IBJNews

Bales trial in jury's hands after colorful closings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — The jury began deliberations Thursday in the federal fraud trial of Indianapolis real estate broker John M. Bales and partner William E. Spencer after three hours of spirited closing arguments Wednesday.

A federal prosecutor and two top-tier Indianapolis defense attorneys representing Bales and Spencer closed their cases with a series of rhetorical flourishes and one-liners designed to stick with jurors as they consider whether the men are guilty of 13 felony charges, including bank, wire and mail fraud.

Previous coverage of the trial and Elkhart lease deal can be found here.

Here's a sample of what the attorneys had to say in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana:

— "Bales and Spencer decide to make extra money on a state deal, even though it's not allowed, and then hide it."  - Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett, summarizing the government's case that the defendants defrauded the state and a bank by secretly taking any ownership interest in an Elkhart building the state later leased. Their company, Venture Real Estate Services, had a state contract that banned direct or indirect ownership in buildings where the firm brokered lease deals.

— "This is a fraud case where the defendant is the single biggest loser." - Bales defense attorney Larry Mackey, arguing both Bales and Spencer ultimately will lose money on their investment in the Elkhart building. He contends Bales put up his own money for a down payment on the building to expedite a move by the state's Department of Child Services out of a crime-plagued former office location.

— "The government is saying the victims here are the state and bank. We're saying the two victims are Mr. Spencer and Mr. Bales." - Spencer attorney Bernard Pylitt.

— "During this trial, I could almost feel Lady Justice looking over us and just shaking her head." - Mackey, just warming up.

— "Keep your eye on the ball, and the ball is Mr. Page, Mr. Page, Mr. Page." - Mackey, referring to Indianapolis attorney Paul J. Page, the deed owner of the Elkhart building, who declined to pony up his own down payment to buy the building.

— "It would have been so easy if there was no intent to cover up to say that 'we gave some money to Paul Page.'" - Barrett, on Venture's missed opportunities to come clean with state officials who questioned Venture's role in the Elkhart deal.

— "I'm going to show you 29 different times John Bales, Bill Spencer or someone at Venture lied to the state or bank about the Elkhart deal." - Barrett, before showing the jury 29 e-mails and other documents he argued advanced a cover-up.

— "The pathetic proof on the bank fraud tells you a lot about the rest of their case." - Mackey, noting that neither Bales nor Spencer signed for Page's bank loan from Huntington. Page was also charged but agreed in January to plead guilty and cooperate with the government.

— "Two weeks ago, Huntington gave Mr. Bales a car loan." - Mackey, suggested a truly defrauded bank might stop doing business with the one doing the defrauding.

— "I'm going to submit to you Paul Page earned the label." - Mackey, referring to the limited liability company called L&BAB that owned the Elkhart building. Bales used the acronym "lazy and broke-ass bitch" when he formed the company as an "inside joke" smearing Page.

— "Paul Page was the lazy and broken-ass bitch in this deal." - Pylitt.

— "Paul Page is a crook." - Mackey.

— "They knew when they approached him and formed the LLC that he was lazy and broke." - Barrett.

— "We gave you high-tech, now we're going low-tech." - Barrett, eschewing PowerPoint and instead showing the jury giant posters of financial statements Bales and Spencer submitted to another bank as they considered an outright purchase of the Elkhart building from Page in the summer of 2009. (Such a deal, which did not materialize, would have been an unequivocal violation of their state contract.) Both men showed as assets their interest in BAB Equity LLC, which provided the down payment for the Elkhart building. Bales valued his stake at $290,000, and Spencer valued his at $51,350.

— "A grand conspiracy born in the U.S. Attorney's Office." - Mackey, referring to the government's case.

— "At some point, it's not everyone else's fault." - Barrett.

— "You gotta evaluate a witness' credibility. He doesn't deserve any." - Mackey, referring to state leasing director Steve Harless, one of several government witnesses the defense sought to discredit.

— "Go back and guess these guys guilty. That's what the government is asking you do do." - Pylitt, on the lack of a definition of the term "indirect ownership" in Venture's contract with the state.

— "I know you told us none of you are reporters, but you can write tomorrow's headline, and this is what it should be: Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty." - Mackey.

— "You can be dumb, stupid and foolish, but that doesn't make you a criminal." - Pylitt, following Mackey in arguing their clients would not have left so many breadcrumbs had they intended to defraud the state or bank.

— "I can't tell you whether Bales or Spencer were smart crooks or stupid crooks." - Barrett.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • It could happen to you....
    This was a witch hunt from the get-go....Thank goodness for the 12 jurors who were able to see through it.
  • Job posting
    Hey Cory, I hear TMZ is hiring.
  • Menu
    Looks like a lot of crow is going to be served for dinner in Indy tonight.
  • INNOCENT
    INNOCENT!!!! I'm thrilled for his family!!!
  • john
    Paul page, Paul, Paul Page. Look over there, nothing to see here, Except for the master minds? I felt certain that Mackey could get Bales exonerated but now I would say it's 60-40 for conviction.
  • Just a thought
    If Bales thought Paul Page was lazy and broke, why would he "loan" him a quarter million dollars??? He gave him the money so he could reap the rewards on both ends. If Brizzi's name wouldn't have been involved, Bales laughs all the way to the bank and Paul is the greatest guy ever. Don't drive the bus now because Brizzi screwed the pooch. You made millions off him while he was signing leases for you and setting you up with Daniel's Boys over at the State.
  • wow
    It is laughable that the defense is saying Bales et al would have lost money on this deal. They stood to make hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars on a slam dunk deal, buying a vacant building knowing they were putting the state in at a high rent/sf for 10 years. Easy money.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT