Friday, February 12, 2010
Media / News Bites Should We Feel Sorry for Kevin Trudeau?
Posted by Michael Miner on 02.12.10 at 01:47 PM
A federal judge just threw the book at Kevin Trudeau after Trudeau threw the Internet at the judge.
This AP story explains that Judge Robert Gettleman held the notorious TV pitchman in criminal contempt of court after what must have been many thousands of emails from Trudeau's supporters jammed not only the judge's computer but his BlackBerry.
Trudeau had asked for the show of support on his Web site. Supporters were given the judge's email address and told, "Kevin needs your voice." But after Gettleman hauled him into court Thursday, told him he'd have to post a $50,000 bond and surrender his passport, and warned that next week he'll probably fine him and send him to jail, Trudeau apologized on his Web site and advised his supporters to leave the judge alone.
Gettleman has been overseeing Trudeau's running battle with the Federal Trade Commission for several years. Three years ago the judge held Trudeau in civil contempt for false claims in one of Trudeau's umpteen books, The Weight Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About. Then, Gettleman fined him $37.6 million and banned him from doing infomercials for three years. But an appeals court told the judge to reconsider the fine and ban, and that's what's been going on lately.
The deluge of emails wasn't likely to persuade the judge that any of Trudeau's claims are true. But it did demonstrate that multitudes think they're true — and in the perplexing realm of medicine, faith in the medicine and faith in the healer are known to count for something. Nonetheless, Gettleman wasn't impressed, certainly not once his computer crashed. He accused Trudeau of trying to "harass the court." This excellent Tribune account suggests the email can be regarded as inappropriate "ex-parte communication" between one party in a case and the judge.
A week ago I wrote on this blog about friends of Nicole Hollander coming to her support by sending emails to Chicago Tribune editors asking them not to drop Hollander's comic strip, Sylvia. An important difference between that and this is that the 200 or so emails the Tribune received from Sylvia's fans are a drop in the bucket compared to the inundation from Trudeau's fans. Another important difference is that the Tribune editors could show their disdain by replying with boiler plate and dropping Sylvia anyway, but they could not express it by threatening Hollander with a fine and incarceration.
The AP story I cite above describes Gettleman as "calm" and "soft-spoken." The Tribune story describes him as "normally mild-mannered." He sounds to me like a guy in a line of work that hasn't come to terms with digital communication but who thinks he can gavel it down. What are judges to do with defendants who have a lot of friends when those friends presume to speak up?
There was a famous earlier case, recounted in the novel and movie Miracle on 34th Street. A pleasant old man named Kris Kringle was on trial for insanity and he was close to being sent to the funny farm. But at the last minute the Post Office decided that the millions of undelivered letters from little kids to Santa Claus might as well be forwarded to Kringle, because that's who he claimed to be, and bale after bale was dumped on the courthouse floor.
It was an outrageous intrusion of ex-parte communication, all of it delusional, and the judge would have been within his rights to issue citations all around. But Kringle was peddling happiness, not snake oil, and the judge not only forgave the disruption but ruled in Kringle's favor.
Aside from this one precedent, Gettleman, so far as I know, was in uncharted legal waters.
Comments (7)
Showing 1-7 of 7
Let's not limit this to the judiciary. Government in all its branches deeply resents public intrusion--as well as the public itself. In one of William Greider's books he noted that congressmen and senators shared, right across party lines, an almost seething contempt for the people they were supposed to be humbly representing. Trips to home states and districts were dreaded events, to be held to an absolute minimum (except in the unlikely event that a congressman faced a credible primary or re-election challenge).
Who was it who said that if the public was dissatisfied with their government, government would just have to elect a new people?
like
dislike
Is this your last blog entry? News Bites is no longer listed under Blogs. Your blog was one of the go-to pages in my usualy morning scan of website. A pity....
No, Mike's not laying off the blog. We simply changed the rubrics in the drop-down menu under "blogs" to lead readers more transparently to subject matter that might interest them. (In this case "media.")
I don't think this is a reaction against public intrusion, but rather a reaction to a privately-induced attack on the judiciary.
It's no secret that flooding an email account with messages can crash a server. The courts use email for important judicial functions, including the electronic delivery of courtesy copies of important pleadings to judges and their staffs. This judge undoubtedly believed that Trudeau intentionally encouraged his supporters to send a high volume of email, and that Trudeau know or should have known that this would have a seriously adverse impact on the court's computer system.
This is different from rallying supporters to protest in person outside the courthouse (although as an analogy, were they to physically block access to the courthouse, the US Marshals would have cleared them out).
It's also different from the Miracle on 34th St., where it was the post office that decided to deliver a boatload of mail -- not to the judge, but to the defendant.
This was an apparently deliberate attempt to influence the judge with direct communications which had nothing to do with the facts of the case, but rather addressed the popularity of the defendant.
That is an interesting comparison, on the surface. But I see a difference. Those Santa letters were not addressed to the court but rather to Santa. The intent was to prove existence because Santa had an address that the U S Post office recognized. It was the introduction of evidence for a case. The intent was not to write the Judge directly.
Trudeau on the other hand asked his followers to write the judge in direct response to a pending appeal to a substantial fine sitting over Kevin's head, knowing full well the outcome, although I suspect he did not consider death threats as a part of the Trudeau magic. Too bad. Poor judgement. Maybe he's a little low on his clear thinking natural supplement. Maybe he is just delusional. I don't really care but I know I don't want judges bullied.
But still, an interesting conundrum you raise.
I see timhowe's point, but I don't know. Kevin Trudeau isn't much of a cause. But on the other hand, and on the whole, I think we could do with a good deal more crashing of our rulers' servers.
Kevin Trudeau steals millions from the lower class of this great country and nothing is done. If I steal a mans wallet all bets are ill do jail time. He keeps getting richer and keeps stealing every minute of every day. Bills people for products they refuse and wont stop billing even after many attempts. He should be serving life next to madoff!!!!
