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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT