BREAKING NEWS: Prosecution Answers Bowdoin’s Claim D.C. Court Lacks Jurisdiction; Says ASD President’s Claim Has ‘No Reasonable Basis’ In Law And That ‘Serial’ Filings Could Result In Sanctions

In what could be a day of multiple filings by the government in the AdSurfDaily case, federal prosecutors said in a memorandum that pro se claims by ASD President Andy Bowdoin that U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction over him in a civil forfeiture case have “no reasonable basis” in law.

Meanwhile, prosecutors asserted that continued filings by Bowdoin on a bad-faith basis might subject him to sanctions.

“In his pro se ‘ Motion To Dismiss, etc., Mr. Bowdoin suggests that this Court ‘does not have jurisdiction because although this may be filed as a civil action, it must be treated as quasicriminal with a standard of review or proof of clear and convincing evidence, not just preponderance of evidence,'” prosecutors said. “Alongside his opaque prose, however, Mr. Bowdoin offers neither one relevant argument, nor one pertinent citation in support of whatever relief he may here be urging.”

Judge Rosemary Collyer should deny the motion because it simply has no force of law behind it, prosecutors said.

“Mr. Bowdoin closes by asserting that ‘[t]here has been no probable cause determination
in this forfeiture,'” prosecutors said.  “But he knows that statement is no more truthful than the representations he made to his investors. In this case a judge found probable cause for each seizure warrant this Court issued, and this Court found probable cause to support the forfeiture action again, after reviewing the government’s verified complaint and the additional evidence that Mr. Bowdoin’s former attorneys insisted be produced.”

Bowdoin’s behavior could result in a request for sanctions, prosecutors hinted.

“In this case, Mr. Bowdoin has filed an assortment of new motions after having already lost their earlier iterations,” prosecutors said. “Continued serial-filing might be rejected outright, and even sanctioned.

“Rule 12(g) provides,’If a party makes a motion under [Rule 12] but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to the party which this rule permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted….'” prosecutors continued.

“In other words, with limited exception, Rule 12(g) requires all of the permitted Rule 12(b) defenses to be raised in a single, consolidated motion rather than in multiple or successive motions. See Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1306 (11th Cir.2002). Leading commentators on federal practice and procedure agree that Rule 12(g) generally bars successive pre-answer motions to dismiss.

“Professors Wright and Miller state, ‘The right to raise these defenses by preliminary motion is lost when the defendant neglects to consolidate them in his initial motion,'” prosecutors said.

Read the prosecution’s memo.