“ASD Justice” Petitions For En Banc Hearing Before Appellate Judges

Posted by ASDUpdates on April 25, 2013No Comments

Just when you thought that the “Deluded Duo” had finally realized the utter futility in their Quixotic cause, here they go again.  A recently filed “APPELLANTS’ PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND EN BANC DETERMINATION” is requesting a hearing before Appellate Judges Garland, Henderson and Tatel, who summarily affirmed Judge Rosemary Collyer’s (my all time favorite District Judge) decision on their ludicrous and laughable legal lamentations attempting to get the entire ASD Civil Forfeiture case overturned.  Right……..

I suppose someone should give them credit for their tenacity, but I am not anyone who would do that. It is just another reminder of the skewed “logic” and belief in internet nonsense as seen in Kenneth Wayne Leaming’s filings; Leaming had been in communications with Todd and Dwight to gift them with his vast legal knowledge; after all, Leaming is a self-professed “Private Attorney General”.  However, it should be noted that Leaming is in Federal Custody following his Pro Se representation of himself and subsequent conviction on 7 Felony counts. His sentencing hearing is scheduled in May.  So much for his brilliant legal mind, eh?

As part of the reasoning behind this Petition, they reference a Youtube video that supposedly details the rapid changes in technology:

“It is axiomatic that we live in exponential times where technology is growing faster than our ability to integrate it into the systems meant to manage it, and take it into account  1

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U at minute 5:00 through minute 5:05

They go on to mention the archaic tactics used in the Civil War and how they were repeated for 5 years, then add this:

A famous Law Professor once observed that the ‘Law’ is the grease on the gears of civilization and went on to say that a lawyer’s job is to teach. As was pointed out in the decision, the use of summary affirmance should be restricted to those cases where the merits are so clear that expedited action is in fact, justified. Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294,297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The merits of the Appellees motion for summary affirmance however, are far from clear, and for the same reasons that kept General Picket from objecting to the sending of his troops to the slaughter. The decision to grant summary affirmance is not justified by the reasoning employed to grant it.

There are 9 pages of this nonsense in the Petition, none of it seems to make sense to anyone but Dwight Schweitzer. I have uploaded this document onto the Files website.

ASD Justice Loses Appeal, Appellate Court Orders Summary Affirmance

Posted by ASDUpdates on February 26, 2013No Comments

As most of you know, I have little sympathy for the ASD Justice group, yet another group that took in donations so they could affect some legal outcome that no one but they could provide.  Over the years I have been watching scams, there are always people who will promise the moon and accomplish absolutely nothing.  There were only two people on the planet that held any hope of the D. C. Federal Court of Appeals ruling against Judge Rosemary Collyer’s dismissal of their ridiculous civil case, none other than prominent ASD, Zeek and other schemes Todd Disner and  suspended attorney Dwight Owen Schweitzer.

The legal theory proposed in the lawsuit did not work in the original ASD civil forfeiture case, but they thought they could get donations from the ASD followers and file another case in which they question the original affidavit that secured the seizure warrant.  (See Einstein’s definition of Insanity)  I hope that this information makes its way to Fun Club’s attorney Rodney Alexander, who has had calls with Schweitzer and discussed legal strategies.  In my opinion, it demonstrates that both Todd Disner and Rodney Alexander should find another source for legal theories.

 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

The dismissal of appellants’ Fourth Amendment claim is affirmed on the ground that appellants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records allegedly seized. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998) (“[I]n determining whether a [party] is able to show the violation of his (and not someone else’s) Fourth Amendment rights, the ‘definition of those rights is more properly placed within the purview of substantive Fourth Amendment law than within that of standing.’” (quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 140 (1978))). “[A] person has no legitimate  expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744-45 (1979), “even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed,” United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976). Appellants therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in records allegedly stored on a third party’s computer server.

Moreover, appellants have shown no abuse of discretion in the denial of their motion to recuse the district court judge. Appellants’ purported evidence of bias amounts to nothing more than their disagreement with the judge’s actions in presiding over a related matter, and “judicial rulings . . . virtually never provide a basis for recusal.” SEC v. Loving Spirit Found. Inc., 392 F.3d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

 

USA files Reply in Further Support of Summary Affirmance in ASD Justice appellate case

Posted by Don on January 8, 2013One Comment

The USA has responded to Disner and Schweitzer’s  latest opposition in their appeals case.  They apparently still feel that somehow their “rights were violated” but seem unable to make much of a legal case to back up that position. Judge Rosemary Collyer (my favorite District Judge) saw the original filing for what it was, an attempt to somehow negate the entire ASD civil forfeiture case all in one swoop, by getting the initiating affidavit thrown out.  So far, this has not proven to be successful and I doubt it ever will.

It is no secret that I have been certain of the failings of this venture since its inception, it boggles the mind that it was ever thought up, let alone actually filed. The legal theory put forth is one that could be best described far fetched/deluded, and I have not been afraid to advance that opinion. However, Schweitzer now have larger fish to fry, namely his and Disner’s involvement in Zeek Rewards as Diamond Affiliates. They have a much larger exposure with Zeek than they ever did in ASD.  Let us also remember that Schweitzer is also supposedly in contact with Rodney Alexander and discussing “legal” stuff, as detailed in one of Craddock calls.

The USA has stated this jewel in their filing:

Notwithstanding the voluntary disclosure of their information to ASD, Appellants attempt, without any legal basis, to assert a Fourth Amendment challenge to the validity of the Government’s search and seizure of ASD property in connection with civil forfeiture actions. On appeal as below, Appellants have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that their Fourth Amendment rights, rather than those of a non-party, had been violated. Moreover, Appellants’ continued attacks on the District Court’s rulings fall far short of establishing any valid basis for a recusal motion. Consequently, the District Court correctly granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for want of standing and properly denied Appellants’ motion for recusal, and its decision should be summarily affirmed.

They continue with the following points in support of their position:

  1. Appellants Lack Standing to Challenge the Search and Seizure of ASD Property
  2. Appellants’ Dissatisfaction With the District Court’s Rulings Fails to Present Any Valid Basis for Recusal

In the last topic mentioned, the USA said,  “Offering nothing more than intemperate attacks on the District Court Judge, Appellants failed to raise any specific facts suggesting bias on the part of the District Judge.”

That sums it all up rather nicely.

 

“ASD Justice” files a Christmas Eve Appellant Document

Posted by Don on December 24, 2012No Comments

Apparently, Disner and Schweitzer have taken some time away from their involvement in Zeek Rewards to file something in their Appeals case. As some of you might remember, these two Diamond Affiliates in Zeek are seeking to appeal the decision by Judge Rosemary Collyer to dismiss their claims that the Affidavit and Search Warrant that began the ASD Civil forfeiture case was defective and therefore, the entire case was flawed from its onset.

The case, 12-cv-24008, was filed in the Southern District of Florida and presided over by Judge Altonaga.  Following many months of flagrant filings and the Judge’s denying of many motions from Schweitzer, the US filed a Motion to Transfer to the DC District, which was granted in late July 2012. To most of us, the transfer to DC made perfect sense; Judge Collyer had presided over the Civil and Criminal case against Andy Bowdoin and ASD and was uniquely familiar with all aspects of the cases.

It goes without saying that this was the very last thing these two wanted to happen, mostly because Judge Collyer does not put up with any BS.  Judge Collyer dismissed the ASD Justice case in August, then denied the Motion to Reopen, Set Aside Judgement and a Motion to Recuse herself in October.  Within a week of this last denial of motions, an Appeals case was filed.

Disner and Schweitzer have been litigating the case as Pro Se filers for  over a year now and seem to be unwilling or unable to accept that their case has no merit and no foundation, as indicated in Judge Collyer’s Opinions. (See Files website for the ASD Justice documents)

Part of the problem here is that “ASD Justice”, just like Fun Club USA, claims they are doing this for all members, not just for themselves. In their filings, Disner and Schweitzer have maintained the defective search warrant, violations of the 4th Amendment, and withholding of Back office information necessary to file their Tax returns.  They claimed that information on the ASD servers was Confidential and Secure information because the website began with “HTTPS”, a claim that has no legs. HTTPS means the site uses SSL encryption, not that the information is secure from the eyes of Law Enforcement.

They further claim that without this information, they might have exposure for tax evasion. It makes one wonder why they did not keep their own records along those lines or at a minimum, do periodic printing of the back office information. Disner and Schweitzer had that ability, the mere fact they chose not to utilize it does not make it a case for a Federal court. This same “Back office” line of missives is also present in the Zeek rewards case, where people say they need that back office information for their tax filings.

Record keeping is not a strong point in these types of schemes, it seems.

Government responds to “ASD Justice” Appellate filing

Posted by Don on December 11, 2012No Comments

There has been some recent activity in the “ASD Justice” lawsuit/appeal, a filing in which Todd Disner and Dwight Schweitzer attempted to sue for the 4th Amendment rights of other people besides themselves.  Having failed to make a case, their lawsuit was dismissed. Then, they decided to file a Motion to set aside and recuse the Judge, which was also denied.  So, they decided to file an Appeal, because they believe that they have a case and that they were not heard.  But, that was the problem all along; there WERE heard along with the Bizarro World legal theories they put forth.

These same Bizarro World legal theories have been advanced in the Zeek Rewards case as well, based on conference calls indicating that Schweitzer (a suspended attorney) has consulted with Rodney Alexander, one of the several  attorneys for Fun Cub USA.

Below is the latest filings in the ASD Justice Appellate case, most notable is the unclaimed Certified Mail sent to Todd Disner.  Does this affirm that Disner is really in Hong Kong to assist with the new program and “lost” his passport?  Or does this tell us something else?  They all think no one knows the name of this new program they are promoting but that is not necessarily true, like many things they say.

12/05/2012 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURNED [1408482] marked “return to sender – unclaimed – unable to forward”. Certified Mail [1401403-2] had been sent to Party Todd C. Disner. [12-5328]
12/10/2012 Open Document MOTION filed [1409161] by USA for summary affirmance. (Response to Motion served by mail due on 12/26/2012) [Service Date: 12/10/2012 by CM/ECF NDA, US Mail] Pages: 1-10. [12-5328] (Lo, Michelle)

 

APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

Appellee, the United States of America, respectfully moves this Court for summary affirmance of (1) the Opinion and Order issued on August 29, 2012 (Exhibit A hereto), by the Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer, granting the Government’s motion to dismiss, and (2) the Order issued on October 5, 2012 (Exhibit B hereto), by the Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer denying Appellants’ motion to reopen the case, set aside judgment, and for recusal. The District Court’s two decisions correctly dismissed Appellants’ complaint for lack of standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim. Summary disposition is appropriate because the “merits of this appeal are so clear as to make summary affirmance proper.” Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “[N]o benefit will be gained from further briefing and argument of the issues presented.” Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

I have uploaded this Motion onto the Files website.

Fun Club USA posts Subpoena info, such as it is…..

Posted by Don on November 6, 20124 Comments

Here we have today’s update as promised, only a day late.  I will point out to you that I do nor condone, recommend or advise anyone to use their law firm,  Consult your own legal experts before acting on any advice from Fun Club USA or its spokesman.  Subpoenas requiring you to provide information in a Civil or Criminal matter is not an extraordinary request and is a court issued document that should not be ignored. There are penalties for failure to comply.

While I have no opinion either way about the law firm of Alexander Ricks, PLLC., if every one of the first 1,200 who  received a Subpoena uses them, they make $360,000 in fees. I suppose if they do anything of substance, it might be worth the money. However, you have to make your own decisions about what is best for your own interests.

Fun Club USA, LLC reminds me of the infamous ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA), who promised people things that were never delivered after they took in money. Much of what has been said by FCU and its people are echoes of what happened in the ASD Civil and Criminal cases which started out in a similar fashion, namely, seizure of assets.

November 6, 2012

Greetings good people, update to the conference calls on Saturday November 3, 2012.

For everyone that has received a subpoena for information from Kenneth Bell, you like us believe that Kenneth Bell is fishing for information to intimidate and to get you to voluntary turn over monies you earned by bringing value to the Zeekler Penny Auction.

As I clearly stated, you are not under any court order to turn over any funds and it is our position that Zeek Rewards was a legal business model, claims stating otherwise are false.

Our law firm is now willing to take on the people that have received subpoenas from Kenneth Bell and respond to them for you. The firm has come up with a flat rate for doing this and it is quite affordable.

You will be listed on the court records as being represented by the firm and they will file the objection to Kenneth Bell’s subpoena request for you. You have 14 days to file an objection and the clock is ticking. Because this is only impacting a small percentage of people we decided to not ask the entire group to help fund this, and the law firm has agreed to do this on a flat fee per person needing assistance of just $300 dollars.

Only people that have received subpoenas should call the law firm.

Please contact the attorneys directly to get more information the contact person at Alexander Ricks PLLC is:

Clark C. Walton

Counsel

Alexander Ricks PLLC

2901 Coltsgate Road, Suite 202

Charlotte, North Carolina 28211

(704) 200-2637 direct

(704) 365-3676 fax

Deadlines set for ASD Justice appeal

Posted by Don on October 26, 2012No Comments
10/24/2012 CLERK’S ORDER filed [1401391] directing party to file initial submissions: APPELLANT docketing statement due 11/26/2012.APPELLANT certificate as to parties, etc. due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT statement of issues due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT underlying decision due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT deferred appendix statement due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT notice of appearance due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT transcript status report due 11/26/2012. APPELLANT procedural motions due 11/26/2012.APPELLANT dispositive motions due 12/10/2012; directing party to file initial submissions:

APPELLEE certificate as to parties, etc. due 11/26/2012. APPELLEE entry of appearance due 11/26/2012. APPELLEE procedural motions due 11/26/2012. APPELLEE dispositive motions due 12/10/2012.

Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution. The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [12-5328]

UPDATE:  Both Disner and Schweitzer have sent in the Return Receipts, by Certified Mail,  for Appellate Court Orders, 10/24/12

Robert Craddock distances himself from Trotter’s “Update”

Posted by Don on October 24, 2012One Comment

Below is an “update” from Zteambiz.  It seems they are distancing themselves from an email going around which makes reference to the conference calls made by Craddock, even though these calls have been documented online and spoken of on other forums. I also have communications from a reader of this blog who attended one of these Craddock calls.

October 22, 2012

Greetings good people; there are no updates at this point but one big concern, there is an email being circulated around from a Richard Trotter and a NPHC Stock update.

Folks, I can’t say enough times, we are not posting anything that can cause a disruption for the attorneys working to assist us. This email was not authorized from us, we did not prepare it and I cannot validate it accuracy.

Please do not circulate it or post it anywhere as it can only cause disruption and increase our fees with the law firms.

I do not know who Richard Trotter is and would caution anyone from passing on any information sent by Richard Trotter as this is not how we will work though the challenges, currently facing us

Thanks

Robert

I find it completely incredulous that Robert Craddock would disavow any and all knowledge of Richard Trotter, especially since they are both Diamond Affiliates in Zeek Rewards and most likely have rubbed elbows at one time or another.  It is also too late to tell people not to post this “unofficial” update from Trotter because it has already made its way around the internet and elsewhere.

What really brings Craddock’s explanation into question is the email address on which I received this Trotter update is the very same email address that I signed up for updates from the Zeek Diamond Affiliates group, which I believe are the self-same “Circle of 12”. I mean, it’s not like we need any other reasons to call Craddock’s motives and explanations into question.  He does that all on his own and seems to not need outside help.

Let’s see if the attorneys actually believe this garbage.

“ASD Justice” gets an Appeals case assigned

Posted by Don on October 22, 2012No Comments

The docket information shows that the US Court of Appeals has entered case number 12-5328 for the ASD Updates case.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 12-5328 Docketed: 10/22/2012
Nature of Suit: 2440 Other Civil Rights
Todd Disner, et al v. USA, et al
Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Civil US
     2) United States
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0090-1 : 1:12-cv-01302-RMC Lead: 1:12-cv-01302-RMC
     Trial Judge: Rosemary M. Collyer, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 08/07/2012
     Date Order/Judgment:      Date NOA Filed:
     08/29/2012      10/12/2012

10/22/2012 US CIVIL CASE docketed. [12-5328]
10/22/2012 Open Document NOTICE OF APPEAL filed [1400814] by Todd C. Disner and Dwight Owen Schweitzer seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:12-cv-01302-RMC. Assigned USCA Case Number [12-5328]

ASD Justice files an Appeal and continues to flagellate the deceased equine!!

Posted by Don on October 17, 2012One Comment

It took them long enough, and a prod, for them to file their soon-to-be-denied Appeal in their Fourth Amendment case following Judge Rosemary Collyer tossing their Motion to Reopen, Set Aside and Recuse. The game they are playing continues to have Disner and Schweitzer on the losing side. As Judge Collyer has pointed out, they cannot make a Fourth Amendment claim for anyone but themselves and that once they give their personal information to a third-party, their expectation of privacy suffers defenestration.

It makes me wonder if the case that Schweitzer quotes in his C.V. went before the US Supreme Court arrived there in a similar way. One can continue to appeal until it reaches the last court, even though the suit is without merit and based on some misguided legal theories. Many people, including myself, have said this argument will never go in the favor of ASD Justice, because it is based on flawed logic.  The US District Court of D.C. has agreed.  It would make no difference which Judge hears their case the answer would be the same, Dismissed and Denied!