PatrickPretty.com

Blog

  • On November Flurries, The President, And The Moon

    Walter Cronkite
    Walter Cronkite

    I was four years old and wide-eyed, perhaps especially if snow was falling. Almost nothing was better than snow in my early years, and I whined until I was permitted to go outside and roll in it. I made no calculation about whether it was deep enough to roll in without getting muddy. Besides, what difference did a little mud make? Even a small accumulation of snow was a powerful, powerful magnet.

    The magnet and all that whining finally drew me outside. I was doing what I did when my mother appeared on the front porch to call me back inside. She was crying. Even at four I knew something was wrong. Moms don’t cry unless there is a good reason.

    The date was Nov. 22, 1963. It was the day I came to know that Walter Cronkite was a very important man and that there were other important men on two other channels.

    President Kennedy had just been assassinated in Dallas, which I assumed was a faraway place. It was the first time I’d ever heard the word assassinated. At four, I knew that Kennedy was the president; I didn’t know what it meant for certain, but I knew that he was sort of like the maximum boss and always was to be treated with the utmost respect. My Grandma was there. She was crying, too.

    We watched TV pretty much for a week straight. I remember John-John, a boy even younger than I. And I remember the horses at the funeral. I was scared they might take off and ruin things. Horses do that sometimes, but they did not on this occasion.

    Walter Cronkite later took me to the moon; the 40th anniversary of man as an extraterrestrial is Monday. Walter couldn’t believe it in 1969. Neither could I. I’m 50 now, and I’m still blown away by it. I never look at the moon without thinking people actually have been up there. Those same people are part of a species that ferried itself on foot, boat or horseback only decades earlier and made it possible for me to publish a Blog accessible virtually worldwide only decades later.

    Cronkite and President Kennedy. Cronkite and the moon.

    Next came Cronkite and Watergate — at least in terms of what is seared in my mind. Truth is, though, Walter is tied to history in so many ways that a person of a certain age group can pick and choose from many, many moments. Walter and Martin Luther King, for example. Walter and Vietnam. Walter and World War II. Walter and the Russians.

    Walter and Ted Baxter.

    Walter, associated with serious events, had a sense of humor.

    The President of the United States dropped everything he was doing last night and issued a special statement on the life and the passing of Walter Cronkite.

    An American treasure: Walter Cronkite. Nov. 4, 1916-July 17, 2009.

  • Bowdoin Had Tax, Vendor Troubles In Previous Firm Dissolved By State Of Florida; Lien Stayed On Books For 12 Years As 6 Other Bowdoin-Connected Businesses Failed

    UPDATED 12:47 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) His promoters said he was a hugely successful businessman, a visionary who entered technology markets and made money before others even had recognized the opportunities. Andy Bowdoin, they said, had cleaned up in the communications business and, for good measure, old-fashioned markets such as dry cleaning. He’d trained thousands of successful salespeople over the years, they said, and now was setting his sights on the online advertising business.

    Google, they said, had entered into an agreement with his company, AdSurfDaily, and even the President of the United States had singled out Bowdoin as a man of genuine distinction.

    Federal prosecutors and a task force consisting of agents from the U.S. Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service, however, said in court filings that the adjectives associated with Andy Bowdoin in promotional materials for ASD often contradicted the nouns.

    Bowdoin, they said, had left behind a string of failed businesses. And despite reports about his remarkable record of commercial achievement, Bowdoin was a felon who’d fleeced people in a previous securities scheme — and hadn’t told his members about it. And Bowdoin had not reported any significant income for two decades.

    “Bowdoin earned no significant income from legal employment in the twenty years prior to his commencement of ASD’s operation,” prosecutors said. “But, no information about Bowdoin’s record of business failures and fraud accusations is contained on ASD’s website.

    “Nor was Bowdoin’s true past mentioned to prospective members during the ASD rally at which he spoke  . . .  or during the conference calls that he, or others promoting ASD on his behalf, participated in during ASD’s operations,” prosecutors said.

    Bowdoin In The 1980s

    It is possible that investigators knew a lot about Andy Bowdoin before they began early last July to subject ASD to scrutiny.

    Andy Bowdoin had a lien placed against him in Perry, Fla., in 1982, for failure to pay $2,559.65 in taxes due the IRS, records show. The lien reflected a time period in which Bowdoin was associated with a failed energy-saving business.

    In 1984, a local credit union sued Bowdoin for $2,759.78 — an amount about $200 above the amount owed on Bowdoin’s unpaid tax bill from 1982 — although it is not clear if Bowdoin borrowed from the credit union to pay his taxes.

    What is clear is that the tax lien was not removed until 1994, 12 years after it was filed. In the intervening years, six other Bowdoin ventures were dissolved, including five involuntary dissolutions by the state of Florida because Bowdoin had not filed required paperwork.

    In the 1980s, Bowdoin was sued by a Florida television station for an unpaid bill of $3,494.66. He also was sued by a local building-supply company for an unpaid bill of $510.05, and the Florida Department of State involuntarily dissolved Bowdoin’s energy-saving business. (The August forfeiture complaint listed 12 failed Bowdoin business ventures, including six between 1983 and 1987, but not the energy-saving business.)

    The name of the corporation not listed in the federal complaint was Energy Saving International Inc. (ESI), which was dissolved immediately prior to Bowdoin’s launch of six other businesses between 1983 and 1987, including the five that Florida dissolved involuntarily for Bowdoin’s administrative oversights.

    ESI began operating in Florida in 1978; the involuntarily dissolution occurred in 1981, after about four years of operation. Bowdoin filed annual reports in 1978, 1979 and 1980, but did not file one in 1981, the year before the IRS filed the tax lien.

    Bowdoin’s tax trouble dated back to 1978, when he failed to pay $2,349.48 due the IRS. In 1981, he failed to pay $210.77, and in 1982 the IRS placed the lien, records show. The records are public documents and are on file in Taylor County, Fla.

    The records also show a mortgage foreclosure, which appears to have been connected to a Trust set up to manage the affairs of Bowdoin’s mother, who was nearing the end of her life. It appears as though the home was spared in the end.

    Although he was hailed a visionary by his supporters, Andy Bowdoin seems to have forgotten that he’d told investigators one story and a federal judge another. ASD asked the judge last year for emergency release of funds seized by the government because the firm could not pay its rent or hosting bills.

    Bowdoin, however, appears to have asked for the relief while not initially disclosing that ASD had more than $1 million sitting in a bank in Antigua.

    “Bowdoin tells this Court that ASD is out of money,” prosecutors said last year. “But he told the Secret Service that an Antigua account (in another name), holds over one million ASD dollars.”

    Yes, prosecutors said, the account was “in another name.”

    What name could it be, when records show that Bowdoin used at least 15 corporate names between 1978 and 2006? It’s one of the enduring mysteries of the ASD case.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Federal Judge Says Curtis Richmond, Six Other Parties Who Used Pro Se Litigation Blueprint, Cannot Intervene In AdSurfDaily Forfeiture Case

    UPDATED 8:37 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A federal judge has denied motions by seven pro se litigants to intervene in the AdSurfDaily forfeiture case.

    Federal prosecutors seized tens of millions of dollars from ASD President Andy Bowdoin last year, saying his Florida company was running a Ponzi scheme and engaging in wire-fraud and money-laundering.

    Judge Rosemary Collyer issued the ruling late this afternoon, denying Curtis Richmond and six other individuals or companies standing in the ASD case. The ruling is a stunning blow to some ASD members, who had accused the government of a money grab and trumpeted the pro se pleadings, deeming Richmond a “hero.”

    In her ruling, Collyer said the pro se briefs were less than clear.

    “These individuals appear to allege either that they were victims of one or both of the auto-surf frauds or victims of the Government’s interference with their investment program,” she said.

    Filers denied standing include:

    • Pacific Ministry of Giving Intl. (Associated with Richmond)
    • Midwest Healing Ministries
    • Ronald Breckenfelder
    • John R. Moore
    • Michael Haws
    • Curtis Richmond (As an individual)
    • Chad Svendsen

    Collyer said in the ruling that the arguments by the would-be intervenors appeared to use the same blueprint.

    “The first of these, filed on February 3, 2009, is representative and seems to be a ‘form’ complaint inasmuch as the others are duplicates,” Collyer said. “It asserts (emphasis added):

    “The Claimant . . . comes to this Court to present [itself]. An Innocent Owner Qualified Under 18 U.S.C. 983(e) For A Motion To Set Aside Forfeiture & Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 As Facts & Law Will Prove. This Court has a Duty & Obligation To Obey These 2 Federal Statutes that fall under Article VI Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and where Any Violation Will Be A Civil Rights Violation among other Federal Statute Violations.

    . . .

    [FOR THE RECORD, UPON THE OATH OF OFFICE AND BOND OF THE COURT (CLERK, JUDGES, AND ALL OTHER OFFICERS OF THE COURT] I STANDING IN GOD’s kingdom, accept for value and honor the Judges and Officers of the Court, particularly Judge Rosemary Collyer, U.S. Attorneys William Crowden and Jeffrey Taylor, their Oaths of Office without the UNITED STATES and each of you and I now have a Binding Private Contract ‘so help me God’, that each of you will Protect and Defend ALL my God given and Constitutionally Declared Rights. Any violation of a Binding Contract Is Subject To Legal Damages.”

    In issuing the denial, Collyer said the would-be intervenors failed to demonstrate “that they have a cognizable interest in the monies to be forfeited.

    “Fraud victims who voluntarily transfer their property to their wrongdoers do not retain a legal interest in their property; instead, such victims acquire a debt against their wrongdoers,” Collyer said.

    She added that the would-be intervenors lacked Constitutional standing in the case, but noted they might have a remedy other than the pro se approach they employed.

    “[I]t should be noted that to the extent movants were the victims of fraud, they are not without remedy,” Collyer said. “Under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), 18 U.S.C. 981 et seq., the Government may use the forfeiture laws to recover property for the benefit of crime victims.”

    Without taking the government’s side, Collyer pointed out that the government is pursuing a prosecution of the forfeiture complaint on behalf of people it believes are victims of fraud.

    “[T]he Attorney General has the authority under 18 U.S.C. § 981(e)(6) to restore forfeited property ‘to any victim of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture,’” she said.  “As the Government notes in its brief (emphasis added):

    ‘If persons with civil causes of action against wrongdoers had the right to litigate their claims in forfeiture proceedings, forfeiture cases would become forums for general civil litigation of all manner of claims involving wrongdoers. Forfeiture would cease to be an effective tool of federal law enforcement; federal prosecutors would, in every case, have to weigh the benefits of pursuing assets and seeking their forfeiture against the prospect of being dragged into potentially unlimited civil litigation over torts, contracts, and other theories of liability beyond the ken of federal law enforcement.’”

    Collyer’s ruling did not pertain to pro se pleadings by ASD President Andy Bowdoin. But she cited Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings today, recounting some of the history of the case, including a decision Bowdoin had made in January to submit to the forfeiture while he was receiving advice from paid counsel.

    Collyer explained that the “Court mentions these other activities only because they bear on the Government’s ability to ‘compensate the frauds’ victims’ as it intends.”

    The judge suggested that pro se pleadings sometime make leaps of logic and that the mere filing of a document does not mean the filer has made a compelling argument for the relief he seeks — in Bowdoin’s case, reversing his earlier decision to submit to the forfeiture.

    Bowdoin, proceeding pro se, Collyer said, filed a “Notice of Rescission and Withdrawal of Release of Claims to Seized Property and Consent to Forfeiture.”

    The judge noted that the filing listed “a series of alleged examples of ‘fraud, trickery and deceit’” on the government’s part, and that the document concluded that “this rescission is now legally accomplished as a matter of law.”

    “Of course, it is not that simple to overcome a Court Order, but that issue is for another day,” Collyer said.

    Read the judge’s ruling.

    Read the judge’s order.

    See this for some history of Curtis Richmond litigation. Richmond is associated with a Utah Indian tribe a federal judge ruled a “complete sham” last year. The tribe sometimes is called the “Arby’s Indians” because it once held a meeting in an Arby’s restaurant in Provo.

  • Could Sale Of Business Week Magazine Fetch Only $1?

    It sounds impossible, but could the buyer of a flagship business publication with a circulation of more than 900,000 pay only $1?

    Business Week magazine could net McGraw-Hill only eight bits, according to The Financial Times.

    Business publishing is in steep decline, and print publishing in general is suffering. Prominent titles are paring back or ceasing to exist as print ventures. They have the value of their brands and loyal, core audiences, but are expensive to produce. Many publications have cut staff amid both revenue and circulation declines, and yet the public’s need for news it can use has not gone away.

    What has gone away is the advertising dollar. Print publications, in particular, have lost their appeal as the conduits through which advertisers reach their audience. The advertisers themselves have their own websites and brand identities — and, in some cases, their own financial problems.

    Advertisers are riding out the same recession that has affected the global community of readers and viewers. You aren’t spending as much money with them, and they aren’t communicating with you as often, perhaps particularly through traditional channels.

    Magazine and newspaper readers (consumers) no longer have to wait for the morning paper or the weekly or monthly print review of what essentially is old news to find out about what’s on sale or what company has the best deal or most appealing product or presentation. A reader (consumer) can go straight to the websites of Staples or Best Buy or the stock report or specialty retailer whenever the spirit moves him.

    Print’s battle to survive largely is a battle for relevance. The audience still loves the stories and the insights only professional publishers can deliver, but would rather get its news online. There simply is no need to wait for the morning paper or the weekly newsmagazine. It’s far easier to visit a website that offers news you can use and includes a link to information from advertisers you can use.

    Business publishing got hit earlier and harder than others forms of print media. The print recession basically is in its fourth year. The decline affecting the general economy is a relative baby at about two years old. What happened in print in 2005 — especially business print — was an indicator of what would happen later in the general economy.

    Unemployment in the United States has more than doubled in 16 months. The bleeding in print started long before that.

    We wrote about this in January, with our reports about the pending death of the print version of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, one of America’s great newspapers.

    So, today, we’ll again pose the question we posed months ago: Why haven’t the print publishers with famous brands, massive audiences and sparkling editorial content turned to the autosurf business model to save themselves?

    Why haven’t the print brands that have equally famous website brands and millions of daily visitors turned to the surf model and started paying employees in “ad packs,” while passing off the cost off surfing redemptions to people who are told they can surf their way to riches?

    It’s because the surf model is the province of hacks and pretenders and even criminals, some of whom will try to persuade you otherwise because the real product they are selling is not advertising; it is a Ponzi scheme. Most of them don’t even bother to create any type of editorial content. They know people will pay to play, with the insiders gorging themselves on illegal profits while sustaining the whole thing with a core deception, 80/20 programs, money-laundering and wire-fraud partners and a disclaimer that “rebates aren’t guaranteed.”

    Here is how one AdSurfDaily promoter relying on corporate GIGO put it in February 2008:

    “They have a former SEC attorney on staff as General Counsel. They are not a traditional Autosurf, they are an Advertising Company. They just added over 90 advertisers to increase revenue back to it’s members. Some of the advertisers include: Nike, Omaha Steaks, Petco, Starbucks, Delta airlines — just to name a few.”

    Federal prosecutors seized tens of millions of dollars six months later.

    “Ponzi scheme,” they said.

    Business Week might end up selling itself for $1, but its soul will be intact upon the completed sale. It survived the Great Depression and economic downturns, and it figured out new ways to compete with the changing times and changing habits.

    May it do so again.

  • Plaintiffs Say BOA Dismissal Motion Should Be Denied, Ask Court To Note 80/20 Plan And SolidTrustPay Activity, Cite ASD Payoff Of Mortgage Held By AdViewGlobal Owners

    Andy Bowdoin
    Andy Bowdoin

    A federal judge should deny Bank of America’s motion to be dismissed as a defendant in a case that alleges it aided and abetted racketeers operating a massive Ponzi scheme from a former floral shop in Quincy, Fla., the plaintiffs argued yesterday.

    Bank of America is not named a RICO defendant in the case, which was filed by three members of AdSurfDaily. The plaintiffs seek class-action status and treble damages.

    The bank said in court filings that it has done nothing wrong, and argued that the plaintiffs had made vague assertions and not stated a proper claim.

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs disagreed, filing a lengthy response to the bank’s dismissal motion — a response that cites suspicious wire transactions ASD routed through SolidTrustPay, a payment processor based in Canada.

    Meanwhile, the plaintiffs said the bank ignored ASD President Andy Bowdoin’s felony criminal record, his ties to a previous securities scheme and his history of operating multiple failed businesses. The plaintiffs made a veiled reference to ASD’s efforts to promote an 80/20 program — something that is occurring now in the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf, which has close ASD ties.

    At the same time, the plaintiffs referenced a December forfeiture complaint in which federal prosecutors alleged that ASD money was used to retire the home mortgage of George and Judy Harris. George Harris is the stepson of Andy Bowdoin and the son of Edna Faye Bowdoin, Andy Bowdoin’s wife. Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris.

    AVG, which previously had disclaimed any affiliation with ASD, now says it is owned by George and Judy Harris. Andy Bowdoin identified George Harris last summer as the head of ASD’s “real estate division.”

    Attorneys for the plaintiffs also referenced Andy Bowdoin’s own acknowledgments that ASD was operating illegally.

    “ASD was the brainchild of Thomas Bowdoin, a convicted felon with a history of securities fraud violations and failed business ventures,” the plaintiffs said. “Bowdoin admits that ASD operated [as] a Ponzi scheme.

    “ASD sold no products or services, held no intellectual property rights, and had no successful business professionals in management or on its Board,” the plaintiffs continued. “ASD had no colorable legitimate means to generate the massive profits (365% per year) Bowdoin and his co-conspirators promised investors nor the tens of millions of dollars a month flooding its tiny office — a former floral shop — in the small town of Quincy, Florida.”

    The bank missed key markers of a scam, the plaintiffs alleged.

    “Indeed, when Bowdoin began his relationship with Bank of America, the illegal ‘AutoSurf’ schemes which ASD emulated were well known among banks, regulators and law enforcement authorities,” the plaintiffs said.

    “It is no wonder that the two local banks in Quincy refused to even open an account for Bowdoin and ASD. Bank of America, on the other hand, welcomed Bowdoin with open arms, allowing him to open not one but ultimately 10 separate d/b/a accounts. In one month alone, $90 million dollars in cash, cashiers checks and Visa credit card charges were deposited in these accounts. Bank of America made it possible for victims throughout the country to deposit funds with the Ponzi scheme by simply completing a deposit slip and adding the ASD account number. Many of the deposit slips were even pre-printed with ASD’s account information.

    “Bank of America also enabled unsuspecting victims to wire transfer contributions to ASD from anywhere in the world,” the plaintiffs said. “Bank of America willingly allowed ASD to falsely legitimize its operations using the Bank’s good name. Bank of America never once questioned or asked ASD to remove its name from its website or written materials that prominently featured Bank of America.”

    Reference To Harris Mortgage

    On Page 15 of their answer to the bank’s dismissal motion, the plaintiffs referenced the government’s assertion that ASD money was used to pay off the home mortgage of George and Judy Harris and in other unusual ways.

    “By virtue of its active involvement in ASD’s business affairs, Bank of America was aware that funds flowed from the RICO Defendants’ accounts in a manner inconsistent with a legitimate business,” the plaintiffs asserted. “Bowdoin, in particular, used ASD business accounts at Bank of America with impunity to purchase personal luxury items, to pay off mortgages for family members, to buy property, and to otherwise dissipate business funds.”

    The plaintiffs then referenced what they described as red-flag-waving transactions ASD routed to Solid Trust Pay, a payment processor based in Canada.

    “ASD’s transfers of funds from Bank of America accounts also provided Bank of America with information about the suspicious nature of ASD’s operations,” the plaintiffs said.

    “In a two-week period, the RICO Defendants wired several million dollars from their Bank of America accounts to an internet-operated, Canada-based money transmitting and payment company. Such a transaction is not consistent with a legitimate business enterprise.

    “The RICO Defendants additionally used funds from the Bank of America accounts of one scheme, ASD, to seed the Bank of America accounts of another scheme operated by the RICO Defendants, Golden Panda. These transactions, too, were consistent with a fraudulent scheme, and inconsistent with legitimate business activity.”

    On Page 25 of their answer to Bank of America, the plaintiffs referenced ASD’s efforts to get members to participate in an 80/20 program. Such programs are designed to stem the outflow of cash from an autosurf.

    “The RICO Defendants counseled members on reinvesting rebates and commissions under the auspices of trying to help members maximize their financial gains,” the plaintiffs said.

    AVG, which announced that it was suspending payouts to members, advised members that participation in an 80/20 program would be mandatory should the surf resume payouts on a date uncertain.

    AVG’s name was mentioned in a previous filing by the plaintiffs, although the surf firm has not been named a RICO defendant.

    Andy Bowdoin, a RICO defendant along with ASD attorney Robert Garner, has not responded to the complaint, which was filed in January and amended in April. Garner answered the complaint, saying U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not have jurisdiction over him.

    Read the plaintiffs’ answer to BOA.

  • AdViewGlobal’s June 1 News Release Had Typo That Directed Traffic Away From Website Firm Was Showcasing

    Typoz happen. (See?)

    But a typo in a June 1 news release by AdViewGlobal (AVG) directed traffic away from a new website the firm was showcasing and caused it to land on a site registered in Europe.

    The domain — adveiwglobal.com, in which the “e” and “i” are transposed — is registered in the Czech Republic. The Czech site, which appears to redirect to Los Angeles, is a search portal with advertisements for making money at home. It was registered in March.

    None of the content on the site appears to be related to AVG, which defines itself as a professional advertising and communications firm based in Uruguay.

    AVG’s news release was issued through PR Newswire. The correct URL for AVG appears near the top of the release, but the transposed URL appears at the bottom. Some media outlets republished the news release and provided clickable links.

    Any person who reads the news release from top to bottom and clicks on the link at the bottom is taken to the Czech site.

    Here is an example of a site from which viewers who click on the bottom link are taken to the  Czech site.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4PRN/is_2009_June_1/ai_n31912229/

    Some sites that republished the AVG news release did not provide clickable links — either in the top position or the bottom. Had visitors copied and pasted the URL near the top of the news release into their browser window, they would have arrived at the site AVG was showcasing. Visitors who copied and pasted the lower URL would have arrived at the Czech site.

    It sometimes is a strategy to misspell words in web-based content to gain a search-engine advantage, although deliberately misspelling a URL and directing traffic away from a website launch promotion would not seem prudent. It is unclear if the typo that appeared in the June 1 news release was a deliberate mistake on AVG’s part or just a plain, old-fashioned typo.

    It is possible that the Czech site hopes to gain visits from people who misspell the adviewglobal domain name. The practice is controversial — and potentially brings trademark issues into play — because it enables a site that may have no connection to a brand to leach traffic from the brand by registering a domain name that approximates the branded domain.

    Whether adviewglobal.com is aware of adveiwglobal.com is unclear.

    What is clear is that the Czech site could have benefited from the typo, whether it was deliberate or accidental. Visitors who landed on the page expecting to see a dynamic web portal of the sort AVG described in the news release could have been confused. Such visitors would have to take additional steps — such as returning to the news release and looking for the appropriate link or discovering for themselves that a typo had occurred, and then typing the correct URL into their browser windows — in order to visit the AVG site.

  • Plaintiffs: North Carolina Attorney Robert Garner Was ‘One Of The Architects’ Of AdSurfDaily Ponzi Scheme

    Robert GarnerAdSurfDaily attorney Robert Garner “was one of the architects of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” plaintiffs suing Garner for racketeering said yesterday.

    Garner was “a director of ASD and outside counsel for ASD,” the plaintiffs said. “He appeared on various Internet videos where he attested to the bona fides of the ASD, among other numerous false statements, in an effort to fabricate a veil of legitimacy for ASD.”

    In addition, the plaintiffs alleged, Garner “not only was involved in the development of the ASD program, serving as a director of AdSurfDaily, Inc., but he also held himself out in a position of trust, confidence and superior knowledge by issuing a statement regarding ASD’s legality.”

    Garner is representing himself in court. The plaintiffs’ claims came in response to a motion by Garner to be dismissed as a RICO defendant because U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had no jurisdiction over him.

    “Not so,” the plaintiffs said. “[O]ne of the named Plaintiffs ensnared in the ASD scheme, Frank Greene, is a resident of the District of Columbia.”

    And, they added, “[O]ne of the special agents who investigated the related forfeiture proceedings opened an ‘upgraded member’ account with ASD from a location in the District of Columbia via the Internet, and made a direct deposit into ASD’s account with defendant Bank of America by delivering a check to the Bank of America branch at 700 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC.”

    Garner, the plaintiffs said, was “identified in ASD materials as outside counsel, and he is a
    director of AdsurfDaily, Inc., and a manager of T. Andy Bowdoin, LLC.”

    Claim: ASD Rose From The Ashes Of 12DailyPro, PhoenixSurf

    “Mr. Garner was present at the creation of the ASD Ponzi scheme,” the plaintiffs alleged. “The concept for ASD was borne out of the collapse in early- to mid-2006 of two other confirmed Ponzi schemes – 12Daily Pro and Phoenix Surf – which were targets of investigations and subsequent litigation by the Securities [and] Exchange Commission.

    Garner and Bowdoin were aided in their racketeering scheme by “other co-conspirators,” the plaintiffs said. They are seeking treble damages in the case.

    The RICO defendants and co-conspirators “sought to improve upon the core Ponzi business model with the goal of developing the largest Internet auto-surf program in operation,” the plaintiffs said.

    Wordplay was part of the conspiracy, the plaintiffs said.

    “In customizing their Ponzi scheme, the RICO Defendants coined new (or slightly revised) terms for old concepts and made a few adjustments to the model and its operation not in an effort to create a legal business, but rather to ‘fix’ areas that contributed to the collapse of the prior schemes and to shield the Ponzi scheme from increased scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement personnel.”

    The plaintiffs also said Bowdoin, Garner and co-conspirators banned the use of certain words in a bid to stay under the radar.

    They “implemented some adjustments to the program such as forbidding the use of the term ‘investment’ in connection with the sale of ad packages to ASD members and instituting an open-ended time period for earning the ‘promised’ maximum rebate on purchased ad packages.”

    Using video was a key part of the plan, the plaintiffs alleged.

    “One of the key innovations that Bowdoin and Garner contributed in an effort to improve
    the core Ponzi business model was to create a cloak of legitimacy about it, through video
    presentations posted on the Internet promoting ASD,” the plaintiffs said.

    Among false claims that appeared online about ASD, the plaintiffs said, were claims that “ASD would sign up over one hundred Fortune 500 companies; that ASD has a contract for the placement of three advertisements on its homepage that would generate at least $13 million per year; that ASD’s rebate program is a ‘loss leader’ that enables ASD to grow its member participation and pay members’ rebates with revenue from large commercial advertisers,” the plaintiffs said.

  • GUEST COLUMN: Payment Processors That Give Refunds Unilaterally Help Surf ‘Industry’ Live To See Another Day

    Editor’s Note: This is a guest column by Gregg Evans.

    Online Payment Processors, Enablers of Scams

    By Greggory B. Evans, PhD

    Recently it came to light that online payment processor Solid Trust Pay had decided unilaterally to refund some participants in the besieged autosurf ASD Cash Generator. In doing so, it appears STP may have violated Canadian abandoned accounts regulations, but even if by some quirk of lightly regulated Canadian processors, this policy is ripe for abuse and almost assuredly resulted in inequitable treatment.

    ASD accepted payments from any number of methods, including direct deposits into bank accounts, as well as other online payment processors. In giving refunds based solely upon their own records, STP has no way of knowing if they are refunding people who are in fact otherwise in profit and made withdrawals from other processors.

    If these funds had been in the United States, where ASD assets were seized last August, this money would have been pooled into a consolidated estate and, according to statements from the Justice Department, been available for refunds to losers in the scam, refunds based upon the complete records of ASD, from all sources.

    Another apparent problem with STP’s refund policy is it flies in the face of traditional practice, where merchants who have funds that belong to customers who have no activity have absolute rights to their property for periods that range from 7 years in most U.S. States, up to the Canadian Policy that abandoned accounts in excess of $1,000 of 10 years at the merchant, and an additional period of up to 90 years, or indefinitely.

    Accounts of more than $100 but less than $1000 are retained by merchants in Canada for 10 years, and then turned over to the Canadian Central Bank, where they are held for 30 more years.

    The stated policy of Solid Trust Pay is to consider accounts “inactive” after 180 days, at which point they have in at least this case refunded some, but apparently not all, of the remaining funds in an account to the accounts from which it arrived.  Their method of determining how much each participant receives is not known, and from personal knowledge of mine, some participants receive no refund at all.  The reasons for this, the formula for determining refunds, and any fees STP retains for their trouble is not clear.

    It’s also not exactly clear that Canada, or Ontario where STP is located, place any limit on the fees a payment processor can charge, and in fact it may be perfectly legal for them to keep the biggest share of the funds and claim it as fees. Well, except for the unclaimed funds laws, which apparently they were unaware of.

    A poster here who identified herself as a representative of STP claimed that their refund policy had the approval of their attorney. I find that hard to believe, it sounds more to me like they didn’t realize that all merchants have to comply with laws that most people not versed in business practices don’t even know exist.  It seems to me that a lot of what the processors do is much like the Ponzi schemes they support, made up as they go along. In the same post, the STP representative said that they try to screen their customers for legitimate businesses.  This is a claim I find laughable at best.

    STP and other online payment processors exist in, support, and largely make possible the easy-money Ponzi scheme culture of HYIP and autosurf programs. Without them, the “industry” could not exist. Scammers, crooks and money-launderers need a transfer system that provides irreversible payments, and they also provide some measure of invisibility for the “Admins” of online money scams.

    Regulations in Canada have tightened up the invisible part, but these processors are still providing one-stop shopping for Ponzi schemes and autosurfs — and, to be sure, any number of criminals who at least have the sense to keep their activities a bit more low key.  But I digress.

    Let’s look at some of the customers STP has had in the past, these pillars of business who they were very careful to check and make sure they were legitimate businesses.  Aside from ASD, some of their more notable clients are P2P, or Pathway to Prosperity, an Internet HYIP Ponzi whose leader is currently wanted in Canada and is a fugitive from Justice.  Megalido was also an STP customer, this program popped up right around the time ASD was raided, and played to the ASD crowd as a way to recoup their losses.

    Mrs. VIP/Global Marketing Solutions was another STP-supported program; they suspended payments when they said they got new owners in December, the payments were supposed to begin again in 6-8 weeks, it’s been 7 months and no sign yet of them resuming payments.

    Another one I’m researching is DR Fund, a program heavily promoted by Jake Amedee and friends over at ASA Monitor, which is itself a clearing house for fraud and Ponzi schemes. I could name dozens more of these “legitimate” businesses, which I’m sure STP knows have stolen tens of millions of dollars from the public, much of it money from people who were told they were investing in real businesses, and of course, with their assurance that they screen their customers, STP is at least partly responsible for those losses.  At least more so than Bank of America, named in a lawsuit lawsuit brought by some ASD victims.

    Meanwhile, in a reply to a post I made asking questions about their business practices, the STP spokesperson whined about customers complaining about their policies on refunds. A quick look in the forums where Ponzi scams are promoted will reveal that when a program suspends payments for a short period of time, people begin discussing where and how they can get the payment processors to consider refunds.

    Unilateral Refunds Institutionalize The Abuse

    Payment processors should never give refunds directly to the people who play these scams. Legally, until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise, the money still belongs to the person who owns the account. Any unilateral action by the processors short-circuits the legal rights of whomever the money rightfully belongs to, whether that is the scammer, or if the authorities so determine, the victims of the scam.

    Regardless, that’s not a decision the money-handlers should or even could make with any fairness. A few situations like that and it’s likely the participants will begin as a practice of making all deposits with the processor most liberal in refund history, and all withdrawals from another account. So what.  Tell your customers you cannot refund their payments, the whole point of your business is irreversible payments.

    Granted, your customers are for the most part people who play scams for whatever reasons, most of them have no regard for the people who lose in order for them to make profits. They engage in illegal money frauds, and now they want the protection that “real” businesses afford them.  Too bad.  They’re in a lousy industry for fairness or ethical business practices. The same goes for STP and the other payment processors who cater to HYIPs, autosurfs and unregistered online investing.  You built your business on being the pseudo legal link in criminal enterprises.

    You might, and I stress the word “might,” be following the letter of the law. Or you may be trying to stay on the legal side of the law and due to your own ignorance be falling a little short, as I suspect your refund policy does.  But let me ask, if your grandmother asked about your business, and wanted the full unadulterated truth about the things you do, would you feel good telling her?

    Would you be proud explaining at the family reunion how you make your money? And not the best face you can put on it, you have to imagine telling granny about every single program you accommodated that turned out to be a cheap Ponzi scheme, how many millions of dollars were lost be people who risked more than they could afford to lose, how many marriages fell apart, homes were lost, children missed meals, and how you make it possible for this industry to thrive?  I suspect not.

    Further, if you really can with a straight face tell me you’re actually proud of the misery you help cause, I suspect you might be a sociopath, and you might have sold your granny out for a few fees.

    I’m calling you out, Solid Trust Pay.  I double dog dare you to tell the crooks who utilize your services to hit the road.  Hire a compliance auditor who knows how to do a little due diligence, and by that I don’t mean checking at ASA Monitor to see how many “I got paid” posts there are, but someone who knows enough about accounting, law, business and investing to look at what a company is doing and what it’s just claiming to do.  I ask, no, let me rephrase that, I DEMAND you make your refund policy transparent and I’ll be checking with the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to find out what the exact law is on your policy and asking them to give your practices a look as well.

    I also feel very strongly that you should disclose the fees you took on the refunds not only from ASD, but also MegaLido and any other funds you decided to return. Court records indicate that ASD moved several million dollars to you days before they were raided, but I see only a pittance in refunds. Granted, not every participant posts their refunds, but surely if you returned a few millions we’d see an aggregate of more than a few thousand dollars in discussions.

    You enable an entire industry of crime.  Eventually, the regulations will catch up to you.

  • U.S. Secret Service Partners With European Agencies To Form Electronic Crimes Task Force Headquartered In Rome

    In what is bad news for cyber criminals and online financial hucksters, the U.S. Secret Service has announced a partnership with European law-enforcement agencies to form the first European Electronic Crimes Task Force.

    Officials signed a “memorandum of understanding,” with the Secret Service, Italian Police and the Italian Postal Service taking the lead roles. The Task Force will be based in Rome, and the principal Italian officials are Antonio Manganelli, chief of Italian Police, and  Massimo Sarmi, chief executive officer of the Italian Postal Service.

    The goals are to “provide a forum through which U.S. and European law enforcement agencies, the private sector and academia can collaborate to investigate, suppress and prevent computer- related crimes” and to “share relevant insight, expertise and resources between the international law enforcement community to combat the transnational cyber crimes which threaten the financial security of businesses and individuals worldwide,” the Secret Service said.

    “Cybercrime knows no borders,” said Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan. “We believe
    that partnerships at the international level are essential in combating the ever-changing
    landscape of cybercrimes.”

    The Task Force will combine European and U.S. expertise in investigating network intrusions, hacking cases, identity theft and other computer related crimes affecting financial and other critical infrastructures, the Secret Service said.

  • Two More Attorneys Added In RICO Lawsuit Against Andy Bowdoin; Move Comes On Heels Of AdViewGlobal Mention

    Plaintiffs suing AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin for racketeering added two more attorneys to their roster this morning and have added a total of four since June 24. The plaintiffs now have attorneys in Washington, D.C., Phoenix, San Francisco and Mill Valley, Calif., on their side, perhaps with more formal notices of appearance to follow.

    Today’s move followed on the heels of a filing last week that cited the name of the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf, describing it as the next iteration of AdSurfDaily and naming executives and employees the two surfs have in common.

    AVG has not been named a RICO defendant. It is unclear if the plaintiffs plan to add the surf’s name, but they have used AVG to illustrate an alleged pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs seek class-action certification and treble damages in the ASD complaint.

    AVG has identified George and Judy Harris as its owners. George Harris is the stepson of ASD President Andy Bowdoin and the son of Bowdoin’s wife, Edna Faye Bowdoin. Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris.

    ASD attorney Robert Garner also is named a RICO defendant in the lawsuit. Bank of America is alleged to have aided and abetted a fraudulent scheme, but is not a RICO defendant.

    In recent days, AVG has closed its forum — a move made after the company said members were confusing other members. An AVG forum established by some Mods and members of the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum also has been closed, and Surf’s Up recently has deleted posts and content concerning AVG.

    As many as 30 ASD members are believed to be founders of AVG, which says it is a “private association” based in Uruguay.

    AVG recently has threatened to sue its members for sharing information outside the confines of the AVG “private association,” and also has threatened to sue media outlets that publish information its members share.

    Yesterday AVG implied in an announcement that it also might sue a subcontractor for not carrying out its contractual duties. Donna Rougeau, the subcontractor with Syndicate Digital of Canada, advised AVG members last week that she was leaving the firm.

  • EDITORIAL: AdViewGlobal Blames Subcontractor For Problems

    UPDATED 3:30 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) It was utterly predictable: The AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf has blamed subcontractor Syndicate Digital for problems plaguing the firm, implying it might sue the Canada-based company.

    In recent weeks, AVG has threatened to sue media outlets and even its own members, up to and including contacting their Internet Service Providers in a pathetic bid to mute criticism.

    AVG’s record of blaming participants in the enterprise for its problems and accepting no accountability is rivaled only by AdSurfDaily. Syndicate Digital accepted work from AVG at great risk — and not simply a legal one: One of the biggest risks was that AVG would find a way to blame it for problems AVG itself created.

    That’s what Bowdoin/Harris enterprises do: If Bowdoin-led ASD gets in a pickle and can’t pay out as advertised, he blames Russian “hackers” and script problems and changes the website’s name so he can fleece a new crop of victims — all while he is using a fraudulent address to donate money to the National Republican Congressional Committee in ASD’s name while telling members ASD has no money.

    If the enterprise comes under fire by the government, he blames the government. When the enterprise gets stifled in bids to fight the government, he blames his paid attorneys and declares them incompetent. He then accepts advice from one or more felons and starts filing pro se pleadings, and when a federal judge tells him that a corporate entity can’t proceed pro se, he goes out and finds another paid attorney.

    When Bowdoin got sued and nearly jailed in Alabama a decade ago for another securities scheme, it was somebody else’s fault.

    AVG does the same thing. The surf announced in March that its bank account had been suspended. In the very first sentence of its announcement, it blamed members, saying they had wired too many transactions in excess of $9,500.

    In May, after it announced it had secured a new wire facility and published wiring instructions and account numbers, a company AVG identified as a facilitator in the transfers issued a denial that it had any business relationship with AVG. The company issuing the denial explained that it had discussed business with a Florida-based firm, and announced that it believed it had been targeted in a scam.

    The Florida-based firm was owned by an AVG insider. The clear implication was that AVG, which purports to be headquartered in Uruguay, had attempted to create a back-door route to funnel money to itself by using the banking connections of the Florida firm.

    AVG ignored the denial by the company.  Instead AVG blamed a breakdown in negotiations for the sudden removal of a wire facility it had just advertised and for which it had just provided detailed usage instructions.

    Now AVG is saying negotiations with Syndicate Digital have broken down, implying it might sue for nonperformace.

    “Negotiations between the owners of AVGA and Syndicate Digital broke down Thursday afternoon,” AVG told members.

    “Syndicate Digital was a sub contractor hired to do a specific job and there is some dispute as to whether or not they have completed their contract with AVGA,” the company said.

    Good grief.

    Syndicate Digital entered the lion’s den when it accepted AVG business. Lions within the den now are circling to devour a subcontractor who used poor judgment and did not ask the right questions, and it just so happens the Lions-In-Chief are George and Judy Harris, members of the Bowdoin family and one-half of the Bowdoin/Harris brand.

    This is a new low, perhaps an all-time new low. Donna Rougeau of Syndicate Digital should not have accepted work for AVG, and she should not have permitted her brand to become associated with AVG. Syndicate Digital and AVG became almost indistinguishable, and Rougeau was serving up the GIGO slop.

    But Rougeau did not cause the core rot that is AVG and now is being served up as the fall guy by people who call themselves Christians. It was, sadly, utterly predictable.

    Perhaps equally predictable was that AVG’s Syndicate Digital announcement would go missing — and it has, according to a reader.