BREAKING NEWS: RICO Summons Reissued To Bowdoin, Busby, Garner; Reader Says Busby Missing For Months

Attorney Robert Garner

Attorney Robert Garner

UPDATED 7:49 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) ASD President Andy Bowdoin, ASD attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby never responded to a racketering lawsuit filed against them in January and the summons has been reissued.

No attorney has entered an appearance notice for any of the three men.

Bank of America also is a defendant in the case, though not a RICO defendant. BOA was accused of aiding and abetting  Bowdoin, Busby and Garner. The bank is being represented by Michael B. Roberts of Reed Smith in Washington, D.C.

Reed Smith specializes in complex litigation.

The case was brought by Mike Collins of Savage, Minn.; Frank Greene of Washington, D.C.;  and Natures Discount of Aventura, Fla., all former ASD members. It was filed as a class-action and has been assigned to Judge Rosemary Collyer, the same judge hearing the ASD civil-forfeiture case filed by federal prosecutors in August and a second forfeiture case against ASD assets seized in December.

Bowdoin, Busby and Robert Garner were accused of conspiring with unnamed parties in organized efforts to defraud.

The complaint alleged the men were involved in “other” schemes beyond ASD, Golden Panda and LaFuenteDinero, and have “committed or aided and abetted in the commission of countless acts of racketeering activity,” including indictable offenses.

“The ASD Enterprise provides the RICO Defendants and other unnamed co-conspirators with a system by which to operate fraudulent schemes such as ASD, to hide the fraudulent nature of the schemes, and to profit from such schemes,” the plaintiffs alleged. “Each RICO Defendant agreed to perform services of a kind which facilitated the operation of the ASD Enterprise and facilitated the RICO Defendants and others in the operation of various fraudulent schemes, including ASD.”

Why the men did not respond to the RICO complaint is unclear. Bowdoin said he fired his attorneys in a civil-forfeiture case filed in August against proceeds linked to ASD. The U.S. Secret Service has seized nearly $100 million in the case, and Bowdoin now is acting as his own attorney.

Bowdoin has filed several motions in the past few weeks.

A Blog reader who described himself as having engaged Busby in a real-estate deal said he could not locate Busby for months. The reader added that he finally secured a phone number for Busby, spoke with him briefly yesterday and that Busby hurried him off the phone.

“We had to go through a long list of people to get a GOOD phone number,” the reader said. “Oddly, we spoke with him just today. Not sure where he is and we didn’t ask. He basicaly told us we had not tried to contact him, would not let us get a word in and was in a hurry.”

Garner once advertised offshore legal services in an online magazine known as “Escape From America Magazine.”

Garner identified himself a “[f]ormer General Counsel for  major Miami-based securities firm with Latin and South American  focus,” according to his ad. He listed the URL for his law office in Greensboro, North Carolina, saying he also specialized in “[r]ecoveries from scam.”

Garner’s North Carolina law license was updated March 14 by the North Carolina State Bar. Garner’s license is active, and he is in good standing with the Bar.

About the Author

2 Responses to “BREAKING NEWS: RICO Summons Reissued To Bowdoin, Busby, Garner; Reader Says Busby Missing For Months”

  1. Patrick:

    What is the meaning of having the summons “reissued?” Is there a point in time when a default judgment will be issued? It seems to me that there would be some way to request that the NC Bar discipline Garner’s law license for failing to respond to the initial summons. If a lawsuit is filed against me in federal court, is responding optional? I don’t think Andy has anything to seize but does that go for Garner and Busby, too? It seems to me that ignoring a summons can’t go on forever — or can it?

  2. Hi Marci,

    Marci: What is the meaning of having the summons “reissued?”

    The lawyers who filed the RICO lawsuit PERHAPS were having trouble serving Bowdoin, Busby and Garner through a registered agent. This looks like an attempt to warn them that a default judgment could be issued, although the actual summons is not on the court site — only several words of docket text.

    I’ve seen cases in which the reissued summons carried a warning that a default judgment could be entered in 20 days, for instance.

    I don’t know the answer to your question about whether the NC Bar could discipline Garner for not responding to the initial summons.

    Take care,