Never mind that AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin himself says ASD was operating illegally when the U.S. Secret Service seized tens of millions of dollars last summer amid allegations of wire fraud, money-laundering, engaging in the sale of unregistered securities and operating a Ponzi scheme.
And never mind that Bowdoin — who initially insisted ASD was legal, then changed his mind, then fired his attorneys and started filing pro se pleadings before finally hiring a new attorney — has failed in every attempt to demonstrate the legitimacy of his business.
In a motion just filed, ASD member Curtis Richmond has accused federal prosecutors of Fraud upon the Court, Perjury of Oath, Obstruction of Justice and Interference with Commerce.
Richmond is associated with a sham Utah “Indian” tribe known for filing vexatious litigation. He was convicted of criminal contempt of court in 2007 in California for threatening federal judges, and last year was ordered to pay damages to prosecutors and others he had nuisanced in litigation.
Richmond and other pro se litigants in the ASD case have asserted an “Innocent Owner” claim, which asserts that Judge Rosemary Collyer and the prosecutors have “defaulted” on demands made by certified mail and are violating the Constitutional rights of ASD members.
At the same time, the pro se litigants appear to be suggesting that they’re entitled to do business with whomever they please, even if the business is illegal — all while suggesting the government has a duty not to interfere with commerce even if it is illegal commerce.
One of the linchpins of this litigation approach is to send a list of demands via certified mail — and later make the claim that the recipient defaulted on the demands by not responding to them. Default judgments then are sought, sometimes for tens of millions of dollars.
This is the second pro se filing this week in the ASD case, and the fifth involving ASD members using Richmond’s litigation blueprint. This number does not take into account Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings, which total four, bringing the unofficial grand total of pro se pleadings in the case to nine.
Federal prosecutors have said such filings could lead to interminable delays in rank-and-file members of ASD getting refunds through a process the government intends to implement for crime victims.
In what could be a day of multiple filings by the government in the AdSurfDaily case, federal prosecutors said in a memorandum that pro se claims by ASD President Andy Bowdoin that U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction over him in a civil forfeiture case have “no reasonable basis” in law.
Meanwhile, prosecutors asserted that continued filings by Bowdoin on a bad-faith basis might subject him to sanctions.
“In his pro se ‘ Motion To Dismiss, etc., Mr. Bowdoin suggests that this Court ‘does not have jurisdiction because although this may be filed as a civil action, it must be treated as quasicriminal with a standard of review or proof of clear and convincing evidence, not just preponderance of evidence,’” prosecutors said. “Alongside his opaque prose, however, Mr. Bowdoin offers neither one relevant argument, nor one pertinent citation in support of whatever relief he may here be urging.”
Judge Rosemary Collyer should deny the motion because it simply has no force of law behind it, prosecutors said.
“Mr. Bowdoin closes by asserting that ‘[t]here has been no probable cause determination
in this forfeiture,’” prosecutors said. “But he knows that statement is no more truthful than the representations he made to his investors. In this case a judge found probable cause for each seizure warrant this Court issued, and this Court found probable cause to support the forfeiture action again, after reviewing the government’s verified complaint and the additional evidence that Mr. Bowdoin’s former attorneys insisted be produced.”
Bowdoin’s behavior could result in a request for sanctions, prosecutors hinted.
“In this case, Mr. Bowdoin has filed an assortment of new motions after having already lost their earlier iterations,” prosecutors said. “Continued serial-filing might be rejected outright, and even sanctioned.
“Rule 12(g) provides,’If a party makes a motion under [Rule 12] but omits therefrom any defense or objection then available to the party which this rule permits to be raised by motion, the party shall not thereafter make a motion based on the defense or objection so omitted….’” prosecutors continued.
“In other words, with limited exception, Rule 12(g) requires all of the permitted Rule 12(b) defenses to be raised in a single, consolidated motion rather than in multiple or successive motions. See Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1306 (11th Cir.2002). Leading commentators on federal practice and procedure agree that Rule 12(g) generally bars successive pre-answer motions to dismiss.
“Professors Wright and Miller state, ‘The right to raise these defenses by preliminary motion is lost when the defendant neglects to consolidate them in his initial motion,’” prosecutors said.
A federal judge has granted attorney Robert Garner’s pro se motion to respond to a racketeering lawsuit filed against him by members of AdSurfDaily Inc.
As he requested, Garner will be given until May 22 to respond to the complaint. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued the order, although a proposed order by Garner appeared to be directed to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Collyer is the presiding judge in the case, which was filed Jan. 15. Also named RICO defendants were ASD President Andy Bowdoin and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby.
Nothing in the record suggests Bowdoin and Busby have been served with the complaint. Neither man has filed a response, and no attorney has filed a response on behalf of Bowdoin or Busby.
The plaintiffs in the case — Mike Collins, Frank Greene and Natures Discount Inc. — have said in court filings that they have not been able to perfect service of the complaint.
Garner, after more than two and one-half months, was served earlier this month.
The reasons for the delay in service are unclear.
Bank of America is a non-RICO defendant and has responded to the complaint. Parts of the case have been on hold, pending service of the complaint.
The RICO complaint alleged that Garner, Bowdoin and Busby were involved in “other†schemes beyond ASD, Golden Panda and LaFuenteDinero, and have “committed or aided and abetted in the commission of countless acts of racketeering activity,†including indictable offenses.
UPDATED 10:37 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) AdSurfDaily attorney Robert Garner has been served with a lawsuit alleging he engaged in racketeering with ASD President Andy Bowdoin and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby.
The RICO lawsuit had been pending since Jan. 15. In court filings, Garner acknowledged he was served with the complaint April 2. He has asked for time to respond.
Garner’s motion for enlargment of time to file was filed pro se, meaning it was filed by Garner himself and not an attorney representing Garner. The motion lists a P.O. Box in Greensboro, N.C., as Garner’s address.
Garner’s motion does not say where he was served the complaint. In a proposed order, he asked a federal magistrate judge to grant the motion to enlarge time, as opposed to asking Judge Rosemary Collyer, the district judge hearing the case. Garner wants until May 22 to respond.
Plaintiffs include Mike Collins, Frank Greene and Natures Discount Inc. — all members of ASD.
The RICO complaint alleged that Garner, Bowdoin and Busby were involved in “other†schemes beyond ASD, Golden Panda and LaFuenteDinero, and have “committed or aided and abetted in the commission of countless acts of racketeering activity,†including indictable offenses.
No attorney for either Bowdoin or Busby has entered an appearance notice in the racketeering case. It is unclear if they have been served. The lawsuit was filed Jan. 15. It has been the subject of delays, owing to the plaintiffs’ inability to perfect service on the defendants.
A federal judge has indefinitely extended the deadline for class-action certification in a racketeering lawsuit against AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin, ASD attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby.
The plaintiffs in the case — all former ASD members — asked for the time extension last week because they have not been able to serve Bowdoin, Garner or Busby. The original deadline was April 15.
Judge Rosemary Collyer now will set the deadline during a scheduling conference once the defendants are served — or by issuing a future order. The case has been pending since Jan. 15.
Why the plaintiffs have not been able to perfect service of the complaint is unclear.
Plaintiffs include Mike Collins, Frank Greene and Natures Discount Inc.
The RICO complaint alleged the defendants were involved in “other†schemes beyond ASD, Golden Panda and LaFuenteDinero, and have “committed or aided and abetted in the commission of countless acts of racketeering activity,†including indictable offenses.
“The ASD Enterprise provides the RICO Defendants and other unnamed co-conspirators with a system by which to operate fraudulent schemes such as ASD, to hide the fraudulent nature of the schemes, and to profit from such schemes,†the plaintiffs alleged. “Each RICO Defendant agreed to perform services of a kind which facilitated the operation of the ASD Enterprise and facilitated the RICO Defendants and others in the operation of various fraudulent schemes, including ASD.â€
Collins, Greene and Natures Discount said they will seek discovery and try to get important questions answered about ASD, including questions about the interactions of ASD management and others.
Here is a preliminary list of what the plaintiffs intend to seek through discovery:
Representations made regarding the individuals associated with ASD.
Nature of ASD’s business and the opportunity to earn money.
Types of services offered.
Management and operation of ASD.
The relationship and interaction among employees, officers and other representatives of ASD and BOA, Bowdoin, Busby and Garner.
Facts and circumstances surrounding the opening, maintenance and account activity of BOA accounts in the names of ASD, Bowdoin, Busby and/or Garner.
Judge Rosemary Collyer has granted a motion by Jonathan Goodman and Michael Fayad of Akerman Senterfitt to withdraw as counsel for ASD President Andy Bowdoin.
The firm also was granted leave to withdraw as counsel in the civil-forfeiture case against tens of millions of dollars and real-estate tied to ASD amid allegations of wire fraud, money-laundering and operating a Ponzi scheme.
Goodman and Fayad filed the withdrawal motion April 2, saying they no longer could represent Bowdoin, AdSurfDaily Inc. and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc. effectively.
In asking for leave to withdraw, the attorneys said their representation of Bowdoin had become “unreasonably difficult.â€
“After this Court denied Claimant’s Emergency Motion for Return of Seized Funds [on Nov. 19, 2008], the client-lawyer relationship between the Firm and all three Claimants substantially deteriorated and has not improved thus rendering the representation unreasonably difficult,†the lawyers said.
The lawyers said the firm could not discuss specific issues, owing to the attorney-client privilege.
“Given the attorney-client privilege, the Akerman Senterfitt law firm cannot disclose the
specific issues underlying the problems with the client-lawyer relationship,†the firm said.
“However, without breaching the attorney-client relationship, and based on documents which Mr. Bowdoin publicly filed with the clerk’s office, it is obvious that Claimants have decided to represent themselves without consulting their counsel,†the firm continued.
“By way of example only, Mr. Bowdoin has recently filed, on a pro se basis, a series of motions. Mr. Bowdoin filed these motions without consulting with counsel and without bothering to advise counsel that he would be submitting motions on his own. Under these circumstances, the Akerman Senterfitt Law Firm cannot render effective assistance of counsel.â€
Charles A. Murray, a Florida attorney with privileges in the District of Columbia, filed an appearance notice on behalf of Bowdoin and his corporations last week. Collyer had informed Bowdoin, through Akerman Senterfitt, that the corporate entities could not proceed pro se.
Bowdoin began to file pro se motions in February, saying he had fired Akerman Senterfitt. At the same time, AdViewGlobal, an autosurf with close ASD ties, introduced members to Pro Advocate Group, which says it can help people practice law without a license.
In one of Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings, he acknowledged ASD was operating illegally at the time of the seizure, potentially adding to his problems and creating problems for ASD insiders and top promoters.
Citing an email from her AdSurfDaily downline, a member of the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum has advised other members that a federal judge has ordered prosecutor William Cowden to “charge Andy Bowd[o]in or end it and return the money.”
There are no documents in the public record to substantiate the claim. Judge Rosemary Collyer appears not to have issued such an order.
On April 3, Collyer issued an order to show cause, ordering prosecutors to respond to certain Bowdoin pro se pleadings by April 24. The judge acknowledged in the order that “uncertainties surrounding the status of [Bowdoin and associated corporations’] counsel” had contributed to a delay in filing responses to Bowdoin pleadings.
Bowdoin himself contributed to the confusion by filing motions on his own behalf even though the record of the case showed that he still had paid counsel. On March 26, Collyer ordered Bowdoin’s attorneys to state whether they intended to proceed as Bowdoin’s counsel or withdraw, and also to instruct Bowdoin on critical matters of law.
The Akerman Senterfitt law firm, Bowdoin’s paid counsel, now has sought leave to withdraw, saying its representation of Bowdoin had become unreasonably difficult and advising the court that Bowdoin hadn’t consulted with the firm before he filed a series of motions on his own behalf.
Last week, Florida attorney Charles A. Murray filed an appearance notice on Bowdoin’s behalf, although Collyer has not yet granted Akerman Senterfitt’s motion to withdraw as Bowdoin’s paid counsel.
Murray’s entry in the case, however, suggests that Bowdoin’s days as a pro se litigant have come to an end.
Meanwhile, the Surf’s Up post that quoted from the member’s downline and passed along confusing information urged ASD members to begin yet another letter-writing campaign on Bowdoin’s behalf.
Here is the downline information being circulated at Surf’s Up (italics added):
Once again, seems we might be on the cusp of getting our money return to the rightful owners – you and I. Recently the Judge has ordered Cowden to charge Andy Bowdin or end it and return the money.
Now is a great time to put on the pressure. Write another letter today expressing your need for your money return and how you feel about them taking our money in the first place.
Don’t give up. If we don’t act, apathy could cost us our money. Bad succeeds when good stands down.
If you are writing from Panda point of view, keep in mind that is a separate company from out point of view. Write your letters accordingly.
Don’t write a book. Succinctly write the wrongness of the gov taking our money, keeping it and creating the victims they claim they were protecting. Please use your own words and be brief. Just get your side counted.
Include copies to:
William Cowden/Jeffery Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Also write and send copies to the Ombudsman of the DOJ. This is the office that’s charge with protecting us from abuse from within the DOJ. File a complaint in regards to any perceived wrong-doing by the attorney generals in this case. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/vr/
Despite the claim in the email that the money seized by the government belonged to the members, Bowdoin has argued in court that the money belonged to him and his companies.
Both Bowdoin and the prosecution agree that the members do not own the seized funds.
UPDATED: 11:40 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin has a new paid attorney: Charles A. Murray of Bonita Springs, Fla.
Murray filed an appearance notice today in the civil-forfeiture cased filed in August against money and other assets tied to ASD.
The appearance notice says that Murray will represent Bowdoin and two corporate entities: AdSurfDaily Inc. and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc.
This may mean an end to Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings in the case. Bowdoin began to act as his own attorney in February. Judge Rosemary Collyer informed him, through his prior counsel, that the corporate entities could not proceed pro se.
Michael Fayad, one of Bowdoin’s original attorneys, filed a motion today to correct an appearance notice from August that erroneously listed Bowdoin and his firms as “Defendants,” rather than “Claimants.”
Murray says in his filing that he is taking over for Fayad’s firm, Akerman Senterfitt. Akerman Senterfitt filed a motion last week, asking the court to resign as Bowdoin’s counsel, saying its representation of him amid the circumstances was unreasonably difficult.
Bowdoin did not consult with the firm before proceeding as a pro se litigant, Akerman Senterfitt said.
In one of Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings, he acknowledged that ASD was operating illegally at the time of the August seizure of tens of millions of dollars. He advised the court, however, that he had been denied “fair notice” that his conduct was illegal.
Prosecutors responded by saying ignorance of the law is no excuse and that the government had no duty to inform Bowdoin that fraud is illegal.
Another Bowdoin pro se filing seeks to reverse his January decision — while working with paid counsel — to submit to the forfeiture and not raise the issue again. Collyer advised Bowdoin that he had not raised points of law to supplement his argument, in essence telling him that the motion alone might not be enough for her to grant his motion to reopen the forfeiture litigation.
Using her discretion, Collyer had to construe a meaning for Bowdoin’s pro se motion — a somewhat common occurence when pro se litigants are filing papers. Pro se pleadings often are vague, sometimes making baffling leaps of logic and tortured arguments.
In late February, AdViewGlobal (AVG), a surf firm with close ties to ASD, introduced Pro Advocate Group to members. Pro Advocate Group says it can help people practice law without a license.
Karl Dahlstrom is associated with Pro Advocate Group. Dahlstrom was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison in the 1990s for securities fraud. Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings began at the same time AVG was introducing Pro Advocate Group to members.
Topic: In their response to an Andy Bowdoin pleading, federal prosecutors yesterday pointedly referred to ASDÂ insiders as Bowdoin “associates” and “confederates.”
Is it a signal?
Topic: Shad Foss, whom the receiver in the CEP Ponzi scheme case views as a Ponzi promoter worthy of pursuing for clawbacks, sent an email in late March encouraging people to sign up for AdViewGlobal (AVG).
AVG has been running a 200-percent, matching-bonus program, and has close ties to ASD. ASD once advertised that it used the services of CEP Trust, the failed payment processor run by the operators of the CEP Ponzi scheme.
Foss got some of the math wrong in his AVG pitch. Regardless, he managed to use exclamation points to end four consecutive sentences in his 200-percent promotion (emphasis added):
That means $500 turns into $1500 instantly!
$1000 turns into $3,000 instantly!
$2500 turns into $7,5000 instantly!
$5000 turns into $15,000 instantly!
AVG members now are expressing nervousness about trouble the company has been having with payout issues and getting banking and payment-processor issues fixed.
Some members have questioned whether a process involving a button that permits one AVG member to transfer money to another from within the AVG system might constitute money laundering or tax evasion. Members say it’s a means for upline sponsors to make sure members of their downlines don’t have to wait to have AVG purchases credited, but law enforcement could take a dim view of the system.
AVG members also are complaining about low rebate rates, as the surf firm continues to offer huge matching bonuses electronically — a way to collect large sums of cash without requiring people to be physically present to qualify for bonuses. ASD filled its coffers by offering matching bonuses to people who attended “rallies” in U.S. cities; AVG is not conducting rallies, but instead is offering rally-like bonuses electronically.
Topic: Noobing, a surf site that targeted people with hearing impairments, now has been given an official scam label by asamonitor. Noobing used a rebate model similar to ASD, then slashed the payout rate. When members then received only tiny rebates, they complained, claiming bait-and-switch. A Noobing employee said the company slashed rebates because of an unclear ruling in the ASD case.
Topic: Mods at the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum continue to champion Andy Bowdoin. Some of the Mods and members also are promoting AVG, but AVG members have been complaining that they aren’t getting satisfactory answers from the Mods or the company. Meanwhile, some Surf’s Up members are openly questioning the Mods’ undying devotion to Bowdoin.
Prosecutors have responded to ASD President Andy Bowdoin’s pro se claim that he was denied fair notice that the conduct of ASD was illegal, saying ignorance of the law is no excuse.
At the same time, prosecutors asserted Bowdoin’s own past as a criminal defendant turned his argument that the case should be dismissed on its ear.
“In this case, Mr. Bowdoin’s motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds is all the more
remarkable because he was previously arrested for having used money he took from individuals who invested in a new opportunity he had been promoting to repay debts he owed to individuals who lost money after investing with him in a different venture,” prosecutors said, referring to Bowdoin’s arrest in Alabama in the 1990s.
“Mr. Bowdoin even acknowledged that he lost money in a similar auto-surf ‘Ponzi’ scam that the government closed before he started ASD,” prosecutors said. “The ‘I forgot what I knew’ inference Mr. Bowdoin would have this Court draw certainly provides no basis for dismissing the government’s wire fraud allegations on vagueness grounds.”
And Bowdoin was tilting at windmills when he asserted that the government was required to warn him that wire fraud, money-laundering and running a Ponzi scheme were illegal.
“Mr. Bowdoin’s assertion that he ‘did not know or realize that his conduct was illegal’ cannot survive a moment’s analysis,” prosecutors said. “The central claim underpinning the government’s forfeiture action is that Ad Surf Daily (ASD) and Golden Panda (GP) were unlawful, fraudulent ventures operating over the Internet.
“The government’s complaint alleges that ASD and GP operators falsely stated that they were offering legitimate business opportunities in which ‘members’ could invest and expect a profitable return of at least 125%, at the rate of about 1% per day, on each dollar invested,” prosecutors continued.
“But, as the two related forfeiture complaints show, ASD and GP had no actual independent operations and, thus, earned no profits from which to pay out the returns they promised to their members-investors. Rather, in a classic ‘Ponzi’ style scheme, money from investments by later ‘members’ was (and would have been) used to redeem promises of fantastical returns made to earlier member-investors.”
Bowdoin Piled Lies On Lies, Prosecutors Claim
Andy Bowdoin is only pretending to be ignorant, prosecutors said.
“At bottom, Mr. Bowdoin’s protestations of ignorance are yet another lie: he not only knew that he lacked sufficient revenue to pay the returns he promised, he knew the revenue numbers he posted were made-up. With such knowledge, and given that Mr. Bowdoin does not deny having used the Internet to publicize his false promises and misrepresentations, his argument for dismissal on void-for-vagueness principles is meritless,” prosecutors said.
In walking back Bowdoin’s pro se pleading, prosecutors said that Bowdoin appears to be arguing that he should be permitted to lie with impunity and keep money he collected as a result of his lies.
“To examine Mr. Bowdoin’s proposition, at the outset, the Court should recall precisely
what the government has alleged in seeking forfeiture in this civil action: the defendants in this case, several parcels of real property and millions of dollars — were amassed through a wire fraud. In particular, the government asserts that Mr. Bowdoin ran a ‘Ponzi’ style scam that made false promises to deceive investors into sending their money off to Mr. Bowdoin and his associates.
“The government asserts that Mr. Bowdoin and his associates failed to tell the investors that ASD was merely shuffling their money — that it had no true profits with which to
pay the profitable returns it promised them. In light of the government’s allegations here, Mr. Bowdoin seems to be asserting (1) that he did not know that it was illegal for him to lie to investors in order to cause them to send him their money in the first place, and (2) that he should therefore get to keep all of the money he secured by lying. He offers, not surprisingly, no authority for his proposition.”
Prosecutors cited law and precedent to back their claims, arguing that Bowdoin was making vague, disingenuous claims, including the claim that he is a “defendant” in a criminal prosecution when the forfeiture case resides in civil court.
“This is a civil forfeiture action, not a criminal prosecution, so Mr. Bowdoin’s references to himself as the ‘defendant’ are miscast,” prosecutors said.
“Thus, citations to precedent dismissing criminal prosecutions are not strictly apposite to this case. Properly speaking, the defendants in this case are not Mr. Bowdoin or his confederates at Ad-Surf Daily or Golden Panda, but the real properties and many millions of dollars garnered in a ‘Ponzi’ style fraud.
“Ironically, even on its own terms, Mr. Bowdoin’s pro se filing cites only fatally vague generalities. Examples include: ‘[i]n criminal prosecution, unclarity alone is enough to resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant’ (citation omitted); ‘[t]he ‘rule of lenity’ is a principle of statutory construction which provides that criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, and any ambiguity be resolved in favor of lenity’ (citation omitted); and, ‘vice of vagueness in criminal statutes is treachery†(citation omitted),” prosecutors said.
One of the theories about ASD President Andy Bowdoin’s recent series of pro se legal filings in the August civil-forfeiture case is that he is trying to stave the filing of criminal charges by slowing the civil case to a crawl.
Could it be true? Sure. Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings, however, also could be a response to pressure applied by others.
Bowdoin, while still working with paid counsel in January, threw in the towel and submitted to the August forfeiture. He told the court that he did not intend to raise the forfeiture at a later time. Basically he ceded tens of millions of dollars to the government. Bowdoin did not tell the membership at large about his decision. He then vanished from the stage for weeks.
What happened during Bowdoin’s weeks of absence is not a matter of public record, but could be telling.
In late February, Bowdoin suddenly reemerged. He blamed his paid attorneys for poor lawyering, and then proceeded to act as his own attorney. Bowdoin says he now has rescinded his decision to submit to the forfeiture. His paid lawyers, who never withdrew from the case even as Bowdoin was filing pro se pleadings, now have asked the court to withdraw, saying their representation of Bowdoin had become unreasonably difficult. The court has not yet issued an order that permits the paid lawyers to leave the case.
The conventional wisdom that Bowdoin’s pro se reemergence was a bid to delay a criminal indictment could be true — but it could be that and more.
It’s not a stretch to think that some ASD members — perhaps particularly insiders and people who view Bowdoin as a person who owes them a pile of money — were unhappy about his decision to submit to the forfeiture and then keep the news of his decision to himself. Some of these people may view themselves as being at risk of indictment and see Bowdoin’s move as the move of a turncoat.
By pressuring Bowdoin to climb back on the horse, they could be trying to stave off indictments against themselves. There is no doubt that criminals were involved in ASD. What’s not known is just how much leverage criminals could apply to Bowdoin.
For the sake of discussion, let’s say ASD had 50,000 paying members. With an organization of that size, Bowdoin would know very little about the motivations of individual members — and the people who sponsored them into the program. One of the core risks of running an autosurf is not knowing who your neighbors are and how they are capable of behaving.
One piece of wishful thinking often shared by ASD members was that ASD was just one, big, happy family. This notion always struck us as fanciful. If ASD’s paid members were assembled in a 50,000-seat stadium, there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t reflect the best and worst of society — as is typical of large crowds, whether the sport is baseball, football or autosurfing.
Bowdoin is 74. There is a chance that he believes he has more things to fear than just what the government can do to him personally. It is possible that Bowdoin family members could be indicted, for instance. At the same time, it is possible that Bowdoin perceives a threat from some ASD members and has safety concerns.
Would you fear for your safety if you were the public face of a $100 million Ponzi scheme that collected money from all over the world — and you knew only a very small fraction of the people who were sending you all that money? Bowdoin has no real way of knowing if he’s doing business with thugs unknown, criminal gangs or even terrorists.
No one seems to know why Bowdoin hasn’t been served a lawsuit filed in January that alleges racketeering. If it’s a clerical snafu of some sort, it would have to be one that also is affecting the plaintiffs’ ability to serve Bowdoin’s two RICO co-defendants, attorney Robert Garner and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby.
With large sums of money involved, it’s not a stretch to believe that some people owed large sums would not be inclined to accept “rebates aren’t guaranteed” or “the evil government took the money” as excuses.
“Pay up” could be the policy in certain circles.
The conventional wisdom also has held that only traditional autosurf players and people new to Web commerce were players in ASD. That could be largely true, but not universally true. ASD was gaining a head of steam as the U.S. economy was going into steep decline. Legitimate securities brokers could have been using the company to generate cash to hide losses.
We’re not saying that occurred, mind you. At the same time, if legitimate brokers had been stealing from clients and knew those clients were due redemptions, they could have turned to ASD to generate cash flow. If such a group exists, it means clients of legitimate brokers also lost money in ASD — without their knowledge, as was the case with Bernard Madoff.
Some of the amounts reportedly directed at ASD were huge amounts for an ordinary autosurf player. It is possible that investment combines and criminal brokers were using ASD to stave off a Madoff-like day of reckoning.
You’ve likely noticed that AdViewGlobal, a surf with Bowdoin family ties and management in common with ASD, was promoting a 200-percent, matching-bonus program. It very much looks like a cynical bid to raise cash in volume to pay off ASD insiders and strategic shills. ASD did the same thing when it morphed into ASD Cash Generator.
Bowdoin has engaged in behavior that suggests he’ll do almost anything for cash. In the fall, after a judge ruled ASD hadn’t demonstrated it was a legal enterprise, Bowdoin pitched VOIP service to members.
Recently he appeared in a video for Paperless Access, which appears to be an upstart surf firm. Bowdoin told viewers they could use Paperless Access to recapture money seized by the government last year in the ASD probe.
There obviously is no arm’s-length distance between ASD and AVG, despite AVG’s tortured claims to the contrary. What’s less clear is the precise reason AVG exists.
One reason might be as a means to pay off debt racked up by ASD. Another reason might be because the people who are running it are monumentally stupid. It launched while an active criminal investigation and a RICO probe were under way, with Bowdoin and other ASD insiders, including Bowdoin family members and ASD executives, as likely targets.
AVG’s launch happened in full public view. Known ASD participants were pushing it. Suggestions were made that ASD accounts might get ported over to AVG. Bowdoin might as well have taken out an ad in the New York Times to announce he had decided to commit himself to a life of crime.
So much about ASD boggles the mind — and yet so much is not known.
What is known is that tens of millions of dollars are involved. And it’s also known that large sums of money can make people do crazy things.
