PatrickPretty.com

Tag: pro se

  • EDITORIAL: The AdSurfDaily Solution: Form ‘Andy’s Army,’ Target The Government With $50 ‘Rocks,’ Stone ‘Goliath’ With Cash From ASD Members And ‘Other Freedom Fighters Across America,’ Provide Bowdoin’s Lawyers ‘Massive Funds’ To Defeat ‘Giant Common Enemy’

    Andy Bowdoin

    Two weeks after a purported “sovereign citizen” allegedly opened fire with an AK-47 on a Pensacola seafood store because it was out of crawfish, Floridians may be confronting yet-another bizarre and disturbing drama.

    Indeed, members of Quincy-based AdSurfDaily appear to be circulating an email call to raise defense funds for ASD President Andy Bowdoin, accused criminally in December 2010 by federal prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service of operating an international Ponzi scheme involving at least $110 million.

    After earlier evoking the image of the President of the United States to sanitize the ASD scheme, Bowdoin’s apologists now are evoking the image of famed golfer Arnold Palmer and his famed “Arnie’s Army.”

    “So now we have a strong chance to build ‘Andy’s Army’ made up of many tens of thousands of caring ASD members and other Freedom Fighters across America who are all joining together in this extremely important fight for Truth and Justice,” the email read in part.

    It went on to describe the U.S. government as a “giant common enemy that destroyed Andy’s life and reputation.” The email further accused the Secret Service of seizing “all the ASD member’s advertising money from their accounts” and keeping it.

    Curiously, though, the email did not explain that Bowdoin — in 2008 — agreed with the government that money seized by the Secret Service belonged to him, not individual ASD members. Nor did the email explain how the government, which has described Bowdoin as a recidivist felon involved in at least five bids over the years to fleece investors,  had “destroyed” Bowdoin’s life and reputation.

    After not explaining those two things, the email went on not to explain that the government announced more than two years ago that it was establishing a restitution program through a remissions administrator appointed by the Justice Department and the Secret Service — and that scammed ASD investors would be compensated from cash seized from Bowdoin’s bank accounts.

    Three of Bowdoin’s bids to scam investors over the years occurred while he was operating ASD between 2006 and 2008, renaming the company to launch a new Ponzi scheme under a new brand — and coming up with two other autosurfs to scam investors, according to the government. Two previous Bowdoin efforts to defraud investors occurred more than a decade ago, according to court filings.

    Instead of telling investors about his true history, he falsely led them to believe he was a highly successful businessman who’d earned a nod for business achievement from the President of the United States. Donations Bowdoin provided the National Republican Congressional Committee were funded with Ponzi proceeds, according to the government.

    In September 2009, federal prosecutors described Bowdoin, now 76, as “delusional.” The assertion was made just days after Bowdoin — in a conference call with members — claimed his fight against the government was inspired by a former Miss America.

    Crucially, prosecutors alleged nearly two years ago, Bowdoin had told members the seized money belonged to them. But he had told a federal judge that the money belonged to him.

    “[T]his con man cannot manage to keep his stories straight,” prosecutors said.

    But what the government described as an autosurf  Ponzi scheme with at least two other autosurf Ponzi schemes feeding it now is being described by Bowdoin’s apologists as a “wonderful” opportunity.

    And the U.S. government, which stopped an alleged Ponzi scheme in its tracks before it could further mushroom, is being described as the “enemy.”

    “This same enemy destroyed and stopped the wonderful ASD business that Andy and his staff had continually created for 2 years that was making ASD member’s dreams of Financial Freedom come true,” the email continued.

    Although ASD has not been associated with acts of violence, the company is known to have within its membership ranks people who define themselves as “sovereign” beings. In 2008, after the Secret Service seized 10 of Bowdoin’s personal bank accounts amid allegations he disguised a securities business as an “advertising” business and was falsely trading on the name of President George W. Bush to sanitize his scheme, Bowdoin claimed the seizures were the work of “Satan.” For good measure, he said the government’s acts against his company were comparable to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. When reporters called ASD’s office, they were greeted by Bowdoin’s voice on an answering machine.

    Bowdoin assured callers that God was on the company’s side.

    Now, nearly three years later — with Bowdoin facing serious felony charges and having lost two federal appeals for more than $65.8 million seized through civil forfeiture while confronting at least one more civil-forfeiture case and a racketeering lawsuit filed by three of his members — Bowdoin says he is out of money, according to ASD members.

    The remedy for Bowdoin’s purported lack of funds, according to his apologists, is for ASD members to provide cash $20 and $50 at a time. The money will go into a legal war chest from which Bowdoin, positioned as “David,” can draw funds to stone his enemy in court, with the government positioned as “Goliath.”

    We presume the David-and-Goliath reference in the email is figurative, but the language employed by the apologists is disturbing even if no actual rocks will be thrown at the people who prosecute criminal cases and protect the life of the President of the United States while guarding the U.S. financial infrastructure.

    “In the Biblical Story of David & Goliath, little David, all alone, threw only one rock with a strong force and deadly aim and killed Goliath with a sharp powerful blow to the forehead,” the email read. “And now each member of Andy’s Army can throw one rock (one contribution of up to $50), and when combined all together will become tens of thousands of these financial ‘rocks’ that are each propelled by the powerful force of Truth, and these ‘rocks’ will strike the common enemy by giving Andy’s Legal Defense Team the massive funds they need to fight and win this giant case for Andy, for ASD and for each of you. Together the combined financial force of Andy’s Army can destroy this giant nightmare and make that wonderful dream described above come true for everyone.”

    The new bid to raise funds for Bowdoin follows on the heels of a bid by some Florida members of ASD to raise funds for themselves — reportedly $10,000 to sue the United States in Florida’s federal courts. Dozens of ASD members previously had failed in their pro se bids to derail the forfeiture cases against Bowdoin’s money in federal court in the District of Columbia.

    Prior to the failed bids in the District of Columbia, a federal judge was described as “brain dead” if she ruled against ASD. One ASD member called for other members to form a “militia” and storm Washington with guns. Another opined that a federal prosecutor should be placed in a torture rack — with ASD members drawing straws to see who got the honor of turning the wheel.

    ASD critics were described as “rats,” “maggots” and “cockroaches” — and these things happened after Bowdoin advised the troops that “Satan” was on the prowl and that God was on ASD’s side.

    This madness is hardly limited to Florida.

    About the only things for certain is that Andy Bowdoin is no Arnold Palmer, and ASD was no “wonderful” company.

    What is was was a criminal mirage that triggered a mass delusion.

  • ASD-LIKE LITIGATION PLAYBOOK BACKFIRES: Washington State Man Indicted For Placing Fraudulent Liens Against Prosecutors, IRS Agent; Ronald James Davenport Faces Decades In Prison If Convicted

    EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a post in which the introduction is longer than the actual story (below). The story demonstrates the dangers of jumping on bandwagons before giving them careful thought.

    Longtime readers of the PP Blog will recall our coverage of Curtis Richmond, “Professor” Patrick Moriarty and ASD Members International (ASDMI). Each was a mainstay in the AdSurfDaily autosurf Ponzi scheme case.

    Richmond, a member of a sham Utah “Indian” tribe, was sued successfully in 2008 under federal racketeering statutes for being part of a group that placed enormous financial judgments against Utah public officials in performance of their duties. The judgments were bogus. Richmond and other members of the sham tribe were ordered to pay damages and penalties totaling more than $108,000.

    Richmond has described himself in court filings as a “sovereign” being answerable only to Jesus Christ.

    Moriarty, now in federal prison in Missouri after pleading guilty in January to filing a false tax return, advocated Richmond’s legal theories in the ASD case. Among other things, Moriarty, who claimed to be skilled in the art of “karma restoration” and once sold fake academic degrees on eBay by explaining they were gag gifts, was part of a group — ASDMI — whose membership roster consisted of members of the now-defunct Surf’s Up forum.

    ASDMI came out of the gate by announcing a scorched-earth legal campaign against the government for its seizure of tens of millions of dollars in the ASD case. At least two federal prosecutors and at least one Secret Service agent became targets of a hectoring campaign that involved the use of certified mail. Surf’s Up championed the campaign, which was designed to demand a litigation result from the government by trapping the recipients of the certified mail into a contract to which they never agreed. The approach, which also was used by the sham Utah tribe in litigation separate from the ASD case, sometimes is known as “paper terrorism” or “mailbox arbitration.”

    Surf’s Up also championed a secondary campaign to write letters to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Surf’s Up described the ASD case as a legal “travesty that was committed against the 100,000-plus members of ASD by US attorneys Jeffrey Taylor and William Cowden.”

    Richmond, fresh from his RICO rebuke in “Indian”-related litigation in Utah, then became a mainstay in the ASD case. He filed a series of pro-se pleadings accusing U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer and the prosecutors of crimes and threatening prosecution and lawsuits under federal racketeering statutes.

    Some ASD members cheered the filings. Richmond was dubbed a “hero” on Surf’s Up, and also on a forum some of the Surf’s Up Mods established to promote the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf, which had close ASD ties. One of Richmond’s motions claimed that actions by Collyer, a court clerk and two prosecutors prevented an ASD member named Alana Holsted from “Collecting on an Entry of Default Affidavit for $30 million for each Defendant.” In the Utah “Indian” case, Richmond tried to force the federal judge presiding over the litigation to step down by claiming the judge owed him $30 million.

    It is believed that bogus payment claims against Collyer, the prosecutors and the court clerk by some pro-se litigants in the ASD case totaled at least $120 million. It is unclear if overt steps were taken to formalize the purported judgments by filing liens against the judge, the clerk and the prosecutors.

    Previously Richmond had been linked to a scheme to imprison federal judges and litigation opponents and had been declared in contempt of court in California for threatening and trying to intimidate judges.

    Although the story about Ronald James Davenport is not related to the ASD case, it demonstrates the risk of some of the approaches advocated by Richmond, Moriarty and ASDMI — and it shows the utter madness of the advocacy of the Surf’s Up forum. It was the type of advocacy that can land followers in prison for decades.

    Here, now, a brief on Ronald James Davenport . . .

    A Washington state man faces up to 40 years in prison if convicted on charges of filing fraudulent liens against a U.S. Attorney and other government officials, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

    Bogus liens filed by Ronald James Davenport of Deer Park sought the spectacular sum of nearly $5.2 billion from each of the officials, including U.S. Attorney James McDevitt of the Eastern District of Washington, an assistant U.S. attorney, a court clerk and an IRS agent, according to court records.

    Prosecutors described Davenport as a “tax defier.” Davenport has described himself in court filings as a “sovereign.”

    In a civil case that preceded the criminal indictment against Davenport, Senior U.S. District Judge Justin L. Quackenbush ruled last month that the liens “were filed to retaliate against the officers for their good-faith efforts to enforce the tax laws against Mr. Davenport.”

    Quackenbush struck the liens, which were filed in the form of UCC Financing Statements with the Washington State Department of Licensing, according to records. The liens not only were fraudulent, but also contained “sensitive personal information” that violated privacy laws, the judge ruled.

    Davenport also filed instruments dubbed “Notice[s] of Claim of Maritime Lien” with the Spokane County Auditor’s Office, according to records. Those, too, were struck.

    The government sued Davenport civilly in 2008 “to collect delinquent income taxes,” prosecutors said.

    Records show that Davenport responded by filing liens against the officials.

    “The indictment alleges that in retaliation for attempting to collect the delinquent taxes, Davenport made a series of fraudulent claims in December 2009,” prosecutors said.

    “Davenport filed liens against the property of these government officials, falsely claiming that each of them owed Davenport $5,184,000,000,” the Justice Department said.

  • Judge Signs Forfeiture Order In AdSurfDaily Case; Gives Government Title To $65.8 Million In Bowdoin Bank Accounts; Case Resolved In ‘Entirety’

    Andy Bowdoin

    After more than 17 months, more than 165 court filings and more than $1 million in legal fees, ASD President Andy Bowdoin has lost the August 2008 civil forfeiture case and the government has been granted title to $65,838,999.70 seized from Bowdoin’s 10 Bank of America accounts.

    U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, whom Bowdoin attempted to have disqualified from the case last month, has entered a default judgment and final order of forfeiture in the case.

    In a footnote, Collyer said the order decreeing forfeiture “resolves all remaining issues and this forfeiture action in its entirety.”

    As PatrickPretty.com first reported last year, three of Bowdoin’s accounts contained the exact same sum: $1,000,388.91. Why the accounts contained the exact same sum remains a mystery.

    Another mystery is why Bowdoin, 75, initially submitted to the forfeiture on Jan. 13, 2009 — a year ago next week — but then changed his mind more than a month later and attempted to reassert his claims as a pro se litigant. Bowdoin’s former attorneys, Akerman Senterfitt, said in court filings that Bowdoin began to file pro se “without consulting with counsel and without bothering to advise counsel that he would be submitting motions on his own.”

    Akerman Senterfitt filed a motion to withdraw as Bowdoin’s counsel, saying its representation of him had become unreasonably difficult.

    Bowdoin’s pro se re-entry in the case coincided with the shift by the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf to a “private association” structure. This shift was announced to AVG members on Feb. 26, 2009, after AVG said it had consulted with a company known as Pro Advocate Group.

    Bowdoin signed the first of his pro se pleadings just one day before, on Feb. 25, 2009. Pro Advocate Group, which says it can help people practice law and medicine without a license through a private-association structure, is associated with Karl Dahlstrom.

    In 1997, Dahlstrom was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison for his participation in a securities scheme. In court documents in a tax case, Karl Dahlstrom is described as having  “been in the abusive trust business for many years.”

    Bowdoin has not publicly revealed the identities of his pro se advisers, describing them as members of a “group.” Nor has Bowdoin revealed how much he paid for the pro se advice.

    Bowdoin, however, told members in a letter published on the now-defunct Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum in March 2009 that he had paid his professional lawyers $800,000 before firing them. In September 2009, Bowdoin said his legal fees had exceeded $1 million.

    “Now I’ve spent over a million dollars in legal fees to get your money back, and to stay out of prison,” Bowdoin said on Sept. 21, according to a transcript by the U.S. Secret Service. Bowdoin made the remark in a conference call with members. The Secret Service transcribed the call, and then filed the document  in court.

    Collyer refused to disqualify herself last month, saying Bowdoin no longer had standing in the case.

    Read the final order of forfeiture in the August 2008 case against assets connected to ASD.

    Collyer earlier ordered the forfeiture of more than $14 million from the bank accounts of Golden Panda Ad Builder, whose assets also were seized in the ASD case.

    Bowdoin did score a win of sorts in the forfeiture litigation. He asked for — and was granted — an evidentiary hearing in 2008 to refute the government’s Ponzi allegations and to ask for the emergency release of $2 million because the company could not pay its rent and hosting bills and needed money to implement a new business plan.

    Prosecutors did not object to the hearing, but pointed out that Bowdoin had $1 million in a bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua in an account under a different name.

    Bowdoin asserted his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, advising the court through counsel that he would not testify at the evidentiary hearing he had requested. Surf’s Up described the performance of ASD’s witnesses at the hearing as uniformly “excellent,” while at once describing the government’s case as “not so much.”

    At the same time, the forum helped spread the rumor that the government had admitted that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme.

    In November 2008, Collyer ruled that ASD had not demonstrated at the hearing that it was a lawful business and not a Ponzi scheme. A month later, prosecutors filed a second forfeiture complaint against ASD-connected assets, restating the Ponzi allegations despite the Surf’s Up claim that prosecutors had admitted ASD was not a Ponzi scheme.

    The AVG autosurf was laying the groundwork for launch within days of Collyer’s November 2008 ruling against ASD. Promoters highlighted its purported location in Uruguay as a reason to join.

    AVG suspended cashouts in June 2009, exercising its version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause.

    Dozens of pro se litigants attempted to intervene in the ASD case, largely causing the court docket to swell from about 40 entries in January 2009 to its current total of 166.

  • BREAKING NEWS: Default Notice Against ASD Entered

    UPDATED 12:29 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A default notice to real estate and more than $65.8 million seized from the bank accounts of ASD President Andy Bowdoin has been docketed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    A clerk entered the notice this morning in response to an affidavit from the prosecution last week. The notice is dated Nov. 13. Today’s filing means the government is one step closer to perfecting title to the property and money, which were seized in an August 2008 forfeiture complaint.

    “[I]t is this 13th day of November, 2009, declared that the defendants . . . are in default,” the clerk’s notice reads.

    Judge Rosemary Collyer will have to issue a formal order of forfeiture for the government to exercise permanent control of the assets. The timeline for such an order is unclear, but prosecutors say the time for filing claims has expired.

    Last week, Collyer rejected a bid Bowdoin launched in February to reassert claims to the money. She also has rejected dozens of bids by pro se litigants to gain standing in the case, including a denial of 13 motions on a single day last week.

    In August, pro se motions to gain standing in the case — all of them featuring a legal template shared by members of ASD — began to flood the courthouse. Collyer rejected the arguments of each of the prospective litigants.

    See Nov. 13 story on prosecution filing.

    See Clerk’s Entry of Default.

  • UPDATE: Another Parallel To ASD/Golden Panda/AVG Emerges In Canadian Probe Of Manna Trading Corp. Ltd.

    Yesterday we reported that the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) ordered penalties and disgorgement totaling $42 million in the case against Legacy Capital Inc., Legacy Trust Inc., Manna Trading Corp Ltd. and Manna Humanitarian Foundation.

    We reported several parallels to the ongoing investigation in the United States into the business practices of AdSurfDaily/Golden Panda Ad Builder and the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf.

    Another parallel has emerged, and it is a significant one: Two of the principals in the Canadian scheme previously had been disciplined for banking or securities violations.

    Hal (Mick) Allan McLeod was disciplined by the British Columbia Superintendent of Financial Institutions in 2003 for violations of the Financial Institutions Act and ordered to “cease carrying on a trust or deposit business,” BCSC said.

    Citing the superintendent’s order, BCSC said two companies with which McLeod had served as a director — First Capital Trading & Financing Corp. and First Capital Credit Corp. — “took and kept funds from the public, and engaged in conduct that was deceptive and misleading.”

    David John Vaughan, meanwhile, “was disciplined by this Commission [in 1999] for engaging in an illegal distribution that had many features in common with the Manna scheme,” BCSC said. “Orders against him from that misconduct remain in force today.”

    In the 1990s, both ASD President Andy Bowdoin and Golden Panda Ad Builder President Clarence Busby had run-ins with securities regulators.

    Bowdoin pleaded guilty to felonies in Alabama and was sentenced to a year in prison. The sentence was suspended when he agreed to pay restitution. In August 2008, he sent his victims a restitution check for $100. One month earlier, in July 2008, nearly $50,000 in ASD funds were used to purchase a luxury Lincoln sedan registered in the name of Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises, prosecutors said.

    Florida now has revoked ASD’s corporate registration and dissolved the registration of Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises. Although both companies are involved in serious litigation that potentially affects thousands of people, neither company submitted required annual reports to maintain their corporate standing. Florida provided the companies a five-month buffer to file the required paperwork. Neither firm complied.

    In May 1998, a federal judge permanently enjoined Clarence Busby from violations of the Securities Act of 1993 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Busby was ordered to pay $15,000 in disgorgement for ill-gotten gains he had received “from sales of interests in three prime bank schemes,” the SEC said.

    The SEC waived the penalty because Busby certified he was unable to pay, the SEC said.

    Busby and Bowdoin went on a decade later to form Golden Panda Ad Builder after discussing the surf on a Georgia fishing lake in April 2008. In July 2008 — just prior to the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from the bank accounts of ASD and Golden Panda — Bowdoin distanced himself from Busby after Busby’s run-in with the SEC became known publicly.

    The “cause and effect” of Bowdoin’s actions with Golden Panda never has been clear. For example, was Bowdoin really too busy to run Golden Panda with Busby — as Bowdoin suggested — or did Bowdoin distance himself from Golden Panda because he learned about Busby’s alleged SEC violations and feared the allegations could lead to a probe of ASD?

    Golden Panda surrendered its claim to more than $14 million in the U.S. Secret Service probe. Busby now is listed as the “chief consultant” to BizAdSplash (BAS), another surf — one that purports to be operating offshore.

    BAS suspended payouts earlier this year, and then announced a relaunch. The firm, according to its website, now is selling tiered “charter memberships” for as much as $10,000.

    A “Presidential” charter membership is priced at $10,000; an “Executive” charter membership is priced at $5,000. Two other tiered charter memberships — “Visionary” and “Pioneer” — are sold at $2,500 and $1,000, respectively.

    BAS has not updated the news on its website since Oct. 7, nearly three weeks.

    Canadian officials say the whereabouts of three of the respondents in the Manna probe who were ordered to pay huge financial penalties is unknown. McLeod, Vaughan and Kenneth Robert McMordie (also known as Byrun Fox) “have fled the jurisdiction,” BCSC told The Globe and Mail, in a story published this morning.

    The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have opened a criminal investigation, BCSC said.

    Like ASD/Golden Panda, AVG and BizAdSplash, the Canadian Ponzi schemers pushed debit cards to offload profits, BCSC said.

    “Manna fraudulently used the investments of later investors to fund the promised returns to earlier investors, to pay commissions to the affiliates and consultants, to invest in an online gaming business, and to buy real estate in Costa Rica,” BCSC said.

    Other traits the Canadian scheme and the alleged U.S. scheme involving Bowdoin, Busby and offshoot companies had in common include:

    • Secrecy. AVG, for instance, did not identify its executives, morphed into a “private association” and advised members not to share information outside association walls.
    • False information. Some ASD members repeatedly have asserted that the U.S. government has admitted ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. Other members have sent emails that suggest participants should not cooperate with the U.S. Secret Service.
    • Offshore venues. Both AVG and BAS, for example, claim connections to South America and Central America, leading to fears that money could be hidden.
    • Use of ‘common law’ in various writings. Some ASD pro se litigants have cited common law in court filings in defense of the surf. One apparent argument of the litigants is that all commerce is legal as long as there is is contract between two parties. In the Canadian case, some purveyors of the scheme pushed what authorities described as a “private common law spiritual trust.”
    • Efforts that can be viewed as intimidation tactics. AVG, for example, threatened to sue members who shared information and to file abuse complaints with the Internet Service Providers of participants who complained on online forums.
    • Purported ties to charitable entities. AVG, for instance, advertised that it supported the World Rain Forest Movement. In Canada, Manna advertised the Manna Humanitarian Foundation.
    • An MLM-style sales structure. All of the Canadian and U.S. entities sold the programs as multilevel marketing opportunities.
    • Earnings “compounding.” Both the Canadian schemes and the alleged American schemes encouraged members to keep money in the systems and employ compounding strategies to maximize earnings.

  • Government Makes Veiled Reference To AdViewGlobal In Court Filing, Potentially Signaling Deeper Trouble For Bowdoin — And New Trouble For Promoters, Shills, Unnamed Attorneys And Advisers

    UPDATED 2:25 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) In June, private attorneys representing three AdSurfDaily members who accused Andy Bowdoin of racketeering became the authors of the first public court filing that referenced the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf.

    Some defenders of the surf dismissed the reference as meaningless.

    Today, however, federal prosecutors made a veiled reference to AVG in dramatic court filings in a civil-forfeiture case against Bowdoin. The import of the reference cannot be denied; it clearly was aimed at AVG promoters and people who have been providing cover for Bowdoin, including promoters, shills and attorneys whose names have not surfaced in the case.

    Here, in its entirety, is the reference: (Italics added.)

    “Maybe Bowdoin mistakenly thought that he could con the government into believing that he was just a harmless, foolish old man. Ironically, after telling thousands of investors that he intended to build the world’s preeminent advertising company for them, in order to make them 100,000 millionaires, Bowdoin tries to con this Court, telling it that because he’s 74 and has a heart condition, any incarceration amounts to a death sentence. See Document #132 ¶8. Was he lying then, or now?

    “Or, it 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. 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.

    “Or, maybe other attorneys Bowdoin employed, or ASD’s other promoters convinced Bowdoin that if he paid some of the fraud proceeds the government had missed to them (the money laundering as Mr. Murray reports), they could help to circle the wagons or otherwise do a better job than Akerman Senterfitt did when it tried to prove that free advertising was a true profitable sale and not a poorly disguised, and unsustainable, investment opportunity.

    “But what is clear from Bowdoin, himself, is that neither the government, nor Bowdoin’s experienced criminal defense counsel, ever told Bowdoin that it was reasonable for a defendant convicted of operating a $100 million wire fraud scheme to expect probation.”

    See related story from today.

    See June 30 story and comments about the RICO attorneys’ reference to AdViewGlobal.

  • BULLETIN: Judge Denies 3 Bowdoin Motions; ASD Asks For A Second Evidentiary Hearing In Federal Forfeiture Case

    UPDATED 10:27 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) A federal judge has denied two pro se motions by AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin to undo the forfeiture of tens of millions of dollars seized last year by the U.S. Secret Service.

    Separately, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer also denied a third motion by Bowdoin to exclude and suppress evidence obtained in an interview with Secret Service agents.

    Meanwhile, Bowdoin has asked for an evidentiary hearing in which ASD would call “approximately five” witnesses to help it demonstrate that Collyer should permit ASD to reopen its claims to the seized money.

    Bowdoin submitted to the forfeiture in mid-January, but changed his mind in late February. He submitted a pro se motion to reopen the claim, and his attorney, Charles A. Murray, filed a supplemental motion on Bowdoin’s behalf.

    Murray today filed a motion seeking the evidentiary hearing. The motion suggests prosecutors plan to oppose the motion.

    “Counsel has conferred with opposing counsel who has his opposition to this motion,” Murray said, in his request for the evidentiary hearing.

    If the motion is granted, it would lead to the second evidentiary hearing in the case. The first was held Sept. 30-Oct. 1, and Collyer ruled in November that ASD had not demonstrated it was a legal business and not a Ponzi scheme at the proceeding.

    Collyer rejected three pro se motions today that Bowdoin had filed earlier this year, including the motion to exclude and suppress evidence.

    “The agents who searched Mr. Bowdoin’s property and seized certain tangible evidence were operating on the basis of a warrant issued ‘upon probable cause, supported by an affidavit made under oath, which particularly described the place to be searched and the things to be seized,’” Collyer said.  “There is no basis upon which to suppress evidence so seized.

    “Nor is there any basis to suppress Mr. Bowdoin’s statements to the investigators,” Collyer wrote, pointing out that, “Though Mr. Bowdoin initially declined to speak to the agents without a lawyer present, he later agreed to be interviewed.”

    Collyer noted that the forfeiture case was brought as a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding.

    “As Mr. Bowdoin’s statements are not being used to subject him to criminal liability, there can be no violation of his privilege against self-incrimination here,” Collyer wrote.

    She also rejected a Bowdoin argument that the civil forfeiture case should be dismissed because Bowdoin did not receive a Miranda warning.

    “Mr. Bowdoin was never placed under arrest, never ordered to participate in the interrogation, and was in his own home,” Collyer said. “The agents had no duty to advise him of his Miranda rights, and their failure to do so cannot be a basis for suppressing his statements.”

    Collyer also rejected Bowdoin’s claims that she lacked jurisdiction to hear the matters, that Bowdoin had been denied “fair notice” that his conduct with ASD was illegal and that the civil-forfeiture case actually was a “quasi-criminal matter.”

    “Mr. Bowdoin further argues that because this action is ‘quasi-criminal’ the Government should be required to prove its case by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence rather than by a preponderance of the evidence,” Collyer said. “A look at the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (‘CAFRA’), 18 U.S.C. § 981, et seq., demonstrates the fallacy of this argument.”

  • REALITY CHECK: Is Bowdoin Running Out Of Options?

    UPDATED 8:52 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Is AdSurfDaily President Andy Bowdoin quickly running out of options?

    A small spin campaign appears to be under way, and an email circulating among ASD members suggests the company will hold a conference call Monday. Like everything concerning ASD, the wording of the email is ambiguous. It is possible, however, that the email signals in ASDspeak that the end game is under way.

    There is trouble in all directions for ASD.

    Imagine ASD President Andy Bowdoin standing inside a see-through box facing you, with each wall of the box having a see-through grandstand. Every person in the grandstands poses risk to Bowdoin.

    The government is in the grandstands in the ceiling, which could collapse at any second; RICO attorneys are in the cellar grandstands, which could open up and swallow the floor. ASD’s rank-and-file membership is in the grandstands to Bowdoin’s left, which seat thousands of people who have been fleeced. They’ve been ignored for so long — and are so soured by Bowdoin’s various legal filings — that crashing the gate and bringing down the wall so Bowdoin cannot ignore their questions or mute them in a phone conference is a real possibility.

    Finally, seated in the grandstands on Bowdoin’s right, are potential co-defendants. They’re unhappy, too. Some of them want the legal game to continue because it provides a limited amount of cover for them. Others, however, have come to the realization they’ve been drafted into a conspiracy and hold Bowdoin accountable for making fools and potential co-defendants out of them. Some of them perhaps have received target letters from the prosecution. Others perhaps are unindicted co-conspirators. This wall, too, is in danger of collapse.

    If it all comes tumbling down, ASD’s few remaining janitors will sweep it up. ASD’s janitors always sweep it up. Some of them sing and think happy thoughts while they sweep. After all, there are no prizes for predicting rain, only for building arks.

    The Pickle

    In similar cases, courts have issued orders to repatriate assets, preserve evidence and prevent the destruction of documents. Judges also have jailed Ponzi scheme figures for intransigence or simply because they were arrested in advance of a bail hearing.

    It is possible that certain members of ASD and AdViewGlobal (AVG) have received target letters from the Department of Justice. Bowdoin himself hints of the existence of a sealed indictment handed down in May, the same month closely connected AVG was engaging in all sorts of bizarre behavior that got only more bizarre as spring transitioned into summer.

    Bowdoin’s two recent affidavits,  if anything, show insiders and serial promoters that significant jail time may be in the offing for criminal participants. Woe to them if they try to wipe evidence. They also are in a box: The government has the database and other records, and has interviewed garrulous Bowdoin over a period of at least four days.

    They weren’t discussing the weather or how Florida and Florida State will do this fall on the gridiron.

    Separately, the prosecution can argue, we believe, that Bowdoin and perhaps others are flight risks. The August complaint mentions an assertion by a banker that Bowdoin intended to buy a home in another country. (The snippet below is from paragraph 64 of the August forfeiture complaint.)

    “A [Secret Service/IRS Task Force Member] also learned that earlier in July 2008, a bank other than BOA closed the last account that was controlled by Bowdoin or family members after that bank determined, and explained to them, that an investigation by the bank determined that Bowdoin appeared to be operating a Ponzi scheme. Bowdoin indicated that he purchased, or was seeking to purchase, a home in another country.”

    ‘Offshore’ Shelter Is A Myth

    The very nature of ASD’s — and AVG’s — operations inure to the prosecution’s benefit. Both companies publicly advertised funding through offshore payment processors. Nothing in the public record so far in the forfeiture case against ASD suggests any of the offshore money has been repatriated — either by Bowdoin or alleged co-conspirators.

    So, the prosecution can point to the “home in another country” claim, Bowdoin’s intransigence and the existence of publicly advertised, offshore payment mechanisms in the names of thousands of people to demonstrate high potential for money to be hidden or dissipated, evidence to be destroyed and for people to flee to avoid prosecution. Bowdoin always has been at risk of confronting an order to repatriate the money and/or sit in jail.

    Participants also could find themselves confronting such an order — whether they have been indicted or not. A lack of an order, however, does not provide cover for individuals to destroy evidence. Prosecutors know that evidence exists.  If they go looking for it and discover it’s not there, it won’t be a happy day for co-conspirators who destroyed it. They are up against one of the top law-enforcement agencies in the world.

    Some readers will remember, of course, that the word went out with seven exclamation points on the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum in February to start closing down bank accounts because the Secret Service was coming.

    __________________________________________________________________________

    “If you took any money from ASD and it is in a bank account, get it out!!!!!!!

    Thanks,
    Erma

    __________________________________________________________________________

    Because the government has seized Bowdoin’s real estate, he may have serious trouble making bail if he finds himself sitting in jail. His bond could be set in excess of his paper net worth, owing to the serious nature of the crimes. Money hidden in shell companies  — Bowdoin/Harris Enterprises or any Bowdoin-connected business, for example — will be of no help, because that is the money the government would seek to collect to stop Bowdoin from committing more crimes.

    In the Regenesis 2×2 case, the Secret Service kept certain parties under surveillance for five weeks, prior even to applying for search warrants. Agents even monitored a Dumpster and observed as evidence was discarded. They then gathered the evidence from the Dumpster and brought in experts in computer forensics.

    Given the nature of AVG’s claims — Uruguay and all of that — there is a chance that certain people have been kept under surveillance. It is possible that the Justice Department has moved the State Department to seal the borders with respect to travel by certain individuals.

    It is possible that passports already have been collected. But because money either is missing or unaccounted for and may be stashed anywhere, the risk of flight is high.

    Andy Bowdoin and criminal co-conspirators, we believe, have created the perfect storm for ASD/AVG members. There might have been a concerted, coordinated effort in February to obstruct justice.

    A March 13 letter on Surf’s Up in which Bowdoin announced he had met with a “group” and filed pro se court pleadings, we believe, is extremely damaging.

    __________________________________________________________________________

    About a month ago, several members introduced me to a group that studied what my attorneys did. The group 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.

    I have rescinded my decision to release our ownership of all the assets. I filed various motions a few weeks ago, and several more last week, to dismiss our case and to return the assets because of the violations committed by our government.

    We are ready to pursue this all the way to the US Supreme Court.

    A great injustice has been done to 100,000 people, and we need to stand up and fight for our rights. Some agencies of the government have become so powerful that they believe they are above the Constitution. We, as members of ASD, need to help stop this misuse of power. I ask each one of you to write to the Justice Department, to your senators and representatives, to the President, and even to Glenn Beck of Fox News. Tell them all what the Justice Department has done to your business.

    We will be filing papers in the next couple of weeks that should really get their attention. Watch for the filings. I will be speaking out on a conference call as soon as the filings are completed. We will notify you of the call. I look forward to talking to you then.

    I appreciate your support in helping us get back what rightfully belongs to the members of ASD.

    Thanks,
    Andy Bowdoin

    __________________________________________________________________________

    Now, compare that letter to what Bowdoin said about his pro se status in paragraph 23 of his corrected affidavit filed two days ago:

    https://patrickpretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/bowdoincorrectedaffidavit.pdf

    In effect, Bowdoin was advising the court that he ultimately concluded that his pro se strategy did not meet his needs — and that he didn’t recognize this until after he had embarked on the campaign. He makes no mention of the fact a federal judge advised him in March that corporate litigants could not proceed pro se.

    “I determined that I could not adequately represent my legal interests pro se, and having lost confidence in my existing legal counsel, I retained separate criminal counsel to pursue reinstatement of my claims . . . ,” Bowdoin said, in paragraph 23 of the affidavit.

    But in March, as the letter above demonstrates, Bowdoin was expressing supreme confidence about the pro se strategy: (Emphasis added.)

    “We are ready to pursue this all the way to the US Supreme Court,” he said. “We will be filing papers in the next couple of weeks that should really get their attention. Watch for the filings. I will be speaking out on a conference call as soon as the filings are completed. We will notify you of the call. I look forward to talking to you then.”

    So, Bowdoin had turned over ASD’s fate to a “group” that had analyzed the approach of Bowdoin’s paid counsel, found it lacking and prevailed upon him to change his mind about submitting to the forfeiture.

    “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,” Bowdoin said. “I have rescinded my decision to release our ownership of all the assets. I filed various motions a few weeks ago, and several more last week, to dismiss our case and to return the assets because of the violations committed by our government.”

    Key phrases:

    • “The group”
    • “very confident that they could help”
    • “I have rescinded my decision” (after meeting with the group)

    Bowdoin filed drivel with the coaching of the group. He signed the documents. His signature coincided with the “If you took any money from ASD and it is in a bank account, get it out!!!!!!!” report on Surf’s Up.

    And it coincided with AVG’s sudden shift to an “association” structure after members, too, were introduced to a “group” — Pro Advocate Group.

    The previous weeks and the following months were dominated by pro se filings, mostly not from Bowdoin. But Bowdoin now says, “I determined that I could not adequately represent my legal interests pro se.”

    He arrived at this conclusion after he promised a pro se Supreme Court battle and after a federal judge advised him corporate entities could not proceed pro se. Bowdoin’s affidavit, however, suggests he came to his recognition that the pro se strategy didn’t work for him only after taking the time — apparently weeks later — to contemplate the serious legal implications.

    The trouble with that statement is that Bowdoin’s own affidavit shows the pro se strategy began after his four days of meetings with prosecutors and after his potential prison time was spelled out and after he submitted to the forfeiture — and yet Bowdoin would have a judge believe he did not understand the issues.

    If he did not understand the issues, he would have had no reason to consult with the “group” and embark on the pro se strategy to begin with.

    Not only is Bowdoin blaming government lawyers and his own paid lawyers, he also now is blaming the amateur lawyers — and perhaps a cloaked professional attorney whose name has not been introduced in the case but helped Bowdoin in his pro se efforts.

    Bowdoin is taking responsibility for none of it: bad prosecutors, bad lawyers, bad amateurs who happened to arrive on the scene around the same time he submitted to the forfeiture, the Secret Service reportedly was seizing bank accounts and AVG was going underground with the “association” nonsense.

    It looks like a bizarre bid to obstruct justice — and Bowdoin is trapped between people who prevailed upon him to proceed pro se, and the government, which holds Bowdoin’s proffer, his statements (probably recorded and perhaps even on videotape), the database, business records, banking records and evidence gleaned from others.

    The walls could come crashing down soon — unless negotiations Bowdoin entered into with the government weeks ago were productive, and a plan already is in place for Bowdoin to exit the stage after addressing members one last time.

  • 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.

  • 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.