BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin Attorney Says Client ‘Not Happy’; Claims Government’s Position ‘Indefensible’

UPDATED 4:58 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) ASD President Andy Bowdoin is “not happy” and recent filings by the prosecution and the U.S. Secret Service are “indefensible,” Bowdoin’s lawyer said in court filings today.

Charles A. Murray, Bowdoin’s attorney, argued again that Bowdoin had been ill-served by a previous attorney when he agreed to surrender claims to tens of millions of dollars seized in a wire-fraud and Ponzi scheme case last year, adding that the government was attempting “to obfuscate and derogate any and all statements made by Mr. Bowdoin.”

“It is not difficult to believe that a person placed in Mr. Bowdoin’s position, facing possible jail time at 74 years of age and losing the company he built up, would have put Mr. Bowdoin in a state of mind wherein he agreed to do what his attorney was telling him to do and what the government was urging him to do,” Murray said.

Bowdoin released his claims to the money in January, withdrawing the claims “with prejudice.” U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer granted Bowdoin’s request to release the claims Jan. 22.

By late February — this time without an attorney — Bowdoin said he had changed his mind about submitting to the forfeiture, and began to file a series of pro se motions to get back in the case.

Prosecutors said Sept. 25 that Bowdoin was trying to lie his way back into the case and that Murray was engaging in “fantasy.”

On Sept. 28, the Secret Service filed a transcript of an audio recording Bowdoin or a person who aided him had posted online the previous week, and prosecutors described the recording as evidence “this con man cannot manage to keep his stories straight.”

Bowdoin, prosecutors argued, was “delusional.”

“To this Court, Bowdoin insinuates that he was misled by his former attorney before agreeing to cooperate and to release claims,” prosecutors said Sept. 28. ”To the former members, however, Bowdoin proclaims that ‘after a few months’ of cooperating he became ‘unhappy with [his prior attorneys’] results and decided to stop cooperating because ‘it would not have been beneficial to everyone’ for him to ‘accept a plea deal[.]‘”

“Remarkably, Bowdoin even suggests to those members participating in the conference call that the money taken from his bank accounts and, supposedly, never constituting an investment, belongs, not to Bowdoin, but to the membership,” prosecutors said.

Murray said the government argued no law and took “great pains to provide the Court with a transcribed telephone call.”

“[I]t is not surprising that Mr. Bowdoin was unhappy with his former attorney,” Murray said. “It is not surprising that Mr. Bowdoin is angry with the government and his
attorney. He signs a release of claims, and now the government is pursuing criminal charges.”

Bowdoin, Murray said, “was doing what he truly must do at this point in time. He must protest his innocence and take the case to trial. The Plaintiff seems particularly intent in trying to persuade this Court that Mr. Bowdoin knew what he was doing and, strangely, should be happy with the position in which he currently finds himself.

“Mr. Bowdoin is not happy,” Murray continued. “He did not receive proper counseling. Mr. Bowdoin should have been told from the very beginning that the government was not going to bargain with him. There was no mutual release wherein the government stated ‘no prosecution’ or ‘no jail time.’ There was no mutual release wherein the government stated that it would argue for a reduced sentence. It was all smoke and mirrors, and Mr. Bowdoin’s attorney did nothing to cut threw it.”

Today’s filing by Murray did not address a veiled reference to the AdViewGlobal autosurf prosecutors made in their Sept 25 filing.

Read Bowdoin’s response.

See story on prosecution’s Sept. 25 filing.

See story on Secret Service filing Sept. 28.

About the Author

18 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin Attorney Says Client ‘Not Happy’; Claims Government’s Position ‘Indefensible’”

  1. This is funny. I’ll bet that Andy is not ‘happy’. There are a lot of ASD members who are not ‘happy’ either, but not with the Government treatment of ASD. What a bunch of BS.

      (Quote)

  2. All I can say is, Holy Guacamole Batman!!!

      (Quote)

  3. Quick note:

    Today’s filing by Bowdoin — as well as the filings by the prosecution late last month — puts to rest the lie some ASD members were telling that Judge Collyer was weeks overdue in issuing a ruling on Bowdoin’s rescission motion.

    Of course, some ASD uplines also told a lie (April) that the prosecution was ordered to charge Bowdoin or dismiss the forfeiture complaint and a lie (August) that prosecutors had been ordered to come up with better evidence or face the consequences.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  4. Poor old 74 year old Andy the Innocent seems to have conveniently forgotten the Evidentiary Hearing that he requested, where he would have had ample opportunity to plead his innocence!

    I wonder how his previous criminal attorney is taking this outrageous criticism by the Mark II version? It wont go far to make Mr. Charles Murray the most popular boy at the Florida Bar.

      (Quote)

  5. The sense of entitlement for no reason is fascinating…..and a fantasy.
    “Proper counseling” means trying to convince the client that the prosecution somehow ‘owes’ them?

      (Quote)

  6. In regard to this quote from Mr. Murray’s filing, and I quote: ” It was all smoke and mirrors, and Mr. Bowdoin’s attorney did nothing to cut threw it.” One has to ask the question, just where id Andy “threw it?” This is supposed to be a competent attorney?

      (Quote)

  7. Just a few of Bowdoin’s new attorney’s remarks:

    Bowdoin made a mistake because he was ‘hoodwinked.’
    Bowdoin insinuates that he was misled.
    “Mr. Bowdoin is not happy.”
    It was all smoke and mirrors.

    Hey, this sounds exactly what happened to me with ASD..
    I made a mistake, was ‘hoodwinked’, misled, I’m not happy and yes it was all smoke and mirrors.

    I hope the fireworks start for Mr. Booo-doin before Halloween.

      (Quote)

  8. What do we know about the obviously delusional attorney Charles Murray? Where is this office (what city)? I know I wouldn’t be happy with an attorney who was such a poor writer that he filed an important legal document reading: It was all smoke and mirrors and Mr. Bowdoin’s former attorney did nothing to cut THREW [sic] it. He wasn’t writing quickly on a blog or email, he’s being paid, at least in part, for his ability to persuade the judge. What he writes is total nonsense, but he doesn’t have anything to work with so I suppose that’s understandable. But at least he could have someone proof-read his documents.

    There isn’t a chance Bowdoin is going to prevail; Murray’s authorities are almost totally unrelated to the issues currently being litigated and if I can see that then the wrongness of the arguments must jump off the page at Judge Collyer.

    Thanks for for all your great work, Patrick!

      (Quote)

  9. Hi Frank,

    Frank: Just a few of Bowdoin’s new attorney’s remarks:

    Bowdoin made a mistake because he was ‘hoodwinked.’
    Bowdoin insinuates that he was misled.
    “Mr. Bowdoin is not happy.”
    It was all smoke and mirrors.

    Hey, this sounds exactly what happened to me with ASD..
    I made a mistake, was ‘hoodwinked’, misled, I’m not happy and yes it was all smoke and mirrors.

    Sounds as though you wouldn’t have made a good pro se litigant, Frank.

    According to the filings, the government “has failed” to produce evidence, witnesses and victims — even though a trial date has not been scheduled in the civil case and despite the fact both sides introduced evidence at the evidentiary hearing last fall.

    The judge viewed the evidence and took it under advisement before issuing her ruling last November that ASD had not demonstrated in was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme.

    One thing that always has struck me about the pro se filings is that they presume there are no people such as yourself — or that the government looked at the case for three weeks in July, filed the forfeiture complaint and then did nothing else.

    One thing the government did, of course, was establish that Judy Harris got a loan off her aunt for $5,000 against the seized car, which was named in the December complaint as crime proceeds.

    Neither Harris nor her husband has filed a claim for the car or the Tallahassee home, which also was named in the December complaint.

    So, given these facts — and the “offshore” nature of AVG — it wouldn’t be surprising to hear the prosecution argue one day that neither the home nor the car was needed because certain other arrangements had been made and that Judy had alternative idea on how she’d pay back her aunt.

    They’ve already hinted at that.

    Regards.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  10. Let’s see if I can follow the logic of Murray’s filing.

    One Andy Bowdoin had his personal property sued in rem by the government alleging that it was the criminal proceeds of a fraudulent scheme so Bowdoin hired an attorney who advised him that he may have criminal exposure and recommended he hire a criminal defense attorney. The criminal defense attorney advised Bowdoin that he may receive some consideration at his sentencing in any potential criminal trial for a proffer in the civil case. Andy decided that this meant he could walk on the criminal charges if he gave up the money so he signed. No one outside the prosecution, Andy and his attorney(s) knows what Bowdoin was offered for his proffer, if anything, or what is contained in the proffer.

    Neither his civil attorney or his criminal attorney could “cut threw it” but more than a few posters on the Internet could? Did his attorneys also overlook the fact that Judges sentence defendants and prosecutors don’t sentence defendants? The Court could reject any deal if it so chooses.

    Now Bowdoin’s upset, yet again, because the prosecution did not ask his permission to supplement their filing? Excuse me, I thought the Court decided what’s admitted into the record and what is not. I guess I must have missed the part in the Constitution where it states American citizens were born with the duty to make Andy happy, except for “sovereign citizens” who can do what ever they wish, including threatening Federal judges.

    Lastly, I am having a difficult time seeing how Andy’s position has remained consistent since last year when he first stated it was “his money, his property, he’s the sole proprietor and he received nothing of value in exchange for his proffer” when he now states to his victims that he is fighting for their money that the government seized.

      (Quote)

  11. Hi, this is Marcia here NOT Marci…what would happen to Andy’s money if, God forbid, he should endure so much stress from all his troubles that he would have a heart attack and die?

      (Quote)

  12. db, will you PLEASE stop using common sense and logic when discussing the case.:-)

    This is, after all, a HYIP ponzi “autosurf” we’re discussing here, not a “real” or legitimate business.

    You’ve been around long enough to know that, in the HYIP ponzi “autosurf” business, NOTHING is as it appears and concept of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is as scarce as rocking horse excrement.

      (Quote)

  13. Marcia,

    Aside from justice being served, Andy’s estate would inherit the funds (in principle Andy still has title to those funds, although that status is hanging on by a thread). The estate would transfer to his heirs, but the asset forfeiture would continue to move forward. The heirs would not be facing Andy’s criminal charges (although if the heirs include his criminal wife and criminal children, the Harris’s, they’ll have their own criminal charges to deal with), so they might be more inclined to settle, who knows.

    Marcia: Hi, this is Marcia here NOT Marci…what would happen to Andy’s money if, God forbid, he should endure so much stress from all his troubles that he would have a heart attack and die?

      (Quote)

  14. No, and you can’t make me!

    littleroundman: db, will you PLEASE stop using common sense and logic when discussing the case.:-)

      (Quote)

  15. The business he has built up? Ha. Let’s get an arrest already.

      (Quote)

  16. dirty_bird: No, and you can’t make me!

    littleroundman: db, will you PLEASE stop using common sense and logic when discussing the case.:-)

    DB: Excellent analysis! What Murray is saying, despite the fact that he can’t find adequate authorities to make his case — and as you point out so eloquently it just ain’t so — is that all discussions are invalid unless there is a definite quid pro quo. Either that or Murray is confusing plea bargaining with contract law (I’ve thought that was the case several times).

      (Quote)

  17. I would just like to know if there is any chance in $%^$&$# that anyone will ever see their money back?

      (Quote)

  18. Hello Shell,

    Shell: I would just like to know if there is any chance in $%^$&$# that anyone will ever see their money back?

    The government has said repeatedly that it intends to implement a restitution program for crime victims.

    In January 2009, Andy Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture, meaning the case nearly had been litigated to conclusion.

    In February, Bowdoin changed his mind and attempted to reassert his claims.

    Since February, several dozen motions have been filed by pro se litigants. The prosecution warned that the filings could delay the restitution program.

    When Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture, the court docket showed about 40 entries. That number now has ballooned to more than 150 — the vast majority of filings since February have been pro se and responses/orders to the filers.

    The unofficial total of pro se pleadings since February is 68; the judge has ruled on an unofficial total of 56 of them, with 12 rulings pending.

    On a number of occasions, the judge denied motions — and then motions by others using the same arguments that had been denied arrived at the courthouse. The judge’s initial denial of these filings occurred more than a month ago, but motions using the same pro se litigation blueprint have continued to arrive at the courthouse.

    The judge is not delaying the case, and the prosecutors are not delaying the case. Andy Bowdoin and the pro se filers are delaying the case. The judge had to order Bowdoin to follow-up on his pleadings. She did not hear from him between mid-May and late July, a period of more than two months.

    She ordered him to respond by Aug. 7. Extensions were granted at his request because his attorney said Andy was negotiating with the government. The judge gave Andy until Sept. 14. He filed his paperwork on the last possible day. He then filed corrected paperwork on Sept. 15.

    Prosecutors have filed two responses to that, and Bowdoin’s attorney filed a response to their paperwork Oct. 8, two days ago.

    Wish I could answer your question with a date and time the government will implement the restitution program, but I can’t. The prosecution does not have title to the ASD money because of the ongoing pleadings.

    Although it does have title to the Golden Panda money, there are unresolved issues with it, too. One of them is that the prosecution believes ASD money got mixed with GP money.

    ASD/Golden Panda members have been very ill-served by some of the ASD advocates. This had led to delays and confusion.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply