While witness lists have not been made public, I suspect Ingersoll's pandering trained seal/business partner Mark Noss may be called to testify.
Those who attend will likely hear from Ingersoll himself, so here's a taste of what you'll be required to wrap your brain around.
In an excerpt from defense document #318, a July 5, 2016 supplemental brief addressing the government's assertion that Ingersoll obstructed justice and subject to a sentencing enhancement, Ingersoll's attorney Jan Geht offers his client's own testimony regarding diversion of a Grand Traverse Academy-related Traverse City State Bank line of credit for work done at the Bay City Academy:
"During the construction of Grand Traverse Academy – or of Bay City – of the Madison Arts project, I needed to put money into that project in order to get reimbursement from the bank.
I needed sources for that money. I used my line of credit at Traverse City State Bank. If you look at the bank statement at Traverse City State Bank the – I had a million dollars available.
I drew $756,000 from that line of credit from March of ’11 to June of ’11. I sent $752,000 of that to Roy Bradley and the bank finally blessed the work that was done.…I drew money off that line of credit and moved it from Smart Schools to me, to other LLCs that were involved in the effort to get Bay City done."
Geht continues, claiming the government asserted (without a direct quotation from the record) that “Ingersoll also indicated that TCSB was aware of and agreeable to his use of draws against the TCSB line of credit to fund the BCA project and that an email exchange with Dan Stahl at TCSB documented that understanding.”
Geht maintains in the July 5 memorandum that the government misleadingly provided "the false sense of inaccuracy" in the testimony.
Here is an excerpt of the actual exchange between Dr. Ingersoll and government’s counsel, included in the July 5 defense filing:
Q. Do you have anything from Traverse State Bank saying they were willing to have that line of credit be used on this project?
A. Yes, yes, and I --
Q. Is there -- I'd like to see that document.
A. Well, I'm about to explain it. We
Q. Is there a document?
A. There are several. They're emails, I mean, back and forth between Dan Stahl, the officer there. I intended to pay that line of credit down with tax credit monies on the Bay City project. He knew I was using that money temporarily for that purpose, and he was aware that I was going to pay that back when I -- when the tax credits came in.
Q. Do you have copies of those?
A. I do.
Q. Would those be business records of Smart Schools Management?
A. Well, they're emails. They're not --
Q. Yeah, but they document authority for transactions, correct?
A. Not exactly, no. They're -- they're emails about what's your plan to repay this, and --
Q. But you relied on that as the basis of your authority to use money from the line -- what you say is the line of credit account?
A. No, I didn't. This was after the fact. I just did it. I took -- I didn't ask the bank, hey, can I use this line of credit for Bay City. I didn't do that. I just did it. And then afterwards I said, hey, I'm going to -- you know, when he's saying when are you going to pay that line of credit and with what, I told him the tax credits that are coming on this project.
This direct quote demonstrates that Dr. Ingersoll testified that he took the money without TCSB’s explicit permission but then explained to the bank, in e-mails, how the line of credit was going to be repaid. Moreover, Dr. Ingersoll believed (and continues to believe) that he was authorized to do so based on the TCSB loan documents.
Not the "conduit theory" exactly, but the "it is what I say it is" theory.