ILNews

Indianapolis attorney pleads guilty in deal with prosecutors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis attorney and developer Paul J. Page has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in an investigation that also targets former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

Page on Friday pleaded guilty to a felony wire fraud charge in U.S. District Court in South Bend, agreeing to testify if necessary against co-defendants John M. Bales, a real estate broker, and Bales' partner William E. Spencer in the Northern District case.

Page separately agreed to cooperate with a Southern District investigation that could forestall additional charges against him, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse M. Barrett noted during the morning hearing.

Page, 47, could face up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the wire fraud charge, but he opted to take his chance on leniency in exchange for his cooperation.

A 14-count indictment in South Bend alleges Page, Bales and Spencer defrauded the state and a bank over their purchase of a building in Elkhart and a subsequent lease deal with the state's Department of Child Services first revealed as part of an IBJ investigation.

A trial in that case is scheduled to begin Jan. 28 and last up to two weeks.

The government agreed to drop the 13 other charges Page was facing, assuming he cooperates as promised. Page also agreed to forfeit the office building in Elkhart he has said he co-owned with Brizzi. Page's sentencing is scheduled for April 12.

Page declined to comment as he left the courtroom Friday to meet with a probation officer.

His attorney, Robert W. Hammerle, said Page was a victim of a scheme orchestrated by Bales. He pointed to the fact that Bales named the company that wound up owning the Elkhart building L&BAB LLC, an acronym for "lazy and broke-ass bitch", an apparent reference to Page and perhaps Brizzi as well.

The government has not filed any charges against Brizzi.

Asked whether the investigation in the Southern District has Brizzi as its target, Hammerle said: "Use your own judgement. Beyond that, I'd refer you to the U.S. Attorney's Office."

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Indianapolis declined to comment.

Barrett declined to comment or provide a copy of the cooperation agreement involving Page, which was was not filed in court.

During the hearing, Barrett described the probe as a "parallel investigation in the Southern District into conduct in which Mr. Page was involved."

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. asked Page several questions about the agreement to ascertain whether the terms were clear. Page acknowledged he could be called to testify in the case against Bales and Spencer, and agreed to stipulations that could extend his potential prison sentence including the fact that the crime required "sophisticated means" and "special skills".

Page acknowledged in court and in the agreement that he concealed from the bank that he received funds from Bales to buy the Elkhart building in 2008.

The two had agreed to split the proceeds, despite the fact Bales' firm, Venture Cos., represented the state in lease deals for state agencies. The firm's contract with the state explicitly banned Venture and its partners and employees from “any ownership interest” or any “attempt to acquire” properties to be leased by the state.

"I'm guilty of these charges," Page told the judge.

Hammerle said the lender has not lost money on the deal since Page honored his deal.

"As long as I've done this, the toughest cases, right or wrong, are when you like your clients," Hammerle said. "I like Mr. Page."

Page was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1990 and does have a history of discipline, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. The details of the discipline are not posted on the Indiana Supreme Court's website.

Jason Barclay, an attorney for Bales, said his client has not entertained or accepted a deal with federal prosecutors.

"We're looking forward to proving his innocence on January 28," he said.

The Indianapolis Business Journal 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT