Archives on May, 2012

OneX/QLXchange are offline for “maintenance”….

Posted by Don on May 30, 20124 Comments

Somewhat typical for websites that are under scrutiny and/or those trying to stall payments while the operators flee with the cash,  OneX/QLXchange’s website has been down all day.  I only noticed it after someone mentioned it to me and it also raises other questions.

Rayda Roundy

Questions like “Why is Rayda Roundy still holding OneX webinars?”  You’d think that after the DOJ mentions Andy’s involvement in Onex (and it’s offshoots) and describing it as “uncharged” misdeeds, they would have a bit lower profile in their activities.  I still get notices about the webinars Rayda has several times a week, the last one I listened to she mentioned the “legality” of OneX/QLXchange.

That statement has the same level of credulity as when Don Peterson stood before an ASD/Ad Cash Generator  rally group and said the only thing Andy had on his record was a speeding ticket. We have since found out that Andy had way more on his record and never bothered to tell anyone.  “Too honest to testify”, those words are so hollow now.

How long OneX/QKXchange/OneX Pro will be around is anyone’s guess.  Like many programs before it, some of the operators will likely be facing jail time, as it should be.  I wager that Rayda Roundy will be among them.  After all, Andy is/was in her downline, as are many former ASD members.


Next Bond Hearing for Bowdoin

Posted by Don on May 29, 2012No Comments

Last time, the proceedings were titled Bond Hearing; this time they are titled Bond Revocation Hearing.  Andy has until June 12th to enjoy his ill gotten freedom and hopefully, they will remand him until his sentencing.  That would give him a taste of what his next 6.5 years might be like.  I hope they toss him under the jail, personally.

05/18/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer: Bond Revocation Hearing as to THOMAS ANDERSON BOWDOIN, JR held on 5/18/2012. Bond Revocation Hearing continued to 6/12/2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. Bond Status of Defendant: Remains on Personal Recognizance. Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim. Defense Attorney: Charles Murray. US Attorneys: Seth Waxman & Allison Barlotta. (cdw) (Entered: 05/18/2012)

Bowdoin’s Waiver of Trial and Conditions of Release

Posted by ASDUpdates on May 22, 2012No Comments

We have the two following additions on PACER this morning:

05/18/2012 51 WAIVER of Right to Trial by Jury as to THOMAS ANDERSON BOWDOIN, JR. Approved by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on May 18, 2012. (cdw) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
05/18/2012 52 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to THOMAS ANDERSON BOWDOIN JR. (1) Personal Recognizance. Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on May 18, 2012. (cdw) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

I have added these two documents to the Files website.

Bowdoin’s Plea Agreement and Statement of Offense

Posted by ASDUpdates on May 21, 2012No Comments

Hot off the PACER website we have the Plea Agreement and Statement of Offense that Andy Bowdoin signed and agreed to on May 18th.  It is some very interesting reading, to say the least.  The complete documents are on our Files website.  Below are a few snippets from them:

The parties understand that the Court may not agree that the sentence agreed to by the parties is an appropriate one and may reject the Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Your client further understands that if the Court rejects the Plea Agreement, the Government also has the right to withdraw from this Plea Agreement and to be freed from all obligations under the agreement, and may in its sole discretion bring different or additional charges before the defendant enters any guilty plea in this case

Conditions of Release

The parties agree that the following conditions are appropriate if the Court allows your client to remain on release pending sentencing and as part of any sentence that includes a period of probation or term of supervised release:

a.  Your client shall not participate in any business venture using the internet, multi-level marketing, or mass marketing.

b.  Upon the Government’s request, your client agrees to engage, at his expense, an independent auditor to conduct an audit on any business venture that he owns or operates.

c.  Your client agrees not to incur new credit charges or open any additional lines of credit without approval of the probation officer; and

d.  You client agrees to provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information.


Government answers ASD Justice’s complaint

Posted by ASDUpdates on May 19, 2012No Comments

Fresh from PACER, the government has filed a reply to the complaint, entitled


In their reply, the government mentions the “Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled To Declaratory Judgment”:

The plaintiffs do not assert with any specificity the role that they had with ASD to justify and properly present a legal right that is definite, and not based upon conjecture and speculation sufficient to warrant entry of a declaratory judgment. Most of the plaintiffs’ lengthy complaint is laden with challenges to the forfeiture action(s) in rem filed in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs attached as exhibits 6 and 7 the declarations of two individuals who opine that the operation of the ASD was not a Ponzi scheme, but was a legitimate business model. Such challenges do not present a viable and legitimate case with real and legal interests upon which to base a declaratory judgment in the instant case. The plaintiffs have simply not alleged facts that “show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

Following are sections from the reply. For the complete document, please go to our Files website.

Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted

Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim to relief that is plausible on its face. They have no standing to challenge the search and seizure of documents and records from ASD because they had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the records seized, or the premises search by the government. Further, they do not have any possessory interest in the records seized by the government. Therefore, plaintiffs’ complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Lack Standing

In its Memorandum Opinion denying the movants’ motions to intervene in 8 Gilcrease Lane, the court explained that the movants lacked statutory and constitutional standing (Ex. 7c).  The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they have a cognizable interest in the monies forfeited. Fraud victims who voluntarily transfer their property to their wrongdoers do not retain a legal interest in their property; instead, such victims acquire a debt against their wrongdoers.

This Case Should Be Transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

The instant case has no connection to the Southern District of Florida, other than the two plaintiffs reside here. The unlawful activity that resulted in the seizure of properly plaintiffs claim belong to them occurred in Quincy, Florida, where Bowdoin operated Ad Surf Daily. The location of relevant documents would be in the District of Columbia, where both the civil forfeiture and criminal prosecution are being conducted. The witnesses are also located primarily in the District of Columbia, as the investigation was conducted by U.S. Secret Service agents now assigned to the Washington, D.C. Field Office. The locus of operative facts is the District of Columbia, where both the civil and criminal case were investigated, and legal action commenced by the United States Government.

Process is available to plaintiffs to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses at a deposition, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 45, whether the case is conducted in the Southern District of Florida or the District of Columbia.

While plaintiffs have chosen the Southern District of Florida as their preferred venue, two other factors, a forum’s familiarity with the governing law, and trial efficiency and the interests of justice, compel a finding that this case should be transferred to the District of Columbia. Judge Collyer has presided over the forfeiture actions since 2008, and the criminal case is still pending. The docket sheets in the forfeiture and criminal cases reflect that the cases have been extensively litigated, with Judge Collyer presiding over the myriad of claims filed, including one by plaintiff Disner. The plethora of pleadings and orders confirm the district court’s consummate familiarity with the parties, facts, issues, witnesses and law related to the operation of the AdSurfDaily. Judge Collyer is also presiding over the criminal  prosecution of Thomas Bowdoin, who illegal activities were the basis for the civil forfeiture. In the interests of  judicial efficiency and economy, this case should be transferred to the District of Columbia, where a district court who is completely familiar with the issues in the case can readily adjudicate the claims presented by Disner and Schweitzer.


Based upon the foregoing, the defendant’s motion to dismiss should be granted as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction upon which it may enter a declaratory judgment. Alternatively, the case should be transferred to the District of Columbia in the interest of judicial efficiency and economy.


Andy Bowdoin and his Plea Agreement

Posted by ASDUpdates on May 19, 2012No Comments

Some of Bowdoin’s  Plea Agreement  has surfaced.  For more information, see

Below are some parts of the article Patrick posted, used with permission:

The agreement contains this provision, and Bowdoin consented to it in writing as a condition of release before he is formally sentenced: “Your client shall not participate in any business venture using the internet, multi-level marketing, or mass marketing.”

“I have read this Plea Agreement and discussed it with my attorneys, Michael McDonnell, Esq. and Charles Murray, Esq. I fully understand this Plea Agreement and agree to it without reservation. I do this voluntarily and of my own free will, intending to be legally bound. No threats have been made against me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Plea Agreement fully. I am pleading guilty because I am in fact guilty of the offense(s) identified in this Plea Agreement.” (Italics/bold added)

BREAKING NEWS: Andy Bowdoin pleads Guilty in ASD case

Posted by Don on May 18, 2012One Comment

Florida Man Pleads Guilty To Wire Fraud
In Massive Internet-Based Ponzi Scheme
– Venture Raised More Than $110 Million From “Members” –

WASHINGTON – Thomas A. Bowdoin, Jr., also known as Andy Bowdoin, the founder and operator of a business known as AdSurf Daily, Inc., pled guilty today to a federal charge of wire fraud stemming from a fraudulent Internet-based advertising scheme that generated more than $110 million from thousands of people across the United States and other countries.

The plea was announced by Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and James Glendinning, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Orlando Field Office of the U.S. Secret Service.

Bowdoin, 77, of Quincy, Fla., entered the plea this afternoon before the Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No sentencing date was set. Under terms of the plea agreement, which were approved by the Court, Bowdoin faces a maximum sentence of 78 months in prison and fines of up to $175,000. He remains free pending a hearing on June 12, 2012 to determine if he should be incarcerated pending his sentencing.

According to a statement of offense, signed by the government as well as the defendant, Bowdoin ran a Ponzi scheme disguised as an online advertising company. AdSurf Daily, Inc., or ASD, drew in large numbers of investors by promising huge returns on their investment. Thousands of victims, many from the Washington, D.C. area, lost money through the scheme.

Bowdoin admitted that he operated ASD from September 2006 until August 2008, when agents from the Secret Service and the St. Cloud, Fla. IRS-Secret Service Task Force seized ASD’s assets and bank accounts pursuant to a court order.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia subsequently obtained civil forfeiture of $80 million in proceeds of Bowdoin’s schemes, including numerous bank accounts, real property, luxury vehicles, and watercraft. The Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia established a program to return the fraudulently obtained money to victims. Approximately $55 million in forfeited assets has been returned to 8,400 victims.

“The Internet now allows swindlers to perpetrate fraud on a much larger scale than Charles Ponzi could have imagined 100 years ago,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “Andy Bowdoin’s online Ponzi scheme took in $110 million from thousands of people across the United States and other countries. His guilty plea today is another milestone in our efforts to protect the public from being ripped off over the Internet. This case is a healthy reminder that the public should be skeptical when evaluating investment opportunities: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

“The Secret Service believes that building trusted partnerships between all levels of law enforcement is a proven successful model for combating criminal activity,” said Assistant Special Agent in Charge Glendinning, of the Orlando Field Office. “Through this collaborative approach, our St. Cloud Internal Revenue Service-Secret Service Financial Crimes and Money Laundering Task Force was able to focus our resources to uncovering this fraudulent scheme and prevent additional victims.”

According to the government’s evidence, ASD operated on the Internet at various websites, including,, and Bowdoin heralded ASD as an “income opportunity,” and referred to himself as a “money magnet.” Bowdoin stated that it was his “goal … to make 100,000 millionaires in 3 years.”

ASD’s business model promised members the opportunity to earn 125 percent (initially 150 percent) on each dollar paid into ASD, as long as the members viewed other members’ websites for a few minutes each day on ASD’s Internet page, commonly referred to as the ASD “rotator.” Bowdoin also promised members commissions for recruiting other members into the program.

While a small percentage of ASD members who invested early in the program could earn the extraordinary rates of return, the promised opportunity was illusory for the vast majority of ASD members. Indeed, due to the fact that ASD’s pyramid-style business model relied entirely on an ever increasing influx of new money to fund the debt owed to earlier members, the vast majority of members could never earn the promised rates of return, making the promised opportunity fraudulent. Key to the government’s case was that ASD did not generate any revenue from sales to customers outside the pyramid scheme.

During ASD’s operation, Bowdoin raised more than $110 million from over 96,000 members. Bowdoin paid out to members approximately $45 million to cover their investments and induce them to re-enroll in ASD’s program. Bowdoin spent more than $8 million to operate and promote ASD and more than $1 million for his own personal benefit or the benefit of his family. In 2008, alone, Bowdoin used ASD funds to purchase a lake house in Quincy, Fla., two luxury vehicles, a boat, two recreational watercrafts, and other items of value.

In 2008, Bowdoin held several rallies across the country attended by thousands of ASD members and potential members, during which he promoted ASD’s business model and offered matching bonuses to induce further investment. During the rallies, an ASD employee informed audiences, at Bowdoin’s direction, that Bowdoin could be trusted because a criminal background check on Bowdoin only revealed a speeding ticket in North Carolina.

Bowdoin knew those representations were false. The truth was Bowdoin had been convicted of three securities-related felonies in Alabama in the 1990s and had been charged in Alabama in the 1990s in at least thirteen other indictments alleging securities fraud, resulting in Bowdoin being forever barred from selling securities in Alabama. None of these disclosures were made to ASD members or potential members.

In addition, to further promote himself and ASD, Bowdoin directed an ASD employee at these rallies to inform ASD members and potential members that Bowdoin had been personally given a medal of distinction from President George W. Bush for his business achievements. In reality, Bowdoin purchased the medal of distinction from the National Republican Congressional Committee by donating $25,000 to the committee, using ASD members’ funds.

This case was pursued as part of a nationwide operation that targeted investment fraud. The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force was established in 2010 by the President to lead an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.

The President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visit

In announcing the guilty plea, U.S. Attorney Machen and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Glendinning praised the efforts of those who have investigated and prosecuted the case. They expressed appreciation to U.S. Secret Service’s Orlando and Tallahassee Field Offices and the St. Cloud IRS-Secret Service Task Force for their work in the investigation. They also expressed special recognition to Secret Service Special Agents Roy Dotson, Thomas Campbell, and Nielsen “Scot” Cochran, and St. Cloud IRS-Secret Service Task Force Agent Brian Watson.

U.S. Attorney Machen and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Glendinning also commended those who worked on the case from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, including Forensic Accountant Crystal Boodoo; Information Technology Specialist Kimberly Smith; Paralegals Anne Riopelle, Nicole Wattelet, Russ Crabtree, Tasha Harris, Shanna Hays, Sarah Reis and Taryn McLaughlin, and Legal Assistants Jessica McCormick and Krishawn Graham.

Finally, they praised the work of Assistant U.S. Attorney David Gorman and former Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Cowden and Vasu B. Muthyala, who investigated the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Seth B. Waxman and Allison Barlotta, who investigated the matter and prepared the case for trial. They also expressed appreciation for the work done on the case by the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.