HAVE THE ‘GAMES’ BEGUN? AdSurfDaily Members Todd Disner, Dwight Owen Schweitzer File Lawsuit Against Government That Claims Undercover Agents Violated Firm’s Terms Of Service; Federal Prosecutors Say Money Was Seized Properly With Valid Warrants
UPDATED 11:27 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) In May, an email attributed to AdSurfDaily member Todd Disner declared, “Let the games begin!” The remark was in the context of a lawsuit Disner and fellow ASD member Dwight Owen Schweitzer intended to file against the United States once ASD members chipped in enough money to fund the complaint.
Those games apparently have begun with the filing today of a pro se “complaint for declaratory relief” by Disner and Schweitzer in the Southern District of Florida against the United States and Rust Consulting Inc., the government-approved claims administrator in the civil-forfeiture portion of the ASD Ponzi case.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge in Florida to find that the seizure of assets and business records belonging to Disner and Schweitzer was “illegal and void” and demands their return. It also asks the judge to order Rust to “disclose all information in its possession or available to it pertaining to” Disner and Schweitzer.
Among the claims in the lawsuit are that undercover agents from a U.S. Secret Service/IRS Task Force who joined ASD prior to the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from the bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin violated ASD’s Terms of Service and had a duty to report their alleged TOS violations, including the insertion of an agent’s undercover “MySpace” page in ASD’s advertising rotator, to the company.
Rust is headquartered in Minnesota. Although the complaint named the United States a defendant alongside Rust, the address listed for the United States by Disner and Schweitzer was the address of the office of U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the District of Columbia.
Disner, an unsuccessful pro se litigant in the ASD civil case brought by the government, is a co-founder of the Quiznos sandwich franchise. He lives in Miami. Schweitzer, a former attorney, also lives in Miami. The government’s case against ASD-related assets was filed in the District of Columbia in August 2008. Disner was denied standing in the District of Columbia on Aug. 31, 2009, more than two years ago.
Among other things, Disner and Schweitzer claim their private records as contained in ASD’s database were confiscated illegally by the government. They also claimed an affidavit filed in the forfeiture case by the U.S. Secret Service was flawed and that the government hired Rust to implement a remissions program “designed to collect evidence and coerced admissions from the plaintiffs to be used by the government” at the criminal trial of ASD President Andy Bowdoin.
Federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia — the venue in which both the criminal and the civil cases against Bowdoin and ASD-connected assets were filed — had a different take.
“The funds in this case were seized under properly issued judicial warrants,” Machen’s office said today. “Beyond that, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has no comment on the matter at this time. ”
Puzzlingly, the complaint filed by Disner and Schweitzer and recorded on the docket of U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga today makes the assertion that “To date the plaintiffs are unaware of any remission payments having been made and specifically the plaintiffs were unable to get the information required for their submissions, all of which are still in the possession of the government.”
On Sept. 22 — more than six weeks ago — the PP Blog reported that thousands of ASD members who filed approved remissions claims would receive back 100 cents on the dollar. Members reported that the money was deposited electronically into their bank accounts beginning on Sept. 23. On Sept. 26, the government announced that $55 million was being returned, with the Secret Service describing ASD as a “criminal enterprise” and the Department of Justice describing the ASD scheme as “insidious.”
In a Sept. 28 email, even Bowdoin acknowledged that he was aware the government had returned money to members through the remissions process. Among other things, the ASD patriarch claimed the government had forced members to lie to receive compensation.
Disner and Schweitzer not only claim in their complaint that they are “unaware” of any money being returned, they also claim the remissions program was designed to “prevent, hamper and forestall the return” of funds.
Meanwhile, Disner and Schweitzer claim that ASD was a profitable venture, in stark contrast to assertions by the government that ASD was insolvent because it created a liability of $1.25 for each dollar it took in through the sale of purported “advertising.”
Disner and Schweitzer also took issue with government agents joining ASD and allegedly violating the ASD membership agreement, including an undercover agent who placed his undercover “MySpace” page in ASD’s advertising rotator. In August 2008, the government alleged that “ASD did not require, or even verify that the agent “had any product or service to sell.”
Had the agents “lived up to the obligations they took on by becoming members of ASD they should have reported their own violations of the ASD terms of service with the result that the sites they foisted upon ASD would have been removed and the benefits to them as advertisers’ would be forfeited as the ASD rules mandated,” Disner and Schweitzer argued.
How excellent.
I’ve always wondered how it is that in gangster movies the undercover agents are never charged with breaking their sacred TOS……err……blood oath when they rat out their fellow gangsters.
I guess now we’ll get a definitive answer.
They really blew their load too early on this one. It must have been killing them. No one has testified in a trial yet for them to even remotely make this a reality.
I love that their own complaint shoots themselves in the foot as always. morons.
Good ol’ Todd and Dwight seem to have missed the point. 99.9% of the members couldn’t have given a rats what they had to say to get their money back. (Rather liked their founder and inner clique who couldn’t have given a rats what they had to say to get the money in the first place) The only ones who give a dam* are the winners who might have to pay it back.
They certainly seem to be looking to increase jail sentences all round. Can anyone say “obstruction of justice”?
Dumb and Dumber III, When Dwight met Todd
Let me help you guys understand where your off the wall comments fall short of reality, or even a semblance of reality. To ‘Lil Ol’ I am not sure how you have the ability to read the minds of 90,000 or so people but only about 11,000 by the governments admission, filed for Remission. Are you suggesting that the remaining 79,000 ‘are the winners who might have to pay it back”?? Those of us who ARE lawyers have a saying..If you can’t attack the law, attack the facts and if you can’t attack the facts attack the lawyer” so I suppose those purjurative comments about us illustrate the point. Take the thumbs out of your mouths and suck on this. 1) Many who filed for remissions added letters that they were not investors but legitimate advertisers. 2) The government says it is remitting 55 million dollars but $65.8 million was confiscated so where is the other 10? 3) If you are accusing us of obstruction of justice, that is libelous so mind your tongue boy or back it up with the truth so you have a defense.4) The government has stated that it has 11,000 ‘admissions’ from members that they were investing in a Ponzi scheme..is the coincidence of that number lost on you?…and to: “Whip” (not as in ‘as smart as a”, it seems), the Remission form speaks for itself and clearly states that it is being submitted by an “INVESTOR” duhhh. so who’s the moron here…if you were any smarter you’d be dangerous. We have made claims in our Complaint that asks questions and attempts to shine a light on the infringement of rights that you geniuses would scream bloody murder if you were the victims of, so shut the F–K up and wait to see what the court does with our allegation that our (and by inference ‘your’) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF “OUR” PROPERTY (in case you did not get it the first time around) were violated by a government that is increasingly intrusive into the private lives and expectations of privacy of all of us. So do not ask for whom the bell tolls…it tolls for you.
Dwight Owen Schweitzer
(the one who uses his real name here, unlike you ‘clowns’)
As I am a firm believer in the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I invite all of you arm chair lawyers, constitutional scholars or just plain demagogues to do two things,…read the ACTUAL complaint we filed, (which is not the one previously published here) and then read the Summary of Search and Seizure Law from the Cornell Law School Law Library; especially those areas which address the issues of what constitutes ‘Probable Cause’ and how the factual allegations of informants must be presented to a neutral magistrate for him or her to determine whether the information they have allegedly provided can be relied upon to form a basis to find ‘Probable Cause’.
The Complaint can be found here:
https://sites.google.com/site/asdupdatesfiles/documents/other-asd-cases
The discussion on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and what constitutes Probable Cause can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag2_user.html
If you have an interest in seeing the exhibits that are referenced in and attached to our ‘Complaint For Declaratory Relief’, they can be found by going to http://www.Pacer.gov and looking at the web page where our complaint can be found. The case number is found on the top of the complaint.
You’re confusing being some windbag lawyer with being God.
The Court will decide reality in this case. So far those you attack have predicted the outcomes quite accurately. These cases usually follow the script closer than a Chuck Norris movie.
Fair enough, 11,000 people filed for Remission. Who’s attempting to read the minds of everyone who did not? People have speculated it may not be in the interest of everyone to file. Is that unreasonable?
And if you’ve followed the ASD saga on PP for a while, you see that many here have advised people to consult a qualified local attorney, who’s working strictly on their behalf, to see what action or inaction is right for them. Unlike Andy, Bob, Larry, Sara, etc, who continue to dispense advice on how people should proceed.
Are you attempting to put words in his mouth?
One version of the saying I have heard is: “If the facts are with you, pound on the facts. If the law is with you, pound on the law. If neither are with you, pound on the table.” Guess which one I believe you are engaging in?
Merriam Webster: purjurative
The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Did you mean pejorative or perjurious? One of those has a legal meaning. Are you attempting to intimidate people? If so, you’re not the first. The rest have been sent packing.
Using paragraphs would be helpful as well.
Great, by your logic, if I invest in a cocaine importation operation and the shipment is interdicted, I only need to submit a letter to the court that I thought it was sugar. Don’t you think the Court will decide the legality of the underlying operation and rule accordingly?
In case you missed it, $55 million in claims were submitted and approved. People received 100% of their approved claims? Are you suggesting that people receive more than they claimed and was approved?
The Court will decide what happens to other $10 million. It’s just a guess, but I bet it’s sitting in a back account.
You can submit whatever you want to the Court. Whether it’s accepted or not, the Court will decide. Any obstruction will be decided by the Court if those allegations are made. Or is this just another silly attempt at intimidation? Funny how the 4th Amendment is sacred to you while you seem to completely ignore the 1st Amendment when convenient.
WTF? The form says investor. What’s your point? The Court decides what’s appropriate, not you.
My prediction is that it will be thrown out or ruled against. It’s just a guess.
And if the bell is not tolling for me, can I sue you for causing duress?
LOL. You’d think that anonymous speech had no tradition in the United States. Funny how you twist things to suit your narrow interests when convenient.
I have read the complaint and supporting documentation and find it to be a sound argument. Knowing what I do about the “Just-Us” system in this country I hope that the judge will stand on the Law. Thanks go to you Todd and Dwight for your intestinal fortitude to bring this action for all.
Forget the ASS CLOWNS that just want to piss on anyone’s parade because they have no spine. Some may think they are great legal minds because they have a dictionary (legal or otherwise) but lack the balls to defend their Rights against an out of control govt.
lex parsimoniae rools, OK ?
Dwight,
If you have an interest in seeing the exhibits that are referenced in and attached to our ‘Complaint For Declaratory Relief’, they can be found by going to http://www.Pacer.gov and looking at the web page where our complaint can be found. The case number is found on the top of the complaint.
The only way you can see things on PACER is if you have an account and pay 8 cents per page, including searches. Not everyone has a PACER account, nor do you, apparently.
I have sent you several messages that I would be happy to publish them on the Files website if you email them to me, as I am not inclined to pay for getting them from PACER.
To date, you have neither responded nor sent me the files. The bell is now tolling for you!!!!
Dwight,
I see that you were not satisfied with flogging your case on the ASD Updates WordPress Blog, a blog that has updates newer than April of this year. I would also like to perhaps point out that Patrick’s site is no more of a debate portal for you than my site is; that would be best served on your own WordPress site, where your supporters can congregate to gain knowledge.
Why must you continue to demonstrate that you would be out of your depth in a mud puddle ??
“The discussion on the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and what constitutes Probable Cause can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag2_user.html”
Funny, I never knew that Cornell Law had the last word in Constitutional Law or it’s interpretation.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Pray tell, do you happen to live in Lagos, Nigeria, or a similar cesspit of financial deception and the peddling of broken dreams such as Boca Raton, Florida?
Dwight,
In the aftermath of Todd’s “Let the games begin!” email (May) and his “We plan to go after Akerman Senifit (sic) next” email (July), you want people to take your 4th Amendment lawsuit against the United States and Rust seriously — while you’re calling someone who posts here “boy” and planting the seed you just might sue because a poster defamed you and Todd?
And you want people to take your 4th Amendment lawsuit seriously while you’re using this board to put a chill in the 1st Amendment, something you previously did in your action against the Miami Herald? And if an attorney displeases you, you’ll sue him, too — and later explain after sending an ex parte communication to the judge that you are no ordinary pro se litigant while not informing the judge that your license had been suspended?
Don’t use this board to threaten people, Dwight. But do continue to use the board to showcase your legal and PR acumen. I see that Judge Altonaga already has done a sua sponte review of the record. That may be a standard practice, of course — whether the pro se litigant is an ordinary one or one such as yourself.
Serious question: In your Nov. 7 lawsuit against the government and Rust, did you even file the “right” complaint? The reason I ask is this phrase on Page 3: “To date the plaintiffs are unaware of any remission payments having been made . . .”
That strikes me as either extreme obtuseness or an indication that the “wrong” complaint was filed, given the fact the government very publicly announced weeks before you filed your complaint that $55 million was returned and you’re acknowledging in your post here that you know that.
At the moment, I’m thinking that you filed a second draft written before Sept. 26 and submitted to the court on Nov. 7 without being vetted for completeness and accuracy by either you or Todd.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
It also is BEYOND GALLING that you’ve parenthetically referred to the Secret Service agent as an “SS” agent. The agent is a special agent of the U.S. Secret Service; he is not an “SS” agent.
I’d have said you had some plausible deniability for the use of the Nazi-evoking “SS” term — until I read your comment on ASDUpdates about “Stalinist Russia.”
It will be interesting to see if you move the court to file an amended complaint, one that reflects what happened back in September. I don’t know how the government intends to respond, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Main Justice — as opposed to the office of the U.S. Attorney in D.C. — spearheads the defense. After all, you are suing the people of the United States. And you are doing it after Leaming and Oesch sued the people of the United States.
In dismissing their lawsuit, the judge (mildly) dressed down Leaming and Oesch for “aspersions and disparagement” — and you, a person who wants to be taken seriously, now follow up with “boy” while complaining about “purjurative comments” even as you opine that the “geniuses” and “clowns” who post here should “shut the F–K up,” give you your proper due and learn (from you) what they should should scream “bloody murder” about.
This after the “SS” parenthetical in your complaint.
What’s the status of your license, Dwight? Please feel free to parse “attorney” and “lawyer” as much as you please.
I have listened to a recording in which you said you “invested” in ASD. I do not understand why you’re so offended that the government would choose to call ASD members investors. I’m also baffled by your suggestion that the government or Rust (or both) owed you the duty of helping you assemble your records to make a successful claim for money Andy Bowdoin says belonged to him.
The ASDs (autosurfs/HYIPs) are NOT going to stand, Dwight. They are too dangerous to be permitted to stand, and they already are evolving into newer and more dangerous cancers.
Not sure. But I hope the government uses whatever balance remains — and I believe that number actually is closer to $24 million than it is $10 million — to destroy the autosurf/HYIP “industries.” I further hope the government calls all the major news organizations in the United States to let them know that, if they show up with cameras and notebooks on a certain date and time, they’ll be able to observe the agents executing all the warrants and leading all the indictees out in handcuffs.
Northern Georgia and Greater Atlanta would be good places to start, followed by Boca Raton and the environs of Greater Miami, with a little bit of Michigan, Utah, Minnesota, Texas, California and Washington state thrown in.
In my perfect world, some of the indictees will be wearing the same garb they wear on Sundays — when they preach cancer to the masses from the altar. Others will be wearing their empty holsters and militia garb — and perhaps be dispossessed of their fake badges in front of the cameras.
It would be delightful to see a few penny-stock felons, insurance and mortgage scammers and politicians and/or political operatives in handcuffs, too — with a lawyer or two (real or the Arby’s type) thrown in for good measure.
Patrick
P.S. “SS,” Dwight? In a case in which ASD members called federal agents “Nazis” and “goons,” tried to put a chill in other ASD members by calling them “rats” and “maggots” — and in a case in which other ASD members talked about forming a “militia” and putting a federal prosecutor in a torture rack AFTER Bowdoin called the prosecution “Satan” and compared the raid to the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
My God, Dwight.
Which of us? You’re not a lawyer, you’re a person who was kicked out of the profession. As to the “extra” $10 million, truth be told if everyone who could have filed would have filed, the claims would have been much higher. And if every drug dealer who had ever been robbed had reported the theft, statistics for robbery would have been higher. But the fact is, even most drug dealers have enough since not to file a claim for stolen cocaine, meth or heroin. Some of them were too ashamed of their possibly criminal activity to expose themselves to authorities, even for money. A few were, no doubt, intimidated and/or tricked by those who told them not to file claims for whatever reason. I’m sure some honestly hold the position you claim, that asking for their money back is some trick by the evil government. People who earnestly invest in schemes like ASD are not financially sophisticated and a portion of them are easily tricked.
I’m not impressed with you, you don’t seem to be very smart, you show considerable reason to suspect you’re just a crook and your manners are terrible. As far as I can tell your only redeeming quality is you’re taller than convicted felon Bob Guenther. That’s gotta count for something.
::applause:: to Patrick and GREGG !!!1
Now why does the phrase,” A man who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client,” come to mind…?
Hmm, Dwight and Todd didn’t have enough money to make their filing, so they went begging for $10K. Since the filing fee was only $350, makes you wonder what the rest of the money was used for doesn’t it. Wait, it was to pay for the “expert” testimony of Gerald Nehra and Keith Laggos (I’ll say anything if the price is right), which Andy has already paid for their “expert” testimony. The same Gerald Nehra Judge Collyer said helped prove the government’s case in the evidentiary hearing. Too funny.
Next we have, at least it appears, that the check written for the filing fee bounced, and then they had to pay it with a credit card. Raising even more questions about why the check bounced. Add in the judge telling them they screwed up their pro se filing, which coming from a former attorney says just what kind of attorney Dwight was when he could practice law. I am just surprised that he hasn’t been officially disbarred. Also makes you wonder if he got his law degree from Prof. Patrick Moriarty’s fake diploma mill.
By the way, the odds makers in Vegas have given the Titanic a better chance of finishing its maiden voyage than this ever seeing a courtroom trial.
Of course when this is tossed, we will hear all the conspiracy theories come out of the woodwork as the reason why it was denied. Anything but for what it truly is, a joke of a filing and a total waste of people’s money who gave it to these two; as well as wasting and taking up the courts time. The old adage “a fool and his money are soon parted” springs to mind.
What’s really, really funny about this whole scenario is that, despite all the column inches, all of the huffing and puffing and to-ing and fro-ing, not one, single thing has changed in any way, shape or form, from what was predicted and always going to happen.
NOTHING has happened “off script”
As far as the DoJ is concerned, this latest development must feel like they discovered a mosquito at a picnic.
As annoying and inconvenient as the solitary mosquito might be, no one is going to call off the picnic or treat its’ presence as anything more than a minor inconvenience.
https://patrickpretty.com/2009/09/29/obstruction-asd-spokeswoman-whose-named-appeared-in-secret-service-says-she-instructed-members-not-to-fill-out-government-form-now-appears-to-be-advising-members-to-clam-up-if-contacted-by-agents/
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/11/09/are-asd-members-waging-ongoing-misinformation-campaign-to-suppress-victims-count-and-obstruct-justice-note-instructs-members-not-to-file-for-restitution/
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/11/13/disturbing-email-received-by-some-asd-members-suggests-they-could-be-sued-for-participating-in-refund-program-records-suggest-legal-opinion-was-offered-by-man-named-in-complaints-for-unauthori/
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/11/15/update-cornell-university-seeks-to-determine-if-man-referenced-in-email-circulated-by-asd-members-group-is-licensed-attorney-website-listing-for-kenneth-wayne-leaming-under-review/
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/11/26/leaming-claimed-small-town-targeted-him-for-death-second-woman-blocked-by-federal-judge-from-filing-notary-claim-has-leaming-tie-leaming-and-asd-figure-christian-oesch-try-to-sue-united-stat/
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/12/13/disturbing-out-on-bail-after-ponzi-arrest-is-andy-bowdoin-giving-marching-orders-email-attributed-to-former-asd-executive-gary-talbert-advises-members-to-tell-claims-processor-they-were-purchasing/
https://patrickpretty.com/2011/01/17/two-days-before-remissions-deadline-asd-members-receive-yet-another-confusing-highly-questionable-email-that-suggests-victims-seeking-restitution-should-tell-administrator-that-program-was-not-an-in/
https://patrickpretty.com/2011/10/02/special-report-email-encourages-adsurfdaily-members-to-identify-federal-prosecutors-federal-judge-and-secret-service-agent-as-doj-thieves-in-county-level-filings-and-to-send-certified-copy/
https://patrickpretty.com/2011/10/03/update-federal-prosecutors-have-no-comment-on-asd-related-email-that-encouraged-members-to-identify-public-officials-as-thieves-and-send-certified-copy-of-theft-claims-to-home-of-u-s-chi/
Patrick
But Patrick, that was just a few “rogue” members getting a little too zealous.
Lynn,
I believe you may be incorrect about the hot check. The document is a “Duplicate” receipt with a mention of what the fee for a “Returned Check”, not necessarily that a check bounced. That’s my take on things anyway.
You are probably correct and it is why I said it appears that the check bounced. Why return the check if it didn’t, and make them pay with a credit card? But the best part was the judge sending them the instructions on how properly make a pro se filing. And this was done (and I use the term loosely) by a former attorney to boot. Not much of an attorney if he can’t even make a pro se filing correctly.
Hi Dwight, This time I’ll stand corrected. It is totally unfair to claim to have the ability to read the minds of some 90,000 members of ASD.
The comment should have been phrased as follows
“99.9% of the 11,000 members who received their money back couldn’t have given a rats what they had to say to get it”
(note to self: upgrade crystal ball)
Admin note: The message below was received from Dwight Owen Schweitzer in a different thread. I am republishing it here:
Patrick, PLEASE SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. I am a lawyer and have never been disbarred. I received a 3 month suspension of my licence to practice law in Connecticut for what even the court described as a technical violation. I had already moved to Miami to be the Publisher of a newspaper long before this suspension.
If I thought I had committed an ethical violation I would simply have filed my retirement papers when I left Connecticut (before the grievance was even filed) and if I had, the bar would have had no jurisdiction over me. I could also have asked that the suspension be lifted at any time after the three months had I chosen to meet the requirements.Had I the slightest thought that I would be the victim of the Internets ability to spread inaccuracies and falsehoods I would have cleared this up long ago.
Please publish this prominently.
Dwight Owen Schweitzer, Esquire
Dwight seems to be flogging the deceased equine !!
[…] Dwight Owen Schweitzer and Todd Disner — the two AdSurfDaily members from Miami who filed suit against the Justice Department and Rust Consulting Inc. in November 2011 — never filed remissions-claims forms, Rust said in a motion to dismiss the complaint. […]
[…] tossed their claim against Rust. Yes, Disner and Schweitzer sued Rust, too. For background: HAVE THE ‘GAMES’ BEGUN? AdSurfDaily Members Todd Disner, Dwight Owen Schweitzer File Law… […]