I think you’d get a role if any movie comes of this.

Patrick

I’ll need to think about Michael Caine as Andy Bowdoin; I’m not seeing it right now.

Caine, though, always has been one of my faves.

Maybe William H. Macy for Bowdoin? They’d have to age him some, but I think he could pull it off.

Patrick

I don’t know about a film, but a book has been done before. Do a search for “Just numbers on a screen” by Owen Platt, it’s about the PIPS/Bryan Marsden scam from a few years back.

For the film, I like the idea of Michael Cain playing Bowdoin, with the ASD bus teetering on the edge of an Italian cliff. The ASD $90Mil (in gold) slowly sliding out the back of the bus, and Cain/Bowdoin says “Wait lads, I’ve got a good idea”. The Benny Hill-Computer genius character would obviously be played by that clown guy. “The Florida Job” – good title?

Even if they win, it will take seconds to get an emergency injunction from the proper judge to block ASD from accessing anything until proper hearings are held.

What are they thinking?

The prosecution said in the August complaint that it would file an amended complaint to describe the Myrtle Beach condo. It’s unclear why they haven’t done so — perhaps a strategic decision?

As far as venue, that part of the defense fairly leaped off the page. The timing of it struck me as odd. Perhaps it’s part of a strategy to open up an appeal route.

So far this case has featured commentary from ASD supporters that Bowdoin was too honest to testify at the evidentiary hearing, “conference calls” with Bowdoin invoking “Satan” and later selling a $19.95-a-month VOIP plan positioned as a “Thank you” and, finally, the entry of Curtis Richmond and this theories of sovereignty into the legal fray.

The scam.com folks say there is a book and a movie in all of this: They may be right.

Take care, Lynn.

Patrick

So if the judge does not have jurisdiction to issue her ruling in the Evidentiary hearing, then how does the judge have jurisdiction to hear this filing and make a ruling?

Today’s ASD filing was a bit confusing. My guess is that the venue argument ultimately won’t fly because agents made purchases via the Internet from Washington, D.C. The prosecution is sure to have an answer to the jurisdiction question and might reasonably wonder why it was raised after the evidentiary hearing, which was held in Washington. Jurisdiction theoretically could become fodder for an appeal if things don’t go ASD’s way. The same is true of the Constitutional issues.

Nearly a month has passed since Judge Collyer made her ruling in the evidentiary hearing. One way to look at that is that the prosecution and defense haven’t worked out a deal, which means the legal bills will continue to mount.

Andy Bowdoin also has the RICO prospective class-action lawsuit to worry about, along with the lawsuit by the Florida attorney general, and the prospect of a criminal indictment by the Feds. So, he’s under attack on at least three civil fronts now, with the possibility of an attack on the criminal front.

It’s unclear how the Feds will respond to today’s ASD filings. Regardless, they have significant leverage, including the filing of an amended complaint.

Thanks for the note, Marci. The year certainly is going on with a bang on the alleged Ponzi front, with the charges against Bernard Madoff.

One big difference I’ve noticed between the ASD case and the Madoff case is that Madoff defenders are in short supply. I haven’t read any strange rationalizations for his conduct or any assertions that what he did was OK because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

There is some government resentment in the Madoff case, but it’s unlike the government resentment in the ASD case. In the Madoof case, people are complaining that the government missed signs and failed to take action before the Ponzi mushroomed. In the ASD case, some people are complaining that the government caused the pain by taking action.

Take care, Marci. Thanks for the note.

Patrick