Judge Altonaga grants Motion for Enlargement of Time for USA to file response


THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of time to File Reply to the Plaintiffs’ Objections to the United States Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 48]. Being fully advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Defendant may file its Reply to the Plaintiff’s Objection to United States’ Motion to Dismiss on or before July 2, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2012.

QLXchange/OneX cancels tonight’s Webinar

No one is certain why it is taking so long for this “opportunity” to get their act together. First, they did a server change with the site unavailable for lasted many, many weeks and now they are stalled trying to get their “payment processor” set up. Not a well thought out plan, one would think.

Their message regarding the webinar tonight is “There is no new updates, so we will not have a webinar this evening.” Short and to the point. If only the grammar was correct.

Feds ask for more time to file response in “ASD Justice” case

The remaining Defendant, United States of America, has filed an Unopposed Motion for a time extension to file their response to “ASD Justice” opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. They cite their reasons as follows:

Despite that the undersigned intended to file the defendant’s reply on or before June 28, due to other case related time commitments, the undersigned simply has not had time to dedicate to preparation of the defendant’s reply. The defendant needs a couple of additional days in which to draft and file a reply.

The defendant seeks until Monday, July 2, 2012 in which to file its reply to the plaintiffs’ objection to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Consistent with the Local Rules, a proposed order will be sent to the court. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, the defendant hereby requests until Monday, July 2, 2012, in which to file its reply to the plaintiffs’ objection to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

It’s encouraging to see that at least one side of this case actually follows the Local Rules. I will be checking the docket on PACER this Monday to get a copy of the Defendant’s response, it ought to be good.

Judge Altonaga Denies “ASD Justice” Motion to Compel Compliance

Another loss for ASD Justice, and another instance of Dwight Schweitzer not following the Local Rules he says he knows all too well. Below are the main bits of today’s denial of Dwight’s motion to gather information he has no need in getting. The full document is on the Files website.

By Order dated March 5, 2012, the Court required the parties to file

Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements that contain a complete list of persons, associated persons, firms, partnerships, or corporations that have a financial interest in the outcome of this case, including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, and other identifiable legal entities related to a party.

(Order dated Mar. 5, 2012 [ECF No. 15]). Plaintiffs object to Defendant, United States’ Certificate of Interested Parties (“Certificate”) [ECF No. 40], filed on June 13, 2012. (1)

(1) Although proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs must comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida. (See Order dated Nov. 9, 2011 [ECF No. 3]). Local Rule 7.1(A)(3) of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida provides:

Prior to filing any motion in a civil case, . . . counsel for the movant shall confer (orally or in writing), or make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion. . . . At the end of the motion, and above the signature block, counsel for the moving party shall certify [in accordance herewith.]
(emphasis added). The Rule further provides that “[f]ailure to comply . . . may be cause for the Court to grant or deny the motion and impose on counsel an appropriate sanction . . . .” Id. Plaintiffs have failed to certify that they conferred or made reasonable efforts to confer with Defendant. Thus, it is within the Court’s discretion to deny the motion due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Local Rules. Nonetheless, the Court also addresses the substance of the Motion as Defendant has already responded.

The March 5 Order requires a Certificate listing those who may have a “financial interest in the outcome of this case.” (Order dated Mar. 5, 2012 (emphasis added)). Plaintiffs fail to explain in their Motion why unnamed parties who may have a financial interest in other forfeiture proceedings also have an interest in Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action.
The Court also observes Plaintiffs have not yet complied with the March 5 Order requiring them to file a Certificate of Interested Parties by March 27, 2012. Although Plaintiffs now claim they are unable to “comply with the courts [sic] order to the extent they are without the knowledge requested herein” (Mot. 2), they must comply to the best of their ability. Certainly, Plaintiffs may amend their Certificate as the case proceeds and as additional information is known. Indeed, “[t]hroughout the pendency of the action, the parties are under a continuing obligation to amend, correct, and update the Certificates.” (Order dated Mar. 5, 2012).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Motion [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.
2. On or before July 6, 2012, Plaintiffs shall comply with the requirements of the March 5 Order. Failure to comply will result in the entry of an order of dismissal without prejudice without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of June, 2012.

Once again, PatrickPretty needs our donations

It’s approaching the end of the month and Patrick needs our help to continue his journalism.  His detractors say he asks for money because he, too, is running a scam. What idiots they are. Patrick has uncovered a lot of what’s wrong with the world today, unbridled greed in the form on online HYIP scams.

He follows them at his own expense, the same as I do. However, his source of income, ads on his site, were cancelled due to the efforts of a few detractors, thereby rendering him with little income to fund his research and posting ability. That’s exactly why they did it, an attempt to silence him.

I have already made my monthly donation, you should do the same, whatever you can afford.

Will QLXchange/OneX ever get a payment processor??

For weeks now, they have been talking about a new payment processor and still have not named the company, other than saying it has involvement with Bank of America. And, of course, without a payment processor, no one can take out any money. Once the payment processor is up and running, members have been asked to make a small withdrawal. Sort of makes you wonder if they are having money problems, as in “hackers” or some other nonsense they make up as to why you cannot take out your money from the scam.


Yet another problem for ASD Justice. AUSA files response to Motion to Compel

06/25/2012 46 RESPONSE in Opposition re 44 MOTION to Compel Compliance With The filed by United States of America. (Wherry, Karin) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

The Defendants  have filed a response to Schweitzer’s Motion To Compel, and have detailed what they feel should cause the Motion to be denied. Here’s what they have to say, in part. The full document is on the Files website.

  • On June 21, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel (DE 44). The plaintiffs did not confer with the defense as   required by Local Rule 7.1 prior to filing the motion
  • The plaintiffs argue that in the instant case, the government is to identify all of those with a claim and specify the financial interest that each is owed, who applied for remission and the response to each claim. (DE44, p.2, ¶ 3).
  • The plaintiffs misapprehend the purpose and spirit of the court’s order requiring a certificate of interested parties. The instant case is not a forfeiture case as the two forfeiture cases involving AdSurfDaily have already been resolved in the District of Columbia. The certificate of interested parties is not some kind of alternative discovery vehicle collateral to the discovery provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, the certificate of interested parties in both the federal district and appellate courts is designed “to assist judges in making a determination of whether they have any interests in any of a party’s related corporate entities that would disqualify the judges from hearing the [appeal]. 
  • The court required both parties to file a certificate of interested parties. To date, the plaintiffs have not filed their certificate.

I’m not sure if Todd Disner should continue to hitch his wagon or his money to Dwight, especially with the poor performance of late from the former attorney.  He seems to be having repeated memory problems or perhaps, feels that he doesn’t have to follow the rules because he is special.

It’s a wonder Her Honor Judge Altonaga has not dismissed this case due to the repeated disrespect shown by the plaintiffs as to following procedures.


Chalk up another “defeat” to ASD Justice

On June 4th, the Defendant (US) filed a Motion to Stay Discovery until the Motion to Dismiss has been decided.  The Plaintiffs had 14 days to respond with their opposition or the Motion would be granted by Default. Well, guess what?  In his usual wisdom, Dwight Schweitzer failed to file his opposition memorandum of law, so the Motion to Stay Discovery has been granted.

But remember, he had a case go before the US Supreme Court.

More from the “ASD Justice” circus

Dwight Schweitzer

The filings are getting more and more bizarre as the days go by, this time, they have filed a Motion to Compel Compliance  because they don’t think the Defendant (the DOJ) has filed a complete enough list of Interested Parties.  Dwight Schweitzer, Pro Se, must be having flashbacks of when he could legally practice law and seems to be clogging things up as much as possible.

His latest entry is a Motion wherein he states that not every interested party has been identified to his satisfaction. A few paragraphs into the Motion, he says: 

Upon review the plaintiffs determined that the defendant’s compliance was inadequate as a matter of law (18 USC § 983 – General rules for civil forfeiture proceedings)

Maybe he forgot, but this is not a Civil Forfeiture case, it’s a Declaratory Relief case which stems from a Civil Forfeiture case.  Perhaps he has been away from the practice of law for so long that he is getting confused.  What follows appears to be a fishing expedition, he wants the names of all those who filed and received Remissions. Is he insane?

The plaintiffs therefore move that the defendant supplement its compliance attempt of June 5th inst.  with the actual list of all  those in the categories specified in the June 5th order, and known to the defendant prior to, during, and after the forfeiture proceedings including those subsequently identified, and, where known, specifying the financial interest of each including those individuals, separately identified, who applied for remission and, as to each, stating whether the request was approved, approved in part, or denied.

Schweitzer has gotten extremely indignant that the Feds have his “private” ASD  records and here he asks for the private information for those who applied for Remissions.  I doubt seriously if he will get what he is requesting as it is wrong on so many levels. His case is weak and/or nonexistent and he knows it.

Andy has pleaded guilty to Wire Fraud. He has admitted he knew he was doing illegal stuff.  That makes ASD Justice’s argument and their case mute and frivolous.

QLXchange server back up and running

The servers are back up and Rayda Roundy is once again holding “webinars” for this “opportunity”.  I guess it doesn’t bother her having her name associated with the ASD/Ad Cash Generator Ponzi scheme and that she contributed to Andy’s legal problems by getting him into her own downline. Nothing like using one Pyramid scheme to pay for legal defenses in another Pyramid scheme.  Oh, that Andy !!!!

And, since Andy Bowdoin is now prohibited from participating in any internet, MLM or mass marketing of any kind forever and ever, his OneX group of former ASD victims are now under the sponsorship of his webinar helper, Alan Kuykendall.