BULLETIN: Judge Denies 3 Bowdoin Motions; ASD Asks For A Second Evidentiary Hearing In Federal Forfeiture Case

UPDATED 10:27 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A federal judge has denied two pro se motions by AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin to undo the forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars seized last year by the U.S. Secret Service.

Separately, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer also denied a third motion by Bowdoin to exclude and suppress evidence obtained in an interview with Secret Service agents.

Meanwhile, Bowdoin has asked for an evidentiary hearing in which ASD would call “approximately five” witnesses to help it demonstrate that Collyer should permit ASD to reopen its claims to the seized money.

Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture in mid-January, but changed his mind in late February. He submitted a pro se motion to reopen the claim, and his attorney, Charles A. Murray, filed a supplemental motion on Bowdoin’s behalf.

Murray today filed a motion seeking the evidentiary hearing. The motion suggests prosecutors plan to oppose the motion.

“Counsel has conferred with opposing counsel who has his opposition to this motion,” Murray said, in his request for the evidentiary hearing.

If the motion is granted, it would lead to the second evidentiary hearing in the case. The first was held Sept. 30-Oct. 1, and Collyer ruled in November that ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme at the proceeding.

Collyer rejected three pro se motions today that Bowdoin had filed earlier this year, including the motion to exclude and suppress evidence.

“The agents who searched Mr. Bowdoin’s property and seized certain tangible evidence were operating on the basis of a warrant issued ‘upon probable cause, supported by an affidavit made under oath, which particularly described the place to be searched and the things to be seized,'” Collyer said.  “There is no basis upon which to suppress evidence so seized.

“Nor is there any basis to suppress Mr. Bowdoin’s statements to the investigators,” Collyer wrote, pointing out that, “Though Mr. Bowdoin initially declined to speak to the agents without a lawyer present, he later agreed to be interviewed.”

Collyer noted that the forfeiture case was brought as a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding.

“As Mr. Bowdoin’s statements are not being used to subject him to criminal liability, there can be no violation of his privilege against self-incrimination here,” Collyer wrote.

She also rejected a Bowdoin argument that the civil forfeiture case should be dismissed because Bowdoin did not receive a Miranda warning.

“Mr. Bowdoin was never placed under arrest, never ordered to participate in the interrogation, and was in his own home,” Collyer said. “The agents had no duty to advise him of his Miranda rights, and their failure to do so cannot be a basis for suppressing his statements.”

Collyer also rejected Bowdoin’s claims that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matters, that Bowdoin had been denied “fair notice” that his conduct with ASD was illegal and that the civil-forfeiture case actually was a “quasi-criminal matter.”

“Mr. Bowdoin further argues that because this action is ‘quasi-criminal’ the Government should be required to prove its case by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence,” Collyer said. “A look at the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (‘CAFRA’), 18 U.S.C. § 981, et seq., demonstrates the fallacy of this argument.”

About the Author

15 Responses to “BULLETIN: Judge Denies 3 Bowdoin Motions; ASD Asks For A Second Evidentiary Hearing In Federal Forfeiture Case”

  1. Did she rule on the Murray filing?

  2. Looks like the hammer is about to drop…

  3. It can only be good news that the judge has ruled this way. Is this ruling for what Saint Andy posted a few days ago, or what he posted months ago?

  4. Hi Tony,

    Tony H: Is this ruling for what Saint Andy posted a few days ago, or what he posted months ago?

    As of this writing, the judge appears NOT to have issued an order on Bowdoin’s rescission claims — either the one he filed pro se or the one filed by his attorney.


  5. Patrick:

    I thought the Judge’s ruling that Andy could not file Pro Se in the Corporate filing, and had to show cause with his attorney negated the rescission Pro Se claim. Did I miss read that somehow?

    If Andy and his attorney were reading closely, most of their arguments in their most recent response to Judge Collyer requiring they show cause, have been shot down. They have to know they are dead meat, and they won’t win.

    So no doubt what her next ruling will be on Andy and his attorney with their latest filing. Of course she still has to rule on all those idiotic other Pro Se filings, which we know will be tossed like all the others.

    Hmm, I think the fat lady is almost done warming up. Still a little fine tuning of the voice, but almost ready for the aria to begin.

  6. I understand that another filing has been submitted to the court today. Now Murray wants an Evidentiary hearing, and has 5 witnesses to testify. Of course if Judge Collyer rules against them in their last filing, this goes bye-bye. Wonder how many Evidentiary hearings they want to have? Bet Andy is not one of the 5 to testify. Hopefully they drag Nehra, the so-called expert from Money Maker Magazine Keith Largos(?) who also has a federal judgement against him, maybe Robert Garner, Simmons and eithe Jason George or Jeff Vavra. Now that would be worth going to DC for if it happens. LOL!

  7. Quick note:

    Unofficially, the pro se filers, including Bowdoin, currently are 0 for 56 to date, with an unofficial total of six pro se motions remaining to be ruled upon.

    Five of the six remaining are templated motions submitted in a recent spate of 46. The judge has denied the first 41.

    The sixth pro motion pending is Bowdoin’s motion to rescind his decision to submit to the forfeiture.

    Through his attorney, Bowdoin now has asked for an evidentiary hearing on the rescission motion and a supplemental motion in support filed by the attorney.


  8. Hi Lynn,

    Lynndel Edgington: I understand that another filing has been submitted to the court today.

    Yes, indeed. I’ve added the info to the story above.



  9. Patrick if I read the motion correctly? Mr. Murray is stating that Cowden objects to the hearing. Line #7. Is that correct or did this high priced Attorney not proof read his motion before he filed?

  10. Cowden is objecting.

  11. dirty_bird: Cowden is objecting.

    While Bowdoin is just plain “objectionable”

  12. Why winter in Florida, when one can enjoy the frosty midwest?

    Yes friends, tired of the beach scene?
    The local country clubs are getting a bit crowded after Turkey Day?

    Well then , catch a bit of Karma in style…
    at the posh U.S. Penitentiary Marion

    The epitome of ‘three hots and a cot living’ complete with two fabulous seasons… Hot as hell and no breeze with humidity and below-zero, frozen tundra with 40MPH winds.

  13. Pity they no longer keep prisoners on Dry Totuga

  14. Email from Sara Mattoon:

    Hi Everyone-
    At 4:45pm Friday 9/18/09 (the deadline was 5pm) Andy’s lawyer called the government negotiators with Andy’s decision about whether he would accept the final terms of those negotiations.
    As you know, a conference call was tentatively scheduled for this Monday to communicate the outcome to all the members. There has been a slight change in that plan. It was suggested that, since only 1,000 members could get on a live call, it would be frustrating for a membership of about 118,000 people to try to attend. Therefore, the call will be recorded and, instead of receiving a message about how to get onto a live call, everyone will be receiving a message giving them the information they will need to access the recorded call. So, please start looking for that message to appear in your inbox on Tuesday 9/22/09. If it doesn’t appear right away, don’t be concerned. It may be due to technical problems recording the call so that it has to be re-done, or some other unforeseen circumstance. It may also be that it may take some time for the emessage that is sent to be delivered (common when emessages are sent in groups). So, please be patient.
    I will send the message to my update list; it will also be sent to everyone on the official ASD list, so you may get it twice. You can also go onto the following ASD Member Advocates Forum website to get the information: www dot asdmaf dot com (Note: I’m avoiding putting any site addresses in this message because it could be perceived by the server as spam and cause it to be bounced or put into your spam box, so hopefully you can figure out what the site is from what I have written). Also, Bellsouth, msn, hotmail, sometimes yahoo, and some other providers are notorious for bouncing emessages sent in groups so, if you want to do business online, I recommend that you get a gmail eaddress (search “Google Mail” to sign up for one).
    Please forward this message on to other ASD members you may know, to encourage them to contact me with a request to be on my ASD update list (especially if their eaddress has changed since July of 2008). Then they will get ASD updates directly.

  15. Who was the wise guy who suggested that people asked questions on the live call? ROFL