}

Friday, December 30, 2016

3rd ANNIVERSARY OF DECEMBER 30, 2013 FIRE: Robert Buckhannon's Battle Creek Bar Burns, Arson Investigation Continues

ON DECK SPORTS BAR & GRILL ARSON STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION: Today marks the third anniversary of the destruction of Battle Creek's On Deck Bar in a suspicious fire...but who's counting!

The business was located in the former Sports Page Restaurant and Lounge building, which closed in 2011. 

On Deck opened in April 2013, but closed a month later amid allegations by one of its business partners, Per Wickstrom’s nephew Stephen Anderson, that the project was over budget and that employees were not being paid. 


Buckhannon, DeMoss
A settlement between Anderson and nominal owner Kelly DeMoss left the business in the hands of DeMoss and her then-fiancĂ© Buckhannon. 

DeMoss reopened On Deck in late November 2014 along with Buckhannon, who had been involved with the business from the beginning. 



DeMoss told the Battle Creek Enquirer shortly after the reopening in November 2014 that about 45 people were employed at On Deck and that thousands of dollars had been spent to refurbish the business. 

“We are coming back even twice as better as before,” DeMoss said, demonstrating her weak grip on proper grammar. “I’m thrilled about that.” 

Right. 

Robert Buckhannon was arrested on July 26, 2014 on a charge of misdemeanor Domestic Violence relating to a "girlfriend"—Kelly DeMoss. 

The arrest was made by the Saugatuck-Douglas Police Department, and Buckhannon plead guilty on May 8, 2015 to a charge of disturbing the peace and paid fines and fees totaling $625.00. 

Gee, and they once seemed so happy together! 

Buckhannon was arrested by FBI agents at a Henderson, Nevada coffee shop on October 1, 2014, for his alleged role in a $34 million dollar hedge fund fraud and charged in a criminal indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud. 



Buckhannon's trial is currently scheduled to begin on April 24, 2017 in United States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Buckhannon is currently a not-so-silent partner with former hedge fund associate Zia Shlaimoun in a shady clinical testing lab/bogus investment scheme under the Goldstar Laboratories, LLC banner.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

CASE CLOSED: 987 Days After Steven Ingersoll's Federal Tax Fraud Indictment Unsealed, His Case Is Officially Closed.

One week ago today, on December 15th, Steven Ingersoll was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison. Ingersoll was found guilty on March 10, 2015 of three counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, and two counts of tax evasion. 

According to the official judgment, issued yesterday by United States District Judge Thomas L. Ludington, Ingersoll will be placed in a “medical facility in the Bureau of Prisons”.

There are four levels in the Bureau of Prisons medical care level classification system. A provisional care level is assigned by the Designation and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC), based primarily on information contained in the presentence investigation report. After arrival at the designated facility, the provisional care level is reviewed and a non-provisional care level is assigned by BOP clinicians. These assignments depend on the clinical resources an inmate needs and his or her ability to function daily without assistance. 

Ingersoll will be notified by the United States Marshal Service regarding the federal institution and his surrender date, expected within the next few weeks.

But here's the thing: even though the government estimated his total tax debt between $550,000 and $1,500,000, and at least $2.0 million washed in and out of his pockets between 2012-2015 (years where he did not file a tax return, let alone actually pay taxes), Ingersoll's “criminal monetary penalties” are shockingly small.

Here's why: Judge Ludington waived “the imposition of a fine, the costs of incarceration and the costs of supervision, due to the defendant's lack of financial resources”. 

Add to that the fact that he's a fat, white guy with “Doctor” in front of his name, like his buds Mark and Brad, and you'll understand why the judicial system genuflected in front of this convicted felon.

Ingersoll was ordered to pay just $10,145.00 to the IRS, and only $11,762.23 for the cost of his prosecution—an amount estimated well north of $2.0 million.

Pick your chins up off the floor, bitches! 

Ludington did order Ingersoll to “fully cooperate with the IRS by filing all delinquent or amended returns” within six months of his December 15, 2016 sentence date and to “timely file all future returns that are due during the term of probation or unsupervised released”. 

Ooh, that's harsh!

Upon request by the IRS, Ingersoll is to furnish “information pertaining to all assets and liabilities”, and to “full cooperate by paying all taxes, interest and penalties due, and otherwise comply with the tax laws of the United States.” 

Right, I'll believe when I see it!

But Ludington did get tough-ish with Ingersoll: while in custody, Ingersoll is required to “participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program”.  

Now that's a joke I wish I'd written! 

I mean, why start now? Ingersoll managed to make off with nearly $5.0 million from the Grand Traverse Academy, and no one's holding him “responsible” for that!

Thursday, December 15, 2016

STEVEN INGERSOLL SENTENCED TO 41 MONTHS! Disgraced Charter School Management Honcho Headed To Federal Prison In The Next 30 Days.

BREAKING NEWS: Steven Ingersoll, convicted on March 10, 2015 of three counts of tax evasion and conspiracy, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Thomas L. Ludington to 41 months in federal prison. (Ingersoll faced a maximum of 60 months in prison.)

Ingersoll will be required to report within the next 30 days.

In its December 15, 2016 sentencing memorandum, the government stated: 

In general, the four purposes of sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. In a tax case such as this, the sentencing purposes of retribution and deterrence are especially important. A sentence within the guideline range of 41 to 51 months is necessary to accomplish those purposes. 

“When looking first at the need for retribution, Ingersoll has committed a serious offense, and his sentence should reflect it. His offense was not a one-time lapse in judgement, or a record-keeping mistake with purely civil tax consequences. His criminal tax-loss amount exceeds a million dollars. And he was convicted of tax evasion and fraud with respect to three years of false income tax returns. 

Ingersoll has done nothing to repay the money that he owes. To the contrary, he has continued to violate the tax laws to this day by failing to file any personal income tax return since 2012. 

The profit and loss statement that Ingersoll previously filed with the court shows that from 2012 to 2015, he earned over two million dollars in gross income. The only income tax payment he has made for those tax periods, however, was a $10,000 payment submitted when he applied for an extension to file his 2012 return.

Defendant’s repeated and significant criminal conduct warrants a lengthy sentence.”

Deterence:

“Ingersoll has been indicted and convicted of federal tax charges. He noted that his professional life has been ruined (though he still has income related to his intellectual property) and his name has been “dragged through the mud.” Yet, none of that has deterred him from continuing to violate the tax laws. A substantial sentence within the guidelines is necessary to deter Ingersoll from continued criminal conduct.”

Continuing, the government's sentencing memorandum states: 

“Because of its limited resources, the IRS cannot investigate many of the schemes involving false returns, and many tax-related crimes go unprosecuted. The government seeks a guideline sentence in order to deter other potential tax-cheats, including those like the defendant who believe that tax laws have purely civil—as opposed to criminal—sanctions. A sentence of probation or a custodial sentence below his guidelines (as requested by Ingersoll) would send the wrong message to the public.”

Request for a variance: 

Ingersoll made several non-health related arguments related to his request for a sentencing variance. The government argued that none of his arguments support a variance. (Ingersoll filed health-related arguments under seal.) 

“Ingersoll argues that he merely failed to document shareholder loans, and that the evidence in this case is consistent with the proposition that defendant believed that his intercompany transfers were shareholder loans. This argument is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict finding that the defendant acted willfully. If defendant truly believed that the transfers were shareholder loans, he would not have repeatedly argued to this Court that he was a mere conduit for his businesses and that the transfers to him should have no taxable effect. 

Defendant also claims that his unreported income would have been lower—to the tune of $840,000—if his historical tax credits had been approved and if the federal government had not blocked them.

It appears that Ingersoll is trying to blame the federal government’s denial of historical tax credits for his own income tax violations.

The Department of Interior denied Ingersoll’s request for historical tax credits after it determined that the Bay City Academy renovations did not comply with Department of Interior requirements. 

Even if the credits had been approved, a significant portion of them would be paid to Tim Hunnicutt, the project manager for the renovations at Bay City Academy. Nobody knows what Ingersoll would have done with the remaining credits.” 

Ingersoll also argued that the grand jury would not have indicted this case, had it not been for the allegations of bank fraud and the allegations that he took money from the Grand Traverse Academy.

“Again, Ingersoll appears to be trying to shift the blame for his situation to the government, but with baseless speculation. A grand jury’s job is to determine whether there is probable cause for a criminal charge. In this case, the petit jury convicted Ingersoll of tax violations even after the Court dismissed Count 1, and despite the Court’s evidentiary rulings regarding GTA. It seems highly unlikely that the grand jury would not have indicted when the standard of proof is so much lower for an indictment than what is required for a conviction.” 

Finally, Ingersoll presented the court with numerous sentencing tables to argue that probation or a below-guideline custodial sentence would “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” 

According to the government, the sentencing tables provided very limited information. 

 “They do not reflect offense-specific characteristics, such as acceptance of responsibility, role in the offense, or substantial assistance to the government. The best way to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities in this case is to impose a sentence within the guidelines.” 

The government recommended that Judge Ludington sentence Ingersoll within the guideline range of 41 to 51 months: 

“Defendant does not qualify for a downward departure or variance. His criminal tax-loss amount is substantial—in the range of $550,000 to $1,500,000. Ingersoll played a leadership role in the conspiracy to defraud the government, and he continues to violate the tax laws by not filing income tax returns.”