If he does, he's got some mansplaining to do, too.
Here's the defense response on behalf of Steven Ingersoll:
“On March 29, 2016, the Government filed a Supplemental Memorandum,
alleging that Defendant Dr. Steven Ingersoll obstructed justice by failing to disclose the licensing fees of $12,500 per month ($150,000 per annum) to the probation office and to the Court when he provided his income statement and balance sheet last fall.
Based on that alleged failure, the Government listed a number of accusations and speculations related to Dr. Ingersoll and others.
Rather than respond to these baseless accusations and speculations individually, Defendant draws the Court’s and the Government’s attention to the following information which rebuts
the basic premise of the Supplemental Memorandum.
First, the annual $150,000 licensing fee was disclosed in a note on the Balance
Sheet next to the value for Dr. Ingersoll’s investment in SSI.
Second, the actual
payments Dr. Ingersoll received from Mark Noss were disclosed on the Income
Statement as Schedule C income from SSB and SSI.
To the extent the Court or the Government needs further clarification on this
point, Dr. Ingersoll will testify to this matter next week.”
It's the battle of the documents!
Wonder if MLive or the Record-Eagle will cover this? Not likely.
But here are some things I'd like to know in case any of you hotshots are reading this:
1) Although 'Integrated Visual Learning' is the foundation of much of Ingersoll's intellectual property, official U. S. Copyright Office records reveal Ingersoll and Mark Noss share the copyright for the original 1994 IVL process text.
Could this mean Noss shared in the $300,000 annual "curriculum" payments Ingersoll received during the years he ran the Grand Traverse Academy, and is he still giving Ingersoll his 'cut'?
And, if so, is Noss taking the other $150,000 for himself?
“I have for years and continue to pay a proprietary fee for IVL’s Intellectual Properties that has allowed me to use it in my solely owned clinics, as well as more recently apply in in the GTA setting.”
2) Is Noss making additional payments to Ingersoll for those management services, including advice on 'regulation, compliance, and reporting', he described in his March 16, 2016 email response?
“When I was awarded the management contract for GTA two years ago, I realized there was a tremendous amount of knowledge for me to acquire quickly. I have utilized Dr. Ingersoll’s 18 years of school management expertise as needed for the benefit of GTA. I assure you he has never had access to any of GTA’s accounts since FSM has become the management company. I have spoken to him for guidance with respect to regulation, compliance, and reporting, as well as the requirements of the State of MI, LSSU, and our bond issue. GTA has never been compromised and has only benefitted from this communication.”
Setting aside the fact that relying on a convicted tax cheat for business management advice is nuts, how does Noss justify taking 9 percent of the Grand Traverse Academy's revenue ($850,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015) as his management fee if he needs 'help' from Steven Ingersoll?
3) Was Noss one of the five investors in the purported Steven Ingersoll $300,000 loan 'school project' described by Brad Habermehl? You remember: I and Steve are 2 of the five.
Back on December 8, 2015, Habermehl admitted during his sentencing hearing testimony that he, Ingersoll and former Lake Superior State University Charter Office head Bruce Harger were three of the project's investors. Habermehl initially denied he knew any of the other three, before finally coughing up Harger's name.