UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KEVIN TRUDEAU, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 03-C-3904 

HON. ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN 

KEVIN TRUDEAU’S MOTION TO CONTINUE 

COERCIVE INCARCERATION HEARING 

Kevin Trudeau respectfully moves this Court to continue for 30 days the portion of the 

December 15, 2022, hearing that is intended to address whether to resume his coercive 

incarceration because that inquiry is no longer needed. Trudeau is willing and able to pay whatever 

amount that the Court determines he owes, if any, pursuant to the Consumer Redress Plan. As 

explained below, however, uncertainty exists regarding the amount owed by Trudeau under the 

Consumer Redress Plan. Contrary to the FTC’s apparent misunderstanding, there is no outstanding 

$37 million fine that Trudeau must satisfy by turning over every dollar he earns from now until 

that debt is satisfied. Moreover, no need exists to coerce Trudeau to do anything; he simply needs 

to know what, if anything, he still owes before commencing his payments. That is all Trudeau has 

been trying to determine since even before his release from prison, as he wrote to this Court in 

January 2020: “I wish to obey all your orders without hesitation going forward.” Doc. #970 at 1. 

Background 

Following remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit directing 

this Court to explain the monetary sanction imposed after this Court found Trudeau in contempt 

of court, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #335) addressing the issues 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:19573
2 

raised by the court of appeals. The Court explained that the sanction awarded against Trudeau in 

the amount of $37,616,161 reflected a reasonable estimate of loss suffered by consumers who 

purchased Trudeau’s Weight Loss Cure book. The Court accepted the FTC’s calculation that 

$37,616,171 represented direct customer sales revenues less returns. The Court rejected Trudeau’s 

argument that any sanction should be limited to disgorgement of the lesser amount he actually 

received.1 The Court, however, confirmed its earlier rulings that the $37,616,161 sanction was not 

a fine payable to the FTC, stating that the FTC:

is confident that it can distribute the $37.6 million to most all of the victims of 

Trudeau’s fraudulent conduct. To the extent that any of these consumers cannot be 

found or reimbursed, the FTC has proposed to refund the excess left over after 

deducting Trudeau’s profits and costs of administration to Trudeau. In the exercise 

of its discretion the court declines to reduce any refund to Trudeau by the amount 

of his profits from the sale of Weight Loss Cure book, because those profits might 

be subsumed in the award of consumer loss. Given the history of this case and his 

willful misconduct, Trudeau can ask for no more.

Id. at 12.

As an attachment to its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 16, 2010, the Court 

entered a Supplemental Order Modifying the Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction and 

Awarding Monetary Relief as to Defendant Kevin Trudeau. Id. at 19. Among other things, this 

Supplemental Order directed Trudeau to pay $37,616,161 to the FTC to fund consumer redress. 

The Supplemental Order provided that:

 

1

 Trudeau sold the right to market his Weight Loss Cure book to an entity, not affiliated with 

Trudeau, known as ITV Global, Inc. (“ITV”). Although Trudeau was entitled to receive a royalty 

on the sales, he did not receive the expected royalty because the FTC obtained a separate judgment 

in the amount of $37,616,116 against ITV and its affiliated entities on November 16, 2012. See

FTC v. Direct Marketing Concepts Inc., Civ. No. 07-11870 (D. Mass.), Doc. #62. The 

Massachusetts district court directed the defendants in that case to pay $37,616,161 to the FTC for 

the purpose of administering a plan to redress consumers who purchased Trudeau’s Weight Loss 

Cure book. To our knowledge, the FTC has not provided an accounting to this Court or to the 

Massachusetts court regarding the redress plan ordered by the Massachusetts court. 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:19574
3 

[t]he FTC shall use its best efforts to use this fund to reimburse all consumers who 

bought the Weight Loss Cure book over the 800-telephone number displayed in the 

infomercials for the cost of the book along with shipping and handling charges 

associated with that book. Any funds remaining after such reimbursement to 

consumers, less taxable costs and other costs of disbursement approved by the 

court, shall be returned to Trudeau within 30 days of final court approval. 

Id. at 32 (emphasis added).

 The Court then again explained:

Moreover, the FTC’s motion to hold Trudeau in contempt in no way seeks to protect 

its own pecuniary interests. In the event that Trudeau is ultimately forced to pay the 

sanction, the FTC receives that money solely to effect a remedial plan to repay the 

consumers Trudeau willfully defrauded. Any money not repaid to consumers reverts 

back to Trudeau. Thus, the FTC has no pecuniary interest at stake. 

Doc. #649 at 6 (emphasis added).

On August 7, 2013, this Court entered an Order Appointing Receiver and Implementing 

Ancillary Relief. See Doc. #742. The Court explained that it was creating a receivership “to offer 

Trudeau a final opportunity to avoid coercive incarceration as a contempt sanction.” Id. at 1. The 

Court appointed Robb Evans & Associates LLC as the Receiver over Trudeau’s assets. The Court 

directed Trudeau and any “Trudeau Entity” to turn over all assets to the Receiver. Id. at 11. 

On July 2015, the FTC submitted a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Approval 

of Partial Victim Redress Plan. See Doc. 892-1. Exhibit C to the Motion described the Partial 

Victim Redress Plan (the “Plan”). See Doc. 892-2 at 68. The Plan proposed that each consumer 

receive a “full refund” of $29.42, representing the purchase price of the Weight Loss Cure book. 

The Plan specifically called for two distributions to consumers who purchased the book. Each such 

distribution is followed by a “final account reconciliation” prepared by Analytics Consulting LLC 

(the “Administrator”), the firm retained by the FTC to administer the Plan. Id. at 74. 

Under the Plan, consumers who do not cash their distribution checks within sixty (60) days 

are deemed to have “forfeited” their shares of the redress fund. Id. Any remaining non-forfeiting 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:19575
4 

consumers are entitled to receive a second distribution. Id. The Plan required the Administrator to 

prepare an account reconciliation report showing the amount of funds remaining in the account 

and to hold the remaining funds in an interest-bearing account. Id. at 75. The Court approved the 

FTC’s Plan.

 On February 11, 2016, the FTC filed a Status Report Regarding Redress. See Doc. #949. 

The FTC reported that there were 1,269,570 purchasers of the Weight Loss Cure book and 

promised that “in 30 days, the FTC will redress these victims.” Id. On February 23, 2016, after the 

Receiver reported that it had conducted a forensic accounting of Trudeau’s assets and a global 

asset search, this Court entered an Order granting the Receiver’s motion for a final accounting, 

authorizing the Receiver to make a final distribution to the FTC, and discharging the Receiver. 

See Doc. #952. 

Following Trudeau’s release from a federal penitentiary in January 2022, he asked the FTC 

to provide him with a status of the Remediation Plan and the balance of any undistributed funds. 

See Doc. #977 at Ex. B. Eight months later, in September 2022, the FTC finally gave Trudeau an 

accounting that shows $417,912 remains in the Consumer Redress Fund. Id. at Ex. C. Because the 

remaining 514,306 eligible consumers would only net 32₵ each from another round of

distributions, Trudeau suggested that any further distribution is “likely futile.” Id. at 13. On the 

other hand, recognizing that the eligible consumers would not be fully refunded unless they each 

receive an additional $20.29, Trudeau acknowledged that this remaining redress obligation could 

be as high as $10,435,268. Id. at 14. 

Accordingly, on November 8, 2022, Trudeau moved the Court “for a determination of 

whether the FTC should return the undistributed current balance of $417,912 to Mr. Trudeau 

pursuant to this Court’s order that ‘[a]ny funds remaining after such reimbursement to consumers, 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:19576
5 

less taxable costs and other costs of disbursement approved by the court, shall be returned to 

Trudeau within 30 days of final court approval’” or, in the alternative, determine “the remaining 

amount owed and [a] repayment plan that allows him to earn a living.” Id. at ¶ 15 (quoting Doc. 

#335, at 32). Trudeau emphatically reiterated to the FTC during his recent December 9 deposition 

that he wants to and can immediately begin paying down any redress debt that he is found to owe. 

See Ex. A at 33:4-6, 11-13; 66:8-9; 81:18-20; 82:1-3; 132:9; 220:2-6; 221:18; 222:19; 236:1-2; 

237:10-12. To date, however, neither the Court nor the FTC have told Trudeau what, if anything, 

he still owes under the Remediation Plan. 

Argument 

The purpose of coercive confinement is to force an individual to comply with a court’s 

orders. See United States v. Lippitt, 180 F.3d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 1999) (affirming order that held 

defendant “in contempt of Court until he makes good faith efforts to assign that real estate [to the 

government]”). Civil contempt sanctions are “penalties designed to compel future compliance with 

a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience.” Int’l Union, United 

Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827, 838 (1994) (vacating contempt conviction). 

Civil contempt cannot be applied to punish the alleged contemnor. Civil contempt can only be 

imposed when the contemnor “carr[ies] the keys to his prison in his own pocket.” Gompers v. 

Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1991) (vacating criminal contempt findings in a 

civil case where the proceeding “ended with the settlement of the main cause of which it is a part” 

and “the only remedial relief possible was a fine, payable to the complainant”); see also Shillitani 

v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966) (“[T]he justification for coercive imprisonment as 

applied to civil contempt depends upon the ability of the contemnor to comply with the court’s 

order.”). Against this legal background, coercive incarceration is not proper here. 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:19577
6 

Trudeau never received $37 million from the offending infomercial and he does not 

presently have sufficient assets to satisfy the FTC’s financial demands. A significant portion, if 

not the majority, of the Consumer Redress Plan has been satisfied. Moreover, Trudeau has 

substantial earning power that can satisfy any remaining debt owed under the Consumer Redress 

Plan in a relatively short amount of time. Trudeau is ready and able to employ his earning power 

to satisfy any remaining consumer redress debt he may be found to owe. No need exists to coerce 

Trudeau to do anything. Coercive confinement will only interfere with his ability to satisfy any 

remaining amount owed under the Consumer Redress Plan. 

The purpose of the consumer redress Order is to reimburse eligible consumers, not to 

punish Trudeau. If a third round of consumer refund payments is futile, given how little each 

remaining eligible consumer will net (32₵ each), then there are no more consumers to reimburse,

Trudeau has fulfilled his obligations, and the undistributed balance “shall be returned to Mr. 

Trudeau within 30 days of final court approval.” Doc. #335 at 32. But if the Court finds that 

Trudeau’s redress obligation is unsatisfied, then he will begin paying it forthwith. What the Court 

should not countenance, however, is the FTC’s continued cries for Trudeau’s coercive 

incarceration while it also rejects Trudeau’s efforts to pay whatever he may owe and refuses to 

state how much he owes. This “Catch 22” pattern, which dates back to the FTC’s refusal to cash 

two checks from Trudeau totaling $53,951.41, impermissibly denies Trudeau the chance to 

“purge” himself of any purported contempt. See Ex. B. 

Because Trudeau is out of jail and gainfully employed, he is not only willing but also able 

to immediately begin paying down whatever redress debt the Court may determine that he owes. 

In fact, using only legitimate sources of funds (e.g., employment earnings, donations from 

supporters, loans from friends and business colleagues), Trudeau can commit to paying down even 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:19578
7 

as high a debt as $10 million within two years. To further demonstrate his determination to comply 

with any finding that he still carries a redress obligation, Trudeau will begin paying down that 

obligation by depositing a $50,000 check into the Court’s Registry as soon as the Court permits 

him to do so. See Ex. C; see also LR 67.1. Moreover, Trudeau will work with the FTC to submit 

a plan for the Court’s approval, inclusive as necessary of third-party monitoring and auditing, that 

will assure the legitimacy of (a) the funds Trudeau raises to pay down whatever redress debt he 

may be found to still owe; and (b) the resources that Trudeau uses to support himself while he pays 

any remaining redress obligation. 

Conclusion 

There is no legal justification for coercively incarcerating Trudeau to do what he is ready, 

willing, and able to do voluntarily. Nor does it make good sense to incarcerate Trudeau because 

his fundraising and earning capacities are far greater if he remains free to work off any debt he 

may be found to still owe the relevant consumers. And so, for all the foregoing reasons, the Court 

should enter an Order that (a) determines what consumer redress amount, if any, Trudeau still 

owes; (b) continues for 30 days the portion of the December 15, 2022, hearing that is intended to 

address whether to resume Trudeau’s coercive incarceration so that the parties can prepare as 

necessary a repayment plan with appropriate monitoring and verification procedures for the 

Court’s approval; (c) grants Trudeau’s request to use the Court’s Registry as a repository into 

which he can pay whatever sum he may be found to owe the remaining eligible consumers; and 

(d) grants Trudeau any further relief that the Court deems proper. 

 

Dated: December 12, 2022 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:19579
8 

Respectfully submitted, 

KEVIN TRUDEAU 

By: /s/ Giel Stein

Giel Stein 

Nicole Prefontaine 

Clark Hill PLC 

130 E. Randolph Street, Suite 3900 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Telephone: (312) 985-5900 

Facsimile: (312) 985-5999

gstein@clarkhill.com

nprefontaine@clarkill.com

Kimball R. Anderson

Winston & Strawn LLP

35 W. Wacker Drive

Suite 4100 

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 558-5858

kanderson@winston.com

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:19580
9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jonathan Lippner, an attorney, certify that I served the foregoing KEVIN TRUDEAU’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE COERCIVE INCARCERATION HEARING on all parties of record 

via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. 

/s/ Jonathan Lippner 

Jonathan Lippner 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:19581
Exhibit A 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:19582
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:19583
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:19584
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:19585
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:19586
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:19587
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:19588
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:19589
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:19590
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:19591
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:19592
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:19593
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:19594
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:19595
Exhibit B 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:19596
The Law Offices of

MARC J. LANE

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

180 North LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60601-2701

(312) 372-1040

(800) 372-1040

Fax (312) 346-1040

www.MarcJLane.com

October 19, 2012

Via UPS Delivery and E-mail: mmora@ftc.gov and DEBrief@ftc.gov

Associate Director, Division of Enforcement

Federal Trade Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite NJ-2122

Washington, DC 20001

Attention: Mr. Michael Mora

RE: FTC v. Kevin Trudeau, Civil Action No. 03-C-3904

Dear Mr. Mora:

I am writing to follow up on the payments that Kevin Trudeau has made toward the

monetary sanction that was imposed in the above-styled matter (the "Judgment").

On Mr. Trudeau's behalf, we tendered a payment of $35,105 on September 21, 2012, and

a payment of $18,846.41 on October 10, 2012. As clearly indicated in my letters of transmittal,

the payments are to be applied against the Judgment. Mr. Trudeau never indicated, nor did he

ever intend, that his payments are to be contingent on the FTC's acceptance of his proposal to

reduce the amount held in the escrow account.

The FTC is obligated under the Order to use its best efforts to use the funds to reimburse

consumers. Please describe the FTC's plan and procedure for reimbursing consumers,

including when the FTC intends to distribute the funds, which consumers will be reimbursed

first, and the amount of administrative costs that are to be incurred.

Thank you for your immediate attention to these matters.

Very truly yours,

MARC J. LANE

MJL:eap

MARC J. LANE

WEALT H

CROU P

F:\Law Offices\Clients\Trudeau, Kevin\FTC\2012 Letters\FTCJudgment_10.19.12.LTR.doc

Marc J. Lane Wealth Group describes separate, but affiliated firms including The Law Offices of Marc |. Lane, a Professional Corporation, a professional

service corporation registered to practice law in the state of Illinois; Marc ). Lane Investment Management, Inc., an SEC-registered investment advisor;

Marc ). Lane & Company, a registered broker-dealer and SIPC member; and Marc J. Lane Risk Management, Inc., an Illinois licensed insurance agency.

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:19597
Exhibit C 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:19598
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 997 Filed: 12/12/22 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:19599