UPDATED 11:27 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) In May, an email attributed to AdSurfDaily member Todd Disner declared, “Let the games begin!” The remark was in the context of a lawsuit Disner and fellow ASD member Dwight Owen Schweitzer intended to file against the United States once ASD members chipped in enough money to fund the complaint.
Those games apparently have begun with the filing today of a pro se “complaint for declaratory relief” by Disner and Schweitzer in the Southern District of Florida against the United States and Rust Consulting Inc., the government-approved claims administrator in the civil-forfeiture portion of the ASD Ponzi case.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge in Florida to find that the seizure of assets and business records belonging to Disner and Schweitzer was “illegal and void” and demands their return. It also asks the judge to order Rust to “disclose all information in its possession or available to it pertaining to” Disner and Schweitzer.
Among the claims in the lawsuit are that undercover agents from a U.S. Secret Service/IRS Task Force who joined ASD prior to the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from the bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin violated ASD’s Terms of Service and had a duty to report their alleged TOS violations, including the insertion of an agent’s undercover “MySpace” page in ASD’s advertising rotator, to the company.
Rust is headquartered in Minnesota. Although the complaint named the United States a defendant alongside Rust, the address listed for the United States by Disner and Schweitzer was the address of the office of U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. in the District of Columbia.
Disner, an unsuccessful pro se litigant in the ASD civil case brought by the government, is a co-founder of the Quiznos sandwich franchise. He lives in Miami. Schweitzer, a former attorney, also lives in Miami. The government’s case against ASD-related assets was filed in the District of Columbia in August 2008. Disner was denied standing in the District of Columbia on Aug. 31, 2009, more than two years ago.
Among other things, Disner and Schweitzer claim their private records as contained in ASD’s database were confiscated illegally by the government. They also claimed an affidavit filed in the forfeiture case by the U.S. Secret Service was flawed and that the government hired Rust to implement a remissions program “designed to collect evidence and coerced admissions from the plaintiffs to be used by the government” at the criminal trial of ASD President Andy Bowdoin.
Federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia — the venue in which both the criminal and the civil cases against Bowdoin and ASD-connected assets were filed — had a different take.
“The funds in this case were seized under properly issued judicial warrants,” Machen’s office said today. “Beyond that, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has no comment on the matter at this time. ”
Puzzlingly, the complaint filed by Disner and Schweitzer and recorded on the docket of U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga today makes the assertion that “To date the plaintiffs are unaware of any remission payments having been made and specifically the plaintiffs were unable to get the information required for their submissions, all of which are still in the possession of the government.”
On Sept. 22 — more than six weeks ago — the PP Blog reported that thousands of ASD members who filed approved remissions claims would receive back 100 cents on the dollar. Members reported that the money was deposited electronically into their bank accounts beginning on Sept. 23. On Sept. 26, the government announced that $55 million was being returned, with the Secret Service describing ASD as a “criminal enterprise” and the Department of Justice describing the ASD scheme as “insidious.”
In a Sept. 28 email, even Bowdoin acknowledged that he was aware the government had returned money to members through the remissions process. Among other things, the ASD patriarch claimed the government had forced members to lie to receive compensation.
Disner and Schweitzer not only claim in their complaint that they are “unaware” of any money being returned, they also claim the remissions program was designed to “prevent, hamper and forestall the return” of funds.
Meanwhile, Disner and Schweitzer claim that ASD was a profitable venture, in stark contrast to assertions by the government that ASD was insolvent because it created a liability of $1.25 for each dollar it took in through the sale of purported “advertising.”
Disner and Schweitzer also took issue with government agents joining ASD and allegedly violating the ASD membership agreement, including an undercover agent who placed his undercover “MySpace” page in ASD’s advertising rotator. In August 2008, the government alleged that “ASD did not require, or even verify that the agent “had any product or service to sell.”
Had the agents “lived up to the obligations they took on by becoming members of ASD they should have reported their own violations of the ASD terms of service with the result that the sites they foisted upon ASD would have been removed and the benefits to them as advertisers’ would be forfeited as the ASD rules mandated,” Disner and Schweitzer argued.










