BREAKING NEWS!
An FBI spokesperson today confirmed in an email to Miss Fortune that Robert L. Buckhannon, former owner of Battle Creek's On Deck Sports Bar & Grill, was arrested yesterday morning in Henderson, Nevada—exactly nine months after a fire destroyed the bar.
Local sources also report to Miss Fortune that Buckhannon was arrested at a Las Vegas area Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf cafe, and taken into custody by undercover FBI agents, no doubt surprising the cafe's other java junkies.
Miss Fortune is working to confirm additional details of Buckhannon's arrest, including his charges and custody status, and should have more details shortly.
Stay tuned...
TAUNTING MISCREANTS SINCE 2012! AN INDEPENDENT, AD-FREE NEWS SITE--SHINING A LIGHT ON THE DARK UNDERBELLY OF FRAUD, CONS AND SCAMS FROM NORTHERN MICHIGAN TO LAS VEGAS, NEWPORT BEACH HAS ENDED ITS RUN. PUBLISHED CONTENT WILL REMAIN ONLINE, BUT MISS FORTUNE HAS SIGNED OFF! Due to lack of technical support by Google, I'm unable to respond to your comments.
Total Pageviews
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
INDIGENT: Ingersoll Co-Defendant Roy C. Bradley, Sr. Owes The IRS Over $250,000...And You're Paying For His Legal Defense!
On September 23, Roy C. Bradley, Sr. filed an ex parte motion in US District Court, requesting the court to "pay witness fees" relating to defense witnesses in Bradley's upcoming asbestos removal trial.The filing revealed that Bradley is "financially unable to provide the fees to serve the subpoenas, or pay witness fees for the appearance of his witness" for the trial scheduled to begin on Thursday, October 2.
The court directed Bradley to file a "supplemental brief", directing him to demonstrate “the necessity of the witness’s presence for an adequate defense”, identify his witnesses and provide a brief explanation for why their testimony is necessary to his defense.
Bradley's response included five witnesses not scheduled to be called by the government: a representative of boiler manufacturer, Cleaver Brooks; a representative from J and J Asbestos Removal; former Smart Schools employee Judy Gauthier; Marcia Demski, a consultant from the Michigan Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing; and a representative from Stephen, Moelter and Sierra Technical Services.
Late today, the government filed its response to Bradley's supplemental brief—and that "I" word comes up again: irrelevant.
THE FEDS RESPOND: "IRRELEVANT", THESE THREE WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE PRODUCED AT THE "PUBLIC'S EXPENSE"
The government did not oppose two of the witnesses on Bradley's list—the representatives from Cleaver Brooks and Stephen, Moelter and Sierra Technical Services.
In its response, the government objected to three prospective defense witnesses, stating that "the testimony of some of the witnesses at issue is irrelevant".
The second witness identified in Bradley's motion is a representative of J and J Asbestos Removal. Bradley stated that he "expects the representative to testify that the company removed asbestos from the mechanical room in the building at 400 North Madison, Bay City, Michigan, on August 15, 1998."
Pointing out that Bradley and Gerald Essex are charged with illegally removing asbestos that was present in the building "as of August of 2010", the government response rejects the J and J Asbestos Removal witness, explaining that "asbestos removed by J and J before the August 2010 asbestos survey is not part of the asbestos charged in this case."
In addition, Bradley's request to include Marcia Demski, the State of Michigan licensing consultant, was rejected by the government. Demski was selected by Bradley to testify regarding a day care licensing inspection conducted at 400 North Madison in March of 2010—before the building was purchased by Steven Ingersoll on behalf of Madison Arts, LLC, and well before the activities charged in the indictment had even begun.
The third prospective witness identified by Roy Bradley is Judy Gauthier, although no time frame was given regarding the testimony Gauthier would supposedly provide.
In addition, the government has not received "reciprocal discovery" regarding Gauthier's "alleged activities, such as invoices for asbestos abatement work supposedly performed pursuant to arrangements made by her as part of her employment by
Steven Ingersoll."
In the absence of such information, the government response reveals it "is left to suspect that any asbestos abatement activities that Ms. Guathier arranged as part of her employment by Steven Ingersoll would have been conducted in response to the discovery of asbestos in the building during the execution of a federal search warrant conducted in August of 2012 or thereafter, when Ingersoll was running a school in that building."
Again, the government asserted Gauthier's activities would therefore be "irrelevant because they were conducted after the time relevant to the indictment."
Miss Fortune expects a ruling on this shortly, and will bring the details as soon as they become available.
AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT—WHO'LL MAKE YOU A REAL SWEET DEAL ON HIS USED CHEVY AVALANCHE
A look into Bradley's financial picture proves he no Clarence Earl Gideon (look it up).In the photo at left, taken recently at Bradley's Thunder Cycle Columbus Avenue location in Bay City, you can see the late model Chevy Avalanche Bradley reportedly drove, clearly showing its $4,800 asking price on the windshield.
Although the Avalanche sports a Spitzer Auto Group custom front end license plate, the truck is not listed for sale on the Spitzer website.
Looks like Bradley may be running an unlicensed used car dealership...or did he just manage to buy up a big batch of used cars?
Whatever the case, a review of Bay County property records reveals Bradley really needs some dough.
In April, three of Bradley's properties entired the tax forfeiture foreclosure process, and owes nearly $58,000 in taxes for property he owns in Bay City and Hampton Township.
A home he and wife Tammy own at 1700 Center Avenue (just a block away from Steven Ingersoll's home) has racked up nearly $9,000 in unpaid Bay City taxes. Other properties owned by Bradley and his wife are 1016 14th Street, 903 E. Indiana Street, 510 Columbus Avenue (Thunder Cycle) and 948 W. Hampton Road.
TAXES, SCHMAXES! DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT PAYING YOURS? NEITHER DOES ROY. OH, WAIT...HE DIDN'T PAY THEM!
Here's the capper — even though IRS liens filed in Bay County reveal Bradley's into Uncle Sugar for nearly $250,000, he's still getting a free ride: you and I are paying for his defense.
And, even if things go the government's way this week, we'll still be paying — for three hots and a cot.
Monday, September 29, 2014
"SELF-SERVING, IRRELEVANT AND INACCURATE": Federal Prosecutors Respond To September 12 Motions Filed By Steven & Deborah Ingersoll
INGERSOLL "FISHING" FOR INFORMATION?
In three tersely worded motions filed late Friday, September 26, federal prosecutors responded to September 12 motions filed on behalf of Steven and Deborah Ingersoll.
Let's break down the government's opposition, motion by motion.
DISCOVERY: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, EXCULPATORY INFORMATION
The Ingersolls asked the court to order the "production of confidential informants and exculpatory information." In support of its opposition, the claims it has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery obligations in this case.
And, with a sharp verbal pimp slap, the government described Steven and Deborah Ingersoll’s discovery motion as premised upon "an assortment of self-serving irrelevant and inaccurate statements and erroneous conclusions."
The government reserved extra special scorn for Ingersoll's claim of shadowy "enemies", calling the allegation "simply irrelevant and inappropriately inserted into a discovery motion, apparently to garner some sympathy for the defendants."
In his motion, Ingersoll asserted that various recordings "made by a government witness were only produced because of
repeated demands by defense counsel". Again, the government termed that characterization as "inaccurate". Ingersoll's allegation that government witness Tim Hunnicutt engaged in “shockingly
unethical conduct” was dubbed by the government "an erroneous and unfounded conclusion."
The government again revealed it "voluntarily disclosed grand
jury transcripts long before it was obligated by law", using that fact to refute the claims made by the Ingersolls in their joint discovery motion.
The Ingersolls also attempted to invoke Rovario v. United States,
353 U.S. 53 (1957), supposedly to obtain access to the identities of government informants. The government noted in its opposition that the Ingersolls "failed to recognize United States v. Perkins, in which the Sixth Circuit noted post-Rovario that the government is not obligated to reveal before trial the identities of informants who will testify at trial."
Ironically, Steven and Deborah Ingersoll acknowledged in their motion that they "know the identity of a government informant" (likely Tim Hunnicutt) and made sure to name that person by name in their joint motion.
The government revealed the Ingersolls have already been given
Hunnicutt-related discovery containing copies of recordings, copies of correspondence, a PowerPoint presentation and his sworn grand jury testimony.
Finally, the government noted that Steven and Deborah Ingersoll claimed in their motion that they "are entitled to discovery of all agents’ reports of interviews."
The government noted "it is well-established that agents’ reports of interviews that are not adopted or approved by the witness are not subject to disclosure."
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Steven Ingersoll was charged in an April 10 indictment with an assortment of financial crimes. In count 1, he is charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In count 2, he is charged with conspiracy to obstruct the IRS. In counts 3, 4 and 5, he is charged with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud. Counts 5 and 6 charge Steven Ingersoll with attempted tax evasion offenses.
Steven Ingersoll has made a motion for a "bill of particulars" regarding counts 6 and 7 of that indictment. The purposes of a bill of particulars are to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of trial, and to enable him to plea his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes.
In its response, the government revealed that Steven Ingersoll has already been given "more than 3,100 numbered pages of discovery, plus additional discovery such as recordings and other records that are not numbered." The information includes materials that the government obtained from accountants and tax preparers who did accounting and tax preparation work for Steven Ingersoll and the entities to which he is related, records from his various bank accounts, and his own tax returns, among other things.
The government motion states that Ingersoll's motion for a bill of particulars is an attempt "to fish for information regarding the government’s theory of prosecution, asking how the government intends to prove its case rather than what evidence will be used in the process."
This government supports its theory by citing Ingersoll's "otherwise inexplicable pursuit of information regarding a net worth theory of prosecution, despite acknowledging in his motion that the government has told him that the attempted tax evasion charges in counts 6 and 7 are not based on a net worth theory."
The motion reveals that in addition to retaining the services of two criminal defense attorneys, (one of whom-Martin Crandall-is an extremely experienced trial attorney and the other-Jan Geht-was formerly an attorney for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice) Ingersoll has also retained the services of a forensic accounting firm. The government asserts that Steven Ingersoll "has both the information and the type of legal and accounting assistance needed to enable him to prepare to defend against the charges in counts 6 and 7 of the indictment."
FUTURE EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS
Steven Ingersoll also filed a motion seeking permission to file "unspecified evidentiary motions for unspecified relief at some future but undefined time."
The government opposition reveals it is generally understood that motions "in limine" (motions made before the trial begins) are not subject to the motion filing deadline established by the court.
The government explained that motions in limine often deal with evidentiary matters "that the court opts to defer resolving until the trial is in progress and the context of the motion is better understood." If permission "were needed to file a motion in limine after the motion filing deadline had passed", the “blank check” authority sought by Ingersoll would not appear to be an appropriate way to obtain that permission.
On the other hand, motions to "suppress" are evidentiary motions that can and should be made before the motion filing deadline established by the court. The government opposition reveals that "no such motion has been filed by Steven Ingersoll."
The government response indicates that if Ingersoll "finds it necessary to file a motion of that or similar nature in the future, he can seek the court’s permission to file his motion at that time. If the court grants the motion to file an evidentiary motion at that juncture, then Steven Ingersoll will have the opportunity to pursue the substantive motion that he has not found reason to file to date. He should not, however, be given a blank check to file an unspecified motion for unspecified relief at an unspecified future time by virtue of his current motion."
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington has ordered Steven and Deborah Ingersoll, and co-defendants Roy C. Bradley, Sr. and Gayle Ingersoll to appear at a motion hearing October 8 at 2:00pm.
In three tersely worded motions filed late Friday, September 26, federal prosecutors responded to September 12 motions filed on behalf of Steven and Deborah Ingersoll.
Let's break down the government's opposition, motion by motion.
DISCOVERY: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, EXCULPATORY INFORMATION
The Ingersolls asked the court to order the "production of confidential informants and exculpatory information." In support of its opposition, the claims it has complied, and will continue to comply, with its discovery obligations in this case.
And, with a sharp verbal pimp slap, the government described Steven and Deborah Ingersoll’s discovery motion as premised upon "an assortment of self-serving irrelevant and inaccurate statements and erroneous conclusions."
The government reserved extra special scorn for Ingersoll's claim of shadowy "enemies", calling the allegation "simply irrelevant and inappropriately inserted into a discovery motion, apparently to garner some sympathy for the defendants."
In his motion, Ingersoll asserted that various recordings "made by a government witness were only produced because of
repeated demands by defense counsel". Again, the government termed that characterization as "inaccurate". Ingersoll's allegation that government witness Tim Hunnicutt engaged in “shockingly
unethical conduct” was dubbed by the government "an erroneous and unfounded conclusion."
The government again revealed it "voluntarily disclosed grand
jury transcripts long before it was obligated by law", using that fact to refute the claims made by the Ingersolls in their joint discovery motion.
The Ingersolls also attempted to invoke Rovario v. United States,
353 U.S. 53 (1957), supposedly to obtain access to the identities of government informants. The government noted in its opposition that the Ingersolls "failed to recognize United States v. Perkins, in which the Sixth Circuit noted post-Rovario that the government is not obligated to reveal before trial the identities of informants who will testify at trial."
Ironically, Steven and Deborah Ingersoll acknowledged in their motion that they "know the identity of a government informant" (likely Tim Hunnicutt) and made sure to name that person by name in their joint motion.
The government revealed the Ingersolls have already been given
Hunnicutt-related discovery containing copies of recordings, copies of correspondence, a PowerPoint presentation and his sworn grand jury testimony.
Finally, the government noted that Steven and Deborah Ingersoll claimed in their motion that they "are entitled to discovery of all agents’ reports of interviews."
The government noted "it is well-established that agents’ reports of interviews that are not adopted or approved by the witness are not subject to disclosure."
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Steven Ingersoll was charged in an April 10 indictment with an assortment of financial crimes. In count 1, he is charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud. In count 2, he is charged with conspiracy to obstruct the IRS. In counts 3, 4 and 5, he is charged with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud. Counts 5 and 6 charge Steven Ingersoll with attempted tax evasion offenses.
Steven Ingersoll has made a motion for a "bill of particulars" regarding counts 6 and 7 of that indictment. The purposes of a bill of particulars are to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of trial, and to enable him to plea his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes.
In its response, the government revealed that Steven Ingersoll has already been given "more than 3,100 numbered pages of discovery, plus additional discovery such as recordings and other records that are not numbered." The information includes materials that the government obtained from accountants and tax preparers who did accounting and tax preparation work for Steven Ingersoll and the entities to which he is related, records from his various bank accounts, and his own tax returns, among other things.
The government motion states that Ingersoll's motion for a bill of particulars is an attempt "to fish for information regarding the government’s theory of prosecution, asking how the government intends to prove its case rather than what evidence will be used in the process."
This government supports its theory by citing Ingersoll's "otherwise inexplicable pursuit of information regarding a net worth theory of prosecution, despite acknowledging in his motion that the government has told him that the attempted tax evasion charges in counts 6 and 7 are not based on a net worth theory."
The motion reveals that in addition to retaining the services of two criminal defense attorneys, (one of whom-Martin Crandall-is an extremely experienced trial attorney and the other-Jan Geht-was formerly an attorney for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice) Ingersoll has also retained the services of a forensic accounting firm. The government asserts that Steven Ingersoll "has both the information and the type of legal and accounting assistance needed to enable him to prepare to defend against the charges in counts 6 and 7 of the indictment."
FUTURE EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS
Steven Ingersoll also filed a motion seeking permission to file "unspecified evidentiary motions for unspecified relief at some future but undefined time."
The government opposition reveals it is generally understood that motions "in limine" (motions made before the trial begins) are not subject to the motion filing deadline established by the court.
The government explained that motions in limine often deal with evidentiary matters "that the court opts to defer resolving until the trial is in progress and the context of the motion is better understood." If permission "were needed to file a motion in limine after the motion filing deadline had passed", the “blank check” authority sought by Ingersoll would not appear to be an appropriate way to obtain that permission.
On the other hand, motions to "suppress" are evidentiary motions that can and should be made before the motion filing deadline established by the court. The government opposition reveals that "no such motion has been filed by Steven Ingersoll."
The government response indicates that if Ingersoll "finds it necessary to file a motion of that or similar nature in the future, he can seek the court’s permission to file his motion at that time. If the court grants the motion to file an evidentiary motion at that juncture, then Steven Ingersoll will have the opportunity to pursue the substantive motion that he has not found reason to file to date. He should not, however, be given a blank check to file an unspecified motion for unspecified relief at an unspecified future time by virtue of his current motion."
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington has ordered Steven and Deborah Ingersoll, and co-defendants Roy C. Bradley, Sr. and Gayle Ingersoll to appear at a motion hearing October 8 at 2:00pm.
Friday, September 26, 2014
CAN YOU SOLVE THE MYSTERY OF BATTLE CREEK'S ON DECK SPORTS BAR & GRILL?
Not the fire--the Battle Creek Police Department is investigating that mystery.
There's another mystery, one that might even stump NBC's Keith Morrison: does a perplexing video Robert Buckhannon posted over two years ago prove he and Kelly DeMoss were married in July 2012 at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island?
The clip, amateur cinematography clearly influenced by watching too many East German hostage videos, shows Buckhannon's son (dressed in what looks like an official Grand Hotel cater-waiter blazer) rehearsing this wedding toast:
Friends, family:
Today on Mackinac Island there's magic in the air and memories in the making.
Somewhere in time, these two fell in love and today we celebrate the love that they have found, the lives they have lived and how they have touched each and every one of us in a profound way.
Looking back on how Dad met Kelly, their story is as charming as they are.
I remember the first time I saw these two together: Dad had that spring in his step I hadn't seen in years and Kelly--Kelly treated me as one of her own from day one.
Never have I met a more kind, more affectionate woman in my life and seen a couple so happy.
Although there was a little gap between then and the high school reunion a few years ago, I can see sparks fly when they are in each other's arms.
The two are head-over-heels for each other and I know that will never change.
These high school sweethearts have come a long way from big hair and vinyl records.
I'm not gonna lie--they did look ridiculous with the leather pants and mustache.
But would anybody expect anything else from the starting linebacker and teen queen cheerleader?
I'm sure my kids will say the same thing about me some day. I just hope that I can give them an upbringing comparable to the one they have given me.
It's been an experience I wouldn't change for the world. They have taught me by example, and made me realize what is truly important in life: friends, family and living life to the fullest.
To take the good with the bad and persevere until the day is done.
Through thick and thin, they have been best friends, lovers and the best set of parents a kid could ask for.
I don't know where I would be or who I would be without their guidance and love.
To Rob and Kelly!
Well, that touching toast didn't touch on this third rail in Buckhannon's complicated marital history: if he truly married DeMoss, he may have done so while still married to Marlena Michaels!
VIVA LAS VEGAS
Clark County, Nevada records show Buckhannon and Michaels took out a marriage license on May 15, 2009 and filed an "affidavit of marriage" shortly after 7:30am the next morning.
About three months after Buckhannon married Michaels, he returned to Michigan briefly for his 30th high school class reunion where he reconnected with "teen queen" and classmate Kelly DeMoss.
After an extensive search of Clark County records, I was unable to locate any evidence of a Buckhannon/Michaels divorce.
While it's possible the two divorced in another Nevada county, Buckhannon and Michaels competed together this past May in San Antonio at a "Gladiator Rock'N Run" event.
ON DECK SPORTS BAR AND GRILL DEMOLISHED; BATTLE CREEK PAYS THE BILL
The Battle Creek Enquirer reported recently that city awarded a contract to Markos Excavating of East Leroy, paying $35,900 to demolish the crumbling building.
The bar was declared an unsafe building by the city, but remained standing while investigators from the Battle Creek Fire Department, Battle Creek Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the fire that caused at least $1 million in damage.
Interim City Manager Susan Bedsole told the Enquirer that the city took control of demolition because the building posed a danger and it appeared "there was no insurance coverage for the cost."
BILLS, BILLS, BILLS...AND MORE BILLS!
The On Deck Sports Bar opened briefly in April 2013, closing about about six weeks later.
Kelly DeMoss and Per Wickstrom's pink-palmed nephew Stephen Anderson reportedly invested several hundred thousand dollars into remodeling the former Sports Page. (I suspect the bulk of that amount came from Anderson.)
Anderson originally sued Buckhannon on May 17, 2013 in Calhoun County's 37th District Court. Late last year, the two reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.
And Anderson, Buckhannon's not-so-silent partner, is still waiting for his money.
The bar closed amid allegations from Anderson that the project was over budget and that employees and vendors were not being paid by DeMoss and Buckhannon, who were operating the business.
Calhoun County court records reveal that Anderson again filed against Buckhannon on March 27, 2014 and on September 4 was granted a partial summary judgment.
Good luck getting that, and while you're waiting, maybe you can explain why a key member of the Narconon-based Wickstrom drug rehab cartel wants to own a bar.
There's another mystery, one that might even stump NBC's Keith Morrison: does a perplexing video Robert Buckhannon posted over two years ago prove he and Kelly DeMoss were married in July 2012 at the Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island?
The clip, amateur cinematography clearly influenced by watching too many East German hostage videos, shows Buckhannon's son (dressed in what looks like an official Grand Hotel cater-waiter blazer) rehearsing this wedding toast:
Friends, family:
Today on Mackinac Island there's magic in the air and memories in the making.
Somewhere in time, these two fell in love and today we celebrate the love that they have found, the lives they have lived and how they have touched each and every one of us in a profound way.
Looking back on how Dad met Kelly, their story is as charming as they are.
I remember the first time I saw these two together: Dad had that spring in his step I hadn't seen in years and Kelly--Kelly treated me as one of her own from day one.
Never have I met a more kind, more affectionate woman in my life and seen a couple so happy.
Although there was a little gap between then and the high school reunion a few years ago, I can see sparks fly when they are in each other's arms.
The two are head-over-heels for each other and I know that will never change.
These high school sweethearts have come a long way from big hair and vinyl records.
I'm not gonna lie--they did look ridiculous with the leather pants and mustache.
But would anybody expect anything else from the starting linebacker and teen queen cheerleader?
I'm sure my kids will say the same thing about me some day. I just hope that I can give them an upbringing comparable to the one they have given me.
It's been an experience I wouldn't change for the world. They have taught me by example, and made me realize what is truly important in life: friends, family and living life to the fullest.
To take the good with the bad and persevere until the day is done.
Through thick and thin, they have been best friends, lovers and the best set of parents a kid could ask for.
I don't know where I would be or who I would be without their guidance and love.
To Rob and Kelly!
Well, that touching toast didn't touch on this third rail in Buckhannon's complicated marital history: if he truly married DeMoss, he may have done so while still married to Marlena Michaels!
VIVA LAS VEGAS
Clark County, Nevada records show Buckhannon and Michaels took out a marriage license on May 15, 2009 and filed an "affidavit of marriage" shortly after 7:30am the next morning.
About three months after Buckhannon married Michaels, he returned to Michigan briefly for his 30th high school class reunion where he reconnected with "teen queen" and classmate Kelly DeMoss.
After an extensive search of Clark County records, I was unable to locate any evidence of a Buckhannon/Michaels divorce.
While it's possible the two divorced in another Nevada county, Buckhannon and Michaels competed together this past May in San Antonio at a "Gladiator Rock'N Run" event.
ON DECK SPORTS BAR AND GRILL DEMOLISHED; BATTLE CREEK PAYS THE BILL
The Battle Creek Enquirer reported recently that city awarded a contract to Markos Excavating of East Leroy, paying $35,900 to demolish the crumbling building.
The bar was declared an unsafe building by the city, but remained standing while investigators from the Battle Creek Fire Department, Battle Creek Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the fire that caused at least $1 million in damage.
Interim City Manager Susan Bedsole told the Enquirer that the city took control of demolition because the building posed a danger and it appeared "there was no insurance coverage for the cost."
BILLS, BILLS, BILLS...AND MORE BILLS!
The On Deck Sports Bar opened briefly in April 2013, closing about about six weeks later.
Kelly DeMoss and Per Wickstrom's pink-palmed nephew Stephen Anderson reportedly invested several hundred thousand dollars into remodeling the former Sports Page. (I suspect the bulk of that amount came from Anderson.)
Anderson originally sued Buckhannon on May 17, 2013 in Calhoun County's 37th District Court. Late last year, the two reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.
And Anderson, Buckhannon's not-so-silent partner, is still waiting for his money.
The bar closed amid allegations from Anderson that the project was over budget and that employees and vendors were not being paid by DeMoss and Buckhannon, who were operating the business.
Calhoun County court records reveal that Anderson again filed against Buckhannon on March 27, 2014 and on September 4 was granted a partial summary judgment.
Good luck getting that, and while you're waiting, maybe you can explain why a key member of the Narconon-based Wickstrom drug rehab cartel wants to own a bar.
SOMEBODY NEEDS A HOBBY! Per Wickstrom's Client Financial Services Director Mark Hergert Spends His Days Bla, Bla, Bla-ing Away! (No Wonder Collections Revenue Is Down)
In a response to a favorable consumer comment logged at his Ripoff Report slam against yours truly, Scientologist Per Wickstrom's favorite henchman Mark Hergert demonstrates his familiarity with the Oxford English Dictionary.
Just kidding!
Although the "screen door on a submarine" quip is clever, even a writer who learned English while watching the Three Stooges could do a better job.
From misspelling "rebuttle" and incorrectly using "to" instead of "too", all the way down to using "our butt's" in place of the plural form of that word, it's work that my grade school principal Sister Ferdinand would have kicked back to me in a second--and then kicked me down the stairs.
In his email, Hergert warned that "we are coming for you", and promised to launch "a series of websites that will certainly outrank anything you got and it won't be good for you".
In the screen capture shown at left, it appears that Hergie has indeed begun to develop "anitasenkowski.com", although the content is still offline and in development.
And, in a recent development, Hergie's Hawaiian Hideaway (AKA the corporate headquarters of Auto Credit Financial), looks like another burst balloon.
Miss Fortune has discovered that the Kailua-Kona address (75-5737 Kuakini Hwy., Suite 202) shown as Auto Credit's "corporate headquarters" is merely the real estate office of John S. Rabi, whose name appears on official Hawaiian records as the Registered Agent for Auto Credit Financial Services LLC.
And, by the looks of this property listing, Rabi is looking to convert his Typically Tropical Properties to an "agent/broker co-op".
Wonder where that leaves Hergie?
DR. BRUCE LANGLOIS UNDER INVESTIGATION....AGAIN!
Michigan veterinarian Dr. Bruce Langlois is again battling the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulation, fighting to keep his veterinary license.
As I'd reported nearly 18 months ago, Langlois has a long history of complaints and disciplinary actions and is a registered sex offender.
And in news I broke just days ago on this blog, I confirmed that Langlois made a recent Spay Neuter Express visit to the Tipton County Animal Shelter in Brighton, TN where he conducted a three-day "clinic" from September 13-15.
An official spokesperson stated in an email that Langlois was "unlicensed in Tennessee".
As I'd reported nearly 18 months ago, Langlois has a long history of complaints and disciplinary actions and is a registered sex offender.
And in news I broke just days ago on this blog, I confirmed that Langlois made a recent Spay Neuter Express visit to the Tipton County Animal Shelter in Brighton, TN where he conducted a three-day "clinic" from September 13-15.
An official spokesperson stated in an email that Langlois was "unlicensed in Tennessee".
Thursday, September 25, 2014
A DESIGNING WOMAN: Miss Fortune "Ties" One Up!
| Photo courtesy Rachel Lopez |
In addition to marketing copywriting, my (paid) work includes a limited edition design business, a line of pinup-style aprons I sell in my Etsy shop, "Tie Me Up Aprons".
As you can see, my aprons inspire lots of cookin'—inside and outside the kitchen!
Customers all over the world—from China to Australia—wear my designs.
![]() |
| Photo courtesy Vintage Spa, New South Wales |
More details to come!
'Miss Fortune' will be back tomorrow with another blockbuster!
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: A Beginner's Guide To Perception and Reality For Cheaters and Profiteers
BREAKING NEWS!
MISS FORTUNE SEEKS INVESTIGATION
In a letter sent yesterday to Michael Flanagan, Michigan's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Miss Fortune requested the Department of Education open an official investigation of an apparent conflict of interest violation at the Grand Traverse Academy: improperly awarding a management contract to a sitting Board member, Mark Noss.
In addition, the letter (written under my own name), urged the Department of Education to launch a forensic audit that could determine the extent of the Academy's financial impropriety, including (but not limited to) Steven Ingersoll's $2.38 million dollar overpayment to his firm, Smart Schools Management, Inc.
The Grand Traverse Academy Board recently announced that it will wait until after Ingersoll's federal fraud trial to sue Smart Schools for $1.67 million dollars—lost taxpayer funds that reportedly remain on the Academy’s balance sheet incorrectly classified as an “asset”.
In addition to submitting the letter to Flanagan and Michigan's Attorney General, Bill Schuette, I have also launched a targeted media outreach campaign developed to inform key state and national reporters and expand the news coverage begun on this blog.
I will bring you any update on state and national coverage of this story as soon as it becomes available.
MISS FORTUNE SEEKS INVESTIGATION
In a letter sent yesterday to Michael Flanagan, Michigan's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Miss Fortune requested the Department of Education open an official investigation of an apparent conflict of interest violation at the Grand Traverse Academy: improperly awarding a management contract to a sitting Board member, Mark Noss.
In addition, the letter (written under my own name), urged the Department of Education to launch a forensic audit that could determine the extent of the Academy's financial impropriety, including (but not limited to) Steven Ingersoll's $2.38 million dollar overpayment to his firm, Smart Schools Management, Inc.
The Grand Traverse Academy Board recently announced that it will wait until after Ingersoll's federal fraud trial to sue Smart Schools for $1.67 million dollars—lost taxpayer funds that reportedly remain on the Academy’s balance sheet incorrectly classified as an “asset”.
In addition to submitting the letter to Flanagan and Michigan's Attorney General, Bill Schuette, I have also launched a targeted media outreach campaign developed to inform key state and national reporters and expand the news coverage begun on this blog.
I will bring you any update on state and national coverage of this story as soon as it becomes available.
Monday, September 22, 2014
HEARING SET FOR INGERSOLL FRAUD CASE: October 8
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington has ordered Steven Ingersoll, and co-defendants Deborah Ingersoll, Roy C. Bradley, Sr. and Gayle Ingersoll, to appear at a hearing October 8 at 2:00pm on various defense motions, including Ingersoll's motion to produce "confidential informants".
According to a document filed this morning in United States District Court, several other defense motions are scheduled to be discussed on October 8, including Steven Ingersoll’s motion for "Leave to File Future Evidentiary Motions" and his motion for a "Bill of Particulars".
Roy Bradley’s motion for "Severance and Joinder" in motion by Deborah Ingersoll and Gayle Ingersoll is included.
According to a document filed this morning in United States District Court, several other defense motions are scheduled to be discussed on October 8, including Steven Ingersoll’s motion for "Leave to File Future Evidentiary Motions" and his motion for a "Bill of Particulars".
Roy Bradley’s motion for "Severance and Joinder" in motion by Deborah Ingersoll and Gayle Ingersoll is included.
PROMISES, PROMISES: Did The Philanthropist (or the Thief) Break A "Promise To Pay"?; Ingersoll Doesn't Pay Taxes, But Transfers Property To Defendant In Bay City Academy Asbestos Case Just Days After Arraignment
The
controversial $1.6 million “prepaid” is in actuality the remainder of
nearly $5 million of earnings that SSM promised to pay to GTA according
to its needs.
Excerpted from
"History of Grand Traverse Academy"
A review of Bay City property records shows that Smart Schools' macher Steven Ingersoll owes a massive amount to Bay City for the 27 properties listed above: $176,670.88.
The total includes the "Summer 2014" taxes due from Ingersoll before the end of this year, although records reveal he has not paid Bay City any property taxes since late January 2012.
Property taxes become delinquent as of March 1st for taxes that remain outstanding from the prior year. For example, property taxes that were due in 2008 and payable to Bay City became delinquent on March 1, 2009. The portion of Ingersoll's total taxes that have been deemed "delinquent" are shown in a separate column.
The properties are owned by Ingersoll, and businesses controlled by him, under such names as Arts District LLC, Sanford Green House LLC, Banks Front Door LLC, and the Webster House of Bay City LLC.
Among the buildings with outstanding amounts due are:
-1514 Center Avenue: Ingersoll owes a $19,115.55 tax debt for the home where he lives with his wife, federal fraud co-defendant Deborah
-400 N. Madison Avenue: Bay City Academy's 'Madison Arts' campus building shows a tax debt of $19,675.99
-900 Fifth Street: Webster House Bed & Breakfast, where Bay City Academy Superintendent Brian Lynch (more commonly known as "son-in-law-of Mark-Noss") bunks when he's in town, shows a $17,857.41 tax debt.
With rooms at the Webster House going for as much as $290.00 a night, you'd think Ingersoll could find the scratch to pay his taxes.
HERE'S WHERE IT GETS REALLY INTERESTING: THE GONIF AND THE SCHNORRER
On September 26, 2013, Steve Ingersoll signed a quit claim deed for 241 N. Farragut, deeding the "rights and interest" in the property to one Gerald A. Essex.
Quit claim deeds are legal proof of ownership when properly executed in accordance with state laws. However, quit claim deeds are sometimes used in fraudulent transfers of real estate, such as a person transferring property to a relative (or a "known associate") to avoid a lien from a creditor.
Oh, wait, Miss Fortune...Gerald Essex-that name sounds so familiar!
You are correct—Essex was the crew foreman of Roy C. Bradley Sr.’s restoration company, Lasting Impressions, in April 2010, when Steven Ingersoll purchased the former church at 400 N. Madison Avenue with the intention of converting it into a school building for Bay City Academy.
Ingersoll hired Bradley to do the renovation.
Gerald Essex was arraigned September 16, 2013 on four counts of illegally distributing and handling asbestos, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Essex and Bradley are currently scheduled to go to trial beginning September 30 on the asbestos charges.
Roy C. Bradley, Sr. is a one of five co-defendants in Ingersoll's federal fraud trial, scheduled to begin on December 2.
And the score? I think the thief takes this round from the philanthropist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)















%2BCROP.jpg)

