PatrickPretty.com

Tag: ASD

  • MUSINGS: It’s Possible ASD NEVER Operated Legally

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Many observers hold the view that ASD broke the law the first time it paid an “old” member with funds from a “new” member in the classic Ponzi setup. It’s hard to argue with that point of view, given the failure of hundreds and hundreds of autosurfs, all of which used a Ponzi model and were pushed by serial Ponzi promoters.

    Regardless, the Ponzi discussion is only one element of the ASD case, which was brought as a wire-fraud and money-laundering prosecution amid assertions that ASD was selling unregistered securities and operating a Ponzi scheme.

    This column seeks to promote discussion about whether ASD ever operated legally.

    As pro se motions from individual members criticizing the government’s actions in the AdSurfDaily forfeiture case continued to pile up last week, prosecutors filed a brief that says filers “must establish an interest in a property that existed before the crime occurred.”

    Can the pro se filers do it? Can they demonstrate that their investment in ASD — what they claim was a purchase of  “ad packages” to be displayed in ASD’s rotator — occurred before the company morphed into what the government calls a criminal enterprise?

    We think not.

    We’d like to applaud the filers’ participation in the judicial process, but we cannot. The filings are disingenuous. They were made from a template circulated among at least one ASD downline group. And they make claims contrary to the public record of the case — a record that has been published in multiple places.

    Among other things, the filings claim:

    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any EVIDENCE of alleged wrongdoing.
    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any WITNESSES of alleged wrongdoing.
    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any VICTIMS of alleged wrongdoing.

    All of these claims are disingenuous to the extreme and can be defeated by one simple fact: A trial date has not even been set in the case. Regardless, the pro se filers are telling a federal judge that the prosecution “has failed” to do all of these things, as though the judge does not have a clue about a case over which she is presiding and scheduling in consultation with the parties.

    These filings are an insult to the judge. Moreover, they are an insult to the rank-and-file members of ASD. The members have been subjected to months and months of tall tales told by members of the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum. Now they’re being subjected to a litany of disingenuous filings by individual ASD promoters.

    ASD had asked last year for an opportunity to present its witnesses at an evidentiary hearing to argue against the Ponzi allegations. The prosecution did not object to the hearing, and the judge granted ASD’s request. She later ruled that ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme at the hearing, explaining that ASD’s testimony was at odds with itself and contradicted by ASD’s “come on” statements on its own website. (Emphasis added below.)

    “The lay testimony of [ASD Member] Mr. Grayson belies the expert testimony of [ASD Expert Witness] Mr. Nehra,” the judge said. “Mr. Nehra repeatedly asserted that ASD does not ‘guarantee’ rebates under the Terms of Service, see Terms of Service at 2 (Ad Packages and Credits) (“ASD does not guarantee any earnings and/or rebates”), but his testimony cannot be relied upon because (1) it is contradicted by come-on statements on the ASD website and Mr. Grayson’s testimony and (2) it relied solely on the written words contained in the Terms of Service without independent investigation or review of ASD’s business records to ascertain how ASD operates in fact before opining.”

    But let’s return to the issue as to whether filers can demonstrate that they ever were members of a legal enterprise.

    There is evidence that an ad for ASD in February 2007 — only a few months after ASD’s launch — promised “shelter” from the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Every dollar that flowed into ASD from that ad was polluted by fantastic lies. The people who sponsored the ad were representatives of the ASD organization.

    “Shelter” from the FTC and SEC? And “shelter” provided by an “advertising” company no less? Go to your local newspaper, radio, television or billboard provider. Ask if they ever provided “shelter” from the FTC or SEC to any of their advertising clients.

    Moreover, there is evidence that members were advised their ASD deposits were insured by the FDIC. The suggestion was that one could not lose with ASD because members’ individual ASD accounts — ad-pack numbers on a screen — were insured against loss by the FDIC.

    Meanwhile, there is evidence that debit cards used by ASD were the same debit cards used by what the Drug Enforcement Administration described as a major drug operation in Medellin, Colombia. Yes, that Medellin.

    Records suggest that the man who provided the debit cards to the Medellin operation is the same man who provided the debit cards to ASD and that the man or his intermediary participated in an ASD function in November 2006, just days after ASD began to build its web operation.

    Meanwhile, there is evidence that ASD members were not getting paid shortly after the company’s launch, that at least $1 million came up missing from the enterprise at the purported hands of “Russian” hackers and that resources were depleted by scripting errors.

    At the same time, the record suggests that ASD President Andy Bowdoin was involved in a failed surf known as DailyProSurf prior to the October 2006 launch of ASD. This leads to the intriguing possibility that ASD was in the hole before it even started and that the initial ASD iteration was used to pay back DailyProSurf members for losses they sustained.

    Even if that was not the case, there is evidence that ASD morphed into ASD Cash Generator and did not tell new members that their money was being used to pay members of ASD’s first or previous iterations.

    Some of this evidence dates back to January 2006 and, in August 2006, two months before the launch of ASD, Bowdoin registered the name DailyProSurf in Florida. It is a matter of public record.

    Bowdoin also donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee in early 2007, even as ASD members were not being paid and the patriarch was consulting with “leaders” in Atlanta to come up with a turnaround plan. It is a virtual certainty that Bowdoin’s campaign donations came from Ponzi proceeds.

    Also, public filings in Florida show that the building ASD was using — the former flower shop owned by his wife in Quincy — used the address of 11 S. Calhoun in the 1990s and 13 S. Calhoun during this decade.

    Good luck trying to prove you ever were a member of a legal enterprise. It is possible that ASD never operated legally — not even before it made what prosecutors described as Ponzi payouts.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Pro Se Filer Says Government Owes Her ‘Approximately $250,000 In [ASD] Ad Packages’

    More pro se motions to intervene in the AdSurfDaily civil forfeiture case have streamed into U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Some of today’s docketed motions were mailed in September — after Judge Rosemary Collyer’s Aug. 31 denial of motions filed by the first 10 pro se litigants.

    Today’s docketed filers include Julie Anne Larson of Sarasota, Fla. Larson says the government owes her “approximately $250,000 in [ASD] Ad Packages.” Her petition was dated Sept. 1, one day after Collyer ruled against the initial 10 filers, saying they had no standing in the case.

    No signature appears on the the perjury-verification line in the document. Larson’s purported signature appears on the Certificate of Service and is dated Sept. 1.

    It is believed Larson is the first pro se litigant to file specifically for ASD ad packages and not an actual sum of money.

    Since Aug. 24, pro se litigants have filed an unofficial total of 31 motions to “Intervene and Petition[s] To Return Wrongfully Confiscated Funds.” The motions have used a litigation blueprint circulated by at least one ASD downline.

    All of the motions were filed after prosecutors had announced that ASD President Andy Bowdoin had acknowledged ASD was operating illegally at the time of the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from his bank accounts last year.

    Bowdoin also signed a proffer letter in the case, prosecutors said in April.

    Bowdoin’s attorney, Charles A. Murray, announced in court filings Aug. 4 that Bowdoin was negotiating with federal prosecutors.

    By Aug. 24, pro se pleadings from ASD members began to pile up at the courthouse. The filings accuse the government of “reckless action” and “reckless disregard of the law by my Government to ‘protect’ its citizens.”

    Other docketed filers today include Stephen O’Brien, Christine Keyworth, Joseph L. Dunn Jr., Caesar Nunez and Laurie Ann Solliday.

    On Friday, in response to the spate of pro se filings, prosecutors filed a supplemental brief in the case that said ASD members “must establish an interest in a property that existed before the crime occurred.”

    The government filings might have been a bid to put would-be intervenors on notice that prosecutors have evidence of crimes that occurred within ASD long ago, perhaps before some or all of the pro se litigants even joined the purported “advertising”
    business.

    Later Friday, links were established between some members of ASD and the AdVentures4U autosurf, which announced a suspension of payouts Aug. 28. ASD members also promoted Noobing, an autosurf currently offline.

    Noobing’s parent company was ordered by a federal judge last week to repatriate money to the United States as a fraud investigation by the Federal Trade Commission proceeds.

    Today, the domains for AdViewGlobal, another autosurf promoted by ASD members, would not resolve to their servers in Panama.

    Read Larson’s motion.

  • AdViewGlobal Domains Offline

    UPDATED 8:09 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.)

    Two domains for the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf will not resolve to a server.

    The domains are:

    • adviewglobal.com
    • startavga.com

    Why the domains will not resolve is unclear. The domains normally resolve to a server in Panama.

    As reported previously, a third domain associated with AVG — advglobal.com — also won’t resolve. This domain appears to have resolved to the United States at one time and appears to have been suspended for spam and abuse.

    AVG suspended cashouts June 25. In August, it said it had reported a theft of $2.7 million to state and federal authorities. AVG’s announcement about the purported theft occurred one day after AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin announced in court filings that he was negotiating with federal prosecutors.

    AVG and ASD have close family, promoter and membership ties.

    UPDATE 11:55 A.M. The AVG domains still are offline. Their IP cluster in Panama is in the same range as the server that powers BizAdSplash (BAS), yet another controversial surf firm. The BAS domains are resolving.

    UPDATE 8:09 P.M. The adviewglobal.com domain and the startavga.com domain now are resolving to a server, although the members’ login page and the “Join” page are throwing a database error.

    The advglobal.com domain is not resolving to a server.

  • EDITORIAL: ‘Meanwhile, Andy Bowdoin Was Negotiating’

    Perhaps you’ve read that the AdVentures4U (ADV4U) autosurf suspended payouts on or about Aug. 28. The surf, which purports to be a professional communications firm, butchered its announcement message to such a degree that professional Ponzi promoters began to email their lists to explain what they thought ADV4U was saying.

    Perhaps the only thing not ambiguous was a plea to members not to contact the offshore payment processors. The processors had the ability to trap the money and cripple operations, meaning ADV4U would not be able to dictate the haircut members were about to receive and that all financial decisions would be placed in the hands of the processors.

    Trapping the money also meant that ADV4U also would not be able to get its hands on its own cash. Money needed to pay the bills could be trapped. So could money needed to carry out the master plan, irrespective of the fact members cannot say for certain what the master plan is. They can repeat GIGO only. Garbage comes in, and garbage goes out. Somehow it takes on a veneer of high truth.

    Third-party accounts from “insiders” or people who know other people “in the loop” are never high truth. All you need to do to test this theory is read the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum.

    Surf’s Up told you an insider with impeccable credentials knew for a fact that the government admitted behind closed doors that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. The government then went out and mowed down ASD at an evidentiary hearing in which the prosecution did not call a single witness.

    So much for “insider” news.

    Not to be outdone, though, posters at Surf’s Up then wove the untrue tale that ASD was denied due process, that the government’s failure to call a witness at a hearing ASD specifically requested to present its evidence meant that it had no evidence. Over the months the untrue tale snowballed. It finally grew into a fantastically untrue tale in which the preposterous claim was made that the only reason Andy Bowdoin was not in jail and that Bernard Madoff was in jail is that the government had no evidence against Bowdoin. Zero. None.

    This claim was made despite the fact that Andy Bowdoin had acknowledged in his own court filings that ASD was operating illegally, had given statements acknowledging the government’s material allegations all were true and even had signed a proffer letter in the case.

    A few of Bowdoin’s most committed apologists then began to spin the fantastic tale that the rebirth of ASD might be only days away, that prosecutors had screwed up so royally that a federal judge issued an order commanding them to put up or shut up by Aug. 28.

    This claim was made despite the fact Bowdoin’s own attorney announced publicly that Bowdoin was negotiating with prosecutors. The prosecution hadn’t been ordered to do anything. In fact, Andy Bowdoin had been on the receiving end of an order to instruct the court in no uncertain terms how he intended to proceed.

    Still not to be undone, some ASD members spun the fantastic tale that:

    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any EVIDENCE of alleged wrongdoing.
    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any WITNESSES of alleged wrongdoing.
    • The U.S. Government has failed to produce any VICTIMS of alleged wrongdoing.
    • The action was based solely on the OPINIONS of the U. S. Government agents.

    Interesting choice of words — “has failed.” What’s most interesting of all is that a trial date has not even been set in the case. Why not? Because Andy Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture in January, more than two weeks prior to the scheduling conference in the case. The scheduling conference was canceled because Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture, meaning the case nearly was litigated to conclusion because Bowdoin had given up his claims to tens of millions of dollars seized in a wire-fraud, money-laundering and Ponzi scheme case in which it was alleged that ASD was selling unregistered securities.

    And he submitted to the forfeiture after signing a proffer letter and after telling the government that its material allegations were all true.

    It therefore follows that ASD members also were selling unregistered securities and, perhaps, becoming unwitting participants in a criminal enterprise. The case was brought as a conspiracy. About the only unknown right now is the true depths of criminality within the organization.

    The government plainly has acknowledged that there are thousands of victims. It announced a program to provide some degree of restitution after it had gathered all of the assets of the ASD enterprise, which very likely was hiding money in the individual accounts of co-conspirators as a hedge against the possibility that ASD was going to get caught.

    Ever see these words?

    “Don’t call it an investment. We can get in trouble for that.”

    Those are the words that demonstrate the conspiracy. They show consciousness of guilt, especially when uttered by veteran players. The newbies don’t understand it’s a wink-nod conspiracy. If they discover later that they’ve been drafted into a conspiracy of silence and accept wink-nod as their duty to the enterprise, then they, too, are co-conspirators.

    Various rebukes by the co-conspirators to the unknowing that they purchased “advertising” and that “rebates aren’t guaranteed” also are evidence of the conspiracy. What it really means is, “Don’t tell. All of us, including YOU, could get in trouble.”

    Which brings us back to ADV4U.

    It announced yesterday that payouts due yesterday to plenty of members would not arrive because somebody had blabbed to one of the offshore processors and the account was restricted.

    There were stinging rebukes posted in various online venues by various ADV4U members to the blabbers.

    Meanwhile, members said the compensation they had received from ADV4U via other offshore processors had amounted to only about 20 percent of their exposure to loss. They had been assured that they would be made whole and placed in profit — sort of. No one really knows what ADV4U is saying because the message is so mangled and because the purported owner’s words did not comport with what members were being told by customer service.

    Which brings us back to ASD.

    One of ASD’s purported customer-service reps also purportedly works for ADV4U. That, in itself, makes ADV4U downright dangerous.

    Meanwhile, the name of one of the 25 recent pro se filers in the ASD case who claimed “The U.S. Government has failed to produce any EVIDENCE of alleged wrongdoing” popped up in a Skype chat last night about the ADV4U debacle. If it was, in fact, the ASD filer, it means she also has money in ADV4U and did not want to see it go missing.

    If one looks at the transcript of the Skype chat, there is virtually no discussion about how disappointed members are about the prospect of losing their “advertising” outlet. Most of the discussion was about money and retrenchment plans of the same sort both ASD and AdViewGlobal had announced.

    Some members were angry that other members had the unmitigated gall actually to contact AlertPay and subject the entirety of the ADV4U membership group to a haircut. Only a handful of people know what is real and what is fiction in this incredibly toxic, incredibly tangled web.

    Meanwhile, Andy Bowdoin was negotiating with federal prosecutors.

  • Ten More Motions To Intervene Appear On Docket

    UPDATED 4:57 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Ten more pro se motions to intervene in the federal forfeiture case against AdSurfDaily Inc. have just appeared on the docket of U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer.

    With the motions docketed yesterday, the grand total filed in the past two days now stands at 12. Previously 10 motions were filed, bringing the overall grand total to 22. All of the motions appear to use the same litigation blueprint.

    Collyer denied the first 10 motions in a two-paragraph ruling. She has not ruled on the most recent 12 motions, which appear to have been in transit when she ruled against the initial 10.

    Today’s docketed filers include Barbara J. Bowles; Robert Bowles; Dawn Starling; Eva Cater; Sara Lehman; Christopher Blake Scott; Harold L. Shaffer; Daniel N. Reams; James Richards; and John Deminico.

    4:57 P.M. EDT UPDATE: An 11th motion was docketed late this afternoon. The filer was Thomas M. Shearer. As of this update, the grand total of motions docketed today stands at 11. The overall grand total now is 23. (This figure includes pro se filings since Aug. 24 and does not take into account earlier pro se filings by ASD President Andy Bowdoin, Curtis Richmond and others. The unofficial total of earlier pro se filings is 16.)

    The unofficial grand total of all pro se filings is 39.

  • More Motions To Intervene Appear On Court Docket

    Two more pro se motions to intervene in the AdSurfDaily federal forfeiture case have appeared on the docket of U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer.

    The motions appear to use the same litigation blueprint used by 10 previous pro se filers. Collyer denied all 10 motions yesterday for lack of standing, issuing a two-paragraph ruling.

    Today’s docketed filers include G. Stan Ketchum, who says the U.S. government owes him $5,700, and Lucia M. Ruggeroni, who makes a claim for $500. It is unclear if other motions remain to be docketed or if others are in the mail.

    What is clear is that today’s motions use the same arguments Collyer has repeatedly rejected.

  • An AdSurfDaily Imponderable: ‘Ad-Packs’ As Currency

    All sorts of incongruities dot the AdSurfDaily landscape. Perhaps none is odder than this:

    Some ASD members say currency issued by the U.S. government is fraudulent, that the Federal Reserve is a fraud, that Federal Reserve Notes are a sham and not “money” because gold and silver coins are the only real money — and yet they seem to have no problem at all with the concept of “ad-packs” as currency.

    Andy Bowdoin was not paying them in silver and gold — and they nevertheless were happy to receive their money, which they incongruously claim elsewhere to be Unconstitutional.

    “Ad-packs” always have made news, but perhaps particularly when prosecutors revealed ASD was paying certain employees in “ad-packs.” There was no hue and cry from the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists, even though “ad-packs” aren’t backed by silver and gold and have no street value, Constitutional or otherwise.

    They are not redeemable at, say, the neighborhood kid’s sidewalk Kool-Aid stand.

    A kid might take a silver coin or a gold coin — but he or she ain’t gonna take no stinkin’ “ad-packs.” You gotta show a kid the money, not a theory. Any money that spends at the Mall will do.

    Did you know a man who was paying employees in “ad-packs” any kid running a Kool-Aid stand would reject as unacceptably risky got an award from the President of the United States for business acumen? If not, consult the literature of ASD promoters, who helped a lie on the institution of the Presidency go viral because a trusting widow in Florida with $10,000 in her bank account meant they might score a commission of $1,000.

    No one raised a ruckus about Bowdoin treating “ad-packs” as currency — and the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists presumably did not renounce the paper profits showing in their back offices because Bowdoin had not set aside a like amount in gold and silver to back his “ad-pack” notes.

    If  paper money not backed by gold is a conspiracy, how could electronic “ad-packs” not backed by gold not also be one? Their value might not survive even a strong thunderstorm.

    Call it the Bowdoin Standard.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Pro Se Pleadings Pile Up In ASD Case

    Five more motions to intervene have been filed by pro se litigants in the AdSurfDaily federal forfeiture case.

    This morning’s filings came on the heels of five other pro se pleadings that appeared Tuesday on the docket of U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer. Like the previous motions, today’s filings appear to have used a litigation blueprint that has circulated among ASD members.

    Today’s filers — and the amounts they say they are owed by the U.S. government, not ASD President Andy Bowdoin, include:

    • Todd C. Disner ($53,000)
    • Pablo G. Camus ($1,000)
    • Georgette Stille ($10,000)
    • Alfredo Perez-Cappelli ($12,200)
    • Gallagher and Sons Inc. ($7,000)

    Todd Disner was one of the founders of the Quizno’s sandwich franchise. Disner also is listed as the owner of RebatesForAmerica.com.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin Asks For Extension; Lawyer Says ‘Entire Matter’ Could Be Resolved In Agreement

    UPDATED 5:06 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) The attorney for AdSurfDaily Inc. President Andy Bowdoin has asked a federal judge to extend a key filing deadline until Sept. 21.

    UPDATE 5:06 P.M: Judge Rosemary Coller, in a minute order just issued, has approved an extension until Sept. 14, not Sept. 21, as Bowdoin had requested.

    Charles A. Murray, Bowdoin’s attorney, said in a court filing today that he had “engaged in continuing negotiations with the Government and it appears that these negotiations could result in an agreement resolving the entire matter.”

    Bowdoin had been ordered to show cause by Aug. 7 why his motion to undo a decision he made in January to forfeit tens of millions of dollars seized by the U.S. Secret Service in a wire-fraud investigation last year should not be denied. The prosecution agreed to an extension until Aug. 28, and Judge Rosemary Collyer granted the extension.

    Today’s Bowdoin pleading was filed as a stipulated motion. Prosecutors did not object to Bowdoin’s requested delay until Sept. 21, but Collyer approved a delay only until Sept. 14.

    Read Bowdoin’s motion.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Motions To Intervene Pour In

    UPDATED 8:19 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Motions to intervene in the civil forfeiture case against AdSurfDaily Inc. are pouring into U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    The motions are filed pro se and may be the result of an organized effort by an AdSurfDaily upline. The motions claim the government now owes ASD members funds seized by the U.S. Secret Service last year.

    Included among the first five filers are Bruce Disner, Carol L. Rose, Lisa Koehler, Joseph Poggioreale and Jacqueline Poggioreale. It is unclear if other filings will follow.

    Disner claims the government owes him $42,000; Rose claims “$140 put in + earnings”; Koehler claims $1,000; Joseph Poggioreale claims $22,000 in a filing that also includes the name Jacqueline Poggiorelae; Jacqueline Poggioreale claims $22,000 in an individual filing.

    “At the time the funds were confiscated I had done nothing wrong,” the motions claim. “These funds were not only, in part, mine but the proceeds of ASD’s approximately one hundred thousand customers, contractors, employees and advertisers doing business with and for Ad Surf Daily.”

    Five motions have appeared on Judge Rosemary Collyer’s docket for the August forfeiture case so far today. They are styled as motions “to Intervene and Petition to Return Wrongfully Confiscated Funds.” The motions appear to be from a litigation blueprint and blame the government for events, not ASD President Andy Bowdoin.

    “This reckless action by the Government and its agents, served to terminate my living, my advertising campaign for my businesses, and my future wellbeing for both myself my family and my customers,” the motions claim.

    “This reckless action has prevented me from paying my financial obligations in a timely matter and in some cases not at all,” the motions continue. “This reckless action has done irreparable damage to my reputation with my friends, family and customers and has caused me endless embarrassment and loss of my precious credibility.”

    The motions point the finger of blame at prosecutors, not Bowdoin, and include a numbered list and an all-caps subhead:

    AFTER ONE YEAR:

    1. The U.S. Government has failed to produce any EVIDENCE of alleged wrongdoing.

    2. The U.S. Government has failed to produce any WITNESSES of alleged wrongdoing.

    3. The U.S. Government has failed to produce any VICTIMS of alleged wrongdoing.

    4. The action was based solely on the OPINIONS of the U. S. Government agents.

    5. The U.S. Government failed to notify me or any other affected parties as to the whereabouts or disposition of (my) our assets. (See Rule 983, U.S. Rules of Evidence).

    “By this reckless action and reckless disregard of the law by my Government to ‘protect’ its citizens, the U.S. Government has made us victims by confiscating our assets and terminally affected our businesses’ and all but wiped away all or part of their incomes both present and future,” the motions claim.

    “This reckless action by the Government has served to punish both Ad Surf Daily and its customers, contractors, employees and vendors without the benefit of a trial in a Court of Law,” the motions continue.

    “This reckless action by the Government has infringed on my civil rights and my Constitutional Rights  to do business in the United States.

    “I HEREBY, file this Motion and Petition to Refund my money which includes cash profits, my ad packages and any computer software databases returned forthwith.

    “THEREFORE, Petitioner requests the Court to enter an Order Allowing Petitioner to Intervene and Order Authorizing the Return of the above referenced funds to Petitioner,” the motions conclude.

    Collyer previously has denied a series of motions to intervene. Prosecutors have argued that the motions are delaying the establishment of a restitution pool for ASD members who certified they were crime victims.

    The judge consistently has ruled that the assets seized — including tens of millions of dollars — belonged to Andy Bowdoin, not individual ASD members, and that others lacked standing to intervene in the case.

    Unlike previous pro se claims, today’s claims assert that the government has a duty to refund paper profits that showed in the back offices of ASD members. Meanwhile, the motions also demand the return of ASD ad-packs — even though Bowdoin was authorized to display ads after the seizure and did not do so.

    Today’s motions also appear to demand the government to return ASD’s database — although to whom was not clear. Members have said ASD itself appears to have sold the database or made it available to other users.

    Some ASD members scolded Bowdoin in March, after they began to receive email pitches for a purported surf known as PaperlessAccess. In a video, Bowdoin told members PaperlessAccess was a way for them to make up losses.

    People complained as recently as last week that telemarketers using the ASD database were contacting them.

    Meanwhile, prosecutors said in April that Bowdoin had signed a proffer letter in the case and acknowledged that ASD was operating illegally at the time of the seizure.

    Read the motion by Bruce Disner.

  • People Close To AVG Money Had Large Bankruptcies

    UPDATED 11:18 A.M. EDT (U.S.A. AUG. 25) Two men identified as having significant positions of financial trust inside AdViewGlobal (AVG) discharged more than $1.6 million in separate bankruptcy filings, records show.

    One man used a mail drop as his street address in a 2004 bankruptcy filing that discharged $261,474 while claiming only $6,375 in assets, according to court filings.

    At the time of the filing, the man owed $5,300 to a courier service; $3,000 to a hosting company; $42,000 to lawsuit plaintiffs in a case that appears to have dealt with a piece of candy marketed MLM-style as a diet aid; $180,000 to an industrial park; and miscellaneous other debts.

    Meanwhile, a second man who held a position of trust inside AVG filed bankruptcy twice — a personal filing (2005) and a business filing (2004) — and discharged nearly $1.4 million while claiming only $3,500 in assets, research shows.

    Like the first man, the second man used a mail drop as his street address, advising the court the address was an apartment. The address actually was a UPS Store that once operated as a Mailboxes Etc, research shows.

    About four years later, the man went to work for AVG, according to research.

    Like ASD President Andy Bowdoin, whom members now say was the silent head of AVG, the men were involved in multiple businesses in multiple states and presided over enterprises that were sued over financial matters or for violations of federal law, records show.

    A former business partner of one of the men committed suicide in 2002, after allegations surfaced that a large sum of money was missing from a co-op venture managed by the former partner. Prior to taking his own life, the former partner made inquiries about banking in Switzerland and the Caribbean, according to court filings.

    The PatrickPretty.com Blog is withholding publication of the names of the men, who are not named in any ASD-related litigation.