Plaintiffs: North Carolina Attorney Robert Garner Was ‘One Of The Architects’ Of AdSurfDaily Ponzi Scheme

Robert GarnerAdSurfDaily attorney Robert Garner “was one of the architects of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” plaintiffs suing Garner for racketeering said yesterday.

Garner was “a director of ASD and outside counsel for ASD,” the plaintiffs said. “He appeared on various Internet videos where he attested to the bona fides of the ASD, among other numerous false statements, in an effort to fabricate a veil of legitimacy for ASD.”

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged, Garner “not only was involved in the development of the ASD program, serving as a director of AdSurfDaily, Inc., but he also held himself out in a position of trust, confidence and superior knowledge by issuing a statement regarding ASD’s legality.”

Garner is representing himself in court. The plaintiffs’ claims came in response to a motion by Garner to be dismissed as a RICO defendant because U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had no jurisdiction over him.

“Not so,” the plaintiffs said. “[O]ne of the named Plaintiffs ensnared in the ASD scheme, Frank Greene, is a resident of the District of Columbia.”

And, they added, “[O]ne of the special agents who investigated the related forfeiture proceedings opened an ‘upgraded member’ account with ASD from a location in the District of Columbia via the Internet, and made a direct deposit into ASD’s account with defendant Bank of America by delivering a check to the Bank of America branch at 700 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC.”

Garner, the plaintiffs said, was “identified in ASD materials as outside counsel, and he is a
director of AdsurfDaily, Inc., and a manager of T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC.”

Claim: ASD Rose From The Ashes Of 12DailyPro, PhoenixSurf

“Mr. Garner was present at the creation of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” the plaintiffs alleged. “The concept for ASD was borne out of the collapse in early- to mid-2006 of two other confirmed Ponzi schemes – 12Daily Pro and Phoenix Surf – which were targets of investigations and subsequent litigation by the Securities [and] Exchange Commission.

Garner and Bowdoin were aided in their racketeering scheme by “other co-conspirators,” the plaintiffs said. They are seeking treble damages in the case.

The RICO defendants and co-conspirators “sought to improve upon the core Ponzi business model with the goal of developing the largest Internet auto-surf program in operation,” the plaintiffs said.

Wordplay was part of the conspiracy, the plaintiffs said.

“In customizing their Ponzi scheme, the RICO Defendants coined new (or slightly revised) terms for old concepts and made a few adjustments to the model and its operation not in an effort to create a legal business, but rather to ‘fix’ areas that contributed to the collapse of the prior schemes and to shield the Ponzi scheme from increased scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement personnel.”

The plaintiffs also said Bowdoin, Garner and co-conspirators banned the use of certain words in a bid to stay under the radar.

They “implemented some adjustments to the program such as forbidding the use of the term ‘investment’ in connection with the sale of ad packages to ASD members and instituting an open-ended time period for earning the ‘promised’ maximum rebate on purchased ad packages.”

Using video was a key part of the plan, the plaintiffs alleged.

“One of the key innovations that Bowdoin and Garner contributed in an effort to improve
the core Ponzi business model was to create a cloak of legitimacy about it, through video
presentations posted on the Internet promoting ASD,” the plaintiffs said.

Among false claims that appeared online about ASD, the plaintiffs said, were claims that “ASD would sign up over one hundred Fortune 500 companies; that ASD has a contract for the placement of three advertisements on its homepage that would generate at least $13 million per year; that ASD’s rebate program is a ‘loss leader’ that enables ASD to grow its member participation and pay members’ rebates with revenue from large commercial advertisers,” the plaintiffs said.

About the Author

6 Responses to “Plaintiffs: North Carolina Attorney Robert Garner Was ‘One Of The Architects’ Of AdSurfDaily Ponzi Scheme”

  1. Down right triple X large CROOK!
    I am hoping that he will get disbarred.

      (Quote)

  2. What is totally ironic is that Garner’s “legality statement’ was what got us involved in ASD in the first place. I was an intereview guest on a talk radio show, and one of the listeners called in and asked about ASD Cash Generator. When he mentioned the legality statement, I told him to E-mail me the info, and I would look into it. This was on July 7, and within a day or two I made a post on a forum debunking his written legality statement. That led to my being called by Jack Arons, and from there ASD became our major focus. It was a few days later that I saw the video for the first time, and I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing them say. And now you know “most” of the rest of the story. LOL!

      (Quote)

  3. I should have also added jailed and in prison along with disbarred.

      (Quote)

  4. Robert Garner, Faye Harris, Judy and George Harris, Tari Steward, Alan Lackey and many other less well known members of the “inner circle” at ASD may well be the key to the ASD/AVGA affair – as well as the better known faces. Who was the Power Behind the Throne? Robert Garner? Faye Bowdoin Harris and her family?

    Like Bernie Maddoff, Andy Bowdoin did not take ASD through its various incarnations alone. The question remains – were the “enablers” of ASD and AVGA the people who represented them in public, or were they others who worked quietly behind the scenes.

    There is also the question of WHO pushed Bowdoin to start AVGA, the ill advised and parody autosurf operation, at a time when any professional “advertising professional” would have laid low for a while?

      (Quote)

  5. I am surprised not to see joe or Correction commenting on this latest event.

      (Quote)

  6. Hello,

    I was one of those unfortunate individuals that got involved with this scheme. It was presented to me by a trusted business associate that has an impeccable reputation and I have personally participated in a few lucrative business deals with. I believe that the person that introduced this scheme to me is also a victim here. The problem I have is the lack of information available for us victims. We have yet to have our principal after tax dollar contribution to the scheme returned to us, and I frankly don’t even know how to go about trying to get my money back.
    Can anyone associated with this article point me in the right direction as to which Government agency I can contact in the hopes of retrieving my hard earned money back?

    Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Best regards,

    GN

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply