According to the prosecution's February 19 supplemental sentencing brief, the "most egregious example of Ingersoll’s sentencing-related obstructive behavior is the false testimony he provided to the court".
One example of his materially false testimony can be discerned in his attempt to convince the court that the money needed to start the BCA project came from the Traverse City State Bank line of credit account rather than from GTA.
As part of his sentencing hearing testimony, Ingersoll stated:
During the construction of Grand Traverse Academy – or of Bay City – of the Madison Arts project, I needed to put money into that project in order to get reimbursement from the bank. I needed sources for that money.
I used my line of credit at Traverse City State Bank. If you look at the bank statement at Traverse City State Bank the – I had a million dollars available. I drew $756,000 from that line of credit from March of ’11 to June of ’11.
I sent $752,000 of that to Roy Bradley and the bank finally blessed the work that was done. … I drew money off that line of credit and moved it from Smart Schools to me, to other LLCs that were involved in the effort to get Bay City done.
Although the email exchange cited by the prosecution is reproduced above, the text of both emails are shown below.
First, Dan Stahl's email to Ingersoll:
Steve:
I understand the issue. You have prepared for worst case – does the payment stream run through GTA cash flows or Bay City? Part of my dilemma is that the intention of our SSM line was originally for the benefit of GT Academy in our market area. It sounds like the last advance in 2011, which is outstanding today, was used for cash flow considerably outside our market area. My first choice ultimately would be to get taken out by a state aid note or other financing, paid in cash at closing. As an alternative, we could look at doing the state aid note for GT Academy (but not Bay City Academy) and take care of it that way. Third, if neither of those would work, could the Grand Traverse Academy provide a limited guarantee on the line balance, with the term out amortization we have discussed. Or, do have other ideas?
Ingersoll's response, with a nod to his so-called "relaxed" 12 percent management fee (my, he's got everyone wrapped around his stubby fingers!):
Dan,
I just spoke with my accountants and they agree with my line of thinking. They suggest that I present a resolution outlining the plan to the GTA board, get their approval, and then present the solution to you. The next GTA Brd Mtg is Feb 1st. The money stream to repay the termed LOC is already in the GTA budget. The funds from the LOC were always used for GTA cashflow. While TCSB LOC funds were not used for BCA purposes, Bay City earnings and tax credits along with TC earnings all flow to me and from there I planned to service the debt. As an alternative, I have dedicated a portion of GTA-SSM flow to the LOC debt service in my current plan. A formal recognition of that flow by the GTA Brd is what my advisors recommend. The GTA Brd is already fully aware of SSM’s LOC and use of those funds and have previously acknowledged that awareness of support as well as their long-term intention to respect the presumed (and relaxed) 12% management fee in a previous resolution.
GTA cannot become a guarantor of the SSM LOC. But the funds already allocated to SSM can be used, so it should work out.
So, I think we can get this wrapped up after the Feb 1st Brd Mtg, if that works for you. Steve
However, Agent Russo testified that he reviewed the bank records in the wake of Ingersoll’s testimony and found that approximately $120,000 from the TCSB line of credit account went to the BCA project via one of Ingersoll’s personal accounts, which is well less than the $752,000 now claimed by Ingersoll.
In addition, in the email dated January 17, 2013 (shown above), Dan Stahl expressed concern to Ingersoll about the possible use of the TCSB line of credit funds for purposes other than the benefit of GTA. Ingersoll responded with an email that same day.
As part of his response, Ingersoll told Stahl, “The funds from the LOC were always used for GTA cashflow,” and added, “TCSB LOC funds were not used for BCA purposes.”
Thus, Ingersoll’s sentencing hearing testimony regarding the source of the seed money for the BCA project conflicts with Ingersoll’s statement to Kaye Mentley after the Chemical Bank construction loan was approved regarding BCA returning seed money to GTA and with Ingersoll’s emailed statements to Dan Stahl of TCSB in January of 2013.
Both of those statements were made before Ingersoll was indicted. Ingersoll’s testimony regarding the source of the seed money for BCA also conflicts with the objective bank records reviewed by Agent Russo.
The most reasonable explanation for the conflict between Ingersoll’s past statements and his financial records, and his current testimony, is that Ingersoll’s testimony at his sentencing hearing is false. Ingersoll knows, and probably recognizes, that the evidence indicates that he did not have resources of his own to start the BCA project.
He also recognizes the potential adverse consequence to his sentence if the court finds that he obtained the seed money for the BCA project from GTA.
According to the government, Ingersoll testified falsely when he claimed that $752,000 of the BCA seed money came from the TCSB line of credit account.
Still think this case has nothing to do with the Grand Traverse Academy?