U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 19442 / October 24, 2005
Securities And Exchange Commission V. Learn Waterhouse, Inc.; Randall Treadwell; Rick D. Sluder; Larry C. Saturday; and Arnulfo M. Acosta, Civil Action No. 04-CV-2037W (LSP) (S.D.Cal.)
Federal Judge Finds Defendant Randall Treadwell in Civil Contempt of Court for the Second Time
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on October 17, 2005, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan in San Diego issued an order finding defendant Randall T. Treadwell, age 47, of Savannah, Georgia, to be in civil contempt. The court found that Treadwell violated the court's preliminary injunction orders enjoining him from future securities laws violations and freezing his assets by withdrawing funds from a bank account, offering and selling unregistered securities for an entity called The Diamond Development Group, LLP, and making false representations regarding Diamond Development. This is the second such civil contempt order issued by the court against Treadwell.
The court's latest civil contempt order provides that Treadwell must pay $43,037 to cover Treadwell's withdrawals from a bank account in violation of the court's asset freeze order, and that a bench warrant shall be issued for Treadwell if he does not pay those funds by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2005. In addition, the court's order provides that Treadwell will be remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal's Service if he fails to purge himself of contempt. The court further ordered that Treadwell's criminal bond issued in the case entitled United States of America v. Randall T. Treadwell, et al., Case No. 05CR1570, shall be modified to make compliance with the preliminary injunction orders a condition of his pretrial release based on the court's finding that Treadwell is a danger to the public by continuing to offer and sell unregistered securities.
In addition to the relief already obtained, the Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement and civil penalties from all of the defendants.
For further information, see Litigation Release Nos. 18932 (October 14, 2004), 18959 (November 4, 2004), 19059 (February 1, 2005), 19142 (March 17, 2005), 19384 (September 20, 2005), and 19412 (October 4, 2005).