ILNews

Defense rests in Bales trial after flurry of witnesses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — Closing arguments are expected to begin Wednesday afternoon in the federal fraud trial of Indianapolis real estate broker John M. Bales and partner William E. Spencer after the defense raced through seven witnesses Tuesday and early Wednesday.

The defense made many of its points to the jury via tough cross-examinations of government witnesses before leading off its own case with former Department of Child Services Director James W. Payne, a long-time juvenile judge in Marion County.

Payne told the jury that Venture Real Estate Services, Bales' and Spencer's company, did a good job for DCS, delivering on a promise to find office space in Elkhart better suited for the agency's staff and children they serve.

"I thought it was a vast improvement," Payne said of the Elkhart office. "It was spacious and met our needs. It was an inviting and warm environment."

On cross examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett noted that Payne did not oversee Venture's contract with the state (that responsibility fell to the Indiana Department of Administration), and Payne never inquired about the ownership arrangement for the Elkhart building.

Prosecutors say Bales and Spencer provided the down payment so Indianapolis attorney Paul J. Page could buy the property to lease to the DCS, without disclosing its involvement to the state or a bank. The government says the deal violates an agreement between Venture and the state that barred the company from direct or indirect ownership of properties where state agencies leased space, but the defense argues the arrangement was a loan.

The government took about five days to present its case after the proceedings began with jury selection on Jan. 28. Defense attorneys for each of the defendants will get about one hour for closing arguments, and the government is scheduled for an hour and a half to wrap up its case before the jury gets its instructions and begins deliberations.

The second defense witness Tuesday was Adam Gilliatte, a construction contractor and developer who intended to buy the Elkhart building and serve as landlord for DCS before he "got exhausted" waiting for the state to execute a lease and opted out of the deal.

Indianapolis developer Paul Kite also considered buying the Elkhart building, he testified Tuesday, but decided against becoming a state landlord.

Defense attorneys asked both Gilliatte and Kite whether Bales or Spencer had proposed Venture act as a partner or shadow investor in their deals, and both men said no.

The most time-consuming testimony Tuesday came from Marion Siara, a retired special agent for the Internal Revenue Service hired by the defense to review financial records in the case.

The defense introduced exhibits prepared by Siara, including one showing withdrawals by Page on the bank account of L&BAB LLC, the entity that owns the building. Page had been a co-defendant with Bales and Spencer until he accepted a plea deal in January.

Siara said his research uncovered transfers of $58,300 to Page personally and another $93,700 paid out to family members and associates, including $50,000 for Page's defense attorney, Robert Hammerle, who represented him in plea negotiations with the government.

The Elkhart building is and always was a losing deal for Bales and Spencer, Siara said. His estimates showed that if the building sold for $1.65 million as the defendants estimated in 2009, proceeds needed to pay off the bank loan and Venture investment would leave a $25,000 deficit, not a profit for Venture to split with Page as originally pondered.

The government has introduced emails that indicate Bales and Spencer expected to profit from the deal.

In another exhibit, Siara claimed Venture actually overpaid the state on the Elkhart lease commission refund since the value of the 10-year deal was higher than Venture had calculated. (Venture was required to remit 25 percent of its 4-percent commission on lease deals for the state to a discretionary project fund for the state's benefit.)

Barrett saved his toughest cross-examination of the trial for Siara, needling him when he acknowledged using Google to flesh out an exhibit showing where Page directed money from his L&BAB bank account.

Barrett also pressed the former IRS agent for his exhibit claiming the state had been overpaid on the Elkhart deal. The exhibit showed an adjusted amount due to Venture while keeping the total commission amount the same, resulting in a lower payment due to the state.

Siara said he was hired by the defense team in December 2012, a late date for a fast-approaching trial, and did not know whether another financial analyst had worked on the case for the defense before he came onboard.

Other defense witnesses: Ed Scahill, a Huntington Bank commercial loan officer who said he was "quite surprised" to learn in October 2009 there was a second mortgage on the Elkhart building, but took no action since the loan was performing; and David Nugent, a commercial real estate broker based in Fort Wayne, who explained the concept of a "shared-appreciation loan," which the defense says describes the Elkhart deal.

"It's a loan, it's a mortgage, that's it," Nugent said. "It's not ownership."

On cross-examination, Barrett read Nugent portions of the code of ethics for the National Association of Realtors, which appeared to contradict Nugent's claim that brokers can represent multiple parties at once on a deal.

Barrett said the code makes clear that brokers may not accept payment from multiple parties without disclosure; Nugent contended that a broker can be paid a sale commission, lease commission and development fee on a building because each of those transactions is separate.

The final witness for the defense was Caroline Karanja Smith, a former Venture employee who worked on the DCS office rollout. She testified Wednesday morning that the state officials overseeing her, including leasing director Steve Harless, were satisfied with Venture's work.

The defense introduced an email Harless sent to Smith and another Venture employee: "Without their constant support we would be screwed," Harless wrote. "Good luck and God Bless America!!"

Defense attorney Jason Barclay also asked Smith, who handled property management for the Elkhart building, to describe her interactions with Page. She said he was hard to pin down.

She agreed with Barclay when he asked whether it was a "fair assessment" to call Page "lazy."

To catch up on IBJ's coverage of the trial and Elkhart lease deal, click here. 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. 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.

  2. 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;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT