Gayle Ingersoll's explanation?
He merely volunteered to serve subpoenas on behalf of Roy C. Bradley, Sr. to avoid the expense of having Steven Ingersoll’s private investigator do the job!
If l'affaire Ingersoll wasn't already weird enough, here's another log to throw on the crazy fire!
Gayle Ingersoll, co-defendant and brother of federally-indicted Steven J. Ingersoll, just had the terms of his bond modified.
And like his brother, Gayle Ingersoll is charged in an with an assortment of financial crimes:
He is charged with Steven Ingersoll, Deborah Ingersoll, Roy C. Bradley, Sr. and Tammy Bradley with bank fraud conspiracy charge in count 1 of the April 27, 2014 superseding indictment.
In count 2, Gayle Ingersoll is charged with Steven Ingersoll and Bradley with conspiracy to obstruct the IRS.
In count 5, Gayle Ingersoll is charged with Steven Ingersoll with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud.
With all those counts, you might think Gayle Ingersoll wouldn't have lots of free time to loll around a federal courtroom watching an asbetos mishandling trial.
And you'd be wrong!
According to a motion filed by the government on December 2, Gayle Ingersoll attended nearly all of Bradley's eight day asbestos trial. However, on the day that the government rested its case-in-chief, Gayle Ingersoll left from the courtroom to “secure a new attorney for Roy Bradley and also to serve and attempt to serve government witnesses who had concluded their testimony with new trial subpoenas not authorized by the attorney for Bradley.”
Marna Wilson testified very briefly in the government’s case-in-chief on November 25, 2014, saying little more than what her agency records said regarding the dates that construction on the Bay City Academy renovation project began and ended.
As Wilson was trying to leave the courthouse after the
conclusion of her testimony, she was “confronted by Gayle Ingersoll.”
Gayle Ingersoll, described in the government's motion as “a man of substantial bulk”, was lying in wait for Wilson at the bottom of the stairs leading to the ground floor, a location that ensured that Ingersoll would be able to confront Wilson. Ingersoll served Ms. Wilson with a purported trial subpoena (shown at left).
Wilson later described the incident and characterized it as
Ann Whitaker, a witness from the State of Michigan laboratory who had simply testified regarding her analysis of asbestos and paint samples for MIOSHA, had a similar encounter with Gayle Ingersoll.
However, Whitaker evaded Gayle Ingersoll’s service efforts, retreating to the court’s security screening station, and telling the court security officers about Gayle Ingersoll’s presence in the
After confirming that Whitaker had completed her testimony and
that she had been released from her subpoena, the officers took Whitaker out of the building via an alternate route.
Ann Whitaker subsequently called one of the case agents and reported that she was “disturbed” by the incident.
Elias Escobedo, Bradley's attorney in the asbestos case, was contacted by phone by government attorneys about Gayle Ingersoll's antics because his name was on the subpoena served on
Escobedo claimed that he “did not prepare subpoenas for Marna Wilson nor Ann Whitaker.” Mr. Escobedo also stated that he did not see a reason why he would want either person to return to the courthouse on December 1, 2014, for additional testimony in the asbestos trial. Mr. Escobedo indicated that he would contact Bradley and tell his client not to serve subpoenas on people that he, as Bradley's attorney, did not intend to call as witnesses.
During a December 19 evidentiary hearing, the government presented the two witnesses — Wilson and Whitaker — who testified that they were intimidated when Gayle Ingersoll had served them with the unauthorized subpoenas in the courthouse, having just completed their testimony and been excused from their subpoenas with the concurrence of Roy Bradley's attorney.
The government also presented the testimony of court security officers who had observed Gayle Ingersoll serve the witnesses and had assisted one of the witnesses afterward.
After the government presented its evidence, Gayle Ingersoll presented the testimony of Elias Escobedo, who was Roy Bradley’s court-appointed attorney in the asbestos mishandling case. Escobedo explained that he had met with Roy Bradley and — at Bradley’s request — Steven Ingersoll, Gayle Ingersoll, Roy Bradley’s daughter, and Tammy Bradley the night before Gayle Ingersoll attempted to serve the subpoenas.
Escobedo stated that, although “he advised against serving
subpoenas or calling witnesses for trial, he did not intervene.” He further explained that Mr. Bradley had been convinced by the others that subpoenaing the witnesses was in Bradley’s “best
After both parties had presented their evidence, Judge Ludington denied the government’s motion to revoke Gayle Ingersoll’s bond.
The December 23 decision was based on two findings.
First, that although the witnesses felt intimidated by the interaction (especially given the height and size differential between Gayle Ingersoll and the witnesses), there was nothing to suggest that Gayle Ingersoll “had intended to intimidate the witnesses.”
Second, others and Mr. Bradley convinced Gayle Ingersoll that they had the authority to exercise the court’s subpoena power. Gayle
Ingersoll merely volunteered to avoid the expense of having Steven Ingersoll’s private investigator serve the subpoenas for Mr. Bradley.
Although Gayle Ingersoll’s bond was not revoked, Judge Ludington concluded that a modification of the terms of his bond was warranted.
Accordingly, Gayle Ingersoll will not be permitted to contact any person who may be a witness for the government in his upcoming fraud case.
Ludington directed the government to submit a proposed
witness list to the court and to furnish the proposed witness list to
Gayle Ingersoll on or before December 31.