BIFF!BANG!POW! City Of Green Bay Tells Federal Court: “Under Oneida Nation Law, OSGC Should Not Exist.” Oneida Seven Generations Corp. FAILED To Show State Law Remedies Were Inadequate, Or Exhaust Remedies, Or Identify Any Protectable Property Interest, Or Show The City’s ‘Conditional Use Permit’ Rescission Was Arbitrary, Or State Due Process Violation; Also, OSGC & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy/GBRE Lack Capacity To Sue; MEANWHILE, Green Bay’s Common Council Holding ‘Removal Petition’ Hearing On February 20; UPDATES: Judge Rejects Mayor Schmuck’s Attempt To Prohibit Hearing; Lyin’ Sack O’ Schmitt Loses Marbles In Podcast; 8–4 RESULT Allows Mayor Snake To Slither Away By One Vote; Citizens’ Recall Petition Expected To Be Filed Soon

 

Previously on Oneida Eye:

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 10, 2016: Motion by Sherrole Benton to rescind the December 15, 2013 action dissolving the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and restrict the corporation to commercial leasing activities. Seconded by Loretta Metoxen.  Motion not voted on; item tabled.

Amendment to the main motion by Allen R. King to approve all of the BC recommendations for Items 4.A.1–4.  Chairwoman Tina Danforth ruled this motion out of order. 

Amendment to the main motion by Nancy Skenandore that we as GTC want to know who are the leaders; who are the investors; who are the attorneys; who are the stockholders; who are the owners; who are the board members; how are they paid; what do they use for collateral; for this information be provided for the last 10 years; and to be reported at the next meeting. Seconded by Cathy Metoxen.  Motion carried by show of hands.

Amendment to the main motion by Dan Hawk to allow Oneida Seven Generations Corporation to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay. Seconded by Sherrole Benton.  Motion carried by show of hands.

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 10, 2016: Motion by Frank Cornelius to table this item. Seconded by Linda Dallas.  Motion carried by hand count: 845 support; 395 opposed; 16 abstentions.

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 2, 2016: Motion by [Oneida Business Committee Vice-Chair] Melinda J. Danforth to take the motion related to item 4.A.1. from the table. Seconded by Allen King.  Motion failed by show of hands.

  

Therefore…

the Main Motion to “rescind” GTC’s directive to dissolve OSGC…

and…

the Amendment to “allow” OSGC to sue the City of Green Bay…

were both tabled

  

and

GTC voted against taking them off of the table…

 

and…

both remained tabled for more than 3 months.

  

Thereby…

according to Robert’s Rules of Order

both died.

  

  

Inexplicably, this frivolous lawsuit was filed anyway by Godfrey & Kahn SC on behalf of OSGC & GBRE against the City of Green Bay:

  • December 23, 2016 Complaint & Jury Demand, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case#1:16-cv-1700-WCG, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC v. City of Green Bay

   

    
And now…

    

My Bloody Valentine

 

 

  

Defendant City of Green Bay (the “City”), by its counsel, Gunta Law Offices, S.C., respectfully moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9, 12 and 17 as follows:

1. The Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of this defense, the City relies on the facts alleged in the Complaint and not on any matters outside the pleadings.

2. Plaintiff Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC should be separately dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In support of this defense, the City relies on the facts alleged in the Complaint and not on any matters outside the pleadings.

3. The City specifically denies that Plaintiffs Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, have capacity to sue, and the Complaint should therefore be dismissed under Rules 9(a), 12(b)(2), and 17(b)(2). In support of this defense, the City relies on supporting facts as stated in Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, filed herewith, and in the declarations of Gregg J. Gunta and Leah [Sue] Dodge in support of this motion, filed herewith.

The grounds for this motion are fully set forth in the Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and accompanying exhibits and declarations, filed herewith.




Defendant City of Green Bay (the “City”), by its attorneys GUNTA LAW OFFICES, S.C., respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiffs Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (“OSGC”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC (“GBRE”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(a), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 17(b)(2).

INTRODUCTION

OSGC complains that it was deprived due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when the City rescinded OSGC’s conditional use permit (“CUP”) to build a solid waste incinerator. The decision to rescind the CUP has been processed to death. It was reviewed by the City under Wis. Stat. § 68.06, and the Wisconsin Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court by certiorari. Attached to the Complaint as Exhibits A and B are the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions and orders reversing the rescission and affirming the reversal, just as OSGC requested.

Rather than enforce the state court judgment as Wisconsin Statutes §§ 815.01, 815.02, and 785.03 entitle OSGC to do, OSGC and GBRE now seek federal review of the same decision along with damages. The Complaint fails to allege that the available state court remedies are inadequate and fails to show that OSGC fully availed itself of those remedies. The Complaint also fails to identify a constitutionally protected property interest and fails to state a claim as a matter of law that the City’s decision to rescind the CUP was arbitrary in the constitutional sense. For these independent reasons, the Complaint fails to show a violation of substantive or procedural due process cognizable under § 1983, and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

The Complaint also fails to allege any facts pertaining to GBRE whatsoever beyond identifying itself as a Delaware corporation and OSGC’s subsidiary. GBRE has failed to state a claim and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and has failed to allege an injury in fact and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the Complaint should be dismissed under Rules 9(a), 12(b)(2), and 17(b)(2) for lack of corporate capacity to sue. OSGC is a tribal corporation chartered under the laws of the Oneida Nation. In 2013, the Oneida General Tribal Council — the governing body of Oneida Nation — voted to dissolve OSGC. The subordinate entity Oneida Business Committee has not dissolved OSGC. Instead, the Business Committee has stripped OSGC of its powers and limited its purpose to strictly “commercial leasing.” Then, shortly before OSGC filed this Complaint and in the face of tribal pressure to dissolve OSGC, the General Tribal Council considered a motion specifically designed to allow OSGC to pursue this lawsuit. After debate and consideration, however, the General Tribal Council voted to table that motion and never took any additional action. As such, the filing and prosecution of the present suit has never been authorized or approved.

Under Rule 17(b)(2), corporate capacity to sue is determined by the law under which a corporation was organized. Under Oneida Nation law, OSGC should not exist. To the extent OSGC exists at all, it is not authorized to bring the present lawsuit as it does not advance OSGC’s authorized commercial leasing activities. OSGC’s lack of capacity was confirmed when the General Tribal Council tabled the motion to prosecute this suit.

ARGUMENT

A. The Complaint, and GBRE in particular, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

1. Facts as Alleged in the Complaint.

The City’s arguments pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) are based solely on the facts alleged in the Complaint. The City’s arguments pursuant to Rules 9(a), 12(b)(2), and 17(b)(2) are based on supporting facts as required by Rule 9(a). The following allegations from the Complaint provide the relevant background for dismissal based on Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).

OSGC sought to build a facility in Green Bay that would convert municipal solid waste into electricity by heating the waste at high temperatures to produce “syngas,” similar to natural gas or methane. Complaint, ¶ 2. The City originally granted the CUP in March 2011 following a voluminous application and lengthy presentations by OSGC, and contingent upon compliance with City building code, building permits, standard site plan review and approval and all Federal and State environmental standards related to the proposed use. Complaint, ¶¶ 23–26, 31. While OSGC was obtaining the necessary permits and approvals, public opposition to the facility mounted. Id., ¶ 39. Some faction of the opposition groups accused OSGC of lying in its application in order to obtain the CUP. Id., ¶ 42. In response, the City held a public hearing. Id., ¶ 45. OSGC submitted written materials and appeared before both the Plan Commission and the Common Council in defense of the CUP. Id., ¶¶ 46, 47, 56. Following a public hearing, the Common Council voted seven to five to rescind the CUP, offering no explanation for its decision. Id., ¶¶ 57, 58. Later, the City Attorney sent a letter claiming that OSGC made “false statements and misrepresentations” regarding “the public safety and health aspect of the Project and the Project’s impact upon the City’s environment” and “emissions, chemicals, and hazardous materials.” Id., ¶ 60.

OSGC requested an administrative appeal. Complaint, ¶ 61. The City Council denied the request pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 68.11. Id., ¶ 61. OSGC then invoked its right to certiorari review of the City’s actions in Wisconsin state court. Id., ¶ 63. The Wisconsin Circuit Court reviewed the City’s decision to rescind the CUP and denied OSGC’s petition for certiorari. Id., ¶ 65.

OSGC then appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Id., ¶ 65. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals applied state law to determine “whether the City exercised [its authority to revoke a CUP based on misrepresentations made during the permitting process] in an arbitrary manner, and without substantial supporting evidence.” Oneida Seven Generations Corp., LLC v. City of Green Bay, 2014 WI AP 45, ¶ 18, 353 Wis. 2d 553, 846 N.W.2d 33 (unpublished), aff’d, 2015 WI 50, ¶ 93, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162 (attached to Complaint as “Exhibit A”). Finding that “the scant statements the City cites as support for its revocation action do not constitute substantial evidence of misrepresentation,” the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ordered that the Circuit Court decision be reversed. Exhibit A, p. 22, ¶ 43.

OSGC then requested that the City reissue the CUP. Complaint, ¶ 70. The City did not reissue the CUP, but appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Id., ¶ 71. The Wisconsin Supreme Court focused only on “whether the evidence was such that [the City] might reasonably make the order or determination in question.” Oneida Seven Generations Corp., LLC v. City of Green Bay, 2015 WI 50, ¶ 41–42, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162 (attached to Complaint as “Exhibit B”). On March 29, 2015, it affirmed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision. Id.; Complaint, ¶ 71.

OSGC does not allege to have taken any additional action on the order prior to filing this Complaint. See id. The Complaint alleges claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on substantive and procedural due process. Complaint, ¶ 75–96.

2. Standards of Review for Rule 12(b)(6).

To survive a motion to dismiss, the Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(a). While the Complaint’s well-pled allegations must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor, see, e.g., Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court “need not accept as true legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).

“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 10(c). Consideration of the Exhibits does not convert this motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Tierney v. Vahle, 304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2002).

“When an exhibit attached to the complaint contradicts the allegations in the complaint, ruling against the nonmoving party on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is consistent with the court’s obligation to review all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 609 (7th Cir. 2013); Massy v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 464 F.3d 642, 645 (7th Cir. 2006) (“where an exhibit conflicts with the allegations of the complaint, the exhibit typically controls.”).

3. OSGC has failed to state a claim because its available state court remedies satisfied substantive and procedural due process.

OSGC has received adequate process under the law, including relief from the very local land-use decision it now asks this Court to review. To state a claim under either substantive or procedural due process, OSGC must show that these state law remedies were inadequate. As to procedural due process, under Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, [w]here a claimant has availed himself of the remedies guaranteed by state law, due process is satisfied unless he can show that such remedies were inadequate.” 631 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir. 2011) (dismissing procedural due process claims based on a zoning designation where plaintiff himself initiated state court review and was afforded adequate process in state court system). As to substantive due process, the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that “in addition to showing that the decision was arbitrary and irrational, the plaintiff must also show either a separate constitutional violation or the inadequacy of state law remedies.” Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551, 559 (7th Cir. 1989) (remanding substantive due process claim based on denial of an occupancy permit for a determination as to adequacy of state law remedies). OSGC has not alleged a violation of a substantive constitutional right. Its allegations that the City “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” do not cut it. Centres, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wis., 148 F.3d 699, 704 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Its allegation that the defendants acted … in an arbitrary and capricious manner does not supply the essential element of a separate constitutional violation.”) (dismissing substantive due process claim where plaintiff failed to allege that state law remedies were inadequate and had actually received state court review of the same land-use decision).

In terms of what constitutes adequate state law remedies, “scant process is all that is ‘due’ in zoning cases.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164, 167 (7th Cir. 1994). “The opportunity to apply for a [writ of certiorari] is enough.” Id. (dismissing residential developer’s due process claim based on denial of a zoning application where the developer could have pursued common law writ of certiorari); see also Donohoo v. Hanson, No. 14-cv-309-wmc (W.D. Wis. Sept. 3, 2015) (unreported) (“[S]o long as there are adequate local or state means for obtaining review of a zoning decision, procedural due process is satisfied.”).

More robust constitutional protections are available under the Fifth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause, but OSGC has not invoked the Fifth Amendment and seeks only out-of-pocket expenses, lost profits, and legal expenses—not the market value of the property. In Behavioral Institute of Indiana, LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a complaint with identical features did not allege a Fifth Amendment takings claim. 406 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2005). Unlike a takings claim, the scope of property interests protected by due process in land-use cases is exceedingly narrow because “[s]tate and local governments are not required to respect property owners’ rights… State and local governments may regulate and even take property; they must pay for what they take but are free to use the land as they please.” River Park, 23 F.3d 164, 167 (1994). When it comes [to] claims based on land-use decisions, “Federal Courts are not zoning boards of appeal.” See, e.g., id., 165.

The Complaint fails to allege that OSGC’s state court remedies were inadequate, and the facts alleged do not support such an inference. To the contrary, the Complaint incorporates, as exhibits, the decisions of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court. Complaint, ¶ 66, Exhibit A; ¶ 71, Exhibit B. These decisions were the fruit of OSGC’s “opportunity to apply for a writ”—an opportunity that satisfies procedural and substantive due process and defeats OSGC’s claim under River Park, 23 F.3d at 167.

It is immaterial for purposes of the Due Process Clause whether, as OSGC alleges, “the City Council meeting on October 16, 2012 was not a meaningful hearing” or that “several alderpersons had ex parte communications with opponents of the project and made up their minds to rescind the CUP—even prior to the Council convening to consider the issue.” Complaint, ¶¶ 91, 92. OSGC had a full opportunity to air these grievances against the City in state court proceedings. See Exhibits A and B.

Perversely, OSGC appears to rely on the favorable state court decisions as proof of its denial of due process. That OSGC won in state court does not undermine the adequacy of due process OSGC received under state law—it reinforces it. Where a plaintiff has been relieved of a land-use decision by a state court, he cannot state a federal claim for due process violations. In Donohoo v. Hanson, a landowner alleged procedural and substantive due process violations for having been denied a permit to construct an addition to his lakefront home. No. 14–c–309–wmc, *1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 3, 2015) (unpublished), aff’d, No. 16-2405 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016) (unpublished). Before pursuing the federal lawsuit, Donohoo had filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in state court and, while the certiorari action was pending, was issued the land use permit. Id. The court rejected his due process claims: “Donohoo does not allege that state law remedies are inadequate. Moreover, such an allegation would be groundless. In this very case, Donohoo pursued a certiorari action. He subsequently obtained a land use permit.” Id., *9. See also Harding v. County of Door, 870 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding no violation of condominium developer’s due process rights where the county withdrew a building permit based on a neighbor’s complaint, but the withdrawal was overturned by Wisconsin Court of Appeals); Minneapolis Auto Parts Co., Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 572 F.Supp. 389, 394 (D. Minn. 1983) (finding no due process violation where plaintiffs were granted permits in state court proceedings).

The timing of the state law remedies also does not undermine their adequacy. OSCG alleges that it “proposed the waste-to-energy project when it did because of the availability of federal, state and local grants, tax deductions and other incentives [which] have expired, such that the project is no longer economically viable.” Complaint, ¶ 73. It does not allege when these incentives expired relative to its available remedies, but it does not matter. Due process does not require that state law remedies arrive in time to preserve business expectations. In CEnergy- Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore, a wind farm developer complained that the city’s arbitrary failure to issue building permits in time to save a profitable power purchase agreement violated his right to due process. 769 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2014). As this Court observed, “[t]he fact that it might not have succeeded in time for CEnergy to meet its contractual deadline anyhow is of no moment. Due process requires only a state court remedy, not a guaranteed win by the applicant’s contractual deadline.” No. 12–C–1166 (E.D. Wis. July 3, 2013) (J. Griesbach, presiding), aff’d, 769 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2014); see also River Park v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164 (1994) (finding no due process violation where city deliberately delayed rezoning until developer went bankrupt); Harding, 870 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding no due process violation where condominium developer won reversal of zoning decision in state court but, by that time, lacked financing to complete the project).

Similarly, it does not matter that the state court remedies might not recompense OSGC for its alleged “out-of-pocket expenses of approximately $5.2 million, lost profits of approximately $16 million, and substantial legal expenses, including attorney’s fees to pursue the state court proceedings and this federal case.” Complaint, ¶¶ 85, 96. The amount of damages available under state law remedies does not undermine their adequacy. The contrary argument was squarely rejected in Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Municipal Airport Com’n:

The fact that a plaintiff “might not be able to recover under [state law] remedies the full amount which he might receive in a § 1983 action is not…determinative of the adequacy of the state remedies.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 535, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). “[U]nless the remedy which an injured party may pursue in state court can readily be characterized as inadequate to the point that it is meaningless or nonexistent,” courts should not ignore the Supreme Court’s warning that the Fourteenth Amendment should not be treated as a “‘font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.’” Easter House v. Felder, 910 F.2d 1387, 1404–06 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 544, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981)).

366 F.Supp.2d 792 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (denying due process claim on motion to dismiss).

4. OSGC has failed to state a claim because it has failed to vindicate its rights in state court.

While the state court decisions themselves are more than enough process to invalidate OSGC’s claim, they also made available additional state law remedies, namely enforcing the state court decisions. OSGC’s failure to pursue these additional state remedies provides an independent basis for dismissing the Complaint.

In zoning cases, a plaintiff must seek vindication in state court before seeking redress in federal court. The Seventh Circuit recognized in Gamble v. Eau Claire County that “even if a taking can be challenged as a denial of substantive due process, a suit based on this theory is premature if the plaintiff has possible state remedies against the zoning regulation or other state action that he wants to attack.” 5 F.3d 285, 286–87 (7th Cir. 1993). CEnergy-Glenmore confirmed that this requirement applies to both procedural and substantive due process challenges. “Regardless of how a plaintiff labels an objectionable land-use decision (i.e. as a taking or as a deprivation without substantive or procedural due process), recourse must be made to the state rather than federal court.” CEnergy-Glenmore, 769 F.3d 485, 489 (affirming a motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to pursue his state law remedies); See also River Park, 23 F.3d 164, 167 (“A person contending that state of local regulation of the use of land has gone overboard must repair to state court.”).

OSGC was entitled to enforce the state court judgments by execution pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 815.01, “[t]he owner of a judgment may enforce the same in a manner provided by law,” and § 815.02:

Where [a judgment] requires the performance of any other act a certified copy of the judgment may be served upon the party…who is required to obey the same, and if he or she refuse he or she may be punished for contempt, and his or her obedience enforced.

If the City then failed to obey the judgment, OSGC could have brought a motion for contempt under Wisconsin Statute § 785.03(1)(a):

A person aggrieved by a contempt of court may seek imposition of a remedial sanction for the contempt by filing a motion for that purpose in the proceeding to which the contempt is related. The court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction authorized by this chapter.

OSGC alleges that after the Court of Appeals’ decision, it “met with the City to request the re-issuance of the CUP” and then “sent a follow-up letter,” Complaint, ¶ 70, that “[t]he City also refused OSGC’s request to re-issue the CUP after the Court of Appeals decision in favor of OSGC,” id., ¶ 95, and that “the City never re-issued the conditional use permit to OSGC,” id., ¶ 72. [OSGC] does not allege that it ever attempted to enforce either the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or Wisconsin Supreme Court judgments by execution, let alone renew its request for the CUP after receiving the Wisconsin Supreme Court judgment.

This Court is free to ignore OSGC’s colorful, but conclusory allegation that “OSGC has exhausted its potential state law remedies. Only this honorable court remains as a venue to deliver justice to OSGC.” Complaint, ¶ 74; Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009); Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 609 (7th Cir. 2013). The allegation is contradicted by the Exhibits attached to the Complaint. OSGC cannot seek federal review of a local land-use decision without first taking full advantage of state law remedies, particularly when those remedies include a judgment that could eliminate the offending conduct if only OSGC would enforce it.

5. OSGC has failed to state a claim because it has failed to allege a constitutionally protected property interest.

The first element of a claim for deprivation of due process rights is “that the claimed interest is a protected property or liberty interest under the fourteenth amendment.” Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551, 555 (1989).

The interests OSGC alleges are subject to constitutional protection—“the construction, development and occupation of the waste-to-energy facility based on the CUP and the building permit issued by the City” and “its contracts for waste-to-energy with third-parties, and various grants and tax-credits for the project”—are all contingent on the CUP. Complaint, ¶¶ 88, 89. The CUP is not a protectable property interest and cannot support a contingent protectable interest.

Protectable property interests are defined by state law, Polenz, 883 F.2d 551 (1989), and exist only when the state’s discretion is “clearly limited such that the plaintiff cannot be denied the interest unless specific conditions are met.” Brown v. City of Michigan City, Ind., 462 F.3d 720, 729 (7th Cir. 2006). Under Wisconsin law, including the decisions attached to the Complaint, not only is a CUP subject to a municipality’s discretion, it is explictily not property. “The decision to revoke a CUP, like the decision to grant one, involves the exercise of a municipality’s discretion.” Exhibit A, p. 10, ¶ 20. (citing Roberts v. Manitowoc Cnty. Bd. of Adj., 2006 WI App 169, ¶ 10, 295 Wis. 2d 522, 721 N.W.2d 499). “A conditional use permit is not property; it is a type of zoning designation.” Exhibit B, p. 35, ¶ 93. (quoting Rainbow Springs Golf Co., Inc. v. Town of Mukwonago, 2005 WI App 163, ¶ 18, 284 Wis. 2d 519, 702 N.W.2d 40).

While the Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit have both acknowledged the “theoretical possibility that a land-use decision…could constitute a deprivation of property without substantive due process of law,” this possibility does not excuse the threshold requirement of a protectable property interest. CEnergy-Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore, 769 F.3d 485 (2014) (citing Polenz v. Parrott, 883 F.2d 551 (1989)). For example, Polenz found a protectable property interest in “the right of use” where the City of Oak Creek denied an occupancy permit, without which plaintiffs “could not occupy the premises for any use for a period of eighteen months.” 883 F.2d at 55 (emphasis in original) (remanding for a determination on adequacy of state law remedies). And River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park found a protectable property interest in a zoning classification where state law required the City to grant the plaintiff’s zoning application. 23 F.3d 164, 165 (7th Cir. 1994) (dismissing complaint because available state law remedies were adequate).

Neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has definitely concluded that a land-use decision actually amounted to a deprivation of property without substantive due process, let alone found that a CUP could support such a deprivation. When asked to do so by the wind farm developer in CEnergy-Glenmore, the Seventh Circuit remarked that “[w]hether CEnergy has even identified a property interest in the building permits it sought, its use of the land it leased, or its agreement with WPS is questionable, but we need not decide those issues.” 769 F.3d 485, 488 (dismissing due process claim for failure to show actions were arbitrary and failure to seek recourse under state law); see also Donohoo v. Hanson, No. 14–c–309–wmc, *1 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 3, 2015) (unpublished), aff’d, No. 16-2405 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016) (dismissing due process claims by “[a]ssuming, without deciding, that Donohoo’s requested use permit constituted a property interest that implicated due process…”). Similarly, this case is easily disposed of without addressing the issue, but if addressed, the Wisconsin state judgments are controlling. “A conditional use permit is not property.” Exhibit B, p. 35, ¶ 93.

6. OSGC has failed to state a claim because the decision to rescind the CUP was not arbitrary in the Federal constitutional sense.

OSGC must show that the City “exercised its power without reasonable justification in a manner that shocks the conscience,” Bettendorf, 631 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir. 2011), and “only the most egregious official conduct” qualifies. CEnergy-Glenmore, 769 F.3d 485, 488 (2014). “A plaintiff bears a very heavy burden in a substantive due process claim attacking a decision of local zoning officials.” Polenz, 883 F.2d 551, 558. “And rightly so, for the federal courts are not zoning boards of appeal and will not overturn merely erroneous decision.” Id.

This Court recently applied the “shocks the conscience” test in CEnergy-Glenmore where the plaintiff alleged due process violations based on the Town of Glenmore unreasonably dragging its feet on a building application to kill a wind turbine project. No. 12–C–1166, *1. There, as here, there were no allegations of “corruption or self-dealing by the members of the Town Board” and “no allegation that the Board was bribed or that members had a financial interest in killing CEnergy’s contract.” Id. As in the Complaint, the land-use decision was allegedly motivated by community opposition. Id.; Complaint, ¶¶ 57, 81. The Court held [i]t is hardly surprising, or shocking, that an elected Town Board would be responsive to its more vocal constituents.” CEnergy-Glenmore, NO. 12–C–1166, *5. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, [a]s far as the Constitution is concerned, popular opposition to a proposed land development plan is a rational and legitimate reason for a legislature to delay making a decision.” 769 F.3d at 488.

CEnergy governs here. OSGC has failed to allege facts that show the City acted arbitrarily in the constitutional sense and has, therefore, failed to state a claim for a violation of substantive due process.

OSGC cites the state court findings to show that the decision was arbitrary. Complaint, ¶¶ 66–68, 80, Exhibits A and B. However, the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly held that [a] violation of state law is not a denial of due process law.” See, e.g., Coniston Corp v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 467 (7th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals defined an “arbitrary decision” as “one that is ‘unreasonable or without a rational basis’” or “the result of an unconsidered, wilful or irrational choice, and not the result of the ‘sifting and winnowing’ process’” and “capricious” as “a whimsical, unreasoning departure from established norms or standards.” Exhibit A, p. 11, ¶ 21. The Supreme Court did not even apply an “arbitrary” standard, but asked only “whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question.” Exhibit B, p. 17, ¶¶ 41–42. The state court rulings to no evidence a constitutionally arbitrary action.

OSGC also relies on the allegation that the City manufactured a “pretext” of misrepresentations to justify its decision to rescind the CUP. Complaint, ¶ 81. But this conduct allegedly occurred after the vote to rescind the CUP. Complaint, ¶¶ 57–60. At the time of the vote, the Complaint alleges that “The Common Council provided absolutely no explanation at the hearing supporting its decisions.” Complaint, ¶ 58. OSGC expects more than it’s due. “Cities may elect to make zoning decisions through the political process” including “by putting the question to a popular referendum, direct democracy with no hearing of any kind.” 23 F.3d 164, 166 (citing Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (1976)). If OSGC was not even entitled to a hearing, it certainly was not entitled to any justification, and the allegations that the justification was an after-the-fact “sham” do not amount to due process violation. Complaint, ¶ 81.

7. As to GBRE, the Complaint fails to make any allegations beyond its citizenship, let alone state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

“Federal Rule of Civil procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the …claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007). GBRE appears exactly twice in the Complaint—once in the caption, and once in paragraph 12:

Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principle place of business at 1239 Flightway Drive, DePere, Wisconsin 54115. It is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, formed for the purpose of developing the facility.

Paragraph 12 is not a “short and plain statement” of GBRE’s claim, it does not show that GBRE is entitled to relief, and it does not give the City fair notice of GBRE’s claims. To the contrary, it is impossible from the Complaint to know why GBRE is named as a plaintiff. The only allegations of wrongdoing pertain to OSGC. See Complaint, ¶¶ 85–96 (alleging that OSGC’s substantive and procedural due process rights were violated, that OSGC incurred out-of-pocket and legal expenses and lost profits, and that OSGC had a constitutionally protected interest in the CUP). As to GBRE, there is only paragraph 12.

Even parsing paragraph 12 does nothing to explain GBRE’s claim. The allegations that GBRE “is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation” and “was formed for the purpose of developing the facility” do not allow GBRE to piggy-back on OSGC’s allegations when, according to the Complaint, OSGC and GBRE are distinct corporations. Complaint, ¶¶ 11–12; see Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Lay-Com, Inc., 580 F.3d 602, 610 (7th Cir. 2009) (“A corporation exists separately from its shareholders, officers, directors and related corporations.” (emphasis added)); Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp., 875 F.2d 1252, 1256 (allowing a parent corporation to litigate subsidiaries’ claims—not a subsidiary corporation to litigate a parent’s claims). As such, the Complaint fails to state a claim as to GBRE.

B. GBRE has failed to allege injury in fact and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

1. Standard of Review under Rule 12(b)(1)

“Article III of the constitution limits federal judicial power to certain ‘cases’ and ‘controversies,’ and the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ of standing contains three elements. Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559–60 (1992)). “To establish Article III standing, ‘a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–181 (2000)). “As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of Article III standing.” Id.

There are two types of subject matter jurisdiction challenges, factual and facial. Id. A facial challenge argues that the plaintiff has not sufficiently “alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Apex Dig., Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 443 (7th Cir. 2009)). For facial subject matter jurisdiction challenges under Rule 12(b)(1), “a court should use Twombly-Iqbal’s ‘plausibility’ requirement, which is the same standard used to evaluate facial challenges to claims under Rule 12(b)(6).” Id.

2. The Complaint does not allege that GBRE has suffered an injury in fact.

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, GBRE bears the burden of establishing standing. The Complaint does not allege that GBRE suffered any injury at all, let alone that it was injured by the City, or that a favorable decision will redress its injury. See Silha v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169. The only injury alleged in the Complaint is to OSGC. Complaint, ¶¶ 85–96 (alleging that OSGC’s substantive and procedural due process rights were violated, that OSGC incurred out-of- pocket and legal expenses and lost profits, and that OSGC had a constitutionally protected interest in the CUP).

The allegation that GBRE is “a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of [OSGC]” does not support an inference of injury to GBRE. See Complaint, ¶ 12. A parent company has Article III standing on the basis of injury to a subsidiary because injury to a subsidiary can cause “actual financial injury” to the parent, and a judicial determination as to the rights of the subsidiary “would prevent such injuries.” In re Neurontin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 810 F.Supp.2d 366, 369 (D.Mass. 2011) (discussing Franchise Tax Bd. of Calif. v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 493 U.S. 331, 335–36 (1990)). The opposite is not true. A subsidiary does not have standing on the basis of injury to a parent company—injury to the parent company does not cause actual financial injury to the subsidiary, and a judicial determination as to the rights of the parent has no impact on the rights of the subsidiary.

C. The Complaint should be dismissed under Rules 12(b)(2), 9(a), and 17(b)(2) for lack of corporate capacity to sue.

1. Facts Relevant to Dismissal Under Rule 9(a) and 17(b)(2).

The following facts are submitted solely for the purpose of the City’s arguments under Rule 9(a), and not for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff OSGC is “a tribal corporation chartered under the laws of the Oneida Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe.” Complaint, ¶ 11. Plaintiff GBRE is “a Delaware limited liability company” and “wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.” Complaint, ¶ 12.

According to the OSGC Corporate Charter, the Charter was granted by the Oneida Business Committee based upon authority vested in it by the Oneida General Tribal Council. Declaration of Gregg J. Gunta in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Capacity to Sue (“Gunta Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. 2.

As described by the Oneida Nation constitution, the General Tribal Council is “[t]he governing body of Oneida Nation” and is “composed of all the qualified voters of the Oneida Nation.” Ex. 1, Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation (2015), Article III, § 1. The Business Committee consists of nine elected members and is empowered by the constitution to “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.” Id., § 3.

On December 15, 2013, the General Tribal Council moved to dissolve OSGC. Declaration of Leah Dodge (“Dodge Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. 6. The motion was recorded as “Motion by Cathy L. Mextoxen to dissolve [Oneida] Seven Generations Corporation and for Frank Cornelius to assist and work with the Business Committee on the dissolution, seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion approved by a hand count: 814 yes, 689 no, 69 abstained, total-1,572.Id.

On December 24, 2013, the Oneida Business Committee adopted “BC Resolution 12-24- 13-A Reorganization of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.” Gunta Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3. The resolution was “to begin the process of dissolution of the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation in a business-like manner.” Id., p. 2. It acknowledged that “the General Tribal Council and the Oneida Business Committee have been informed that dissolution of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation may take up to or exceed 10-12 months in order to minimize negative financial consequences and wind up the activities of the corporation in a business-like manner.” Id., p. 1. Under the resolution, Article VI of the OSGC corporate charter, “PURPOSES AND POWERS” was modified as follows:

The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in any lawful activity within the purposes for which the corporation may be organized under the Oneida Constitution and Oneida tribal laws, ordinances and jurisdiction activities related solely to the purposes of commercial leasing.

Id., p. 2.

On May 27, 2015, the Oneida Business Committee adopted “BC Resolution 5-27-15-B Adoption of Amendments to the Oneida Seven Generations Corporate Charter Limiting Purposes to Commercial Leasing Activities Only.” Gunda Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4. This Resolution recognized that “the General Tribal Council, on December 15, 2013, directed the Oneida Business Committee to dissolve the corporation” and “the Oneida Business Committee began the process of dissolution of the corporation by adoption of amendments to the corporate charter limiting its purposes, removing the board of directors, and appointing an agent for the sole purposes of dissolving the corporation in a financially responsible manner.” Id., p. 1. It also recognized that OSGC, GBRE, and the Oneida Tribe had been “sued in regard to alleged contract violations.” Id.

[T]he litigation, began in early 2014, remains yet unresolved and subject to the appeals process, such that the Oneida Business Committee has determined that a longer term solution and compliance with the General Tribal Council directive is needed to clearly limit the corporation to commercial leasing and restrict its powers and authorities to maintaining the value of existing assets.

Id. [Footnote: The 2014 litigation was the suit by ACF Leasing, LLC, ACF Services, LLC, and Generation Clean Fuels, LLC, against Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin [n/k/a Oneida Nation in Wisconsin]. ACF Leasing, LLC et al. v. Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC et al., No. 1–14–3443 (Ill. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2015) (unreported).]

The Oneida Business Committee, therefore, resolved to amend the OSGC Corporate Charter again, id., such that Article VI, “PURPOSES AND POWERS,” now states:

The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in activities related solely to the purposes of commercial leasing. The Corporation is prohibited from engaging in any action not specifically for the purposes of commercial leasing and nothing in the powers granted under this Articke [sic] shall be interpreted to authorize any other purpose or power. In the event of any cause for interpretation of the purposes and powers granted in this article, such interpretation shall be narrowly construed to limit the purposes and powers to commercial leasing activities. The powers of the Corporation are:

***

(H) To sue and be sued in its Corporate name as herein specifically provided to the extent allowed by Oneida tribal, state or federal law upon any contract, claim or obligation of the Corporation arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes

Gunta Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4, p. 3–4.

On August 10, 2016, there was a special General Tribal Council meeting. Dodge Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 8. In response to pressure to finally dissolve OSGC as resolved by the General Tribal Council in 2013, opponents to the dissolution moved “to rescind the December 15, 2013 action dissolving the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and restrict the corporation to commercial leasing activities.” Id. The motion was amended as “to allow Oneida Seven Generations Corporation to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay.” Id. This amendment to the motion was made specifically to allow OSGC to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay. Dodge Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 10. The main motion to rescind OSGC’s dissolution was not voted on. Instead, proponents of the dissolution moved to table it. Dodge Decl., Ex. 8; see also Dodge Decl., [Exhibit 9, August 10, 2016 GTC Meeting VIDEO] at 2:44:29 (Frank Cornelius addressing the General Tribal Council: “What I think we should do is table the main motion because … the General Tribal Council already voted… to close it and you didn’t do that… the Business Committee failed…”). The General Tribal Council voted to table the main motion and its amendments. Dodge Decl., Ex. 8. On October 2, 2016, the meeting reconvened, and a motion was made to take the item from the table, but this motion failed. Id.

The General Tribal Council follows Robert’s Rules of Order. Gunta Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5. Under “Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council,” a motion to table “has the effect of taking the entire subject matter out of discussion.” Id., p. 3. When tabled in a special meeting like the August 10, 2016 meeting, “the matter dies, unless there is another meeting scheduled to discuss the subject.” Id.

This lawsuit was initiated by plaintiffs OSGC and GBRE on December 23, 2016. Complaint. The Complaint alleges due process violations based on the City’s decision on October 16, 2012, to rescind a conditional use permit that would have allowed OSGC to build a waste-to-energy facility. Complaint, ¶¶ 55–58. OSGC has already litigated the decision in Wisconsin courts and won a reversal. Complaint, Exs. A, B.

2. Standard of Review for 9(a) and 17(b)(2), Capacity to Sue.

Under Rule 9(a), “a pleading need not allege… a party’s capacity to sue or be sued,” but a party may raise the issue “by a specific denial, which must state any supporting facts that are peculiarly within the party’s knowledge.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(a). Under Rule 17(b), “Capacity to sue or be sued is determined…for a corporation, by the law under which it was organized.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b).

“Questions involving a party’s capacity to sue or be sued [] turn on issues of fact” and “must therefore be identified in either a responsive pleading or motion.” Swaim v. Moltan Co., 73 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 1996). “The pleading requirements for capacity thus correspond to those for personal jurisdiction.” Id. As to the requirements for personal jurisdiction,

A complaint need not include facts alleging personal jurisdiction. However, once the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of jurisdiction.

The precise nature of the plaintiff’s burden depends upon whether an evidentiary hearing has been held. When the district court holds an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. However, when the district court rules on a defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the submission of written materials, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, as the district court did here, the plaintiff, ‘need only make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.’ In evaluating whether the prima facie standard has been satisfied, the plaintiff ‘is entitled to the resolution in its favor of all disputes concerning relevant facts presented in the record.’

Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations and parentheticals omitted).

3. OSGC lacks capacity to bring the present suit.

Rather than dissolve OSGC as directed by the General Tribal Council in 2013, the Business Committee amended the OSGC Corporate Charter. Before the dissolution, the purpose of OSGC was “to engage in any lawful activity within the purposes for which the corporation may be organized under the Oneida Constitution and Oneida tribal laws, ordinances and jurisdiction,” and OSGC was empowered to sue on any claim “arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes.” Gunta Decl., Ex.2, Article VI. At the time this lawsuit was filed, OSGC was “prohibited from engaging in any action not specifically for the purposes of commercial leasing…” Gunta Decl., Ex. 4, p. 3–4. OSGC may still sue on claims of the Corporation “arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes,” but its purposes are strictly limited to “commercial leasing.” Id. In determining whether the present lawsuit “arise[s] out of the accomplishment” of commercial leasing, OSGC’s powers and purposes “shall be narrowly construed to limit the purposes and powers to commercial leasing activities.” Id.

The claims raised in the Complaint do not “arise out of the accomplishment” of commercial leasing activities. Any rights that might even tangentially impact OSGC’s ability to commercially lease the property at issue were already determined by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court. See Complaint, Ex. A (Oneida Seven Generations Corp., LLC v. City of Green Bay, 2015 WI 50, ¶ 41–42, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162) and Ex. B (Oneida Seven Generations Corp., LLC v. City of Green Bay, 2015 WI 50, ¶ 93, 362 Wis. 2d 290, 865 N.W.2d 162). The state court lawsuits reversed the City’s decision to rescind a conditional use permit (and affirmed the reversal), restoring the conditional use permit and any commercial leasing interest OSGC may have had in the conditional use permit. Id. This lawsuit will not accomplish any commercial leasing activities, and OSGC is “prohibited” from bringing it. Gunta Decl., Ex. 4, p. 3.

But to even reach this analysis presupposes the ongoing existence of OSGC. Under Oneida law, the will of the Business Committee is clearly subordinate to that of the General Tribal Council. The Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation designates the General Tribal Council as “the governing body of the Oneida Nation.” Ex. 1, Article III, § 1. The Oneida Constitution also instructs the Business Committee to “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.” Id., § 3. This structure is affirmed in the Corporate Charter of Oneida Seven Generations which was granted by the Business Committee “based upon authority vested in it by the Oneida General Tribal Council.” Gunta Dec., Ex. 2, Article II; Ex. 4, p. 3, Article II.

The 2013 General Tribal Council resolution to dissolve OSGC stripped the business committee of any authority to continue OSGC’s corporate charter. At the time this lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2016, OSGC should no longer have existed under the law of Oneida Nation.

Whether or not OSGC still exists, and whether or not the present lawsuit accomplishes a commercial leasing activity, any doubts as to whether OSGC was authorized to bring the present lawsuit were resolved on August 10, 2016 by the General Tribal Council. The capacity of a corporation to sue is determined by the state of its incorporation, even if the corporation is dissolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(2); Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 506 Fed. Appx. 517, 519 (7th Cir. 2013) (applying the law of the state of incorporation pursuant to Rule 17(b)(2) to determine a dissolved corporation’s capacity to sue). The Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation are silent on whether a dissolved corporation can sue, see Ex. 1,  but the General Tribal Council — the governing body of the Oneida Nation – entertained a motion specifically designed to allow OSGC to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay. Dodge Decl., ¶¶ 4–6, Exs. 8–10.
That motion did not pass. Ex. 8. It was tabled, and died. Id.; see also Gunta Decl., Ex. 5 (“Roberts Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council”). This lawsuit should have died with it.

As to GBRE, even if OSGC continues to exist, it cannot delegate authority it does not have. GBRE has no more capacity to sue the City than OSGC.

CONCLUSION

OSGC has failed to show that its state law remedies were inadequate, failed to exhaust those remedies, failed to identify a protectable property interest, and failed to show that the decision to rescind the CUP was arbitrary in the constitutional sense. For each of these independent reasons, the Complaint fails to state a due process violation cognizable under § 1983 and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

As to GBRE, the Complaint has failed to allege anything at all beyond its own citizenship, let alone state a claim upon which relief can be granted or injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. GBRE should be dismissed pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Complaint should further be dismissed because OSGC and GBRE lack of capacity to sue under Rules 12(b)(2), 9(a), and 17(b)(2).

Dated this 7th day of February, 2017.

GUNTA LAW OFFICES, S.C.
Attorneys for Defendant, City of Green Bay

 


OSGC … BTFO


 

The city of Green Bay has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Oneida Seven Generations Corp., seeking damages from a failed waste-to-energy plant project.

In 2010, the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. (OSGC) received city permission to build a power plant fueled by municipal solid waste. However, after construction started, the City Council revoked the conditional use permit. Now, the tribal corporation is seeking to recover damages. It is seeking $5 million to recover expenses and $16 million in lost profits, plus other costs.

Instead of responding to the OSGC claims, the city’s attorneys make a two-fold argument for why the case should be dismissed: the tribal company failed to exhaust its options in state court, and it doesn’t make a valid due process violation claim.

On the first point, the city notes that after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in May 2015 that the city improperly revoked the plant’s permit, OSGC never followed up with the courts to have the court order implemented. …

A FOX 11 review Tuesday of court records showed no filings by either side in both the circuit court case and the appeals court since the decision was filed.

On the second point, the city argues that OSGC fails to meet the federal standards for making a due process violation claim. … 

The city’s brief also argues that the OSGC wasn’t authorized by the Oneida General Tribal Council to pursue the lawsuit.

The tribe has several weeks to respond to the city’s filing, and the city gets to reply to that before any hearings would be scheduled or decision made by the judge.


  

What is OSGC’s and Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud scheme partner Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technologies, Inc. / ACTI up to lately…

other than changing names to American Renewable Energy Inc. / AREI, and American Renewable Technologies, Inc. / ARTI and working with new sketchy fronts like ProMaxx Advanced Fuels and Gander Corporation?

  

ACTI is being sued… for FRAUD:

This action arises out of a business dispute. … Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from Defendants, which allegedly did not perform as promised. …

Additionally, Defendants did not provide certain documents that Plaintiff asserts they were contractually required to provide. … Plaintiff therefore brought claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and revocation

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants provided equipment that, “as designed and manufactured,” cannot “function at the levels promised and warranted by Defendants.” … The information Plaintiff seeks is relevant and necessary to determining whether manufacturing defects exist.

  


FLASHBACK – February 14, 2013:

Related:


 

OSGC Cheerleader v. Every Generation


See also:




1:45 pm  [Asst. U.S. Attorney Matthew] Krueger informs the Court of separate ongoing federal investigations, government in possession of approximately 313,000 pages of material, potential relevance, and agrees the volume of material is not realistic for manual review.


¶4 This proceeding arises from Attorney [TyWillihnganz‘s professional involvement with a Green Bay businessman and family friend, [Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel].

¶5 In approximately 2010, Attorney Willihnganz, who had taken a break from the practice of law to pursue other career interests, returned to Green Bay and the practice of law. He negotiated an agreement with [Ron Van Den Heuvel], whereby [Ron Van Den Heuvelagreed to provide Attorney Willihnganz with office space for his legal practice and to pay his State Bar of Wisconsin bar dues and CLE expenses in exchange for Attorney Willihnganz providing certain legal services to [Ron Van Den Heuveland his new energy startup, Green Box [NA Green Bay, LLC].

¶6 The working arrangement proved stressful and Attorney Willihnganz described it as a “pretty desperate time” when, in March of 2013, an individual who had invested $600,000 in Green Box [NA Green Bay, LLC] filed a lawsuit in Brown County circuit court against [Ron Van Den Heuvel] and Green Box [NA Green Bay, LLC], alleging that his investment was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation. Attorney Willihnganz’s brief representation of [Ron Van Den Heuvel] and Green Box during his administrative license suspension gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding. …

¶57 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ty Christopher Willihnganz is publicly reprimanded for his professional misconduct.

¶58 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Ty Christopher Willihnganz shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding, which total $5,028.97 as of October 6, 2016.

¶59 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation shall advise the court if there has not been full compliance with all conditions of this order.







02/13/2017 UPDATE:

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt was told a year ago that a campaign finance investigation against three aldermen had been closed but said nothing. Schmitt, in December 2015, requested the investigation after one was launched into his campaign finances. The probe into the Mayor’s finances ultimately led to misdemeanor conviction charges against him.

Aldermen Tom De Wane, Andy Nicholson and Chris Wery contended at the time that Schmitt’s request for an investigation into them was nothing more than retaliation for the probe against Schmitt. De Wane said that he had no involvement in requesting the investigation against Schmitt. Schmitt made the request to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, who was also investigating Schmitt’s campaign finances.

Throughout the past year, much of the media coverage of the Schmitt probe included mention of the ongoing investigation against the three aldermen. …

In September 2016, Landgraf announced he was charging Schmitt with three misdemeanor offenses. Schmitt pleaded guilty [December 5, 2016] to misdemeanor charges of making false statements on campaign finance reports, attempting to accept funds from someone other than the reported contributor and attempting to accept funds in excess of the individual contribution limit. He was ordered to pay a $4,000 fine and serve 40 hours of community service.

A citizen has petitioned the Green Bay City Council for Schmitt’s removal from office. The Council will hold a hearing on that [removal] petition on [Monday, February 20, 2017].




02/14/2017 UPDATE:

Three aldermen [Chris Wery, Tom DeWane, and Andy Nicholson,] are accusing Mayor Jim Schmitt of launching a campaign finance probe against them and then sitting for a year on the news that the probe came up empty.

Wery said he learned only Friday that Schmitt knew a special prosecutor had discounted Schmitt’s accusations against the aldermen…but the mayor still told the media an investigation was underway.

Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, serving as a special prosecutor in this case, responded in writing in February 2016 saying he would not pursue Schmitt’s accusations. …

But Schmitt still told Press-Gazette Media in April that Landgraf was investigating the aldermen’s campaign finances.

Why, when he was notified there would be no investigation, did he withhold that information?” Wery asked. “Jim Schmitt’s deceitful, dishonest tactics were only meant to damage the aldermen and shift the spotlight off his illegal campaign activity.”

Landgraf rejected several attempts by Press-Gazette Media over the past year to get an update on the investigations.

Wery and the others suggested from the beginning that Schmitt’s accusations were just retaliatory.

A City Council hearing on whether to remove Schmitt from office is scheduled for [Monday, February 20, 2017].

Schmitt acknowledged earlier Tuesday that he received a letter from the special prosecutor indicating he would take no further action on investigating the aldermen.

“Is it my job to share a personal letter?” he asked.



02/15/2017 UPDATE:

Schmitt’s lawyer, Patrick Knight, on Wednesday filed a petition asking Brown County Circuit Court Judge Marc Hammer to stop the hearing. …

In January, Council President Tom De Wane and Vice President Mark Steuer hired Milwaukee attorney Jeremy Levinson to guide the council through the removal hearing. On Feb. 7, the council notified Schmitt it would hold the hearing on Feb. 20. …

“He feels we don’t have the right to do this. The attorney we hired says we do,” De Wane said. “I really expect whoever looks at this filing will allow us to go forward.”

The case has been assigned to Outagamie County Judge John Des Jardins.


02/16/2017 UPDATE:

WLUK: City Council Attorney says hearing on mayor should move forward

 

You’ve gone way too far this time, Lyin’ Sack o’ Schmitt…

GREEN BAY, WI (WTAQ) – Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt lashed out at a trio of city council members during a recent Political Radar podcast, eluding that some aldermen may be dealing with mental health problems or broken home lives.

“If I hammer someone down and they speak over me or they make these, just terrible comments like a punk kid would on a playground, I just can’t believe he says those kinds of things,” Schmitt said. “But then sometimes I write it off to mental health cause I hear he’s got, you know, some of these guys have some issues, and then if you look at their personal lives, their broken…and not that I feel sorry for them, but that gives me a little bit of a framework and that’s how I can deal with it.”

  

Get a load of this steamin’ pile o’ Schmitt:

  

  

About ‘broken home lives’… Mayor Schmuck,

HOW DID YOUR BROTHER THE PRIEST

FEEL ABOUT YOUR FELONIOUS LIES

NAMING HIM IN YOUR CRIMES?

A “MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM”?

SUFFERING GENETIC BOUT OF

‘MOMENTARY INSANITY,’

OR ‘KLEPTOMANIA’

(OR ‘POSSESSED’)

?????

 

Part of them highlight two December 2013 donations, listed on receipts from the initials C S. Landgraf, the prosecutor, says the dates are consistent with a corporate contribution from Cantilever Studios, LLC, of Suamico. But an amended report filed in January of last year lists donations on those dates from Carl Schmitt – the mayor’s brother and a priest in Sturgeon Bay.

Landgraf says “The ‘C S’ amendment is remarkable for several reasons.” He notes a corporate donation would be prohibited by law, and that the amendment was done at at time when Schmitt’s committee was already being publicly criticized.

According to the criminal complaint, Carl Schmitt told investigators he doesn’t remember donating any money to his brother. Rev. Schmitt did not respond to FOX 11’s interview request Monday.

 

Ledger of ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN DONATION from ONEIDA SEVEN GENERGATIONS CORPORATION to GREEN BAY MAYOR JIM SCHMITT

 

To keep the money and fudge the campaign finance forms is dishonest. In this case, Schmitt accepted two donations from a corporation, Cantilever Studios. On a campaign finance report there were no donations listed from Cantilever Studios, but there were two donations made on the same days for the same amount from “CS.” That report was later amended and Schmitt wrote the name of his brother, “Carl Schmitt,” below “CS.”

Schmitt was willing to falsify reports in an attempt to keep his office. It’s not like he overlooked something or was ignorant of the law. When informed of the mistakes, he tried to mislead the public.

We can’t accept such deceptive behavior from the top city official, who should be held to a higher standard.


02/20/2017 UPDATE:

“The implied premise that he stopped being mayor and was no longer bound by the associated duties and roles … is sleight of hand,” [the Common Council’s attorney Jeremy] Levinson wrote. “He remained the mayor, a public official. When he opted to commit campaign finance crimes to keep his office and to file fraudulent records with the city clerk, he was both an incumbent candidate and the mayor.”

Schmitt’s petition also claimed holding the hearing would cause him substantial legal expenses, great political harm and public embarrassment.

In his response, Levinson argued Schmitt cannot be harmed by public scrutiny since he chose a career in politics.

“Scrutiny comes with the job,” Levinson argued.


Violating campaign laws as an incumbent attempting to retain an office, however, cannot always be viewed as unconnected to the incumbent’s actions as an elected official. When the violations indicate some merging of the official’s role as candidate with his role as incumbent elected official, the requisite connection to satisfy the cause requirement of [state statute] could be found. The Common Council has alleged, for example, that in the course of violating campaign finance laws, Schmitt used his official position as Mayor to direct the City Clerk to conduct an audit of his campaign finance reports, thus merging his acts as mayor with his acts as a candidate. As a result, the Common Council has shown that it is proceeding on alleged wrongs connected to Schmitt’s actions as Mayor.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court does not find grounds to grant the extraordinary remedy of a writ of prohibition. Schmitt retains the alternative remedy of certiotari review if the Common Council votes to remove him on grounds without a sufficient connection to his capacity as mayor Therefore, the Court finds that a writ of prohibition is not appropriate.

ORDER

Schmitt’s Petition for a Writ of Prhohibition is DENIED. Schmitt is not entitled to an award of his costs and disbursements.


PUBLIC HEARINGS (TO BEGIN AT 7:00 P.M.)…

Quasi-Judicial Hearing on petition for removal of Mayor James J. Schmitt from the Office of Mayor.


02/20/2017 LATE UPDATE:

The Green Bay City Council fell one vote short of removing Mayor Jim Schmitt from office. The council voted 8-4 to remove him but state law required nine votes — a three-quarters majority. The vote came at 11:13 p.m., after more than four hours of arguments and deliberations.

The City Council found there was cause to remove Schmitt from office, but Alderman Randy Scannell’s decision not to back Schmitt’s removal kept him in office.

The council voted 9-3 to find there was cause to remove Schmitt after a tense, hourlong hearing and close to three hours of closed session deliberations.

But Scannell’s decision not to support removing Schmitt deprived the council of the nine votes needed to remove Schmitt from office.


    

    


Hubris – The Grift That Keeps On Taking: Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONW-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (GBRE) Sue The City Of Green Bay To Defend Incinerator Schemes Of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Various Fronts (Green Box NA, et al.) & Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technology Inc. (ACTI); But… General Tribal Council’s 12/15/2013 Directive To Dissolve OSGC Stands, While Motions On 8/10/2016 To Rescind OSGC’s Dissolution And Allow OSGC To Sue Green Bay Remained Tabled For Over 3 Months & Thereby Died

  

See Oneida Eye’s Documents page – as well as our Media page – for updates.

 

  

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 10, 2016: Motion by Sherrole Benton to rescind the December 15, 2013 action dissolving the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and restrict the corporation to commercial leasing activities. Seconded by Loretta Metoxen. Motion not voted on; item tabled.

Amendment to the main motion by Allen R. King to approve all of the BC recommendations for Items 4.A.1-4. Chairwoman Tina Danforth ruled this motion out of order.

Amendment to the main motion by Nancy Skenandore that we as GTC want to know who are the leaders; who are the investors; who are the attorneys; who are the stockholders; who are the owners; who are the board members; how are they paid; what do they use for collateral; for this information be provided for the last 10 years; and to be reported at the next meeting. Seconded by Cathy Metoxen. Motion carried by show of hands.

Amendment to the main motion by Dan Hawk to allow Oneida Seven Generations Corporation to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay. Seconded by Sherrole Benton. Motion carried by show of hands.

EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 10, 2016: Motion by Frank Cornelius to table this item. Seconded by Linda Dallas. Motion carried by hand count: 845 support; 395 opposed; 16 abstentions.

EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 2, 2016: Motion by [Oneida Business Committee Vice-Chair] Melinda J. Danforth to take the motion related to item 4.A.1. from the table. Seconded by Allen King. Motion failed by show of hands.

 

Therefore, the Amendment “to allow [OSGC] to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay” remained tabled and unadopted by GTC since August 10, 2016, as did the Main Motion to “rescind” GTC’s December 15, 2013 Directive to dissolve OSGC.

  

Moreover, the Main Motion remained ‘on the Table’ for longer than a quarterly time interval (3 months), thus – in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order – the Main Motion and all of its Amendments have died.

  

However, GTC’s December 15, 2013 Directive to fully dissolve OSGC stands.

 

  

  

Despite those facts, here’s this pile o’ reindeer shiz courtesy of OSGC… and Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

  • December 23, 2016 Complaint & Jury Demand, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case#1:16-cv-1700-WCG, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC v. City of Green Bay

 


Compare OSGC & GBRE’s narrative with that of the 2nd Amended Disclosure Statement of OSGC’s and Oneida High School Principal Artley Skenandore’s fraudulent & failed ‘renewable energy’-related Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. scheme partner Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraudulent & failed Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, which – just like OSGC and its subsidiary Oneida Energy Inc. – also received funding from Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC:

 

The difference?

Unlike OSGC, which hired Godfrey & Kahn to defend OSGC & GBRE’s version of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s & Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s fraudulent incinerator schemes against the City of Green Bay…

Godfrey & Kahn client Dr. Marco Araujo sued OSGC’s ‘renewable energy’ scheme partner Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay LLC for “numerous misrepresentations attempting to defraud its creditors”with none other than Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC as one of Araujo’s Co-Plaintiffs.

 

  

Let that sink in.

  

  

Many questions have been raised as to why WEDC ever even funded Ron Van Den Heuvel in the first place:

The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., Montreal-based Cliffton Equities Inc. and De Pere-area physician Dr. Marco Araujo sued Green Box NA [Green Bay, LLC,] and its president, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, on May 20 seeking repayment of more than $5.7 million in loans. They claim Green Box is near insolvency, worry it cannot cure its many defaults and suspect the company offered the same collateral to multiple financiers.

Van Den Heuvel’s casual commingling of assets and collateral among his many entities gives rise to a real concern that he will dispose of plaintiff’s collateral improperly or that collateral may not exist,” the plaintiffs’ initial complaint states.

On Monday, Van Den Heuvel’s attorney John Petitjean told Circuit Court Judge Thomas Walsh that Van Den Heuvel cannot provide many documents court-appointed receiver Michael Polsky has requested because Brown County Sheriff’s Office deputies executed a search warrant at Green Box’s De Pere offices and removed five truckloads of documents and computer equipment from Green Box’s offices in the last month.

The newspaper version included the following:

WEDC provided the $1.1 million loan to Green Box NA LLC in 2011 in exchange for a pledge to create 115 jobs by Dec. 31, 2014.

The company stopped making payments in 2013, got the loan terms restructured in 2014 and WEDC declared the company in default in March [2015]. …

Brown County court records indicate that SC Acquisitions LLC of Winnetka, Ill., sought repayment of $28.3 million in a 2010 mortgage foreclosure case filed against four Van Den Heuvel companies – EcoFibre Inc., Custom Paper Products Inc., Partners Concepts Development Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.

The company’s struggle to repay existing debt didn’t stop Van Den Heuvel from continuing to pursue loans from WEDC. …

A WEDC statement on Green Box indicates it authorized Green Box’s 2011 loan less than a month after the quasi-public agency was created [by Gov. Scott Walker].

 

Media reports echoed the questions & concerns of elected Wisconsin officials such as State Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca & State. Sen. Julie Lassa who were themselves WEDC Board members but couldn’t get answers, with Lassa saying at the September 9, 2015 Joint Legislative Audit Committee meeting:

[WEDC] had invited Green Box as late as [2015] to participate in a ‘trade trip’ to Tanzania, even though that Green Box is being investigated and it might be something like a Ponzi scheme or a check-kiting organization.

 

 

 

 

  • November 6, 2015 Letter from U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin to U.S. General Attorney Loretta Lynch requesting review of May 20, 2015 Letter by WI Sen. Julie Lassa & WI Rep. Peter Barca, and September 21, 2015 Letter from 42 Enrolled Members of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin asking for U.S. Department of Justice investigations of Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), and how the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin became the target of criminal waste gasification scams by WEDC recipients Oneida Seven Generations Corp./Green Bay Renewable Energy, Oneida Energy Inc., and Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay, and how Artley Skenandore’s Swakweko LLC and Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technologies Inc./ACTI were involved

 

There’s a reason why critics say Gov. Scott Walker’s “job creation” agency is really a corporate welfare agency that gives away millions to political donors without holding them accountable for creating jobs in return for the money. Discoveries of corruption and malfeasance are uncovered at the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation on a fairly regular basis, and 2016 was no different.

Well, it was different in one respect: Someone who fraudulently took money from WEDC was actually charged with a crime, although it was not for defrauding the state’s taxpayers. Instead, De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel was indicted for fraudently borrowing $700,000 from [Horicon] Bank (whose motto is: “the natural choice”). An accomplice in the scam turned state’s evidence in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Van Den Heuvel, a longtime Republican donor, got even luckier with WEDC, which handed him over $1.2 million. Due to his political connections, Van Den Heuvel never underwent a background check. If he had, WEDC, which was headed by Walker at the time, would have learned that he owed millions in legal judgments to banks, business partners, state tax officials and even a jeweler.

Van Den Heuvel’s modus operandi was borrowing money to pay for equipment and operations of seven businesses that he claimed to operate. But the money actually supported a lavish lifestyle that included a luxurious house, a Florida residence, expensive cars, a luxury box at Lambeau Field, a private plane, and a live-in nanny, who told authorities that she was never paid. She also said Kelly Van Den Heuvel ran up large debts on her credit cards.

That isn’t to say that WEDC did nothing about the scandal. WEDC CEO Mark Hogan enacted a gag order to prevent WEDC board members from talking about its operations.

Following a backlash, Hogan cited feedback from “various board members” in announcing that he would withdraw the order, which would have barred WEDC board members from talking to reporters or sharing information about the agency, which is taxpayer-funded.

Why didn’t WEDC perform better – if any – due diligence or background checks on sketchy ‘green energy’ schemes like those of OSGC & Ron Van Den Heuvel…

…especially given that a basic online search of Wisconsin court cases reveals a multitude of lawsuits involving Ron Van Den Heuvel – including OSGC’s lawsuit against Ron Van Den Heuvel – not to mention the January 7, 2013 WI Tax Appeals Commission Decision and Order in the case of Steven Peters, Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Artley Skenandore vs. WI Dept. of Revenue involving OSGC as Ron’s business partner?

  

Answer:

You’d have to ask WEDC’s Chief Counsel Hannah Renfro… formerly of Godfrey & Kahn.

  

Oh, by the way…

Click to view Godfrey & Kahn’s presentation encouraging tribe’s to finance ‘green energy’ schemes like those of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s various Green Box NAs / EcoHub USA E.A.R.T.H. / RTS, and Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and OSGC subsidiaries Oneida Energy, Inc. and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC.

Guess who else was shoveling that stuff to tribes alongside G&K?

Here’s excerpts from OSGC Head Cheerleader OBC Chair Cristina Delgado-Danforth’s Report when she was OBC Treasurer about her presentation promoting OSGC’s waste energy scheme at that same June 10–13, 2013 Native American Finance Officers Association /  ‘NAFOA Energy Summit’ in Albuquerque, New Mexico; OBC Chair Cristina Danforth is the President of the NAFOA Board as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the Native American Bank NA and the Native American Bancorporation Co. in the State of Colorado:

I was asked to be a speaker at the NAFOA Energy Summit…. The source of my inspiration was the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation Gasification Plant.

Despite our own trials and tribulations with the OSGC project, many of the other Tribes in attendance were eager to learn more. It was a great opportunity to highlight a project OSGC has been working on for some time….

Even though our own Sevens Gens Corporation has been the target of negative press and conversations, they are the only entity connected to our Tribe that thought outside the box and did their best to make something happen that would generate additional revenues for our Tribe. Even though we all do not see the value in their work, they did the best they could with what they had. [OSGC’s] project may not be welcome on our reservation but other Tribes liked the idea and wanted to learn more. It is just unfortunate for us that we were unable to bring this technology to light.

Gee… could there be an ulterior personal financial motive for OBC Chair & Native American Bank NA Board member Cristina Danforth shilling dioxin-emiting incinterators to other tribes, despite the fact that OBC Resolution 11-08-00-B, Dioxin and Other Persistant Organic Pollutants, says the following?

WHEREAS, the ability of our Native community to be protected from the [e]ffects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations and all life that sustains us, and…

WHEREAS, tribal communities and families continue to be disproportionately exposed to dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants. Many of our tribal members are more susceptible to these dangerous toxins due to our land-based culture and subsistence practices, and…

WHEREAS, dioxin has been classified as a “known human carcinogen” with the “highest” level of certainty by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and acknowledged by the World Health Organization that dioxin exposure is linked to severe health effects…

NOW, THERE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin requests that the United States State Department pursue ending the production and release of Dioxin and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the United States.

REMEMBER…

The Native American Bank NA makes money when tribes borrow millions from the BIA for boondoggles like Ron Van Den Heuvel’s & OSGC’s ‘renewable energy’ fruad schemes, and the Native American Bank NA Annual Report 2015 says:

2014 … We became a dominant institution in the utilization of BIA loan guarantees, accounting for nearly 30% of all dollars under this type of guarantee in the country.

For the second year in a row we received a Bank Enterprise Award in the amount of $265,496 and a Performance Lending Award from the US Department of Interior, Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Division of Capital Investment.

Yet, a Report in the 2017 GTC Annual Meeting Packet says the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin has seen a 70% “Decrease of the Equity Value” of its investment in NABNA, and a “Total Return to Nation” of $0

Tina Danforth with NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba … doing, uh, ‘economic development research.’

…and OBC Chair Tina Daforth’s is so busy with for her NABNA & NAFOA gigs that she misses ~50% of OBC Meetings, and her frequent absences combined with the incompetence and/or negligence of her staff recently resulted in a loss to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin of $3 to 4 MILLION for failing to simply respond to an email from the federal government.

Maybe Tina was too busy planning for her ‘work’ trip to Cuba with NAFOA.

  

REMEMBER ALSO…

Selling ‘renewable enrgy’ fraud schemes to other tribes and getting them to go into big debt with BIA loans was a big part of OSGC’s ‘business model,’ as stated in EXHIBIT B of the November 2009 Legislative Award Agreement in WI Dept. of Commerce Contract #LEG FY10-19812 which states:

[The] 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 authorizes the Department to make an annual grant of $1,000,000.00 in each of the year 2009-11 biennium [for a total of $2 million] to Oneida Seven Generations Corporation from funds encumbered in the appropriation under section 20.143 (kj) in the statutes of previous years but not disbursed for grants to Oneida Small Business Inc. and Project 2000 from the gaming economic diversification grant and loan program. …

[OSGC] is the majority shareholder in IEP Development, LLC, a consulting firm specializing in cooperative energy research & development and advisory due diligence to independent energy projects and economic development. …

In conjunction with joint venture partner AITI [or ACTI? as in American Combustion Technology, Inc..]? or is it another one of Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s many fronts?], IEP can acquire rights to manufacture and assemble the products and has exclusivity to market the waste-to-energy systems to tribal, municipal and county governments throughout the United States. Power purchase agreements will comprise approximately 90% of the revenue stream from the IEP system. …

The company is working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for project financing. The Oneida Tribe will set aside approximately 50 acres for the project for a value of $1.2 million. OSGC will manage the lease of this property as well as commit $800,000 of value in the way of office staff, office space, administration costs and money.

 

OSGC’s now defunct subsidiary IEP Development, LLC used the same logo as International Energy Partners, LLC of Caribou, Maine, and one of the original IEP’s members, Marc Hess, owned the recently defunct MH Resources Corp. about which the 2010 GTC Annual Report says:  

OSGC has partnered with MH Resources Corp. to form IEP which is currently vetting different renewable energy projects.

  

Great job with the ‘vetting’ there!

      

  

What is OSGC’s and Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud scheme partner Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technologies, Inc. / ACTI up to lately…

other than changing names to American Renewable Energy Inc. / AREI, and American Renewable Technologies, Inc. / ARTI and working with new sketchy fronts like ProMaxx Advanced Fuels and Gander Corporation?

  

ACTI is being sued… for FRAUD:

This action arises out of a business dispute. … Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from Defendants, which allegedly did not perform as promised. …

Additionally, Defendants did not provide certain documents that Plaintiff asserts they were contractually required to provide. … Plaintiff therefore brought claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and revocation….

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants provided equipment that, “as designed and manufactured,” cannot “function at the levels promised and warranted by Defendants.” … The information Plaintiff seeks is relevant and necessary to determining whether manufacturing defects exist.

  

Speaking of ‘defects’ and a lack of ‘due diligence,’ did we forget to mention…?

Carl J. Artman, who was also “Vice President co-ordinating legal affairs, corporate development and government relations” of Airadigm Communications Inc. with the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin as an investor, was made a “shareholder in [Godfrey & Kahn’s] Indian Nations and Environmental & Energy Policy Groups just weeks before the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin LOST OVER $95 MILLION on its investment in the wireless carrier:

 

Additionally, Carl Artman was also an ‘Independent Tribal Vendor’ as an enrolled ONW member serving as ‘Attorney’ for Oneida Seven Generations Corp. according to OSGC’s FY2011 & FY2012 Reports regarding the ‘plastics-to-oil’ scheme.

Artman Law, LLC was registered with the WI Dept. of Financial Institutions on June 17, 2013 … five weeks after GTC voted to prohibit OSGC and its subsidiaries from engaging in ‘waste-to-energy’ or ‘plastic-to-oil’ anywhere on the ONW Reservation.
 

Former Oneida Law Office Chief Counsel Carl Artman was succeeded by his first cousin, current OLO Chief Counsel Jo Anne House, who has demonstrated a similar level of business acumen & ethics.

 

Let’s put it this way…

…even Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado – who’s no hero by any stretch of the imagination – outright refused to recommend Carl Artman to the OSGC Board after OSGC’s own Attorney applied for an open position, saying “there’s things in his history that I question”:

  

 

REMEMBER LASTLY…

Who really makes the most money on these fraudulent ‘renewable energy’ boondoggles – whether by defending Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud schemes against the City of Green Bay on behalf of OSGC & GBRE, or by suing OSGC’s partner Ron Van Den Heuvel for defrauding investors?

  

THE LAWYERS.

Just ask this guy.


For consideration:

Heavy-hitting law firms Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady will together pay $77.5 million to settle a class action that accused them of aiding a $900 million Ponzi scheme. …The class said that [the law firms] created “a facade of legitimacy” that allowed the Ponzi scheme to continue.

 

(CORNING, Calif. – Aug. 14, 2015) A federal judge ruled today that the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, has subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed by the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians under the federal Racketeer Influence and Corruption (RICO) Act and other state and federal laws against former Tribal officials and senior employees accused of defrauding the Tribe of tens of millions of dollars. The court rejected claims by defendants that the Tribe’s lawsuit is an intra-tribal dispute and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to hear any of the Tribe’s claims.

“We are gratified by the Court’s decision. The Tribe brought this action to hold responsible a group of individuals who, for well over a decade, conspired to steal tens of millions of dollars from the Tribe,” the Paskenta Band of the Nomlaki Indians Tribal Council said in a statement. “That stolen money, much of which the Ringleaders used to pay for a lifestyle of private jet travel, sports cars, and luxury homes, could and should have been used to improve the welfare of the Tribe’s members. The Court’s decision today makes clear that these individuals and others who benefited from their scheme will be held responsible for the harms they caused.”

The Tribe’s co-lead counsel Stuart Gross, of Gross Law P.C., added, “With a single sentence, the Court rejected the argument that this case is an intra-tribal dispute over tribal membership and governance over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. The decision sends a clear message that tribal officials who steal from the tribes they are supposed to serve can and will be held responsible for their actions in federal courts. The defendants misleadingly defended their conspiracy to defraud the Tribe through arguing the federal courts had no power to review actions that violate federal and Tribal law. The opposite is true; and we are pleased the Court rejected defendants’ attempt to avoid liability on this basis.


Start with the fact that Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud schemes have created over $100 Million debt and related tax problems for his estranged family’s company, VHC, Inc. which they’re currently dealing with in U.S. Tax Court:

In its March 2015 petition, VHC  said that it owned debt and not equity in relative Ron Van Den Heuvel’s spinoff businesses and that the IRS wrongly increased VHC’s taxable income during the period while disallowing deductions for the debt, which a series of bad deals had rendered illiquid.

Though VHC declined Ron’s solicitations to invest in businesses under his control, VHC began issuing debt in the form of promissory notes to Ron’s acquired companies for equipment and overhead costs.

Shortly before 2000, VHC issued a line of credit to Ron’s cotton fiber plant for the installation of a key machine, thinking the transaction was secured by the fact that United Arab Emirates Investment Ltd. had made an offer on the plant that would have far exceeded the amount of the company’s debt. However, UAEI withdrew from the deal at the last minute after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, saying the status of a Middle Eastern company in the U.S. had become too risky.

About the same time, Enron, one of the debtor’s key backers, filed for bankruptcy.

VHC gave the company even more money after the two collapses to help it get back on its feet, but a series of bad deals would prevent repayment for years, causing VHC to declare the bad-debt deductions on each year’s tax returns, according to the petition.

Related litigation:

  • Oconto County Case No. 2014CV156,  Tissue Technology LLC  v.  ST Paper LLC [represented by Atty. Jonathan Thomas Smies of Godfrey & Kahn]
    • Scheduling conference on April 11, 2017 at 8:30 am.
  • Brown County Case No. 2016CV1137,  Daniel J. Platkowski  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel; Howard Bedford; Tissue Technology LLC; Glen Arbor LLC; Quotient Partners [dismissed defendants: GlenArbor Equipment LLC; Reclamation Technology Systems LLC; Stonehill Converting LLC; Horicon Bank]
    • Scheduling conference on January 31, 2017 at 8:30 am.

  

Consider objections by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission and Cliffton Equities, Inc., to Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Amended Disclosure Statements & Reorganization Plans:

Responding to the sweeping injunction proposed by [GBNAGB] has turned into a game of Whack-A-Mole. …

The real motivation behind this Plan is to impermissably restrict the lawful police and regulatory actions of the SEC, not to engage in a legitimate business.

 

First, the Debtor states that it has a pending patent, serial number 13/385,218 which was filed in February 2011. This appears to be the application for which [Ron Van Den Heuvel] had applied. (See Amended Disclosure Statement, … However, the Debtor cannot have intellectual property rights in an application; only a granted patent vests such rights. Indeed, the Amended Disclosure Statement conjectures that “it is expected that the final process patent will be issued sometime in 2017.” … Thus, the Debtor does not actually have any intellectual property rights and it cannot assert any corresponding value to the estate, as there is no value in an application for a patent.

Second, this particular application appears to have been rejected several times. There is no specific information listed in the Debtor’s bankruptcy about which steps it has taken to renew its application in this patent and why this time it is likely to be granted a patent.

The Debtor also lists Patent Number 6,174,412 B1, which refers to processes related to tissue manufacturing and the conversion of cotton. The Debtor’s information related to alleged intellectual property rights is insufficient and paints a thoroughly incomplete picture about the Debtor’s intellectual property.

  

The Debtor’s Plan is no plan at all but a wish, and its greatest wish is that the SEC and other governmental agencies would go away. The Plan purports to discharge the Debtor in contravention of Section 1141(d)(3)(A) and enjoin actions against the Debtor and non-debtors that would impermissibly restrict the SEC from pursuing actions for violations of the federal securities laws. …

I. The SEC is Investigating Whether Ronald Van Den Heuvel or the Green Box-related Entities Violated the Federal Securities Laws.

The SEC is currently investigating whether Ronald Van Den Heuvel, entities he founded or operated, or their officers, directors, owners, or employees, violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission is examining, among other things, whether Van Den Heuvel or others, including [Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC] and [GBNAGB], made misrepresentations to investors in the course of securities offerings, and whether money raised through offerings was misused. Part of this inquiry focuses on whether Van Den Heuvel and his companies, including RTS and [GBNAGB], followed corporate formalities, or if they commingled the assets and liabilities of the various entities. …

Van Den Heuvel has been involved in several securities offerings relating to his “Green Box” paper-recycling process since 2012. [GBNAGB] and its parent company, Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH,” a/k/a Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC (“RTS”)) [f/k/a Nature’s Choice Tissue, LLC, formed in 2011], appear to be responsible for one set of offerings. In addition, another subsidiary of EARTH, Green Box NA Detroit, LLC (“Green Box Detroit”), appears to have participated in a different offering made to investors participating in the EB-5 immigrant investor program administered by the United States Customs and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). It also appears that EARTH offered several different types of guaranties of the EB-5 investments in Green Box Detroit, including guaranteeing, through Van Den Heuvel, the refund of EB-5 investors’ $500,000 investments should their visa application be denied. In addition, EARTH, through Van Den Heuvel, appears to have represented to EB-5 investors that it had pledged up to $40 million of its assets as security for their investments related to Green Box Detroit. …



  

That’s on TOP of the federal bank fraud charges against Ron and his wife – Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel – for criminal schemes using straw borrowers (including the Van Den Heuvels’ son-in-law, Patrick Hoffman; Ron’s business partner, William C. ‘Bill’ Bain; and even the Van Den Heuvel’s foreign-national nanny/housemaid, Julie Gumban) to defraud banks & credit unions, for which the Van Den Heuvels’ co-conspirator Paul J. Piikila has already pled guilty:

…[W]hat the 1st Amended [Disclosure Statement] fails to mention is that a Superceding Indictment in the [federal bank fraud] action was filed on September 20, 2016, specifically identifying transactions involving both assets and employees other than Ronald Van Den Heuvel of EARTH [Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC, now known as Reclamation Technology Systems LLC (RTS), which is Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s] parent company upon whom the Debtor’s First Amended Chapter 11 Plan is wholly dependent, in Counts 14 through 19.



 

Add in the fact that Ron Van Den Heuvel is still under criminal investigation by the Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. and no less than five federal agencies:

7.  As part of the follow up investigation into Araujo’s initial complaint, your affiant became aware that several other individuals and business entities may have also been victimes of fraudulent representations made by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel as part of a plan to solicit investment into Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC and other related entities. Your affiant became aware, through the review of CCAP and documents provided by Araujo’s attorneys [GODFREY & KAHN], that many other entities had complained about Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s potentially fraudulent activities and that those allegations were set forth as part of another civil lawsuit, Brown County case 15CV474.  

8.  Through documents and information provided by Araujo and his attorneys, your affiant became aware that the [WEDC], a public/private entity operated in part by the State of Wisconsin, was a potential victim of fraudulent representation made by [RVDH] in order to obtain a loan from the WEDC for approximately $1.3 Million. Your affiant made a request from the WEDC and obtained all of WEDC’s documentation of the loan made to [RVDH] and [GBNAGB].

9.  Your affiant is aware, through documents provided by [WEDC] and record and documents contained on a thumb drive provided by Guy LoCascio, a former contract accountant for [GBNAGB] and [RVDH], that [RVDH]…doing business as Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC,…made representations to [WEDC] in order to receive funds from them, and once funds were received, [RVDH] paid personal debts with [WEDC] money.

10.  Through your affiant’s investigation thus far, it has been found that [RVDH], doing business as [GBNAGB], did supply fraudulent information in his application for funding from WEDC, based on your affiant’s review of the file provided by WEDC which contained documents and statements, the document provided by Araujo’s attorneys from Brown County cases 13CV463 and 15CV474 and documents contained on the thumb drive provided by Guy LoCascio. …

12.  Through your affiant’s investigation, based on Marco Araujo’s statements and documents as part of Brown County cases 13CV463 and 15CV474 civil case, it has been found that [RVDH], doing business as [GBNAGB], made material misrepresentations in the course of soliciting and receiving a [GBNAGB] equity investment from Dr. Marco Araujo.

13.  Your affiant met with a citizen witness, Daniel H. Thames…who provided information and a written statement. Your affiant learned from Daniel H. Thames that through the course of his employment with [GBNAGB] he performed various office and accounting tasks. Through his employment at [GBNAGB], Thames observed that [RVDH] would take investors’ money and use the money to pay personal bills. Thames said [RVDH] instructed Thames to list certain expenditures in such a way as to mask the true use of the various payments. Thames witnessed [RVDH] receive foreign investor money through a federal EB-5 program. The invested money would be deposited into an account for a related entity, Green Box NA Detroit LLC.

14.  According to information from Thames and other witnesses, similar to [GBNAGB], Green Box NA Detroit, LLC, is represented as an operating entity, but in fact, it does not have any existing production or even any actual physical location in or around Detroit. Thames is aware of the nature of representations being made by [RVDH] to his investors, and specifically is aware that [RVDH] represents that the Green Box facilities are operational, when in fact, there is no operating Green Box facility, nor does the technology behind Green Box’s purported business model function as represented by [RVDH].

15.  Thames indicated that once money was deposited into the Green Box NA Detroit account, [RVDH] would order the subsequent disbursement of the foreign investor money into [RVDH]’s personal account from which [RVDH] paid for his ex-wife’s house in Savannah, Georgia. Thames said [RVDH] used foreign investor money to pay for a Green Bay Packers Stadium box. Thames said [RVDH] would get behind in his alimony payments to his ex-wife. He is ordered to by $2,000.00 per week. When threatened with court action, [RVDH] would use EB-5 money to get current with the alimony payments. Thames said he was instructed by [RVDH] to e-mail the lady at the bank, instructing her to transfer funds from the account where the investors’ money had been deposited to accounts other than that of the investors’ intended entity. Thames said [RVDH] would use EB-5 money to pay for insurance for his current wife and children. Thames told me that [RVDH] would write checks out from the business account of Green Box in an employee’s name and ask that employee to go to the bank, cash the check, and bring the cash back to [RVDH]. [RVDH] would use the cash for personal purchases and, for example, a trip to Las Vegas.

16.  Thames witnessed [RVDH] give tours to potential investors, and [RVDH] would make statements which are false, including stating the Green Box process is a fully functional process with fully functioning facilities across the USA, when there are none. … 

18.  Thames said prior to October 2014, membership units in Green Box had no specific value.

19.  Thames stated that he saw a year-end financial statement which showed that [RVDH] owes VHC, Inc., and other Van Den Heuvel family-owned businesses approximately $115,000,000. Thames identified people and businesses listed on the [RVDH] presented in civil courts showing how Marco Araujo’s investment of $600,000 was spent. Of the $600,000, at least $280,000 was used for [RVDH]’s personal expenditures. Thames has seen tangible evidence of the aforementioned information on the shared drive of the office computer at 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suites A and B, City of De Pere, Brown County, Wisconsin. …

27.  On June 24, 2015, your affiant conducted an internet of Tami Phillips…who provided information verbally, and in the form of a statement. In that statement Phillips indicated that she began working for [RVDH], at E.A.R.T.H. and Green Box, in December 2010. Phillips left for a time but returned in April 2012 and worked in the Green Box offices at 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suites A and B. While working as an accountant for Green Box, Phillips was instructed by [RVDH] to document financial entries on a balance sheet with numbers [RVDH] quoted to her. Phillips said she knew the numbers were not real because there was no actual business or product being produced by Green Box or E.A.R.T.H. at any time. …

29.  Your affiant learned, from promotional documents supplied by Marco Araujo, that [RVDH] made claims that the holds seven (7) patents involved in the process of waste reclamation when, in fact, he holds none. The patent application for the reclamation technology and process relative to the Green Box operations, which was made August 16, 2012, is now labeled as abandoned. [RVDH] still makes reference to the patents held by Green Box in his promotional documents distributed to potential investors, both domestic and foreign, but a search conducted by your affiant on the U.S. Patent and Trade Office reveals no patents held by [RVDH] or Green Box for the type of activities allegedly conducted by Green Box companies.

 

The affidavits presented by the State demonstrate that Mr. Van Den Heuvel was soliciting investment and loans from others for his various Green Box entities under the guise that these entities were operational. The affidavits demonstrate that Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box entities were not operational. The affidavits demonstrate multiple material misrepresentations Mr. Van Den Heuvel made to investors and lenders for the purposes of obtaining investments and loans for Green Box. The affidavits demonstrate that once Mr. Van Den Heuvel obtained investments and loans, he converted the proceeds for his own personal use. The affidavits were based upon information obtained from individuals who had been victimized by Mr. Van Den Heuvel or had been employed by Mr. Van Den Heuvel. …

The affidavits demonstrate probable cause to support the conclusion that Mr. Van Den Heuvel made a series of fraudulent representations to others as part of his plan to solicit investment and loans into his various business entities, including his various Green Box entities. … These alleged misrepresentations include: pledging encumbered property as unencumbered property…; guaranteeing property interests in real estate owned by others…; claiming ownership of unowned patents on technology for his Green Box entities as legitimate and accurate. … The affidavits demonstrate allegations that Mr. Van Den Heuvel represents to investors and lenders that his Green Box entities are fully functional business enterprises with fully functional facilities throughout the United States., when there are none. … The affidavits also allege that Mr. Van Den Heuvel represents to investors and lenders that the technology behind the Green Box entities purported business model exists, when in fact it does not. … The affidavits contain allegations demonstrating that once Mr. Van Den Heuvel obtains investments and loans from others for his Green Box entities, he uses the funds for personal expenditures and personal debts.  … These specific investment and loan conversion allegations include: Dr. Marco Araujo’s $600,000 equity investment into Green Box, WEDC’s $1,300,000 loan for Green Box, foreign EB-5 investments into Green Box, Ken Dardis’ $500,000 investment into Green Box, Dodi Management, LLC’s $100,000 investment into Green Box. The affidavits also include allegations that Mr. Van Den Heuvel instructs employees to manipulate Green Box financial records and transfer business funds and assets between his various business and personal accounts. … Ultimately, the affidavits clearly demonstrate probable cause supporting the existing of a pervasive scheme Mr. Van Den Heuvel employed to defraud investors and lenders. …

Multiple witnesses and victims throughout the United States provided information about Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his Green Box entities. Voluminous records were obtained and analyzed by law enforcement to corroborate information and identity Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s criminal conduct.

  

Watch Atty. Simon Ahn of the Green Detroit Regional Center introduce Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA sales pitch to potential EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program victims:

 

Watch Ron Van Den Heuvel make his pitch in his home town at the April 15, 2014 City of De Pere Common Council Meeting asking for the City to issue Green Bonx NA Green Bay LLC $125,000,0000 in industrial development revenue bonds, as was also arranged for Green Box NA Michigan LLC by Gov. Rick Snyder’s Michigan Strategic Fund:

  

Would you trust this guy?



 

 

As Oneida Eye has previously reported, various partners of Ron Van Den Heuvel – including George Gitschel, who threatened to sue Oneida Eye’s Publisher– have tried to run this same scheme elsewhere, including California, Colorado, and Texas under the names Organic Energy Corp.EcoHub Houston, the website of the latter being nearly identical to that of Ron’s EcoHub USA:

 


Texans fought back:


 

Here’s a promo video of OSGC’s & Ron’s partners Alliance Construction & Design /Alliance Global Conservation, which share principal Todd Parczick with OSGC’s & GBRE’s ‘plastic-to-oil’ scheme partners Broadway Manufacturing, LLC and P2O Technologies, LLC.:

 

Here’s a supposed ‘demonstration’ video featuring OSGC’s & Ron’s partner Abdul Latif Mahjoob of American Combustion Technologies Inc. (ACTI) /American Renewable Technology Inc. (ARTI) / American Renewable Energy Inc. (AREI), among other fronts:

 

Compare Ron Van Den Heuvel’s claims about Green Box NA with this Mantria Corporation / EternGreen Global Corp. promo video:

 

Here’s Mantria Corporation creep Troy Wragg receiving recognition from Bill & Hillary Clinton, and meeting with foreign officials:

 


Mantria Corp. victims fought back:


 

Consider the following actions by the U.S. Government against the Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global Corp. scheme:

Throughout the course of this scheme, Mantria, Wragg, Knorr, and McKelvy made material misrepresentations in connection with offers and sales of Mantria’s securities, including that: (1) Mantria generated millions of dollars in annual profits when, in fact, Mantria generated no profits; (2) Mantria is the world’s largest manufacturer and distributor of biochar and that Mantria’s biochar operations were very profitable when, in fact, Mantria never sold any biochar and never made any revenues from biochar; (3) Mantria built the world’s first biorefinery plant in New Mexico when, in fact, Mantria never built or operated such a facility; (4) Mantria’s biochar manufacturing facility in Tennessee is producing $6.2 million annually when, in fact, the facility never generated revenue; (5) Mantria paid investors through profitable ventures when, in fact, it paid investor returns using investors’ money; (6) Mantria was not a Ponzi scheme when, in fact, it was; and (7) McKelvy reviewed Mantria’s books when, in fact, McKelvy did not regularly look at Mantria’s books and did not know what Mantria did with its books. …

The SEC has also presented considerable evidence that Mantria, through Wragg, Knorr, and McKelvy, made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the probable returns on investment and the risks inherent in the securities offerings, all in an effort to foster the above-described fraudulent scheme to the detriment of Mantria’s investors who relied on such information when making their investment decisions. Additionally, the SEC has presented evidence that Mantria, through its officers (Wragg and Knorr), had the requisite scienter, whether by way of an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud, or by engaging in conduct that was an extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care, such that it misled buyers, and the danger of misleading buyers was so obvious that Mantria, through its officers, must have been aware of it. For example, not only did Defendant Mantria, through the other Defendants, entice victim investors to purchase unregistered securities with illusory promises of improbably high rates of return, Mantria, through its agent’s, Defendant McKelvy’s, presentation at various Mantria investment seminars, encouraged potential investors to liquidate their traditional investments, including the equity in their homes, and to borrow as much money as possible to fund their investments with Mantria.

 

  • September 2, 2015 Unsealed Federal Indictment, U.S. District Court, Eastern Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-cr-398-JHS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY re: the expansive MANTRIA CORP. / ETERNAGREEN GLOBAL CORP. / SPEED OF WEALTH ‘BioChar’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme

By the end of 2008, Mantria curtailed the modest improvements of the real estate to focus on “green energy” projects. Mantria acquired an interest in Carbon Diversion, Inc., a company which initially held a license to manufacture “biochar,” a charcoal-like product. Mantria began construction on a “biochar” facility in Dunlap, Tennessee. While investors were told that the Dunlap facility was a full production facility, the Dunlap facility was merely a facility which Mantria used to test and refine the machines, called carbon diversion systems, Mantria was developing to make the biochar. Mantria used the Dunlap facility as a showpiece for investors and potential customers. The machines did not consistently produce biochar of a sufficient quality to sell on the market. Moreover, the Dunlap facility was built in a remote location and lacked the logistical infrastructure to transport the tons of biochar necessary for the facility to be profitable. Consequently, Mantria planned to build a second biochar facility in Hohenwald, Tennessee which had better logistical access. The Hohenwald biochar facility, however, was never built. Mantria also solicited investments for a factory in Carlsbad, New Mexico, which would manufacture the machines to make biochar. The Carlsbad facility was also never built. …

Defendants TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY omitted the following material facts in their representations to investors. …

That Mantria did not have a patent for the technology for the biochar process or for the systems sales. In fact, the license which they had used was revoked in December 2008.

That Mantria was under SEC investigation.

 

As the founders of the Mantria Corporation, Wragg and Knorr allegedly promised investors huge returns for investments in supposedly profitable business ventures in real estate and “green energy.” According to the indictment, Mantria was a Ponzi scheme in which new investor money was used to pay “earnings” to prior investors since the businesses actually generated meager revenues and no profits. … 

“The scheme alleged in this indictment offered investors the best of both worlds – investing in sustainable and clean energy products while also making a profit,” said U.S. Attorney Memeger. “Unfortunately for the investors, it was all a hoax and they lost precious savingsThese defendants preyed on the emotions of their victims and sold them a scam. This office will continue to make every effort to deter criminals from engaging in these incredibly damaging financial crimes.” … 

“As alleged, these defendants lied about their intentions regarding investors’ money, pocketing a substantial portion for personal use,” said Special Agent in Charge Sweeney Jr. “So long as there are people with money to invest, there will likely be investment swindlers eager to take their money under false pretenses. The FBI will continue to work with its law enforcement and private sector partners to investigate those whose greed-based schemes rob individuals of their hard-earned money”. …  



   

Watch Atty. Joe Nicks of Godfrey & Kahn advise GTC members on how to phrase the dead motion by con-man Dan Hawk of Oneida Small Business Inc. for OSGC & GBRE to foolishly continue litigation against the City of Green Bay:

Of course, it’s possible Dan Hawk’s true motive is the fact that the $2 Million OSGC/GBRE received from WEDC in 2009 (when Fmr. Green Bay Mayor Paul Jadin chaired WEDC) was actually from gaming compact money that was normally given to and disbursed by Oneida Small Business Inc. (which Dan & his wife Judy Cornelius Hawk were inexplicably put in charge of), and maybe Dan only wants more money to be able to loan to Dan & Judy’s adult children

…or Oneida Business Committee members who fail at business

…or deadbeat Tribe members whose business has to be threatened with legal action, like Pete King III’s sham King Solutions LLC

…or OBC members who fail to make loan payments, have their failed business taken to court by OBSI and lose, and then claim bankruptcy to avoid paying anything back, like OBC Chair Cristina Danforth (who was OBC Treasurer at the time and who is currently President of the Native American Finance Officers Association / NAFOA Board of Directors and is also a member of the Board of Directors of both the Native American Bank, NA & the Native American Bancorporation Co.).

 

As OSGC’s Managing Director Peter King III of King Solutions LLC – who is the nephew of Oneida Casino Gaming General Manager Louise King Cornelius – has made clear…

Pete feels that he has the right & power to make executive “business decisions” and use unaccounted amounts of Tribal funds to pay off ‘undisclosed’ multi-million settlements (that look more like extortion racket sums), despite the fact that the Oneida Business Committee deceitfully told GTC in writing that any settlement decision would come before GTC for action:

The Oneida Business Committee received a request from the plaintiffs to consider settlement. The complaint alleges $400 million in damages; the settlement offer was $9 million. We discussed this settlement in Executive Session on August 26, 2015, and rejected this offer. We believe that the Tribe has not damaged ACF in any way and was not a party to the contract. As a result, the settlement offer is too high to be considered. We do not make a counter-offer as we continue to believe that the Tribe will prevail in this matter. However, if a settlement offer is presented which we think fairly represents the risk and cost of continuing versus concluding this matter, we have committed to bringing that to the General Tribal Council for action.

But that’s clearly not what happened, as (kind of) explained below during Pete King III’s reply to a question by a GTC member as to why Peter, on behalf of OSGC’s subsidiaries GBRE & Oneida Energy Inc., secretely entered into an undisclosed settlement agreement (some have said for as much as $15 Million) without any information coming to GTC for discussion and/or action as had been promised to GTC in writing by the Oneida Business Committee:

Interestingly, the GTC member who asked Peter King III about his unilateral secret “business decision” – Michael T. Debraska – probably now knows exactly how many millions of the Tribe’s dollars Pete swiped to fund OSGC, GBRE & Oneida Energy Inc.’s shakedown payoffs to ACF Leasing, ACF Services, and Generation Clean Fuels (among others? who knows?)… given that Mike was recently hired as a Senior Policy Advisor to OBC Chair Cristina Danforth.

Atty. Eric R. Decator, owner & counsel of Generation Clean Fuels, LLC – the guy OSGC Managing Agent Pete King III gave undisclosed millions of GTC’s money to. Seems legit.

If OSGC’s Managing Director – who is also a Board member of ONW-owned Bay Bank/Bay Bancorporation –  can get away with blithely admitting he simply made a unilateral “business decision” to take undisclosed millions of dollars from the Tribal treasury to make secret settement payments that GTC members didn’t find out about until after the settlement arrangements were made, and without anything actually being brought before GTC for consideration and action as the OBC had stated in writing…

…then why wouldn’t Peter King III feel that he has the right & power & financing – without GTC’s official allowance or approval – to sue the City of Green Bay in order to try to recover those untold millions of dollars Pete surreptitiously paid off to OSGC’s ‘business partners’ & related investors… including individual Tribe members, executives & officials?  

 As seen in the November 14, 2016 GTC Meeing Action Report draft, one of the proposed Amendments was for GTC to finally have access to information that that the OBC, the Oneida Law Office under OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House, and OSGC have long kept hidden from GTC:

…we as GTC want to know who are the leaders; who are the investors; who are the attorneys; who are the stockholders; who are the owners; who are the board members; how are they paid; what do they use for collateral; for this information be provided for the last 10 years; and to be reported at the next meeting.

Yet GTC still doesn’t know the answers to those questions, because the OBC, the OLO, and OSGC intentionally keep GTC in the dark

…after OLO Chief Counsel Jo Anne House reneged on her February 15, 2011 Oneida Law Office legal opinion which said that GTC Members would have access to OSGC’s disclosure reports (in which OSGC fails to fully disclose important information, such as the inadvertantly released Disclosure Report & Narrative Report as of December 31, 2011 which failed to even mention the existence of OSGC-subsidiaries Oneida Energy Blocker Inc. and Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC, the latter of which was registered in the State of Delaware on December 15, 2011

…and OBC & OLO hide, shield & defend at all costs the actions of OSGC’s officers, executives, and employees, of which Peter King III was one [as the pyrolysis Project Manager], even when OSGC violates local zoning ordinances and clearly violated GTC’s May 5, 2013 directive that OSGC not engage in waste-to-energy on the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin reservation.

  

Listen to the ridiculous answers Fmr. OBC Secretary Patty Hoeft and Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado gave to simple questions by Oneida Eye’s Publisher after OSGC was caught with that illegal open flame operation…

…including Fmr. Sec. Patty Hoeft admitting that OSGC had simply refused to answer when the Oneida Business Committee had asked OSGC the same question just days before the December 15, 2013 GTC Meeting about the petition to dissolve OSGC…

…and Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado giving a plainly false answer about the legitimacy of OSGC’s & GBRE’s scheme partners:

 

Watch as both Fmr. OBC Sec. Patricia Hoeft and Fmr. OBC Chair Edward Delgado openly admit that the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin lacks adequate regulations, laws, and oversight of its own corporations:

  

Yet Ed Delgado failed to heed the warnings and advice of non-Tribal member Paul Linzmeyer whom Ed nominated to the OSGC Board, but didn’t get adequate answers to basic questions about OSGC:

[Ed] must read the 2008 audit as it appears that [OSGC] is still not in compliance with the issues brought up there …. While my previous emails may have seemed to soften my stance on [OSGC] after reading the 2008 audit I am very concerned. [Ed] should order a followup to the 2008 audit and then have an independent counsel review how the tribal law was violated and possible action. (much of this is business 101)

I am very concerned about this whole mess.

  

Watch ONW Chief Financial Officer Larry Barton admit that OSGC subsidiary Oneida-Kodiak Construction LLC (of which OSGC owns 51%) did not submit its financial records for the McGladrey & Pullen audit on the financial impact of OSGC’s dissolution because the Oneida-Kodiak Construction LLC’s books were being held captive by Oneida-Kodiak’s 49% shareholder Alliance Construction & Design, as stated in the September 21, 2015 letter signed by 44 Enrolled ONW Members to Fmr. U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch asking for a criminal investigation of OSGC, its subsidiaries, and its business partners:

Principals of Alliance Construction & Design, Inc. & Alliance GC, LLC, own 49% of OSGC-subsidiary Oneida-Kodiak Construction, LLC, and Alliance was working on OSGC/GBRE’s pyrolysis waste energy project on Hurlbut Street in the City of Green Bay, but is now refusing to allow OSGC or OBC to have access to Oneida-Kodiak Construction’s financial records due to an ongoing “dispute,” according to what OTIW CFO Larry Barton has told OTIW members.

OTIW members are concerned as to why the OBC, OLO and OSGC aren’t aggressively seeking access to Oneida-Kodiak’s corporate financial records by pursuing legal action against Alliance Construction & Design, Inc./Alliance Global Conservation, LLC, just like OBC, OLO, and OSGC seem unaware of or disinterested in obtaining Glory, LLC’s $1.2 million judgment from Ron Van Den Heuvel.

…and watch Larry the CFO Guy admit that not even he – despite being Chief Financial Officer of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin – knows nor has full access to information about the identities of OSGC’s businesses & partnerships, nor individual investor lists:

  

And things haven’t gotten any better since.

In many ways, it’s far worse.

For starters…

The Oneida Business Committee & Oneida Law Office do not update the ONW ‘Litigation Updates’ page, and when the OBC do give information to GTC it is often false

Here’s a perfect recent example of the sparse – and false – information the GTC Members receive from OSGC:

Oneida Seven Generations
Total Nation’s Investment     $1,938,586
Increase in Equity Value      $2,313,164
Total Return to Nation       $541,296

In Fiscal Year 1996, the Nation formed Seven Generations Corporation. Seven Generations is a tribally chartered, tribally owned corporation. The function and purpose of the corporation is to promote and enhance business and economic diversification directly or as a holding company for real estate assets, management of related assets, or other business ventures of the Oneida Nation to develop long term income streams for the corporate stockholders. From the statements received through September 30, 2011, Seven Generations has $17,090,328 of assets and total equity of $9,344,146 in the corporation. In accordance with the Charter, any potential returns to the Nation would be determined by the board at the annual shareholder meeting, at the shareholder’s discretion.

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Nation approved a $2,000,000 investment into of Seven Generations to become a 20% owner in Nature’s Way (Glory LLC). Nature’s Way was a paper converting company that has ownership of a tissue patent. In Fiscal Year 2008, a $4,000,000 loss was written off due to the closing of Nature’s Way [Tisssue Corp.]. Oneida Seven Generations is currently in litigation against Nature’s Way principals of the corporation. Seven Generations has since regained control of the property and are currently leasing the facility to Schneider International.

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Nation approved a $490,000 investment in the formation of an LLC (Oneida Generations LLC) which established the Nation as a 49% shareholder. Seven Generations contributed $510,000 to Oneida Generations, LLC establishing themselves as a 51% shareholder. The limited liability company was established to construct and manage the travel mart facility located at HWY 29 and HWY 32. The retail and gaming operations located at the facility are owned and operated by the Nation.

LET IT BE NOTED:

FIRST…

Those numbers do NOT include OSGC’s current debts to the Tribe.

SECOND….

There is absolutely NO record of OSGC being “currently in litigation against Nature’s Way principals of the corporation”… whether in Brown County, state court, federal court, nor at the Oneida Judiciary kangaroo farm…

AT ALL.

   

However…

Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.’s ‘principals’ include both Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel and Oneida Nation High School Principal and Nature’s Way CEO; President; Registered Agent; and Partner (via Swakweko, LLC), Artley Murray Skenandore, Jr. (who is the husband of Oneida Police Dept. Lt. Lisa Drew-Skenandore):

Mr. Skenandore had no expertise in the paper industry. Nevertheless, he was made president. …

…Mr. Skenandore was the Chief Executive Officer of Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp]. He was listed on the signature card of the checking accounts of Nature’s Way and signed all of the checks. He agreed with Mr. Van Den Heuvel and Mr. Peters to pool all of the funds coming in for use at whatever entity needed it most. He made the recommendations with the controller on what and whom to pay. He admitted that he allowed the monies to be pooled and used for other purposes than paying the withholding taxes. …

First, [Artley Skenandore] was the President of Nature’s Way. We have previously stated that a President necessarily has the requisite authority, and nothing in this case showed otherwise, the contractual arrangement with Mr. Van Den Heuvel notwithstanding. Second, as the quote from the accountant in the previous section shows, Mr. Peters and Mr. Skenandore had numerous meetings where the two decided to pay other obligations, and Mr. Skenandore admitted on the stand to ‘carrying over’ the withholding tax liability.

Mr. Skenandore’s defense was that he relied on the parent company for expertise in the paper business, but that is unconvincing and does not excuse paying other creditors first. The testimony was that Nature’s Way had money coming in from the parent company, just not enough to pay all of the creditors. Clearly, he and Mr. Peters determined which bills to pay out of the money that was coming in. …

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s assessment to…Mr. Skenandore is affirmed [regarding withholding tax periods beginning December 1, 2006, and ending March 31, 2009].

In fact…

OSGC subsidiary Glory, LLC – for which Pete King III is currently the Registered Agent  – has never seriously attempted to collect its outstanding judgment against Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Tissue Technology, LLC, for $1,227,880.01…

…as awarded in 2013 in Brown Co. Case No. 2009CV439,  Glory LLC  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel & Tissue Technology LLC  [and dismissed defendants: Partners Concepts Development Inc; Custom Paper Products Inc; Natures Choice Tissue LLC; Purely Cotton Products Corp; Eco Fibre Inc; ReBox Packaging Inc; Tissue Products Technology Corp; Patriot Project Services LLC; Chat LLC; Patriot Investments LLC; Patriot Services Inc; RVDH Inc; Waste Fiber Technology Inc; Recovering Aqua Resources Inc; RV Jet Inc; KYHKJG LLC; Patriot Paper Services Inc; Fibre Solutions LLC; Doc-U-Mince LLC; and dismissed third-party defendants: Ross J. Nova; Godfrey & Kahn.]

 

Is that what OSGC Managing Director Peter King III means by “currently in litigation against Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp.] principals of the corporation”?   

 


 

Questions:

  • How will OSGC’s ‘undisclosed settlement’ of millions of dollars taken out of Tribal coffers by Pete King III be reflected/hidden in the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin/ONW’s Tribal Budget as presented to General Tribal Council by OBC Treasurer Trish King?

 

  • What gives OSGC & GBRE the right to instigate litigation against the City of Green Bay after GTC directed the OBC to dissolve OSGC…

…and especially after GTC allowed motions to rescind dissolution & continue litigation to lapse over three meetings over three months, rejecting calls to take the motions off the table, and thus allowing the main motion & amendments to die on the table?

 

Free Legal Advice:

  

  • Instead, GTC and the City of Green Bay should confront what appears to be a treasonous criminal fraud scheme against GTC, the City of Green Bay, the State of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Government, perpetrated in part from the highest levels of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s government, institutions and corporations … conspiring with Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel & Abdul Latif Mahjoob … which has cost (and will likely continue to cost) GTC millions of wasted dollars and countless opportunities.

  

  • Accordingly, the City of Green Bay should file a countersuit against OSGC, GBRE, Oneida Energy Inc., Godfrey & Kahn, Ron Van Den Heuvel & Abdul Latif Mahjoob for attempting to perpetrate criminal fraud schemes against GTC and the Green Bay City Common Council.

 

  • Finally, GTC should hire outside counsel to oversee quick dissolution of OSGC, and subequently hold individual Tribal officials & executives involved in negligence, fraud, abuse, and/or cover-ups meaningfully accountable, while simultaneously adopting enforceable corporate transparency, accountability & ethics laws to prevent hubris from further squandering GTC’s resources and ONW’s reputation.

    


Will GTC & Green Bay fight back

against OSGC, Ron, Godfrey & Kahn

together?


 

Citizens believe OSGC lawsuit continues to misrepresent the facts.

The Oneida Tribe’s Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s recent lawsuit filing with Green Bay Renewable Energy is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign it waged when it was attempting to locate its gasification incinerator in area communities. The latest lawsuit libelously claims citizens made false accusations against OSGC, claiming that OSGC had lied to the (Green Bay) Plan Commission. 

OSGC should not be heard to lecture the City about credibility and truth after OSGC conveniently gave a highly illegal campaign contribution to the mayor of Green Bay after receiving a permit. This irony about credibility carries over into the latest lawsuit, where OSGC’s unclear pleadings allege citizen groups lied about … something, to somebody somewhere, at some undefined point in time which apparently had no impact because the pleadings suggest the City arbitrarily and irrationally rescinded the permit.

It is true the Green Bay City Council did not discover the environmental concerns and questionable incinerator claims until after the conditional use permit was issued. Many local citizens had been hearing OSGC’s misrepresentations in neighborhood association presentations and from the press releases, all provided by OSGC. Most of these emphasized a “closed-loop system” with no emissions or having no smokestacks.” However, none provided the evidence of a fraudulent application to the City that citizens needed to make their case.

After a good deal of research and assistance from several city council members, the citizens eventually called upon the city to rescind OSGC’s permit. However, they did not do so with false accusations as OSGC now claims, but instead by providing city council meeting minutes and planning commission meeting minutes. 

These documents showed OSGC’s CEO, Kevin Cornelius, represented the project as having a closed-loop system, having no chemicals, no emissions, no stacks or chimneys, and having chemical-free, organic-quality solid waste residues. In contrast to these wild claims, reports by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency showed there would be multiple stacks and chimneys, there would be toxic chemicals in its solid waste and water waste, and the facility would release at least 18 hazardous pollutants into Green Bay’s air.

These documents were also considered in the first suit brought against the City by OSGC, In that case, Brown County Circuit Court’s Judge Marc Hammer upheld the City’s right to rescind the permit. He stated that he believed representatives of OSGC were not truthful to city officials about the project. …

Hopefully this time the City will aggressively pursue internal documents from Plaintiff’s instead of inexplicably failing to do so in the first suit, and then make those documents public. In the interim, the citizens of Brown County will question why this purportedly dissolved runaway entity continues to defy its owners and generate embarrassing publicity with dubious lawsuits. 



  

Media coverage of OSGC’s & GBRE’s officially unauthorized lawsuit, with law firm Godfrey & Kahn hired as counsel, against the City of Green Bay and in defense of OSGC’s misrepresentations of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s incinerator fraud scheme, as well as other related news items:

The Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and Green Bay Renewable Energy filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the City of Green Bay, seeking damages from a failed waste-to-energy plant project.

In 2010, the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. received city permission to build a power plant fueled by municipal solid waste. However, after construction started, the city revoked the conditional use permit. Now, the tribal corporation is seeking to recover damages.

“The City’s irrational decision to revoke the CUP based on a manufactured rationale shocks the conscience and constitutes a violation of OSCG’s constitutional right to due process. As a proximate result, OSGC has sustained over $5 million in out-of-pocket expenses, lost profits of approximately $16 million, and substantial legal expenses, including attorney’s fees to try to convince the City to reconsider its decision, and to pursue the state court and these federal court proceedings. The City has left OSGC with no choice but to bring this lawsuit seeking to recover the significant damages it incurred as a result,” the suit states….

The plantiffs ask for a jury trial. No court dates have been set.

The city has not been formally served with the suit yet, and is not ready to comment at this point, according to the City Attorney’s office.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court previously ruled the city improperly revoked the plant’s permit.


See Oneida Eye’s analysis of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s May 29, 2015 Decision and the Chief Justice’s dissenting opinion:


  

More media coverage of OSGC & GBRE’s unauthorized lawsuit against the City of Green Bay:

The company claims it spent about $5.2 million on the site, environmental reviews, permitting fees and construction costs by the time the city revoked the conditional-use permit. The lawsuit also seeks about $16 million in lost profit. …

The new lasuit calls the city’s decision to revoke the permit a “reckless, arbitrary and irrational act resulting from abuse of political power and a disdain for established procedure.” …

Celestine Jeffreys, Mayor Jim Schmitt’s chief of staff, said the city is aware of the complaint but would not comment because it has not received a copy of lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed Dec. 23 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin states the city violated the tribal corporation’s due process rights.

The suit demands a jury hear the case.

“As a proximate result, OSGC has sustained over $5 million in out-of-pocket expenses, lost profits of approximately $16 million, and substantial legal expenses, including attorneys fees to try to convince the City to reconsider its decision, and to pursue the state court and these federal court proceedings,” reads the lawsuit.  

NBC26 reached out to the City Attorney’s office, but no comment was available at this time. 

   

Related:

Oneida land issue

The Green Bay City Council in May terminated a 15-year service agreement with the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, creating a rift in their relationship and paving the way for future litigation over land disputes.

Tribal leaders called the city’s decision “a significant step back from years of progress.” But city aldermen who favored ending the agreement said it puts the city in position to stop the tribe from removing hundreds of millions of dollars from its tax roll as it reclaims former reservation land.

About 14 percent of Green Bay lies within the original reservation boundaries, and the Oneida are unwilling to back down from plans to reclaim that land.

The former service agreement required the tribe to pay the city fees for services on tribe-owned land, which is tax exempt. In exchange, the city wasn’t allowed to challenge the tribe’s land acquisitions or enforce ordinances on that land.

  

    

See also:














   

 



As It Happens

February 2017
S M T W T F S
« Dec    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728  

Categories