On January 30th Chris and Isis Terry filed an ex-parte motion seeking a stay on FTC proceedings against them.

On February 3rd, the FTC filed its opposition, confirming it hadn’t been briefed on the motion’s contents;

As Defendants’ have filed their motions ex parte, Plaintiffs do not know what arguments, authority or evidence Defendants have submitted.

Operating somewhat blind, the FTC nonetheless speculated the Terrys’ ex-parte motion

may seek a stay from this Court due to a criminal matter involving Defendants.

I had considered the death of one of the Terrys but typically when that happens we see a Notice of Death – there’s no need for secrecy.

I’m also at a loss why criminal proceedings need to be kept under wraps. The DOJ keeps proceedings secret till arrests are made but what reasoning do defendants have?

If there are pending iMarketsLive criminal proceedings (which given the $1 billion plus in fraud scope wouldn’t at all be surprising), details are going to be made public eventually.

Either way, the FTC noted;

Without access to Defendants’ ex parte filings, Plaintiffs cannot provide the Court with an informed response to Defendants’ motion to stay.

Plaintiffs cannot provide the Court with the benefit of their argument on factors such as the burden which any particular
aspect of the proceedings may impose on Defendants (second factor) or the public’s interest in any ongoing or potential criminal proceedings (fifth factor).

In addition, Plaintiffs cannot weigh in on the propriety of the length of the stay Defendants are seeking because they do not know the length of the stay sought.

On February 4th, the Terrys filed their response to the FTC’s opposition;

The Court should disregard Plaintiffs’ Response to the Ex Parte Motion to Stay as it sets forth nothing but speculation.

Bit rich to hide information from the FTC and then accuse them of speculation when they try to respond, but I digress.

Again, due to the highly confidential nature of this matter, and for the reasons set forth in the Affidavit of George Kelesis, attached as Exhibit 1 (FILED UNDER SEAL) to the Ex Parte Motion to Stay, Defendants respectfully request that this matter be stayed pending further order of this Court, with periodic status reports to be due at frequencies deemed appropriate
by the Court.

George Kelesis is Chris Terry’s attorney. Last month the FTC alleged Terry transferred a luxury car to Kelesis, potentially implicating him in Terry’s unlawful dissipation of assets.

Later the same day the Terrys filed an emergency motion, once again requesting the FTC’s case against them be stayed.

The motion once again failed to disclose the reasoning for the requested stay;

In accordance with LR 7-4, this matter constitutes an “emergency” for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 7 of the Affidavit of George Kelesis, attached as Exhibit 1 (FILED UNDER SEAL) to Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to Stay

Later the same day still, on February 4th, the court ordered the FTC’s case against the Terrys stayed.

In light of the need to resolve the defendants’ ex parte motion to stay proceedings, I find a brief stay of the deadlines is warranted.

The granted stays in question pertain to the Terrys response to the FTC’s pending contempt proceedings, and an answer to the FTC’s January 27th Amended Complaint.

The Terrys had previously been given until February 11th respond to the FTC’s request they be coercively incarcerated till their contempt was cured.

As of February 7th, a decision on the Terrys request the entire FTC case against them be stayed remains pending.