}

Saturday, June 25, 2016

MARK NOSS & BRAD HABERMEHL WRITE LETTERS OF SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF STEVEN INGERSOLL TO MICHIGAN'S BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSING! Do They Think He'll Be Practicing His IVL Voodoo Behind Bars In Federal Stir?




Anita Senkowski
Glistening, Quivering Underbelly

Newly-released official documents raise even more questions about Ingersoll and his inner circle, misappropriation of $3.5 million.  

On April 27, 2016, just two days after the Grand Traverse Academy's April 25th board meeting, its AWOL president, Brad Habermehl, and the controversial head of its management company, Mark Noss, sent letters in support of convicted felon Steven Ingersoll to the Michigan Board of Optometry.

Yeah, shocked the hell out of me...not!

In an April 18, 2016 letter addressed to Steven Ingersoll at his Bay City home, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) directed Ingersoll to complete a Request for Conviction History form. 

A Miss Fortune Freedom of Information Act request obtained official LARA documents, including the Noss and Habermehl tear-stained letters.

In his email, Noss stated it would be "unfair" if Ingersoll's optometry license was revoked, and Habermehl said Ingersoll's tax crime convictions "did not represent" his character.






Noss should have read Brad Habermehl's October 21, 2015 sentencing hearing testimony before he wrote his April 27, 2016 ass-kissing email to the Michigan Optometry board. (Yeah, I know, it was probably dictated to Noss by his master, Steven Ingersoll!)

If Noss had read the testimony, he may not have bragged about the now-debunked "History of Grand Traverse Academy" document.

The following excerpt, taken from the official October 21, 2015 transcript, reveals United States District Judge Thomas L. Ludington deemed it unworthy of trust or credibility: “we can accept it for the limited proposition that it is a history compiled at this time by unknown folks, other than the witness, that has been placed on the website, but it is not substantive proof of any of the factual materials that are contained in it.”

We open our scene with defense attorney Jan Geht handing the distorted "History" document to Brad Habermehl:

Q: Okay. Let me show you a certain document. Dr. Habermehl, do you recognize what I’ve just handed to you?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Okay. And what is the document marked as Exhibit 13?

A: So this is the history of Grand Traverse Academy. This was put together with quite a few hours of not only myself but other board members and the management team to be placed on the Grand Traverse Academy website.

Q: And it was placed on the Grand Traverse Academy’s website?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Do you recall whether or not there was any opposition among board members to posting this narrative on the GTA’s website?

A: No.

Q: So the vote was unanimous?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall when that took place?

A: It was soon – it was – it was – I’m trying to think, March of 2013 is when that took place, I believe. March or April. It was soon after the resignation of – the resignation of Smart Schools. [NOTE: The "history" document was posted on the Grand Traverse Academy's website September 13, 2014.]

Q: Okay. Do you recall what events precipitated the resignation of Smart Schools Management?

A: Yes, I do. Because of the indictment of the IRS of Steven Ingersoll, his passion for the school, he approached the board and said it’s in the best interest of the school that he step down, that it was not in the best interest of the school that he remain as the management team.

Q: Okay. And so to help potentially clean up some earlier testimony, is that the point at which you became president of the GTA board?

A: Exactly.

Q: Shortly after the indictment was unveiled?

A: Correct.

Q: And is it still your testimony that you joined the board roughly five or six months before you became the president?

A: Correct. [NOTE: Habermehl joined the board in October 2012.]

Q: Okay. Can you describe the – what efforts went into creating Exhibit 13.

A: A lot of the efforts was going back to the year – back in the years on even how the school was thought to be even – to happen or become and, again, that – the big thing, too, is that we wanted to let the parents of our students know more about the history and why the school was special and why the school was even developed.

Q: And what efforts went into – well, at this point, I’d like to move into evidence Exhibit 12.

MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I’d like to object.

THE COURT: Is this 13?

MR. GEHT: Yes, Your Honor. It should have on the first pages –

MS. PARKER: Your Honor, I may want to do some additional voir dire here, but I object on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation, and I think there’s a lack of clarity of the source of data used to compile this, and I would want to – if the Court were inclined –

MR. GEHT: Your Honor –

MS. PARKER: -- so at this point I think I would – should be entitled to inquire who was the source of the information and the date of that source. I don’t think it’s relevant, and rather than waste time on that inquiry, I would ask the Court to do that now.

THE COURT: It could be quite relevant, particularly the section on page 3.

MR. GEHT: And, Your Honor, I wanted to introduce it before I got too far into the weeds. I have no problem establishing foundation.

THE COURT: So I think that we can accept it for the limited proposition that it is a history compiled at this time by unknown folks, other than the witness, that has been placed on the website, but it is not substantive proof of any of the factual materials that are contained in it, so –

MR. GEHT: That’s fair, Your Honor. I was going to ask him all those questions. I wanted to introduce it first, but I can ask those questions, the more substantive questions. That’s where I was going.

THE COURT: We’ll admit it for that limited purpose at this point until there’s any further foundation.

If you have a high tolerance for bullshit, you can read the "History" document at this link: http://cdn.bridgemi.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pdf2.pdf


7 comments:

  1. I am curiously awaiting the explaination from Dr. Mark Noss on how he was able to collect $65k in cash revenue (I believe that is how I recall it being listed) doing eye examinations for the kids at GTA that were considered "low income"??
    Don't most to all low income children have MI Medicaid coverage plans of some sort?
    That said, in fact if monies were collect to the tune of $64k for said low income eye examination, services rendered by Dr. Mark Noss, and no claims were submitted to Medicaid under his provider # as well as Tax ID, or if all these examinations were provided to the children they must be on his examination schedule at Full Spectrum Eyecare, right!?!
    Recap: If ANY of the low income children that were provided eye care from Dr. Mark Noss, are covered under a MI medicaid plan, and there is no documentation on his Full Spectrum Eyecare schedule for the names of these children, as well as documentation that claims have been submitted, received, and processed (which generates an Explanation of benefits) by the State for services rendered by MDN...
    Well then I would like to share that is insurance fraud on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Every child associated to this $65K deposited by MDN needs to be cross checked for insurance claims submitted. Medicaid fraud is a serious violation, people that have access to this information may want to do some research. .
    All these delays, and things not being reported, falling through the cracks.. The lies continue to tangle the web, maybe they have all been given enough rope to hang themselves?? From what I have read, these people who "think" they are 'untouchable'... they are starting to slime right into great descriptions of RICO, organized crime.. Karma is beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears the reader is commenting about a claim Kaye Mentley made both in her sworn affidavit (October 19, 2015), and her January 7, 2016 Ingersoll sentencing hearing testimony.

      Affidavit:
      "Steven Ingersoll also arranged for the GTA budget to include an item for “improvement of instruction”. At one point, I believe about $65,000 was budgeted for this item. Because I was in charge of hiring new teachers, I asked Steven Ingersoll if any of those funds were available to my use. Steven Ingersoll told me that the money had been paid to Mark Noss, the board president who was also an optometrist, because Mark Noss had provided eye exams to low-income students. Mark Noss later told me that he had never gotten any of the money."

      Q. And if I understand, you were trying to gain access to how much money was that?

      A. About $60,000.

      Q. To do something for the school?

      A. Correct.

      Q. And what was the response that Steven Ingersoll gave you?

      A. He said that that money, the bulk of it, went to Mark Noss.

      Cross examination by defense attorney Jan Geht:

      Q. When you talked -- do you remember the -- let me take this slightly out of chronology of your testimony, but do you recall talking about the instructional improvements line and Mark Noss and $60,000? Do you recall that line of testimony?

      A. Yes.

      Q. Okay. Do you recall whether or not Dr. Ingersoll told you that what the 60 -- what the bulk of that money was for is actually not to pay Dr. Noss for services but as reimbursement for glasses that were written pursuant to prescription that was done by Mark Noss and that Mark Noss essentially provided the glasses at cost and then provided the services for free?

      THE COURT: That was a heck of a question.

      MR. GEHT: Thank you. I tried.

      BY MR. GEHT:

      Q. Do you know whether or not Dr. Noss got reimbursed at cost for glasses that he provided to the students?

      A. All I know is Mark Noss telling me that he did not receive any of that money, and one of the reasons it sticks in my mind is because he kind of snorted and said, I wish I had received it.

      Q. For what? For providing the services or for providing the glasses? Did you -- or was your question not specific enough for him to potentially have answered it correctly?

      A. I imagine he could have answered it anyway he wanted but he didn't –

      Q. I appreciate that, but what was your question to him.

      A. My question was -- it wasn't even a question. My
      statement was –

      MS. PARKER: Judge, I think this is argumentative.

      MR. GEHT: It's not. I'm trying to understand what
      the question that was posed to Mr. Noss -- or Dr. Noss that he answered no.

      MS. PARKER: Well, that's not the simple response
      that she gave.

      THE COURT: I think we have a response from the
      witness at this point.

      MR. GEHT: Okay.

      So, as you can see, it's nearly impossible to determine whether or not Noss received money.

      However, it appears from Mr. Geht's questioning that Mark Noss provided his examination services gratis, but may have been reimbursed for the glasses and “essentially provided the glasses at cost and then provided the services for free”.

      Typical clusterf**k.

      If there is evidence that Noss collected Medicaid payments for the eye exams he purportedly (according to Steven Ingersoll)provided free of charge, then a report should be made and an insurance fraud investigation launched.

      Here's something I'm curious about: the term "low income" never appeared in any of my coverage.

      Delete
  2. Excellent example of just how devious these guys are. They are in it for personal profit and nothing else. The education of children and the mentoring of teachers, doesn't even matter to them. They are devious deceptive individuals that are one of the biggest charter school rip offs we will ever see. This is national news and all the local papers are too afraid to publish the truth. Mark Noss, Steve Ingersoll, Brian Lynch are all corporate welfare crooks. They are taking advantage of taxpayers, children and your town, Bay City and Traverse City, and no one is brave enough to stop their racket. If the truth were known these guys have probably lifted over 5 million, but who is doing anything about it. Obviously, not the Michigan Department of Education, they are in on it. Obviously, not the chartering university, Lake Superior State University, they are in on the deal also. Well darn, who else is getting paid off? Loads, that is how much money they are filtering out of the education of your children. Meanwhile the teachers are online begging for money, why because these charter cheaters are stealing the education system blind. Where is 60 Minutes? Where is Michael Moore? Is this story bigger than even they can handle?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The tax crimes of which he was convicted do not represent Dr. Ingersoll's character"? How dumb do they think we are? A jury of his peers finds Ingersoll guilty of three counts of various crimes and they think the public is going to swallow this "is not a reflection of his professional past, present, or future"? Well, it's definitely a reflection of his past criminal activities...and unless he has changed his ways (which the general public seriously doubts)it also reflects on his present and future. Wake up and smell the coffee? (Or is it an IVL special brew?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shouldn't be long now. Sentencing hearings pick up Monday and Tuesday, July 11th and 12th. More hearings may be needed, but maybe we'll have a happy beginning to the new school year in September and Ingersoll will have a 'happy' beginning to his new address: Federal Prison!

      Delete
  4. After Ingersoll's accountant died, wasn't there a fire and loss of the books? How convenient! And besides, how can any honest accountant piece together a fraudulent set of books?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just love the "IVL = I Value Loot" and it's all Integrated Visual Fraud... and let's hope that the whole bunch of those IVLers who value loot about decency, ethics, will be following in Ingersoll's footsteps to the path of indictment, trial, being found guilty and then sentencing.

    ReplyDelete