“As The Subordinate Entity, The Business Committee Cannot Interpret Its Own Authority To Override The Will Of The General Tribal Council.” – City Of Green Bay’s 03/14/2017 Reply In Support Of Motion To Dismiss 12/23/2016 Complaint Of Oneida Nation In Wisconsin / ONW-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC / GBRE; U.S. District Court, Green Bay Division, Case No. 1:16-CV-1700; UPDATE: Press-Gazette’s Front Page ‘Fake News’ Advert For Green Box NA Investment Fraud Scheme Omits ANY Mention Of EB-5 Immigrant Investor Scam Victims And Related Nature’s Way Tissue/OSGC/GBRE Fraud Schemes That Have Cost General Tribal Council Over $25 Million; Press-Gazette Publishes Correction After Eye’s Request: ‘PC FIBRE TECHNOLOGY DOES *NOT* OWN A PATENT’; OSGC/Nature’s Way Tissue Corp./GBRE = Criminal Fraud

 

> How can tribally-owned companies file suit
> against municipalities in federal court
> on behalf of criminal fraud schemes…

> without tribal company & tribal gov’t officials
> risking being charged with criminal fraud
> and countersued for criminal fraud?

 

> PROTIP: THEY CAN’T.

 




CLICK ME TO LEARN OSGC's & GBRE's SECRET INGREDIENT FOR SUCCESS!

CLICK the  π  PIE to REVEAL
OSGC’s & GBRE’s
$e¢ret Ingredient for $u¢¢e$$ !!!




OSGC’s arguments against dismissal are rife with contradiction. OSGC invokes federal court jurisdiction, but assert that this Court lacks authority to determine whether OSGC has the capacity to bring this Complaint.OSGC claims that it exhausted the state law remedies before repairing to federal court and that state law remedies were inadequate, but admit that state law remedies could have reversed the exact land-use decision of which OSGC complains. … OSGC complains that the decision to revoke its conditional use permit violated due process, but assert a constitutionally protected interest in their building permit. But the most glaring contradictions are the two favorable state court decisions as Exhibits A and B to a Complaint for deprivation of due process. This is more than the Constitution and §1983 can bear. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction, and fail to prove corporate capacity to sue. For any one of the following, independent reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.

A. The Business Committee cannot cure OSGC’s lack of capacity by resolution. This Court is authorized to find as much, or if the Court lacks authority, should dismiss the Complaint.

Despite having brought this complaint in federal court, OSGC now argues that a federal court cannot decide whether OSGC has capacity to bring this suit.Although they fail to name it, OSGC has invoked the “tribal exhaustion rule.” As explained by the Seventh Circuit, “[t]he concept of federal court abstention in cases involving Indian tribes known as the ‘tribal exhaustion rule’ generally ‘requires that federal courts abstain from hearing certain claims relating to Indian tribes until the plaintiff has first exhausted those claims in tribal court.” Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC …. This rule plainly does not apply where a plaintiff has voluntarily submitted its claim to the Court’s authority.

In Altheimer & Gray v. Sioux Manufacturing Corporation, the Seventh Circuit held that the doctrine of tribal exhaustion did not bar a federal court from deciding a contract dispute filed against tribal defendants where the defendants had, “explicitly agreed to submit to the venue and jurisdiction of federal and state courts.” … see also Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. v. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians …. While the defendants in Altheimer and Stifel agreed by contract, OSGC has just as clearly “agreed to submit to the venue and jurisdiction” of this Court by selecting this forum. OSGC cannot ask the Court to hear its Complaint and deny the Court’s authority in the same action.

[Footnote: Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has recognized, but not resolved, a circuit split as to whether the doctrine of tribal exhaustion applies at all where there is no pending tribal court action. Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC….

The courts of appeals that have addressed this issue have reached opposite conclusions. In Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority … the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that tribal exhaustion was not required absent an ongoing tribal proceeding…. But see, e.g., United States v. Plainbull … (rejecting the Government’s argument that “the district court abused its discretion by abstaining from the merits of this case because there was no concurrent action pending in the tribal courts” because “[w]hether a tribal action is pending, however does not determine whether abstention is appropriate.”)

…The cases cited by Plaintiffs do not inform this issue because, in both cases, a tribal authority had previously adjudicated the issue. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante … (declining jurisdiction over personal injury claim previously adjudicated in Blackfeet Tribal Court because “tribal appellate courts must have the opportunity to review lower tribal court decisions”); Charles Mix v. U.S. DOI … (declining jurisdiction over a land-use decision affirmed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Board of Indian Appeals because the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals). It remains an open question in the Seventh Circuit as to whether a federal court may decide tribal issues where no tribal court action is pending. It is a question this Court need not answer because Plaintiffs have voluntarily submitted to the authority of the Court.]

But even if OSGC was correct that the Court must abstain from deciding OSGC’s capacity, Business Committee Resolution No. 02-22-17-E (the “Resolution”) would not become binding authority. Courts abstaining in deference to tribal jurisdiction do not simply adopt the tribal court decision—they dismiss. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante … (affirming district court’s decision to abstain, but remanding for a determination on whether to dismiss or stay pending further tribal court proceedings). If this Court cannot decide whether OSGC has capacity to bring this lawsuit, the lawsuit must be dismissed.

This Court can and should decide whether OSGC lacks capacity to sue, and not by reference to the Resolution. OSGC’s reliance on the Resolution ignores the fundamental problem with OSGC’s capacity – the Oneida General Tribal Council, not the Business Committee, voted to dissolve OSGC and then affirmed that OSGC cannot continue litigation against the City. … OSGC acknowledges that the powers of the Business Committee are “subject to General Tribal Council review.” … see alsoConstitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation (2015), Article III, § 3 (The business committee may only “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.”). As the subordinate entity, the Business Committee cannot interpret its own authority to override the will of the General Tribal Council.

B. The adequacy of OSGC’s state law remedies is not determined by its alleged losses.

OSGC does not dispute that to state a claim for procedural or substantive due process, it must show that its state law remedies were inadequate. … see also Bettendorf v. St. Croix County … (“Where 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.”); River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park … (“Labels [procedural or substantive due process] do not matter.”).

Rather, OSGC argues that the inadequacy of its state law remedies can be “readily inferred from the facts alleged.” … Specifically, OSGC complains that state law remedies did not provide “timely re-issuance of the CUP” or “appropriate compensation for the significant damages it suffered as a result of the City’s wrongful actions.” … According to OSGC, the appellate judgments were untimely because they did not arrive in time to allow OSGC to take advantage of grants and other incentives that made the project economically viable. … Thus, OSGC argues that its state law remedies were inadequate by counting its alleged damages.

But adequacy of state law remedies is not measured by damages. Hudson v. Palmer … Rather, adequacy refers to whether the state law provides sufficient process to meet constitutional requirements. … 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 of which he might receive in a § 1983 action is not determinative of the adequacy of state remedies”) (citations omitted). In land-use decisions, the opportunity to seek certiorari review is sufficient process to meet constitutional requirements. … OSGC’s alleged losses (including lost grants, contracts, and permits) do not undermine the adequacy of its available state law remedies.

For the same reason, OSGC cannot escape the holdings of Donohoo v. Hanson, … Harding v. City of Door, … and Minneapolis Auto Parts Co. v. City of Minneapolis, … all finding no due process violation where plaintiffs had the opportunity for appellate review and prevailed. OSGC attempts to distinguish those cases on the basis that in those cases, “plaintiffs actually received the permit it sought during or as a result of the state court proceedings.” … This distinction fails legally and factually.

Legally, the relief ultimately granted in a state court proceeding does not determine whether OSGC’s due process rights were violated. Due process is, of course, concerned with process. See CEnergy-Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore … (“Due process requires only a state court remedy, not a guaranteed win by the applicant’s contractual deadline.”). Regardless of the outcome, OSGC had the “opportunity to apply for a writ” and, again, this is sufficient to satisfy due process. River Park … (emphasis added).

Factually, the distinction fails because OSGC also prevailed in state court. The only reason it has not “receive the permit it sought during or as a result of the state court proceedings” is that it has failed to enforce the state court judgments. … Again though, even if OSGC had lost, its opportunity to apply for a writ of certiorari satisfied due process. …

C. “Procedural obstacles” do not excuse OSGC from pursuing its state law remedies and its failure to do so bars its federal due process claims.

OSGC does not dispute that a plaintiff with available state law remedies against a land-use decision must pursue those remedies before repairing to federal court. … Instead, OSGC simultaneously argues that it “exhausted” those remedies and that “procedural and practical obstacles” barred it from pursing those remedies.

[Footnote: Technically, the requirement that Plaintiffs repair to state court is “not because the owner must ‘exhaust’ state remedies.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park…. “Rather the idea in zoning cases is that the due process clause permits municipalities to use political methods to decide, so the only procedural rules at stake are those local law provides, and these rules must be vindicated in local courts.” … The upshot, however, is the same. Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for due process violations based on an objectionable land-use decision without pursuing state law remedies. ….]

OSGC cannot have it both ways – either OSGC pursued available state remedies or it did not. OSGC admits that it did not: “Could OSGC eventually have placed this dispute in a posture in which the City was under an enforceable order to re-issue the CUP? Probably…”

OSGC attempts to hedge this admission by arguing that the path to enforcing the judgment was “unclear” and untimely. … These arguments go to adequacy of state law remedies – not whether those remedies were “exhausted.” In any event, the arguments are without merit.

Specifically, OSGC argues that it could not enforce its state court judgments because “the judgment of the appellate courts did not ‘require’ the City to do anything” and, according to OSGC, Wisconsin law “limits the reviewing court’s authority in a certiorari proceeding.” This is patently false. Obviously a certiorari court has the authority to reverse a circuit court, which must then proceed in accordance with the judgment. …

OSGC also complains that it could not enforce the judgment until the record was remitted to the circuit court and because of this delay, the “unique confluence of circumstances that would have allowed construction of the facility had disappeared.” … Again, “[t]he fact that a plaintiff might not be able to recover under state law remedies the full amount of which he might receive in a § 1983 action is not determinative of the adequacy of the state remedies.” …

If OSGC was not satisfied with the outcome of certiorari review, it also could have sought a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of the building permit. Indeed, OSGC initially filed exactly such a writ of mandamus, but voluntarily dismissed it.The opportunity to file a writ of mandamus defeated plaintiffs’ due process claims in CEnergy-Glenmore and the opportunity, along with the opportunity to enforce its judgment, defeats OSGC’s claim here.

Neither Guerro v. City of Kenosha Housing Authority nor Hanlon v. Town of Milton excuse OSGC’s failure to fully pursue its state court remedies. Guerro denied equitable relief as outside the scope of a certiorari action. … Despite the relief sought being unavailable on certiorari, Guerro nevertheless reinforced that “a litigant cannot claim a deprivation of due process until he or she has, in fact, pursued the post deprivation process provided.” … In Guerro, the “post deprivation process provided” was certiorari under Wis. Stat. § 68.13. … Here, the available post deprivation process also includes enforcement of the state court judgments and OSGC failed to pursue them.

Likewise, Hanlon held that claim preclusion does not bar plaintiffs who have pursued a certiorari action from pursuing a § 1983 action. … It does not address, let alone excuse, any prerequisites to stating a claim under § 1983, pursuit of state law remedies. … Such a holding could not be reconciled with CEnergy-Glenmore … (denying due process claims under § 1983 where plaintiffs “ignored potential state law remedies.”).

Finally, OSGC states that “the City apparently recognizes that OSGC filed a request for an administrative appeal, filed a Notice of Claim, filed a certiorari action in state court, and pursued that action all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.” … Any facts cited by the City are “recognized” only for the limited purpose of supporting its Motion to Dismiss, under which all allegations in the Complaint “must be accepted as true.” Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. ….

The statutory framework is in place for OSGC to enforce the appellate judgments. Any “procedural obstacles” do not excuse OSGC from taking advantage of available state court remedies – “The due process clause requires that a claimant receive adequate process, not the most advantageous process available to him….” Bettendorf v. St. Croix County….

D. OSGC’s investment on the CUP does not transform the CUP into a protectable property interest.

OSGC does not dispute that a conditional use permit is not a constitutionally protected property interest. … Instead, OSGC claims its “combined interests” are “sufficient to warrant due process protection.” … The “combined interests” are the assets OSGC acquired in reliance on the CUP – “a building permit from the City, air permits from the state and federal regulators, contractors from third-parties, and various grants and tax-credits.” … see also … Complaint, ¶ 4 (“Thereafter, and in reliance on the CUP, OSGC invested significant funds developing the project. OSGC completed a substantial environmental permitting process with both state and federal regulators. Eventually, OSGC obtained all necessary permits to being construction of the facility.”) In other words, OSGC asks the court to find that its investments made in reliance on the CUP give rise to a protectable property interest independent of the CUP.

Wisconsin courts do not recognize this theory. Rainbow Springs Gold Co., Inc. v. Town of Mukwonago … (finding no property interest in a revoked conditional use permit despite plaintiff losing the use of a recreational resort facility, a convention center, two golf courses, a haunted hotel, and a full-service restaurant all operated in reliance on the CUP).

Nor do the cases cited by OSGC. OSGC misquotes Bd. of Regents v. Roth as holding that property interests “essentially encompass[] any ‘legitimate claim of entitlement.’” … Rather, Roth established that a “legitimate claim of entitlement” is a threshold attribute of a protected property interest. … (“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must [] have a legitimate claim of entitle to it.”). Roth further established that protected property interests “are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law—rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” … (finding no property interest.)

Consistent with Roth, in the cases cited by OSGC, courts found a protected property interest where the interest relied on state laws. Building Height Cases … (protecting investments made in reliance on an ordinance); Peninsula Props., Inc. v. City of Sturgeon Bay … (protecting building permits sought pursuant to state law); River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park … (protecting a zoning designation where state law required the City to grant plaintiff’s zoning application).

Unlike these interests, OSGC’s alleged interest was not made in reliance on state law – it was made “in reliance on the CUP.” The CUP cannot “support claims of entitlement” because “[a] conditional use permit is not property.” ….

E. OSGC has not alleged a violation of procedural due process.

To support its claim for procedural due process, OSGC cites to Owen v. Lash … and Zinerman v. Burch …. Its reliance on these cases is misplaced. The due process claim in Lash and Zinerman and was for deprivation of liberty where plaintiffs were involuntarily detained in state prison and a state mental health facility, respectively. As explained in Mathews, due process is “a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation.” …. The process owed in a deprivation of liberty is not the same as what is owed in land-use decisions. Again, all that is owed in land-use decisions is “the opportunity to apply for a writ.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park…. Thus, even if, as alleged, the City did not provide “a meaningful hearing prior to revoking the CUP” …. the opportunity for certiorari review was a sufficient procedural safeguard.see also CEnergy-Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore … (“[A] post-deprivation remedy is sufficient to satisfy due process in such situations [land-use decisions].”).

OSGC outlines additional steps the City could have taken, including that “the City should have devised a manner to consider that decision that would have prevented a fabricated reason for it.” … Whatever process OSGC had in mind by this, procedural due process does not turn on what additional process the city could have provided. The Seventh Circuit has rejected such arguments as “speculative” and “irrelevant.” Bettendorf v. St. Croix County[.] Where the plaintiffs in Bettendorf complained that another procedure would have provided “more or better process” than it received in state court proceedings, the Seventh Circuit denied his claim, holding “[t]he due process clause requires that a claimant receive adequate process, not the most advantageous process available to him.” ….

The theme throughout OSGC’s Complaint and arguments is that OSGC is not dissatisfied with the process they received – it is dissatisfied with its losses. In Shipyard Development, LLC v. City of Sturgeon Bay, this Court denied just such a claim: “[I]t is clear from its complaint that Shipyard is not seeking notice and a hearing on its right to a prompt determination. Shipyard wants money for the losses it claims to have sustained as a result of the delay. Shipyard’s claims are not for a denial of procedural protections.” ….

F. OSGC has not alleged a violation of substantive due process.

As an initial matter, OSGC accuses the City of conflating substantive due process with procedural due process and cites River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park as an example of a case relied on by the City that involved only procedural due process claims. … This criticism ignores that the Seventh Circuit applied River Park to claims for substantive and procedural due process in CEnergy-Glenmore. … (“[R]egardless 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 state rather than federal court.”) (citing River Park … (“Labels do not matter. A person contending that state or local regulation of the use of land has gone overboard must repair to state court.”) Thus, the requirements of River Park apply to both substantive and procedural due process claims. That said, the City agrees that substantive and procedural due process claims are distinct insofar as substantive due process claims are “very limited” and a more “difficult undertaking, especially if the claim involves zoning or other real property regulatory actions by a governmental body.” Bettendorf … see also Donohoo v. Hanson … (“To prevail on a claim that defendants deprived him of substantive due process, Donohoo’s burden is even greater [than for a procedural due process claim].”)

OSGC attempts to distinguish CEnergy-Glenmore by citing the loss of its building permit and “significant funds spent in reliance on the town’s actions.” … As to the building permit, the loss of a building permit clearly does not entitle plaintiffs to a claim for substantive due process. Harding v. County of Door … (finding no substantive due process violation for withdrawal of building permit). As to the “significant funds,” OSGC has put the cart before the horse. Before it can state a claim for damages under section 1983, OSGC must first allege a constitutional violation. Instead, OSGC asks the Court to find a violation based on the measure of its losses. OSGC repeats this theme throughout its bulleted list of grievances. The “magnitude” of OSGC’s damages is not a proxy for arbitrariness.

Dec 23 2017 Airing of OSGCs & GBRE's Grievances by the Festivus pole before feats of strength.

The only Seventh Circuit case OSGC cites as having found a violation of substantive due process is Peninsula Properties, Inc. v. City of Sturgeon Bay[.] There, plaintiffs presented a viable case for substantive due process violations by alleging that the City “refused to act as a means to coerce a citizen to take unwarranted action.” … OSGC has not alleged conduct that amounts to coercion.Nor does the conduct support an inference “that the City intentionally sought to harm OSGC.”The worst that might be said about the allegations is that the City yielded to political pressure, an allegation that decidedly does not support a claim for procedural due process. River Park … (“the due process clause permits municipalities to use political methods to decide [land-use matters]”).

G. The Complaint has not alleged a claim or standing on behalf of GBRE.

Plaintiffs argue that by referring to OSGC and its subsidiary GBRE collectively, they are excused from showing that GBRE is independently entitled to relief. … According to Plaintiffs, the facts alleged on behalf of OSGC were alleged for both entities and the City is free to parse out the distinctions in discovery.

Exactly this style of “vague drafting” was rejected by the Eastern District in Holmes v. City of Racine… (citing Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife…). There, multiple plaintiffs pursued RICO claims against multiple defendants, but the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to make clear which defendants harmed which plaintiffs. … The court found this insufficient to confer standing:

Here is what is clear: each plaintiff must allege facts that, taken as true, would show a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. In other words, the Court will not allow them to escape dismissal simply by pleading a host of facts which they then incorporate into claims against all or groups of the defendants…. [A]bsent factual allegations that would establish facial plausibility of RICO claims against specific defendants by specific plaintiffs, the Court will be obliged to dismiss the RICO portions of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal…) … This reasoning applies with equal force here – Plaintiffs’ Complaint failed to establish facial plausibility of claims against the City “by specific plaintiffs” and must be dismissed for lack of standing.

The reasoning from Holmes also renders GBRE’s claim deficient for purposes of Rule 8(a)(2). Where a complaint fails to show damages sufficient to confer standing, it also necessarily fails to “show[] that the pleader is entitled to relief,” fails to “give the defendant fair notice of what the… claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” and fails to satisfy Rule 8. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly … (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Dated this 14th day of March, 2017.
GUNTA LAW OFFICES, S.C.
Attorneys for Defendant, City of Green Bay



From Oneida Eye’s Documents and Media pages:

03/02/2017:

A Temple University graduate admitted Thursday that he ran a $54 million Ponzi scheme built on false promises of green energy technology that would turn trash into fuel and “carbon-negative” housing developments, neither of which were ever fully developed.

Troy Wragg, now living in Georgia, pleaded guilty in federal court in Philadelphia on Thursday to conspiracy and securities fraud. His college girlfriend, Amanda Knorr, pleaded guilty last year, while Wayde McKelvy, a 54-year-old securities salesman from Colorado, is scheduled to go on trial [September 11, 2017].

Their 2015 indictment came six years after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against [Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global Corp.] in Colorado, shut down the firm, and obtained a court order barring its principals from raising new funds. Various people linked to the company and its associated entities have agreed to a $6 million settlement with investors.

[Mantria Corporation] had a site testing the production of biochar in Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how much it was producing.









(CORNING, Calif. – August 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 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.”

In another significant win for the Plaintiffs, U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., also denied the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the Tribe’s restitution claims, including those filed against Abettor Defendants Umpqua Bank and Umpqua Holdings Corp., Cornerstone Community Bank and Cornerstone Community Bancorp, Associated Pension Consultants and Patriot Gold & Silver Exchange, as well as others that allegedly assisted in the theft of Tribal funds. In addition, the Court provided the Tribe with an opportunity to amend its claims against the Abettor Defendants.

The Court’s decision affirms the Tribe’s ability to pursue claims against all of the twenty-plus named defendants. This includes those who alleged to have directly participated in the RICO conspiracy, as well as those who assisted and benefited from it. To the extent the Court has asked the Tribe to amplify its allegations concerning some of those claims, we intend to do so,” said the Tribe’s co-counsel Andrew M. Purdy of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. 

In March 2015, the Tribe filed the lawsuit in federal court charging its former treasurer and three former senior officials with defrauding the Tribe of tens of millions of dollars in Tribal moneys. . The 200-plus page complaint alleges in detail that these four individuals used vote-rigging, bribery, and extortion to take control of the Tribe and its principal non-casino business entity during this far-reaching, decade-long scheme.

Also named in the lawsuit are individuals, including several family members of the four defendants, and businesses that participated in the conspiracy and/or aided and abetted the illegal activity. These include Umpqua Bank, Umpqua Holdings Corp., Cornerstone Community Bank, and Cornerstone Community Bancorp—all of which allegedly assisted the Ringleaders in their theft of Tribal moneys on deposit—as well as Garth Moore Insurance & Financial Services, Associated Pension Consultants, Inc., Haness & Associates, LLC, and their principals, who are alleged to have facilitated conversion of millions of dollars through unauthorized retirement compensation schemes. Additionally, Patriot Gold & Silver Exchange and its owner, Norman R. Ryan, are alleged to have substantially assisted defendant John Crosby in converting approximately $160,000 of the Tribe’s money through purchases of gold.





03/22/2017 UPDATE:

LOOK WHAT CRAWLED OUT FROM BENEATH THE BLARNEY STONE… dripping in flop sweat to try to make Green Box NA seem semi-legit to low-info locals and potential domestic & foreign fraud victims.

A Chicago company’s $176 million reorganization plan for Green Box NA Green Bay would pay nearly $14 million in unpaid taxes and debts to untangle founder Ron Van Den Heuvel’s web of lawsuits and unpaid bills.

GlenArbor LLC, an investor in Green Box, has spearheaded efforts to pull the De Pere-based company out of bankruptcy since Van Den Heuvel sought protection from creditors in April 2016. Its plan calls for the creation of a new company that would secure the equipment, intellectual property and money needed to operate a complex system for recycling waste that typically ends up in landfills.

Green Box and two related companies under the new company’s umbrella, Reclamation Technology Systems and PC Fibre Technology LLC, would provide the equipment, technology, know-how, space and materials needed to convert food-contaminated paper products, plastics, tires and other materials into sanitized raw materials suitable for making new products.

Van Den Heuvel would retain an ownership stake in the revived venture, but he would not be involved in the company’s management, according to a reorganization plan filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

When Green Box filed for bankruptcy, Van Den Heuvel listed less than $50,000 in assets and more than $10 million in debt. The company had been the subject of a string of lawsuits from unpaid creditors, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel] is also scheduled for trial in July on federal bank fraud charges. Van De Heuvel, his wife, Kelly [Yessman Van Den Heuvel], and a banker [Paul Piikkila] are accused of a scheme in which they used employees and relatives to borrow more than $1 million from Horicon Bank in 2008 and 2009. The bank claimed it lost more than $750,000 on the loans.

[Paul Piikkila, who has already pled guilty and agreed to testify about Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s bank fraud schemes, was ALSO the Interim Controller of the Green Detroit Regional Center EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program that promoted Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Detroit LLC investment fraud scheme to foreign victims. “Employees & Relatives” of the Van Den Heuvel’s who were ‘straw borrowers’  include:

More info below about Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s actions to manipulate Juile Gumban.] 

“They got everything pretty well lined up but it’s been so difficult because of everything swirling around it,” Green Box bankruptcy attorney Paul Swanson said. “It’s a great concept and I think we’ve demonstrated it could go and really be successful.”

[                   ]

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Beth Hanan laid out the terms of the reorganization in a Feb. 17 court filing. GlenArbor still has to secure funding to pay off claimants and launch the operation before the case can formally be resolved.

Stephen A Smith President & CEO of GlenArbor Partners Inc. & Registered Agent of RTS and Ecohub-USA LLC

GlenArbor’s Stephen A. Smith declined to comment until the agreement is made official. Van Den Heuvel also declined to comment.

Under the reorganization plan, Van Den Heuvel would retain ownership of 6.35 percent of Green Box and a 55.6 percent of Reclamation Technology Systems.

Green Box would focus on operating, servicing and selling machines that convert plastics and used tires into oil, black carbon, synthetic gas and other re-usable materials through a process called pyrolysis. Reclamation Technology Systems sorts and processes food contaminated waste to create pulp, tissue and other products. PC Fibre Technology owns the patent for that process

[DOES IT REALLY NOW?  SINCE WHEN?

• October 18, 2016 United States Trustee’s Objection to the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

6.  According to the Disclosure Statement, the FDA approved the paper recycling process. However, although the process may be feasiblethe Debtor has not provided any evidence that the process is profitable.

7. The Disclosure Statement provides that the patent for the technology needed to process food-contaminated waste was filed in 2011 but has not yet been approved. The Debtor states that approval of the process patent is not expected until 2017.

WHOOPS!!! {UPDATE SEE BELOW FOR GBPG’s CORRECTION}]  

Back to the Green Bay Puff Piece-Gazette:

Green Box would have a 30 percent stake in the new company created to bring together the disparate parts of the businesses. Green Box would use its share of the profits and revenue from pyrolysis operations to pay off nearly $1.1 million in unsecured claims against Green Box.

GlenArbor owns 3.75 percent of Green Box and 25.8 percent of RTS.

Building a new company

The bulk of the $176 million sought to fund the new company would build a new sorting facility, expand existing operations, connect various parts of the operation, pay off creditors and ramp up operations.

If financing can be secured, the new company has agreed to pay:

»$605,000 in delinquent property, payroll and unemployment taxes Green Box owed to county, state and federal agencies.

»$13.1 million to secured claimants owed a total of $24.3 million, and

»$270,000 in legal fees and other administrative expenses.

In exchange for the payments, investors agreed to give up claims to various machinery Van Den Heuvel offered as collateral to secure financing from various sources and transfer it to RTS and Green Box. The equipment is needed to operate the new company.

The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. would receive $650,000 in exchange for giving up its security interest in some of the equipment in question, but it also agreed to defer repayment of the $1.1 million loan WEDC gave Green Box. The new company would assume responsibility for the loan.

The new company faces a March 31 deadline to finance all the disparate parts of the operation, though the deadline can be extended into the second quarter if necessary.

_________________

03/24/2017 UPDATE: 

PRESS-GAZETTE PUBLISHED A CORRECTION AT THE ONEIDA EYE PUBLISHER’S REQUEST…

DESTROYING GBPG’s LUDICROUS FRONT PAGE ‘FAKE NEWS’ CLAIM THAT GREEN BOX NA IS “READY TO EMERGE FROM BANKRUPTCY”

PC Fibre Technology LLC has applied for a patent for a process for sorting and recycling food contaminated waste. A March 22 story about Green Box NA Green Bay’s bankruptcy recovery plan incorrectly reported the status of the patent.

 
Ya’ think?!

 

SO WHAT ‘PATENT’ DID OSGC SUPPOSEDLY
INVEST (at least) $2 MILLION IN…

ONLY TO LOSE (at least) $4 MILLION…

as stated in the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s
FY2012 and FY2017 Annual Reports to ONW’s General Tribal Council?

They both say:

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Tribe approved $2,000,000 in the investment of Seven Generations to become a 20% owner in Nature’s Way (Glory LLC). Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp.] was a paper converting company that has ownership of a tissue patent. In FY2008, a $4,000,000 loss was written off due to the closing of Nature’s Way. Oneida Seven Generations is currently in litigation against Nature’s Way principals of the corporation.

Artley Skenandore Jr. – Principal of Oneida Nation High School … and of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.

 

IF PC FIBRE TECHNOLOGY, LLC HAS NEVER HAD A PATENT AS OSGC HAS CONTINOUSLY CLAIMED TO ONW’s GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL…

NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP. & OSGC HAVE BEEN NOTHING BUT FRONTS FOR RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’s CRIMINAL FRAUD SCHEMES SINCE AT LEAST 2005.

TWELVE YEARS…

OVER $25 MILLION DOLLARS GONE…

BUT NOW OSGC & GBRE ARE SUING THE CITY OF GREEN BAY IN FEDERAL COURT CLAIMING “THE CITY INTENTIONALLY TRIED TO HARM OSGC” ?!?!

  

  

What GlenArbor LLC & Green Box NA investors should expect:

 

Kinda like the Press-Gazette’s Alexa.com Rankings:



A bipartisan proposal making it a felony to defraud the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. was reintroduced Friday, almost two years after the Wisconsin State Journal reported on a failed $500,000 loan to a Milwaukee businessman who lied on his application.

The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Samantha Kerkman, R-Salem Lakes, and Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, would make defrauding the state’s flagship job-creation agency a Class E felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and five years of extended supervision and/or a $50,000 fine. Offenders and their companies would also be ineligible for WEDC benefits for seven years and could be liable for damages. …

The State Journal reported in May 2015 that WEDC had given a $500,000 loan to a struggling Milwaukee construction company in 2011 without a thorough review and at the urging of Gov. Scott Walker’s top aides, including then Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch. …

The company had been sued three times in the previous five years, though owner William Minahan claimed in an application for $4.3 million in WEDC funds it faced no lawsuits. Minahan also misrepresented the extent of his partnership with a La Crosse company and UW-Milwaukee.

Minahan had stiffed creditors, including a luxury car dealership that leased him a Maserati, and told them he could pay them back with money he was getting from the state. The loan was supposed to fund a business venture to make energy efficiency upgrades to credit unions.

WEDC successfully sued Minahan’s now-defunct company Building Committee Inc., but the loan has not been repaid. Minahan has not been charged with a crime.

In another 2011 case, the state loaned $1.2 million to Green Box LLC owned by De Pere-area businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel to help the company create 116 jobs as part of a more than $13 million project to turn fast-food wrappers and other waste paper into synthetic fuel and paper products while producing zero waste.

Van Den Heuvel, who now faces unrelated bank fraud charges, falsely told WEDC he hadn’t faced any lawsuits in the previous five years. A Brown County Sheriff’s Office investigator testified Van Den Heuvel used the money to pay off personal and business debts, such as Green Bay Packers box seats, trips to Las Vegas and $2,000 weekly alimony payments to his ex-wife.

When Walker and the Republican Legislature created WEDC in 2011, they didn’t create specific criminal penalties for defrauding WEDC similar to laws against bank fraud.

“unrelated”?

UNRELATED?!

NO MENTION OF BANK FRAUD CO-CONSPIRATOR PAUL PIIKKILA’S DUAL ROLE IN THE EB-5 IMMIGRANT INVESTOR FRAUD SCHEME OFFERING OF GREEN BOX NA DETROIT, LLC?

DESPITE THE FACT THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS SAID THE FOLLOWING IN COURT FILINGS:

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 Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, 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. …

NO MENTION IN THE WISCONSIN STATE JOURNAL NOR IN THE GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE ABOUT $4 MILLION IN COMBINED WIDoC/WEDC LOANS TO OSGC & ONEIDA ENERGY INC. IN ORDER FOR OSGC & GBRE TO PERPETRATE THE EXACT SAME FRUAD SCHEMES AS JUST MORE OF RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’S MULTIPLE FRONT COMPANIES…

…DESPITE THE FACT THAT OSGC & GBRE ARE CURRENTLY SUING THE CITY OF GREEN BAY IN FEDERAL COURT IN DEFENSE OF RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’S FRAUDULENT CLAIMS?

  

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING & DECIDE FOR YOURSELF:

BY BURYING THE LEDE & REFUSING TO FOLLOW LEADS…

ARE WI STATE JOURNAL & GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE …

PURPOSEFULLY PUBLISHING ‘FAKE NEWS’?

The evidence to prove this charge comes from several sources. All involved personnel from the Horicon Bank and all individuals serving as straw borrowers to obtain loans have been interviews. Records have been obtained from the Horicon Bank and other banks which made loans for the benefit of Ron Van Den Heuvel, which loans from Horicon were used to repay. To avoid confusion between the two Van Den Heuvels, this offer of proof will refer to them as Ron and Kelly, respectively.

During the period of the scheme, Paul Piikkila was employed as a loan officer for Horicon Bank (hereinafter, “the bank”) working at the Appleton, Wisconsin branch. He had authority to make loans up to a $250,000 limit. Any loans he proposed above that limit needed to be approved by the bank’s Business Lenders Committee.

Ron is a member of a wealthy and prominent family in Green Bay. During the scheme, he represented himself to be a businessman in the Green Bay area. He operated and controlled at least seven business entities that he used interchangeably.

During the period of the scheme, Kelly Van Den Heuvel was the wife of Ron and was also the owner and operator of KYHKJG, LLC. She is still married to Ron.

In late 2007 or early 2008, Ron approached Piikkila about issuing loans from the bank to Ron or his business entities. All of the witnesses who know Ron characterize him as a charismatic individual who seems to have the ability to get other people to do what he wants. He often convincingly describes his grand plans for major businesses with will make all participants millionaires.

On or about January 17, 2008 Piikkila authorized a loan of $250,000 from the bank to RVDH, Inc., one of Ron’s business entities. Ron signed the business note for RVDH, Inc.

About two months later, on or about March 20, 2008 Piikkila proposed to the loan committee that the bank loan $7,100,000 to Source of Solutions, LLC, another of Ron’s business entities. Members of the loan committee, who were Piikkila’s superiors at the bank, did due diligence to look into Ron’s creditworthiness. They found that he had a number of judgments against him and that bankers at other banks which Ron had done business advised Horicon Bank against making any loans to Ron. As a result, the loan committee would not approve this loan. Piikkila tried to restructure it a couple of times but that did not change the committee’s decison. Piikkila’s superiors at the bank instructed him that the band did not wish to make any loans to Ron or his businesses so Piikkila should not.

That led Piikkila to authorize a series of loans to other people for Ron’s benefit or the benefit of his companies. The paperwork on these loans was put together in a way that prevented the bank from realizing that Piikkila was authorizing these loans in violation of the instructions not to loan money to Ron or his businesses. It was also in violation of Piikkila’s loan limits. His first loan was to on of Ron’s entities, RVDH, in January of 2008 already reached Piikkila’s limit to loan to any one individual. The subsequent loans for the benefit of Ron through various straw borrowers drastically exceeded that limit.

Steven Peters – Ron’s employee, and bank fraud straw borrower, and a partner with Ron, Artley, and OSGC in Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.

The first such loan was on or about September 12, 2008, when Piikkila approved a loan of $100,000 to [Steven Peters.] [Steven Peters] was an employee of Ron’s at the time [and partner with Ron, Artley Skenandore Jr., and Oneida Seven Generations Corp. of the Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. fraud scheme that resulted in a $4,000,000 LOSS to OSGC]. These proceeds were immediately transferred to two of Ron’s business entities. [Steven Peters], who also obtained two other loans from Horicon for Ron, fully admits that he was recruited by Ron to be used as a straw borrower. He denies that he received any reward for doing so but did it as a favor for Ron who was his friend and employer. [Steven Peters] fully admits that he, Ron, and Piikkila all had the understanding that none of the money was going to him and that he had no obligation to pay back the loan since they understood that Ron was responsible for that.

On or about November 7, 2008, Piikkila authorized two seperate loans to Kelly’s company, KYHKJG. One loan was for $250,000. The second loan was $70,000, therefore exceeding Piikkila’s loan limit.

On January 2, 2009, Piikkila approved a loan of $240,000 to [William C. Bain]. [William ‘Bill’ Bain] is a former business partner of Ron’s and a former brother-in-law. [William Bain] fully admits that he was recruited by Ron to be used as a straw borrower to obtain a loan in his name even though the money was not going to him and none of the repsonsibility for repaying the loans was on his shoulders since it was his understanding, and Piikkila’s, that Ron would be repaying the loan. All of the $240,000 was quickly disbursed. The large majority of it went to pay off earlier loan debts at other banks, either in Ron’s own name or in [William Bain]’s name becuase he had earlier served as a straw borrower to obtain loans for Ron at other banks. The money left over after these loan payments was used for personal debts of Ron’s.

On or about February 11, 2009, another loan was made to [Steven Peters] of $30,000. All of that money was quickly transferred to business entities belonging to Ron.

On or about May 15, 2009, a third loan was made to [Steven Peters]. It was for $129,958. That was meant to consolidate the amounts remaining due on the loans earlier obtained in the name of [Steven Peters].

On the same date, May 15, 2009, Piikkila approved a loan of $25,000 to [Juile Gumban]. [Julie Gumban] was a nanny for Ron and Kelly’s children. She comes from the Philippines and does not speak English well. The money borrowed in her name was immediately distributed to make a payment on the [Steven Peters] loan, make a payment on the [William Bain] loan, and to transfer money to Ron’s company, RVDH, and Kelly’s company, KYHKJG.  [Julie Gumban] states that she was pressed to take out this loan by Ron and Kelly for whom she worked. It was her vague understanding that this money could be used by her to invest in Kelly’s company, but none of the money was used for that purpose. [Julie Gumban] states that Kelly brought her to the Ron’s office to sign the loan papers with Piikkila.

On or about September 11, 2009, Piikkila approved a loan of $240,000 to Source of Solutions [LLC]. The loan application was signed off on by [Debra Stary]. She served for years as an administrative assistant and jack-of-all-trades for Ron. The witnesses associated with Ron’s businesses all agreed that [Debbie Stary] had no real authority in the company and just acted at Ron’s direction. She was made an officer of Source of Solutions shortly before this loan was taken out. None of the money went to Source of Solutions. Much of the money was transferred to Ron’s other business entities. Some was used to pay for personal expenses of Ron and Kelly, including the Packers luxury box they regularly rented. Lump sum payments were made to employees, including $5,000 to [Debbie Stary]. Payments were made against the other Horicon loans. Piikkila was repaid for having personally covered a short-fall of Ron’s in a different account at Horicon Bank.

The last loan was on or about September 25, 2009 where Piikkila approved a $10,000 loan to Tissue Technology [LLC], another of Ron’s entities. $1,000 was deposited into the Tissue Technology account and the remaining $9,000 was taken out in cash.

A number of categories of evidence tend to prove that Ron acted with fraudulent intent by obtaining these loans through the submission of information he knew to be false.

Of course, he had a motive since these practices allowed him to obtain large quantities of money which he could use for his own purposes. All of the witnesses agree that Ron and Kelly Van Den Heuvel lived a high-end-life style including an expensive house, another residence in Florida, expensive automobiles, a live-in nanny, expansive use of credit cards, and a private plane. all this despite little evidence of actual business activity by any of Ron’s business entities.

Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s criminal lair

The reason for obtaining the loans through straw borrowers was apparent from the circumstances. It had to be done that way because the bank would not loan any money to Ron or his entities. So, it was necessary to put the loans in the names of the straw borrowers, always at amounts of $250,000 or less so that Piikkila did not need to obtain authorization from his superiors at the bank.

The straw borrowers all state that Ron caused them to serve in the role as straw borrowers and that it was all done with Piikkila’s knowledge. On the [Bill Bain] loan, there is even a written proposal from Ron to Piikkila about the terms which should be used for that loan.

The fact that Ron was responsible for these loans, rather than the straw borrowers, is supported by the fact that whatever collateral was offered as security for these loans was collateral owned or controlled by Ron, not the straw borrowers.

Once the bank started to try to collect on this collateral after there was default on the loans, the bank representatives learned that the collateral was often inadequate as security for the loans. Property was not worth what it was represented to be worth. Properties were already encumbered such that the bank had inferior position in terms of foreclosing on certain properties. Ownership of some of the collateral was in dispute and it appears that Ron pledged collateral that he did not necessarily own.

Each of the loans was purportedly for some general business purpose such as the purchase of equipment or operating capital. However, the loan proceeds consistently went to pay off old loans, often obtained by the straw borrowers for Ron’s benefit, or to pay off Ron’s personal expenses, not any stated business purpose.

There are various written and oral communications from Ron after the banks started looking into collecting on these loans which show that he acknowledged responsibility for repayment, corroborating the point that these were really his loans, not those of the straw borrowers. That includes email that Ron exchanged with various bank personnel and the straw borrowers, talks he had with invdividuals tasked by the bank to collect on the loans, and a written repayment agreement he had with [Steven Peters] acknowledging Ron’s responsibility to repay [Steven Peter]’s loans. [William Bain] communicated with Ron about settling his debt to the bank. All of the memo lines on the various [Bill Bain] checks which went to pay off earlier loans refer to the payment of Ron’s earlier loans or notes. Prior to the Source of Solutions loan, Ron and Piikkila exchanged emails making it plain that Ron was the true applicant for that loan.

Other apparent misleading information provided by Ron to [Paul] Piikkila and put into [Horicon Bank]’s records included grossly inflated financial statements. [Julie Gumban] had come to this country and had been working as a nanny for Kelly and Ron. Her financial statement claimed that she had assets of nearly $280,000, including $208,000 in real estate. It claimed that she had salaries and bonuses totalling $65,000 a year. However, she states that Ron and Kelly were not really paying her and were months behind in her salary.

As a guarantor for the January, 2008 loan of $250,000 to RVDH, Ron submitted a financial statement to Piikkila. That financial statement included assets of more than $115,000,000, a net worth of more than $94,000,000, and an annual income of $2,320,306. The evidence in this case is full of instances in which Ron failed to pay various debts for which he is responsible. That would indicate that this financial statement is dramatically false. If it is true, Ron was failing to repay amounts he easily pay just from money he claimed to have in various cash accounts.

Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel –  Ron’s wife and his Co-Conspirator, and the Registered Agent of KYHKJG, LLC, and KYHK, LLC, and HHK, LLC, and HHKRK, LLC. [Smells like a bunch of B.S.]

Kelly Van Den Heuvel culpably participated in the scheme, especially as to the loans to KYHKJG and [Julie Gumban]. Of course, she shared Ron’s motive for acquiring money to maintain their lifestyle.

As for the [Julie Gumban] loan, it seems that Kelly [Van Den Heuvel] was primarily responsible for that one. [Julie Gumban] states that Kelly is the person who physically brought her into Ron’s office to close that loan with Piikkila. Kelly told Piikkila that [Julie Gumban] was paid $50,000 a year but [Julie Gumban] says she was not being paid and, in fact, Kelly was running up debts on [Julie Gumban’s] credit cards. Prior to the issuance of the loan, Piikkila was communicating by email with Kelly about how the money was going to be disbursed. As noted above, none of it was disbursed for the benefit of [Julie Gumban]

The purposes of the [Julie Gumban] loan were misrepresented in the bank’s records. [Julie Gumban] was supposedly to invest in KYHKJG [LLC] but none of the money was used for that purpose.[Julie Gumban] agrees that Kelly asked her to take out the loan to invest in KYHKJG.

[Julie Gumban] agrees that her financial statement was false and she did not know where the money went.

With the exception of the [Julie Gumban] loan, which paid off the proceeds of the Source of Solutions [LLC] loan, none of these loans were paid off. After attempting to use the collateral to collect the amounts due, the bank wrote off all the loans except the [Julie Gumban] loan for a total loss of approximately $553,000.

This information is provided for the purpose of setting forth a factual basis for the plea of guilty. It is not a full recitation of the defendant’s knowledge of, or participation in, this offense.


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. …


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.


VIDEO – GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY EB-5 FRAUD VICTIM:


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.


Previously on Oneida Eye:



  


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 Inadequate, Exhaust Remedies, Identify Protectable Property Interest, Show ‘Conditional Use Permit’ Rescission Was Arbitrary, Or State Any Due Process Violation; Also, OSGC & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy / GBRE Lack The Capacity To Sue; MEANWHILE, Judge Rejects Mayor Schmitt’s Motion To Prohibit 2/20/2017 ‘Removal Petition’ Hearing [VIDEO]; FINAL 4–8 TALLY Sets Snake Loose By One Vote; Recall Petition Expected; PLUS, Lyin’ Sack O’ Schmitt Projecting Own Mental Illness/Damage In Podcast; Gives Fauxpology; UPDATE: OSGC’s & GBRE’s Response To City Posted

 

02/28/2017 UPDATE:

  • Look under ‘The Four Stooges’ picture below for OSGC’s & GBRE’s Response to the City of Green Bay’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 1:16-cv-01700Oneida Seven Generations Corp. & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC v. City of Green Bay

 

Here’s a preview:

The City lured OSGC to start the project in Green Bay, causing OSGC to spend millions of dollars in reliance on the City’s approval of necessary permits.

Over a year laterthe City arbitrarily revoked those approvals based on reasons that were entirely fabricated.

[T]he City intentionally sought to harm OSGC.

 



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 he 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 the table…

and

both remained tabled 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, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC v. City of Green Bay

    
And now…

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”)….

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…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 processand should be dismissed… .

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… and has failed to allege an injury in fact and should be dismissed….

In the alternative, the Complaint should be dismissed…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.

[C]orporate 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…are based solely on the facts alleged in the Complaint. The City’s arguments…are based on supporting facts…. The following allegations from the Complaint provide the relevant background for dismissal….

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. … 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. … While OSGC was obtaining the necessary permits and approvals, public opposition to the facility mounted Some faction of the opposition groups accused OSGC of lying in its application in order to obtain the CUP.  In response, the City held a public hearing.  OSGC submitted written materials and appeared before both the Plan Commission and the Common Council in defense of the CUP. … Following a public hearing, the Common Council voted seven to five to rescind the CUP, offering no explanation for its decision.  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.”

OSGC requested an administrative appeal. … The City Council denied the request….  OSGC then invoked its right to certiorari review of the City’s actions in Wisconsin state court.  The Wisconsin Circuit Court reviewed the City’s decision to rescind the CUP and denied OSGC’s petition for certiorari. 

OSGC then appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. … 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.” ... 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. …

OSGC then requested that the City reissue the CUP. … The City did not reissue the CUP, but appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court focused only on “whether the evidence was such that [the City] might reasonably make the order or determination in question.”  On March 29, 2015, it affirmed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision. 

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

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.” … While the Complaint’s well-pled allegations must be accepted as true and all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor, …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.” …

“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” … Consideration of the Exhibits does not convert this motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. …

“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.”

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. …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.” … (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 … (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. … (“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… . “The opportunity to apply for a [writ of certiorari] is enough.”  (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… (“[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. … 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.”  When it comes [to] claims based on land-use decisions, “Federal Courts are not zoning boards of appeal.”

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. 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….

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.” … OSGC had a full opportunity to air these grievances against the City in state court proceedings.

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. … 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. … 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.” … See also Harding v. County of Door… (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… (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.” … 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. … 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.” … (J. Griesbach, presiding), see also River Park v. City of Highland Park … (finding no due process violation where city deliberately delayed rezoning until developer went bankrupt); Harding … (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.” … 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[.] “[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[.]

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.” … 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… (affirming a motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to pursue his state law remedies); See also River Park… (“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,” …that “[t]he City also refused OSGC’s request to re-issue the CUP after the Court of Appeals decision in favor of OSGC,” and that “the City never re-issued the conditional use permit to OSGC[.]” ... [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.” ... 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.” …

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. …The CUP is not a protectable property interest and cannot support a contingent protectable interest.

Protectable property interests are defined by state law…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, IndUnder 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.” … “A conditional use permit is not property; it is a type of zoning designation.” …

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. … 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.” (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. … (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.” … (dismissing due process claim for failure to show actions were arbitrary and failure to seek recourse under state law); see also Donohoo v. Hanson … (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.” …

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, and “only the most egregious official conduct” qualifies.  “A plaintiff bears a very heavy burden in a substantive due process claim attacking a decision of local zoning officials.” ..“And rightly so, for the federal courts are not zoning boards of appeal and will not overturn merely erroneous decision.”

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. .. 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.”  As in the Complaint, the land-use decision was allegedly motivated by community opposition. … The Court held, “It is hardly surprising, or shocking, that an elected Town Board would be responsive to its more vocal constituents.”The Seventh Circuit affirmed, “As 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.”

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.

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 … 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 … (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. … Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Lay-Com … (“A corporation exists separately from its shareholders, officers, directors and related corporations.” … Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut v. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. … (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. … (quoting Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife … “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.” … (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc. …“As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of Article III standing.” …

There are two types of subject matter jurisdiction challenges, factual and facial.  A facial challenge argues that the plaintiff has not sufficiently “alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction.” … 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).”

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. ..The only injury alleged in the Complaint is to OSGC.  … (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. … 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.” ... 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.”… Plaintiff GBRE is “a Delaware limited liability company” and “wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.” …

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.

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.” … 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.” 

On December 15, 2013, the General Tribal Council moved to dissolve OSGC. … 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.

On December 24, 2013, the Oneida Business Committee adopted “BC Resolution 12-24- 13-A Reorganization of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.”… The resolution was “to begin the process of dissolution of the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation in a business-like manner.”  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.” … 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. …

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.”… 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.” ..It also recognized that OSGC, GBRE, and the Oneida Tribe had been “sued in regard to alleged contract violations.” ...

[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.

[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 …]

The Oneida Business Committee, therefore, resolved to amend the OSGC Corporate Charter again … 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

On August 10, 2016, there was a special General Tribal Council meeting.  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.” The motion was amended as “to allow Oneida Seven Generations Corporation to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay.”  This amendment to the motion was made specifically to allow OSGC to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay.  The main motion to rescind OSGC’s dissolution was not voted on. Instead, proponents of the dissolution moved to table it. Ex. 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. On October 2, 2016, the meeting reconvened, and a motion was made to take the item from the table, but this motion failed.

The General Tribal Council follows Robert’s Rules of Order. … 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.”  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.”

This lawsuit was initiated by plaintiffs OSGC and GBRE on December 23, 2016. … 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. … OSGC has already litigated the decision in Wisconsin courts and won a reversal. …

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

Under Rule 9(a), “a pleading need not allegea 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.” “Capacity to sue or be sued is determinedfor a corporation, by the law under which it was organized.”

“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. … “The pleading requirements for capacity thus correspond to those for personal jurisdiction.” ... 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.’ …

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.” … At the time this lawsuit was filed, OSGC was “prohibited from engaging in any action not specifically for the purposes of commercial leasing…”  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.” ... 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.”

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. … 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. ... This lawsuit will not accomplish any commercial leasing activities, and OSGC is “prohibited” from bringing it.

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.” … The Oneida Constitution also instructs the Business Committee to “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.” ..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.”

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.Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi. … (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… 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.  That motion did not pass. It was tabled, and died. 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


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 corporationis 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 nn May 2015 that the city improperly revoked the plant’s permit, OSGC never followed up with the courts to have the court order implemented. …

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 ‘waste-to-energy’ 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:


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 [TyWillihnganzs 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, LLCfiled 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.




March 2, 2017:

NBC 10 WCAU – Philadelphia: Temple University Graduate Admits to Running $54M Green-Energy Ponzi Scheme; The scam allegedly ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr’s Bala Cynwyd-based Mantria Corp.

A Temple University graduate admitted Thursday that he ran a $54 million Ponzi scheme built on false promises of green energy technology that would turn trash into fuel and “carbon-negative” housing developments, neither of which were ever fully developed.

Troy Wragg, now living in Georgia, pleaded guilty in federal court in Philadelphia on Thursday to conspiracy and securities fraud. His college girlfriend, Amanda Knorr, pleaded guilty last year, while Wayde McKelvy, a 54-year-old securities salesman from Colorado, is scheduled to go on trial in September. …

Two months before the SEC civil lawsuit, the company was publicly recognized for its stated commitment to “help mitigate global warming” by former President Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative. The company was cited for its plans to develop the biochar technology that it said would sequester carbon dioxide and reduce emissions in developing countries. Wragg appeared on stage with Clinton at the event in September 2009

Their 2015 indictment came six years after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against the company in Colorado, shut down the firm, and obtained acourt order barring its principals from raising new funds. Various people linked to the company and its associated entities have agreed to a $6 million settlement with investors.

Wragg said little in court Thursday, answering routine questions from Slomsky as he entered his plea. He is likely to face a prison term of up to about 20 years under federal sentencing guidelines. ,,, 

According to court filings, Wragg saw McKelvy as a lifeline for Mantria as it struggled under the weight of the 2008 collapse of the real estate market.

Prosecutors have painted the Colorado man as a shameless huckster who lured investors to Mantria in flashy seminars he called “Speed of Wealth” clubs and promising yields as high as 484 percent.

He hired celebrities, including NFL Hall of Fame player John Elway, to draw crowds while selling them on the company’s projects, such as its purported 4,500-home development in Tennessee and a $3.2 million plant in Dunlop, Tenn., devoted to the production of “biochar,” a green-energy charcoal substitute made from environmental waste.

Investors could “get paid just by owning land and spreading this stuff [biochar] all over your field, because this stuff pulls the toxins out of the atmosphere,” McKelvy is quoted in court filings as telling potential investors in a May 2009 seminar.

Prosecutors say the trio lied to investors, saying their “biochar” technology and “carbon-negative” housing in Tennessee made millions of dollars, but they had almost no earnings, and the three used the money to repay earlier investors and kept some for themselves.

McKelvy, who prosecutors say has never been licensed to sell securities, raised money through his Speed of Wealth seminars in Colorado, Las Vegas and elsewhere, including one that featured a speech from former Broncos quarterback John Elway.

McKelvy allegedly told investors that Mantria was the next Microsoft and that it was “on the cusp of a revolutionary technology that’s going to change the world, and you guys can benefit from it by putting money in and getting stinkin’ wealthy.”

Prosecutors say the housing developments that Mantria told investors would serve as collateral were never finished — the sites lacked drinking water and some may have contained unexploded artillery shells. Mantria then promised returns of more than 500 percent based on trash-to-fuel technology they said they had orders to sell. 

The company had a site testing the production of biochar in Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how much it was producing.





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:


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

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt lashed out at a trio of city council members during a recent Political Radar podcast, alluding 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, they’re 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

‘TEMPORARY 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


These were not honest mistakes, but concerted efforts to cover one’s tracks.

If a donor gives you a $5,000 check, which exceeds the $1,040 maximum, you return it. If you erroneously accepted it, then you return it when your error is pointed out. That’s an honest mistake.

You don’t keep it and then list five separate $1,000 donations from the donor and four of his family members. That’s deceit.

It’s a lie that Schmitt had a part in. A campaign worker filled out the campaign finance form but left the names blank. “The candidate, Jim Schmitt, however, filled in the name column,” the complaint said.

If you receive two $25 donations from a corporation, which, again, is against the law, when you realize your misstep, or it’s brought to your attention, you return the donations. That’s correcting an honest mistake.

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.”

Those are only two of the examples, but the criminal complaint shows Schmitt was involved in the deception. They were moves by an elected official who tried to skirt the law instead of returning the funds and risk getting nothing.

It was a ruse to keep two $25 donations.

One of the puzzling aspects of the case is he didn’t need the money. Schmitt ended up with more than $25,000 in the bank after his re-election bid. He didn’t need the $50.

That’s what troubles us the most.

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.

…As is often the case in government, the cover-up is worse than the crime. Campaign finance errors by themselves generally don’t rise to the level of needing to resign, but the mayor’s subsequent cover-up and attempts to mislead do.

…[T]he ends don’t always justify the means, and in this case the mayor crossed a line. When confronted with a problem, he tried to bury it instead of addressing it.

He must resign because of the monumentally poor judgment and dishonesty he displayed. Doing so will allow the city to continue to move forward.


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 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. …

“To vote no on this would be to tell people that you tolerate some corruption in our election process. In the context of how local government operates, there’s nothing more important than elections,” Alderman Tom Sladek said. 

The hearing focused on resident Scott Vanidestine’s petition that Schmitt should be removed from office because he pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor campaign finance violations.

“The enormity of the evidence shows Mayor Jim Schmitt’s intent to deceive (the public) and he should be removed from office,” Vanidestine said. “This has eroded trust in the mayor. I don’t trust him anymore. I wouldn’t do business with the city anymore. I do not believe he can lead our city.”

  

“I’m Mayor Sssschmitt. Welcome to Green Bay! Wanna do businessss? Trusssst me!”

  

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.

“It’s a sad day for the City of Green Bay when you have two thirds of the council that absolutely doesn’t share confidence in the Mayor, and I think well over half the public,” [Alderman Guy] Zima said. “How can we face the public and say the standards we set for the mayor are lower than the standards we set for every other employee in the City of Green Bay?”


Additional information regarding this meeting can be found online:

greenbaywi.gov/event/common-council-meeting-3/


FOUR MEMBERS of GREEN BAY’s COMMON COUNCIL

  • RANDY SCANNELL
  • BARBARA DORFF
  • BILL GALVIN
  • JOE MOORE

…LACK the COMMON SENSE and DECENCY to HONOR THEIR DUTY to POLICE THEIR OWN CHIEF OFFICER and hold him MEANINGFULLY ACCOUNTABLE for…
 
MULTIPLE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS

and COVER-UP ATTEMPTS

to DECEIVE the PUBLIC

about DONATIONS
 
WHILE IN OFFICE.

 
Instead,

THOSE FOUR HAVE SELFISHLY & COWARDLY PLACED THAT BURDEN ON THE PUBLIC’s BACK.

  

  

HEY!

FOUR STOOGES…

READ, WATCH, and TAKE NOTES.

HERE’S WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY LOOKS LIKE:




 

Back to the Oneida Clown Show…

  

02/28/2017 UPDATE:

  

 Actual quotes:

The City lured OSGC to start the project in Green Bay, causing OSGC to spend millions of dollars in reliance on the City’s approval of necessary permits.

Over a year laterthe City arbitrarily revoked those approvals based on reasons that were entirely fabricated.

[T]he City intentionally sought to harm OSGC.

 

tl;dr version:

We deserve points for recovering a fumble  …  because time was running out.

We say it.

We believe it.

That settles it.



Where did the OBC come up with ‘Exhibit A’?




FLASHBACK:

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.


Emissions Source tests conducted at the Romoland facility in June-July 2005 confirmed this technology emits dioxin and other toxic air contaminants as well as other pollutants.  [Thepreliminary evaluation of the test results found some emissions exceeded those from typical garbage incinerators.

W8 … WUT … ?!

We respectfully urge the Oneida Nation to reconsider this project that would pollute the environment and undermine true renewable energy efforts, and instead pursue safer, truly green and viable economic development projects.



APRIL 4, 2013:

Some [Oneida] Tribal members are looking at possibly shutting down the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation. Leah Dodge says the Tribal corporation has been misleading people about possible harmful effects from a proposed gasification plant, and it’s time to give up on the project. …

“There will be liabilities if the [Oneida] Seven Generations Corporation is dissolved, but the greater liabilities would result if Oneida Seven Generations [Corp.] – with its current leadership – is allowed to construct this incinerator.”


A. Executive Session

1. Rescind resolution 12-08-10-B Supporting Oneida Seven Generations and Oneida Energy in the Development of the Waste-to-Energy Projeect

Sponsor: [Fmr. OBC Chair] Ed Delgado

Motion by [Fmr. OBC Treas.] Tina Danforth to reaffirm resolution 12-08-10-B Supporing Oneida Seven Generations and Oneida Energy in the Development of the Waste-to-Energy Project, seconded by Paul Ninham. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes: Melinda J. Danforth, Tina Danforth, Vince DelaRosa, Greg Matson, Patty Hoeft, David Jordan, Paul Ninahm

Not present: Bradon Stevens

In fact, the Oneida Business Committee voted on April 11, 2013, to reaffirm OBC Resoluton 12-08-10-B, which states that the OBC supports OSGC & subsidiary Oneida Energy Inc. …

…as corporations wholly owned by the Tribe constructing this facility on the Oneida Reservation….

HOWEVER, the Hurlbut St. parcel in the City of Green Bay – where the OBC told the media their reaffirmation vote supported building OSGC’s experimental waste incinerator – IS NOT “on the Oneida Reservation.”

 

While waging the court fight [against the City of Green Bay], Oneida Seven Generations also has sought to locate a similar gasification plant on tribal land west of Green Bay.

Tribal members opposed to the project have circulated a petition for a General Tribal Council [Meeting] – similar to a public referendum  – on the issue.

That gathering is scheduled for May 5.

Leah Dodge, a leader of the petition drive, said Thursday’s action by the Oneida Business Committee signals the importance of a referendum that stops the gasification concept from going forward.

“Now the General Tribal Council will have to step up to do the job to protect the Oneida Tribe, which the Business Committee abdicated,” Dodge said.

On May 5, 2013, General Tribal Council voted to prohibit OSGC & its subsidiaries from engaging in ‘gasification,’ ‘waste-to-energy’ and ‘plastics-to-oil’ anywhere on the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin Reservation…

…but OSGC & Co. did it anyway:  

1.  Status report regarding zoning finding for building usage

Sponsor: [Fmr. OBC Chair] Ed Delgado


The following OBC Resolution was proposed by some OBC members (but was rejected by a majority of rejects) following media reports of an illegal ‘open-flame’ operation being conducted by OSGC’s business partners in OSGC’s 1201 O’Hare Boulevard facility – ON the ONEIDA NATION in Wisconsin’s Reservation – in violation of local zoning ordinances.

WHEREAS, the Oneida General Tribal Council is the duly recognized governing body of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, and

WHEREAS, the General Tribal Council has been delegated the authority of Article IV, Section I of the Oneida Tribal Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the Oneida Business Committee may be delegated duties and responsibilities by the Oneida General Tribal Council and is at all times subject to the review powers of the Oneida General Tribal Council, and

WHEREAS, the General Tribal Council met on to discuss the opportunity of implementing a waste-to-energy facility on the Reservation, and

WHEREAS, the General Tribal Council adopted the following motion:

“…to direct the BC to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation from building any gasification or waste-to-energy or plastic recycling plant at N7329 Water Circle Place, Oneida, Wisconsin or any other location within the Oneida Tribal reservation boundaries.”

WHEREAS, the discussion regarding waste-to-energy and other similar activities identified the General Tribal Council is of the opinion that this technology may result in causing health and environmental damage; and

WHEREAS, the Oneida Business Committee has identified a need to clarify the application of this action of the General Tribal Council to allow it to be fully implemented to meet the opinion of the General Tribal Council;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oneida Business Committee directs that all corporations, entities, and enterprises of the Tribe shall not engage in, or allow tenants or lessees to engage in, the business of operating a waste-to-energy, plastics recycling, or other similar technology on Tribal fee or trust property within the Reservation.

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that all corporations, entities, and enterprises of the Tribe who are engaged in, or who have tenants or lessees engaged in the business of operating a waste-to-energy, plastics recycling or other similar technology shall take necessary steps to cease those operations in a reasonable and timely manner.

  

FAILED:

2 Ayes: [Fmr. OBC Sec.] Patty Hoeft, [Fmr. & Illegal] Council member David Jordan.

3 Nays: [Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair] Greg Matson; Council member [& OSGC Liaison] Brandon Stevens; [Fmr.] Council member Paul Ninham.

 


As a CONSEQUENCE of OBC’s

& OSGC’s DANGEROUS

INTRANSIGENCE…

On December 15, 2013, General Tribal Council voted to direct the Oneida Business Committee to dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, and for Frank Cornelius, Sr., to work with the OBC on OSGC’s dissolution.

  

The Oneida Business Committee has failed… 

…and treacherously & treasonously squanders & encumbers General Tribal Council’s assets.

 

Article IV – Powers of the General Tribal Council

Section 1. Enumerated Powers. – The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation shall exercise the following powers, subject to any limitations imposed by the statutes or the Constitution of the United States: …

(c) To veto any sale, disposition, lease or encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in lands, or other tribal assets of the Nation. …

(e) To manage all economic affairs and enterprises of the Oneida Nation.

 




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.

 


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 2, [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?

9:00 a.m. Round-Table Discussion: Economic and Energy Challenges and Opportunities for Indian Country – Tex G. Hall ,Mandan, Hidasta & Arikara, Chairman-Mandan, Hidasta & Arikara Nation; …Ernie Stevens [Jr.], Oneida Nation, Board-Chairman National Indian Gaming Association; …Tina Danforth, Delegate-Native American Finance Officers Association and Treasurer-Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin…

1:30 p.m. Session 3: Funding Development on Tribal Lands: EB-5 Foreign Investment, New Market Tax Credits, DOE Programs and Equity and Debt Partners

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 $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. …




IMAGES FROM GREEN BOX NA EB-5 WEB ADS:

 


RELATED:

report released in February by Congress’s U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission agreed, singling out EB-5 as especially vulnerable to fraud and laying the blame in part on USCIS. “Given that USCIS is tasked primarily with customs and immigration matters, it is questionable whether this federal agency has the capability to properly oversee the economic dimension of the EB-5 application process at the local level,” the report says.

This is what allowed Luca International Group, a California oil company, to fleece Chinese investors out of $8 million dollars, as the SEC charged this month. The investors thought their money was going toward oil rigs in Texas and Louisiana when in fact, the SEC charged, it was simply being used to prop up a huge Ponzi scheme and fund the lavish lifestyles of the company’s owners. Luca also paid former president George W. Bush $200,000 to speak at a conference designed to encourage Chinese investors to put their money in American oil.  …

By the time the SEC began to suspect that Luca was a pyramid scheme, the company had already obtained approval from USCIS to solicit funds and netted $8 million from Chinese investors. The company trumpeted this approval on one of its websites, calling itself “USCIS approved” and boasting that it “can get you a green card with a $500,000 investment.” 

To get USCIS approval for projects and so-called regional centers — corporate middlemen set up to facilitate the investments — companies have to submit detailed business plans and documentation attesting to the financial health of the businesses involved. Often, as in Luca’s case, both the regional centers and the projects themselves are set up by the same people. According to the SEC, Luca’s entire operation was a pyramid targeting Chinese and Chinese-American investors, which evidently went unnoticed by USCIS. …

Several people in the EB-5 industry interviewed by BuzzFeed News welcome [reform] proposals, but many are also skeptical that they will fully resolve the program’s structural flaws. Beyond USCIS’s competency, Gibson, the financial advisor, said that most EB-5 listings do not have to be publicly registered, meaning they receive less scrutiny from the SEC than other securities. “So the doorway is open to people who want to misrepresent the safety of their projects, and that invites fraud,” Gibson said. Neena Dutta, a New York immigration attorney specializing in EB-5, also said there is a common practice among lawyers of charging unethical “finder’s fees” from projects seeking investors while also representing the investors themselves. 

The result, according to industry insiders, is that the EB-5 program tends to attract people with less-than-honest intentions. As Dutta put it: “There are a lot of shady people in this world.”



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?

Best use of Facebook


 

 

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”. …


March 2, 2017 UPDATE:

A Temple University graduate admitted Thursday that he ran a $54 million Ponzi scheme built on false promises of green energy technology that would turn trash into fuel and “carbon-negative” housing developments, neither of which were ever fully developed.

Troy Wragg, now living in Georgia, pleaded guilty in federal court in Philadelphia on Thursday to conspiracy and securities fraud. His college girlfriend, Amanda Knorr, pleaded guilty last year, while Wayde McKelvy, a 54-year-old securities salesman from Colorado, is scheduled to go on trial in September [2017].

Their 2015 indictment came six years after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against the company in Colorado, shut down the firm, and obtained a court order barring its principals from raising new funds. Various people linked to the company and its associated entities have agreed to a $6 million settlement with investors.

Prosecutors say the trio lied to investors, saying their “biochar” technology and “carbon-negative” housing in Tennessee made millions of dollars, but they had almost no earnings, and the three used the money to repay earlier investors and kept some for themselves. …

The company had a site testing the production of biochar in Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how much it was producing.



   

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 [CONFIDENTIAL October 30, 2008 OSGC AUDIT by the Tribe’s INTERNAL AUDIT DEPT.] 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 [Tissue 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:














   

 



Tags

Abdul Latif Mahjoob / ACTI / AREC / AREI / ARTI ACF Leasing ACF Services American Combustion Technologies Inc. (ACTI) / American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. (ACTI) / American Renewable Energy Inc. (AREI) / American Renewable Technologies Inc. (ARTI) Artley Skenandore / Swakweko LLC Atty. William Cornelius Bruce King City of Green Bay Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado Fmr. OBC Sec. Patty Hoeft Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Greg Matson Frank Cornelius Sr. General Tribal Council / GTC Generation Clean Fuels Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC / GBRE Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Incinerators / Gasification / Pyrolysis / Plastics-to-Oil / Waste-to-Energy Jackie Zalim Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel Kevin Cornelius Mike Metoxen Mission Support Services Nevada LLC / Mission Support Services LLC Nathan King Nature's Way Tissue Corp. OBC Chair Cristina Danforth OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House OBC Law Office / OLO OBC member Brandon Stevens OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth Oneida Business Committee / OBC Oneida Energy Blocker Corp. Oneida Energy Inc. Oneida ESC Group LLC / OESC Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONW / Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin / OTIW Oneida Seven Generations Corporation / OSGC Oneida Total Integrated Enterprises / OTIE OPD Lt. Lisa Drew-Skenandore Owen Somers / Oneida Internal Security Director Paul Linzmeyer Pete King III / King Solutions LLC Ron Van Den Heuvel Sustainment & Restoration Services LLC Todd Van Den Heuvel Tsyosha?aht Cathy Delgado Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC

As It Happens

March 2017
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Categories