PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Michael Fayad

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin Files Pro Se Motion To Rescind August Forfeiture; Claims He Was Acting Under Duress

    UPDATED 11:05 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Acting as his own attorney, AdSurfDaily Inc. President Andy Bowdoin has filed a motion to rescind a decision he made in January to submit to the forfeiture of real estate and tens of millions of dollars seized by the government in August.

    As first reported in this Blog last month, an earlier motion Bowdoin filed to rescind his decision to the forfeiture appeared not to apply to the proceeds seized last summer. Rather, Bowdoin’s initial motion to rescind appeared to apply to property seized in a second forfeiture complaint prosecutors filed in December.

    Neither Bowdoin nor any corporate entity associated with the property listed in the December complaint appears to have filed a verified claim to the property or a motion asking to submit to the forfeiture. Among the proceeds listed in the December complaint were a Florida home owned by Bowdoin’s stepson, George Harris, and his wife, Judy Harris. An automobile owned by George and Judy Harris also was seized, along with two other cars prosecutors said were purchased with illegal ASD proceeds. A boat and marine equipment also were seized.

    Bowdoin’s initial motion to rescind appears to be a rescission of a decision he never made — either to claim the property listed in the December complaint or to forfeit it.

    Confused? You’re not alone. Sometimes pro se pleadings are extremely difficult to reconcile because the arguments don’t follow a recognized structure or logical form.

    Judge Rosemary Collyer included a handwritten note on Bowdoin’s most recent motion to rescind.

    “Let this be filed,” she wrote.

    It is unclear if Bowdoin filed the second motion to rescind before or after Collyer’s issuance of an order last week that advised Bowdoin and his paid attorneys that corporations could not proceed as pro se litigants. The document makes two corporate claims to the August proceeds.

    Corporate claimants include AdSurfDaily Inc. and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc.

    Bowdoin’s paid attorneys yesterday asked the court for permission to withdraw from the case, saying Bowdoin had not consulted them on his pro se filings and that serving as his attorneys had become “unreasonably difficult.”

    “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,” attorneys Michael Fayad and Jonathan Goodman said.

    Bowdoin claimed in his motion that his lawyers were “ineffective at best and only looking out for the best interest of the government.” Fayad and Goodman said yesterday that the client-attorney relationship was affected by a ruling that went against ASD in November.

    “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.

    In Bowdoin’s most recent motion, he said his earlier decision to submit to the forfeiture was a “grave mistake and error” and that he was acting under “severe duress.”

    Bowdoin’s motion, however, also makes the strange claim that “procedures” government agents used to search for and seize proceeds “were non-existent.”

    He also contends what the government did was “improper, illegal and tainted with violations of due process of law.”

    Bowdoin’s now makes the claim that his decision to rescind “is now legally accomplished as a matter of law” — a claim that makes a considerable leap because his earlier decision to submit to the forfeiture was made with “prejudice” — meaning Bowdoin agreed to the forfeiture and would not later contest it — and Collyer signed an order granting Bowdoin’s motion to submit.

    Read Bowdoin’s motion.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin’s Paid Attorneys File Motion To Withdraw; Akerman Senterfitt Says Relationship ‘Deteriorated’ After Evidentiary-Hearing Ruling Went Against ASD

    UPDATED 7:24 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Michael Fayad and Jonathan Goodman of Akerman Senterfitt have asked a federal judge to withdraw themselves and the firm as attorneys for AdSurfDaily Inc.,  Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc. and Andy Bowdoin.

    At the same time, the firm cited attorney-client privilege with respect to its communications with Bowdoin.

    In asking for leave to withdraw, the attorneys said their representation of Bowdoin had become “unreasonably difficult.”

    “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.

    U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ordered the lawyers to instruct Bowdoin on critical points of law last week, after Bowdoin had filed a series of motions acting as his own attorney. The firm never formally withdrew from the case, but Bowdoin said in court filings that he had fired Fayad and Goodman.

    Bowdoin told ASD members March 13 that he had spent $800,000 on the forfeiture case filed last August and dismissed the attorneys for getting “no results.” He added that he had consulted with a “group” that “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.”

    Akerman Senterfitt advised Collyer today that it had contacted Bowdoin and his corporate alter egos “recently” and advised them on the critical matters, which dealt with a rule that corporations could not proceed as pro se litigants.

    “The Akerman Senterfitt law firm has recently been able to contact its clients and has obtained their consent to withdraw from representing them,” the firm said. It did not say how it contacted Bowdoin or identify his whereabouts.

    “In addition, Akerman Senterfitt’s two corporate clients have been specifically advised that they cannot appear as litigants in this Court on a pro se basis and that they must have counsel,” the firm said. “Through their principal, Mr. Bowdoin, the two corporate clients provided written acknowledgment of their understanding of this legal rule.”

    Collyer said last week that AdSurfDaily Inc. and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc. could not represent themselves pro se on claims to seized proceeds because they are corporations. Bowdoin is permitted to represent himself as an individual on claims, but the corporations must have an attorney.

    Plaintiffs in a racketeering lawsuit against Bowdoin that is separate from the forfeiture case said they have not been able to serve Bowdoin or co-defendants Robert Garner or Clarence Busby.

    Garner was an ASD attorney. Busby was president of Golden Panda Ad Builder, a company whose assets were seized in the ASD probe. The RICO lawsuit has been pending since Jan. 15. A second summons was issued March 18.

    Why Bowdoin, Garner and Busby have not been served is unclear. Garner is listed as a director of AdSurfDaily Inc. in Nevada corporation records. But ASD’s incorporation in Nevada appears to be in default for not filing an annual update of officers by Dec. 31, 2008.

    ASD is listed as a Nevada-based foreign corporation in Florida, with Bowdoin holding the titles of director, president, secretary and treasurer. Garner’s name is not listed in the Florida documents, which were filed May 23, 2008.

    ASD, in longhand, listed its address as 13 S. Calhoun St., Quincy, Fla., in its May 2008 Florida filing. Federal prosecutors said the address was bogus. The same address is listed in Nevada corporation records. Public filings suggest that the U.S. Secret Service was on the ground in Quincy prior to the seizure of ASD’s assets last August. The forfeiture complaint contains a photograph of an ASD sign the prosecution said listed the bogus address.

    Florida filings from 1995 and 1996 by Bowdoin’s wife, Edna Faye Bowdoin, list the address of the building ASD went on to use as its headquarters as 11 S. Calhoun Street. The building once was home to Faye’s Florist Inc. The same building was listed by Edna Faye Bowdoin as having the 13 S. Calhoun Street address and serving as headquarters for Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, according to June 2008 Florida records.

    Fayad and Goodman today did not say where Bowdoin could be reached, acknowledging that they were aware of his pro se pleadings because they were a matter of public record.

    “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.”

    In a proposed order for leave to withdraw as Bowdoin’s counsel, the firm said Bowdoin’s last known address was 8 Gilcrease Lane, Quincy, FL 32351.

    AdViewGlobal (AVG), a surf firm that has close ties to ASD, introduced members to a firm known as Pro Advocate Group in February. Pro Advocate Group says it can help people practice law without a license. Bowdoin’s pro se pleadings began to appear at the same time AVG introduced the company.

    Karl Dahlstrom is associated with Pro Advocate Group. He was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison in the 1990s for securities fraud.

    Fayad and Goodman filed notice with the court last fall that Bowdoin would exercise his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at the Sept. 30-Oct. 1 evidentiary hearing. Bowdoin did not appear for the hearing or take the stand.

    In his pro se pleadings, however, Bowdoin acknowledged ASD was operating illegally last summer when agents seized real estate and tens of millions of dollars amid allegations of wire fraud, money-laundering and running a Ponzi scheme.

    Bowdoin said he was denied “fair notice” that his conduct was illegal. Within days of his claim, Gary Talbert, a former ASD executive, resigned as chief executive officer of AVG.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Judge Says Corporation May Not Proceed Pro Se; Orders Bowdoin’s Paid Attorneys To Advise Him On Procedural Matters And File Formal Notice Of Intent

    UPDATED 12:51 A.M. EDT (March 27, U.S.A.) As first reported on this Blog, ASD President Andy Bowdoin’s paid attorneys never formally withdrew from the federal forfeiture case — not even after Bowdoin said he had fired them and was proceeding as his own attorney.

    Now Judge Rosemary Collyer has issued an order to the attorneys to advise Bowdoin on critical legal matters and file notice with the court to make their intentions a matter of record.

    “No later than April 9, 2009, current counsel for Claimants, Mr. Fayad and Mr. Goodman, shall file with the Court a notice indicating (a) whether they intend to continue their representation of the Claimants, including Mr. Bowdoin; or (b) whether they will seek to withdraw from the case;

    “[I]f counsel seek to withdraw from the case, they shall file a motion to withdraw no later than April 9, 2009, and they shall indicate whether they have explained to Mr. Bowdoin that while he may represent himself in this matter, the corporations may not proceed pro se,” Collyer ordered.

    One way to view the order is as a warning to Bowdoin that he may be straying into legal territory that does not serve his interests.

    Collyer noted that different rules are in place, depending on whether an individual or a corporation was involved in litigation.

    Two of the three parties filing claims to seized proceeds — AdSurfDaily Inc. and Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises Inc. — are corporate entities.

    “[A] corporation cannot proceed pro se,” Collyer wrote, providing a case-law citation: Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165, 166 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

    Making the matter even more complex is that prosecutors alleged in a separate forfeiture complaint filed in December that Bowdoin/Harris was set up to permit Bowdoin and his wife to hide assets.

    “Thomas [Andy] and Faye Bowdoin created Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, Inc., and used it to purchase real properties and other assets, believing that using this structure would help to conceal from the government their expenditures and assets they purchased,” prosecutors said in December.

    Collyer hinted at potentially difficult legal challenges ahead for Bowdoin. Indeed, personal and corporate claims were made to some assets — and Bowdoin will not be permitted to proceed pro se on corporate claims.

    “Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, Inc. submitted a verified claim to the real 1 property in Quincy, Florida; ASD submitted a claim to the funds held in the Bank of America accounts; and Mr. Bowdoin also submitted a claim to the funds held in the Bank of America accounts, declaring that the accounts were opened in his name but were owned by ASD and were treated as corporate assets,” Collyer wrote.

    These are complex legal issues, ones that challenge even top attorneys and legal scholars. Rarely are such issues associated with pro se litigants. In effect, Collyer has ordered Michael Fayad and Jonathan Goodman to instruct Bowdoin on critical points of law before leaving the case.

    Earlier this month, Bowdoin filed a pro se motion in which he acknowledged ASD was operating illegally — something the government has said all along — but insisted the government denied him “fair notice” that ASD was behaving illegally.

    Prosecutors very well may view Bowdoin’s pro se public filing as a signed confession — and it’s possible that the filing itself could be used if a criminal prosecution of Bowdoin evolves.

    While Fayad and Goodman formally were acting as Bowdoin’s paid attorneys, they filed notice with the court that Bowdoin would not testify at a Sept. 30-Oct. 1 evidentiary hearing under his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

    But Bowdoin appears to have done exactly that — while also potentially incriminating others — in pro se pleadings his paid counsel had nothing to do with.

    Some of the legal notions in pro se pleadings are difficult — if not close to impossible — for prosecutors and judges to reconcile. Courts and prosecutors sometimes have to construe meanings because the motions are vague or impossibly off-point.

    Read Judge Collyer’s Order.