UPDATED 3:18 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Some AdSurfDaily members have reported that they’ve received surprise, partial refunds through SolidTrustPay, the Canada-based payment processor, for money they spent in ASD.
A poster at the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum was first to report the news yesterday. She described the transaction as being labeled the “final refund” from ASD, and said she wasn’t sure about withdrawing it because the “final refund” represented only a fraction of what she had spent.
A short time later, a Surf’s Up poster advised her to withdraw it.
Other posters then reported they, too, had received money from SolidTrustPay labeled a “final refund” for ASD. The money originated with this email address:
oceannamusic@xplornet.com
It is not an address associated with ASD in records, which leads to questions about whether the money is being refunded by an ASD downline group or whether ASD actually had money in SolidTrustPay under the name of a different company or a user other than Andy Bowdoin.
Questions were raised anew about whether accepting the money would void other consumer remedies that could result in even higher refunds. The poster who advised the original poster to withdraw the money then seemed to hint that accepting the money would inure to ASD’s benefit because people could not pursue the company for higher amounts.
This could be a back-door attempt to force a contract on the recipients of the partial refunds. In other words, ASD or an upline group later could argue that, since the refund amounts were marked “final,” any person who accepted the sum no longer had a claim against the firm or an individual sponsor for a higher amount.
Some members of ASD also are members of a subculture that practices back-door legal approaches designed to force recipients of correspondence into contracts by default. Some ASD members, for example, sent certified letters to the prosecutors involved in the case, demanding that they take specific actions within a limited time frame.
Failing to take the actions or ignoring the demands then was cast as a contract “default.” The theory was advanced by some of the litigants who filed pro se pleadings in the August forfeiture case against ASD’s assets.
The ASD case still is in litigation. The U.S. government said it intends to implement a restitution program. The program’s final form likely won’t be determined until the litigation comes to an end, and one of the reasons it is still in the courts is the pro se filings by ASD members and Andy Bowdoin.
It might be a good idea for ASD members who receive refunds from SolidTrustPay marked “final” from ASD to consult with an attorney and weigh their options carefully.
The sudden appearance of the partial refunds — and the fact they are marked “final” — could be a back-door bid to minimize ASD’s final liabilities by duping members into a contract by default.
One obvious question is, “How big is the purported refund pool that is originating from the SolidTrustPay account?” A second question is, “Has the refunder — who is not using an email address associated with ASD — skimmed money for himself/herself prior to sending the “final” refunds, all of which so far have been described by ASD members as partial refunds?”
A final note: One of the issues in the ASD case is offshore money that never was repatriated. Why not repatriate the money for “final” refunds to the United States and make it part of a restitution pool for victims, instead of doling it out behind closed doors in Canada?