.

And certainly a sentence of far over ten years would be

reasonable in a case of this nature.

If the Court has any questions, I'm happy to answer

them. But, otherwise, the government would rest on its

papers.

THE COURT: My question is, why are you suggesting a

sentence below the guideline range?

MS. PERRY: Judge, we do feel in this case that a

$37.6 million loss is incredibly high, considering that there

are some people who appreciated the book. However, we do

think a sentence within the guidelines range would be

reasonable as well. But to the extent that your Honor feels

that the $1.4 million loss amount would be more appropriate,

we certainly would not say that is unreasonable.

THE COURT: Well, we're talking now about the 3553

factors. And my question to you is: To what extent does your

request for a below-guideline sentence take into account the

effect that the defendant's conduct has had on the respect of

the public in general for our system of justice?




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

MS. PERRY: Judge, if it was purely a matter of the

respect for the justice system, I think, as we've seen today,

a guideline sentence would be appropriate. There are a number

of 3553(a) factors that are appropriate to consider however.

And one of those is the seriousness of the offense. And given

that we do not have people who have been defrauded to the tune

of their life savings, as you often have in large fraud cases,

that is largely what we were considering.

But your Honor is certainly correct that the

defendant has shown as much contempt for the justice system as

probably anyone in any contempt case that is out there.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: Defense.

MR. KIRSCH: Thank you, your Honor.

Your Honor, I'm going to make some comments in

response to what Ms. Perry said. And then Ms. Gurland is

going to come and address our 3553 factors.

Your Honor, in its papers that it's filed -- I'm --

in its papers that the government filed, your Honor, they're

suggesting that a ten-year sentence is appropriate for

somebody who violated a court order. That's what Trudeau is

accused of doing, and that's what the jury found he did; he

violated a court order.

He wrote a book, which he's entitled to do. The




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees

every citizen the opportunity to write whatever they want.

There's no dispute about that, although that's been clouded

today. But he can write a book.

He then misrepresented the contents of the book in an

infomercial after Judge Gettleman not -- told him not to do

that; I'm going to talk a little bit about Judge Gettleman

today. And for that the government in its papers suggests

that a ten-year sentence would be appropriate.

Your Honor, the government's recommendation for a

ten-year sentence is based upon the assumption that's repeated

throughout its sentencing memo that most -- the vast majority

of the people who had bought the book were victims or, as the

government describes them in their sentencing memo -- and I

suspect that people in this room would probably disagree --

but the government describes them in their sentencing memo

as -- people who bought the books -- in their conclusion, as

vulnerable and unsophisticated.

The government argues that 850,000 vulnerable and

unsophisticated people bought the book simply because Trudeau

misrepresented the contents of the book in an infomercial.

And, your Honor, I'm not rearguing the guidelines. I accept

the Court's ruling on that. However, I note that the Court

ruled that an extremely small percentage of the people that

bought the book were for a reason other than the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

misrepresentation. And, your Honor, with that I must

respectfully disagree. There's no proof of that. Zero. Zero

proof.

If you look at Mr. Trudeau's Natural Cures book,

which the government has in court with it today, on the front

of the book, it says, Over 15 million copies sold. I suspect,

your Honor, that it was more than an extremely small

percentage of people that bought The Weight Loss Cures book

because they had read the Natural Cures book. I suggest to

you that the vast majority of the people that bought the

Weight Loss Cures book, that buy these types of books in the

first place, are repeat customers. But we don't know that

because it's all just guesswork and assumptions.

The government has not come forward with -- they've

come forward with 60 victims or so out of 850,000. And for

that, they say the Court should -- the Court should sentence

him to ten years in prison.

And, by the way, your Honor, you asked about the

databases and things like that. This is one point that I

forgot and my client reminded me. Your Honor, the government

receiver has access to the databases. The government receiver

is the one that controls the databases. So he's got it.

THE COURT: I don't understand. You think the

government receiver had those letters sent?

MR. KIRSCH: No. But I'm saying the government




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

receiver certainly could have sent a letter out that said if

you feel you were victimized as a -- they had the burden of

proof -- okay -- not me. They could have sent a letter to the

database that they have. They know everybody that bought the

book. Every -- that's the whole premise of the FTC's

argument; they can reimburse 850,000 people $37 million

because they know them all. And if they did, they could have

sent them a letter and said, just -- just check yes or no,

were you a victim; yes or no. And then send 800,000 pieces --

they had the burden of proof. They didn't do it. They didn't

do it, Judge. They didn't. And that's got to count for

something.

Your Honor, a ten-year sentence -- the government

talked about this -- a ten-year sentence might be appropriate

for a defendant who destroyed lives financially. And I think

about a case, your Honor, where the -- you know, an individual

swindler who in -- who takes a hundred thousand dollars from

five individuals that may be their life savings and invests it

and financially ruins these individuals. Under the

guidelines, they would be looking at a loss of $500,000.

That's all that would matter. $500,000 of loss for destroying

the financial lives of five people. Trudeau, if he swindled

anybody, he swindled them out of $30. I suspect that if you

bought the book once and you didn't like it, you weren't

re-victimized by buying it again. So I suspect that the



48/91


49/91



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

call for in an amount of loss that severe. But, yet, Judge

Gettleman's order, your Honor, set a maximum of six months.

That's what Judge Gettleman said, a maximum of six months.

And, your Honor, Ms. Gurland is going to get up here

and she's going to talk about the 3553 factors. And then I

think -- I hope at least the Court is going to allow the

defendant to allocute to the Court. And I think he has some

things that he'd like to say.

But, your Honor, I just respectfully suggest that

given Judge Gettleman's familiarity with Trudeau over the past

11 years, or maybe it's even been longer, and his familiarity

with the facts of this case, I respectfully request that you

consider his order, your Honor, and that you not afford it the

same treatment as the government in its sentencing papers.

MS. GURLAND: Your Honor, I'd like to begin where

Mr. Kirsch left off.

But before -- before I do that, the government -- I

wanted to just read to the Court what the government's

position was in its filing -- in its 3553 filing and

sentencing filing in this case as to why a guideline sentence

might not be appropriate and why a lesser sentence would be

appropriate. And this is at Page 13 of the government's

filing. And they wrote, While 37 million is the proper

measure of loss under the guidelines, it may overstate the

seriousness of the offense, period. Among other things, the




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

guidelines are indifferent to whether defendant's crime caused

many victims to lose a relatively small amount of money, as

happened here, or whether defendant caused a smaller number of

victims to lose large sums, thereby causing those victims

catastrophic harm and perhaps even financial -- financial

ruin. Defendant's crimes did not cause such harm; and for

that and other reasons, the Court may choose to impose a

sentence below the advisory guideline range. And they went on

to ask for a minimum of ten years.

Your Honor, the law of sen

Documents

Trudeau Criminal Case Document 204 Sentencing 03-17-14 Filed 05-28-14