Tuesday, December 23, 2014

BREAKING NEWS: "STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD"! Ingersoll Co-Defendant Roy C. Bradley's Fraud Trial Delay Tactics Rejected By Judge Who Questions How Formerly Indigent Bradley "Can Now Afford To Retain Counsel"

Could the missing Grand Traverse Academy millions looted by Steven Ingersoll be helping to fund legal delay tactics?  

And just where is Roy Bradley getting the money to hire a new lawyer?

In what may prove to be the most infamous stall tactic since Idaho Senator Larry Craig and his "wide stance", Roy Bradley’s brazen attempt to overturn his December 2 federal asbestos-related convictions (and derail his upcoming February 2015 federal fraud trial) by hiring a new attorney was rejected December 22 by US District Judge Thomas L. Ludington.

In the first of two orders filed in Bradley's two federal cases yesterday, Ludington rejected Southfield attorney Mark Satawa’s December 12 “stipulation and proposed order to replace Roy Bradley’s appointed counsel” in the asbestos mishandling case, striking from the record Satawa’s “unauthorized filings” requesting a new trial for Bradley.

In his order, Ludington pointedly noted that Satawa’s stipulation did not explain why Mr. Bradley is “attempting to change counsel for the third time, nor does it address how he can now afford to retain new counsel—especially in light of the representations he previously made that he cannot afford to retain counsel.”

In addition, Ludington issued an order rejecting a December 19 stipulation submitted by Satawa for a proposed “substitution of counsel” in Bradley’s upcoming federal fraud trial. Co-defendants in that trial include Bradley’s wife, Tammy, Steven Ingersoll, his wife Deborah, and Ingersoll’s brother Gayle.

Prior to his asbestos trial, Bradley testified “under oath” that he was “financially unable to afford counsel”, and submitted a financial affidavit attesting that he could not afford to retain an attorney on his own dime. Ludington’s order noted that “Mr. Satawa’s stipulation does not explain how, eight months after the (fraud) Indictment was filed, Defendant Bradley can now afford to retain counsel.”

The order notes that “Satawa has not represented that he will be prepared to proceed to trial on Bradley’s behalf by February 10, 2015.”

Quelle shock!


When the asbestos case was filed on August 29, 2013, Bradley retained Andrew Concannon to represent him. Concannon represented Bradley for approximately nine months, and on May 13, 2014, Concannon made an oral motion to withdraw as counsel. Concannon explained that he should be allowed to withdraw because “Bradley had not been making payments for his
legal services.” 

Concannon’s request to withdraw was granted and Elias Escobedo was appointed on May 20, 2014.

Bradley was provided court-appointed counsel in the asbestos case because he had already been appointed counsel in the fraud case, United States v. Ingersoll, et al.  In that case, Bradley filed a financial affidavit and requested appointment of counsel, which was granted. The court appointed Bradley counsel in the asbestos case relying on the same affidavit that was submitted in the Ingersoll case.

After the government rested its case, Bay City attorney Jeffrey Day attempted to substitute into the case as counsel for Bradley. During Bradley’s trial, Day explained that Bradley had sought to retain him and had asked that Day represent him in the remainder of the trial.

The government opposed the request for substitution of counsel, believing that “it’s basically another attempt by Mr. Bradley basically to derail these proceedings.”

The court denied Day’s attempt to substitute in as counsel for Bradley because (1) Bradley had already been represented by two different attorneys in the case; (2) Bradley had filed a financial affidavit under oath indicating that he could not afford to retain counsel; and (3) the request for substitution was untimely.

After the court denied Day’s motion to substitute in, Escobedo continued to represent Bradley and the defense rested without calling witnesses or introducing evidence. On December 2, 2014, a jury convicted Bradley on all four counts of the indictment.

After Bradley was convicted, Satawa attempted to substitute in as counsel for Bradley.

Ludington found that “Bradley has not demonstrated good cause for allowing substitution of counsel”, rejecting Satawa’s stipulation to substitute in as counsel for Bradley.

And, because Satawa is not an attorney of record in this case, his unauthorized filings have already been stricken from the docket.

But, since your girl Miss Fortune has such a huge cranium, she had the presence of mind to download and save this 25-page motion jewel...and grand jury testimony detailing how Roy Bradley, on behalf of Steven Ingersoll, hired “employees” directly from a Bay City homeless shelter...paying them off the books, in cash.

No comments:

Post a Comment