}

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

HEY, ME TOO! GAYLE INGERSOLL'S COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY FILES MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT BROTHER STEVEN INGERSOLL'S SENTENCING HEARING: Is He Just A Link In The Chain, Chain, Chain Of Evidence?

BREAKING NEWS!
Gayle Ingersoll's attorney, Joan Morgan, filed a motion this afternoon (September 30) seeking an order to quash the subpoena requiring him to testify during his brother Steven Ingersoll's October 20 sentencing hearing.


In the motion, Morgan states “Gayle Ingersoll’s testimony may violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. The court must insure that his answers cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate him, to provide a link in the chain of evidence against him, to provide investigatory leads to a criminal prosecution, and it protects against disclosures that he reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution against him, including a state prosecution.” 

Good God, even Robert Blake knew “don't do the crime if you can't do the time!”

In the motion, Morgan states that if the court refuses to grant the request to quash the subpoena, Gayle Ingersoll requests that the court set a date for his appearance. (Apparently, Gayle Ingersoll has conflicts with other court appearances for each day during the week of October 20, 2015. Wonder if he's taking a short trip down to Boca Raton?)

Miss Fortune is waiting for another shoe to drop — wanna bet Tammy Bradley is next with her motion to quash?

NOTE: Gayle Ingersoll was acquitted of the three counts against him: Count 1, Bank Fraud Conspiracy; Count 2, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States/Internal Revenue Service, and Count 5, Wire Fraud. These acquittals, however, do not protect him against charges by the State of Michigan, or other charges by the federal government (e.g., for substantive tax violations).

SLEEPING SINGLE IN A DOUBLE BED? Government Files Opposition To Deborah Ingersoll's Motion To Quash Subpoena; Government Asserts Deborah Ingersoll May Not Invoke Confidential Marriage Communications Privilege To Avoid Testifying During Hubby Steven Ingersoll's October 20 Sentencing Hearing, While Questioning The “Vitality Of The Marital Relationship” Between The Ingersolls!

“Several facts give reason to question the vitality of the marital relationship between Steven Ingersoll and Deborah Ingersoll going forward. For example, Steven Ingersoll filed his 2011 federal income tax return using the filing status of married, filing separately; Steven Ingersoll is facing a very lengthy custodial sentence; Steven Ingersoll has a history of marital infidelity and a prior divorce; and Deborah Ingersoll and Steven Ingersoll were both involved in the underlying prosecution in this case, but are confronted with different results.”
 September 29, 2015
Government's Opposition To Motion To Quash Subpoena

And with that pithy (and somewhat pissy) paragraph, government prosecutors began skewering Deborah Ingersoll's motion to quash the subpoena summoning her to testify during the sentencing of her hubby Steven Ingersoll and his other partner in crime, Roy C. Bradley, Sr.

In an expedited motion filed yesterday (September 29) in response to an order by Judge Thomas L. Ludington, the prosecution allowed that “Deborah Ingersoll may have a privilege to assert as to some aspect of the matter before the court, she may be required to testify regarding matters that are not privileged, making it inappropriate to quash the subpoena requiring her testimony.”

“The focus of the questioning anticipated by the government will be on joint criminal activity engaged in by Deborah Ingersoll with Steven Ingersoll. Therefore, Deborah Ingersoll may not invoke the confidential marriage communications privilege as to communications that involve joint criminal activity with Steven Ingersoll, even if she was an unindicted co-conspirator or an aider or abettor with regards to Steven Ingersoll.”  

Citing the Supreme Court decision in the Trammel case, government prosecutors asserted that privileges, “must be strictly construed and accepted ‘only to the very limited extent that permitting a refusal to testify or excluding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominate principle of utilizing all rational meant for ascertaining truth.’”

In plain language, Deborah Ingersoll bears the burden of proving that she has a valid marital privilege to assert during Steven Ingersoll and Roy Bradley’s sentencing hearing. 

Oh, snap!

Stating that “person asserting the marital privilege has the
burden of proving that a communication is a marital communication”, the government's response says that “Deborah Ingersoll has generically asserted a marital privilege regarding Steven Ingersoll. However, there are two distinct marital privileges, with different requirements that have not been addressed by Deborah Ingersoll in her motion.”


In Deborah Ingersoll's motion to quash, her attorney asserted the following:

“Ms. Ingersoll’s fear of prosecution, however, is not limited to a state court charge based on the bank fraud allegations. Steven Ingersoll was convicted of various tax related charges. Ms. Ingersoll, according to evidence introduced at trial, signed various documents, including tax returns, and conducted banking transactions. She is potentially at risk of the same type charges as those brought against her husband, state court action under state fraud and tax statutes, and currency reporting violations in this district and in the Western District of Michigan.

Given the government’s willingness to charge Ms. Ingersoll in the instant case she certainly is justified in assuming that anything she says will be used in some fashion to prosecute her again.”

ADVERSE SPOUSAL TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE

“The adverse spousal testimonial privilege protects one spouse from being compelled to testify against the other. This privilege may not be asserted after a marriage has been terminated. Further, this privilege may be exercised only by the testifying spouse.” Porter, 986 F.2d at 1018.

“‘The testimonial privilege looks forward with reference to the particular marriage at hand; the privilege is meant to protect against the impact of the testimony on the marriage.’” Id., quoting United States v. Byrd, 750 F.2d 585, 590 (7th Cir. 1984). Moreover, the marriage between Deborah Ingersoll and Steven Ingersoll need not have been formally terminated by divorce for the court to find that the marital relationship has been effectively terminated.


VITALITY OF THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP

In its response the government states that several “facts give reason to question the vitality of the marital relationship between Steven Ingersoll and Deborah Ingersoll going forward. For example, Steven Ingersoll filed his 2011 federal income tax return using the filing status of married, filing separately; Steven Ingersoll is facing a very lengthy custodial sentence; Steven Ingersoll has a history of marital infidelity and a prior divorce; and Deborah Ingersoll and Steven Ingersoll were both involved in the underlying prosecution in this case, but are confronted with different results.” 

And here's the kicker: “The focus of the questioning anticipated by the government will be on joint criminal activity engaged in by Deborah Ingersoll with Steven Ingersoll. Therefore, Deborah Ingersoll may not invoke the confidential marriage communications privilege as to communications that involve joint criminal activity with Steven Ingersoll, even if she was an unindicted co-conspirator or an aider or abettor with regards to Steven Ingersoll.”

Stating that “a generic fear of prosecution is insufficient”, the prosecution asserts that Deborah Ingersoll must “identify the nature of the criminal charge or supply sufficient facts so that a particular criminal charge can reasonably be identified by the court.”

In its conclusion, the government states “Deborah Ingersoll cannot simply assert a marital privilege and Fifth Amendment privilege and be absolved of her obligations under the subpoena that she seeks to quash. She has been subpoenaed to testify at a sentencing hearing that involves Roy Bradley, Sr., as well as Steven Ingersoll. She can assert the adverse spousal testimonial privilege only if she satisfies the requirement of establishing the current viability of the marriage.” 


And what about “taking the Fifth”? 


Wrapping up, the government states that “to the extent that the court finds that a line of inquiry is not precluded by virtue of either type of marital privilege, Deborah Ingersoll will need to do more than rely on her generic invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege in her motion. She will need to present appropriate proofs regarding her Fifth Amendment claims as the evidentiary hearing progresses.”

So what's your bet on Deb's wardrobe? Neiman Marcus...or Kohl's?

QUR’AN GOT IT GOIN’ ON: Islamic Prophet Muhammad Nails Hypocrisy

Entrepreneur Steve Ingersoll called the prevailing wage a "constraint" that keeps the commission from focusing on value and dollars. "Your job as commissioners is not to manipulate the marketplace, in contract services or commodities."
-Bay City Times
February 7, 2012
 
During its February 6, 2012 meeting, the Bay City Commission had three agenda items open for public comment. While no one attending the meeting spoke about the first two, the third — a motion to repeal the city’s prevailing wage ordinance — sparked a wave of reaction during the meeting. (A prevailing wage law mandates union scale wages on government-funded construction projects, regardless of who wins the bid.)

The Commission earlier had voted during its January 23, 2012 meeting to amend the city ordinance, making all contracts under $100,000 exempt from the prevailing wage guidelines. The second, confirming vote was required by Bay City to formally enact its decision.

And guess which tax deadbeat leech was quoted in the Bay City Times, urging the Commissioners to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars and vote to repeal the prevailing wage ordinance?

If you guessed Steven Ingersoll, you'd be correct! (OK, you saw his quote at the top of this post.) 


Yes, the same Steven Ingersoll whose Bay City Academy/Roy Bradley off-the-books construction crew laborers were paid a grand total of $250 dollars (cash money!) for a 60-hour week

And the same Steven Ingersoll who stopped paying Bay City property taxes in 2011 and, by February 2012, had likely embezzled millions of taxpayer dollars from the Grand Traverse Academy.

Yeah, that guy!

That Prophet Muhammad really knew what he was talking about.

As-Salaam-Alaikum!