Former Grand Traverse Academy superintendent Kaye Mentley famously circled the wagons days after Steven Ingersoll's April 10, 2014 indictment, proclaiming in an email that “the charges have nothing to do with the Grand Traverse Academy”. Kaye must be kicking herself.
Along with Mark Noss, who dashed off a jittery email (undated, but later quoted by the Detroit Free Press in a February 8, 2015 article) reacting to Ingersoll’s revelation of his IRS criminal investigation: “We now know it is likely Steve is going to jail. They are getting him for tax evasion for the pre-pay that has sat on GTA’s books they are now claiming is income.”
Noss continued, concerned that the “media exposé will devastating to the school”, and advised the Grand Traverse Academy Board to “be proactive and put a new management company in place before the media gets ahold of it”.
Ditto on the self-kick, right along with Kaye.
Late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington issued an order directing the defense and prosecution teams in the Steven Ingersoll federal tax fraud case “to file supplemental briefs identifying any remaining witnesses they intend to call as to the first sentencing issue”.
And by “first issue”, Ludington is referring to a potential sentence enhancement: whether Ingersoll should be assessed two additional guideline points for abusing a position of trust with Grand Traverse Academy.
The order listed the following witnesses had already been called and testified during the sentencing hearing's first round in late October: (1) James Camiller (CPA); (2) Michael Pemberton (EPA); (3) Michael Wisniewski (IRS); (4) Gayle Ingersoll (Bro); (5) Bruce T. Harger (former LSSU Charter office); (6) Margo Abbott (Ingersoll retainer); and (8) Brad Habermehl (GTA Board President).
When the hearing resumes December 8, three remaining issues will also be addressed:
(1) Proofs regarding the prosecution's contention that additional guideline points should be assessed for Steven Ingersoll’s leadership role in a criminal conspiracy
(2) Proofs regarding the assessment of Ingersoll’s tax loss from 2009 to 2011 to establish the correct base level offense
(3) Proofs regarding Ingersoll’s “financial solvency”
Ludington ordered both sides to identify any witnesses they intend to call as to each of the remaining three issues.
Watch this space to discover who may be called to testify in the case that has “nothing to do with the Grand Traverse Academy”.