BULLETIN: Bowdoin Blames Lawyers, Continues To Fight

UPDATED 6:34 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin has informed a federal judge that he intends to continue to fight the civil forfeiture case.

Bowdoin has filed a five-page affidavit in which he claims his defense counsel lied to him and manipulated him, prosecutors asked him “to provide statements which I did not believe to be true” and that he revealed “significant information against my interest.”

Bowdoin said a grand jury convened in May 2009. Part of Bowdoin’s affidavit appears either to be missing or to have been reproduced out of order, but the document suggests either that a sealed indictment was returned or that an indictment was forthcoming.

Defense attorney Steven Dobson of Dobson and Smith led Bowdoin to believe he possibly would receive no jail time if he cooperated, Bowdoin said. Two meetings were held with federal prosecutors in December and January, with Bowdoin in attendance, according to Bowdoin.

“During our meeting in Tallahassee, Florida, [prosecutor William] Cowden requested that I dismiss my claims” in the civil forfeiture case, Bowdoin said.

“Dobson provided Cowden with my signed agreement,” Bowdoin continued. “I was led to believe that a grand jury indictment was forthcoming. My attorney represented to me that Cowden had spoken to a judge, persuaded the judge that I was a flight risk, and that I would be held without bail following a prompt indictment.

“Dobson led me to believe that I would be promptly arrested if I failed to cooperate with Government counsel,” Bowdoin said.

He advised the judge in his affidavit that he had a heart condition and believed “any measure of prison time would constitute a life sentence.”

Bowdoin, 74, did not say in the document whether he had any involvement in the AdViewGlobal (AVG)  autosurf, which launched in February in the aftermath of the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from Bowdoin, the filing of two forfeiture complaints against ASD’s assets and the filing of a lawsuit by private litigants who accused him of racketeering.

Some AdSurfDaily members now say Bowdoin was the silent head of AVG.

Another Bowdoin attorney, Charles A. Murray, filed a separate motion on Bowdoin’s behalf today in which he argued Bowdoin had been snookered.

Bowdoin’s motion to release claims “was based on his belief that relinquishing his civil claims could possibly prevent imprisonment in a forthcoming criminal matter,” Murray said. “Bowdoin believed he had an agreement with the government that required the release of claims in the [forfeiture case.]

“Mr. Bowdoin reasonably relied on information received from his counsel in forming the belief that release in the civil suit could possibly avoid imprisonment,” Murray continued.
“In fact, no agreement existed and Mr. Bowdoin now faces a significant period of
incarceration. Given the lack of an agreement, Mr. Bowdoin’s release in the [forfeiture case] is illogical. He received nothing of value for the release.

“Bowdoin has consistently demonstrated an intent to aggressively defend ownership of his property in the civil in rem forfeiture proceeding,” Murray continued. “This Court
should rescind its January 22, 2009 Order [granting Bowdoin’s forfeiture motion] because Mr. Bowdoin lacked knowledge of the consequences for his actions and was induced into filing the release on false pretenses.”

Read Bowdoin’s affidavit.

Read the motion on Bowdoin’s behalf by Charles Murray.

About the Author

28 Responses to “BULLETIN: Bowdoin Blames Lawyers, Continues To Fight”

  1. One thing that stands out amongst all the protests is that Andy Bowdoin NEVER protests his innocence to criminal charges – only that it wasnt fair that he relinquished funds gained through wire fraud and money laundering and they would let him off jail time.

    The documents make for fascinating reading. And you said this was weird? It gets better. lol

      (Quote)

  2. It’s typical that Andy blames everyone else. I especially liked the “Bowdoin slowly came to understand” part, I guess Andy is not as quick to understand at his age, and with a bad heart, yet. Andy’s affidavit is even more amusing than the Motion filed. Hard to believe Murry is getting paid for this crap.

      (Quote)

  3. So didn’t biblical Andy understand “You reap what you sow”.

    Andy hoodwinked thousands, Andy was hoodwinked.

    Now that is poetic justice!!

      (Quote)

  4. Oh so Absolutely entertaining. well into 2011 we go! That is a scared old man.

      (Quote)

  5. Let me get this right.

    Andy wants to have the proffer thrown out because he thought that by submitting a proffer in a CIVIL case it would resolve any possible CRIMINAL charges?

    And since it wouldn’t, he feels he was “hoodwinked” and “lied to”?

    LOL. ROFLOL.

    He really does think he can make up whatever he wants.

      (Quote)

  6. Throughout both documents Bowdoin acknowledges that there was the POSSIBILITY of avoiding a long prison term if he forfeited the ASD assets. He hasn’t been sentenced yet (or so it seems) so the “possibility” still exists for him to get less than the maximum sentence.

    Judge Collyer must be growing very weary of hearing Bowdoin make the same claims over and over again. It’s never his responsibility to understand what he’s told; he just signs on the dotted line and then complains afterward.
    I’ve never read anything so full of self-pity and so lacking in any mention of any of his “followers” whose suffering is far worse.

    Steve Dobson is a politically well-connected attorney and is fully capable of biting back. This is getting very interesting!

      (Quote)

  7. ok, this may sound too much like an eye for an eye, but considering the damage he has done to as many lives as he has, Bowdoin deserves NOTHING better than to die in prison, destitute and lonely. Andy, you are a con artist and a common criminal who finally got caught. Time to pay the piper, and think of all the lives you have damaged. Other than that, the filings were in fact hilarious.

    I wonder what Andy’s defenders, you know, the usual Ponzi whores and folks like Jeff Vavra, are thinking tonight. Barb, Kat, Steve Watt, Barb Alford, you guys all share in Bowdoin’s guilt and you know it. Andy, in their minds, is a revolutionary business genius, but he in his own words claims he is too slow to figure out that he’s in serious legal trouble. If I were a) a business genius on the order of a Bowdoin and b) facing effective life in prison, I think I would PERSONALLY ask Mr. Cowden what sort of deal my criminal attorney was working on, instead of claiming that he relied 100% on his attorney and ZERO percent on his own due diligence. Stupidity, stupidity, stupidity…..and criminal behavior. Vavra, you picked the wrong hero there buddy……Andy’s now whining like a little baby, seeking every avenue possible to avoid incarceration. Please note Jeff that Andy, in his motions, says that his ONLY goal is to avoid incarceration. Please note Jeff that his only goal is NOT to benefit the members of ASD, but rather to save his own skin (or at least to not die in prison).

    Further, the motions are full of what amount to admissions of guilt on a variety of fronts. OK Jeff Vavra, time to man up and admit what Andy is also admitting — you were wrong, Bowdoin’s a crook trying to get off on technicalities, and ASD is a Ponzi.

      (Quote)

  8. Looks like Mr. Murray is familiar with commercial law, i.e. contract law and it certainly applies to this case. For those not familiar here are some basics:

    For a Contract to be enforceable in Law, it must fulfill certain
    criteria. There are four of them, and they are designed to
    make sure the promises are sufficiently explicit, such that neither Party
    can later claim: “I wasn’t told about that bit!”.

    These components are:

    1. Full Disclosure: Which means that each Party writes down exactly
    what their promise comprises, and all the relevant circumstances, so as to
    put it into the context they consider applicable. If one has any sense, any
    necessary ‘get outs’ should be included within the Full Disclosure.

    2. Equal Considerations: A Contractual Consideration is an ‘item of
    value’. It may be money, or it may be an item. Both Parties must consider
    the exchange to be equal in value. Obviously for Considerations to be equal they cannot change, once agreed.

    3. Lawful Terms and Conditions: Which, fundamentally, means that
    there should be no mischief in the proposed agreements. If you write unlawful Conditions into a Contract, then those provisions are not enforceable. Only the lawful Conditions are enforceable in Law.

    4. Mutual Intent: Which means ‘some manifestation that each Party
    intended to Contract’. This could be hand-written signature ‘marks’, or
    can be ‘conduct’. In other words if at least one of the Parties starts to do
    what was promised. This is sometimes expressed as ‘performance’ – or, at
    least, ‘the start of performance’.

    If the contract fails on any of the 4 components, then it is null and void in law.

    Let the games begin.

      (Quote)

  9. Don’t you just love it when criminal masterminds inadvertently prove everything being alleged about them in their own words.

    All of this talk about “our money” “Saint Andy” and “doing the best for MY members” goes right down the drain when Bowdoins’ own Motion to Rescind clearly states:

    “Given the lack of an agreement, Mr. Bowdoin’s release in the
    above-captioned case is illogical. He received nothing of value for the release”

    “HE received NOTHING OF VALUE for the release”

    I certainly hope those who still remain pro ASD realize the import of those few words.

    Forget all the “doing best by our members” rhetoric.

    In fact, forget anything involving anyone BUT Bowdoin.

    In his very own words making sure the money gets back to the members is illogical be cause HE wouldn’t profit from it.

      (Quote)

  10. Glad to see little Joe is still wrong.

      (Quote)

  11. Is it just me or does it appear that Murray’s previous filing is arguing against his present submission?

    http://patrickpretty.com/2009/08/26/breaking-news-bowdoin-asks-for-extension-lawyer-says-entire-matter-could-be-resolved-in-agreement/

    Charles A. Murray, Bowdoin’s attorney, said in a court filing today that he had “engaged in continuing negotiations with the Government and it appears that these negotiations could result in an agreement resolving the entire matter.”

    Since the negotiations apparently failed, is Murray in the process of “hoodwinking” poor little old Andy with the heart condition?

    Is Andy breaking new legal ground? Hire attorney A, confess, change your mind, fire attorney A and then hire attorney B to argue that attorney A lied to you.

      (Quote)

  12. The whole reply demonstrates exactly what people have been trying to tell the few “believers” who are left. It was Andy’s money, not the members’. Now Andy has said it repitedly throughout his reply, will they finally believe him?

    Murray’s reliance on Contract Law is amusing. Has he not forgotten that,in order to form a legally binding contract, there is one other little item he has missed? Capacity to form a contract.

    Andy Bowdoin is, as his reply states, a self confessed criminal. Without being a party to the negotiations between the Gov and Bowdoin and his lawyer, it would be reasonably safe to assume that the crimes he is admitting to are wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to commit both. If that is the case, then he is, once again, justifying the AGs action in seizing the money and property and no proffer letter is necessary to admit the prosecutions claims. Bowdoin has just stated “Guilty as Charged” as far as the Civil Forfeiture action is concerned. He has once again conceded the Governments case. He has no property to negotiate with.

    His only bargaining tool are the names of others involved and details of the money laundering and wire fraud activities. Bowdoin’s obligation, both as an accused of a crime and the owner of forfeited property, is to tell the truth and NOT commit perjury.

    It is also noticeable that the details of the Grand Jury inditement have been glossed over. Sealed? For now.

    If the details in his reply are even half true, a reduction from 20 – 40 years per item, starting with an immediate arrest, to 10-15 seems more than generous on the part of the AG. Madoff was over 70 and alleged to have illnesses. He got 150 well deserved years.

    Maybe Bowdoin should think of the people he paraded on the stage at rallies who had thrown in their savings to ASD in order to afford their live saving medications before he starts crying “unfair”

      (Quote)

  13. dirty_bird: Let me get this right.

    Andy wants to have the proffer thrown out because he thought that by submitting a proffer in a CIVIL case it would resolve any possible CRIMINAL charges?

    And since it wouldn’t, he feels he was “hoodwinked” and “lied to”?

    He really does think he can make up whatever he wants.

    I dunno,

    given Bowdoins’ legendary business skills and grasp of how things work, I think it far more likely he got the fright of his life when he realized that while the contents of his proffer letter couldn’t and wouldn’t be used against him, that doesn’t prevent the prosecution using evidence gained from other sources e.g. his own public statements and records.

    Imagine, there he was one day, content in the knowledge he’d had the seriousness his case reduced by throwing many of his co conspirators to the wolves.

    Then the next day realizing the prosecution had more evidence than he could poke a stick at. What’s more, all of it from “outside sources” AND all of it admissible in court.

    It also sounds more likely his attorney had fully explained that, when the prosecution has you caught as bang to rights as it did, with the amount of evidence available to it as it has, then your options are severely limited. So, all that’s left is small mercies.

      (Quote)

  14. LRM,

    I believe that you are right on the mark. Andy’s days as a free man are limited to how long he can drag on the civil, and then criminal proceedings. No doubt he still has ASD money squirreled away, and he will spend it all on attorneys to drag things out as long as possible, even without a case. He’ll be able to buy his freedom, for a while.

    littleroundman: I dunno,given Bowdoins’ legendary business skills and grasp of how things work, I think it far more likely he got the fright of his life when he realized that while the contents of his proffer letter couldn’t and wouldn’t be used against him, that doesn’t prevent the prosecution using evidence gained from other sources e.g. his own public statements and records.Imagine, there he was one day, content in the knowledge he’d had the seriousness his case reduced by throwing many of his co conspirators to the wolves. Then the next day realizing the prosecution had more evidence than he could poke a stick at. What’s more, all of it from “outside sources” AND all of it admissible in court.It also sounds more likely his attorney had fully explained that, when the prosecution has you caught as bang to rights as it did, with the amount of evidence available to it as it has, then your options are severely limited. So, all that’s left is small mercies.

      (Quote)

  15. Readers may wish to acquaint/reacquaint themselves with this April filing by the prosecution:

    http://patrickpretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/prosecutionbowdoinrescission-response.pdf

    Note that it was filed April 24, approaching five months ago.

    Here is a snippet from our April coverage of the prosecution’s filing: (Emphasis added)

    “In other words,” prosecutors continued, “HIS OWN ATTORNEYS, presumably in consultation with Mr. Bowdoin, CONCLUDED THAT MR. BOWDOIN FACED POTENTIAL PROSECUTION FOR HIS CONDUCT and should not testify. Mr. Bowdoin, through his attorneys, did invoke the fifth amendment. Mr. Bowdoin’s apparent assertion now, that his agreement to withdraw from this case hinged on a threat from the government that he was facing criminal culpability, is PLAINLY DISHONEST. The MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS MR. BOWDOIN HAS FIRED presumably explained precisely as much to him. Nor can Mr. Bowdoin credibly assert that his decision to withdraw was tied to a prosecutor ever having misinformed his counsel.

    “Ultimately, whether Mr. Bowdoin’s awareness that he might face prosecution for criminal conduct came directly from his conversations with his own attorneys, or from conversations he had with some others, is irrelevant,” prosecutors said.

    Justice is being delayed for ASD’s many victims because of Bowdoin’s senseless pleadings, prosecutors said.

    Bowdoin claims the government “used an illegal forfeiture to destroy the business enterprise that has affected thousands of innocent purchasers with de minimus or nonexistent harm to the public to punish the claimants,” prosecutors said.

    “The government agrees that the enterprise ‘affected thousands of innocent’ people and it agrees that the enterprise caused ‘harm to the public,’” they continued. “Mr. Bowdoin COMPLAINS ABOUT HIS LAWYERS AND THE GOVERNMENT’S LAWYERS — BUT HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT THE ENTERPRISE THAT AFFECTED THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE WAS LAWFUL. As he well knows, the evidence his attorneys produced demonstrated that fallacy of his supposed novel business.

    “Mr. Bowdoin secured funds from the public by promising to them safe, profitable returns,” prosecutors said. “To keep his fraud scheme afloat, Mr. Bowdoin paid apparent ‘profits’ to early entrants into the scheme, and to FRIENDS, FAMILY and EMPLOYEES. Mr. Bowdoin confirmed to law enforcement officials that he MODELED HIS ENTERPRISE on ANOTHER’S FAILED FRAUD SCHEME, and he acknowledged that THERE WAS ALMOST NO REVENUE INDEPENDENT FROM WHAT HE SECURED FROM THE ‘MEMBERS.’

    “No witness ASD produced at the emergency hearing disagreed,” prosecutors said. “No ASD official or representative testified that the enterprise secured revenue independent of what it derived from members to support the payments that were promised to the public and paid out to some participants.

    “Mr. Bowdoin also CONFIRMED THAT THE REVENUE FIGURES OF THE ENTERPRISE WERE MANAGED to make it appear to prospective members that the enterprise called Ad Surf Daily was a consistently profitable, and brilliant, passive income opportunity. Mr. Bowdoin knew that his conduct was indefensible when he withdrew his claims in January. Nothing material has changed, and nothing Mr. Bowdoin offers in his ‘Notice of Rescission, etc.’ begins to support the relief he seeks.”

    **** End snippet

    What Bowdoin has managed to do is the equivalent of the four-corner offense in basketball: He has managed to slow down the legal game to keep himself out of jail — while Florida widows, college kids, members of the military, people on fixed incomes and other CRIME VICTIMS have to wait for the restitution program to begin.

    And he has been aided on the PR front by shills who constantly rewrite the record of the case and obfuscate the facts to keep members in a state of confusion.

    ASD is a Ponzi scheme. Andy Bowdoin told the government is was a Ponzi scheme and that he fudged the numbers to keep new money flowing into the firm.

    Now he is blaming the pickle he is in on lawyers on both sides of the case — while not speaking to what members say was his involvement in AdViewGlobal, a Ponzi scheme that launched AFTER ASD’s assets were seized.

    He also is not speaking to his involvement in PaperlessAccess, which perhaps was a Ponzi-scheme-in-waiting.

    If the PaperlessAccess video was made after the December forfeiture complaint, after Bowdoin’s TWO meetings with prosecutors in December and January, and after the filing of the RICO lawsuit in January, then it demonstrates that Andy Bowdoin was willing to hawk a potential Ponzi even with the knowledge he faced up to 40 years in prison for ASD.

    And if Bowdoin arranged the purchase of eWalletPlus for AVG in November — as members say he did — it demonstrates that he has no respect for the courts, his own attorneys and the prosecutors — and somehow formed a belief that the answer to Ponzi schemes was even more Ponzi schemes.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  16. The documetn references “lead counsel” Robert Garner. Is this our Robert Garner? The largest Attorny in the West?

      (Quote)

  17. Don: Glad to see little Joe is still wrong.

    Hey Don,

    Not sure if your comment was directed at me and if it was, you should know I am not little joe. I am Big Joe and not Pro ASD or any other ponzi/pyramid scheme.

    Big Joe

      (Quote)

  18. Bowdoin admitted all the evil gubmint’s allegations in his pro se filings. Is he going to blame his “attorney” in that one too?

    At the very least, the filings show that he was of sound mind. Even if his legal arguments didn’t hold any water, he shows that he was fully aware of his actions and potential consequences. Trying to avoid confiscation of his property and incarceration is about the only sane moves I have seen Bowdoin make.

      (Quote)

  19. Thank you God, for making me a money magnet……….

    I hope he remembers all the rallies when he is curled up on his jail cot with all the gang bangers yelling and being obnoxious around him.

      (Quote)

  20. Big Joe, my apologies. However, I still don’t see these legal wranglings as contracts. My opinion. I had thought that the Supreme Court has ruled LE personnel can uses untrue statements to garner information.

    Heck, Perry Mason did it all the time..He used to say, “What if I told you we have 4 eye witnesses to the crime? What if I told you we also have video?” It’s not a definite statement, just a “what If” possibility.

    I, too, find it difficult to believe Andy’s lawyers didn’t brief him on his potential jail time, and other possible scenarios. I think the problem was Andy and his self-assured Saintliness that he would never see the inside of a cell. He is sorely wrong on that count. He refused to go before the grand jury and their sealed indictment, he knows he has a problem now..

    LOL

      (Quote)

  21. I expect Bowdoin’s first attorney(s) to go on their merry way but several interesting possibilities exist.

    Could Bowdoin be sued by this first attorney?

    Could the government call his first attorney to testify in open court? Obviously attorney/client communications are off the table but will the attorney be asked about negotiations with the government?

    Interesting possibilities exist.

      (Quote)

  22. Excerpts from the motion filed 9/14/09 on Bowdoin’s behalf by his attorney:

    “Because any measure of prison time would constitute a life sentence, Bowdoin’s sole concern was avoiding incarceration.”

    “His agreement to cooperate provided Bowdoin with no benefit in the criminal matter. Contrary to Bowdoin’s understanding, the pleadings that Bowdoin authorized his Ackerman Senterfitt attorneys to file in the civil proceeding were not filed in exchange for the government’s relinquishment of seeking a prison sentence.”

    “Bowdoin abandoned his right to litigate before this Court without receiving a return benefit, an action he did intend.”

    “Bowdoin agreed to release his claims in the civil forfeiture matter believing first that such action would avoid the possibility of imprisonment.”

    “Bowdoin prematurely terminated his claims in the civil in rem forfeiture because he believed that a settlement agreement existed with the United States Government that would possibly prevent his imprisonment.”

    “Bowdoin’s criminal attorney induced Bowdoin to sign away his rights in the civil forfeiture proceeding on the representation that Bowdoin could possibly avoid prison time if he abandoned the civil claims.”

    “Dobson did not enter an appearance in a criminal matter. He provided limited counsel during several extra-judicial interviews and collected legal fees in the amount of $150,000.”

    “Bowdoin found Dobson’s requested fees “astonishing.” See Bowdoin Affidavit at ¶17. For that price, Dobson convinced Bowdoin to relinquish his legal claim to more than $70 million while receiving nothing in return.”

    “But Dobson’s advice was not just poor judgment. He convinced Bowdoin — a 74 year old man with a heart condition — that imprisonment was otherwise assured if he failed to release the civil claims. He persuaded Bowdoin to release significant legal interests in exchange for nothing, and misled Bowdoin into believing his release of his claim could possibly assure his freedom.”

    ♦♦♦

    In other words, according to this document there was no concern about returning members’ money to them.

    Any questions?

      (Quote)

  23. All he cares about is himself.

    I would LOVE to hear from the idiots who sent him cards and cooked him brownies!!

    Where’s that fool Barb McIntyre now? “The prosecutor admitted it wasn’t a ponzi”

    my ass.

      (Quote)

  24. Don: Big Joe, my apologies. However, I still don’t see these legal wranglings as contracts. My opinion. I had thought that the Supreme Court has ruled LE personnel can uses untrue statements to garner information.

    Hey Don,

    No apologies needed. Just did not want to be seen as little joe.

    In reference to your “legal wranglings as contracts” statement, I offer the following from George Mercier.

    There are two great divisions in American Jurisprudence: Tort Law and Contract Law. Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect. This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement. The reason why statutes are sometimes brought into a Contract Law judgment setting, statutes that do not appear anywhere within the body proper of the contract, is because the contract was written under the supervisory Commerce Jurisdiction of the State, and that therefore those statutes form a superseding part of the contract.

    There are many subdivisions within Contract Law, such as Securities Law, Estate Inheritance, Quasi-Contract,Statutory Contract, Taxes, Copyright and Trademark Infringement Law, Commercial Business Practice under either the Law Merchant or the Uniform Commercial Code, Insurance, Admiralty and Maritime Contracts, etc. Operating a business under a regulated statutory juristic environment is very much a contract, since a numerous array of Government benefits are being accepted by Game players in Commerce.

    And in contrast to that, we have Tort Law. Think of Tort Law as being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the parties.

    A good contrasting way to define a Tort is by enumerating on the things that it is not: It is not a breach of contract. Included under the heading of Torts are such miscellaneous civil wrongs, ranging from simple and direct interferences against a person like assault, battery, and false imprisonment; or with some property rights, like trespass or conversion; and various forms of negligence are Torts (“judge, the defendant was negligent in maintaining his parking lot by not fixing a dangerous and obscure crevice that was in it”) — but the final definition is a simple one: Any wrong that has been worked by someone, where there is no contract in effect, falls under Tort Law when the damaged person brings the grievance into Court and tries to seek a judicial remedy.

    Big Joe

      (Quote)

  25. admin: formed a belief that the answer to Ponzi schemes was even more Ponzi schemes.

    Bryan Marsden did exactly the same thing while he was waiting trail. He started HA-Lotto (unlicensed gambling?) and something else I forget. He even started HA-Lotto up using a false same, Barry Something. The story was that someone loaned Marsden a laptop while he was on remand, and he was using the free WIFI from a local restaurant.

      (Quote)

  26. Andy’s situation (hee hee) it boils to this, it seems to me:

    Dobson no doubt told Andy something he didn’t want to hear, which was that he was facing a lengthy prison term. Dobson likely told Andy that it was POSSIBLE that Cowden would look more favorably on a sentencing recommendation if Andy demonstratated that he’d learned his lesson, was sincerely repentant, and that because of his new-found remorse he wanted to facilitate returning the funds to the people he scammed, and therefore was dropping his claim to the funds on the civil side. Dobson would have explained that all the two cases had in common was William Cowden; they were separate courts (criminal and civil forfeiture of funds) and separate standards of proof, but that Cowden had him dead to rights on both sides.

    Dobson likely explained to Andy that he (Dobson, the criminal attorney) was going to have a hard time bargaining for a short prison term for Andy so long as Andy demonstrated his total lack of remorse by fighting to keep the money he’d acquired via his Ponzi scheme. Dobson probably told Andy “the rebate was never guaranteed” — wait, I mean “the shorter prison term is not guaranteed even if you agree to the civil forfeiture BUT the maximum prison terms is guaranteed if you continue to fight for the money, saying it had been legally obtained.” I’d be willing to bet Dobson told Andy that dropping his civil claim would be a good faith gesture and that since Andy was sure to lose both the criminal and civil forfeiture cases anyhow, never to see a dime of the money, he should strongly consider dropping his claim to the money and hope for the best.

    Dobson likely told Andy that cooperation with Cowden and the IRS with regard to naming ASD insiders, including amounts paid in cash and by wire into off-shore accounts, also MIGHT result in a shorter prison term. I’m sure Dobson made it clear that Andy held NO cards whatsoever and that the best Andy could hope for was to earn a few points with Feds by giving them information they wanted — and that they were going to find anyway.

    If Andy perjured himself when he was “made to say things he didn’t believe to be true” he’s got lots more trouble on the way. All the Feds have to do to add perjury charges to wire fraud and money-laundering is sit down with copies of Andy’s statements regarding other ASD insiders (you know that’s what he’s talking about!) and read his own words back to him, sentence by sentence. For example: “Mr. Bowdoin, on January 16, 2009 you stated to Agent Moneypenny that to your certain knowledge ASD insiders Joe and Jane Scammer were paid several hundred thousand dollars in cash by ASD, which was not reported to the IRS, for continuing to promote ASD as a safe investment, although they knew the claims they were making were untrue, in order to continue to attract new members and knowing the new members would lose their money. Mr. Bowdoin, was that statement true or did you, in fact, commit perjury when making that statement under oath to Agent Moneypenny?” Does Andy want to keep his fans, or does he want to avoid perjury charges? The Scammers are going down!!

    Murray said Andy didn’t receive anything in exchange for forfeiting his claim to the funds, but what Murray meant was Andy didn’t get a firm deal. That’s not uncommon with a case as weak as Andy’s. Dobson suggested, no doubt sincerely, that Andy had nothing to lose by forfeiting the funds, since he was never going to get to keep them, but that Andy might gain a little by the appearance of remorse and caring for those he scammed.

    A true psychopath like Andy can’t seem to understand that fighting to keep the money on the civil side looks very bad, and certainly tends to negate his claim (while hoping for a shorter sentence on the criminal side) that it was all just one big misunderstanding and he (Andy) is really a good Christian man who only wanted to help others become millionaires.

    And there are people who defend this sub-anthropoidial nincompoop?!

      (Quote)

  27. Andy’s situation (hee hee) boils to this, it seems to me:

    Dobson no doubt told Andy something he didn’t want to hear, which was that he was facing a lengthy prison term. Dobson likely told Andy that it was POSSIBLE that Cowden would look more favorably on a sentencing recommendation if Andy demonstratated that he’d learned his lesson, was sincerely repentant, and that because of his new-found remorse he wanted to facilitate returning the funds to the people he scammed, and therefore was dropping his claim to the funds on the civil side. Dobson would have explained that all the two cases had in common was William Cowden; they were separate courts (criminal and civil forfeiture of funds) and separate standards of proof, but that Cowden had him dead to rights on both sides.

    Dobson likely explained to Andy that he (Dobson, the criminal attorney) was going to have a hard time bargaining for a short prison term for Andy so long as Andy demonstrated his total lack of remorse by fighting to keep the money he’d acquired via his Ponzi scheme. Dobson probably told Andy “the rebate was never guaranteed” — wait, I mean “the shorter prison term is not guaranteed even if you agree to the civil forfeiture BUT the maximum prison terms is guaranteed if you continue to fight for the money, saying it had been legally obtained.” I’d be willing to bet Dobson told Andy that dropping his civil claim would be a good faith gesture and that since Andy was sure to lose both the criminal and civil forfeiture cases anyhow, never to see a dime of the money, he should strongly consider dropping his claim to the money and hope for the best.

    Dobson likely told Andy that cooperation with Cowden and the IRS with regard to naming ASD insiders, including amounts paid in cash and by wire into off-shore accounts, also MIGHT result in a shorter prison term. I’m sure Dobson made it clear that Andy held NO cards whatsoever and that the best Andy could hope for was to earn a few points with Feds by giving them information they wanted — and that they were going to find anyway.

    If Andy perjured himself when he was “made to say things he didn’t believe to be true” he’s got lots more trouble on the way. All the Feds have to do to add perjury charges to wire fraud and money-laundering is sit down with copies of Andy’s statements regarding other ASD insiders (you know that’s what he’s talking about!) and read his own words back to him, sentence by sentence. For example: “Mr. Bowdoin, on January 16, 2009 you stated to Agent Moneypenny that to your certain knowledge ASD insiders Joe and Jane Scammer were paid several hundred thousand dollars in cash by ASD, which was not reported to the IRS, for continuing to promote ASD as a safe investment, although they knew the claims they were making were untrue, in order to continue to attract new members and knowing the new members would lose their money. Mr. Bowdoin, was that statement true or did you, in fact, commit perjury when making that statement under oath to Agent Moneypenny?” Does Andy want to keep his fans, or does he want to avoid perjury charges? The Scammers are going down!!

    Murray said Andy didn’t receive anything in exchange for forfeiting his claim to the funds, but what Murray meant was Andy didn’t get a firm deal. That’s not uncommon with a case as weak as Andy’s. Dobson suggested, no doubt sincerely, that Andy had nothing to lose by forfeiting the funds, since he was never going to get to keep them, but that Andy might gain a little by the appearance of remorse and caring for those he scammed.

    A true psychopath like Andy can’t seem to understand that fighting to keep the money on the civil side looks very bad, and certainly tends to negate his claim (while hoping for a shorter sentence on the criminal side) that it was all just one big misunderstanding and he (Andy) is really a good Christian man who only wanted to help others become millionaires.

    And there are people who defend this sub-anthropoidial nincompoop?!

      (Quote)

  28. Thanks for two excellent posts. Big Joe and Marci.

    Marci, I realise that it is only guess work about the real scenario between Dobson and Bowdoin, but it sounds a pretty reasonable one.lol

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply