Ramping Up The AdSurfDaily Insanity

UPDATED 11:41 A.M. EDT (March 12, U.S.A.) AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin, acting as his own attorney, acknowledged in court filings yesterday that the company had been operating illegally when the government seized tens of millions of dollars last summer.

The concession was nuclear. It undermines the work of his previous paid attorneys and puts Bowdoin in the position of having to explain previous representations given the court that are completely at odds with what he is saying now.

At the same time, it undermines self-filed pleadings Bowdoin entered into the record last week. Meanwhile, it undermines pleadings by others, including four people who told the court that they were permitted to enter into commercial contracts with whomever they pleased and for whatever commercial interest they pleased.

Bowdoin now has told the court that he was operating an illegal commercial enterprise, thus nuking the argument of Curtis Richmond and three others. Richmond, himself a pro se litigant, is linked to a sham Utah “Indian tribe” known for filing vexatious pleadings that make tortured legal constructions.

“Professor” Patrick Moriarty, an ASD mainstay, has advanced commercial theories similar to Richmond’s. Moriarty got nuked yesterday, too, only a few days after congratulating Bowdoin in a column for his excellent, pro-se pleadings.

Andy Bowdoin’s pleadings, though, are jeopardizing the freedom of members of his family, ASD insiders and top promoters, and strategic shills.

Yesterday, the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum celebrated the filings. The forum Mods appear not to have connected the dots that Bowdoin just nuked them. Some of the Mods and members set up a site to promote AdViewGlobal (AVG), which has close ties to ASD. Bowdoin nuked AVG yesterday, too.

Today Surf’s Up has banned at least one member for not carrying Bowdoin’s water bucket. The forum even has banned members who post unflattering opinions about Bowdoin or ASD on other forums.

The Mods can tell you until they’re blue in the face that Bowdoin’s filings were something to celebrate; the announcement, as always, came with exclamation points, both in the thread and in an email Surf’s Up members received.

But this was nothing to celebrate if you’re a top promoter, an insider or a strategic shill. And it certainly was nothing to celebrate  if you’re a rank-and-file member of ASD: Bowdoin just told you he ripped you off. His excuse was that the government didn’t give him fair notice that he was ripping you off.

Surf’s Up, which previously postioned Bowdoin as a genius, now is telling you his genius didn’t extend to the recognition of a Ponzi scheme and money-laundering operation. A Mod explained that Andy didn’t know he was ripping people off because the government never told him until after it seized the cash.

ASD advertised CEP Trust.

ASD advertised CEP Trust.

It is a steaming pile. ASD once advertised that it used CEP Trust, the failed payment processor run by the operators of the CEP Ponzi scheme. This Blog published a screen shot of ASD’s CEP pitch months ago, along with a screen shot of an ad that told the audience that ASD deposits were insured by the FDIC.

Bowdoin’s claims do not pass the giggle test — not that anybody is laughing at this point. There simply is no delight in unmasking these lies.

Claim that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured.

Claim that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured.

This Blog has refrained from calling Surf’s Up the “Loony Bin” as it is known elsewhere, and it has refrained from using the phrase “Kool-Aid drinkers,” except in cases such as quotations. We have used the word “crackpot” to describe “Surf’s Up.” It was the least-objectionable word we could think of to instill a sense of the madness taking place at Surf’s Up.

Despite everything that happened to ASD last summer, the insiders at AVG implemented a new surf and started collecting money. The operation has ASD’s fingerprints all over it, and the inescapable conclusion is that Bowdoin’s pleadings in the ASD case are setting the stage for the planned defense of AVG.

The operative word in the previous sentence is “planned.” Bowdoin and insiders got caught again. Now they are desperately trying to wiggle out of a prosecution against AVG by making the no “fair-notice” claim. It is utterly preposterous, and yet the Surf’s Up Mods serve it up daily.

AVG, by the way, is still online — despite Bowdoin’s concession to a federal judge and the prosecution that ASD was operating illegally.

They have taken no hints — including the RICO lawsuit filed by other ASD members in which Bowdoin, ASD Attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby were accused of racketeering. None of the principal defendants has filed a single piece of paperwork in the case — not after two months.

We believe it likely there are sealed criminal indictments in the ASD case. At the same time, we believe it probable that some ASD/AVG insiders know they are targets of a criminal probe.

And we believe it equally likely that Bowdoin and the insiders have shielded members from this knowledge, while using Surf’s Up to whip up support. If the Mods have insider’s knowledge they are at risk of indictment. Even a whiff of it is enough.

No AVG participant also in ASD, for example, will be able to claim they did not know the possible consequences of their actions as they pertained to AVG. And with George Harris, Bowdoin’s stepson; Gary Talbert, a former ASD executive; and Chuck Osmin, a former ASD employee who testified for ASD at the evidentiary hearing in the AVG lineup, there will be no credible way to claim ignorance. Nate Boyd, listed as the “Protector” of the AVG association, formerly was the head of compliance for ASD, members said.

Do not be surprised if you see the no “fair notice” argument ported over to AVG.

About the Author

16 Responses to “Ramping Up The AdSurfDaily Insanity”

  1. Again an excellent article.

      (Quote)

  2. Patrick:

    As always, point on with your comments. While I have not had time to thoroughly read Andy’s latest motion and cases he cited to support his motion, “Wiz” from another forum looked up two of them.

    I am paraphrasing here: One had to do with a ‘felon’ having 2 charges filed against him for illegally having a firearm. His complaint was the 2 charges carried different sentences, and it wasn’t fair. The second was an arrest of a California man of “loitering” and not being able to provide ‘viable’ indentification. What was truly interesting in this second case Andy cited is this person had received over a dozen previous citations for “loitering.” Guess he still didn’t understand what “loitering” meant. I guess this fits as Andy has 2 prior convictions for what he is now claiming he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal.

    Anyone get the idea that Andy is staging an insanity defense?

      (Quote)

  3. Bowdoin, Garner, Busby, Richmond, “Professor”, Loony Bin Mods, George Harris, Gary Talbert, Chuck Osmin to name a few.

    This cast of characters reminds me of the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

      (Quote)

  4. Patrick;

    Have I missed something? Has there been some legai action taken against AVG?

    You said, “…Bowdoin and insiders got caught again. Now they are desperately trying to wiggle out of a prosecution against AVG by making the no “fair-notice” claim.”…”, which sounds as if it’s happening now, not prospectively. Can you clarify?

      (Quote)

  5. Hi Pat,

    Pat Dunn: Have I missed something? Has there been some legai action taken against AVG?

    To the best of my knowledge, no. But the goings-on recently associated with AVG suggest the heat is on.

    AVG announced a private association Feb. 26 and said it was working with Pro Advocate Group, which advertises that it can help people practice law without a license.

    George Harris, Bowdoin’s stepson, is an AVG trustee. Property owned by Harris and his wife was seized in the December forfeiture complaint.

    One day prior to the AVG association being announced, Feb. 25, Andy Bowdoin started signing pro se legal filings.

    These filings very well could provide a glimpse into what will follow if formal action is taken against AVG.

    Regards,

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  6. Patrick,

    There is also the very real possibility that the AG is looking for the two-for-one, grand slam special. The release of the sealed grand jury information and any associated indictments may be beiung delayed as the agencies investigate AVG(A) and its players. It would not be a surprise if when the floodgates open, one of the prosecution elements will include repeated, concerted efforts at multiple instances of mail fraud, Ponzi operation, and money laundering. The multiple occurences would indicate a pattern, and if the same people are involved, multply their criminal liability as they would be serial offenders, vs. folks who just perpetrated ASD. Another possible angle is that the DoJ may well be interested in NOT providing victim relief to people who have joined both ASD and AVG(A). Their membership in both would greatly increase the likelihood that said member was a serial scam player, and so is part of the problem, as opposed to a one-time victim of ASD. That way, by excluding the serial scam players from the victim pool, the restitution to the real one-time victims could be closer to 100%.

    admin: These filings very well could provide a glimpse into what will follow if formal action is taken against AVG.Regards,Patrick

      (Quote)

  7. Hi Entertained,

    Entertained: There is also the very real possibility that the AG is looking for the two-for-one, grand slam special.

    You could be right about this; I wouldn’t rule out a four-for-one or even a five-for-one. The behavior of the so-called clone surfs was incredibly brazen and reckless.

    Entertained: Another possible angle is that the DoJ may well be interested in NOT providing victim relief to people who have joined both ASD and AVG(A). Their membership in both would greatly increase the likelihood that said member was a serial scam player, and so is part of the problem, as opposed to a one-time victim of ASD. That way, by excluding the serial scam players from the victim pool, the restitution to the real one-time victims could be closer to 100%.

    This is keen analysis, Entertained. How could the Surf’s Up Mods and members currently promoting AVG, for instance, ever hope to be viewed sympathetically by the government?

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  8. I find myself in the unusual position of differing with the wise Mr. Pretty. Perhaps not in conclusions but rather interpretation. Perchance I had the advantage of reading Mr. Bowdoin’s latest motion soon after enjoying a fine roast beef sandwich but I think any admission of criminal activity of ASD is part of what I’m sure was hoped to be a brilliant legal strategy and not a legitimate confession of guilt.

    Observe the context and please note the reappearance of the term “quasi-criminal”. In his previous pro sey motions Andy seems to be hitching his wagon to the idea that the In Rem civil forfeiture was legally flawed because they were applying a criminal remedy to a civil complaint. If I had packets of Arby’s and Horsey sauce handy it would be easier explain the reasoning here but someone over at Pro Advocates has convinced Andy that if he could be convicted of a criminal offense then that would invalidate the civil forfeitures on procedural grounds and if the civil complaints were summarily dismissed then that would invalidate the criminal charges.

    Cogito Ergo Scam, the AG will win Andy’s case for him, if not in a court of law then at least the the court of private member association opinion.

      (Quote)

  9. GlimDropper: I find myself in the unusual position of differing with the wise Mr. Pretty. Perhaps not in conclusions but rather interpretation. Perchance I had the advantage of reading Mr. Bowdoin’s latest motion soon after enjoying a fine roast beef sandwich but I think any admission of criminal activity of ASD is part of what I’m sure was hoped to be a brilliant legal strategy and not a legitimate confession of guilt. Observe the context and please note the reappearance of the term “quasi-criminal”. In his previous pro sey motions Andy seems to be hitching his wagon to the idea that the In Rem civil forfeiture was legally flawed because they were applying a criminal remedy to a civil complaint. If I had packets of Arby’s and Horsey sauce handy it would be easier explain the reasoning here but someone over at Pro Advocates has convinced Andy that if he could be convicted of a criminal offense then that would invalidate the civil forfeitures on procedural grounds and if the civil complaints were summarily dismissed then that would invalidate the criminal charges. Cogito Ergo Scam, the AG will win Andy’s case for him, if not in a court of law then at least the the court of private member association opinion.

    he he he,,,I have read that twice, put Arbys sauce on my keyboard, and even looked to see if I had any vicoden left, and I’m still not sure I can wrap my mind around it. Not you, the whole thing, it just keeps growing and growing….

      (Quote)

  10. GD,

    You are raising VERY interesting points, but my guess is that Bowdoin doesn’t have the capacity to understand what you are suggesting he did with his filings. There is a circular reasoning in the collection of filings, which seems to suggest that whether the Bowdoin case is a civil proceeding, or in reality a criminal proceeding, in either case the case is invalid because it should be treated the other way (ie the government is pursuing a civil case but Bowdoin claims it should be a criminal case, and since the gov’t is pursuing incorrectly the civil case the criminal case should be dropped, and then by extension the civil case.) The other way of looking at it is that Bowdoin is doomed both criminally or in the civil case — the circular reasoning works both ways. OTOH, he has a pretty poor chance regardless, so he might as well try the circular approach. In some arcane way, this IS a brilliant, unconventional, and low probability strategy…..London bookie line is 100:1 against…..

    GlimDropper: I find myself in the unusual position of differing with the wise Mr. Pretty. Perhaps not in conclusions but rather interpretation. Perchance I had the advantage of reading Mr. Bowdoin’s latest motion soon after enjoying a fine roast beef sandwich but I think any admission of criminal activity of ASD is part of what I’m sure was hoped to be a brilliant legal strategy and not a legitimate confession of guilt. Observe the context and please note the reappearance of the term “quasi-criminal”. In his previous pro sey motions Andy seems to be hitching his wagon to the idea that the In Rem civil forfeiture was legally flawed because they were applying a criminal remedy to a civil complaint. If I had packets of Arby’s and Horsey sauce handy it would be easier explain the reasoning here but someone over at Pro Advocates has convinced Andy that if he could be convicted of a criminal offense then that would invalidate the civil forfeitures on procedural grounds and if the civil complaints were summarily dismissed then that would invalidate the criminal charges. Cogito Ergo Scam, the AG will win Andy’s case for him, if not in a court of law then at least the the court of private member association opinion.

      (Quote)

  11. Hi GlimDropper,

    GlimDropper: I find myself in the unusual position of differing with the wise Mr. Pretty. Perhaps not in conclusions but rather interpretation. Perchance I had the advantage of reading Mr. Bowdoin’s latest motion soon after enjoying a fine roast beef sandwich but I think any admission of criminal activity of ASD is part of what I’m sure was hoped to be a brilliant legal strategy and not a legitimate confession of guilt.

    Observe the context and please note the reappearance of the term “quasi-criminal”. In his previous pro sey motions Andy seems to be hitching his wagon to the idea that the In Rem civil forfeiture was legally flawed because they were applying a criminal remedy to a civil complaint. If I had packets of Arby’s and Horsey sauce handy it would be easier explain the reasoning here but someone over at Pro Advocates has convinced Andy that if he could be convicted of a criminal offense then that would invalidate the civil forfeitures on procedural grounds and if the civil complaints were summarily dismissed then that would invalidate the criminal charges.

    Cogito Ergo Scam, the AG will win Andy’s case for him, if not in a court of law then at least the the court of private member association opinion.

    Mind running that by me one more time? Just kidding. :-)

    All of these filings are enough to make a person’s head hurt.

    I’m not sure how many of the court files you’ve read from the “Arby’s Indians” cases, but some of the stuff simply must drive judges crazy.

    I mean, the “Do this or else you owe me $30 million” is only part of the strangeness. The constructions are so tortured in some places one could be led to believe that no law applies to any person at any time.

    My head hurts.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  12. Andy’s professional attorneys formally invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at the evidentiary hearing. The whole idea was not to put Bowdoin on the stand and give the prosecution anything they could use.

    If you read the December forfeiture complaint, you’ll find that the prosecution, indeed, used plenty of information they gleaned from other ASD witnesses at the hearing.

    But now Bowdoin, who took paid advice to shut up, is now making pro-se concessions that ASD was an illegal enterprise.

    I think they’re setting up a preemptive defense for AVG with these recent ASD filings because Bowdoin’s stepson and wife are in jeopardy.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  13. Patrick & Entertained:

    You are forgetting that AVGA, as well as AGW & BAS, are all registered offshore, and therefore are not subject to the “evil government agencies” like the SEC, state AG’s, FBI, and the US Attorney. That was what they were claiming was it not? So why the need for a a pre-emptive defense strategy?

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

      (Quote)

  14. Hey Patrick, is there anywhere one could view these court filings? Is it in writing, or just a statement? I must admit I’m not very familiar with legal processes, but I find your blog very interesting. Keep up the good work!

      (Quote)

  15. Shirley: Hey Patrick, is there anywhere one could view these court filings? Is it in writing, or just a statement? I must admit I’m not very familiar with legal processes, but I find your blog very interesting. Keep up the good work!

    Here ya go:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13245017/Bowdoin-Motion-to-Set-Aside

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13245012/Bowdoin-Motion-to-Exclude

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13245010/Bowdoin-Motion-to-Dismiss-for-Lack-of-Evidence

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/13245005/Bowdoin-Notice-of-Rescission

      (Quote)

  16. Thanks, LRM.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply