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

 

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

 

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

  

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

  

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

 

  

  

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

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

 


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

 

The difference?

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

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

 

Let that sink in.

 

 

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

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

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

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

The newspaper version included the following:

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Why didn’t WEDC perform better – if any – due dilligence 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, 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?

 

 

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.

  

  

Did we forget to mention…?

 

Carl J. Artman was also “Vice President co-ordinating legal affairs, corporate development and government relations” of Airadigm Communications Inc. when 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.

 

Let’s just 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”:

  

 

 


 

For consideration:

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

 

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

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

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

 


 

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Related litigation:

  • Oconto County Case No. 2014CV156,  Tissue Technology LLC  v.  ST Paper LLC [represented by Atty. Jonathan Thomas Smies of Godfrey & Kahn]
    • Scheduling conference on April 11, 2017 at 8:30 am.

  

  • Brown County Case No. 2016CV1137,  Daniel J. Platkowski  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel; Howard Bedford; Tissue Technology LLC; Glen Arbor LLC; Quotient Partners [dismissed defendants: GlenArbor Equipment LLC; Reclamation Technology Systems LLC; Stonehill Converting LLC; Horicon Bank]
    • Scheduling conference on January 31, 2017 at 8:30 am.

  

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

  



 

 

That’s on TOP of the federal bank fraud charges against Ron & his wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel for schemes using straw borrowers (including the Van Den Heuvel’s 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 their co-conspirator Paul J. Piikila has already pled guilty:

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

 



 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

  

  

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

 

 

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

 

 

  

Would you trust this guy?

   

  
 


 

 

 

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

 

 

 


Texans fought back:


 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 


Mantria Corp. victims fought back:


 

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

That Mantria was under SEC investigation.

 

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

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

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

  



   

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

 

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

…or Oneida Business Committee members who fail at business

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

 

  

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

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

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

 

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

 

  

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

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

I am very concerned about this whole mess.

  

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

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

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

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

 

  

And things haven’t gotten any better since.

In many ways, it’s far worse.

 

The Oneida Business Committee & Oneida Law Office do not update the ONW ‘Litigation Updates’ page.

  

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

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

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

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

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

 

NOTE:

There is absolutely NO record that OSGC is “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:

   


SEC Says Responding To Green Box NA Green Bay LLC “Has Turned Into A Game Of Whack-A-Mole” And That GBNAGB’s “Real Motivation Is To…Restrict The Lawful Police & Regulatory Actions Of The SEC, Not To Engage In A Legitimate Business”; Meanwhile, Creditors Continue To Cast Doubts On Claims By GBNAGB’s Debtor-In-Possession, Stephen A. Smith’s GlenArbor Capital / GlenArbor Partners / Glen Arbor LLC (IL)

    

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) objects to the Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan (“Plan”) and Disclosure Statement (“Disclosure Statement”) filed by Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC …because the Plan impermissibly seeks to release non-debtor third parties and discharge the Debtor. [Footnote: At this time, the SEC’s objection is limited only to protecting its rights to enforce the federal securities laws and safeguard investors and the markets. That the SEC has not objected to adequacy of disclosure should not be construed as a representation as to the validity of the characterizations or factual statements made by Debtor in the Second Amended Disclosure Statement.] …

Responding to the sweeping injunction proposed by the Debtor has turned into a game of Whack-A-Mole. As soon as the Court ordered the removal of one non-debtor (RTS), the Debtor sought to release another (NewCo). At the last disclosure hearing, the SEC objected that the Debtor’s proposed plan purported to discharge the Debtor in contravention of Section 1141(d)(3)(A) and enjoin actions against non-debtors that would impermissibly restrict the SEC from pursuing actions for violations of the federal securities laws. This Court ordered that the Debtor remove non-debtor parties from the injunction. Yet, the Debtor has once again included a provision that would permanently enjoin actions against a non-debtor third party (NewCo) in contravention of Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and the controlling law of the Seventh Circuit. The Court should reject Debtor’s proposal to include NewCo in the injunction for the same reason it ordered RTS removed. Further, the injunction acts as a discharge of the Debtor in contravention of Section 1141(d)(3), and is therefore improper.

DISCUSSION

The Plan includes a broad injunction that operates as a release of non-debtor liabilities. While the Debtor removed Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH,” a/k/a Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC (“RTS”)) from the injunction in Article VII of the Plan upon this Court’s order, it added NewCo in its place. NewCo will acquire assets of the Debtor as part of a supposed future waste reclamation and recycling business. Plan, Art. 1.17. In exchange, the Debtor will receive 30% of NewCo’s equity. Disclosure Statement, p. 43. Stephen Smith, the managing member of the Debtor [GlenArbor Partners, Inc.], testified at the previous disclosure hearing that NewCo was a new and separate entity from the Debtor. NewCo has not filed its own petition under Chapter 11 and therefore is a non-debtor. Thus, the broad injunctive provision in the Plan is tantamount to a third party release in favor of the non-debtor, NewCo. It is impermissible to restrict governmental actions through injunctive or release provisions in a Chapter 11 plan. The Debtor admitted that it intends to shield NewCo from legitimate actions by the SEC. [Footnote: The Debtor states that, “Specifically, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been investigating the activities of {Ron Van Den Heuvel} and current management has proposed this Plan in order to provide an entity on an ongoing basis that is not liable for any of the debts or offenses of {Ron Van Den Heuvel} or his entities.” Disclosure Statement, p. 26. Thus, the Debtor intends that NewCo benefit from the Debtor’s bankruptcy by estopping the SEC from pursuing appropriate actions for violations of the federal securities laws.] Despite Seventh Circuit precedent, the Debtor once again seeks approval of Plan provisions that permanently enjoin and release claims of creditors against non-debtor third parties. This Court has already ordered that the Debtor remove non-debtor parties from release and injunctions in the Plan. On its face, the injunction is contrary to controlling law and constitutes an impermissible violation of Section 524(e) that renders the Plan unconfirmable.

Further, the Plan injunction discharges the Debtor in contravention of Section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 1141 provides that a corporate debtor cannot obtain a discharge if it has liquidated all or substantially all of its assets and does not engage in business after confirmation. The Debtor should not be permitted to end-run the Bankruptcy Code to secure a discharge through an injunction.

The Debtor is currently not operating a business. Under the Plan, substantially all of the assets of the Debtor will be transferred to NewCo. In a newly added provision to the Plan, the Debtor states that it will retain the Kool Units and undertake to develop and sell the units. This new business plan represents a complete reversal of the Debtor’s prior position that it would sell the Kool units on the open market or surrender them to Cliffton Equities, Inc. (“Cliffton”). [First Amended Disclosure Statement, Dkt. 116, p. 34]. It appears that this newfound interest in developing the Kool units is intended to thwart the SEC’s objection to the Debtor’s discharge by fabricating an ongoing business. The Debtor wholly fails to set forth a workable plan for this self-styled business. Indeed, the Plan provides that Cliffton may elect to take back any piece of its collateral, including the Kool Units. Given that the revenue necessary to make distributions contemplated under the Plan to pay Cliffton the value of the Kool Units is highly speculative, it is likely that Cliffton will demand the return of the Kool Units. Cliffton has already moved for relief from the stay to exercise all of its rights and remedies with respect to the Cliffton collateral. [Motion for Relief from Stay, Dkt. 129]. Cliffton recognizes that it is highly unlikely that a plan can be confirmed that would compensate Cliffton for its collateral. Id. at p. 11. Thus, the Debtor’s supposed “ongoing business” is unconvincing.

The Bankruptcy Code does not allow for a discharge under these circumstances. Section 1141(d)(3) provides that a corporate debtor cannot obtain a discharge if it has liquidated all or substantially all of its assets and does not engage in business after confirmation. The real motivation behind this Plan is to impermissibly restrict the lawful police and regulatory actions of the SEC, not to engage in a legitimate business.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court enter an order denying approval of the Disclosure Statement unless the Injunction under Article VII is modified or deleted from the Plan.

  

GREEN BOX NA & NEWCO

REORGANIZATION PLAN &

BUSINESS MODEL:

  

The Disclosure Statement states that the two Bretting machines that secure Quotient’s claim “are owned by Daniel Platkowski, but shall be under an agreement to be rolled into NewCo [Disc. Stmt. P. 40]. Upon information and belief, the two Bretting machines are not owned by Daniel Platkowski. In addition, the Disclosure Statement contains no information concerning the “agreement” pursuant to which the Bretting Machines, in which Quotient has a security interest, will be “rolled into NewCo.”

WHEREFORE, Quotient respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying approval of the Disclosure Statement.

  

  

OBJECTIONS

The Amended Disclosure Statement fails to provide the information discussed herein. The undersigned has communicated these concerns to Debtor’s counsel, but has not received any response regarding the same.

1. The Disclosure Statement does not identify the length of the proposed Plan. Class 8 Creditors need to know when they can expect payment of their claims under the Plan.

2. The Disclosure Statement does not reference any requirement of NewCo to distribute net income to its equity holders (the Debtor being a 30% equity holder). If NewCo has the ability to simply retain net proceeds until after the Plan period is over (perhaps NewCo would opt to reinvest that cash) then the promise of paying Class 8 claims from that disbursement is meaningless and illusory. Nor is there any indication that NewCo has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Court so as to be bound by Debtor’s Plan and Disclosure Statement in the first instance.

3. The Disclosure Statement does not provide for an alternative means of liquidating the assets of Debtor if Debtor is unable to obtain financing by March 31, 2017 (and is unable to obtain an extension from this Court “for cause”).

4. The Disclosure Statement is inconsistent with the terms of the proposed Plan. Specifically, Paragraph 4.8 of the 2nd Amended Plan [Doc. 152] provides that Debtor will only hold a certain share of the dividends it receives from NewCo for payment to Class 8 claims. There is language in the Amended Disclosure Statement providing that Debtor will use all disbursements from NewCo to pay Class 8 Claims [Doc. 151, p. 28], but that is inconsistent with Paragraph 4.8 of the 2nd Amended Plan.

SUMMARY

Debtor’s 2nd Amended Disclosure Statement fails to provide “adequate information” that would enable Ability to make an informed judgment whether to accept or reject Debtor’s proposed Plan, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). Ability respectfully requests that the Court deny Debtor’s request for approval of the 2nd Amended Disclosure Statement.

  

  

   

 

 

  

  

  • UPDATE regarding Ron & Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvels’ federal bank fraud criminal case, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case #1:16-CR-640-WCG-DEJ, USA v. Ron Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel:

REVISED PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER as to Ronald H Van Den Heuvel, Paul J Piikkila, Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 12/6/16. Pretrial Motions due by 4/17/2017. Responses due by 5/15/2017. Replies due by 5/30/2017. Please consult the Courts initial Pretrial Order, 17 for additional details concerning the filing of pretrial motions. The parties are directed to contact courtroom deputy, Katina Hubacz (414-297-1200), to schedule a status conference for early March 2017 to assess the status of discovery and address any issues the parties may then have with the current schedule. The time between November 30, 2016, and April 17, 2017, is excluded from the speedy trial deadline under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (B)(ii). (cc: all counsel) (kah) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

 

See also:

 

  


Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt Sentenced For Multiple Violations Of Campaign Finance Laws, Including Accepting Illegal Corporate Donations & Inventing Fictitious Donors In Failed Cover-Up Attempt To Hide Excess Funds; Oneida Nation Of Wisconsin-Owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation/OSGC Listed Among Illegal Donors; UPDATE: Removal Petition Filed

 

12/20/2016 UPDATE:

City Council President Tom DeWane will seek an outside attorney to advise the Council in handling a petition to remove Mayor Jim Schmitt from office.

The Council authorized DeWane to begin the search by a vote of 7-5 on Tuesday. Another vote will be required to hire the lawyer DeWane ultimately recommends.

Dewane said he believes outside legal counsel is necessary because City Attorney Vanessa Chavez was appointed by the mayor and therefore has a conflict of interest in the case. …

Schmitt’s criminal defense attorney, Patrick Knight, sent a letter to all 12 Council members last week arguing that they have no legal grounds to remove the mayor from office. He wrote that moving forward with a hearing could be viewed as an act of malice, and he would advise Schmitt to sue the Council if it doesn’t reject Vandestine’s petition outright.

Sladek said Knight’s threat is enough motive for the Council to seek another attorney.

“Because that threat is there, I think its important to have an attorney to advise us, and it would be unfair to ask that of our City Attorney given the position she’s in,” Sladek said.

 

quidproquo

[Disclosure: Oneida Eye’s Publisher was interviewed by Milwaukee Co. Asst. District Attorney Bruce Landgraf as part of the State’s two year investigation.]

 

Evidence against uMayor Jim Schmitt showed “intent to deceive” the public and authorities about illegal contributions to his re-election campaign, a judge said Monday while sentencing Schmitt.

Schmitt will pay a $4,000 fine and serve 40 hours of community service for violating state campaign finance laws, Judge Mitchell J. Metropulos ordered.

The 58-year-old mayor pleaded guilty 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. …

In addition to the fines and community service, Schmitt’s plea bargain required him to shut down his campaign committee and donate the $23,198 remaining in his campaign account to the Common School Fund. Court records indicate those were completed Sept. 7. …

“You decided you wanted this money, and deposited a number of checks that were over the limit that you shouldn’t have taken in and you reallocated them so you could keep them. Those are serious allegations,” [Judge] Metropulos said. “It shows there was intent to deceive the campaign finance observers and collectors of the records.”

Schmitt accepted more than $11,175 in illegal campaign contributions that exceeded the $1,040 individual limit, according to court records. He also took donations from businesses, which is prohibited under state law. Schmitt then relabeled some of the illegal contributions as coming from the original donors’ family members after some city aldermen complained to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office in January 2015. In one instance, Schmitt wrote that the donation came from an individual who doesn’t exist.

“The crime was the cover-up,” Special Prosecutor Bruce Landgraf said. “Nothing really that I examined was so serious as to warrant criminal charges (except for) Mr. Schmitt’s efforts to hide donations in excess (of the limit) or otherwise illegal contributions from the public by reporting them in the names of noncontributors.” …

Matthew Rothschild, executive director of the campaign finance watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, called the judge’s sentence “ridiculously lenient.

“Until those who flagrantly violate our state’s campaign finance laws get hit with some serious jail time, the incentive to break the law and mess with our elections will only persist. That’s not good for our democracy,” Rothschild wrote in a statement.

Alderman Guy Zima, who has called for Schmitt’s resignation, said he was frustrated that the judge didn’t read 37 additional violations cited by prosecutors into the record during sentencing.

 

ill-grab-that

 

Metropolus sided with the prosecution, agreeing Schmitt tried to cover-up his violations.

“If it was simply a matter of you making honest mistakes, I don’t think you’d be sitting here today,” said Metropolus.

 

Special prosecutor Bruce Landgraf asked the judge to issue Schmitt $4,000 in fines and 40 hours of community service. 

“He chose to lie and lies are what make this a gravely serious matter,” the prosecution stated. …

Some people feel that sentence is too light considering the crime.

“[The Green Bay City Common] Council must remove him and that probably will be the next step and we’ll let the council decide that,” said Green Bay Alderman, Guy Zima.

    
 

People who attended the sentencing hearing including Alderman Guy Zima isn’t buying the Mayor’s claim that he violated these laws unknowingly.

“This was not a naive gentleman that didn’t know what he was doing,” said Zima. ” He only cooperated when he knew he was trapped.”

Some people left the courtroom unhappy that they didn’t get a chance to speak at the hearing and say that this plea agreement sends the wrong message.

“We’ve proven that the citizens have a different set of laws than the ruling class and we did not follow the statutes of Wisconsin,” said Green Bay resident David Vanderleest.

 
 
See also:

 

schmitts-honor

 

 

UPDATES:

A Green Bay resident filed a verified petition Thursday afternoon to have Mayor Jim Schmitt removed from office.

Scott Vanidestine filed the petition with the city clerk. Vanidestine is the President of the Wilder Park Neighborhood Association on Green Bay’s east side. …

Wisconsin State Statute 12.60 2 (a), the statute Vanidestine points to in the petition reads ‘if a successful candidate for public office, other than a candidate for the legislature or a candidate for national office, is adjudged guilty in a criminal action of any violation of this chapter under sub, (1) (a) committed during his or her candidacy, the court shall after entering judgement enter a supplemental judgement declaring a forfeiture of the candidate’s right to office.

Lying to an election official is one of the criminal acts listed, which Schmitt was found guilty of on Monday.

   

 

 

  

 
  

 

  

 

 

Previously on Oneida Eye:

 


If You Honestly Care About Protecting The Water & Air & Land & Human Health, Watch & Share The Documentary ‘COWSPIRACY: The Sustainability Secret’ … A Film With Information Some Environmental Groups Won’t Tell You … & GO VEGAN!

 
Want to be a ‘Water Protector’?

 

Do you honestly care about protecting the water, the land, the air, and the health of your family?

 

Watch & share…

‘COWSPIRACY: The Sustainability Secret’

  

  

…and learn the facts:

COWSPIRACY.com/Facts

  • Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually.
  • Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water usage in the U.S.
  • Californians use 1,500 gallons of water per person per day. Close to half is associated with meat and dairy products.
  • 2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef. 
  • 477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs;  almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese.
  • 1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.
  • 5% of water consumed in the U.S. is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the U.S. is for animal agriculture.
  • Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today.
  • Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.
  • Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the U.S.
  • A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.
  • 130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the U.S. – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the U.S.
  • Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon rainforest destruction.
  • 80% of antibiotics sold in the U.S are for livestock.
  • Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.
  • 82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.
  • 1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food…

or…

1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of meat.

 

  • A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th of petroleum, 1/13th of water, and 1/18th of land compared to a meat-lover for their food. 

 

  • Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and at least one animal’s life.

 

Remember:

 

CATTLE ARE AN INVASIVE SPECIES.

 

 

GO VEGAN!

 

See also:

  

See also Oneida Eye’s previous posts:

  


Kelly & Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Bank Fraud Trial Begins July 31, 2017; ALSO, Latest MUST READ Scathing Filings In Green Box NA Green Bay’s Bankruptcy Case: “[Their] Greatest Wish Is That The SEC & Other Governmental Agencies Would Go Away.”; PLUS, Ron’s On/Off-Again Counsel Ty Willihnganz Facing Pending Decision In Office Of Lawyer Regulation Discipline; BONUS, More Incinerator Schemes Linked To Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Renewable Technologies Inc. Identified; NEW! Latest Filings From Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technologies Of California Inc. / ACTI Fraud Suit

 

A new trial date has been set for a businessman & his wife charged with fraud.

Ron Van Den Heuvel and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel are now scheduled to stand trial July 31, [2017,] according to court records.

They are accused of bank fraud for allegedly illegally arranging a series of loans.

Their former banker, Paul Piikkila agreed to plead guilty and testify against the Van Den Heuvels. His sentencing has not been set.

The federal indictment alleges that Piikkila, a loan officer at Horicon Bank in Appleton, approved a series of loans totaling more than $1 million. The indictment says Horicon Bank had told Piikkila not to loan any money to Van Den Heuvel, so none of the loans mentioned in the indictment were written to him by name. The couple has pleaded not guilty.

 

Here are the latest updates and documents from PACER regarding U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel:

  • TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE (COUNSEL ONLY) set for December 21, 2016 at 10:00 A.M. before Magistrate Judge David E. Jones.
  • November 16, 2016 Court MinutesU.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

Atty Sanders appears by phone to make sure his appearance isn’t necessary for conference today. Court confirms his participation is not necessary and excuses Atty Sanders from today’s hearing.

Atty LeBell:

– indicated he is not sure if his appointment is appropriate based on recent sealed hearing had with Judge Griesbach [on October 26, 2016]

– was informed to not deal with anything other than CJA [Criminal Justice Act] issue until hear from Judge Griesbach – to date, have not heard back

– will need to clarify with Judge Griesbach after today’s hearing

Govt:

– all material not related to Brown County search warrant has been produced – about 23,000 pgs

– Brown County search warrant material – about 315,000 pgs – two-thirds has been produced

– will have all material produced no later than 12/16

– has to go to outside vendor and due to volume, has been rolling production instead of all in one batch

– at least half are bank records – about 10,000 pgs or less that are pertinent has been produced for awhile

– feel this volume of material should not result in long delay

– do have material from search warrant that will be used in case

– would like case to move quicker – ask to recommend to Judge Griesbach to set trial date – or can file motion

Court suggests:

Motions due: 4/7/17; Responses due: 4/21/17; Replies due: 4/28/17

Atty Porter:

– client is interested in clearing her name as soon as possible

– first hearing about setting of a trial date – had other discussions with Govt but this did not come up

– encourage parties discuss dates – if his client is going to trial, will be serious motions filed and already have a very busy March/April calendar so don’t know these dates will be realistic

– want enough time to be prepared

– strongly object to setting trial date at this time

Atty LeBell:

– feel case has been in hands of Govt for some time

– easy to simplify things, but different from defense perspective

– his client’s situation, need to use program – would require [Criminal Justice Act] approval, which takes time and the cost, need for firewall etc – haven’t had physical ability to review materials – not because haven’t had time

– would also object to setting a trial date at this point – also anticipate serious motions will need to be filed

– suggest parties discuss and come up with proposal instead of just setting dates

– feel June date is not realistic and asks this court to reiterate to Judge Griesbach the extra time needed for CJA approval etc

Court:

– understand what parties are saying so suggest June date for motions and possible August date for trial

– encourage parties to discuss right now if August will work and will go back on the record in 5 minutes

Court resumes.

Govt:

– defense has suggested some dates and Govt does not object

Atty Porter:

– suggest 6/5/17 date for motions; 30 days for response; 14 days for replies; trial date on or after 9/11/17 (2 wks)

– suggest status conference week of 12/19 to confirm balance of discovery has been done and to resolve any remaining issues in regards to Atty LeBell’s appointment

Court:

– will talk to Judge Griesbach about proposed dates and then will issue an order with motions dates

 

  • NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/21/2017 10:30 AM and Jury Trial set for 7/31/2017 08:30 AM, both to be held in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C. Griesbach. All plea negotiations are expected to be completed and written plea agreements filed by the time of the final pretrial conference. Due to the inconvenience to jurors and the unnecessary work for the court and its staff resulting from last minute settlements, the court reserves its right to deny any reduction in the offense level for acceptance of responsibility with respect to any plea agreements entered after that time.

 

  • TEXT ONLY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Jones on 11/17/16. Judge Griesbach has scheduled this matter for trial on 7/31/17, with a final pretrial conference on 7/21/17. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and to submit a proposed pretrial motions schedule. The proposed schedule shall be submitted to the Court on or before 11/30/16.

____________________

 

UPDATE: Two additional hearings are now scheduled for the Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case, Docket No. 16-24179-beh, U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District: 

  • December 1, 2016 Telephone Hearing at 2 P.M. regarding Jairo Huilar’s Application for Administrative Expenses (related to Brown Co. Case No. 2016SC4089)
  • December 22, 2016 Hearing for 1 P.M. in Milwaukee, WI, U.S. Courthouse, Rm 149, regarding Approval of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s 2nd Amended Disclosure Statement and Plan (due December 5, 2016)

 

Here are the latest documents from PACER regarding U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC:

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.

The SEC is aware that some of these issues may constitute objections to confirmation of the Plan. To avoid the potential waste of time and resources involved in distribution and solicitation with respect to an unconfirmable plan, it is appropriate to raise these objections to the Plan at the disclosure stage of the case. A court may disapprove a disclosure statement if the plan, on its face, does not meet the confirmation standards of Chapter 11. …

The Commission objects to approval of the Disclosure Statement because it describes a Plan that cannot be confirmed because it includes a provision that would permanently enjoin actions against the Debtor and non-debtor third parties in contravention of Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and the controlling law of the Seventh Circuit. Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that only debts of the debtor are affected by the Chapter 11 discharge provisions. Yet, the Plan includes a broad injunction that would benefit non-debtors from the Debtor’s bankruptcy by effectively obtaining their own discharges with respect to claims arising from past wrongdoing or negligence and estop the SEC from pursuing actions for violations of the federal securities laws. In addition, the Plan purports to discharge the Debtor in contravention of Sections 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code. Since the Debtor has proposed a liquidating plan, under Section 1141(d)(3)(A), [GBNAGB] is not entitled to a discharge. …

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 RTS 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. …

II. The Plan Impermissibly Discharges the Debtor and Releases Non-Debtors.

Article VII of the Plan contains a broad plan injunction that is tantamount to a third party release and a discharge of the liquidating Debtor. Article VII provides that all actions and claims against not only the Debtor but also the non-debtor, RTS, will be permanently enjoined. Since Van Den Heuvel indirectly owns the majority of RTS, the Plan purports to shield RTS and Van Den Heuvel from the SEC’s police and regulatory power. …

The SEC alerted the Debtor that this provision runs afoul of the Bankruptcy Code and the law of this Circuit and requested that appropriate carve-out language be included in the Plan. Debtor’s counsel assured the SEC that he would include carve-out language and represented to the same to this Court at the original disclosure hearing held on October 19, 2016. However, the SEC was deeply disturbed when the Amended Plan failed to include the negotiated carve-out language. It is clear from representations from Debtor’s counsel that the Debtor intends to use the Plan to impermissibly shield [GBNAGB] and RTS from the SEC’s police and regulatory powers. Email from Paul Swanson to Angela Dodd, dated November 10, 2016. (“We don’t want to see that thwarted mid-stream by problems that RVDH may be embroiled in.”). Attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The Disclosure Statement further makes clear that the Debtor intends to curtail the rightful powers of governmental entities. Disclosure Statement, pp. 24. (The Plan is intended to “provide for a clear and level playing field without external threats due to the prior actions of management of the Debtor or any of its related companies.”) (emphasis added). …

Section 1141(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a corporate debtor cannot obtain a discharge if it has liquidated all or substantially all of its assets and does not engage in business after confirmation. The Debtor cannot secure a discharge through the injunction provision in Article VII to which it is not entitled under the Bankruptcy Code. …

Moreover, it is impermissible to restrict governmental actions through injunctive or release provisions in a Chapter 11 plan. The Seventh Circuit has limited plan provisions that seek to release non-debtors to truly unusual circumstances… The proposed injunction does not grow out of extraordinary circumstances. Despite this clear precedent, however, the Debtor seeks approval of Plan provisions which permanently enjoin and release claims of creditors against non-debtor third parties. …

On its face, the injunction is contrary to controlling law and constitutes an impermissible violation of Section 524(e) that renders the Plan unconfirmable. Accordingly, it is not allowable in the Seventh Circuit and renders the Plan unconfirmable and therefore the Debtor cannot meet the requirements of Section 1125 with respect to any disclosure statement submitted in connection with the Plan.

…[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 LLC), 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. …

8.  The Disclosure Statement states that NewCo has negotiated for warehouse space [at 821 Parkview Road in Ashwaubenon, WI] with Little Rapids to address contiued occupancy. … This is misleading. [Little Rapids Corp.] reached a tentative agreement with representatitves of [Green Box NA Green Bay LLC], but discussions stalled when it became clear that [GBNAGB] would not have funds to pay past due post-petition rent and there have been no further discussions. …

14. [Little Rapids Corp.] objects to the approval of the Disclosure Statement and would show that the Plan contains such fatal defects that the costs and delays associated with solicitation of the Plan is not in the best interests of the estate. …

18. [GBNAGB]’s Plan on its face fails to meet the best interests test for the following reasons: it fails to demonstrate that the treatment of creditors under the Plan is at least as favorable as Chapter 7 liquidation, and it is devoid of any reference to independent appraisals or extrinsic evidence to support the values that are placed on certain assets.

19. Relatedly, the fact that [GBNAGB] is proposing to utilize the Project Funding to pay adminstrative expense claims against the estate strongly suggests that this Plan is simply not feasible.

1.  Crossgate [Partners LLC] and [Advanced Resource Materials, LLC / ARM]’s claims against the estate arise from the extention of $700,000 in credit to [Green Box NA Green Bay LLC] or its affiliates. [GBNAGB] granted Crossgate security interests in a Kool unit on Septemeber 2, 2014, when Crossgate provided Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, the Debtor’s principal, and Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH”) a loan for $200,000. [GBNAGB], Ronald Van Den Heuvel and EARTH were co-borrowers on that loan. Crossgate perfected its security interests in the Kool unit by filing a UCC financing statement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions on September 3, 2014. Crossgate agreed to extend credit on these terms after an attorney representing [GBNAGB] at that time provided an opinion to Crossgate on August 29, 2014, that the Kool unit was the property of Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor, and was free and clear of all liens.

2.  On March 18, 2015, ARM wired $500,000 to [GBNAGB] under the terms of an Operating Agreement for GB-ARM, LLC, an entity in which Crossgate’s affiliate, ARM, and [GBNAGB] had an interest.

3.  The Disclosure Statement refers to certain “intellectual property related to the process” in which [GBNAGB] contemplated the Kool units would be operated. … The Disclosure Statement fails to identify the nature of these intellectual property rights, and, more importantly, the owner of such rights.

4.   Elsewhere in the Disclosure Statement, the Debtor states that it “can supply certain proprietary information on the configuration and operation of both of the units.” [GBNAGB] also claims that it can “cause the proprietary information to be licensed with any purchaser of such unit, at no charge, but only to be used with the unit sold and no others.” The value of this “proprietary processes” is apparently considerable, as [GBNAGB] avers that the Kool units are likely to be sold at a lower price without it as “any purchasers would have to engage in significant trial and error in order to utilize” the Kool units “in any effective manner.” [GBNAGB] warns, “The intellectual property does not travel with those units and belongs to a related third party.” … But who owns this intellectual property? What form does the intellectual property take? Is it a patent, a software license, or a trade secret? The reader is left guessing.

5.  The Disclosure Statement leaves too much play in the joints concerning just what intellectual property rights are required to operate the Kool units, and who holds such rights. The purpose of a disclosure statement is to provide a party with sufficient information to determine whether to vote for the plan. A disclosure statement that is confusing is not adequate. If [GBNAGB] does not own the intellectual property rights associated with the operation of the Kool units, how can it cause a third party to provide such intellectual property rights to the purchaser of a Kool unit, should one be sold as contemplated by the Disclosure Statement? What consideration would be provided to the third party for the transfer of these rights? The Disclosure Stament fails to say. Given the apparent reliance on a third party to provide the intellectual property associated with the Kool units, one wonders why the Debtor, in the latest iteration of the Disclosure Statement and Plan, now proposes to sell the Kool units instead of surrendering them, as was contemplated in [GBNAGB]’s prior filings.

6.   The Disclosure Statement’s statement that intellectual property rights must be obtained from third parties to operate the Kool units is at odds with [GBNAGB]’s prior undertakings with  [Crossgate and ARM]. [GBNAGB] and EARTH executed a Security Agreement in favor of Crossgate on September 2, 2014, which states that the collateral includes all general intangibles relating to or arising from the Kool unit. Further, [GBNAGB], with ARM, is party to the Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of GB-ARM, LLC, which requires [GBNAGB] to deliver to GB-ARM, LLC, all intellectual property necessary for the operation of each of the Kool units purchased and installed by GB-ARM, LLC. For the reasons stated above, Crossgate and ARM object to the Disclosure Statement.

A.  What access does “NewCo” realistically have to the funding and/or cash flow necessary to pay the creditors?

Debtor admits it has no income, and that all expenses related to this case are being funded by Glen Arbor (a non-debtor). (Doc. 116, p. 14). The Amended Disclosure Statement is void of any suggestion that Glen Arbor (or any other party) is committed and able to fund this case through confirmation. Accordingly, Debtor’s life-line continues to be dependent on the grace of third parties.

The Amended Disclosure Statement now makes clear that payment to creditors will come from two sources: (1) an initial payment from new money funded by new investors, and (2) subsequent payments from the future cash flow of NewCo. Each of those payment sources are discussed below.

1.  Funding from Investors. Debtor boasts that it has engaged a “nationally recognized investment bank” to assist it in soliciting new investors for the “project.” However, Debtor concedes that it has not fully complied with all conditions required to proceed with a public offering (Doc. 116, p. 14 states that Debtor has satisfied “many” prerequisites, but does not itemize what other prerequisites are left open). The open issue expressly identified in the Amended Disclosure Statement is Debtor’s need to raise $2.5 million in capital to complete certain due diligence items required by the investment bank to proceed with the offering. To date, that initial capital is uncommitted. (Doc. p. 14).

This is where Debtor’s momentum stagnates: Debtor admits that this Court cannot address feasibility until the due diligence is completed to the satisfaction of the investment bank (Doc. p. 25); however, the due diligence cannot be completed without a $2.5 million investment of capital (Doc. p. 40); however, the $2.5 million cannot logically be raised without confirmation of this Court that the plan can move forward; however, the court cannot confirm the plan without addressing feasibility.

Without evidence of a firm commitment to fund (or, in this case, invest), a plan whose success depends on such financing does not satisfy “feasibility” requirement for confirmation. … Debtor has provided nothing to assure creditors that the investment bank will be able to move forward with the initial financing of the Project (for example, an engagement letter, terms sheet, etc.) or that investors are willing to invest, leaving creditors to guess about whether months of continued waiting could result in any payment at all.

2.  Projected Cash Flow. This Court should not lose sight of the fact that NewCo is a new operating entity, embarking on a new reclamation process, using new technology, in new markets, with essentially no historical market or financial statistics. Despite the lack of historical data, Debtor now provides financial projections suggesting that NewCo will not only have sufficient cash flow to pay creditors over the next seven 7 years, but that the operating cash flow of NewCo will increase 4 fold in the first 3 years. (Doc. 116, page 64). While creditors would like nothing more than to be paid from such a healthy stream of cash, Debtor provides little by way of support for its projections.

Debtor does not disclose the author of the projections, nor does Debtor provide any information regarding the assumptions made by the author to buttress the projections. Among other things, the Disclosure Statement should clearly identify all assumptions made in calculating pro forma information and should set forth those facts supporting all estimates; information regarding accounting and valuation methods used in preparation of statement’s financial exhibits must also be included. …

B.  Is the “roll up” fair and equitable to creditors?

1.  Jurisdiction of Court to alter non-debtor property rights. Debtor states that RVDH has been removed from all management activities, and that his continued ownership interest in Debtor is now “held” by an unidentified trust. (Doc. 116, pp. 12, 24, 38). The Amended Disclosure statement purports to strip RVDH (and only RVDH) of his right to receive dividends from the Debtor, the payments instead being held in a trust for the benefit of Class 8 creditors. Because RVDH is a non-debtor, Ability questions whether this Court has jurisdiction to affect RVDH’s property rights in this manner. In any event, Debtor has offered no evidence regarding this alleged trust or the entity(ies) who are control of such trusts. Accordingly, even if this Court does have jurisdiction to affect the property rights of RVDH, individually, the Amended Disclosure Statement provides no information on how (or against whom) that provision will be enforced.

2.  Continued Violation of the Absolute Priority Rule. The Absolute Priority Rule states that junior classes of creditors cannot receive any property on their claims until senior classes of creditors are paid in full. … That is not the structure that the Disclosure Statement proposes. Instead, presuming that cash dividends are made from NewCo to Debtor, all current equity owners will receive their prorate share of the dividend. While Class 8 claims would get the RVDH’s share of the dividend, the Class 8 claims are not given priority over other current equity holders. For example, if NewCo is wildly successful in year 2 and makes a distribution to Debtor of $100,000, approximately $21,000 of that amount will be paid to non-RVDH equity owners at the same time that Class 8 claims are paid the reaming $79,000. This is a clear violation of the Absolute Priority Rule. To be clear, the debt owed to Ability is not a debt of RVDH – it is a debt of Debtor. Therefore, Ability must be paid in full before any property of this estate falls to any equity owners.

3.  Lack of Competitive Bidding. The Amended Disclosure Statement purports to sell Ability’s collateral to NewCo in exchange for $7.6 million, with Ability retaining those sale proceeds in full satisfaction of its secured claim. The Amended Disclosure Statement evades any competitive bidding process wherein Ability could make a credit bid for the amount Debtor owns, or wherein other bidders could submit a bid for more than $7.6 million. This structure is contrary to established law in this Circuit, which requires competitive bidding to “prevent the funneling of value from lenders to insiders…” … It is not fair or equitable for Ability to be stripped of its collateral without first testing the market and without giving Ability the opportunity to credit bid.

4.  Lack of consideration for certain “related” assets. It does not appear that NewCo is paying any money to Patriot Tissue for its transfer of the converting line portion of the Project, or is there any valuation for that transfer. NewCo should be required to pay Patriot the value of its assets which should, in turn, use those proceeds to pay creditors (including an undisputed $1,000,000 account payable due to the Debtor). Instead, Debtor simply writes Patriot off as being “uncollectible.”

C. Who is paying the outstanding real estate taxes?

The Amended Disclosure Statement is silent on the treatment of a significant real estate
tax claim – nearly $500,000.00 – made by the Brown County Treasurer stemming from multiple years of unpaid taxes. This claim is secured by a tax lien on the real estate in which Ability has a mortgage, and the Debtor must provide for its full payment.

D. Why is an injunction necessary?

The Disclosure Statement creates an injunction against collection against the Debtor and non-debtor insiders (i.e. RTS). (Doc. 116, p. 24). That release includes the guaranty executed by RTS in favor of Ability. Debtor fails to detail why creditors should agree to such a release (other than Debtor’s claim that it is “crucial to maintain the timeline” of the roll up), or whether the non-debtor insiders will contribute any consideration to support such a release. Absent a release, Debtor may be able to collect some or all of its debt from RTS.

SUMMARY

Debtor’s Amended Disclosure Statement fails to provide “adequate information” that would enable Ability to make an informed judgment whether to accept or reject Debtor’s proposed Plan, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1). Ability respectfully requests that the Court deny Debtor’s request for approval of the Disclosure Statement.

As a threshold matter, it should be noted that the Debtor has significantly delayed progress in this case, particularly with respect to Cliffton’s collateral and disclosure in general. Cliffton’s requests for Debtor to honor its stated intention to surrender Kool Units has been ignored. Creditors’ requests for specific information related to financing, appraisals, projections, and documents have been ignored. In addition to being generally nonresponsive, the Debtor’s Initial Disclosure Statement required that, in order for the creditors to have access to the Debtor’s financial information – ostensibly due to its sensitive nature – any interested party was required to execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). However, after going through the time and expense of negotiating the NDA, the Debtor has still not provided Cliffton with most of the information requested. It is plain that the Debtor cannot legitimately reorganize its financial affairs.

Similar to its Initial Disclosure Statement, the Debtor’s Amended Disclosure Statement should not be approved because it lacks sufficient and necessary information. As more fully set forth below, the lack of necessary information in the Amended Disclosure Statement relates to fundamental disclosures, including basic financial information such as sources of funding, financial projections, and information related to intellectual property, among others. In spite of Cliffton’s requests for more information in these areas, the Amended Disclosure Statement does not provide any additional useful or adequate information. While Debtor did provide some additional information in the Amended Disclosure Statement, and notwithstanding the fact that the Debtor’s liquidating plan has been revised to a plan of reorganization, the result is the same as the Initial Disclosure Statement: the lack of information available to creditors, including Cliffton, prevents them from making an informed voting decision regarding the 1st Amended Plan of Reorganization Dated November 9, 2016 (the “Amended Plan”).

Debtor’s Amended Disclosure Statement fails to provide any concrete or specific information related to confirmation of its Chapter 11 Amended Plan. Accordingly, the Amended Disclosure Statement should not be approved. …

i. Claimed Intellectual Property Rights

Debtor’s Amended Disclosure Statement continues to emphasize that the Debtor has intellectual property rights in the processes that have “significant value” (See Amended Disclosure Statement, p. 20, ¶ 1.), but there is no real explanation about such issues as whether the intellectual property is actually vested and owned by the Debtor, whether it has any value, and if it is transferrable.

The Debtor vaguely alludes to processes that are “proprietary to the debtor and held by a related entity” (See Amended Disclosure Statement, p. 8, ¶ 1.) but fails to fully meaningfully identify anything about these processes. Although the Debtor claims ownership in intellectual property rights, it simultaneously provides that it has been “secured in an entity…PC Fibre Technology, LLC” with which it has a “license agreement” (See Amended Disclosure Statement, p. 13, ¶ 3.) The Debtor includes an attachment in the Amended Disclosure Statement labeled “Intellectual Property Rights” which states that it has a Process Patent, FDA Approval for Use with Food Handing (sic) Tissue Products, and Industry Leading Manufacturing Technologies. However, the short, bullet-point descriptions do nothing to clarify the extent of the Debtor’s intellectual property rights, if any.

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, p. 7, ¶ 2.) 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.” (See Amended Disclosure Statement, p. 7, ¶ 3.) 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 admits that it has actually reviewed very little financial information, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the details of the Amended Plan and any assumptions upon which the Debtor relies. The Debtor provides that financial projections are not yet complete. Additionally, the valuable intellectual property that the Debtor touts and appears to rely on for its processes is exaggerated, poorly described, likely valueless, and not likely owned by the Debtor in the first place.

In this case, in spite of its duty to provide full and transparent information to its creditors, the Debtor has continued to muddy the waters. The Debtor has failed to file complete and accurate schedules disclosing any insider transactions that have taken place, including the potential ownership of intellectual property by an insider. The Debtor has obfuscated the disclosure process by purporting to require creditors to enter into non-disclosure agreements before permitting creditors to view the Debtor’s financial projections, then providing only the disclosed information already included in this Amended Disclosure Statement.

The United States Trustee, by Attorney Amy J. Ginsberg, objects to the approval of the Debtor’s First Amended Disclosure Statement (“Disclosure Statement”) because it fails to provide adequate information including: (1) facts supporting its pro forma financial projections; (2) information related to the $2.5 million necessary to perform the due diligence before equity investment can be sought on the capital market; (3) information about unpaid real estate taxes in excess of $450,000; (4) the absolute priority rule; and (5) transactions with insiders.

Ms. Dodd expressly reserved the SEC’s right to maintain its objection to plan confirmation on the basis that the debtor is actually liquidating its assets and therefore should not receive a discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(3)(A).

 

RELATED:

 

See also:

____________________

 

Public Wisconsin Court records show that Ron Van Den Heuvel’s on-again/off-again associate/counsel Ty Willihnganz, owner of Ty Will Law, LLC, recently had his Wisconsin Bar license re-suspended by the Office of Lawyer Regulation for failure to pay dues…

UPDATE 11/23/2016: 
TY C. WILLIHNGANZ HAS NOW PAID HIS FEES

…but he is also awaitng a pending decision in a disciplinary case against him in the matter of:

 

Related:

 

See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:

____________________

 

Oneida Eye has been alerted to other fronts linked to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s and Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s incinerator scheme partner…

Abdul Latif Mahjoob

…of American Combustion Technogies Inc. / ACTI

…a/k/a American Combusiton Technologies of California Inc.

American Renewable Technologies Inc. / ARTI

arti-logo

 

American Renewable Energy Inc.

 

…and will be posting more information about:

 

 

promaxx-af-logo

 

promaxx-af-asia-logo

 

gander-corporation-logo

 

In the meantime, here are some recent court documents from a lawsuit alleging Fraud by American Combustion Technologies of California, Inc. / ACTI:

 

If you have any information about the corporations named above or other fronts affiliated with Abdul Latif Mahjoob, please contact Oneida Eye (see ‘About‘ tab at top of page for our email address).

Abdul Latif Mahjoob – man of many shady enterprises.

Abdul Latif Mahjoob – man of many shady enterprises.

Watch Ron Van Den Heuvel make his pitch in his home town at the April 15, 2014 De Pere Common Council Meeting:

  

See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:

 



As It Happens

January 2017
S M T W T F S
« Dec    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Categories