Bowdoin, Prosecutors Clash Anew In August 2008 Forfeiture Case; Dispute May Explain Government’s Announcement Last Week That Separate Case Could Be Delayed For ‘Several Months’

UPDATED 2:03 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) Two attorneys for AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin are asking a federal judge to vacate orders she issued granting a default judgment to the government and granting a final order of forfeiture to tens of millions of dollars and a home seized in the case.

Attorneys Charles A. Murray and Michael R.N. McDonnell assert that U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued the orders granting the judgment and forfeiture in error — before Bowdoin’s legal remedies were exhausted in the August 2008 civil-forfeiture case against ASD-connected assets.

Although Bowdoin’s defense counsel asserted the government did not oppose the motions, prosecutors fired back with a motion to clarify their point of view, suggesting they did not want anyone to get the impression that they believed Bowdoin’s new arguments had merit.

Collyer issued the judgment and forfeiture order Jan. 4, Bowdoin’s counsel argued. The order was entered into the record Jan. 6, 57 days after Collyer issued an order in November that denied Bowdoin’s bid to reassert claims to money he forfeited to the government in January 2009.

Bowdoin still had three days remaining to challenge Collyer’s November ruling when the final judgment and forfeiture order were entered Jan. 6, Bowdoin’s counsel argued, asserting that Collyer had entered the judgment and forfeiture order “erroneously” and prejudiced their client.

A decision by Collyer not to vacate the orders would result in a “manifest injustice” to Bowdoin, his attorneys argued.

Bowdoin may turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for a remedy, his attorneys said. They argued that “intervening circumstances beyond [Bowdoin’s] control” had affected the outcome of the case, suggesting that a clerical error of some sort had prejudiced their client.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Deborah L. Connor and Barry Wiegand said Collyer’s issuance of the default and forfeiture orders was legally sound.

“[T]he United States will contest in every Court at any level any challenge to any of these rulings as error,” Connor and Wiegand said.

Prosecutors said the government  had spoken with Murray and related to him that it did not oppose providing Bowdoin time to argue his motions. But Connor and Wiegand said the government wanted to make its position “clear” that it did not believe Collyer had erred.

“The Court’s rulings and issuance of a default judgment and final order or forfeiture were correct in law and fully justified by [the] case’s posture when [Collyer] ruled,” the prosecutors said.

They added that they intended to file a supplemental brief. How the case would proceed was not immediately clear.

Prosecutors said last week that there might be a delay of “several months” before final adjudication of a separate forfeiture case brought against ASD-connected assets in December 2008. Bowdoin’s new filings in the August 2008 case suggest both cases could be delayed.

About the Author

10 Responses to “Bowdoin, Prosecutors Clash Anew In August 2008 Forfeiture Case; Dispute May Explain Government’s Announcement Last Week That Separate Case Could Be Delayed For ‘Several Months’”

  1. I’m puzzled – why would an appeal (or whatever) on the Aug 08 case cause a delay on the Dec 08 case? I thought they were separate cases.

      (Quote)

  2. Hi Tony,

    Tony H: I’m puzzled – why would an appeal (or whatever) on the Aug 08 case cause a delay on the Dec 08 case?

    It perhaps was the prosecution’s intent to conclude both cases roughly simultaneously as a means of synchronizing events beyond the conclusion — such as implementing the procedure for victims to request restitution. Filings in the December case last fall suggested it might conclude around Jan. 15 — since passed.

    It’s possible that a delay in one case would lead to an inevitable delay in the other because of concerns over an inequitable result — and the prospect of even more litigation.

    Just a thought.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  3. Note for reference:

    A poster has attempted to post — in this thread and NINE other threads — a news release by the Justice Department about ASD mainstay “Professor” Patrick Moriarty’s guilty plea in a tax case.

    We covered Moriarty’s guilty plea Jan. 10 — 15 days ago — here:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/01/10/professor-patrick-moriarty-adsurfdaily-mainstay-pleads-guilty-in-federal-tax-case-april-sentencing-date-set/

    No commentary was submitted along with the news release; it was just the same news release copied and pasted into 10 separate threads — sometimes twice in the same minute.

    The first attempt occurred at 3:03 p.m. ET; it was followed by attempts at 3:24 in two separate threads; 3:25 in two separate threads; 3:26 in a separate thread; 3:27 in two separate threads; 3:28 in a separate thread; and 3:29 in a separate thread.

    The poster used the same hotmail address in nine of the attempts and an address from a commercial provider in one of the attempts.

    We have declined to publish the submissions. Based on a preliminary analysis of data, it is possible that the serial poster was an ASD member who also belonged to the Gold Nugget Invest HYIP. All of the attempts originated from the same IP.

    Why the poster would attempt to post the same news release in 10 separate threads over a period of 26 minutes is left to the imagination.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  4. Hmmnn,

    why does the phrase: “you ain’t seen nothing yet” keep running through my mind ????

      (Quote)

  5. Unfortunately, the Federal Court System will bend over backwards to accommodate a Pro Se Filer compared to those that use an Attorney. If this was a filing by his Attorney’s on his behalf then it would be thrown out as beyond the time frame but as a Pro Se Filer the court will show some leniency. The United States Supreme Court has stated that most Pro Se filers are of the unsophisticated type and should be treated with understanding that they are without the firm understanding of the Laws as would an Attorney.

    I believe that in this case the Appeals Court should it get that far will not only shoot him down but might even sanction his Attorneys for wasting the Courts time.

    You see since he does have two Attorney’s it is really hard for him to claim that he was not aware of the time frame for filing motions or anything else that has to do with this case.

      (Quote)

  6. It really makes one wonder exactly how much these two gentlemen are being paid to jeopardize their credibility as attorneys when presenting these filings.

    It also makes one wonder even more WHERE Mr. Bowdoin holds the funds that he is using to pay them.

      (Quote)

  7. Oh, that’s an easy question. He is using all of the cash he took in at the rallies that was never deposited in his numerous personal Bank of America accounts. Many people claim to have seen suitcases full of cash, and Andy having “closed door sessions” with the investors. And he wonders why they suspected money laundering, which is exactly what he was doing. May he rot in prison along with he co-conspirators.

      (Quote)

  8. Help, Please can anybody find in the initial court documents from Judge Collier the bank account numbers that were listed in her papers or the Attorney Generals papers with the seized bank account numbers. My creditures are interested in these. Please help me. Randy LeBlanc at: randaddy54@yahoo.com. Thanks!!

      (Quote)

  9. Randy LeBlanc: Please can anybody find in the initial court documents from Judge Collier the bank account numbers that were listed in her papers or the Attorney Generals papers with the seized bank account numbers.

    Randy.

    The numbers are in this document:

    http://patrickpretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/166.pdf

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  10. I am once again confused. why would your creditors want the numbers of Andy’s seized bank accounts? Did you pay them with checks drawn from ASD, money that you received from a criminal enterprise which is likely to be clawed back by the Feds? Maybe you are opening a very large can of worms, here. Or you already have..

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply