PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Michael R.N. McDonnell

  • Bowdoin Blames Former Attorneys, ‘Single, Lone Judge’ For His Legal Predicament; ASD Patriarch Now Claims He Was ‘Crucified’ By Prosecutors, Secret Service — After Earlier Comparing Them To ‘Satan’ And The 9/11 Terrorists

    In a fundraising video released last night, ASD President Andy Bowdoin said he was "crucified" by federal prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: This story is based in part on the content of a video released last night in which AdSurfDaily President and accused Ponzi schemer Andy Bowdoin appeared. A group known as “Andy’s Fundraising Army” is seeking to raise at least $500,000 to pay for Bowdoin’s defense on criminal charges related to the alleged ASD Ponzi scheme.

    UPDATED 10:23 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) One day after an AdSurfDaily member claimed that “We plan to go after Akerman [Senterfitt] next,” ASD President Andy Bowdoin — without mentioning the law firm by name — suggested the firm was responsible for his legal troubles.

    And Bowdoin — again not naming names — suggested that criminal attorney Stephen Dobson, who is not employed by Akerman Senterfitt, also was to blame. (In court affidavits, Bowdoin has referred to Stephen Dobson as Steven Dobson. The U.S. Court of Appeals already has rejected a claim by Bowdoin that he had been “hoodwinked” by Dobson into releasing his claims to money seized by the Secret Service. At the same time, the appeals court upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer that Bowdoin “knowingly and voluntarily” released his claims to the money. Bowdoin released the claims while Akerman Senterfitt was his counsel-of-record in the civil-forfeiture case.)

    Bowdoin also blamed Collyer — again without naming names — for his predicament. Bowdoin described Collyer as a “single, lone judge.”

    “Now, after that law firm (Akerman Senterfitt) finished the civil case, which we lost because of a single, lone judge (Collyer) [who] had the final say in verdict [and] not a jury, they told me they couldn’t represent me in a criminal case, that I needed a criminal attorney because there would be a federal indictment.

    “They recommended a law firm in Tallahassee, Florida, so I retained the firm. But the lead attorney in that Tallahassee firm (Dobson) was an ex-U.S. Attorney. And I’m sad to say that he actually sold me out to the federal government,” Bowdoin said.

    Bowdoin described Aug. 1, 2008 — the day the U.S. Secret Service seized tens of millions of dollars from his personal bank accounts in a Ponzi scheme probe — as the day “when the government attacked.”

    In 2008, Bowdoin referred to the Secret Service and federal prosecutors as “Satan,” and compared the seizure to the 9/11 terrorists attacks. In a video released yesterday, he now claims he was “crucified” and “heavily ridiculed” by two U.S. Attorneys and three Secret Service agents.

    Bowdoin said he hoped to raise $500,000 for his legal defense fund, asserting ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. An indictment against Bowdoin was unsealed in November 2010, and he was arrested on Dec. 1, 2010. He is free on bond.

    In September 2009, federal prosecutors described Bowdoin as “delusional,” alleging that he was telling ASD members one thing and Collyer another.

    Bowdoin — without using Miami-based Akerman Senterfitt’s name in the new video but describing it as a “big law firm with hundreds of attorneys and even offices in Washington, DC” — opined that the firm “didn’t do us any good.”

    “So, I learned quickly that big is not always better or good when it comes to hiring a winning law firm,” Bowdoin said.

    Collyer issued a key ruling against ASD in November of 2008, saying that ASD had not demonstrated at an evidentiary hearing it requested that it was operating lawfully. Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture in January 2009, claiming in September 2009 that he had done so in the belief he possibly could avoid a prison sentence.

    Sometime in December 2008 or January 2009 — the precise date is unclear — Bowdoin signed a proffer letter and acknowledged the government’s material allegations were all true, according to filings by prosecutors. Bowdoin has acknowledged in his own filings that he gave information against his interests.

    Even as Bowdoin was not naming the names of Collyer and his previous counsel in his new video, he was not naming the names of his current counsel in the Ponzi case. Those names (Charles A. Murray and Michael R.N. McDonnell) are available in the public record, Bowdoin said.

    Bowdoin sought unsuccessfully in 2009 to have Collyer, who also is hearing the criminal case, removed from the civil case. Earlier this year, Bowdoin sought unsuccessfully to have a judge in the the Northern District of Florida hear the criminal case, as opposed to Collyer.

    See Bowdoin affidavit from September 2009.

    Compare to February 2010 Bowdoin affidavit. (See related story from Feb. 17, 2010.)

    See transcript by Secret Service of Bowdoin recorded conference call in September 2009.

    See previous story.

     

  • Bowdoin, Prosecutors Clash Anew In August 2008 Forfeiture Case; Dispute May Explain Government’s Announcement Last Week That Separate Case Could Be Delayed For ‘Several Months’

    UPDATED 2:03 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) Two attorneys for AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin are asking a federal judge to vacate orders she issued granting a default judgment to the government and granting a final order of forfeiture to tens of millions of dollars and a home seized in the case.

    Attorneys Charles A. Murray and Michael R.N. McDonnell assert that U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued the orders granting the judgment and forfeiture in error — before Bowdoin’s legal remedies were exhausted in the August 2008 civil-forfeiture case against ASD-connected assets.

    Although Bowdoin’s defense counsel asserted the government did not oppose the motions, prosecutors fired back with a motion to clarify their point of view, suggesting they did not want anyone to get the impression that they believed Bowdoin’s new arguments had merit.

    Collyer issued the judgment and forfeiture order Jan. 4, Bowdoin’s counsel argued. The order was entered into the record Jan. 6, 57 days after Collyer issued an order in November that denied Bowdoin’s bid to reassert claims to money he forfeited to the government in January 2009.

    Bowdoin still had three days remaining to challenge Collyer’s November ruling when the final judgment and forfeiture order were entered Jan. 6, Bowdoin’s counsel argued, asserting that Collyer had entered the judgment and forfeiture order “erroneously” and prejudiced their client.

    A decision by Collyer not to vacate the orders would result in a “manifest injustice” to Bowdoin, his attorneys argued.

    Bowdoin may turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for a remedy, his attorneys said. They argued that “intervening circumstances beyond [Bowdoin’s] control” had affected the outcome of the case, suggesting that a clerical error of some sort had prejudiced their client.

    Assistant U.S. Attorneys Deborah L. Connor and Barry Wiegand said Collyer’s issuance of the default and forfeiture orders was legally sound.

    “[T]he United States will contest in every Court at any level any challenge to any of these rulings as error,” Connor and Wiegand said.

    Prosecutors said the government  had spoken with Murray and related to him that it did not oppose providing Bowdoin time to argue his motions. But Connor and Wiegand said the government wanted to make its position “clear” that it did not believe Collyer had erred.

    “The Court’s rulings and issuance of a default judgment and final order or forfeiture were correct in law and fully justified by [the] case’s posture when [Collyer] ruled,” the prosecutors said.

    They added that they intended to file a supplemental brief. How the case would proceed was not immediately clear.

    Prosecutors said last week that there might be a delay of “several months” before final adjudication of a separate forfeiture case brought against ASD-connected assets in December 2008. Bowdoin’s new filings in the August 2008 case suggest both cases could be delayed.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Bowdoin’s Attorney Files Motion To Permit New Attorney To Appear In DC Federal Court

    UPDATED 7:51 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) An attorney for AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin has filed a motion to permit another attorney to appear in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the venue of the civil-forfeiture complaint against ASD’s assets.

    The attorney was identified as Michael R.N. McDonnell of Naples, Fla.

    Murray’s motion was dated Oct. 1. An accompanying affidavit from McDonnell was dated Sept. 30. Ironically the dates on the documents coincided with the one-year anniversary of the dates upon which an evidentiary hearing was conducted at ASD’s request last year.

    Why the documents dated Sept. 30 and Oct. 1 of this year appeared on the docket only today was not immediately clear.

    On Nov. 19, 2008, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that ASD had not demonstrated at the hearing that it was a lawful business and not a Ponzi scheme.

    Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture on advice of counsel in January 2009, and then emerged as a pro se litigant in February, saying he’d changed his mind and wanted to rescind his decision to forfeit tens of millions of dollars.

    In July, Collyer ordered Murray, who had become Bowdoin’s paid counsel, to follow-up on motions filed in May. Collyer initially gave the Bowdoin side until Aug. 7 to file arguments. She extended the deadline until Aug. 28 — and then again until Sept. 14 — after Murray advised her Bowdoin was negotiating with prosecutors.

    Bowdoin met the Sept. 14 filing deadline on the last possible day. On Sept. 15, he filed a corrected affidavit. His initial affidavit appeared to have lines and an entire paragraph missing.

    The Sept 15 filing had 23 paragraphs, as opposed to the previous day’s 22. The Sept. 14 filing jumped from paragraph 3 to 5, skipping paragraph 4. Meanwhile, it also had two paragraph 16s, one apparently complete and one apparently incomplete.

    In a brief filed Sept. 14 by Murray, there was a reference to Bowdoin having found the fees accepted by defense counsel Steven Dobson “astonishing.” The reference cited was paragraph 17 from Bowdoin’s affidavit, but the word “astonishing” did not appear in paragraph 17 — or elsewhere in the document.

    Bowdoin’s Sept 15 corrected affidavit also did not include the word “astonishing” — in paragraph 17 or elsewhere.

    On Sept. 28, the U.S. Secret Service filed a transcription of a recording Bowdoin had made earlier in September. The recording was posted online.

    In a Sept. 28 filing that accompanied the Secret Service transcript of the recording, prosecutors said Bowdoin was “delusional.”

    Prosecutors argued that Bowdoin had told Collyer one story and members another to explain events, calling the recording evidence that “this con man cannot manage to keep his stories straight.”

    “Remarkably, Bowdoin even suggests to those members participating in the conference call that the money taken from his bank accounts and, supposedly, never constituting an investment, belongs, not to Bowdoin, but to the membership.”

    On Sept. 25, prosecutors said Bowdoin was trying to lie his way back into the case and that Murray was engaging in “fantasy.”

    Prosecutors’ Sept. 25 filing was blistering, and included a veiled reference to the AdViewGlobal autosurf.

    “[I]t may be the case that Bowdoin never intended to plead guilty when he agreed to debrief, and was just buying time while searching for a different exit strategy that failed to materialize,” prosecutors said Sept. 25. “Maybe Bowdoin thought that before the government brought its charges he (like some of his family members) could move to another country and profit from a knock-off autosurf program that Bowdoin funded and helped to start.”

    Murray, prosecutors asserted, had filed motions at odds with Bowdoin’s claims.

    “Mr. Murray’s apparent suggestion that Bowdoin made a mistake because he was ‘hoodwinked’ by his prior defense counsel is belied by Bowdoin’s own affidavits,” prosecutors said.

    Bowdoin agreed in January to submit to the forfeiture. In February, he began to file pro se motions in a bid to rescind his decision to forfeit tens of millions of dollars seized by the Secret Service in August 2008.

    In March, on the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum, Bowdoin explained in a letter to members that he had made the shift from paid attorneys to acting as his own attorney after consulting with a “group” of ASD members.

    “We will be filing papers in the next couple of weeks that should really get their attention,” Bowdoin said, chiding prosecutors in the letter.

    Murray, who became Bowdoin’s attorney after Bowdoin had filed several pro se motions, contends Bowdoin received poor advice from Dobson, a paid attorney previously employed by Bowdoin.

    Prosecutors disagreed.

    “Mr. Murray’s new accusations are, in any event, utterly inconsistent with Bowdoin’s own affidavit testimony,” prosecutors said.

    “Mr. Murray’s manufactured effort to fault Bowdoin’s prior counsel for Bowdoin’s decision to cooperate and his revised decision to profess ‘my belief in my innocence’ is laughable,” prosecutors said. “Bowdoin knew he should expect no leniency unless he stopped pretending that he honestly earned the millions of dollars that the government recovered from his bank accounts in 2008.”

    In April, prosecutors said Bowdoin had signed a proffer letter in the case and acknowledged ASD was operating illegally.

    Murray, however, says Bowdoin believes he is innocent.

    Read Murray’s motion.

    Read Bowdoin’s Sept. 14 affidavit.

    Read Bowdoin’s Sept. 15 affidavit.

    Read the motion from Murray that accompanied Bowdoin’s Sept. 14 affidavit.

    Read an Oct. 8 motion by Murray in response to prosecutors’ Sept. 28 motion.