PatrickPretty.com

Blog

  • AdSurfDaily Promo Cited Ties To Google, Kodak, Pepsi, NBC, USA Today, Starbucks And Other Prominent Advertisers

    Promotional material for AdSurfDaily featured a photograph of Andy Bowdoin and claimed the company had advertising relationships with some of the top brands in the world.

    Meanwhile, the document introduced readers to Golden Panda Ad Builder, referencing it as ASD’s “Chinese Site” and asking readers to specify if they’d like to advertise on the site.

    The document was created on July 6, 2008, in Adobe Illustrator, and was converted to PDF format, according to its “Properties” function.  It is possible that an earlier version of the document was in use before the July 6 version.

    Among the major advertisers referenced were Google, Kodak, Starbucks, Quiznos Sub, Callaway Golf, Macy’s, Toshiba, NBC, Farmers Insurance, USA Today, Priceline.com and more. Individual logos of the companies were pictured.

    A Secret Service Task Force quietly opened a probe into ASD on July 3, 2008. On July 7, just a day after the July 6 promo for ASD was created, an IRS/Secret Service Task member opened a free ASD account. On July 14, an IRS/Secret Service Task force member opened a paid account. A separate Task Force member funded the account by delivering a check to a Bank of America branch office in Orlando, Fla.

    Despite claims ASD was home to famous, paid advertisers, ASD has not provided any documentation in court filings to substantiate the claims.

    Promo for ASD references prominent brands in ASD customer base.
    Promo for ASD references prominent brands in ASD customer base.

    “This new approach to Internet advertising has businesses of all sizes, from small home
    based businesses to large corporations such as Google, Starbucks, Kodak, etc., joining ASD,” the promotion said.

    “Not only are there over 75,000 small businesses advertising with ASD, but now major corporations are as well. Remember, a part of the daily rebate comes from the revenue corporations pay to advertise with ASD. The following are just a few of these companies,” the promotion said, introducing 24 corporate logos from prominent companies.

    The individual logos appeared on Page 10 of the document. Page 11 featured a photo of Andy Bowdoin and what purported to be his business biography, including references to Dale Carnegie and “the notorious Napoleon Hill.”

    A White House tie also was claimed.

    “In fact, AdSurfDaily President and CEO, Andy Bowdoin, was invited to Washington, D.C., in June, 2008, by United States President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to receive the Medal of Distinction, at the White House. This is a very special honor for his service and leadership contributions in business,” the document crowed.

    Prosecutors said claims about Bowdoin’s White House ties were false. The Medal of Distinction is offered by the National Republican Congressional Committee for campaign donations to keep Republican members in Congress. The “medal” signifies a person’s ability to write a check for what amounts to banquet tickets.

    At the same time, the July 6 document references a so-called “Chinese site,” instructing readers to specify if they’d like to advertise on it.

    Members were told to provide a “[s]hort description of where you would like the funds to be placed (English site, Spanish Site, Chinese Site),” and to specify  “which promotion is running.”

    Within days, however, Bowdoin distanced himself from Golden Panda Ad Builder, the so-called Chinese site. During the same time period, it was revealed that Golden Panda Ad Builder president Clarence Busby had been accused of investment fraud in the 1990s by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Read the July 6 promo for ASD. To see the “Properties” showing the date in Adobe Reader, click on “File” and select “Properties.”

  • Surf’s Up Mod Releases Andy Bowdoin Letter To Troops; ASD Head Urges Letter-Writing Campaign To Glenn Beck

    Andy Bowdoin.
    Andy Bowdoin.

    First, members of the Pro-AdSurfDaily Surf’s Up forum tried to whip up support for ASD President Andy Bowdoin by sending Kool Aid packets to Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. Now Bowdoin himself, through a Surf’s Up Mod, is urging members to write letters to Glenn Beck, another Fox personality.

    And, taking a page from his own playbook, Bowdoin also has asked members to write to President Obama, the Justice Department and elected officials “to stop this misuse of power.”

    The move comes on the heels of a stunning court motion Bowdoin filed March 11 in which he acknowledged ASD was operating illegally when the government seized tens of millions of dollars from Bowdoin last summer. Bowdoin claimed in the filing that he did not know ASD was operating illegally at the time of the seizure and that the government denied him fair notice and due process.

    In the filing, Bowdoin claims to be a “defendant” in a “quasi-criminal” prosecution. But Bowdoin hasn’t been named a defendant by the government, which sued the money and property for forfeiture, saying it was the proceeds of a criminal enterprise.

    Prosecutors said ASD was engaging in wire fraud, money-laundering and the sale of unregistered securities — all while operating a $100 million Ponzi scheme.

    Bowdoin had not communicated with the membership at large in months. He did not tell members about a second forfeiture complaint that had been filed in December against assets tied to the firm. Nor did Bowdoin tell members that, in January, he had submitted to the forfeiture of the money and property seized last summer.

    In court filings, Bowdoin now says he has changed his mind about submitting to the forfeiture, even though he acknowledged that ASD was operating illegally — exactly what the government contended.

    In his letter to the members, however, Bowdoin did not mention the motion in which he acknowledged ASD was operating illegally.

    His last formal contact with the members was in late fall, a few months after the initial seizure, when Bowdoin tried to sell them VOIP phone service, positioning the $19.95-a-month plan as a gift to the membership. Days before, he told members that Ponzi allegations had been dropped against ASD in Florida, even though Ponzi allegations hadn’t been brought in Florida.

    During the same time period in the fall, ASD’s Breaking News site announced a deal with Praebius Communications, saying ASD expected to pump $200 million into its coffers as a result of the deal. Praebius is a penny-stock company that does not publish financials.

    In early December, an autosurf known as AdViewGlobal (AVG) began to position itself for launch. AVG has close ties to ASD, including George Harris, Bowdoin’s stepson and an AVG trustee; Gary Talbert, a former ASD executive now an executive and trustee for AVG; Chuck Osmin, a former ASD employee now working for AVG; and Nate Boyd, a former ASD compliance officer now listed as the “Protector”  of AVG.

    By December 19, federal prosecutors filed a second forfeiture complaint, saying Bowdoin’s wife, Edna Faye Bowdoin and her son, George Harris, had used proceeds from ASD to retire the $157,216 mortgage on the home Harris shared with his wife, Judy Harris.

    Bowdoin now says that he recently was introduced to a “group” that is giving him legal advice. Bowdoin started filing his own court pleadings in late February, at the same time AVG was introducing members to Pro Advocate Group, which says it can help people practice medicine and law without a license.

    Pro Advocate Group is associated with Karl Dahlstrom. In 1997, Dahlstrom was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison for orchestrating a securities scheme.

    In his letter to ASD members, Bowdoin did not disclose the name of the “group” from which he was receiving advice. Nor did Bowdoin reference or confirm reports that bank accounts belonging to ASD and AVG members recently had been seized.

    He did say he fired his paid attorneys.

    Here is Bowdoin’s letter. We added the italics.

    Hi Folks,

    It’s good to be talking to you once again. My attorneys kept me quiet for months, but after $800,000.00 and no results I fired them all.

    About a month ago, several members introduced me to a group that studied what my attorneys did. The group said that my attorneys had taken the wrong approach.
    The group was very confident that they could help because the government had broken so many laws and had violated our rights as citizens of the United States.

    I have rescinded my decision to release our ownership of all the assets. I filed various motions a few weeks ago, and several more last week, to dismiss our case and to return the assets because of the violations committed by our government.
    We are ready to pursue this all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    A great injustice has been done to 100,000 people, and we need to stand up and fight for our rights. Some agencies of the government have become so powerful that they believe they are above the Constitution. We, as members of ASD, need to help stop this misuse of power. I ask each one of you to write to the Justice Department, to your senators and representatives, to the President, and even to Glen Beck of Fox News. Tell them all what the Justice Department has done to your business.

    We will be filing papers in the next couple of weeks that should really get their attention. Watch for the filings. I will be speaking out on a conference call as soon as the filings are completed. We will notify you of the call. I look forward to talking to you then.

    I appreciate your support in helping us get back what rightfully belongs to the members of ASD.

    Thanks,
    Andy Bowdoin

  • EDITORIAL: No Settlement In Larry Friedman Lawsuit Against Jack Arons; Tensions Escalate As Prominent Dallas Attorney Sues Pro Se Litigant

    Florida resident Jack Arons, sued last week for libel and slander by Dallas attorney Larry Friedman and hit with a blitz of legal documents, said the lawsuit still was on and that settlement talks had broken down.

    Friedman, the lawyer for the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA) Trust, describes Arons as a “felon” and a “vigilante” and an Internet “menace.” Arons, on Social Security, readily acknowledges he had encounters with law enforcement as a younger man.

    ASDMBA was formed last summer, in the aftermath of the government seizure of tens of millions of dollars from Florida-based AdSurfDaily amid wire-fraud, money-laundering and Ponzi scheme allegations. Federal prosecutors say ASD was selling unregistered securities while calling itself an “advertising” service.

    Members of ASDMBA said they expected Friedman to file litigation to protect their interests in the ASD case.

    Arons plainly is confused about what to do. At the same time, he is angry. His confusion and anger are understandable. Friedman should have no expectation that he is dealing with a professional litigant who will react by the book.

    Larry Friedman is dealing with a common man who does not have an attorney and who was buried in Friedman’s legal paperwork. At the same time, Jack Arons is being openly threatened in the ASD-Biz forum by a person who purports to be Friedman’s client.

    Friedman already has lost the PR war. The war was lost with the paperwork blitz and the appearance on the forum by Friedman’s purported client.

    Arons said he was unhappy with a document written by an intermediary for Arons’ signature that purportedly would bring the matter to an end. The document was in the form of a retraction. Arons rejected the document. (See the wording of the purported retraction document below.)

    Instead, Arons prepared his own retraction of comments against Friedman and posted it in online forums.

    Arons lives in a manufactured home in Florida. He has been soliciting input from nonexpert forum posters to go up against Friedman. The case was a train wreck from the moment it was filed.

    We again call on Friedman to drop the lawsuit and fire his client, the ASDMBA Trust. If any entity is harming Friedman’s reputation, it is the Trust, whose de facto head is Bob Guenther.

    See a previous post. See another one.

    A poster purporting to be Guenther at the ASD-Biz forum announced the lawsuit against Arons last week — in two separate threads. The headline in the main announcement thread was titled, “Jack Arons Sued, Served and Shut Up, Finally . . .”

    The poster provided links to the lawsuit documents before Arons had been served, called him “Rookie” and threatened others with lawsuits. Later, the poster purporting to be Guenther referenced Arons’ adoptive, 6-year-old daughter in a post, raising security concerns. Arons is the father of a son who was murdered.

    Arons said the matter has been reported to the FBI.

    People are asking questions about the Trust, Guenther and Friedman. Some people said they had complained to the Texas Bar and the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Their concern is how ASDMBA is spending money it collected from members. The Trust, Friedman’s client, has not answered questions to the satisfaction of some members.

    Arons is not a member of ASDMBA. Friedman blames him for stirring the pot in Internet forums. It is only natural that Friedman would be concerned about complaints to the Bar and Abbott. Even so, Friedman, a professional, had to know that some ASDMBA members were unhappy and apt to complain.

    That’s why Friedman should fire the Trust, which has not answered questions to the satisfaction of members.

    Arons said he filed a pro se response to the lawsuit.

    Friedman filed a vague complaint against Arons, swearing only to a single paragraph in the 12-page document but emerging with a temporary restraining order against Arons.

    If Friedman is interested in a settlement, he should explain to Arons the precise conduct that damaged him instead of forcing depositions from on high and hitting Arons with an avalanche of legal filings.

    This case is sad, especially since the behavior of Friedman’s client is the driving force behind the concerns of members. Their demand is reasonable: for Guenther to produce straightforward accounting. Instead they have been met with insults, political jibes and menacing forum posts.

    None of those behaviors is consistent with transparency. ASDMBA was formed with the financial contributions of its members. Presenting a line-item accounting should be easy. Tensions have escalated because of the absence of detailed accounting by the Trust, leading to complaints to the Bar and the attorney general.

    As noted above, Arons issued his own retraction to statements he had made online about Friedman. The retraction was published online before Friedman even had accepted it. This is the type of thing that happens when people act without advice of counsel and under extreme pressure.

    And Larry Friedman knows this is the type of thing that happens when people act without counsel. He does not have the duty to act as Arons’ counsel, of course. After all, Friedman is claiming Arons harmed his reputation.

    But Friedman does have a duty to play fair. The blitz he directed at Arons was repugnant.

    The ‘Retraction’ Arons Wouldn’t Sign

    Here, verbatim, is the retraction an intermediary told Arons that Friedman would accept to drop the lawsuit. We have added the italics.

    Date:
    Time:

    I, Jack Arons, (Address, City, State, Zip) am writing this of my own free will on behalf of Larry Friedman of Friedman and Feiger Law Firm.

    Over the last couple months I have been spearheading a campaign against Larry Friedman, due to my belief he, along with his client, willingly defrauded a group of people (the ASDMBA) of tens of thousands of dollars.

    I have been encouraging the members to file a complaint with the Texas Bar against Mr. Friedman for his participation. After further research, and facts that have come to light, it is now my conclusion that Larry Friedman was indeed a victim in this debacle, of his own client! And that he did in fact, to the best of his ability, fulfill and honor his commitment to the ASDMBA members.

    I apologize to Mr. Friedman for the egregious error and for whatever damage I might have caused to his name, his reputation, or his law firm. I further state I will discontinue the promoting of people to call the Texas Bar Association to complain about Mr. Friedman, and ask that those that did call back and say they made the complaint based on misinformation.

    I will discontinue, from this day forward, from writing any posts in forums, or emails, or disseminating information in form, Mr. Friedman or his Law Firm.

    I can be called for verification of this information at: ___(phone)___________

    And once again, I apologize to Mr. Friedman.

    (full name)

    Arons’ Own Retraction

    March 10, 2009

    After consulting with many different people both for and against this problem that I am now faced with and to insure the safety and well being of my family I have decided to (as Bob would say) throw in the towel. I love a good fight and had my family not been dragged into a fight that was not of their making I would have done everything humanly possible to achieve the goal that resulted in a Bully called Bob Guenther from scamming people out of their hard earned money and getting away with it.

    As far as Larry Friedman and his Law Firm is concerned I retract all statements made against them. Although I can not change what course of actions that have taken place concerning my statements I will no longer post anything derogatory concerning him or his firm.

    Each member of the ASDMBA (which I am not) must make their own decisions of what they will do or have done and if they feel that they erred in filing anything against F&F that I might have said to take the appropriate actions to correct that which has been done.

    I do not control the internet although at times like this I wish I did.

    Jack Arons
    10088 Blue Waters Road
    Tallahassee, Florida 32305
    850.421.5791

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bernard Madoff Pleads Guilty; Judge Orders Him Jailed Immediately; Spectators Erupt In Applause

    UPDATED 11:58 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Accused Ponzi swindler Bernard Madoff has pleaded guilty to 11 criminal charges and faces up to 150 years in prison.

    CNN is reporting that U.S. District Judge Denny Chin of Manhattan accepted the plea. Chin ordered Madoff to jail immediately. The courtroom, packed with victims, erupted in applause.

    Madoff, 70, will be formally sentenced June 16. Prosecutors now say as much as $65 billion might have been involved in the crime, which continued unrestrained for years.

    Madoff told the judge that he never invested clients’ money, instead depositing it directly into a bank, CNN reported. It was an acknowledgement that Madoff was running a pure Ponzi scheme that sucked away billions of dollars of wealth from individuals, charities, endowments and retirement funds.

  • REPRISE: ‘Blue Paint,’ Part 3 Of Fantasy ASD Series

    Today we are republishing Part 3 of our ASD fantasy courtroom series, the continuation of the cross examination of “Mrs. Doe.”

    This scenario is fiction. The dialog is fiction. No government or ASD secrets are being divulged. (We don’t know any government or ASD secrets.) The dialog is based on what already is in the public record or on the Internet about the ASD case. It is designed to make some of the issues more understandable.

    One of the reasons we’re republishing Part 3 is because ASD President Andy Bowdoin filed court documents yesterday, claiming he didn’t know ASD was illegal until the government seized tens of millions of dollars from the firm last summer.

    It was a remarkable claim, considering that ASD members routinely were scolded for calling ASD an “investment” company. Indeed, some ASD members got downright angry in forums when others used the word “investment.” In the August forfeiture complaint, the prosecution cites an instance in which an ASD member instructed an undercover agent never to use the word “investment” because it could catch the attention of the wrong people — namely, law enforcement.

    Indeed, ASD required its own language to operate, something addressed in Part 3 of our fantasy ASD series. At the same time, ads for ASD dating back to 2007 appeared on the Internet, telling prospects that ASD deposits were insured by the FDIC and that the company provided “shelter” from the FTC and the SEC, issues also addressed in Part 3. The SEC, of course, is the agency that regulates the securities markets — and an agency that has successfully prosecuted autosurfs for selling unregistered securities by calling them “advertisements.”

    Simply put, it is the reason ASD members scolded other ASD members for using the word “investment.” They knew what the vulnerability was, but Bowdoin nevertheless is making the claim that he didn’t know what ASD was doing was illegal.

    About two months after Part 3 was published last fall, prosecutors went to court, accusing Andy Bowdoin of having paid an employee to surf for Bowdoin’s son so the younger Bowdoin could earn rebates. People surfing for other people undermines claims that ASD was an “advertising” company, as opposed to an “investment” company, another topic covered in Part 3.

    Fantasy Courtroom Scene 3: ‘Blue Paint’

    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, earlier we discussed the principle of ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ and you told us that, if the data was corrupt, the result could be corrupt. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Correct.
    Prosecutor: And you said that ‘Garbage in, garbage out’ also applies to language: If somebody told a lie — and if that lie was repeated on the Internet — it could lead to a corrupt result. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: You live in the United States, right?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Would you agree the economy could be better?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. That’s why I was looking forward to the ASD business. It creates wealth for everybody who participates.
    Prosecutor: Let me stop you there for a moment, Mrs. Doe: You just said ASD creates wealth for ‘everybody,’ right?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Correct.
    Prosecutor: You’d be among ‘everybody,’ right?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: But earlier you said you spent $12,000 on ASD ads and made only $500 through sales of your product. During the previous year, when you weren’t with ASD, you spent $1,000 on local classified ads and with Google, and made $10,000. Didn’t ASD put you in a hole?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. But I was going to make up the difference and get in profit with the ASD rebates.
    Prosecutor: But ASD didn’t guarantee rebates, Mrs. Doe. So, the prospect of getting a rebate always was in doubt, meaning it was in doubt 100 percent of the time. True? And since the Terms of Service could change at any time, the prospect of getting any return at all from ASD always was in doubt, meaning it was in doubt 100 percent of the time. True?
    Mrs. Doe: Do we really have to go down this road again?
    Prosecutor: I understand you’re frustrated, Mrs. Doe.
    Mrs. Doe: That doesn’t even begin to describe it . . .
    Prosecutor: But you still agree with ‘Garbage in, garbage out?’
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Why?
    Mrs. Doe: Because there is no denying that bad data can lead to a bad result. My 6-year-old knows that.
    Prosecutor: Earlier you said you had three children, two of whom are in college. So, your 6-year-old is your third child?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. My husband and I are very blessed. Our daughter was born when I was 44, and she is perfect in every way. We were worried because of my age. But she is a beautiful, bright child, like her older brothers. She has provided more joy than I can even describe. Like I said, perfect in every way . . .
    Prosecutor: Life is about the kids, isn’t it, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: It certainly is.
    Prosecutor: Thanks for sharing your story about your daughter. For now, let’s return to the ASD business.
    Mrs. Doe: OK.
    Prosecutor: ASD wasn’t a bank, was it?
    Mrs. Doe: Of course not. Everybody knows that.
    Prosecutor: There’s that word again: ‘everybody’: Are you sure the word ‘everybody’ applies, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, please turn your attention to the screen for the overhead projector. I’m going to show you part of an ad from an ASD upline in 2007, the uppermost part of the ad, and ask you to read aloud the line that begins with the number 3.

    Claim that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured.

    Mrs. Doe: It says, ‘FDIC insured up to $100,000, using virtual money debit card payment options.’ Oh, my God!
    Prosecutor: Why’d you say, ‘Oh, my God!’ Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Because that ad says ASD purchases were FDIC insured!
    Prosecutor: Can you see, now, why I asked whether ASD was a bank?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Plainly.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you’re 50. You have experience in business. You have a bank account. What does the FDIC do?
    Mrs. Doe: It insures bank deposits so people don’t lose money if the bank fails.
    Prosecutor: Would you agree that the FDIC has been in the news a lot recently?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Because of all the bank failures.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you have three children, including the beautiful 6-year-old daughter you described. You have experience in business. You have experience in advertising. You’ve used ASD. You’ve used classified ads and Google. Did the newspaper or Google ever tell you advertising purchases were insured by the FDIC?
    Mrs. Doe: No. I am really angry about this!
    Prosecutor: Why?
    Mrs. Doe: Because it is total garbage.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, as I mentioned, this ad is from 2007. And you can see “2007” in the ad, correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: ASD deposits are not insured by the FDIC, are they, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: No. Of course not.
    Prosecutor: What does that line of the ad imply to you?
    Mrs. Doe: That ASD deposits are FDIC-insured.
    Prosecutor: So, using the principle of ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ any proceeds that flowed into ASD as a result of that ad could create a problem, because the proceeds originated from the false premise that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: And that ad was from 2007, so it’s more than a year old? We know that because the ad says ‘predicted to go mainstream by 4/1/07.’ Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you have experience in business. And you have experience in advertising. As an owner of a small business, you have at least a basic understanding of accounting. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: How would a company account for money it received as a result of an ad that said deposits were FDIC-insured, when those deposits weren’t insured by the FDIC?
    Mrs. Doe: Honestly, I don’t have a clue.
    Prosecutor: Would you consider the money tainted in some way?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: If the company that received such money didn’t know it was receiving money based on a claim that deposits were FDIC-insured, would it change your opinion as a businesswoman that the money was tainted?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: Why not?
    Mrs. Doe: The money would be tainted whether or not the company knew it had come from a tainted source. The fact the company didn’t know it was holding tainted money doesn’t change the fact the money was tainted. If blue paint gets mixed with white paint, there’s still blue paint in the mix, even if you don’t know who put it there.
    Prosecutor: So, blue paint is bad?
    Mrs. Doe: It’s not bad if you want blue or a shade of blue. But if you want white paint and blue gets mixed into it, it’s bad.
    Prosecutor: So, one way to look at this is that an ASD promoter created ‘garbage’ and that money that flowed into ASD as a result of that ‘garbage’ was tainted with blue paint?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Could ASD trust its numbers if it was in receipt of garbage and money tainted with blue paint?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: So, ‘garbage’ and blue paint could have been in the ASD system as early as 2007, based on the claim that deposits were FDIC-insured?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: What would happen if ASD was in receipt of tainted money, and that tainted money was deposited in a bank?
    Mrs. Doe: The bank would be in possession of tainted money.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, do you see the line in the ad that begins with the number 1?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Please read it aloud.
    Mrs. Doe: It says, ‘The company is free to join indefinitely. Provides shelter from FTC and SEC.’
    Prosecutor: What is the FTC?
    Mrs. Doe: It’s the Federal Trade Commission.
    Prosecutor: Based on your life and business experience, what does the FTC do?
    Mrs. Doe: It makes sure businesses comply with laws — things such as false advertising.
    Prosecutor: Based on your life and business experience, Mrs. Doe, how do you read this section of the ad?
    Mrs. Doe: That ASD provides shelter from the FTC and the SEC, that ASD somehow can hide members from the FTC and the SEC.
    Prosecutor: Why would anybody need ‘shelter’ — to ‘hide,’ as you said — from the FTC and the SEC, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: I don’t know. It’s ridiculous, and I’m really angry about it.
    Prosecutor: Based on your life and business experience, what does the SEC do, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: It’s the agency that regulates the stock exchanges and the securities business.
    Prosecutor: The word ‘SEC’ appears right in the ad. Correct, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Does it strike you as odd that an ad for an advertising business would mention the SEC? When you purchased local classifieds and Google Adwords ads, did the newspaper or Google ever mention the SEC, that they provided ‘shelter’ from the SEC?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: But this ad is for ASD, a company that calls itself an ‘advertising’ company,’ and the ad says it provides ‘shelter’ from the SEC?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, I’m going to ask you to silently read every word on the screen of the overhead projector and to remember what you read.
    Mrs. Doe: OK. Thanks. Give me a minute or two.
    Prosecutor: You’re welcome, Mrs. Doe. Please let us know when you’ve finished.
    Mrs. Doe: OK. I’m starting now . . .
    Mrs. Doe: . . . OK. I’ve finished.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you’ve read every word on the screen of the overhead projector, correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Correct.
    Prosecutor: Did you see the phrase ‘advertising company’ or ‘advertisement’ mentioned anywhere?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: And yet this is an ad for a company that calls itself an ‘advertising’ company, correct?’
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you’re 50. You have three children. You have experience in business. You’ve purchased advertising from multiple companies. Let me ask you, based on your experience, what does this ad appear to be selling?
    Mrs. Doe: It appears to be selling an investment, and protection from the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And it also is claiming that ASD purchases are insured by the FDIC.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, we have talked about ‘Garbage in, garbage out.’ Does this ad impress you as a case of ‘Garbage in, garbage out?’
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Why?
    Mrs. Doe: Because people could have put money into ASD, believing they were making a deposit that was insured by the FDIC. And they could have put money in, believing earnings somehow were sheltered from taxation or that they’d be out of regulatory reach by the FTC and the SEC. The word ‘advertising’ wasn’t even mentioned, and this clearly was the top of the page, the first thing people would see.
    Prosecutor: So, just to be clear, this ad, in your view, uses the language of banking and investments, not the language of advertising, and it uses the language of investments and banking in an objectionable way?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, thank you. We’re going to switch gears for a minute now. Earlier we talked about your 6-year-old daughter, about how much joy she has brought to you and your husband and your two sons. Children, especially young children, like to help their parents. Agree?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Did your daughter ever help you with the ASD business?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: In what way?
    Mrs. Doe: Sometimes she helped click on ads. The screen would count down, and she’d click on a colored box to load the next ad.
    Prosecutor: So, she was helping Mommy, by clicking on ads?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: How long did it take your 6-year-old to figure out how to click on ASD ads?
    Mrs. Doe: Oh, she figured it out instantly.
    Prosecutor: Were you with her all of the time, watching the same ads she was watching, while she was practicing her clicking?
    Mrs. Doe: I’d say almost always. Sometimes the phone would ring, and my attention would get diverted away from the ads while she was clicking and having fun.
    Prosecutor: So, she was a little girl, helping Mommy do her job.
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. It was harmless fun, and educational for her.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, you have three children, and you’ve been a mother for about 20 years, correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Based on your experience as a mother, would you say that most 6-year-olds could master the task of clicking on ASD ads?
    Mrs. Doe: Oh, my, yes.
    Prosecutor: Can your daughter read?
    Mrs. Doe: She’s in the first grade, and already reads at a second-grade level.
    Prosecutor: Could your daughter help Mommy shop in the Classified section of the newspaper?
    Mrs. Doe: Not quite yet.
    Prosecutor: If Mommy had to type a search string into Google that was above a second-grade level, could your daughter help with that?
    Mrs. Doe: No, that’s still a couple of years away.
    Prosecutor: But your daughter could help Mommy with ASD?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Clicking on ads is truly easy. It was part of the beauty of ASD.
    Prosecutor: But you wouldn’t want too many 6-year-olds clicking on your ads, right? A 6-year-old isn’t apt to make a purchase, when the products are marketed to business people. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Could ASD tell if a 6-year-old was clicking on ads?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: Do you see that as a problem?
    Mrs. Doe: I’d see it as a problem if too many 6-year-olds were clicking on ads. Those ads cost $1 apiece.
    Prosecutor: Could a 5-year-old master clicking on ASD ads?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes, I believe my daughter could have done it when she was 5.
    Prosecutor: Could she have done it when she was 4?
    Mrs. Doe: I’d say probably. Kids get started on computers very early these days. They had computers in preschool.
    Prosecutor: Would you agree that newspapers and Google have a sort of built-in filter that prevents 6-year-olds from helping Mommy?
    Mrs. Doe: I’m not quite sure what you mean.
    Prosecutor: Well, let’s take newspapers. A 6-year-old would have to comprehend an ad, meaning she would have to be able to read the ad and understand what purpose it served, in order to help Mommy? Agreed?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. Agreed.
    Prosecutor: And with Google, a 6-year-old would have to be able to type a complex search string in order to help Mommy shop, if Mommy, for example, was shopping for anything beyond the vocabulary and knowledge base of a 6-year-old. Agreed?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: But a 6-year-old could help Mommy shop on ASD, because reading comprehension and a vocabulary weren’t required. What was required was an ability to recognize a color, when it came time to click on the next ad. And that’s something a 6-year-old could do. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct. But I think you’re picking on 6-year-olds. My daughter loved to help — and it was cute and sweet.
    Prosecutor: You sell decorative autumn baskets. Correct, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: From a pure business standpoint, with your knowledge of advertising, you wouldn’t want too many 6-year-olds or 5-year-olds or 4-year-olds clicking on your ads. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, no. I’d want potential buyers to click on my ads.
    Prosecutor: So, you agree that a 6-year-old clicking on ads is not a potential buyer, right?
    Mrs. Doe: Right.
    Prosecutor: And you agree that the local newspaper and Google have filters that would prevent a 6-year-old from helping Mommy?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: And you agree that ASD lacked such a filter?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, a minute ago you suggested I was picking on 6-year-olds. Let’s talk about another group. Let’s talk about college kids, kids such as your two sons.
    Mrs. Doe: OK.
    Prosecutor: Would you agree that college kids can read the newspaper Classified section with full comprehension and could type complex search strings into Google with full comprehension?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: And so, beyond any doubt, they’d be able to read the ads on ASD with full comprehension.
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: So, in that sense — and I’m being serious here — unlike a 6-year-old, they could contribute something to Mom beyond the recognition of colors, if Mom needed help with ASD?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Did your college-age children ever help you with ASD?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: How?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, they surfed for me if my computer was down or we were away for a few days.
    Prosecutor: So, just to be clear, you didn’t always do your own surfing to earn rebates. Sometimes the boys surfed for you. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: Did you ever surf for the boys?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: So, just to be clear, ASD members could surf for other ASD members: sons for Moms, Moms for sons, upline sponsors for downline members, downline members for upline sponsors.
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: So, ASD couldn’t prevent people surfing for other people?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: Did the boys help you with ASD in other ways?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, as I said earlier, they didn’t have their own businesses. Because of that, they advertised the URL for my basket business on ASD.
    Prosecutor: Did ASD ever verify that your kids had businesses of their own or try to stop them from advertising your basket business?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: Earlier, you said you spent $12,000 advertising your basket business on ASD. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: How much did your children spend to advertise your basket business?
    Mrs. Doe: They each spent $5,000.
    Prosecutor: So, a total of $10,000? Right?
    Mrs. Doe: Right.
    Prosecutor: So, if we add your $12,000 to their $10,000, we arrive at $22,000. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Correct.
    Prosecutor: And that would have bought 22,000 clicks for your basket business, correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, earlier you said your basket business generated $500 in sales after your $12,000 ad expenditure. But the real number is $500 in sales after a $22,000 ad expenditure, because your boys spent $5,000 apiece to advertise your business. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Earlier, you only asked about my expenditure. You didn’t ask about theirs.
    Prosecutor: Respectfully, Mrs. Doe, I’m asking about it now. The real number is $500 in sales from a $22,000 ad expense, correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. I feel silly when you put it that way.
    Prosecutor: But is that not the way it is, Mrs. Doe? Isn’t that the math?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. That’s the math.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, earlier you said your business grossed $10,000 the year before ASD, based on an ad spend in classifieds and on Google of only $1,000. Correct? And you acknowledged that you spent $12,000 on ASD this year, an amount that exceeded the gross sales of your business the previous year by $2,000. In other words, you spent more on advertising this year than your business even took in last year. Correct?
    Mrs. Doe: It’s not as bad as that sounds.
    Prosecutor: Is it not true it’s actually worse than that sounds, Mrs. Doe? Your boys spent $10,000 advertising your business, which brings your total ad expenditure to $22,000, for a business that grossed only $10,000 the previous year. You outspent your gross sales by better than two to one. Is that not correct?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes. That’s correct. But you’re forgetting about the rebates. We would have gotten all of that back and more.
    Prosecutor: But the rebates weren’t guaranteed, Mrs. Doe. The Terms could change at any time, and advertising purchases were nonrefundable. Didn’t you and your boys have $22,000 at risk? Didn’t you make a bet that ASD would continue to pay rebates? And if you were compounding your earnings by taking out 20 percent in cash and — as you said — ‘reinvesting’ 80 percent, weren’t all of your paper profits at risk? Weren’t you betting that ASD would pay a very handsome dividend?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, yes.
    Prosecutor: And isn’t that what Wall Street investors do? Isn’t Wall Street about taking calculated risks with money? Some people bet that stock prices will go up, and others bet they will go down? Don’t some people buy stocks because they have a history of paying dividends?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, earlier you said that you could get in trouble for calling ASD an investment company. Do you remember saying that?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Who told you that?
    Mrs. Doe: The forum people. I used the word ‘investment’ in one of my posts, and they scolded me.
    Prosecutor: They scolded you for calling ASD an investment? Didn’t you and your sons have $22,000 at risk? And wasn’t that money at risk because ASD didn’t guarantee rebates and could change the Terms of Service at any time?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: So, your capital was at risk, just like on Wall Street, and forum members scolded you for calling it an investment?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: What’s one thing you had in common with the forum members?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, we all belonged to ASD, for one thing.
    Prosecutor: Was there anything else?
    Mrs. Doe: We all spent money on advertising and looked forward to earning rebates.
    Prosecutor: So, all of you were members of a common enterprise — in other words, ASD. And all of you had money at risk because rebates weren’t guaranteed, and all of you had the expectation of earning money due to the ongoing success of ASD?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Does that sound like an ‘investment’ to you, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Well, yes. I never understood the forum paranoia about calling it an investment.
    Prosecutor: Ever hear the phrase a ‘skunk by any other name,’ Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Please explain to us what you believe the phrase to mean.
    Mrs. Doe: Well, a skunk by any other name would still be a skunk.
    Prosecutor: So, if you called a ‘skunk’ a ‘rose,’ it would still be a skunk?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: And if people decided to call an investment company an advertising company, it still would be an investment company?
    Mrs. Doe: Yes.
    Prosecutor: Mrs. Doe, forgive me. I can’t help but notice you are smiling, and that’s the first time I’ve seen you smile since I began to ask you questions. Why are you smiling, if you don’t mind me asking?
    Mrs. Doe: Because they told me on the forum that you were stupid. And I can tell, now, that you aren’t stupid.
    Prosecutor: How can you tell I’m not stupid?
    Mrs. Doe: Because you got me to reveal my secret.
    Prosecutor: What secret?
    Mrs. Doe: That I believed it was an investment all along, and was afraid to say it.
    Prosecutor: Why are you no longer afraid to say it?
    Mrs. Doe: Because I’m 50, married, the mother of three, own a business, own a bank account, have purchased ads in multiple places, and understand a few things about accounting, such as ‘Garbage in, garbage out.’ And there’s one more reason.
    Prosecutor: What would that be, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: Blue paint.
    Prosecutor: Earlier you said you were angry about the content of the ad. Why?
    Mrs. Doe: Because of all the blue paint. The claim that ASD deposits were insured by the FDIC is blue paint, in my mind. So is the claim about ASD providing shelter from the FTC and the SEC. So is the preoccupation with scolding people who call the money they spent with ASD an investment and all the talk about ASD being a ‘no-brainer’ and ‘fool-proof’ and the importance of having a ‘diverse portfolio.’
    Prosecutor: Blue paint isn’t good if you want white paint, is it, Mrs. Doe?
    Mrs. Doe: No.
    Prosecutor: Thank you for your time, Mrs. Doe.

  • Ramping Up The AdSurfDaily Insanity

    UPDATED 11:41 A.M. EDT (March 12, U.S.A.) AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin, acting as his own attorney, acknowledged in court filings yesterday that the company had been operating illegally when the government seized tens of millions of dollars last summer.

    The concession was nuclear. It undermines the work of his previous paid attorneys and puts Bowdoin in the position of having to explain previous representations given the court that are completely at odds with what he is saying now.

    At the same time, it undermines self-filed pleadings Bowdoin entered into the record last week. Meanwhile, it undermines pleadings by others, including four people who told the court that they were permitted to enter into commercial contracts with whomever they pleased and for whatever commercial interest they pleased.

    Bowdoin now has told the court that he was operating an illegal commercial enterprise, thus nuking the argument of Curtis Richmond and three others. Richmond, himself a pro se litigant, is linked to a sham Utah “Indian tribe” known for filing vexatious pleadings that make tortured legal constructions.

    “Professor” Patrick Moriarty, an ASD mainstay, has advanced commercial theories similar to Richmond’s. Moriarty got nuked yesterday, too, only a few days after congratulating Bowdoin in a column for his excellent, pro-se pleadings.

    Andy Bowdoin’s pleadings, though, are jeopardizing the freedom of members of his family, ASD insiders and top promoters, and strategic shills.

    Yesterday, the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum celebrated the filings. The forum Mods appear not to have connected the dots that Bowdoin just nuked them. Some of the Mods and members set up a site to promote AdViewGlobal (AVG), which has close ties to ASD. Bowdoin nuked AVG yesterday, too.

    Today Surf’s Up has banned at least one member for not carrying Bowdoin’s water bucket. The forum even has banned members who post unflattering opinions about Bowdoin or ASD on other forums.

    The Mods can tell you until they’re blue in the face that Bowdoin’s filings were something to celebrate; the announcement, as always, came with exclamation points, both in the thread and in an email Surf’s Up members received.

    But this was nothing to celebrate if you’re a top promoter, an insider or a strategic shill. And it certainly was nothing to celebrate  if you’re a rank-and-file member of ASD: Bowdoin just told you he ripped you off. His excuse was that the government didn’t give him fair notice that he was ripping you off.

    Surf’s Up, which previously postioned Bowdoin as a genius, now is telling you his genius didn’t extend to the recognition of a Ponzi scheme and money-laundering operation. A Mod explained that Andy didn’t know he was ripping people off because the government never told him until after it seized the cash.

    ASD advertised CEP Trust.
    ASD advertised CEP Trust.

    It is a steaming pile. ASD once advertised that it used CEP Trust, the failed payment processor run by the operators of the CEP Ponzi scheme. This Blog published a screen shot of ASD’s CEP pitch months ago, along with a screen shot of an ad that told the audience that ASD deposits were insured by the FDIC.

    Bowdoin’s claims do not pass the giggle test — not that anybody is laughing at this point. There simply is no delight in unmasking these lies.

    Claim that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured.
    Claim that ASD deposits were FDIC-insured.

    This Blog has refrained from calling Surf’s Up the “Loony Bin” as it is known elsewhere, and it has refrained from using the phrase “Kool-Aid drinkers,” except in cases such as quotations. We have used the word “crackpot” to describe “Surf’s Up.” It was the least-objectionable word we could think of to instill a sense of the madness taking place at Surf’s Up.

    Despite everything that happened to ASD last summer, the insiders at AVG implemented a new surf and started collecting money. The operation has ASD’s fingerprints all over it, and the inescapable conclusion is that Bowdoin’s pleadings in the ASD case are setting the stage for the planned defense of AVG.

    The operative word in the previous sentence is “planned.” Bowdoin and insiders got caught again. Now they are desperately trying to wiggle out of a prosecution against AVG by making the no “fair-notice” claim. It is utterly preposterous, and yet the Surf’s Up Mods serve it up daily.

    AVG, by the way, is still online — despite Bowdoin’s concession to a federal judge and the prosecution that ASD was operating illegally.

    They have taken no hints — including the RICO lawsuit filed by other ASD members in which Bowdoin, ASD Attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby were accused of racketeering. None of the principal defendants has filed a single piece of paperwork in the case — not after two months.

    We believe it likely there are sealed criminal indictments in the ASD case. At the same time, we believe it probable that some ASD/AVG insiders know they are targets of a criminal probe.

    And we believe it equally likely that Bowdoin and the insiders have shielded members from this knowledge, while using Surf’s Up to whip up support. If the Mods have insider’s knowledge they are at risk of indictment. Even a whiff of it is enough.

    No AVG participant also in ASD, for example, will be able to claim they did not know the possible consequences of their actions as they pertained to AVG. And with George Harris, Bowdoin’s stepson; Gary Talbert, a former ASD executive; and Chuck Osmin, a former ASD employee who testified for ASD at the evidentiary hearing in the AVG lineup, there will be no credible way to claim ignorance. Nate Boyd, listed as the “Protector” of the AVG association, formerly was the head of compliance for ASD, members said.

    Do not be surprised if you see the no “fair notice” argument ported over to AVG.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin Files Motion To Dismiss In Which He Acknowledges AdSurfDaily Was Illegal

    UPDATED 10:06 A.M. EDT (March 12, U.S.A.) Did Andy Bowdoin just sink AdSurfDaily’s ship — and also the ship of AdViewGlobal?

    In a court filing today, Bowdoin, the president of ASD, made a stunning acknowledgment that the company was operating illegally.

    Bowdoin’s acknowledgment came in the purported form of a motion to dismiss the forfeiture complaint against proceeds tied to the firm, which prosecutors said engaged in wire fraud, money-laundering, selling unregistered securities and operating a $100 million Ponzi scheme.

    “The defendant did not know or realize that his conduct was illegal until this instant case was filed against him,” Bowdoin said, referring to himself as “defendant.”

    Bowdoin contends in the pleading that the case is “quasi-criminal” and that he was denied due process and fair notice that his conduct was illegal.

    Bowdoin, however, is not a defendant in the forfeiture case. His self-filed pleading references the forfeiture case on its title page, but appears to be a response to a case that never was brought.

    For days, the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum has been applauding legal filings Bowdoin made last week and encouraging others to do the same.

    But today’s filing could cause Bowdoin’s remaining support to evaporate because of his concession that ASD was operating illegally. Bowdoin had spent months insisting ASD was legal and collected tens of millions of dollars from members last year, all the while advertising ASD as completely legal and above-board.

    Bowdoin now is acting as his own attorney. AdViewGlobal (AVG), an autosurf with close ties to ASD, recently formed a private association and turned to a firm known as Pro Advocate Group  for advice.

    Karl Dahlstrom is associated with Pro Advocate Group.  In 1997, Dahlstrom was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison for his role in a securities scheme.

    Today’s filing by Bowdoin is potentially devastating both for ASD and AVG because of the concession that ASD was operating illegally. Prosecutors could claim the document has the effect of a signed confession.

    Bowdoin’s stepson is an AVG trustee. So is Gary Talbert, AVG’s chief executive officer and a former ASD executive. Chuck Osmin, a former ASD employee who testified for the firm at a hearing last year, also works for AVG. Nate Boyd, whom ASD members said once was a compliance officer for ASD, is listed as the “Protector” for the AVG association. Some of the Mods and members of Surf’s Up started a forum for AVG.

    Bowdoin’s pleadings today appear to attempt to manufacture a criminal defense out of whole cloth, by rewriting the history of the forfeiture case — a civil proceeding — and turning the case into something it never was: a criminal prosecution against Andy Bowdoin. The only defendants in the case to date are money and property prosecutors claim are the proceeds of a criminal enterprise.

    At the same time, today’s pleadings may be designed so potential ASD co-defendants in any criminal case that evolves will have a legal template for a self-filed defense. There have been reports that bank accounts owned by ASD members beyond Bowdoin have been seized in the past two weeks.

    Meanwhile, the cheerleading for Bowdoin at the Surf’s Up forum appears to be particularly unseemly now because today’s pleadings had everything to do with Andy Bowdoin, and nothing to do with the rank-and-file members who’d been asked to support him. The document does not cite the membership in a single place.

    Read today’s Bowdoin pleadings.

  • EDITORIAL: Arons Retracts Statements On Friedman

    Jack Arons, a Florida man sued for libel and slander last week by Dallas attorney Larry Friedman, announced today that he is retracting statements he made about Friedman on the Internet.

    “As far as Larry Friedman and his Law Firm is concerned I retract all statements made against them,” Arons said. He posted the retraction in online forums covering the AdSurfDaily case.

    “Although I can not change what course of actions that have taken place concerning my statements I will no longer post anything derogatory concerning him or his firm,” Arons said.

    Today we are renewing our call for Friedman to drop his lawsuit against Arons. At the same time, we call on Friedman to exercise judicious restraint and not to bulldoze Arons in any settlement negotiations.

    Meanwhile, we call on Friedman to fire the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA) Trust as a client. The de facto head of the Trust is severely damaging Friedman’s law brand. Friedman should fire the Trust and get his shingle out of harm’s way. Let the Trust litigate against Friedman if it so chooses. The Trust has no credibility. Members who funded the Trust say it also has no money and is operating in the red.

    Arons does not have a lawyer. He lives in the type of manufactured home that is common throughout Florida. He is not wealthy. Over the weekend, he worked on self-written, pro se drafts to fight Friedman’s lawsuit, asking for input from nonexpert forum posters.

    On Monday, he was served with papers designed to force him to travel from Tallahassee to Dallas at his expense to sit for a Friedman deposition on Thursday. Arons is at a monumental disadvantage. He has had no time to think and is ripe to be bulldozed.

    Larry Friedman should not bulldoze Jack Arons. To do so would be shameful, and yet a bulldozing is something some of his colleagues actually might applaud because this bulldozing would be a particularly wicked one. The pity-there-was-an-unoccupied-seat-on-the-sunken-lawyer-bus  joke is not a joke about a bus; it is a joke about bulldozers driven by attorneys.

    Friedman claims Arons is a menace because of Internet postings, while his de facto client openly is engaging in menacing behavior, complete with references to stalking and chasing people.

    Jack Arons is not the menace in this case; he was the convenient target because people were complaining to the Texas Bar about matters pertaining to the Trust, and Friedman blames Arons for stirring the pot.

    Friedman brought a Howitzer against a Web critic and sympathetic figure armed with a small peashooter. It was maximum overkill: Friedman sued in Dallas March 5. Arons was served in Florida March 7. On March 9, Arons was notified to appear in Dallas March 12 to provide a deposition to Friedman.

    In between, a person purporting to be “Bob Guenther,” the de facto head of the Trust, appears to have adopted the role of Friedman’s goon. In previous mentions of the purported Guenther, we described him as appearing to act as a bouncer. We’re using “goon” today because the purported Guenther now has referenced Arons’ 6-year-old daughter in a menacing forum post.

    That is the act of a goon, not a bouncer. We believe Friedman is appalled and perhaps even frightened by the behavior of his de facto client. It is our expectation that Friedman will fire his client. Not to do so is to turn a blind eye to the damage his brand is suffering at the hands of his client — something he was unwilling to do when it came to Jack Arons, a mere flea met by a Howitzer that could shoot from Texas to Florida.

  • Purported ‘Guenther’ References Arons’ Young Daughter

    UPDATED 12:44 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A person purporting to be “Bob Guenther” referenced the 6-year-old daughter of Jack Arons in a post at the ASD-Biz Forum yesterday. The reference was beyond the pale and easily could become yet another matter sprouting from the AdSurfDaily case for law enforcement to investigate.

    The language from the posting is reproduced verbatim below. We took a screen shot and reduced its size to fit into the border of this column.

    “Rookie,” the poster wrote in a message directed at Arons. “Look around you, the Fat Ladies have been singing all day,, See you in court dude, and how old ios that adopted daughter, Texas Court my friend, welcome to the real world…”

    Here is the screen shot:

    guentheraronssmall

    A poster purporting to be Guenther has a history of making menacing comments, including threats to visit people at their homes.

    In an odd twist yesterday, a self-described, purported “30 something female” began to post under the  “Bob Guenther” account at the ASD-Biz forum. The purported female appeared to champion “Bob Guenther.”

    Like “Bob Guenther,” though, the purported female couldn’t resist including a passive-aggressive rant, saying the female posters at the forum needed to watch their diets, start working out “and find a man…. You obviously don’t get out much and need a lot more than a computer can provide…”

    Owing to what we view as an implicit threat against the family of Jack Arons and others, we have made the decision to publish an IP address we have associated with a poster who identified himself as Bob Guenther in January. The comment to this Blog was submitted and published on Jan. 16.

    Here is the IP address: 72.165.15.198. It resolves to Dana Park Office Center in Tucson, Arizona. Over the weekend, the person at the ASD-Biz forum purporting to be Guenther suggested he was near Mexico and planned to travel there. The geographic location to which the IP resolves is near Mexico.

    Meanwhile, this Blog received an email — as distinguished from a comment left on the Blog — from a person who identified himself as “the ‘infamous’ Bob Guenther” yesterday. Given recent developments and a pattern that suggests Bob Guenther routinely engages in menacing behavior, we have made the decision not to respond to the email.

    ASD-Biz members reacted with anger at the post referencing Arons’ daughter. Dallas attorney Larry Friedman sued Arons last week, asserting libel and slander for comments Arons allegedly had made on the Internet.

    The person purporting to be Guenther in the forum announced the Friedman lawsuit in two threads and provided links to PDFs of the documents.

    Friedman is an attorney for the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA) Trust. Bob Guenther is the de facto head of the Trust. Posters at ASD-Biz viewed the lawsuit as an attempt to chill speech. Prior to the lawsuit, some ASDMBA members said they had filed complaints against Friedman with the Texas Bar and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

    The lawsuit against Arons followed. Posters at the ASD-Biz forum say Guenther appears to be trying to spread the chill. Forum posters said they would not be silenced by threats.

    Some posters said they intended to file complaints today.

    After threatening additional lawsuits at the ASD-Biz forum — and after an editorial that ran on this Blog appeared over the weekend — the poster purporting to be Guenther at the ASD-Biz forum then appeared at least briefly to switch courses.

    Instead of threatening lawsuits, the person purporting to be Guenther appeared actually to encourage members to file complaints with authorities.

    In one post, the person purporting to be Guenther provided a link to Abbott’s office, the office of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and the Internet Crime Complaint Center. At the same time, in an apparent jibe, the poster also provided a link to PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

    The poster then provided a link to the office of Sen. John Cornyn, and then implied he had inside connections in Abbott’s office.

    “By the way if you want to call Greg Abbott, I have his direct line and that of his assistant, would you like that too,” the purported Guenther wrote.

  • EDITORIAL: Larry Friedman, Drop The Lawsuit

    UPDATED 6:33 P.M. EST (U.S.A.) Dallas attorney Larry Friedman represents the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA) Trust. Friedman has sued Florida resident Jack Arons for slander and libel, asserting that Arons — a self-styled truth-seeker whom Friedman describes as a “felon” and a “vigilante” and an Internet “menace” — has told untruths and slimed him online.

    The filing of a lawsuit against Arons strikes us as a severe remedy and a warning to others not to ask too many uncomfortable questions. It’s hard not to see things that way when a person purporting to be Bob Guenther, the de facto head of the Trust, appears to be acting as Friedman’s publicist and bouncer — and using Friedman’s law shingle as a weapon.

    Friedman assesses the harm from Arons’ alleged slime at $50,000. He filed a 12-page lawsuit, but swore only to a single paragraph in the document in a verification on the final page. Regardless, Friedman walked away with a temporary restraining order designed to mute Arons.

    Critics at the ASD-Biz forum say the document reads like a broad bid to chill legitimate  discussion about ASDMBA. Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, some ASDMBA members said they filed complaints against Friedman with the Texas Bar and the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.  The members want to know how ASDMBA is spending money it collected.

    And they want to know why no ASDMBA litigation has been filed to date, whether ASDMBA even can gain standing in a forfeiture case against the alleged proceeds of a criminal enterprise, and why the Trust says it still owes Friedman money. The kinds of questions ASDMBA members say they want answered certainly are reasonable.

    Friedman’s client is the ASDMBA Trust, not the individual members who provided funding and comprise the association. The original plan was for Friedman to communicate with members through the Trust, which effectively is under the control of Bob Guenther, who identified himself a Friedman client in matters that did not pertain to ASDMBA. Guenther introduced Friedman to the members in a conference call when the Trust was being formed last summer.

    The trouble with Friedman’s claim that the Trust is the proper information gateway, according to members, is that Guenther doesn’t answer questions and has released only a broad accounting of how ASDMBA spends its money. These members say the accounting is far too vague. They also complain about verbal bullying from Guenther, who has cited a longtime friendship with Friedman.

    It’s all well and good that Friedman’s client is the Trust. Friedman, in effect, is saying members should turn to Guenther for answers, and that very well could be proper if Friedman has an attorney-client relationship with the Trust. But when members can’t get the answers they seek from the Trust or become the subject of a passive-aggressive rant or verbal threat from Guenther, where do they turn?

    Some of them say they turned to the Texas Bar and Abbott.  The lawsuit against Arons followed — and was announced by a person who purported to be Guenther in two separate threads at the ASD-Biz forum.

    One of the posts announced the announcement, pointing viewers to a separate thread that contained the actual announcement. The poster purporting to be Guenther was the first person to post links to the lawsuit documents, before any information appeared on the Dallas court site and before Arons was served.

    How the lawsuit information was disseminated creates the appearance that Guenther is working as Friedman’s flack and bouncer. Even at the very moment this post is being written, a person purporting to be Guenther is over at the ASD-Biz forum threatening to extend Friedman’s long arm from Dallas and sue other people. The claim is that no one can say they haven’t been warned about Friedman’s ability to file libel lawsuits.

    The implication is that Guenther himself wants to spread the chill. In a juvenile insult, Arons was referred to as “Rookie.” The message was rookies get sued and eaten for lunch by the professionals, so don’t ask too many questions.

    Still, however, there has been no transparent accounting from the complaining members’ point of view. A lack of transparent accounting certainly isn’t consistent with professionalism — and was one of the reasons ASDMBA members said they turned to the Texas Bar and Abbott to address their concerns.

    Members want to know why ASDMBA, for example, appears to have spent thousands of dollars on what was vaguely described as contract services and Internet expenses. It is possible to purchase web hosting for a site that would accommodate ASDMBA’s needs for $24 a year, not thousands of dollars.

    People know that. They also know that vague accounting sometimes is a signature of abuse.  Their concerns are not silly. They could be addressed in minutes by Bob Guenther and the Trust.

    And yet the concerns aren’t being addressed, according to members. Meanwhile, Jack Arons is being called a “Rookie”  and getting sued, and a poster purporting to be Guenther is announcing the lawsuit with great fanfare and opining that 80% of men are “internet pussies who couldn’t work their way out of a wet paper bag.”

    Yes, really.

    “Jack Arons Sued, Served and Shut Up, Finally…” reads the over-the-top headline, in the thread that announces Friedman’s legal handiwork.

    There were reports this morning that Arons’ Internet connection was taken down as a result of documents faxed to his ISP.

    Friedman’s quickest route to restore a reputation he claims was damaged is not to sue Jack Arons; it is to insist that Guenther and the Trust be straightforward in their dealings with members who contributed money and, if they’re not, to fire the Trust as a client.

    As things stand now, the person purporting to be Guenther appears to be staining Friedman’s reputation by acting as a bouncer against people who might be inclined to file complaints with the Texas Bar and Abbott. What’s more, the temporary restraining order is so broad that it appears to restrain people sympathetic to Arons even from contacting Friedman to let him know what’s going on at the forum.

    Appearances matter. It looks like the person purporting to be Guenther is doing Friedman’s bidding for him and seeking to insulate himself from criticism and legitimate questioning by dangling Friedman’s shingle as a weapon. At a minimum, this situation creates the appearance of impropriety. It looks like thuggery.

    The poster purporting to be Guenther shows virtually no restraint. The ASD case has never been about politics, but Guenther — who seems not to possess a thimble full of PR savvy — routinely cites his conservative credentials in forum threads about ASD or ASDMBA. It’s as though he can’t even conceive that ASD and ASDMBA have Democrats and liberals in their membership ranks and that politics has no place in this particular business discussion.

    ASDMBA members weren’t asked about their political leanings when they joined. They were told that the association was going to litigate in their interests. They didn’t join to be told they weren’t conservative enough or Republican enough to be taken seriously. And they certainly didn’t join to be made the subjects of juvenile ridicule by Guenther and threats that they, too, will get sued if they don’t play the game by rules he defines.

    On the ASDMBA website, Guenther is directing bluster at William Cowden, the federal prosecutor handling the ASD case. Guenther had made a big show of emailing questions to Cowden, who is under no obligation at all to provide Guenther any answers. The ASD case is an active, ongoing investigation. Cowden wouldn’t discuss the government’s prosecutorial plans during an active investigation even if Congress were to subpoena him. He’s certainly not going to jump through Guenther’s hoops.

    Larry Friedman should drop the lawsuit against Jack Arons. At the same time, he should stop Guenther from using his attorney’s shingle as a weapon. Little wonder that attorneys are made the subject of jokes and outright ridicule when this kind of thing is happening in full public view.

    ASDMBA should provide a full, itemized, transparent accounting. Bob Guenther should end any involvement with ASDMBA and rid himself of the notion that people are too stupid or too afraid to hold him accountable.

  • Jacks Arons Purportedly Sued By Larry Friedman

    UPDATED 12:40 P.M. EST (U.S.A.) A person posting as “Bob Guenther” at the ASD-Biz forum reports Jack Arons, a mainstay in the AdSurfDaily case and a driving force behind an effort to get the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA) to provide a verifiable accounting of association spending, has been sued by Larry Friedman for slander and libel.

    Arons also was accused of defamation, business disparagement and tortious interference. Arons said he had not yet been served. The case was filed in Texas, Friedman’s home. Arons lives in Florida.

    The claim was made under a headline titled “Jack Arons Sued, Served and Shut Up, Finally . . .” The purported author was Bob Guenther, known for a lack of decorum.

    Some ASDMBA members have been encouraging others to file complaints against Friedman with the Texas Bar for his handling of ASDMBA’s affairs. Others have suggested that complaints should be filed with the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

    Friedman is an attorney for ASDMBA, which is not associated with AdSurfDaily Inc. ASDMBA was formed in August in the aftermath of the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from ASD amid allegations of wire fraud, money-laundering, selling unregistered securities and running a $100 million Ponzi scheme.

    Some ASDMBA members have demanded Bob Guenther provide a straightforward accounting of how the association spends its money. Members said they believed Friedman would file a lawsuit to protect their interests, but no lawsuit has been filed to date.

    Guenther has served as a spokesman for ASDMBA, sometimes catching the ire of ASDMBA members for what they describe as his use of menacing or threatening language and refusal to provide a detailed accounting of how ASDMBA spends its money.

    “Anyone involved with his illegal activities or false accusations may suffer the same consequences,” the poster claiming to be Guenther said. Arons was referred to as “Rookie” in a separate post.

    The lawsuit described Arons as a felon and a vigilante and a menace who has damaged Friedman’s reputation.

    Why ASDMBA has not produced the type of accounting that would ease members’ concerns is unclear. Also unclear is why litigation ASDMBA members said they were expecting hasn’t been filed. The dispute has been raging for weeks.

    ASDMBA has been collecting money for months. At least one member who contributed funds went on to file his own motion in the ASD case — a motion not related to ASDMBA, but one that used the Curtis Richmond litigation blueprint. Richmond is associated with a sham Utah “Indian” tribe known for filing vexatious litigation.

    Months after ASDMBA began collecting money — and while it still was collecting money — a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm brought a class-action lawsuit against AdSurfDaily, accusing it of racketeering. Three ASD members were named the original plaintiffs.

    ASDMBA members who’d been wondering since August when the association litigation would be filed once again complained about being left on the sidelines. They cite confusion over how ASDMBA money is being spent and the association’s litigation plan.

    In what some ASDMBA members described as a bid to chill speech and undermine their efforts to have authorities investigate Friedman and ASDMBA, the lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order. Among other things, the complaint seeks to restrain parties from “filing false complaints with state agencies against F&F [Friedman & Feiger] and encouraging or duping ASDMBA investors to file false complaints to state agencies or other entities.”

    A judge purportedly has granted the restraining order.

    It is illegal to file false complaints, and people can be charged criminally and sued civilly for doing so. It’s hard to imagine any jurisdiction that discourages or bans the filing of truthful complaints.