BREAKING NEWS: Prosecution Says Bowdoin Trying To Recontest Forfeiture So He Can Use Case As ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free’ Card; Calls Bowdoin’s Assertions Against His First Lawyer ‘Insidious’ Lies; Says New Lawyer Engaging In ‘Fantasy’

UPDATED 12:38 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Andy Bowdoin is trying to lie his way back into the civil forfeiture case involving tens of millions of dollars seized from him last year and now has a lawyer engaging in “fantasy” to help his client pull it off, federal prosecutors said this morning.

Meanwhile, prosecutors made a veiled reference to the AdViewGlobal autosurf, saying “it may be the case that Bowdoin never intended to plead guilty when he agreed to debrief, and was just buying time while searching for a different exit strategy that failed to materialize. Maybe Bowdoin thought that before the government brought its charges he (like some of his family members) could move to another country and profit from a knock-off autosurf program that Bowdoin funded and helped to start.”

In a blistering memorandum to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, prosecutors said Bowdoin’s new attorney, Charles A. Murray, had filed motions at odds with themselves — and even at odds with various statements Bowdoin himself has made in affidavits.

“This fantasy even Mr. Bowdoin fails to support,” prosecutors said of a recent filing by Murray.

Prosecutors used italic type to stress their claim.

“Mr. Murray’s apparent suggestion that Bowdoin made a mistake because he was ‘hoodwinked’ by his prior defense counsel is belied by Bowdoin’s own affidavits,” prosecutors said.

“Bowdoin says (using more words) that he dismissed his claims in mid-January 2009 because he had decided to cooperate in either late December 2008 or early January 2009, after his attorney met with the government. Bowdoin explains that he understood that he was sitting down with agents in January 2009 in an effort to help himself, that he decided to withdraw his claims in this case as part of that effort, and that he eventually changed his mind,” prosecutors continued.

“Mr. Murray’s manufactured effort to fault Bowdoin’s prior counsel for Bowdoin’s decision to cooperate and his revised decision to profess ‘my belief in my innocence’ is laughable,” prosecutors said. “Bowdoin knew he should expect no leniency unless he stopped pretending that he honestly earned the millions of dollars that the government recovered from his bank accounts in 2008.”

Federal filings — and a lack of activity in the state case against Bowdoin in Florida — suggest Bowdoin had fired as many as six attorneys before Murray was retained. Bowdoin also embarked on a pro se litigation strategy in February after surrendering his claims to the seized money in January — and after meeting with what he described as a “group” of members.

During the same time period, the AdViewGlobal autosurf, which has close ASD ties and now has suspended cashouts, introduced members to Pro Advocate Group. Pro Advocate Group is associated with a convicted felon and purports to offer services for pro se litigants. The company also advertises the formation of “associations” that purportedly help people practice law and medicine without being licensed.

AdViewGlobal, which purported to be headquartered in Uruguay, then shifted to an “association” structure in which it incongruously claimed its authortity derived from the U.S. Constitution, despite the fact the company said it was based on foreign soil.

Bowdoin and his attorney were making it up as they went along, prosecutors said.

“In the release he filed, Bowdoin acknowledged he knew that by withdrawing the claims, he was consenting to a forfeiture judgment in the government’s favor,” prosecutors said. “In his affidavit, Bowdoin acknowledges that, as part of his cooperation, he agreed to withdraw the claims he filed in this case. Clearly, Bowdoin now has decided he no longer wants to cooperate to resolve this matter or his potential criminal liability. Bowdoin can certainly change his mind –but he cannot change facts.

“Bowdoin’s new attorney spends almost seventeen pages asking the Court not to enforce a supposed settlement agreement that Bowdoin acknowledges did not exist and which, not surprisingly, the government does not seek to enforce. Bowdoin’s new attorney insinuates that Bowdoin was ‘hoodwinked’ or misinformed (presumably by either his prior counsel, or the government, or both). But Bowdoin’s own affidavit proves otherwise.

“Moreover, most notable is the fact that, nowhere does Bowdoin’s new attorney demonstrate that Bowdoin has even a remote possibility of prevailing against the government in this civil forfeiture case were he permitted to reassert a challenge,” prosecutors said.

Bowdoin says in his own motions that he alone owns the seized money, prosecutors said, pointing out that large sums of  money were used prior to seizure to support personal purchases for Bowdoin, his wife and others — and that the purchases were made from funds submitted by ASD members.

Assertions Against Former Counsel ‘Insidious’; Differences Between What Bowdoin Claims And New Attorney Claims ‘Disturbing’  

“What becomes clear, from Bowdoin’s current motion, is that Bowdoin believes that if he gets back into this case he can try to negotiate a better deal,” prosecutors said.

“He wants to trade his right to challenge the forfeiture for the get-out-of-jail-free card that, Bowdoin himself acknowledges, the government has never been willing to offer.

“To achieve that end,” prosecutors continued, “Bowdoin makes a series of remarkable misrepresentations and insidious accusations, primarily against [former defense counsel Stephen Dobson], in an apparent effort to have this Court reject a settlement agreement that everyone agrees never existed.

“Mr. Murray’s new accusations are, in any event, utterly inconsistent with Bowdoin’s own affidavit testimony,” prosecutors said. 

“Likewise, reports Mr. Murray[,”] prosecutors said, “Bowdoin understood from Dobson that he was obligated to dismiss claims in the civil in rem forfeiture action if he was to receive leniency from the government.’

“The accusations are also irrelevant to the relief Bowdoin here requests: to reappear into a lawsuit against which he cannot mount a successful defense, solely to leverage a better deal in resolving criminal charges. But, this is not an exercise in horse-trading,” prosecutors said.

“The difference between what Bowdoin says happened, and what Mr. Murray suggests happened, is disturbing,” prosecutors continued. “In the ‘Renewed Motion to Rescind Release of Claims,’ Mr. Murray sometimes reports, consistent with statements Bowdoin makes in his affidavits, that ‘Bowdoin understood from Dobson that to possibly avoid prison time he had to release claims in the civil forfeiture proceeding and disclose facts concerning the operation of ASD to Government counsel.”

“In other words,” prosecutors continued, “Bowdoin understood from his attorney, before he started cooperating, that he could help himself if he did cooperate. Sounds like a smart lawyer’s good advice.

“Bowdoin acknowledges that he started cooperating, voluntarily dismissed his claims in this case as part of his effort to demonstrate his sincerity, and (as he himself acknowledges to this Court) began to provide information about his operation to federal law enforcement authorities.

“But, almost mysteriously, Mr. Murray’s motion transforms from statements like those quoted above into: ‘Dobson represented that Bowdoin’s cooperation would preclude the possibility of imprisonment following criminal charges.’  

“Mr. Murray also writes: ‘Bowdoin agreed to release his claims in the civil forfeiture matter believing first that such action would avoid the possibility of imprisonment.’

“Through these subtle but significant revisions, Mr. Murray suggests, and hopes to convince this Court, that even though Bowdoin was told by his several different prior attorneys that his conduct was criminal, and even though he retained criminal counsel to assist him, and even though Bowdoin says he was told that cooperation might lessen the prison exposure Bowdoin was facing for his criminal conduct, Bowdoin really thought he had resolved the criminal matter in a way that would guarantee him no jail time (as if this were merely a regulatory matter) when Bowdoin released his challenge to the seized money.”

Read the prosecution’s memo.

About the Author

19 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Prosecution Says Bowdoin Trying To Recontest Forfeiture So He Can Use Case As ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free’ Card; Calls Bowdoin’s Assertions Against His First Lawyer ‘Insidious’ Lies; Says New Lawyer Engaging In ‘Fantasy’”

  1. NOW there is a new recorded call from Andy. What a laughable 7 minutes!

      (Quote)

  2. Patrick,

    The prosecutor’s response is pretty dramatic. If I were an ASD or AVG insider or promoter, I would be VERY worried about the foreshadowing that Mr. Cowden provides in terms of what is to come — they may well be on the hook for criminal charges. Shout out to “Kat” — you may want to consider getting yourself a good criminal attorney. The prosecutors ARE referring to you and your compatriots in the document, footnote 3:

    “Maybe Bowdoin mistakenly thought that he could con the government into believing that he was just a harmless, foolish old man. Ironically, after telling thousands of investors that he intended to build the world’s preeminent advertising company for them, in order to make them 100,000 millionaires, Bowdoin tries to con this Court, telling it that because he’s 74 and
    has a heart condition, any incarceration amounts to a death sentence. See Document #132 ¶8. Was he lying then, or now? Or, it may be the case that Bowdoin never intended to plead guilty when he agreed to debrief, and was just buying time while searching for a different exit strategy that failed to materialize. Maybe Bowdoin thought that before the government brought its charges he (like some of his family members) could move to another country and profit from a knock-off autosurf (NOTE TO KAT: HE MEANS ADVIEWGLOBAL) program that Bowdoin funded and helped to start. Or, maybe other attorneys Bowdoin employed, or ASD’s other promoters (NOTE TO KAT: THAT’S YOU), convinced Bowdoin that if he paid some of the fraud proceeds the government had missed to them (the money laundering as Mr. Murray reports), they could help to circle the wagons or otherwise do a better job than Akerman Senterfitt did when it tried to prove that free advertising was a true profitable sale and not a poorly disguised, and unsustainable, investment opportunity. But what is clear from Bowdoin, himself, is that neither the government, nor Bowdoin’s experienced criminal defense counsel, ever told Bowdoin that it was reasonable for a defendant convicted of operating a $100 million wire fraud scheme to expect probation.”

      (Quote)

  3. What a piece of crap. Let’s get his ass in jail sooner rather than later.

    Can’t wait till they show the Paperless Access and VOIP video at the trial.

      (Quote)

  4. Quick note:

    I am filing from the road today and am encounering some formatting difficulties.

    My apologies if the post above appears to me missing some formatting elements or if the type appears disjointed.

    Patrick

    P.S. To Entertained: I agree with your assessment and will post a bit more in the coming hours.

      (Quote)

  5. From where I am reading, Cowden has not only refuted the declarations made by Bowdoin and his attorney, he has demolished them. As he rightly comments, there was no contract to be broken and Bowdoin is indeed living in a fantasy world. He needs to make his mind up whether he is a frail and stupid old man who doesnt understand the law or the great leader who, according to his call is going to lead us into the profitable future.

    Wish Judge Collyer would just get on an allow the forfeiture so that the victims can start to look forward to the restitution of some of their losses by the Gov.

      (Quote)

  6. So when the trial is over…..and will “Tellllllll Alllllllll” from his prison cell?

      (Quote)

  7. So Snailspace..You didnt enjoy the story about the 1981 Miss America?

      (Quote)

  8. Patrick:
    Wow what great reporting!! You should begin to have enough to at least start an award winning book. Put me down for a copy.

      (Quote)

  9. I wonder what dandy Andy is thinking about now?

    Here he thought that he had pulled the wool over the Governments eyes and that they would never know that he was behind AVGA.

    Andy must be the dumbest crook in the country. Not only has he lost any chance of getting a reduced sentence he has ticked off the Government and given them more fuel for the fire. The Government could if they so desired have him arrested on new charges concerning AVGA. The fact that he has continued down the same rocky path as ASD using the same business model gives the Government more Aces to play with.

      (Quote)

  10. alasycia,
    Andy thinks he’s both; it just depends on the audience to whom he is speaking. He’s not 100% of the first and definitely is not 100% of the latter IMO.

    alasycia: He needs to make his mind up whether he is a frail and stupid old man who doesnt understand the law or the great leader who, according to his call is going to lead us into the profitable future.<

      (Quote)

  11. Is it Dodson or Dobson? I’ll answer that, it’s Dobson.

    I can’t wait until Murray calls Dobson to the stand and Dobson testifies to how incompetent he is (he is a former USDA) and how he misrepresented the facts to Andy. That will be a hoot. I can see him opening himself up to all sorts of liability and loss of confidence of his current clients….not.

    While attorney/client communications is privileged, I would assume that what the government promised Andy is not. He could certainly be called to testify as to what the government promised, if I am not completely wrong.

      (Quote)

  12. Hi dirty_bird,

    dirty_bird: Is it Dodson or Dobson? I’ll answer that, it’s Dobson.

    Fixed. Thanks.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  13. Did you fix it in the court filing too? I think the filing was inconsistent and you just copied what was in their filing.

    admin: Fixed. Thanks.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  14. Never mind, the filing was correct.

      (Quote)

  15. Oh delicious irony. I can’t imagine there’s any chance what so ever that Andy will prevail in this motion so he traded his claim on the money for good will from the prosecutor at sentencing. Good will he is squandering with just about everything he’s done since surrendering his claim. In his motion Andy seems to claim that he got nothing in return for his money and because of his motion, he will receive nothing in return for his money.

      (Quote)

  16. But not true – in exchange for his money he will receive a tasty prison sentence – free gratis and for nothing.

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply