name one
just one, please.

I’m sorry, I thought the topic was a rhetorical question, I didn’t realize anyone with more sense than a pet rock thought ASD ever operated legally.

Hi Everyone-
I have had a lengthy conversation with Andy and a few followup ones. He has given me permission to give you this update.
The government is really playing hardball and the negotiations are very intense. As things stand now (subject to last minute changes) it will all be over September 14. When that occurs, Andy plans to have a conference call to talk to all of you. Hopefully your email address is the same as the one ASD has for you so you’ll receive that conference call alert in a timely manner. If not, let your team members know that you need to be alerted. The plan is to record the call so, if you miss it, there will be a followup message going out that will give you the procedure to get on that recorded call, so please don’t email me to ask me what happened on the call. Remember that technical difficulties always occur so it’s better to get onto the call live than count on getting it later in recorded fashion. Please keep an eye out on your emails as, when this occurs, it may happen very quickly– with not a lot of notice.
A handful of people have sent messages that they don’t understand why Andy hasn’t communicated to everyone and, to them, that means Andy is a crook. Those people don’t realize that, when a person is involved in a legal issue, their attorneys counsel them not to discuss anything with anyone. Why? Because those who want to win the case against that person will look for anything the person says, take it out of context, and use it against the person. It’s very commonly done and done effectively. Many innocent people are in jail because of that very mistake. Andy couldn’t take the chance. Please know that this has been very hard on him, not being able to talk to you directly.

It’s hard to believe that some people are so stup…. I mean naive! It just boggles my mind!!!

So, in away the AD was partially correct as I see it.

AdSurfDaily was a straight autosurf to begin with, although there were many discussions and online calls to talk about the development of more afdvertising elements – along the lines of AdSalesDaily which was led by the group that originally were in ASD. There would have been classifieds and advertising design offered amongst other related items. However, it NEVER happened. So it started as an autosurf, nearly morphed into a general advertising site, and then nearly turned into an ecommerce surf site and in fact never became anything other than an autosurf site called ASD Cash Generator

It appears that is was always an illegal business that paid old members with new members money and that it was never sustainable. The presence of a criminal element from the beginning (apart from Andy Bowdoin himself of course) is something that we will doubtless find out when the next stage of the legal proceedings take place.

I would be very surprised now if we are told that it started off WITHOUT any criminality. Andy Bowdoin was ASD and the whole programme was set up around his personality and his false image of integrity and success. By whom? We dont yet know. But we are likely to find out soon

Three more motions were docketed in the past few minutes, bringing the unofficial total to 41 since Aug. 24 and 57 since February.

Some of today’s pleadings were mailed days after after the judge ruled against the first 10 petitioners Aug. 31.

Patrick

SEVEN more motions to intervene have just been docketed in the ASD civil-forfeiture case. This brings the unofficial total to 38 since Aug. 24.

Judge Collyer denied the first 10 motions Aug. 31 for lack of standing.

The case was nearly litigated to conclusion in January, with Andy Bowdoin’s submission to the forfeiture. Since that time the docket has been dominated by pro se motions — an unofficial total of 54 since February.

Bowdoin’s January motion to submit to the forfeiture was the 39th entry on the docket. As of this writing, the docket has ballooned to 125 entries.

The vast, vast majority of docket entries since January have been pro se motions, responses to pro se motions or judicial orders pertaining to pro se motions in which the pro se filers were denied standing.

Patrick