Follow by Email

Follow me on Twitter

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Ad Surf Daily's president wraps up negotiations as eleventh hour approaches.

The president of 'Ad Surf Daily' (ASD) hammered out last minute negotiations with his attorney today as they deliberated the fate of millions of dollars seized by the government. Attorney Charles A. Murray (below) represents Ad Surf Daily and its president Andy Bowdoin (left).

This afternoon, the two contemplated their next move as Friday's court deadline approaches. Bowdoin and his attorney are deciding whether to grant the government ownership of ASD's assets or if Bowdoin should continue fighting to keep the funds. Either way, Bowdoin maintains he will "give the money back to the people." US Department of Justice officials say it would be easier if Bowdoin released his claim on the funds and transferred them to the government because that way the government could distribute the money to ASD members accordingly.

If Bowdoin chooses to continue the case and fight, US District Judge Rosemary Collyer will review the file on Friday and determine if the US Attorney General's case against ASD should move forward.

Last year the US AG's Office determined Bowdoin’s internet marketing firm was a 'ponzi scheme' and the government seized $53M (fifty three million dollars) from several Bank of America accounts Bowdoin claims were designated to maintain ASD funds.
US Department of Justice Senior Trial Attorney William R. Cowden maintains ASD is a ponzi because it can only stay in business if new paying members join the company.

After federal investigators seized ASD's assets in August 2008, Cowden says Bowdoin met with federal officials, reviewed the evidence against him and agreed to release the company cash and assets to the Government. A few months later Cowden says ASD's president "changed his mind and now wants to keep the money."

This past January Bowdoin filed a waiver to reclaim the assets. Attorney Charles Murray says Bowdoin made the wrong decision to give up the money in the first place because he had received some bad legal advice from previous attorneys. Murray also blames federal investigators for the harsh manner in which they interrogated his client, "They scared the heck out of Andy Bowdoin, he signed the papers saying he waived the money and he felt he was sold out by his attorneys."

ASD is estimated to have upwards of 125,000 members and many purchased 'ad packs' from the company while attending ASD rallies.

Many ASD members still support Bowdoin and believe the company is a legitimate business. Cowden says it has been difficult for ASD's members to face the facts, "Every time there's one of these cases the victims and people are disappointed to find out it's a fraud."

The United States Department of Justice has posted an online form for ASD members who wish to recoup any money they lost while doing business with ASD. Members can fill out the form by going to the government's website:
or contact the DOJ by emailing information to the Department at ''.


  1. Mike, I am a bit confused here. The one deciding if Andy can still fight for his money is Judge Collyer. Andy filed a motion to withdraw claims and it was granted by the Judge. Please read those documents. He subsequently changed his mind months later, and after talking to ProAdvocates he decided to file some Pro Se motions based on their advice. What the deadline Friday is about is Andy and his lawyer showing the Judge "just cause" why she should allow the release of claims to be nullified based on Andy's motion to so do. Andy needs to prove his assertions on why he should get a second try at the golden ring.

    I doubt that Andy and Murray have power over Her Honor or her decision on if they are allowed to continue the "fight" for Andy's money. They are asking the Judge to overturn her own order, and order Andy requested and was given. She intimated in her last Opinion that it is uncommon for a judge to go back on a requested and given order, like the one Andy got. Federal Court isn't well know in allowing Mulligans in their litigation.

  2. Hello again, Mr. Mason;

    Considering your journalistic credentials, your posts regarding ASD are amazing for their frequent lack of accuracy. However, one item in this post simply jumps off the page for being inaccurate in the extreme.

    The ASD rallies took place at large venues and attracted thousands of people, some of whom stood in line for hours to submit payments to ASD. The photo in this post that you refer to as being a rally was not. It was a small gathering on the lawn of the former flower shop that became ASD's headquarters, and may have been taken when the U.S. Secret Service raided the operation. Note that the man on the porch near the door appears to be wearing a badge, as does another man near the column.

    With all due respect, sir, I submit for your consideration that you need to employ a fact-checker for the articles you write about ASD, Andy Bowdoin, et al. At the moment your approach seems to be "Ready, Fire, Aim", and whether you are aware of it or not, you are making yourself look foolish in the eyes of those who have closely followed this saga for more than a year, and who are very knowledgeable about the situation.