ILNews

Defense attorneys in Bales case trash former co-defendant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — Indianapolis attorney and developer Paul J. Page is no longer a co-defendant in the fraud trial of real estate broker John M. Bales and a partner after agreeing to a plea deal, but you wouldn't know it from the action Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

Only now, rather than federal prosecutors, it's defense attorneys for Bales and co-defendant Bill Spencer who are targeting Page.

The defense hopes to convince the jury that it was Page who committed "financial fraud" as the official owner of an Elkhart office building leased to a state agency. The government alleges Bales secretly put up the equity for Page to buy the building and get a loan in exchange for a cut of profits, in violation of his firm's real estate contract with the state of Indiana. Spencer helped arrange the transaction.

In his opening statement, Spencer attorney Bernard Pylitt called Page a "pig" for withdrawing $50,000 out of an account tied to the Elkhart building, a "pig" for turning down reasonable offers to sell the building, and a "thief" for collecting more than $150,000 in income from a building he got for free.

Pylitt suggested Bales and Spencer had no choice but to deal with Page's demands so they could meet a deadline to secure safe office space for the Department of Child Services. Other developers had turned down the deal, and Page only wanted in if he didn't have to put up any money.

Bales attorney Larry Mackey noted that his client is the only individual to lose money on the deal. Bales invested about $362,000, while Page borrowed the rest — about $931,000, including funds for preparing the space for occupancy — from Huntington Bank. He told the bank he would be the 100-percent owner with no other debt.

"Paul Page lied to Huntington Bank," Mackey said. "We're not going to disagree with that. Bales and Spencer had nothing to do with that lie."

Neither side has mentioned in court that Page also was charged with a crime, which is likely a strategic decision since there's no rule preventing disclosure. Page agreed in early January to plead guilty to one count of wire fraud in exchange for his cooperation with federal prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett has indicated in court that he does not expect to call Page.

Indianapolis attorney Robert W. Hammerle, who represents Page, said the name-calling reflects more on Bales and Spencer than his client.

"These types of childish accusations remind me of Lance Armstrong's personal dismissal of former teammates who, like Paul Page, came forward and told the truth," Hammerle wrote in an email. "Once he was forced to come out from hiding, Mr. Armstrong now looks like a colossal cheating fool, and who can trust him?"

The description of his client as a "pig", he said, is actually an improvement over the original label Bales chose when he named the limited liability company that owned the Elkhart building L&BAB LLC, which allegedly stands for "lazy and broke-ass bitch."

"Like it or not, the evidence is clear that Mr. Bales and Mr. Spencer orchestrated this matter from the beginning," he said. "Whether they committed a crime is up to the jury to decide, but any attempt to personally diminish Mr. Page says more about their character than anyone else."

The government opened its case Tuesday with testimony from Carrie Henderson, who led the Indiana Department of Administration and oversaw Venture's work from May 2006 to January 2009.

She said she viewed Venture as a partner and overall was satisfied with the company's work for state government on a demanding contract.

But she also recalled a conversation between her and Bales that may prove critical for the government's case. She testified that, early in her tenure, Bales suggested that Venture could provide financing for state-leased buildings to help close deals.

"I told him that was creative, but we absolutely couldn't do that kind of deal with the state of Indiana, even if fully disclosed," Henderson said. "I made a very strong statement to say we can't do that kind of deal here. You have to be transparent. You can't work both sides of a transaction."

Barrett, the prosecutor, asked Henderson whether IBJ's coverage of Bales after her tenure at IDOA gave her concern. She responded that she couldn't be certain all of the information in the stories was accurate.

On cross examination, Mackey sought to broaden the jury's focus away from the Elkhart deal, asking Henderson about Venture's work on the disposition of surplus state property and other lease deals around the state.

He also drew attention to the fact she didn't move to edit Venture's contract, upon annual renewals, even after the conversation with Bales in which she expressed her disapproval of the firm working both sides of a deal.

Later, Pylitt asked Henderson why she ignored calls from Barnes & Thornburg attorneys and a defense-hired private investigator to sit down for an interview, after meeting with prosecutors repeatedly. Her response: She couldn't say no to a subpoena.

The trial resumed Wednesday morning with testimony from former IDOA Commissioner Mark W. Everson, who served after Henderson. He began his testimony late Tuesday.

Another government witness likely to testify Wednesday is Matthew Dyer, who served as Venture's controller and is expected to address the nature of the deal between L&BAB LLC, which owned the Elkhart building, and the Bales-controlled BAB Equity LLC, which provided the down payment.

The defense has described BAB Equity's cash infusion as a loan, but has not addressed why a lender would use the word "equity" in its name since equity, by definition, means ownership.

The defense is concerned enough about Dyer's potential testimony that it dug into his background and is asking U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. for permission to introduce evidence to challenge his credibility. Specifically, the defense alleges Dyer submitted a false insurance claim on a stolen vehicle at the same time he was giving false testimony to the FBI.
 

The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT