IML & the Terrys plead the 5th in FTC civil case
Instead of complying with a court ordered preliminary injunction, Iyovia and co-owners Chris and Isis Terry have pled the fifth.
The pleading was part of a January 12th already overdue answer on why Iyovia and the Terrys should not be held in contempt.
Defendants INTERNATIONAL MARKETS LIVE INC. (“IML”), IM MASTERY ACADEMY LTD., ASSIDUOUS, INC., CHRISTOPHER TERRY, and ISIS TERRY hereby respectfully submit this Notice of their … assertion of their 5th Amendment Constitutional right with respect thereto.
The FTC filed its blunt response to the pleading on January 16th;
The Court’s August 18, 2025 preliminary injunction order required Defendants Christopher and Isis Terry (“the Terrys”), International Markets Live, Inc., Assiduous, Inc., and IM Mastery Academy, Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”) to provide financial and foreign asset disclosures to Plaintiffs and the then-Monitor/now-Receiver by August 26, 2025.
Nearly five months later, and after the Court issued a modified preliminary injunction (“PI”) requiring Defendants to produce complete financial disclosures by a date certain (November 7, 2025), Defendants have yet to comply with this Court’s orders.
The financial disclosures that Defendants have produced are materially incomplete, and the significant deficiencies hinder Plaintiffs’ and the Court-appointed Receiver’s ability to locate and marshal Defendants’ assets.
Plaintiffs have therefore moved for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for their failure to provide complete and accurate financial disclosures.
Upon Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs agreed to a one-week extension for Defendants to file an opposition, which the Court
granted.Instead of using the additional time either to bring themselves into compliance or to oppose the Motion on the merits, Defendants filed a cursory “Notice of Opposition” and eleventh-hour “Assertion of 5th Amendment by Individual Defendants”, in which the Terrys—for the first time—invoke their “Fifth Amendment Constitutional right with respect” to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Defendants’ vague and belated invocation of the Fifth Amendment is improper.
Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not excuse the corporate Defendants’ failure to provide complete financial disclosures, and Defendants provide absolutely no rationale for the corporate Defendants’ continued noncompliance.
The Court should therefore grant Plaintiffs’ Motion.
The court has yet to issue a ruling on the FTC’s contempt motion.
In the meantime the Terrys attempting to plead the fifth is kind of interesting. Obviously we can’t confirm criminal activity but clearly the Terrys belief disclosing their finances to the FTC might open up criminal liability.
Again we can’t confirm anything but wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion and/or money laundering come to mind.
Pending further updates from the court, stay tuned.
While I firmly believe the Terry’s are fraudulent scumbags. The FTC’s ability to compel disclosure of information that can then be used against them in a possible subsequent criminal preceding is constitutionally problematic.
Move the case to a criminal court and let’s get a criminal finding. The Gov’t will not because the burden of proof shifts dramatically in the defendants favor.
Again.. I believe The Terry’s are frauds and illegally took money, so lets charge them in criminal court.
A criminal case requires criminal charges, you can’t just shift an FTC case to “a criminal court”. I wouldn’t be surprised if criminal charges are filed at some point. We are also in a “crime is legal” era so who knows.
The FTC did make an argument that pleading the fifth is an option but doing so at the eleventh hour this far into the case isn’t valid. Up to the court to decide.
I know they cant shift an FTC civil case to criminal court. However, the ftc could call their bluff and refer them to the doj for real prosecution (did the commit a crime(s) or not)? I think we agree that YES they did.
The gov’t argument that invoking the 5th at this late hour is not valid is not supported by 250 yrs of US law. as 1 of the first 10 fundamental amendments making up the Bill Of Rights, there is no time constraints on the invocation thereof.
But the court could find the terry’s, by giving the information they have already turned over have de facto waived that right. WE will see. It is a fascinating case study either way.