Meet The “NewCo” – Same As The Old Con: Ponzi Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Fraud Scheme Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Disclosure Statement Begs Bankruptcy Court And Creditors To Stave Off The Evil Day Of Reckoning And Liquidation With Rosy Projections Of Profits & Lollipops; “Roll Up” Another One, GlenArbor!

 

 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS SUBMITTED FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT REGARDING WHETHER IT CONTAINS ADEQUATE INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 1125 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE. SUCH DETERMINATION, HOWEVER, WILL NOT CONSTITUTE RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY THE COURT AND YOU SHOULD EACH REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION ABOUT HOW TO VOTE ON THE PLAN

Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor above named, hereby submits this Disclosure Statement dated September 26, 2016, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1125.

INTRODUCTION

On April 27, 2016, the Debtor in this case [Green Box NA Green Bay LLC / GBNAGB] filed for relief under 11 U.S.C. Chapter 11. Pursuant to the presumption allowed under 11 U.S.C. Sections 1107 and 1108, the debtor has continued the possession of its property, and has continued to operate its business. The Debtor subsequently retained Steinhilber Swanson LLP and Attorney Paul G. Swanson as attorneys for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession [Stephen A. Smith’s GlenArbor Partners Inc.], and that appointment has been approved by the Court.

The Debtor’s Schedules of assets and liabilities, Statement of Financial Affairs, and Statement of Executory Contracts were filed with the Court. The meeting of creditors was held at which time an officer of the Debtor was questioned by the creditors, creditors’ representatives, and the Attorney for the United States Trustee. Creditors are referred to the Debtor’s Statements and Schedules on file in these proceedings for the purpose of becoming fully informed as to the assets, liabilities and financial affairs of the debtor as of the date of the filing.

The Debtor has formulated a Plan of Reorganization dated September 26, 2016 (the “Plan,” a copy of which is enclosed with this Disclosure Statement) and this Disclosure Statement. The Debtor provides this Disclosure Statement to all its known creditors in order to disclose the information deemed by the Debtor to be material, important and necessary for its creditors to arrive at a reasonably informed decision in exercising the right to vote for acceptance of the Plan. Once the Court has approved this Disclosure Statement, all creditors will be forwarded a copy of the Order Approving the Disclosure Statement, the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, and a Ballot to be completed by the creditor. The creditors will also be provided notice of the Hearing on Confirmation of the Plan. Creditors may attend this hearing. In addition, creditors may vote on the Plan by filling out the Ballot provided and mailing the Ballot to the Debtor’s counsel. As a creditor, your acceptance is important. For the Plan to be deemed accepted, creditors voting that hold at least two thirds in amount and more than one half in number of the allowed claims of the various classes must vote for the Plan. In the event the requisite acceptances are not obtained, the Court may nevertheless confirm the Plan if the Court finds that the Plan accords fair and reasonable treatment to the class rejecting it.

In order for a Plan to be “fair and equitable” with respect to a class of unsecured creditors, it must comply with the so-called absolute priority rule. The absolute priority rule requires that, beginning with the senior rank of claims of creditors against the debtor, each class in descending rank of priority must receive full and complete compensation before inferior or junior classes may participate in the distribution. In order for a Plan to be fair and equitable with respect to secured creditors, it must provide that the secured creditor will retain its lien and will receive deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed amount of the secured claim, of a value, as of the effective date of the Plan of at least the value of the creditors interest in the bankruptcy estate’s interest in the collateral. As an alternative, the Plan may comply with the fair and equitable requirement for secured creditors by providing for the sale of collateral free and clear of liens with liens to attach to the sale proceeds. Finally, the Plan may provide for the surrender of collateral to the secured creditor in satisfaction of the allowed secured claim.

In order to fully understand how a Plan is confirmed, each individual creditor should check with his or her own attorney and receive full advice on the applicable rules.

11. U.S.C. Section 1125 requires that there be post petition disclosure in the form of a Disclosure Statement that provides “adequate information” to creditors before anyone may solicit acceptances of a Chapter 11 Plan. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 11 U.S.C. SECTION 1125 SO AS TO PROVIDE “ADEQUATE INFORMATION” TO THE CREDITORS IN THIS PROCEEDING. CREDITORS ARE URGED TO CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL COUNSEL OR EACH OTHER AND TO REVIEW ALL OF THE RECORDS HEREIN IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DISCLOSURES MADE, AND THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FILED HEREIN, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION IN THIS PROCEEDING. ANY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WILL BE COMPLEX, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT REPRESENTS A PROPOSED LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEBTOR AND ITS CREDITORS AND AN INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT CONCERNING ANY PROPOSED PLAN CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND THE FULL COMPLEXITIES OF ANY PLAN PROPOSED HEREIN.

NO REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE DEBTOR ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE DEBTOR OTHER THAN SET FORTH IN THIS STATEMENT. ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR INDUCEMENTS MADE TO SECURE YOUR ACCEPTACE WHICH ARE OTHER THAN AS CONTAINED IN THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE RELIED UPON BY YOU IN ARRIVING AT YOUR DECISION, AND SUCH ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS AND INDUCEMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR WHO IN TURN SHALL DELIVER SUCH INFORMATION TO THE COURT FOR SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO A CERTIFIED AUDIT. HOWEVER, THE DATE IN THE DEBTOR’S POSSESSION IS BASED ON THE RECORDS OF THE DEBTOR, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. THIS DATA IS BASED ON THE RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEBTOR. TO SUCH EXTENT, THE DEBTOR IS UNABLE TO WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS WITHOUT ANY INACCURACY, ALTHOUGH GREAT EFFORT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO MAKE SURE IT FAIRLY REPRESENTS THE CURRENT POSITION OF THE DEBTOR.

PRE-FILING BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF BUSINESS

Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor in this case, was formed in 2011 by Ronald Van Den Heuvel, a Green Bay entrepreneur and long-time executive in the tissue manufacturing business.

By way of background, Ronald Van Den Heuvel (“RVDH”) and his family have been involved in the construction of tissue and paper manufacturing facilities for years. His father [Raymond Van Den Heuvel] founded Vos Electric in De Pere, Wisconsin, which started as a commercial electrical contractor but grew into a specialized contractor for the paper manufacturing business. Spirit Construction is run by RVDH’s siblings and others. Over the years, it installed and constructed 17 paper machines for the Ford Howard Paper Company and others. It has extensive business in the industry, working on tissue lines for Proctor & Gamble, SCA Tissue, and other national tissue manufacturers araound the country. Out of the last 56 tissue manufacturing facilities constructed in the United States, it landed 47 of those jobs.

RVDH, after gaining extensive experience in the business, acquired a tissue mill in Oconto Falls, Wisconsin in 2000. He is intimately familiar with all aspects of the tissue manufacturing business and presently holds licenses in 29 states as an electrical, HVAC, general, mechanical and electronic contractor.

Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. was sold to [Sharad Tak’s] ST Paper in 2007. RVDH, as the principal owner of Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., took back seller financing for a substantial portion of the purchase price.

While engaged in the tissue business, RVDH believed that a substantial opportunity existed in the reclamation of paper products which are ordinarily landfilled or incinerated due to contamination by food and other biological substances. He observed that no commercially viable process existed and that incredible tonnages of such contaminated waste were being landiflled at great expense to both the environment and municipalities. He conceived of a process which would sanitize, sort and separate waste materials which would ordinarily be landfilled. Newspaper, brown paper, printed white paper, chip board and poly-coated materials (cups and boxes), would be separated from the waste stream. Plastic materials such as cups, bottles, milk and juice cartons and utensils, are also separated in the process. The entire stream of waste which would ordinarily be dumped in a landfill would be sorted, with metals being pulled out with magnets and other non-metallic metals diverted. Glass would also be removed and directed to a readily identifiable market of dealers.

RVDH devised a process which would first treat the waste and sanitize it, thus eliminating bacteria from the materials. Thereafter, the materials could be either immediately shipped to other processors or held many months before being inputted into a process that he developed. That process separates poly-laminated materials (“poly”) such as cups and cartons into fiber and poly. The fiber is used directly in the manufacturing process that produces tissue. The poly is shredded, mixed and formulated to produce a combination which maximizes the BTU level for later combustion or it can be used as a raw material in the flooring industry.

RVDH recruited a number of people who he had developed relationships with over the years that were also experts in the tissue industry. One was Dan Platkowski, who had worked for Fort Howard Paper Company and subsequently for Georgia Pacific Corporation, recruited as Senior Vice President of Manufacturing. Additionally, Lee Reisinger, a former Director of Paper Engineering for Proctor & Gamble Company with many years in the pulp and paper manufacturing sector, was brought on board to hone RVDH’s concept.

After years of lab work, small batch trials and tinkering, RVDH began the quest to patent the processes which he had developed. Indeed, in 2011, he filed a process patent application, citing 32 separate claims, all related to the aforementioned reclamation of waste which would have been landfilled. He identified 27 municipalities around the country where plants using his process commercially could be built economically.

In 2013, the first evaluation of the process patent was completed and 4 of the claims needed to be expanded upon. In 2016, the second review cited only 2 claims that needed to be cleaned up. At this time, it is expected that the final process patent will be issued sometime in 2017.

In 2014, Investment Bankers from Raymond James were engaged to evaluate and underwrite the project detailed by the business plan authored by RVDH and his team and the components of the reclamation operation were coming together.

The pulping plant which separated the fiber from the plasticized paper products was operating on a continuous basis and was proven. RVDH had received FDA approval for the sanitizing process. This approval will take 40 months to obtain. Through his contacts in the industry, RVDH was assembling the various components necessary to construct a tissue manufacturing line as well as a converting operation. Indeed, real estate has been acquired to house the converting operation which was envisioned, which was part of the overall process.

Additionally, a thermal degradation unit, whose base is manufactured by the Kool Manufacturing Company, was acquired, improved with the Debtor’s proprietary processes, and installed on the premises. It was initially envisioned that the plastic pellets from the waste stream and tires would be utilized in a closed system. Tires can no longer be landfilled and are very expensive and difficult to recycle. After much experimentation, it was determined that this process could take tires and degrade them into oil, carbon black, steel and synthetic gas, all products that can be sold into existing markets.

Evaluation of the project, underwriting and detailed financial projections were put together by Raymond James, who had been retained as an Investment Bank to raise approximately $120 Million for the entire project. At the time, RVDH envisioned that Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC would be the operating company, but many of the assets that would be held by Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH”) [formerly known as Nature’s Choice Tissue LLC and recently renamed Reclamation Technology Systems LLC / RTS]. The intellectual property for the entire reclamation process was licensed or owned by a separate entity. Along the way, he formed many different LLCs which were intended to be used in various similar projects in geographically diverse regions around the country. This was a requirement of project financing.

Unfortunately, financing this venture became a problem. RVDH had believed that he would be paid as a result of the Notes due from the sale of the Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. plant to ST Paper. In 2012, that obligation went into default and he has been in litigation in the United States District Court of Wisconsin for several years concerning its enforcement. Promises had been made with regard to funds borrowed for the acquistion of various parts of the proposed enterprise, which could not be kept. Creditors were put off and the situation became untenable for some.

In March 2015, the mortgage holder on the main facility in De Pere, Wisconsin commenced a foreclosure action in Brown County Circuit Court. Two months later, a group of creditors petitioned the Brown County Circuit Court to place the Debtor into a state court receivership under Chapter 128. That petition was granted and Michael Polsky was appointed as the receiver.

One week later, the sheriff of Brown County, Wisconsin executed a search warrant on the offices of the Debtor and RVDH’s other entities, as well as his home. As a result of that search warrant, the Sheriff’s Department took possession of 38 file cabinets, every computer from laptops to servers to PCs, and also seized records from RVDH’s home. Without the necessary records and primary server, which was the electronic backup, the business was crippled. At the time, the Debtor was operating a converting line utilizing recycled tissue. Additionally, the pulp plant, which was not owned by any of the Debtor’s controlled entities, but which was under contract to be purchased, was manufacturing pulp from recycled materials described above. That pulp ws being shipped to a tissue manufacturer who, in turn, processed it into parent rolls of tissue which were utilized by the Debtor in its converting operaion, which manufactured napkins, tissues and other tissue products. Additional converting business was being done on a contract basis for certain customers.

As part of the plan, and in order to prove the viability of the process, the Debtor had entered into contracts with various marketers of its products and, in effect, was contract manufacturing significant quantities of these tissue products for the market. This was done, in large part, to prove the viability of the process in order to convince institutional investors of its viability.

Since the receiver was appointed by creditors who had a variety of collateral but no appetite or desire to finance the operations of the Debtor, the receiver immediately dismissed the Debtor’s employees. In order to continue the process of taking the offerings to market, the employees were picked up in a related entity that RVDH had formed for another purpose. Green Box Wisconsin, LLC employed the Debtor’s employees after June 2, 2015, the date of the appointment of the receiver.

The search warrant was executed July 2, 2015. The receivership continued in the Circuit Court for Brown County, Wisconsin. [Ron Van Den Heuvel], under the shadow of some type of unknown criminal investigation, became a persona non grata to many financial institutions and local investors. He struggled financially to keep the operation going. He believed it was important to demonstrate the process in terms of having the Investment Bank raise the funds necessary to launch the Texas and Wisconsin projects.

GlenArbor Capital (“GlenArbor”), a private equity firm based in Chicago, Illinois, led by Stephen Smith (“Smith”), had been a significant investor in the project prior to Fall 2015. Indeed, RVDH relied on the advice of GlenArbor in moving the project forward and, indeed, GlenArbor advanced additional funds as it believed the project was worthwhile and, ultimately, would be funded and succeed. The process was operating and viable and potential benefits to municipalities throughout the country and, for that matter, the world, seemd to be limitless. GlenArbor became more involved as the financial picture became more difficult in order to protect its investment in the overall Project.

RVDH learned from Raymond James that the firm had been contacted by the Securites and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in late 2015 indicating that RVDH was being investigated for potential securities violations. While the Investment Bank was generally aware of the receivership, it was still forging ahead with the offering and the underwriting of the same as it apparently believed that the project was viable and the creditors would be completely taken care [of] when the funding for the overall project was obtained.

At the same time, representatives of the City of Houston, Texas received a call from the SEC. The Debtor was heavily involved in a project to bring the technology and process to Houston. Through a new entity formed for the Houston project, EcoHub-Houston, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, it appeared financing had been obtained for the overall project in the amount of over $700 Million to finance not only the Debtor’s operation but also, peripherally-related offtake businesses owned by large players in the industry. No further action was taken by the City of Houston through its development authority after the news of the SEC investigation.

It should be noted that the De Pere operation continued apace, and not only had in place contracts for its output, but it also arranged for the acquisition of material which would go into the system, as well as the various components needed to assemble the completed operation. It was stand-alone.

By late Spring 2016, RVDH had not secured the necessary financing to ameliorate the various creditors who had participated in the receivership. He believed he was continuting to use his best efforts to maintain and further the development of the business and, as such, had transferred certain assets of the Debtor to an entity, ostensibly in violation of the Circuit Court’s Order in the receivership that no assets be transferred. At certain of the creditors’ insistence, a bench warrant was issued on April 20, 2016 related to this transfer, directing RVDH to have the assets returned to De Pere forthwith. He was unable to do so, and was facing jail for contempt of court. Virtually the same day, a federal indictment was handed down by the Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging bank fraud. The alleged fraud was not related to the Debtor or any of the related operations, but rather, transactions which had occurred some years prior. At this point in time, GlenArbor, with over $7 Million invested in the project, negotiated for the removal of RVDH from any of the operating entities and for an agreement from the trustees of the family trusts with RVDH had created to hold his interests in the entities, effectively removing him from any control of RTS [Reclamation Technology Systems LLC] or any related entities. Thereafter, GlenArbor provided the funds necessary to file and initiate the Chapter 11 proceeding.

On April 27, 2016, the Petition for Chapter 11 was filed, effectively staying the bench warrant related to the Debtor’s assets, which RVDH allegedly transferred. Smith subsequently became the managing member of the Debtor as well as the related companies.

The Debtor and its members believe that the vale of the assets when placed in a viable NewCo operating business as envisioned, are worth substantially more than if they are liquidated piece-meal, which they believe would effectively bring scrap prices for the majority of the Debtor’s assets. Furthermore, other entities which are not in bankruptcy have significant assets which were to be contributed or sold into the “roll up” of the various entities and their assets into the overall business envisioned under the Plan. Finally, the intellectual property is a necessary ingredient to make the entire process feasible. That has been secured in an entity under the control of Smith.

POST-FILING EVENTS

Since the Chapter 11 filing, the Debtor has preserved its assets. Additionally, related entities have proceeded with the overall Plan to “roll up” the various assets, including those of the Debtor, into a new company which is seeking financing for the launch of the De Pere operation as evisioned in the original plan.

As inferred above, GlenArbor, through Smith, has entered into agreements with various entities to join these assets in order to effectuate the Plan. He has secured the intellectual property necessary to operate the process. He has and continues to negotiate contracts for both products generated from the process as well as inputs which are necessary to fuel the process. Smith and his team have not only had to deal with various creditors attacking the flanks of the operation, but have also managed to contracually secure a nationally recognized Investment Bank who has been engaged in taking the entire project forward.

The Debtor has been admittedly hampered in recreating or accounting for its finances prior to the filing of the instant actio nby virtue of a lack of any meaningful documentation or business records, computers and server. On August 8, 2016, records, or most of them, were returned, consisting of 38 file cabinets and 21 pallets of banker boxes. A substantial portion of the important documents have yet to be returned. Many of the computers and the server were returned in the last several weeks. The Debtor has virtually no income and GlenArbor is providing capital on an as-needed basis in order to take the overall project forward. The converting operation was temporarily suspended. The financial staff continues moving forward with work on the overall business plan related to the underwriting for the Investment Bank. Given the removal of [Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel] from any position of control of the Debtor or the related entities, and by virtue of agreements with other necessary parties, GlenArbor has managed to put in place many of the prerequisites for the Investment Bank to go to the capital market to privately place the debt, which is estimated to be approximately $130 Million.

The Debtor has attempted to reach out to the various creditors in this case, but has had very little constructive discussion with all but several. It appears that many just do not believe anything that anyone related to this project tells them, and refuse to discuss any type of rational resolution to the various components of obligations related to the Debtor.

In summary, the Debtor has retained the assets, has paid by way of Adequate Protection a monthly escrow payment related to real estate taxes on its real estate, and continues to work on the overall plan of incorporaing these assets into the larger “roll up”, which will provide significant payment for the assets to the secured creditors who have interests in them. It should be noted that this is a complex process and that the Debtor has had a scant 5 months to advance the overall plan.

Additionally, the Debtor has reached agreements related to certain warehousing space, reached tentative agreements with several of the creditors as to payment for release of assets in the “roll up”, and is currently, as time is available, reviewing the various records of the Debtor which were returned to it from the Sheriff’s Department.

THE DEBTOR’S ASSETS

1 .  Debtor-In-Possession Account. There is a Debtor-in-Possession account containing amounts escrowed for real estate taxes as agreed in the Adequate Protection Stipulation. These funds have been contributed by GlenArbor and others in order to preserve the status quo.

2 .  Accounts Receivable.

a. Little Rapids Lease.  The Debtor listed sub-lease rent due and owing from a warehouse in the bankruptcy Schedules. During the course of the reorganization, the landlord, Little Rapids Paper, and the Debtor agreed to a termination of the Lease. The rent was apparently offset as it was paid to Little Rapids. Upon information and belief, no rent is due the Debtor as a result of the termination of the Lease with Little Rapids and an agreement for ongoing use of a portion of the warehouse is being negotiated.

b. Patriot Tissue, LLC.  The Debtor scheduled rent due from Patriot Tissue, LLC (“Patriot”}, a related entity which, as described above, is the sales and marketing entity of the Debtor’s manufacturing/converting operations. Patriot utilized the American Boulevard plant, but was unable to pay rent. Patriot has little to no assets, has ceased operations, and has used its available funds to pay operating expenses. This Account Receivable is deemed uncollectable.

3 .  Machinery and Equipment.

a. PC Kool Unit.  The Debtor owns a Kool unit installed in the American Boulevard plant, which has been used to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of the tire reclamation portion of the process. The unit was used for experimentation and demonstration of the viability and economy of the system. It is currently idle. It appears that the original cost of the unit may have been approximately $830,000, but it was scheduled at $1.2 Million, as is-where is. The salvage value of the unit is unknown. The Debtor does not own the intellectual property related to the process of using it, however, it is believed that there may be some utility if sold in the open market. (Note: The Debtor had manufactured for it a second PC Kool unit, which [Ron Van Den Heuvel], during his tenure as manager of [Green Box NA Green Bay LLC], transferred via a Joint Venture Agreement (see GB-ARM, LLC below. This precipitated the bench warrant in the receivership).

b. After Dryers.  The Debtor owns 2 sets of after dryers, which are not installed and have been located in crates in a warehouse for some years. These are intended to eventually be incorporated into the tissue manufacturing line envisioned in the long term plans of the “roll up” of the company. They have been pledged to Paper HoldCo, LLC (“Varde”) pursuant to an agreement. They were segregated in the warehouse and placed in the control of Varde. Varde stopped paying the rent to the landlord of the warehouse and has, de facto, abandoned the same. The dryers were scheduled at $400,000 in the Debtor’s Schedules, however, if eventually incorporated into a tissue machine, would be worth substantially more. They are specific to a tissue manufacturing line and it is unlikely that they would be readily utilized by any other end user other than NewCo and, thus, are probably scrap.

c. Sorting Lines.  The Debtor has 2 sorting lines which are intended to be used in the reclamation process of NewCo. Neither is currently being used. The value of each is estimated to be $600,000, if used in the process. As scrap, they are believed to be worth considerably less.

4. Interest in GB-ARM, LLC.  The Debtor owns an interest in a joint venture with Advanced Resource Material, LLC (“ARM”). RVDH transferred a second PC Kool unit, which was not assembled, to this entity, which is owned 50% by a firm in South Carolina, which intended to assemble the unit and utilize it. To the best of the Debtor’s belief, the unassembled unit resides in South Carolina at the offices of ARM, LLC. The Debtor believes, again, that the actual cost of the unit is somewhere around $830,000, but ARM, LLC contributed a portion of the funds necessary to complete the unassembled unit, as the Debtor had no money. It appears that the unit is subject to a security agreement in favor of Cliffton Equities, as described hereunder.

5. Real Estate.  The Debtor owns real estate located at 2107 American Boulevard in De Pere, Wisconsin which is 185,000 [sq ft.] of warehouse, manufacturing space and offices. The Debtor’s operations are based in this building. The Debtor believes the real esate to be worth between $7.0 – $8.0 Million. Several years ago, this property was appraised at close to $11,000,000.00. This building also houses the converting equipment owned by other related entities and it is anticipated that it will be used in the “roll up” of NewCo.

6. Improvements to Real Estate.  The Debtor owns the security system, air conditioning system, vacuum system and other improvements made to the real estate located at 2107 American Boulevard. The value of these improvements is incorporated into the building as to remove these systems would provide very little value to the Debtor. In effect, the Debtor considers these improvements to be fixtures and part of the building.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The Debtor has little, if any, relevant financial information which would add anything to accepting or rejecting the Plan of Reorganization. The relevant information relating to the valuation of the Debtor’s assets is the value that will be paid for them in the “roll up” into NewCo for use in the overall reclamation project described herein. In the interest of disclosure, and to allow creditors and the Court to determine what is in the best interest of all creditors, the general detail of the “roll up” into NewCo shall be described herein.

“NewCo” will be owned 60% by Reclamation Technology Solutions LLC (“RTS”) which is the renamed Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH”) [which was originally named Nature’s Choice Tissue LLC]. RTS has been in existence since 2008 and has an ownership structure reflective of investments or interests transferred by RVDH to various investors. NewCo will be 40% owned by new entity investors, those entities or individuals putting new equity into the overall “roll up”. For purposes of the overall “roll up”, it will be referred to as the “Project” or “NewCo”.

The current plan agreed between management of the Project and the Investment Bank is to go to market on the first quarter of 2017, assuming this Plan can be confirmed and the other constituent agreements can be negotiated and agreed to contractually. A total of $176 Million from various sources are projected to be raised to fund the De Pere Project. A significant portion of that is senior debt and mezzanine debt, with the balance being equity. It is anticipated by the management for the Project that, given the extensive underwriting that has been done on the Project, a closing can take place at the end of the first quarter or beginning of the second quarter of 2017.

The funds will be used for the acquisition of the various components of the Project, including the Debtor’s real estate and certain pieces of its equipment and working capital. A signfificant portion of the funding will be used to construct a new tissue machine, which could take up to 18 months to complete. The Investment Bank and Project management have put together extensive projections, which are not yet finalized, but which will be utilized to present the Project to private equity sources. A substantial portion of the due dilligence was completed by Raymond James in 2015 and the assumptions remain valid. Significant commitments for inputs of raw materials into the process, as well as the sale of the output, have been secured and committed. The pulp plan owner has agreed to terms, as have some of the entities and creditors that have interests in the balance of the converting machinery and equipment.

The various assertions and assumptions with regard to the operation of the entire reclamation operation have been included in the NewCo proposal, including engineering reports on both the process and the feasibility of the operation. FDA approvals have been obtained with regard to the sanitizing process, and a valuation of the enterprise in full operation is being reworked and updated from 2015. The intellectual property has previously been evaluated by independent consultants, which have placed a significant value on it.

PRINCIPALS OF THE PROJECT

Stephen Smith (“Smith”) is the Chairman and putative CEO of the Project entity. He is currently the President and CEO of GlenArbor Partner, Inc., an investment advisory firm in Chicago, Illinois. He has extensive experience in private equity. He co-founded Bryanston Realty Partners, LLC in 2004 with two other partners and served as its principal and CEO until 2011. That firm invested in the acquisition of numerous big box retailers’ real estate and the lease back of the same. Prior to that, Smith was the managing director of LaSalle Investment Management, a member of LaSalle’s Global Management and Investment Strategy Committees, and an International Director of its parent, Jones, Lang, LaSalle, Inc. He has an MBA in Finance and Accounting from Northwestern University’s J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management and an Economics degree from Brown University.

Edward Kolasinski (“Kolasinski”) is the COO/CFO of the Project entitity. Koasinski was recruited as the COO/CFO by GlenArbor in Fall 2015 to lead the operational restructuring and financial recapitalization efforts for the Project. He is currently leading the efforts to develop the global business strategy of the Project. He has been working diligently on the financial model and projections with the Investment Bank for both the De Pere Project as well as the Texas project. He has taken the financial records which he has been able to reconstruct, which led to the consolidation of the various operations of RVDH and the abandonment or shuttering of 23 LLCs. He has developed and is directly executing both a sales strategy and operational plan to stabilize the overall situation, aid in obtaining the necessary financing, and will move forward with the implementation of the business plan for the Project thereafter. Needless to say, he has had a very challenging engagement since he joined the Project in October 2015. Prior to that, he was the COO and CFO for Puralytics of Portland, Oregon, where he was recruited to accelerate sales, market and channel development efforts, develop manufacturing and financial infrastructure, and secure investments for a water purification equipment startup. In that capacity from December 2010 through September 2015, he launched innovative product offerings into new markets and channels, including U.S. retail and online retail, industrial lab water and commercial water sectors in the U.S., Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Prior to that he was President and CEO of United Pipe and Supply, where he led operational, financial and sales process transformation, which grew sales from $121 Million to $210 Million annually at 34 locations with 495 employees in a service and distribution company. Prior to moving to the Pacific Northwest, Kolasinski started his career at Price Waterhouse, where he was an audit manager. He left there to become Director of Finance at Rexnord, Inc. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and, ultimately, was the Vice President of Finance and CFO for Pryon Corporation of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin where he negotiated the sale that medical and instrumentation startup to Protocol. Protocol is based in Portland, Oregon and it took him to the Pacific Northwest.

Lee Reisinger (“Reisinger”) is the consulting industry executive of the Project entity. Reisinger has over 40 years of experience in the pulp and paper industry, a large portion of which was with Proctor and Gamble as Director of Engineering. He is the President and Founder of RyTech, Inc., a strategic consulting and project management firm. He led Proctor and Gamble’s Bounty Paper Towel business and commercialized the belt technology that made their business profitable. He managed the design, construction and startup of a new diaper plant in Japan, a Duncan Hinz cookie plant in the U.S., and paper machines in Europe and North America. Subsequently, as a principal of a consulting and engineering firm, and then his own firm, he has led process development and strategic studies for several Fortune 200 companies in pulp and paper and has consulted on billion dollar acquisitions.

Daniel Platkowski (“Platkowski”) is the Director of Engineering for the Project entity. Platkowski has over 30 years of experience in the tissue industry. He is the President and Founder of Pine Ridge Engineering, Inc. Prior to Pine Ridge Engineering, Platkowski worked for Ford Howard Paper Company and, as a result of a merger, Fort James Corporation for 25 years. His position with Fort James was Senior Vice President of Manufacturing. He joined Ford Howard in 1974 as a project engineer. In subsequent years, he was promoted to manufacturing positions of increasing responsibility, including Paper Machine Superintendent, Director of Paper Manufacturing and Mill Services, and later, Vice President of Manufacturing, Human Resources and Safety.

This team will lead the new Project, overseeing not only the “roll up” of the various assets into the business, but the continuation and expansion of the business. In the 18 months after the “roll up”, the tissue line will be constructed adjacent to the existing pulp plant. The tissue line will, once it becomes operational, manufacture recycled pulp into parent rolls of tissue which will then be used in the converting operation to supply contracts to national brands and private labels for 100% post-consumer recycled products that have been approved as “food grade” by the FDA. Additional outputs from the process are high-grade wet lap pulp, tissue parent rolls, and plastic pellets which can be used in the bio-fuel oil reclamation industry or the flooring industry for substrate.

Primary inputs which would ordinarily be landfilled are food contaminated and non-contaminated waste paper, waste plastic, and other recycled soiled paper products. The initial project will contract offtake of pulp from the pulping plant while the tissue line is being constructed. It is anticipated that parent rolls will be purchased from the manufacturers who take the pulp from the Project plant. There will be offtake agreements in place for all projected volume. Market studies have been performed assessing the tissue industry demand capacity outlook and growth in the market for feed stock, pulp, parent rolls and converted tissue products. The outlook is positive. As noted, [Reclamation Technology Systems LLC] will be a 60% owner of the project. The other 40% will be for new equity, employment incentives and reserve. Licensing of the patent and intellectual property will, upon confirmation, be transferred to RTS, LLC, and the Project will be the beneficiary of all such agreements for the operation of the systems developed.

While the actual financial projections for the Project are proprietary at this time, as they are not finalized for presentation to the private equity market, it is anticipated that revenues in the first 12 months of operation, which will be primarily from pulp sales and converting, will, with the reserves built into the projections, fund operations and debt service. All debt is returned by year 10, with the debt coverage ratio averaging 1.8 overall in years 2 through 10. A substantial amount of revenue flows to the Project for no-investment or return on investment to equity holders.

All amounts projected under the Plan to be paid to the various creditors of the Debtor are generated by the financing for the Project. It is anticipated that the Debtor’s Plan will be confirmed prior to the end of 2016 and the funding will take place by the end of the first quarter 2017, providing for payment of all claims hereunder. Certain creditors, as will be disclosed herein, have an interest in [Reclamation Technology Services LLC] by virture of loaning funds to the [Ron Van Den Heuvel] entities in the past. RTS, LLC also retains the structure of the various investors in proportion to the investment and the risk taken in the overall Project and, thus, the preservation of it as an entity is desirable but not necessarily essential. To abandon it at this point in the Project would create a delay. There may also be significant tax basis issues to the Project if it were restructured. On balance, to retain RTS, LLC is advisable and provides for the quickest return to creditors of the Debtor under this Plan.

Certain, if not most, of the creditors in this Plan have guarantees by various RVDH entities, including RTS (formerly EARTH). At this time, RTS, LLC has no liquidation value as it possesses virtually no assets which are not pledged to the full extent to creditors. Third party releases from certain of the Debtor’s creditors will be required as a condition of the Plan and payment of the claims proposed thereunder. The Debtor believes that these releases are appropriate, advisable, and, if not negotiated, they should be ordered as a part of this Plan as being integral and essential to the confirmation of the same and in the best interest of the majority of the claimants in this case.

Additionally, all administrative and priority taxes will be paid upon the funding of the “roll up” of the Project. These are projected at approximately $200,00.00.

Detailed financial projections concerning the Project will be shared with creditors on the basis of enforcable non-disclosure agreements being signed once such financial projections are finalized and approved by the Investment Bank.

Such sharing of financial information is intended to provide a basis for determining whether the actual Project is likely to be funded and the payments proposed under the Plan made. In other words, the only feasibility issue is whether it is likely that payments will be made on the basis of the Plan proposed by the Debtor as it is not anticipated that the Debtor will have any ongoing operations or assets after the “roll up” in the Project.

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND CLASSES

The known debts of the Debtor are set forth below with a brief description of the nature of the obligation and the identification of the creditor. The Claims are classified as follow:

1.  Administrative Priority Claims:  Administrative Priority Claims include all costs and expenses of the adminstration of the Chapter 11 case allowed under § 503(b) of the Code and entitled to priority under § 507(a)(1)(C) of the Code. The Plan provides for payment in full of all allowed adminstrative expenses on the Effective Date unless paid prior thereto of if the holder of such adminstrative expense has agreed to a different treatment. Any adminstrative expense that remains subject to an objection as of the Effective Date, and therefore has not yet been allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, will be paid in the amount ultimately allowed or otherwise agreed, promptly after resolution of the objection.

a. Professional Fees:  Fees to professionals will continue to accrue through confirmation. Debtor has hired the following professionals:

i. Steinhilber Swanson LLP, General Counsel for Debtor (hereinafter “SSMMM”). Fees and costs through confirmation are estimated to be approximately $100,000.00.

b. UST Fees:  The United States Trustee fees will be paid as incurred and in full as of the effective date. The Debtor is not delinquent in any payments to the U.S. Trustee. Quarterly fees may continue to be generated until such time as a final Order is entered closing this case by the Court.

c. Other Administrative Expensives:  Other adminstrative expense claims may be filed by entities that believe they have an entitlement to be paid as an administrative expense. Debtor asserts that there are no administrative expenses.

2.  Priority Tax Claims:  Priority tax claims, as have been filed in this case, are as follows:

a. U.S. Department of Treasury / Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) – The IRS has filed a claim for unpaid payroll taxes in the amount of $30,825.13. It has “placeholder” claims for income taxes for the Debtor. The Debtor believes that it can reasonably file returns asserting that the Debtor had no income in any of the years that it operated that was taxable and, indeed, likely suffered losses.

b. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (“WDOR”) – The WDOR has filed a claim for payroll taxes in the amount of $6,110.27. There are believed to be no further claims for any other kind of tax in favor of WDOR.

c. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (“DWD”) – The DWD has filed a claim in the amount of $67,200.31 as a result of unpaid unemployment compensation and insurance taxes.

The Debtor shall, as soon as is practicable, file income tax returns for the last several years (2014 and 2015) based on estimated losses suffered and request a speedy determination of the liability therefrom under §505(b)(2). The amount due, if any, shall be paid each of the above taxing authorities along with any tax due on account of the specified proofs of claim on the docket.

3.  Class 1 Claim (Maple Ridge Funding/Ability Insurance Company (“Ability”)) – Such class shall consist of the claim of Maple Ridge Funding/Abilty Insurance Company (“Ability”). Ability asserts a claim as of May 4, 2016 in the amount of $9,681,100.00. This claim is secured by a valid First Mortgage on real estate located at 2107 American Boulevard, De Pere, Wisconsin. The original amount advanced, as evidenced by a Note dated December 10, 2015, was $7,150,000.00. The Mortgage, recorded December 13, 2014, together with an Assignment of Rents, is duly perfected. This is a partially secured claim.

4.  Class 2 Claim (Cliffton Equities (“Cliffton”)):  Cliffton asserts a claim in the amount of approximately $4,200,000 as of March 1, 2016. This amount is asserted to be secured by two PC Kool units, one of which is located on the Debtor’s premises and installed, and the other which is located at the premises of ARM, LLC in North Carolina and is not installed. Additionally, Cliffton asserts a lien in a sorting line and a pelletizing line, both of which are liekly owned by a related entity. It also, as a result of its relationship with the Debtor and RVDH, negotiated for certain ownership interests in the Debtor and two related entities, one of which is now known as RTS, LLC [Reclamation Technology Systems LLC]. It possesses 4 Million units of RTS, LLC, which is a 4% ownership interest. This debt is evidenced by various documents, including an Amended Loan and Investment Agreement dated June 13, 2014, which may be executory as to certain terms.

The Debtor asserts that the value of the collateral is less than the amount due to Cliffton. Cliffton also possesses guaranties from RTS, LLC and RVDH as to debt owed to it by the Debtor.

5. Class 3 Claim (Quotient Partners, LLC (“Quotient”) – Quotient has a secured claim that had a balance, as of November 15, 2005, of $289,471.22. This claim is secured by a lien in equipment owned by a related entity, but is an obligation of the Debtor, together with RTS, LLC. This claim is fully secured.

6. Class 4 Claim (State of WI / Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”):  WEDC has a claim as the result of a loan made to the Debtor in the amount of $1,116,000.00, together with interest, less any payments received, from the date of inception, September 14, 2011. This obligation is secured by a Second Mortgage on the Debtor’s property located at 2107 American Boulevard in De Pere, Wisconsin. Given the value of the building, it is unlikely that this claim is fully secured and, indeed, is likely minimally secured. WEDC does, however, possess the ability to elect under Section 1111(b) of the Code and, thus, its claim is recognized in that light. By virtue of such an election, this claim may be fully secured.

7. Class 5 Claim (Paper HoldCo, LLC (“Varde”)) – Varde has a claim against the Debtor and other related entities, including RTS, LLC, among others. The claim has been reduced, via a Confession of Judgment executed by [Ron Van Den Heuvel], arguably without authority, in the amount in excess of $9,000,000.00 in State Court, in the State of Minnesota against RTS, LLC and RVDH. Due to the stay imposed by these bankruptcy proceedings, judgment was not entered against the Debtor.

Varde’s claim is secured by certain of the Debtor’s property, namely, two sets of After dryers. In the Second Forebearnce between the Debtor, related entities, and Varde, the Debtor delivered physical and legal possession of the dryers to Varde in a “lender controlled space” within a warehouse located at 821 Parkview Road in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin. Varde initially paid for storage on those units, but has since stopped and it has made no effort to liquidate the same either by judicial process of self-help. Varde has entered judgment against RTS, LLC, among others by virtue of guaranties. Varde is under-secured as the value of the collateral is significantly less than its claim. RVDH is also a guarantor of this obligation.

8.  Class 6 Claims (Executory Contracts) – During the course of these proceedings, Little Rapids Paper Corporation obtained relief from stay in order to terminate a lease of the bulk of a warehouse located at 821 Parkview Road in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin. Related entities of the Debtor have arranged for a significantly reduced amount of space as machinery and equipment intended to be used in the Project are stored there. The amount due and owing has been agreed between the parties and will be paid by the Project.

The Debtor may have other leases, including liability on a certain residential lease, to Jairo Huilar, for a property located at 4032 N. St. Bernard Drive in De Pere, Wisconsin. The extent of the liability, if any, is limited to several months on a possible month-to-month holdover of a lease which terminated on its face several years ago. A former employee of the Debtor resided in the property under a lease between the Debtor and Mr. Huilar. There is currently relief from stay sought and it is anticipated that an eviction will occur shortly.

The Debtor held a lease with Utica Lease Co, LLC prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. Such lease was assigned and taken over by GlenArbor, pre-petition. It is believed taht, as of the date of the Petition, no lease existed between theDebtor and Utica Lease Co, LLC.

Patriot Tisse, LLC, a related entity, was utilizing the manufacturing and warehousing space at 2107 American Boulevard in De Pere, Wisconsin, owned by the Debtor, to continue the operations of the Debtor after the appointment of the receiver. Patriot Tissue, LLC paid no rent, which has accrused at $74,000 per month, pusuant to the lease. Patriot Tissue, LLC is operating at a loss and management is working to secure additional business. It has little in assets and is uncollectable.

9.  Class 7 Claim (Marco Araujo (“Araujo”)) – Marco Araujo holds a fully secured claim in a sorting unit owned by the Debtor. The value of the sorting unit is greater than this claim. It is believed that the claim, after credits and offsets, held by this claimant, is approximately $700,000.00.

10.  Class 8 Claims (General Unsecured Non-Priority Claims):  The Class 8 Claims are impaired. The total amount of the allowed usecured claims, based on claimes scheduled by the Debtor and not marked as “contingent, unliquified, or disputed” and as allowed by the Court pursuant to proofs of claim filed herein, is $446,043.69 plus any under-secured portion of any secured claims noted above or any executory contract rejection damages. This class is impaired.

11.  Class 9 Claims (Equity Interests in the Debtor):  The equity interests in the Debtor are detailed on the attached List of Equity Security Holders. Such interests will be cancelled under the terms of this Plan.

TREATMENT OF CLAIMS THROUGH PLAN

Section 1124 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that unless the Plan leaves a creditor’s rights unaaltered or fully pays the entire value of the amount of the claim, such claim is impaired. Creditors whose claims are impaired under the Plan vote by class on the Plan. The Debtor asserts that all classes are impaired. The Adminstrative and Priority claims are deemed not to be impaired, based on their treatment as noted below. The treatment of all claims is as follows:

1 .  Administrative Priority Claims:  Adminstrative Priority Claims include all costs all expenses of the administration of the Chapter 11 case allowed under § 503(b) of the Code and entitled to priority under § 507(a)(1)(C) of the Code. The Plan provides for payment in full of all allowed adminstrative expecnses on the Effective Date unless paid prior thereto or if the holder of such admistrative expense has agreed to a different treatment. Any adminstrative expense that remains subject to an objection as of the Effective Date, and therefore has not yet been allowed by the Bankruptcy Court, will be paid in the amount ultimately allowed or otherwise agreed, promptly after resolution of the objection.

a. Professional Fees:  Fees to professionals will continue to accrue through confirmation. Debtor has hired the following professionals:

i. Steinhilber Swanson LLP, General Counsel for Debtor (hereinafter “SSMMM”). Fees and costs through confirmation are estimated to be approximately $100,000.00.

ii. SSLLP has agreed to defer allowed adminstrative claims to such time as fund[s] are available from the “roll up” into the Project, or approximately March 31, 2017.

b. UST Fees:  The United States Trustee fees will be paid as incurred and in full as of the effective date. The Debtor is not delinquent in any payments to the U.S. Trustee. Quarterly fees may continue to be generated until such time as a final Order is entered closing this case by the Court.

c. Other Administrative Expensives:  Other adminstrative expense claims may be filed by entities that believe they have an entitlement to be paid as an adminstrative expense. Debtor asserts that there are no administrative expenses.

2 .  Priority Tax Claims:  Any priority tax claims are unimpaired. The Debtor estimates priority tax claims arise as a result of unpaid payroll taxes to the IRS, WDOR, and DWD as described above. Such priority tax claims shall be paid in full at the time of the “roll up” into the Project, which will be approximately March 31, 2017 and shall include any additional assessments as a result of the filing of income tax returns for 2014 and 2015.

3 .  Class 1 Claim (Maple Ridge Funding/Ability Insurance Company (“Ability”)) – Ability shall be paid the sum of $7,600,000.00 at the time of the “roll up” into the Project frm funds generated thereby. The real estate shall, after such payment, be deeded free and clear of all liens and encumbrances to NewCo. At the time of the payment, Ability shall release RTS, LLC from any obligation as a result of a Guarnty executed by EARTH. The balance of this claim shall be treated as an unsecured claim hereunder and will not be paid by the Debtor. Ability specifically reserves its right under a certain Guaranty by RVDH dated December 10, 2014. This class is impaired.

4 .  Class 2 Claim (Cliffton Equities (“Cliffton”)): Upon confirmation, the Debtor will surrender any interest it has in Cliffton’s collateral known as the PC Kool units, and shall allow Cliffton the right to remove the same from its premises. Cliffton shall exercise any and all rights in the collateral transferred to ARM, LLC. Cliffton shall be paid out of the proceeds of the “roll up” the following amounts in exchange for the release of the following collateral:

a. $1,172,000.00 for a sorting line; and

b. $1,361,000.00 for a pelletizer line.

The above property shall then be transferred to NewCo free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Additionally, upon such payment, RTS, LLC shall be released from any and all liability from any Guaranty executed in favor of Cliffton for the Debtor’s obligations and Cliffton shall retain its 4% equity interest in [Reclamation Technology Systems LLC]. Any and all other terms of the Amended Loan and Investment Agreement dated June 13, 2014, or any of its prior agreements with the Debtor, shall be rejected and abrogated by the Debtor to the extent of the Debtor’s liabililty thereunder. Cliffton’s equity interest in the Debtor shall be cancelled upon confirmation. The balance, if any, of the claim of Cliffton after liquidation and application of its collateral to be surrendered shall be treated as an unsecred claim and will not be paid under this Plan. This class is impaired.

5. Class 3 Claim (Quotient Partners, LLC (“Quotient”) – The claim of Quotient in the approximate amount of $275,000.00 shall be paid, together with interest at the contract rate, from the proceeds of the “roll up” of the Project on approximately March 31, 2017. Upon such payment, Quotient shall release any security interest it has in two Bretting machines, which are its collateral and which are owned by a related entity. Any claim that Quotient may have against its co-maker on this obligation, RTS, LLC (EARTH), shall be released upon payment. This class is unimpaired.

6. Class 4 Claim (State of WI / Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”):  It is anticipated that WEDC will make election under Section 1111(b) of the Code to retain its right to a full payment in deferred cash payments of its allowed claim. As such, its entire obligation shall be assumed by RTS, LLC upon the Effective Date. Any accrued interest on the claim shall be paid in full from the proceeds of the “roll up” into the Project on approximately March 31, 2017. Thereafter, on a monthly basis, interest shall be paid at the contract rate of 2% for a period of 12 months. Thereafter, the contract payment of $19,920.00 per month shall be paid for a period of 24 months, after which time, the entire remaining balance shall become due and payable and shall be paid by RTS, LLC in full.

In exchange for the assumption of the obligation by RTS, LLC, WEDC shall, upon the “roll up” into the Project of the underlying real estate, release its Mortgage on the real estate, be unsecured, but retain the right to full payment as described herein as against RTS, LLC. This class is impaired.

7. Class 5 Claim (Paper HoldCo, LLC (“Varde”)) – Varde shall be paid the sum of $1,500,000.00 cash at the “roll up” of the Project on approximately March 31, 2017. In exchange, it shall release any and all security interests it has in two After dryer units and equipment as described in its security agreements, to facilitate the transfer of the items to the Project free and clear of liens and encumbrances. Upon such payment, it shall release any guaranty of RTS, LLC (EARTH). It shall also release any and all membership interest which it holds as collateral in RTS, LLC (EARTH) upon such payment. The balance of its claim shall be an unsecured claim and shall not be paind hereunder by the Debtor.

8. Class 6 Claims (Executory Contracts) – To the extent not specifically modified herein, all executory contracts are rejected. Any rejection claims shall be treated as unsecured claims hereunder. Specifically, a contract, if any, between the Debtor and ARM, LLC is rejected and any rights in the property held by Cliffton shall be abandoned to Cliffton. Likewise, since the Debtor will not be operating going forward and will have no further assets, the assumption of executory contracts without assignment to an operating entity would be fruitless and of no effect.

It is specifically noted that NewCo has negotiated for a warehouse space with Little Rapids Paper Corporation and certain assets owned by related entities as well as assets of the Debtor which are stored at the facility will remain on terms and conditions that can be negotiated between NewCo and Little Rapids. The Debtor’s lease was terminated. Any lease termination damages in favor of Little Rapids shall be an unsecured claim and treated as such hereunder.

9.  Class 7 Claim (Marco Araujo (“Araujo”)) – The allowed amount of this claim, after all credits for amounts received in collection actions, plus statuatory interest, shall be paid on approximately March 31, 2017 at the “roll up” of the Project in full satisfaction of all claims against the Debtor and related entities and the lien released and judgment satisfied as to all.

10.  Class 8 Claims (General Unsecured Non-Priority Claims) – No amount is projected to be paid to unsecured creditors hereunder.

11.  Class 9 Claims (Equity Interests in the Debtor) – All equity will be cancelled and will retain no interest in the Debtor or any of its assets.

MEANS OF A PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION

The above-outlined terms of the plan shall be implemented as previously described. Specifically, the Debtor’s management, which is also management for the related entities and the NewCo entity, will continue to forge ahead with the “roll up” Plan. The Investment Bank has been retained and due diligence is currently being performed to the extent that it is not completed. It is anticipated that, upon the confirmation of this Plan, the Project financing will be arranged and secured. [Stephen] Smith will, with the help of the Investment Bank, raise equity and debt facilities contemplated in order to fund the Project.

Given the experience of the Investment Bank personnel with the current Project, the progress in the overall due diligence, and the likely return on investment, it is anticipated that the entire Project will be funded by the end of the first quarter of 2017. At the closing of such funding, funds will be available to make all payments required under the Plan.

Since RTS, LLC [Reclamation Technolgy Systems LLC] will own 60% of the Project, it is a requirement of the Plan that various of the claimants listed above release guaranties or, in the case of Varde, satisfy a judgement against RTS, LLC. These releases and satisfaction are crucial to maintain the timeline indicted herein. Significant intellection property will be contributed to RTS, LLC for use in the overall Project through the utilization of the patented processes, which will provide a significant value to the Project and such intellectual property is critical for the operation of the Project. The intellectual property which is being rolled into RTS, LLC and, correspondingly, the Project, are essential ingedients in the operation of the process from the input of waste to the output of tissue, plastics and other recyclable components.

THE FOREGOING IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE PLAN AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR VOTED PURPOSES. CREDITORS ARE URGED TO READ THE PLAN IN FULL. CREDITORS ARE FURTHER URGED TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL OR EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE PLAN. THE PLAN IS COMPLEX AND IN AS MUCH AS IT REPRESENT A PROPOSED LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BY THE DEBTOR, AND AN INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT CONCERNING SUCH PLAN CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT.

TAX CONSEQUENCES

Tax Consequences to the Debtor:  The Debtor has not operated a business in the last 14 months. Prior to that, it did not do so profitably, but it was not intended to be profitable at that time. The Debtor’s business, along with the business of certain related entities, were operating in oder to prove that the overall concept worked and could do so at a commercially reasonable rate. It was essential to have the components demonstrated on a scale that confirmed that the Project could be successful when fully integrated and implemented. The investments by various people in the projects have been significant and the Debtor asserts that no taxable event has occurred and it will be filing estimated income tax returns reflecting that fact. That said, since the Debtor is going out of business, any losses attributable to that event would be to the individual investors/members and not to the Debtor.

Tax Consequences to Creditors:  To the best of the Debtor’s knowledge, creditors will have no tax consequences as a result of the confirmation of the Debtor’s proposed Plan. Creditors, to the extent that they are not paid, may be able to deduct any loss as a result of nonpayment of claims depending on how they characterized their claims for purposes of their own tax recording. Creditors are urged to consult their own tax professionals with regard to their specific situations as any statement made by the Debtor as to tax consequences of creditors is informational only and should not be relied upon as it is a general statement of the law.

LIQUIDATION ANALYSIS

The Debtor asserts that if this Plan is not confirmed, the various creditors will take back their collateral. Chapter 11 Administrative Expenses and Priority Taxes will not be paid. The collateral is worth significantly less if sold into the market as opposed to being incorporated into the Project. There is very little demand for the components of the tissue line. Both the sorting and the pelletizing lines have very narrow markets and the equipment is used. The PC Kool units are likely to be sold as scrap or at a very low price as a purchaser would have to engage in significant trial and error in order to utilize them in any effective manner. The intellectual property does not travel with those units and belongs to a related third party.

The real estate would have to go through a foreclosure process, be placed on the market subject to a broker’s commission, and secured creditors holding mortgages in that property would need to advance funds for insurance, maintenance and general upkeep pending any sale.

The Debtor has investigated the market and believes that the price being paid under the Plan is fair, equitable and close to the best price the property could bring at this time. Liquidation brings signifcantly less to the first mortgage holder and nothing to the second mortgage holder, wheeas this Plan provides an immediate benefit for the first mortgage holder and a long-term benefit and recovery for the second mortgage holder.

The After dryer units face a very limited market due to the nature of the units and the fact that they were manufactured 10 years ago and are still crates. Significant work would be required to bring them up to shape and integrate them into a tissue manufacturing line. There are very few such lines proposed to be constructed in the foreseeable future. It is likely that these units would be sold into the value of all of its assets is significantly enhanced if they are sold into the Project which is in prospect and can be funded in the immediate future. The alternative would provide significantly less in terms of value for creditors holding interest in the property.

CONCLUSION

The Debtor bellieves this Disclosure Statement to provide information of a nature and to the extent necessary to form an intelligent decision on whether or not to vote for its Plan.

Respectfully Submitted this 26th day of September, 2016.

GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY, LLC

By: Edward Kolasinski
for Steven Smith, with permisson

 

 

 

See also:

 

 

 

 


Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s Scheme Partner ‘EN-RON’ Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Asked U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge To Let It Start A “New Company” To Solicit Money From New Investors To Pay Old Investors; ‘PONZI SCHEME’: A Nonexistent Business Pays Old Investors With Money From New Investors (Or From Secret Mutli-Million Dollar Settlements In Bogus Lawsuit Shakedowns); UPDATE: Ron Van Den Heuvel Indicted On Nine New Federal Bank Fraud Counts In Addition To Previous Ten Counts, Including Having His Employee/Son-In-Law Patrick Hoffman Make Fraudulent Loan Applications To Multiple Financial Institutions

 

9/21/2016 UPDATE:

Federal prosecutors added multiple charges against a De Pere businessman facing bank fraud conspiracy charges.

Ron Van Den Heuvel, his wife, Kelly, and their former banker, Paul Piikkila, are accused of bank fraud for allegedly illegally arranging a series of loans.

Van Den Heuvel, who has denied any wrongdoing, previously faced ten counts, but federal prosecutors added nine counts against him this week. Three are charges of allegedly making false statements on loan/credit applications, while six are bank fraud counts.

A status conference is scheduled for Sept. 27 for both Van Den Heuvels.

 

COUNT FOURTEEN

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

From on or about June 10, 2013 through on or about July 2, 2013, in the state of and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

devised and participated in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions and to obtain money under the custody and control of those financial institutions by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations.

The scheme was as follows:

a.  In June 2013, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel desired and needed to obtain funds for himself and his business entities.

b. In order to obtain funds, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel persuaded his employee [AND SON-IN-LAW PATRICK R. HOFFMAN] to apply for loans from financial institutions in his own name although the loaned funds were to be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities.

c.  In order to help [PATRICK ROBERT HOFFMAN, owner of The Creamery Cafe] qualify for the loans, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel took the following steps.

1 .  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused the titles on a 2013 Cadillac Escalade and a 2010 Cadillac Escalade to be transferred from one of his business entities, EARTH [Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC /  recently renamed Reclamation Technology Systems LLC], to [Ron’s Son-in-Law PATRICK HOFFMAN] although [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was not given custody or control of the Escalades.

2 .  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused false and fraudulent pay stubs to be created for [PATRICK HOFFMAN, Registered Agent of Creamery Cafe LLC] which reflected that [PATRICK HOFFMAN’S] income was substantially higher than it actually was.

3 .  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK R. HOFFMAN, Registered Agent of PRH Enterprises LLC] to falsely represent his job title, responsibilities, and income with EARTH [/ Reclamation Technology Systems LLC / RTS].

d.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to apply for loans at financial institutions offering the two Cadillac Escalades as security for those loans and providing those institutions with false and fraudulent information about his duties and income while employed with EARTH [ / Reclamation Technology Systems LLC / RTS].

THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:

On or about June 14, 2013, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in this count, caused [PAT R. HOFFMAN] to apply to Community First Credit Union, a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, for a loan of $50,000.  In an attempt to obtain the loan, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PAT HOFFMAN] to falsely represent that he was the borrower, that the was the Director of Sales for EARTH[/ RTS], and that his annual income from EARTH[/RTS] was more than $92,000 when, as Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel well knew, the loan proceeds would be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities and [PATRICK HOFFMAN] worked for Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel as an office assistanct earning $12 an hour. ….

COUNT FIFTEEN

…The false statements were that:

a.  [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was to be the borrower on a loan of $50,000 when, as defendant well knew, [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was a straw borrower whose name was being put on the loan even though the loan proceeds were actually going to be used by the defendant and his business entities.

b.  [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was the Director of Sales for EARTH[/RTS] earning a salary of over $92,000 per year when, as defendant well knew, [PATRICK HOFFMAN] was an office assistant earning approximately $12 an hour.

COUNT SIXTEEN

On or about June 17, 2013, at DePere, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in Count Fourteen, caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to apply to Nicolet National Bank, whose accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for a loan of $50,000. In an attempt to obtain the laon, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to offer the 2013 Cadillac as security for the loan.. ..

COUNT EIGHTEEN

On or about June 17, 2013, at Green Bay, in the state and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

in order to execute the scheme described in Count Fourteen, caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to apply to Pioneer Credit Union…for two loans: one of $60,000 and one of $25,000.  In an attempt to obtain these loans, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to offer the 2013 Cadillac Escalade and the 2010 Cadillac Escalade as security for the loans and caused [PATRICK HOFFMAN] to falsely represent that the was the borrower, that he was the Director of Tissue Converting for EARTH[/Reclamation Technology Systems LLC]., and that his annual income from EARTH[/RTS] was more than $92,000 when, as Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel well knew, the loan proceeds would be used by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities and [PATRICK HOFFMAN] worked for Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel as an office assistant earning approximately $12 an hour.

 

As was stated in the July 2, 2015 Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. Search Warrants for Ronald Van Den Heuvel / Green Box NA Green Bay LLC:

19. [Daniel H.] Thames stated that he saw a year-end financial statement which showed that [Ron Van Den Heuvel] owes VHC, Inc., and other Van Den Heuvel family-owned businesses approximately $115,000,000.

20. On April 27, 2015, your affiant conducted an interview [with] Guy LoCascio…who provided a verbal and written statement and also provided financial documents in an electronic format. Guy J. LoCascio is a certified public accountant who did accounting work for [RVDH] and [Green Box NA Green Bay]. LoCascio indicated that while attempting to sort out [RVDH]’s financial accounts, he noted that [RVDH] had not filed federal or state tax returns and large amounts of cash could not be accounted for. LoCascio informed [RVDH] if an accounting could not be made, [RVDH] would have to pay the company back as if the cash had been a loan.

21. LoCascio stated [RVDH] had many companies for which he was listed as an agent, president, principal, or chairman. [RVDH] would take money for his personal use from all of his companies.

22. While on site at the [GBNAGB] offices located at 2077 Lawrence Drive Suites A and B, LoCascio saw that office employees would be forced to enter whatever [RVDH] told them to enter into the computer for accounting purposes. LoCascio’s information about employees being ordered to falsify financial transaction information was later confirmed by another [GBNAGB] employee, Tami Phillips, who also indicated in her written statement that she was told to make false entries and with each false entry she made, she would indicate “per Ron” in an attempt to avoid culpability.

23. LoCascio said he knew the [RVDH]’s company, [GBNAGB], received over $1,000,000 from the State of Wisconsin [WEDC]. [RVDH] was compelled, as part of the fund’s disbursement process, to supply a reckoning of how the funds were spent. The document required a CPA’s signature. Neither LoCascio, nor CPA Steven Huntington, had signed the document to WEDC. LoCascio states Phil Reinhart asked LoCascio to sign a prepared financial statement, but LoCascio refused because he was concerned about the veracity of the statement. LoCascio stated much of the bookkeeping for some of the many companies under [RVDH]’s name was in the form of a checkbook register only, rather than accepted accounting principals.

24. LoCascio said [RVDH] would frequently move money and assets, such as machinery, without corresponding documentation.

25. As part of his work as a subcontractor through LoCascio & Company, LoCascio held a partial thumb drive backup of computer-filed financial records. This is common practice in LoCascio’s role as CPA. LoCascio volunteered to share the contents of his thumb drive with your affiant. Your affiant obtained a search warrant to view the contents of the thumb drive. The search showed:

a. Items gleaned from the search of LoCascio’s thumb drive include: Information about inflated valuation of patent and intellectual property that [RVDH] claimed to possess. The values were not documented using generally accepted accounting practices. On the thumb drive, there was evidence of money being transferred between accounts of several business to cover shortfalls. The specifics accounts from which money was transferred will be determined through this search warrant. A chart of banks and the last 4 digits of account numbers were located and can help to verify full account numbers, if located during the search. The documents contained on LoCascio’s thumb drive also confirm his statements relative to [RVDH]’s frequent transfer of assets between business and the conversion of investment dollars and loan protocols into personal use.

26. Your affiant met with and interviewed Steven H. Huntington on April 23, 2015. Huntington is a CPA and was formerly employed by [GBNAGB]. Per documents and statement provided by Steven Huntington, on January 1, 2013, Huntington signed a contract with [RVDH] and Green Box to be the CFO of Green Box and have control of all the money. Huntington did work for which he should have been paid $11,000 but was paid only $5,000. Huntington was promised stock options and a bonus if he remained at Green Box, which never materialized. Huntington provided substantive information about his activities and Green Box as follows:

a. Huntington had worked on production predictions and grant applications. In the course of researching the numbers, Huntington found an investor by the name of Ken Dardis who had invested $500,000 in Green Box. Huntington found that [RVDH] had used $200,600 of that money for personal expenditures, including dental work for his wife, Green Bay Packers tickets, and [RVDH]’s ex-wife’s car payment, among other things.

b. Huntington located another investment of $100,000 from a family estate firm called Dodi Management, LLC. Out of the $100,000 investment, [RVDH] used $73,547.34 for personal expenses, including $2,594.34 for [RVDH]’s personal insurance, $4,000 for [RVDH]’s Bank of America credit card, $45,000 transferred to [RVDH]’s personal account, and $153.65 to Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s dentist, Lincoln Dental, for example.

c. Huntington was aware of the $600,000 investment from Dr. [Marco] Araujo, and was aware that [RVDH] spent $373,515,60 of that investment on personal expenses. Those expenses are mentioned in paragraph 7.

d. Huntington said [RVDH] presented financial information in a civil suit that did not match the QuickBooks accounting data of Green Box.

e. Huntington stated [RVDH] would list assets as belonging to one company and would list the same asset as belonging to a different company the next day. Huntington said the transfer of assets was not recorded anywhere.

f. Huntington, doing work as a CPA for Green Box, did not assist [RVDH] in putting together UCC filings.

g. Both Huntington and LoCascio stated that [RVDH] transferred the titles of two company vehicles, 2010 Cadillac Escalade, black in color, with WI license plate 727VKL and 2013 Cadillac Escalade, white in color, with WI license plate 729VKL which were registered under E.A.R.T.H., to his son-in-law, Patrick Hoffman. [RVDH] did this because he was unable to obtain financing from any local bank. [RVDH] instructed Hoffman to use two Cadillac Escalades, which were now registered to Hoffman, as collateral. Both Huntington and LoCascio stated they warned [RVDH] about transferring both vehicles to Hoffman, as then Hoffman would have to show the acquisition of the vehicles as taxable income. Hoffman was shown as the registered owner of the two Cadillac Escalades for one year before the vehicles were registered again by E.A.R.T.H. [formerly NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE LLC, now doing business as RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC]. The two Escalades are still used as company vehicles, and your affiant has seen [RVDH] getting out of the black Escalade at 2077 Lawrence Drive, City of De Pere, Brown County, Wisconsin.

h. Both Huntington and LoCascio stated that [RVDH] never took a salary from Green Box because his wages would have been garnished by the IRS and other creditors.

i. Huntington heard [RVDH] claim to potential investors that [RVDH] had tax returns when Huntington knew [RVHD] had not filed income taxes in years and he owed back taxes for employee withholding.

Con artist Ron Van Den Heuvel mugging with HP flunky and failed GOP Presidential candiate Carly Fiorina stumping for Lyin' creep Ted Cruz. Pictured with Ron is his son-in-law, Patrick Hoffman, owner of The Creamery.

Con artist Ron Van Den Heuvel mugging with HP flunky and failed GOP Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina stumping for Lyin’ creep Ted Cruz. Pictured with Ron are his daughter Kristie and Ron’s son-in-law, Patrick R. Hoffman, owners of Creamery Cafe LLC and Elements Salon & Spa LLC.

 

Washington (July 25, 2016) — The IRS has asked U.S. Tax Court to exclude a “misleading” expert report that a Wisconsin holding company with investments in various paper mill enterprises is seeking to use in a fight over $92 million in disallowed bad debt deductions, arguing the company had unfairly refused to address issues raised in the report when asked by the agency.

In a motion in limine last week, the IRS said that throughout the litigation, VHC Inc. has consistently dodged inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the allegedly illiquid debt only to turn around and submit an expert report on those issues in a “badly disguised attempt to muddy the waters” in the case.

The [IRS] wants to bar a report prepared by Chicago-based accountant Mark G. Kucik concluding that [Sharad Tak’s] ST Paper LLC and Tak Investments LLC are unable to pay the amounts set out in promissory notes for the acquisition of entities indebted to VHC.

The IRS said that while the report would suggest otherwise, VHC itself had admitted that ST Paper had made payments under the notes.

“To allow petitioners to now file a misleading and irrelevant expert report on ST Paper’s ability to make payments, when petitioners have represented to respondent at various times that payments were made and intentionally withheld any information corroborating such payments is highly prejudicial to respondent,” the IRS said. “Since petitioners’ conduct is nothing less than dilatory, petitioners should be barred from submitting Kucik’s expert report.”

What’s more, VHC cannot rely on the report because they weren’t aware of the financial condition of ST Paper when it claimed the bad debt deductions at issue.

“The test is based on what the taxpayer knew at the time, not what the taxpayer found out years after the debt is written off,” the IRS wrote.

The case is scheduled for trial Aug. 15 in Milwaukee. VHC could not be reached Monday for comment on the motion. The IRS does not comment on pending litigation.

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 deal 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 the United Arab Emerites 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.

In 2007, however, it appeared that the debt would be repaid with an offer on the mill from Goldman Sachs-backed ST Paper, to purchase Ron Van Den Heuvel’s assets. Believing that the deal would bear fruit, VHC waived its bad debt deduction for its 2006 returns. However, VHC recanted when it learned that under a new arrangement, ST Paper would execute the sale in the form of promissory notes rather than cash payments.

VHC is represented by Robert M. Romanashko, Robert E. Dallman, Daniel B. Gerahty, Thomas R. Vance and Patrick S. Coffey of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The IRS is represented by Christa A. Gruber.

The case is VHC Inc. et al v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case number 004756-15, in  U.S. Tax Court

 

 

 

Previously, on Oneida Eye:

Facts

4.  The Debtor [GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY LLC] is a part of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s…Byzantine business structure: the Debtor owns a paper conversion facility in DePere, Wisconsin; [EcoHub Wisconsin, LLC (Eco-Hub), formerly known as Green Box Wisconsin LLC and Green Box NA Wisconsin OP LLC] uses the paper conversion facility to convert bulk paper rolls into consumer paper products, and Patriot Tissue, LLC sells the consumer paper products to customers. 

5.  While the Debtor was in receivership in the year prior to commencement of this case, Eco-Hub failed to pay rent to the Debtor, owing the Debtor with $1.386 million in back rent.  See Docket Entry #14, p.4Van Den Heuvel’s management left the Debtor without any cash at the commencement of this case.

6.  After commencement of this case, secured creditor and member, Stephen Smith (Smith) [of Illinois-based GlenArbor LLC / GlenArbor Partners Inc.] took control of the Debtor from Van Den Heuvel.  Still, Smith continues to allow Eco-Hub to occupy the Debtor’s paper conversion facility rent free.  See Docket Entries #40, #51 and #57.

7.  The Debtor’s assets – its manufacturing facility in DePere, the two Kool Units, the $1.386 million in accounts receivable (Eco-Hub’s back rent), are fully encumbered.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule D.  One of the Kool Units is in South Carolina and subject to a $200,000 possessory security interest.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule D, page 12.  The Debtor does not have any collateral to offer lenders and investors.

8.  According to the Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs, its pre-petition income for 2014, 2015 and 2016 is “unknown.”  Upon information and belief, in 2014 and part of 2015, Eco-Hub’s $74,000 monthly rent accounted for the majority of the Debtor’s revenue.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule B and Schedule G.  However, that revenue stream came to a halt in mid-2015, when the Debtor became subject to a state court receivership.

20.  The hallmark of a trustee is accountability and segregation of funds.  In re Nugelt, 142 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr. D. Del. 1992).  The premise that insiders may simply take what they need or want of the estate’s assets is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code and the fiduciary duty owed the estate and its creditorsNugelt at 666.

21.  In the instant matter, by failing to collect rent from Eco-Hub, management diverts funds from the Debtor to Eco-Hub, breaching its fiduciary duty to the estate.  Eco-Hub leased the Debtor’s facility for $74,000 per month, while that lease expired, management should not allow Eco-Hub to use its facility rent free.  The failure to collect rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to the estate.  Moreover, management’s failure to collect current rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to maximize estate assets.  In re Fall, 405B.R.863, 869 (Bankr N.D. Ohio 2009). …

24.  In order to confirm a plan, the Debtor must be able to fund it.  Income projections must not be speculative. In re Cherry, 84 B.R. 134, 139 (Bankr.N.D. Ill. 1988).

25.  In May 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, and a -$17,153 net operating loss.  See Docket Entry #40.  Similarly, in June 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, $34,306 in accounts payable, $18,903 in accrued attorney’s fees and a net loss of -$36,056.  See Docket Entry #51.  The Debtor’s downward trend continued in July, 2016.  In July 2016, the Debtor reported that it received $450 from its parent company EARTH [recently renamed  Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / RTS], which funded the opening of its bank accounts, accrued $41,212 in accounts payable and a net operating loss of -$7,234.  The Debtor failed to account for Eco-Hub’s unpaid rent in all of its MORS.  As time passes, the Debtor’s accounts payable and receivable increase. There is no evidence this trend will change.

26.  Smith testified at the § 341 meeting that Eco-Hub still does not pay rent to the Debtor because its cash flow is insufficient to pay the rent.  Smith has not provided any information indicating when that Eco-Hub will generate sufficient cash flow to pay rent.

36.  The Debtor does not have any unencumbered assets to provide collateral for new financing.  See Docket Entry #14.  When Smith obtained his General Business Security Agreement and filed his UCC-1 in the fall of 2015, while the Debtor was in receivership, Smith perfected a lien on all the Debtor’s assets, leaving the Debtor without collateral for a new lender.

37.  To date, the Debtor has not reported any operating cash flow.  Without rent revenue, the Debtor does not have cash to pay its ordinary business expenses including taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance or its administrative expenses.  See Docket Entries #40, #51, and #57, May, June and July, 2016 MORs.

38.  For years, the Debtor survived by obtaining cash from new investors, including Smith. The Debtor received $800,000 from Araujo in April 2011; $1 million from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp in October 2011; $3.2 million from Clifton Equities in October 2012; $9 million from Ability Insurance in December 2013; and $4.7 million from Smith’s company, GlenArbor, during 2014-2016.  See Docket Entry #14.

39.  Despite these [$18.7 Million in] cash infusions, the Debtor failed to pay more than $300,000 in property taxes, accrued payroll taxes, never filed a Federal tax return, and owes more than $68,000 for employee health insurance premiums, among other debts.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedules E/F.

40.  In order to proceed in chapter 11, “courts require the Debtor to do more than manifest unsubstantiated hopes.”  In re Canal Place Ltd. Partnership, 921F.2d569, 577 (5th Cir. 1991);  See also Tennessee Publishing Co. v. American Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 18, 22 (1936).

41.  In this case, the Debtor offers little hope of rehabilitation.  Although the Debtor now argues that its Kool Units establish firm footing for its financial future, no concrete information about refinancing or outside investment has been presented to the court.

42.  The Debtor’s financial circumstances changed little, if any, since the filing of its petition. Accordingly, the Debtor does not have a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.

57.  Another hurdle presented is the Debtor’s failure to file tax returns since its inception in 2011.  A confirmable plan must provide for payment of delinquent taxes within 60 months of the date of the filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C).  Although more than three months have elapsed since the filing of this bankruptcy, the Debtor has yet to retain an accountant to prepare its delinquent tax returns.  The critical tax issue remains at a standstill.

Conclusion

58.  This case should not proceed because it is a half-hearted effort by management to buy time, which is particularly demonstrated by the incomplete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs.  The Debtor’s management’s failure to collect its only source of revenue – rent – from a related, non-debtor entity, Eco-Hub, demonstrates management’s disinterest in the estate.  Without complete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, the Debtor cannot file an adequate disclosure statement or confirm a plan.  This case should be dismissed and the Debtor left to deal with its creditors outside of the bankruptcy forum.

 

 

And now:

 

NOW COMES the Debtor, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, by its attorneys, Steinhilber Swanson LLP, by Paul G. Swanson, and hereby objects to the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert the case to Chapter 7, as joined in by Ability Insurance Company. As grounds for such Objection, the Debtor asserts as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Debtor is, as has been explained in open court and at the Section 341 hearing, a repository of certain assets which are intended to be utilized in a “roll up” of several entities into a new company (hereinafter “New Co”), which will engage in the recycling of materials which would otherwise be landfilled. Specifically, New Co will have the ability to recycle 85-90% of solid waste which would otherwise go into landfills. Such solid waste is comprised of, to a large extent, paper and paper products as well as plastics.

2.  The Debtor as has been explained, was an operating entity until approximately the end of June 2015, when a receiver was appointed by certain creditors who had petitioned the Brown County Circuit Court for relief. At that time, the receiver did not have the ability to operate the business and employees were “spun off” or transferred to another related entity who resumed the business that had been the Debtor’s. It was important to continue the business in order to demonstrate the feasiblity and operational ability of the New Co component that the Debtor formed, which was basically, at that time, converting recycled tissue into consumer products such as tissues, toilet paper, and paper toweling.

3.  The Debtor’s principal, Ron Van Den Heuvel, as well as other investors, continued to work on the “roll up” into New Co over the next year, but were hampered by the fact that in July 2015, a search warrant was executed and all of the books and records of all of the entities were seized by the Brown County Sheriff. Those records were not returned until well after this bankruptcy proceeding was commenced, and even at that, were neither complete nor organized.

4.  The bankruptcy proceeding was filed in order to give the Debtor a chance to propose a Plan which would incorporate the assets and claims of the Debtor into the overall New Co operation. New Co consists of a much larger business which receives a waste stream, sorts the same, processes the waste into pulp and plastic, pelletizes the plastic and other organic waste, and uses the pulp to manufacture tissue, which is then converted into consumer products. The plastic and other organic stream is pelletized and incorporated into several products or processes.

5.  The commercial viability of the overall New Co process has been independently confirmed by outside engineering firms as well as underwriters for Piper Jaffrey [sic] who were taking an offering to market just prior to the receivership in June 2015.

6.  As a result of the receivership and subsequent seizure by law enforcement of the records of the Debtor, the offering went nowhere.

7.  It is no secret, nor has it been since the initial filing in this case, that the Debtor’s assets would be rolled into New Co and various creditors’ claims would be dealt with either in the form of payment of cash or, in the case of unsecured claims, payment over time. Additionally, some creditors are also equity holders in one or more of the entities related to the Debtor which, if the Plan is successful, will generate significant returns for such holders.

ARGUMENT

8.  Generally speaking, the assertions made by the U.S. Trustee in its Motion to Convert or Dismiss are irrelevant or untrue. Among other things, the Debtor-in-Possession disputes the assertion that Ron Van Den Heuvel (“RVDH”) has anything to do with the ongoing operations of the Debtor or, for that matter, any of the related entities. Additionally, RVDH’s past conduct has nothing whatsover to do with this “roll up” Plan, although he does have an equity interest in the companies, which will be rolled into New Co along with the assets. It should be pointed out that RVDH has personal guaranties on many of the claims in this case and any interest he may have in New Co and the attendant profits made therefrom simply serve to fund any allowed deficiency claim against him by many of the creditors of this debtor.

9.  Contrary to the U.S. Trustee’s assertion that the Debtor has no property, the Debtor has property which does not serve as collateral. New Co will be seeking approximately $174 Million in the capital markets in a combination of debt and equity, which is similar to what was projected prior to the receivership by Piper Jaffrey [sic]. Out of a portion of this, claims will be paid in this case pursuant to a Plan which will be filed in order to “roll up” the assets of the Debtor into the New Co. operation.

10.  The various assets of the Debtor, including the Kool units, will be dealt with in the Plan of Reorganization and claims against them addressed therein. Indeed, the Kool units are not absolutely necessary to New Co, but the value of them, if incorporated into New Co, is substantially greater than if they are surrendered to the secured creditor. Creditors would benefit from the utilizations of all of the Debtor’s assets, if indeed they are rolled into New Co as the use value is asserted to be greater than scrap value.

11.  The U.S. Trustee asserts that Schedule F is not complete. The Debtor-in-Possession is currently reviewing the documentation returned by the Brown County Sheriff (22 pallets of bankers boxes). The two unsecured creditors, Ferrellgas and Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC, which are alleged to have filed Proofs of Claim, are not creditors of the Debtor-in-Possession, but rather, of other entities related thereto and the Debtor will file Objections to those claims.

12.  The Debtor is not misusing the assets. Assets are being preserved for the forthcoming roll up into New Co and the Debtor asserts that the value which New Co will pay is higher than the liquidation value of the various assets of the Debtor, thus promoting the highest and best return to the creditors.

13.  The Debtor will pose a confirmable Plan which will be feasible. Absent the receivership and attendant difficulties which it caused, it is likely that New Co would be funded by this time. Substantially, the business model has not changed, the demand for this type of product and service has only gotten greater, and the technology has been further proven. The Debtor-in-Possession believes that it can successfully complete the Plan which it will propose.

14.  The Debtor categorically denies that there is any continuing loss or diminishment of the estate assets and, indeed, as stated above, asserts that creditors and equity holders will receive the highest return if the assets can be rolled into New Co as was initially contemplated at the outset and inception of the obligations to the various creditors.

15.  The Debtor asserts that it has complied with its statutory duties to complete Schedules and the Statement of Financial Affairs to the best of its ability. Lacking any kind of records until late August 2016, and given the state of the records which were returned, the Debtor has done the best it can. As a practical matter, the assets which the Debtor-in-Possession has disclosed are what it has and the value of the same is as set forth. The Debtor has been working on its Plan as opposed to “make work” which would add nothing to the overall understanding of the creditors of what will be proposed in the Plan.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. Trustee has been an impediment in this case. The creditors in this case are secured to a large extent and have sophisticated counsel. It is almost incomprehensibly [sic] to understand the rationale for the efforts put forth by the U.S. Trustee. It is clear that assets are not being wasted, but rather, preserved. The Debtor’s principals have been working tirelessly towards putting together an overall business plan for not only the assets of the Debtor-in-Possession, but many other valuable assets and processes which can be assembled and utilized very profitably to provide a service which will do much both for the environment and for taxpayers of the various municipalities which will utilize the technology, which is proven. There are many other constituencies in the roll up into New Co, all of which would be adversely affected by a dismissal of this case.

WHEREFORE, the Debtor respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion of the U.S. Trustee to Dismiss or Convert this case, and allow it proceed to Plan confirmation.

Dated: September 14, 2016

STEINHILBER SWANSON LLP
Attorneys for the Debtor
By: Paul G. Swanson

lulz

WHERE IN THE WORLD does Atty. Paul Swanson think that Stephen A. Smith’s GlenArbor Partners Inc. is going to find people that are foolish enough to blow $174 Million on Ron H. Van Den Heuvel’s expansive Green Box North America con game, fraud & swindle?!

Is GlenArbor LLC going to continue ripping off “mutilple foreign EB-5 investors” seeking U.S. visas & ‘green cards’ with Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA fraud scheme as pitched in the video below by Atty. Simon Ahn of the disgraced Green Detroit Regional Center EB-5 Immigrant Investors Program?

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 victims include Dr. Marco Araujo ($600,000), WEDC (approximately $1,300,000), Ken Dardis ($500,000), Dodi Management LLC ($100,000), and multiple foreign EB-5 investors.

Ron Van Den Heuvel also snookered Governor Rick Snyder’s Michigan Strategic Fund into “approving a resolution for issuance of up to $125 million private activity bonds to partially finance a $200 million project for Green Box NA Michigan, LLC.”

Were EB-5 immigrant investment opportunities in Wisconsin related to the statement by WI State Senator Julie Lassa at the September 9, 2015 Joint Legislative Audit Committee meeting regarding WI Gov. Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation/WEDC loans & assistance to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA even if it was suspected that Ron’s business was bogus?:

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

Oneida Eye implores our domestic & international readers to heed the warnings of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission:

  • SEC Investor Alert: Investment Scams Exploit Immigrant Investor ProgramsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services are jointly issuing this Investor Alert to warn individual investors about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as “EB-5.”

 

 

Apparently, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC did not find “the efforts put forth by the U.S. Trustee” to file a Motion to Dismiss or Convert to Chapter 7 to be “almost incomprehensibly.”

 

Instead, WEDC Joined In with the U.S. Trustee’s Motion:

Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, hereby joins the Motion to Convert to Chapter 7, or in the Alternative Dismiss, filed by the Office of the United States Trustee as Docket Event No. 59 for the reasons stated therein and to be demonstrated on the record. Dated this 15th day of September, 2016.

MURPHY DESMOND S.C. Attorneys for Creditor, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation

By: Brian P. Thill

 

Cliffton Equities, Inc. also Joined In with the U.S. Trustee, and raised further issues regarding the unauthorized removal of assets/machinery from Wisconsin which resulted in an Order of Contempt & Writ of Bodily Attachment by the Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. against Ron Van Den Heuvel:

3   Attorney Michael S. Polsky was appointed as receiver of the Debtor. The Receivership Order also enjoined and restrained the Debtor “from transferring, encumbering or otherwise disposing” any of Green Box’s assets.

4.  Debtor removed one of the Kool Manufacturing Units (“Kool Unit, No. 2”) from Wisconsin.

5.  In light of the Debtor moving Kool Unit, No 2, Cliffton obtained an Order of Contempt and Writ of Bodily Attachment against Green Box and its then manager, Ronald H. Van den Heuvel concerning the need to produce information and to return Kool Unit No. 2. A true and correct copy of this Order is attached as Exhibit A.

6.  On August 16, 2016, I emailed Green Box, inquiring whether Green Box’s insurance was being renewed and whether that insurance policy will be in effect for Kool Unit, No. 2. A true and correct copy of the August 16 Email is attached as Exhibit B.

7.  I sent follow-up emails on August 19, 2016 and August 24, 2016, but received no response.

8.  On August 31, 2016, Green Box’s counsel emailed Cliffton, attaching three documents. The email provided the following statement:

Attached is the account record from East/West Bank (DIP Accounts) showing the tax escrow for the three months per the Order. Also attached is the Declaration page which is proof of insurance. The insurance has been in force and I’m not sure what you were informed about it.

This statement did not directly address Cliffton’s counsel’s earlier inquiries. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit C. A true and correct copy of the first attached document is attached as Exhibit D. A true and correct copy of the second attached document, “Evidence of Commercial Property Insurance”, is attached as Exhibit E. A true and correct copy of the third attached document, “Certificate of Liability Insurance”, is attached as Exhibit F.

9.  On September 2, 2016, I emailed Green Box’s counsel, explaining that his previous email and attached documents did not address whether Cliffton’s collateral is covered, especially with regards to that equipment moved out of state. I requested additional information on this issue. After receiving no response, I requested this information a second time, on September 8, 2016. A true and correct copy of this email chain is attached as Exhibit G.

Dated this 16th day of September, 2016.
Brittany S. Ogden

 

 

A new wrinkle:

 

Developing…

 

 

See also:

 

 

 


Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s Scheme Partner Ron Van Den Heuvel’s “Byzantine Business Structure” And “Half-Hearted Effort By Management To Buy Time” Eviscerated By U.S. Trustee’s August 26, 2016 Motion To Dismiss Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing Of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Incinerator Scheme In U.S. Bankruptcy Court Wisconsin Eastern District Docket #16-24179-beh; UPDATE: Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt Pleading Guilty To Violating State Campaign Finance Laws Cited In Criminal Complaint Noting OSGC’s Illegal Campaign Contribution; GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE EDITORIAL BOARD: “GREEN BAY MAYOR MUST STEP DOWN”; The Guardian Published Leaked Court Documents From ‘John Doe’ Campaign Finance Investigation of WI Gov. Scott Walker

 

9/17/2016 UPDATE:

We call on the City Council to remove Schmitt from office “for cause.” A three-quarters majority, or nine of the 12 City Council members, need to approve such a move.

State statutes list “cause” as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, official misconduct, or malfeasance in office.”

Schmitt’s actions certainly qualify as malfeasance — a term often used for public officials who engage in illegal activity.

Plain and simple: Schmitt admits breaking the law. His agreement to plead guilty shows that. The criminal complaint outlines how it was done. We believe it was intentional and the seriousness of the crime is compounded by the lengths that were taken to cover it up.

When given the opportuniy to amend his campaign finance report and rectify the situation, Schmitt tried to cover it up.

Schmitt faces three charges – making false statements on his finance reports, attempting to accept funds from someone other than the reported contributor and attempting to accept funds in excess of the allowable individual contribution.

The subpoenas for the financial records of the Friends of Jim Schmitt released Monday [September 12] and the affidavit shows issues throughout the four years of the election cycle, from 2011-2015. The records show more than $16,000 in questionable or illegal donations in that time frame.

Schmitt will make his initial appearance in front of Outagamie County Judge Mitchell J. Metropolous on Oct. 5. We believe this case will continue to be a distraction and the sooner the council acts, the better.

We also believe Schmitt’s actions outlined in the affidavit and criminal complaint show a disregard for the campaign finance law, an attempt to cover up crimes and a desperation to hold onto an elected office regardless of the cost of doing so.

In this case, the cost is his job. If Schmitt won’t resign, the City Council should remove him.

 

 

9/14/2016 UPDATE:

Mayor Jim Schmitt relabeled more than a dozen illegal campaign contributions as coming from people other than the true donor, according to newly unsealed court records.

The documents – prosecutor affidavits seeking authorization to subpoena Schmitt’s bank records – show a larger number and variety of violations than were listed in a criminal complaint filed last week in Brown County Circuit Court.

The affidavits made public Monday show widespread campaign finance reporting issues spanning the full four years of Schmitt’s previous term in office. The records had been sealed since they were initially filed in June 2015.

According to the records:

» Schmitt accepted donations over the legal limit of $1,040 from 20 individuals. In all, the excess donations totaled $11,175.

Schmitt returned just $370 to two of the individuals in January 2015 after some aldermen complained about the violations. Schmitt relabeled the remaining 18 donations as coming from the original donors’ family members.

» Schmitt accepted $2,550 from nine businesses. State law prohibits corporations from donating to political campaigns. Schmitt returned just four of those donations.

» Two donors wrote checks directly to a third party who purchased tables for $325 at a fundraiser. Landgraf noted the transactions are highly irregular.

“In my review of campaign finance account records over the past 10 years, I cannot recall ever seeing this type of check ‘sign-over,'” Landgraf wrote in an affidavit.

 

Related:

Six years after the supreme court opened the floodgates on money in politics with its Citizens United decision, most Americans are well aware how broken our campaign finance system has become. Eighty-four percent of us say there’s too much money in politics, according to a New York Times poll, and two out of three say the wealthy have more influence than everyone else.

Voters understand that intuitively. But rarely is it possible to actually see inside the inner workings of our rigged campaign finance system and observe how the wealthy and powerful exploit it for their own benefit.

That’s what 1,500 pages worth of leaked documents, obtained by the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, allow us to do. They reveal internal emails that show connections between Wisconsin’s Governor Scott Walker, his aides and wealthy donors – including Donald Trump. The contents are both depressingly predictable and outrageous.

In addition to Trump, many of the most powerful and wealthy rightwing figures in the nation crop up in the files: from Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, hedge-fund manager Paul Singer and Las Vegas casino giant Sheldon Adelson, to magnate Carl Icahn. “I got $1 million from John Menard today,” Walker says in one email, referring to the billionaire owner of the home improvement chain Menards.

Among the new material contained in the documents are donations amounting to $750,000 to a third-party group closely aligned to Walker from [Harold Simmons] the owner of NL Industries, a company that historically produced lead paint. Within the same timeframe as the donations, the Republican-controlled legislature passed new laws making it much more difficult for victims of lead paint poisoning to sue NL Industries and other former lead paint manufacturers (the laws were later overturned in the federal courts).

The John Doe files also provide new insight into the extensive efforts made by allies of Scott Walker to help a conservative member of the Wisconsin supreme court, David Prosser, hang onto his seat in a 2011 re-election. A network of like-minded groups and campaigners channeled $3.5m in undisclosed corporate funds to pay for TV and radio ads backing the judge.

The push was seen as vital, the documents disclose, as a means of retaining the rightwing majority of the court and thereby preserving the anti-union measures introduced by Walker. “If we lose [Justice Prosser], the Walker agenda is toast,” one ally writes in an email sent around to the governor’s chief of staff and several conservative lobbyists.

In 2015, Justice Prosser refused to recuse himself from a case in which the state supreme court sat in judgment over the John Doe investigation, despite the fact that the investigation focused on precisely the same network of lobbying groups and donors that had helped him hang onto his seat. The judge joined a majority of four conservative justices who voted to terminate the investigation and destroy all the documents now leaked to the Guardian.

______________________________
See also:

______________________________

Another example of the pattern is the casual comment Walker dropped into an email to his fundraiser dated 14 June 2011:“Also, I got $1m from John Menard today.”Eight days later a check for $1 million is cut on a corporate check of Menard Inc, the billionaire John Menard’s home improvement chain Menards, and made out not to the governor’s campaign committee but to Wisconsin Club for Growth. There the donation remained a secret until the publication of the Guardian’s leaked files. …

The email trail shows a pattern of behavior developing: Walker meets up with big corporate donors and encourages them to contribute unlimited sums of money through WCfG in secret, then shortly after the checks start to flow. In June 2011, the emails show, the governor had dinner with the CEO of the largest privately owned trucking company in the US, Schneider National [a tenant of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation], in the hope of getting him and his peers to donate $250,000. 

“Stress the donations to [Wisconsin Club For Growth] are not disclosed and can accept Corporate donations without limits,” Walker’s talking points said.

Two checks are recorded in the John Doe files from Schneider, both made out to WCfG and totalling $65,000.

The Schneider checks, like several others included in the files, were cut on corporate checks in the name of the company itself. It has long been a rule under Wisconsin state law, commonly known as the “corporate ban”, that corporations are not allowed to make direct political donations; they are only allowed to fund third-party groups that have to be fully independent of candidates, or spend money themselves on political TV advertising so long as the expenditure is declared. …

The John Doe files reveal that [Harold Simmons,] the billionaire owner of NL Industries, one of America’s leading producers of lead used in paint until the ban, secretly donated $750,000 to Wisconsin Club for Growth at a time when Walker and his fellow Republican senators were fighting their recall elections. Also in the same time-frame, the Republican-controlled senate passed, and Walker signed into law, legal changes that attempted to grant effective immunity to lead manufacturers from any compensation claims for lead paint poisoning.

Since the laws were passed, the federal courts have stepped in and overturned key elements of them, leaving NL Industries – or National Lead Company as it was once known – still facing many legal challenges. But the point remains: had the new provisions been allowed to stand, they had the potential to save the company and others like it millions of dollars in damages.

Lawyers working on the lawsuits argue that at stake were the rights of hundreds of children from poor urban areas whose lives were devastated by lead poisoning inhaled from paint when they were growing up. “These children were perfectly innocent. They entered life with all the gifts and health that God gave them and were devastated by this neurotoxin,” said Peter Earle, the principal attorney on 171 cases that are currently ongoing against NL Industries and other former manufacturers of lead paint.

Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature made an initial attempt to change the law on the liability of lead paint producers shortly after Walker became governor. As the name implied, Act 2 was one of his opening gambits that he rammed through the legislature in less than a month after he came to office in January 2011. 

One of Act 2’s key provisions was to tighten tort law to make it much more difficult for lead victims to sue. …

The measure in effect granted immunity to NL Industries and other lead producers from any new claims for compensation.

Less than three months after the law was enacted, Simmons arranged for the first and largest check– of $500,000 – to be paid directly from Contran Corporation, his business empire, to Wisconsin Club for Growth. It landed at the time that the six senators were in their recall battles.

Later that year, Walker’s interest in soliciting more money from Simmons for use in his own personal recall election is made plain in an email among the John Doe files dated 14 November 2011. It was written by Keith Gilkes, Walker’s then senior campaign adviser. … 

The Gilkes memo sets out for Walker some of the “red flags” associated with Simmons and other potential corporate donors “so you are aware of what you might need to defend in terms of contributions from donors when these are disclosed”. He warns Walker that [Harold] Simmons had a controversial track record for reportedly dumping toxic waste in Texas. Gilkes pointed to an article by Dallas Magazine in which the billionaire was dubbed “Dallas’ most evil genius”. The memo also notes that Simmons avoided having to pay millions of dollars in damages to pay for medical treatment for child victims of lead poisoning in Wisconsin’s largest city Milwaukee after an appeals court cleared NL Industries of causing a public nuisance and dismissed a lawsuit brought by the city for $52.6 million.

[O]nly a month later, a second corporate check from Contran Corporation for $100,000 was sent to [Wisconsin Club for Growth]. 

At this point, the Wisconsin legislature and Governor Walker made a renewed pitch to change the law to the benefit of NL Industries and other historic manufacturers of lead paint. They had already passed Act 2, but that only covered new claims, leaving the company still facing a mountain of lawsuits that were already ongoing.

So the legislators had another go. In the same month as the third check landed, senate Republicans introduced a bill that would make the effective immunity for former lead paint manufacturers retroactive, thereby scuppering all existing lawsuits. 

That attempt failed to pass the Wisconsin legislature. But even then the Republican group did not give up. In 2013, after all the recall elections had been fought and won, partly with the benefit of Harold Simmons’ support, the legislators tried one more time to pass a bill making the immunity retroactive. 

Another FOIA document shows that NL Industries’ lobbyist directly suggested to the Republican leader in the state senate the language that should be added to existing law to make the effective immunity retroactive. …

Two months later GOP senators slipped into a budget bill an amendment that contained the same four words proposed by NL Industries: “whenever filed or accrued”. The amendment was introduced after midnight just before the bill was finalized. It can be found by anyone who looks hard enough on page 548 of a 603-page bill that Scott Walker duly signed into law. 

NL Industries used the amendment to press for dismissal of the negligence lawsuits it was facing. But the move failed. A federal appeals court stepped in and ruled that such a retroactive granting of corporate immunity was a violation of the US constitution.

As for Scott Walker, [Peter Earle, the principal attorney on 171 cases that are currently ongoing against NL Industries and other former manufacturers of lead paint] said: “The governor has chosen to ignore the children and instead fought tooth and nail for the corporations that did this. I don’t have words to describe that conduct.”

 

[I]n July 2014 a federal appeals court ruled that a lawsuit by one of those children could continue despite the 2013 state law. The boy who suffered lead poisoning can sue a half dozen major manufacturers of paint used on the Milwaukee house where he lived, based on a theory approved in a controversial 2005 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled.

In an interview Wednesday, the boy’s attorney, Peter Earle, said he was “trembling with rage” at the news of the contributions by the industry, saying that they were meant to block claims by “the most vulnerable among us.” He said that Republican leaders in Wisconsin had benefited from industry money and then acted to try to retroactively block lawsuits by children harmed by lead paint.

“What I see is a corrupt morass of government in Wisconsin that has been fueled by corporate money,” Earle said. “How can people have faith in a system like that?”

State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) said he was shocked by the lead paint company’s donations.

“He answers first and foremost to large donors and that’s kind of underscored in the lead paint (example),” Erpenbach said of Walker.

He said it was frustrating the state Supreme Court had concluded prosecutors weren’t allowed to look into whether there was a connection between the money from the lead paint industry and legislation helping it. He said conservatives on the state court benefited from their own decision to shut down the investigation into these contributions.

“A majority of the Supreme Court benefitted directly from the dark money that flowed into this state,” he said.

The investigation focused on whether Walker’s campaign had illegally coordinated with the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative groups. The documents released Wednesday once again made clear the GOP governor was active in raising money for the group.

One donor gave the group $10,000 in 2011, writing on the check’s memo line that he made the contribution “because Scott Walker asked.”

It was not clear who leaked the documents to the Guardian. Some of them have been already disclosed during various court cases and reported by the Journal Sentinel, among other media outlets, while others have never been released before because they were filed under seal or never showed up in court documents at all.

 

The release comes weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider a petition by the prosecutors to overturn a Wisconsin Supreme Court 4-2 decision quashing the investigation. The documents provide additional insight into why the prosecutors argue conservative justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser should have recused themselves from the case.

Walker, in a May 2011 letter to Republican strategist Karl Rove, wrote that his chief political adviser R.J. Johnson ran the efforts to elect Gableman in 2008 and re-elect Prosser in 2011. Johnson was under investigation for his role in coordinating advertising for both the Walker recall campaign and Wisconsin Club for Growth. … 

The documents reveal previously unknown donations to the group, such as $750,000 from [Harold Simmons] the billionaire owner of NL Industries, which produced lead used in paint before it was banned, given in three checks in April and December 2011 and January 2012. The company stood to benefit from laws Walker and the Republican Legislature passed in 2011 and 2013 that granted immunity to lead manufacturers from lawsuits seeking damages for lead poisoning. …

Previously released court documents showed mining company Gogebic Taconite gave the group $700,000. Walker and Republicans later eased mining regulations to help the company build an iron ore mine that ultimately fizzled.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court halted the secret investigation last year saying it was based on an invalid legal theory. The court also initially ordered all of the evidence, much of which the Guardian obtained from an unnamed source, be destroyed. It later ordered the evidence be turned over to it for safekeeping, though that won’t happen until all appeals of its decision are exhausted.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to review the petition to hear the case on Sept. 26. It could decide whether to accept or reject the case soon after.

Since the state Supreme Court’s ruling, the Republican-controlled Legislature changed state law to clarify that the activities being investigated are legal. Specifically the law allows campaigns to coordinate with so-called issue advocacy groups.

In a court filing last month…the prosecutors noted that the new law did not include a provision retroactively legalizing activity that was previously prohibited.

“Accordingly, respondents who are subjects of the investigation may yet be prosecuted,” they wrote.

 

9/12/2016 UPDATE:

Monday morning, FOX 11 Investigates received the returns and requests for each subpoena, which were filed and sealed in September of [2015]. …

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

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

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

 

 

9/9/2016 UPDATE:

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt has agreed to plead guilty to three misdemeanor charges of violating state campaign finance laws [in Brown Co. Case No. 2016CM1239.]

These charges in and of themselves would not disqualify him from being mayor of Green Bay, but the lengths he went to hide mistakes, deceive the public and finesse the law do.

In this case, we call for Jim Schmitt to resign as mayor.

Schmitt was accused of accepting illegal campaign donations and falsifying information on his campaign finance reports.

On Wednesday, after an investigation that lasted over a year, the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office filed three criminal charges against the mayor: an attempt to make false statements to an election official, an attempt to accept campaign contributions not belonging to a contributor and an attempt to accept campaign contributions in excess of limits.

Each one of these is a felony offense, but under the plea deal, by calling each count an “attempt” to break election laws, Schmitt pleads guilty to three Class A misdemeanors instead of felonies.

Bruce Landgraf, the Milwaukee County assistant district attorney who conducted the investigation, outlined the agreement in a letter to Schmitt’s attorney. “Upon Mr. Schmitt’s plea of guilty to the charges contained in the complaint, I will recommend a disposition that does not include jail or probation,” Landgraf wrote.

That’s a good deal for Schmitt, but not for the citizens of Green Bay.

It adds to the reputation of a dysfunctional city government as the mayor and his critics on the City Council have feuded to the point of yelling, swearing and bickering at public meetings.

Even if you can set aside those power struggles, you can’t ignore a criminal complaint that shows deliberate attempts to get around the law when donors made contributions that exceeded limits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a ruse to keep two $25 donations.

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

That’s what troubles us the most.

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

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

It erodes the public’s trust. In a presidential election year when voters are presented with two candidates whose ethics they question, we’d like to think that on the local level we can count on our leaders to do the right thing.

Sadly, that’s not the case here.

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

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

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

 

See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:

 

9/8/2016 UPDATE:

A constitutional amendment ratified in 1996 bars any person   convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving the violation of public trust from holding a state or local office. … 

This could be the test case that a lot of us in the political arena have been waiting for,” said Michael Maistelman, a Milwaukee attorney who specializes in representing elected officials accused of breaking election and campaign finance laws.

If this isn’t a violation of the public trust, I don’t know what is,” Maistelman said. … 

Criminal campaign finances cases against local government officials aren’t common, but do come up every few years in Wisconsin.

Former Kenosha County Executive Allan Kehl was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty [to] conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws in 2008 [for having “accepted envelopes stuffed with $100 bills from American Indian casino-backer and former trucking magnate Dennis Troha“].

 

See Oneida Eye’s reporting on the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s corrupt & failed Kenosha casino proposal:

 

 

9/7/2016 UPDATE:

GREEN BAY MAYOR JIM SCHMITT TO PLEAD GUILTY OF VIOLATING STATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS

Page 3, Corporate Contributions:

Also discussed in the Affidavit in Support of a Subpoena for the campaign finnace bank records filed as part of a subpoena return on September 15, 2015, prior to the filing amendments, the Schmit campaign had accepted contributions from corporations.

For example, the September 30, 2011 Oneida Seven Generations Corporation contribution of $500, the October 14, 2011 JPTR LLC [property management company for which the ‘Registered Agent’ is John Calewarts] contribution of $250, and the April 8, 2014 Lin Liebmann Wied LLC [law firm] contribution of $500 were publicly reported in the name of the business. These were returned to the contributors.

While it was ultimately determined that over the years a number of corporate checks were accepted and not returned, the investigation concentrated on violations of a different nature.

[Footnote: From 2011 to 2014, about ten contributions were accepted from corporations and not returned as of September 2015.]

 

Media coverage:

Green Bay Aldermen Chris Wery, who asked for the investigation into Schmitt’s campaign finances in late 2014, said the investigation didn’t go far enough by looking into alleged illegal corporate donations.

“If you’re going to do a full investigation, why not address everything and put charges out for everything, not just ignore it?” Wery questioned. “And secondly, these are all felonies according to state statutes. They’re all felonies and yet they were all reduced to misdemeanors.”

This is a black eye for Green Bay,” says Alderman Andy Nicholson, one of three city council members who called for an audit of Schmitt’s campaign funds in January 2015. “Having a mayor brought up on charges like this, this is corruption. The mayor also put his personal interest before the public and that is terrible. He should resign because of that.”

Ald. Nicholson, along with Chris Wery and Guy Zima, pointed out about $10,000 worth of illegally or improperly recorded contributions to Schmitt’s re-election campaign. Nicholson expressed frustration with the results of this investigation.

These are felonies that are dropped down to misdemeanors. They should show what else is out there also, they should show the public every single violation which are basically felonies,” Nicholson said. “He was taking illegal contributions for over a decade. He (Schmitt) knows the law, he believes that he’s above the law.

 

A website has appeared calling for Jim Schmitt to resign:

 

Developing…

___________________________________________

 

a:   of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation;

b:   intricately involved;  labyrinthine;

 

Merriam-Webster goes on to explain:

The figurative sense of labyrinthine deviousness first appeared in the late 1930s. It was popularized by its frequent use in reference to the Soviet Union, whose secrecy and despotism were equated by Westerners with what went on in the old Byzantine Empire.

 

Of all the court documents that Oneida Eye has purchased and posted recently, the Editors felt the following one deserved special attention due to the many parallels between the devious & surreptitious (mis)conduct of business operations by Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay LLC and Ron’s business partners Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and OSGC’s subsidiaries Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC and Oneida Energy Inc., the Boards of which are appointed are overseen by the Oneida Business Committee:

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

In re: Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, Debtor

Case No. 16-24179-beh (Chapter 11)

 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR
CONVERT CASE TO CHAPTER 7

The United States Trustee Patrick S. Layng, by Attorney Amy J. Ginsberg, moves, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(1), for an order dismissing Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s (the Debtor) chapter 11 case because (1) the Debtor’s management is not acting in the best interests of the estate; the Debtor cannot propose a confirmable plan;  (2) the estate is experiencing substantial and continuing losses; there is no reasonable likelihood rehabilitation;  (3) the Debtor’s Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs are incomplete;  and (4) the estate is administratively insolvent.  In support of this motion, the United States Trustee alleges:

Introduction

1.  The Debtor has fundamental, inescapable financial problems, principally it lacks cash.  The Debtor had no cash at the time this case was commenced and has not grossed any cash from its operations.  In three months, the Debtor reported receiving $450 from its parent company, EARTH [Editors’ Note: Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC which recently renamed itself Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / RTS, as opposed to Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC / EARTH 2, for which WDFI.org lists the  ‘Registered Agent’ as EARTH/RTS] , to open the Debtor-in-Possession bank accounts. See Docket Entry #57.  The Debtor relies on cash from related, non-debtor entities to pays its ordinary operating expenses.  Without any cash, the Debtor cannot confirm a plan.

2.  Next, the Debtor’s primary prospect for cash flow relies on third party investment in its two “Kool Units”.  The Kool Units recycle used tires into a variety of commercial products, including carbon black.  The Debtor’s ability to reach third-party investors is questionable because:  (1) while one Kool Unit is assembled and ready to operate, the second Kool Unit lies unassembled in South Carolina;  (2) the Debtor may not control the South Carolina Kool Unit;  (3) the Debtor never operated any Kool Unit on a commercial basis; (4) the Debtor does not own the technology or hold a license to operate the Kool Units.  See Schedule B, Question #60. See Docket Entry #14, p. 8. The Debtor has not provided any proof of any ready and willing investors.

3.  Finally, the Debtor’s management fails to act in the best interest of this estate.  In order to bolster related tenant [EcoHub Wisconsin, LLC (Eco-Hub), formerly known as Green Box Wisconsin LLC, and prior to that Green Box NA Wisconsin OP LLC], management defers collecting rent due from Eco-Hub, leaving the Debtor without cash from the use of its paper conversion facility.  When management sacrifices estate assets to preserve a non-debtor entity, dismissal of this case is appropriate.

Facts

4.  The Debtor is a part of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s (Van Den Heuvel) Byzantine business structure: the Debtor owns a paper conversion facility in DePere, Wisconsin; [EcoHub Wisconsin, LLC (Eco-Hub), formerly known as Green Box Wisconsin LLC and Green Box NA Wisconsin OP LLC] uses the paper conversion facility to convert bulk paper rolls into consumer paper products, and Patriot Tissue, LLC sells the consumer paper products to customers.

5.  While the Debtor was in receivership in the year prior to commencement of this case, Eco-Hub failed to pay rent to the Debtor, owing the Debtor with $1.386 million in back rent.  See Docket Entry #14, p.4. Van Den Heuvel’s management left the Debtor without any cash at the commencement of this case.

6.  After commencement of this case, secured creditor and member, Stephen Smith (Smith) [of GlenArbor LLC / GlenArbor Partners Inc.] took control of the Debtor from Van Den Heuvel.  Still, Smith continues to allow Eco-Hub to occupy the Debtor’s paper conversion facility rent free.  See Docket Entries #40, #51 and #57.

7.  The Debtor’s assets – its manufacturing facility in DePere, the two Kool Units, the $1.386 million in accounts receivable (Eco-Hub’s back rent), are fully encumbered.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule D.  One of the Kool Units is in South Carolina and subject to a $200,000 possessory security interest.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule D, page 12.  The Debtor does not have any collateral to offer lenders and investors.

8.  According to the Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs, its pre-petition income for 2014, 2015 and 2016 is “unknown.”  Upon information and belief, in 2014 and part of 2015, Eco-Hub’s $74,000 monthly rent accounted for the majority of the Debtor’s revenue.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedule B and Schedule G.  However, that revenue stream came to a halt in mid-2015, when the Debtor became subject to a state court receivership.

9.  The Debtor’s reliance on the Kool Units to generate cash remains speculative.  The Debtor’s Chairman, Smith testified about the Kool Units at the § 341 meetings.  Although Smith testified that the Debtor can be paid to recycle tires, minimizing the upfront costs, the Debtor has not entered into any contracts for tire recycling.

10.  In addition, the Debtor disclosed that it does not own the second Kool Unit. According to Schedule B, the Debtor is a member of a joint venture, PC-ARM, LLC, which owns the second Kool Unit. Upon information and belief, Advanced Resources Materials, which is part of the PC-ARM joint venture, moved the second Kool Unit to South Carolina to perfect its possessory securityinterest.  Smith also testified that the South Carolina Kool Unit cannot be operated because it is not assembled. To date,operation of the Kool Units have not generated any cash for the estate.

 

Editors’ Notes for disambiguation:

The Wiscsonsin Dept. of Financial Institutions’ website – WDFI.org – lists the following:

  • PC-ARM LLC, for which the ‘Registered Agent’ is Ed M. Kolasinski and the address is 2077 Lawrence Dr., De Pere, WI 54155, which renamed itself PC-ARM LLC on January 16, 2016 after organizing under the name Eco Hub Wisconsin LLC on January 5, 2016. (Did you get that? Eco (space) Hub Wisconsin LLC, as opposed to Ecohub (no space) Wisconsin LLC, for which the ‘Registered Agent’ is Stephen A. Smith, and which was previoulsy named Green Box Wisconsin LLC, and Green Box NA Wisconsin OP LLC before that.)
  • GB-ARM LLC, which also lists 2077 Lawrence Dr., De Pere, WI 54155 as its address, and for which the ‘Registered Agent’ was changed to Green Box NA Green Bay LLC on June 30, 2016,

Related:

Note that the addresses for both Crossgate Partners, LLC & Advanced Resource Materials, LLC, have the same street number but a different street name, and while there is a ‘7320 McGinnis Ferry Rd.’ in Suwanee, GA, there does not appear to be any ‘7320 Mathis Ferry Rd.’ anywhere in Suwanee, GA, or at all for that matter.

The September 3, 2014 UCC Filing Statement with WDFI lists the ‘Name of Contact’ as Atty. Roger Stanton of the lawfirm Cohen Norris Wolmer Ray Telepman Cohen based in North Palm Beach, FL.

The July 29, 2015 UCC Filing Statement with WDFI lists the ‘Name of Contact’ as Ty Willihnganz of Ty Will Law, LLC, who is currently under ‘Disciplinary Review’ by the Wisconsin State Bar’s Office of Lawyer Regulation, and who – along with other former employees of Ron Van Den Heuvel – is still trying to get seized property back from the Brown Co. Sheriff’s Dept.

Note that the July 29, 2015 UCC Filing falls after the date that Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, was put into Receivership by the Brown Co. Court in June of 2015.

Did Ty Willihnganz help Ron Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, file false documents with WDFI regarding the illegal out-of-state transfer of property under the control of Receiver Michael S. Polsky, Esq., after the Receivership had been established to a pre-Receivership creditor who should have been involved in the Receivership?

Oh, and lookee here…

NEW!  8/30/2016 COURT FILING:

 

Back to the August 26, 2016 U.S. Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert Case to Chapter , U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC:

11.  The Debtor’s ability to operate the Kool Units is further complicated by the fact that it does not own the technology necessary to operate them. According to Schedule B, “Debtor appears to have the non-exclusive rights to use certain patents owned by Ron Van Den Heuvel or a controlled entity but has been advised that the IP license fee was never paid nor for that matter liquidated.  Debtor is negotiating this isuuse [sic]. IP is essential to the operation of the business.”  Docket Entry #14, Schedule B, Question 60 (emphasis added).

12.  Another problem in this case concerns the Debtor’s Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, which are not complete or accurate.  Van Den Heuel did not participate in the preparation of the Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs.  In preparing the Debtor’s Schedules, Smith relied on an inventory prepared by Van Den Heuvel in 2015.  This inventory is not accurate, identifying Eco-Hub as the owner of the Kool Units.  Other omissions include information readily available on CCAP, obtainable from a UCC search, a wall-to-wall inventory or by contacting the appropriate government agency.

13.  The Debtor’s tax situation is also complicated.  The Debtor has not filed any tax returns.  Tax liability is critical information for creditors and the Court.

14.  Upon information and belief, the Debtor sponsored an ERISA retirement plan.  The Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs do not contain any information about the ERISA plan or provide notice to employees who might have claims based on the Debtor’s failure to remit funds to the ERISA plan.

15.  Schedule F is not complete.  Two unscheduled creditors, Ferrellgas, Inc. and Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC, filed proofs of claims.  See Claims Register, Claims #1 and #4.

Law and Argument

16.  The Bankruptcy Code provides that “on request of a party-in-interest, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interest of creditors and the estate, for cause ….” 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1).

17.  Examples of “cause” to convert or dismiss are provided by statute. 11 U.S. C. § 1112(b)(4).  Although this list is different from the pre-BAPCPA list, the fact that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive has not changed. In re Attack Props., LLC, 478 B.R. 337, 344 (N. D. Ill. 2012).

18.  Once the movant establishes cause, in the absence of special circumstances, the bankruptcy court must dismiss or convert the chapter 11 case. 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). In re TCR of Denver, 338 B.R. 494, 498 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2006).  As set forth below, many grounds exist to establish cause for dismissal of this case.

Cause for Dismissal: Misuse of Estate Assets for the Benefit of Eco-Hub
11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1) Cause for Dismissal

19.  The Debtor is a fiduciary to the estate and to creditors.  The bankruptcy system relies on managing employees to carry out the fiduciary responsibilities of a trustee.  Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343, 355 (1985) (citing Wolf v. Weinstein, 372 U.S. 633, 649-52 (1963)).

20.  The hallmark of a trustee is accountability and segregation of funds.  In re Nugelt, 142 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr. D. Del. 1992).  The premise that insiders may simply take what they need or want of the estate’s assets is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code and the fiduciary duty owed the estate and its creditors. Nugelt at 666.

21.  In the instant matter, by failing to collect rent from Eco-Hub, management diverts funds from the Debtor to Eco-Hub, breaching its fiduciary duty to the estate.  Eco-Hub leased the Debtor’s facility for $74,000 per month, while that lease expired, management should not allow Eco-Hub to use its facility rent free.  The failure to collect rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to the estate.  Moreover, management’s failure to collect current rent from Eco-Hub amounts to a breach of fiduciary duty to maximize estate assets.  In re Fall, 405B.R.863, 869 (Bankr N.D. Ohio 2009).

22.  Management’s diversion of rent from the estate is cause for dismissal of this case.  See In re Fall at 869-870; 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b).

Cause for Dismissal: The Debtor Cannot Propose
a Confirmable Plan
11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)

23.  Even after the 2005 BAPCPA amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy courts continue to hold that cause to convert or dismiss a case includes failure to propose a confirmable plan.  “The very purpose of § 1112(b) is to cut short this plan and confirmation process where it is pointless.”  In re Local Union 722 Int’l. Bhd. of Teamsters, 414 B.R. 443, 446 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Matter of Woodbrook Associates, 19 F. 3d 312,  316 (7th Cir. 1994));  In re DCNC North Carolina I, LLC, 407 B.R. 651, 665 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009) (“Fundamental bankruptcy policy continues to support the proposition that the inability to propose a feasible reorganization or liquidation plan provides “cause” for dismissal or conversion of a chapter 11 case on request of an interested party …. [T]he inability … to effectuate a plan, by itself, provides cause for dismissal or conversion of a chapter 11 case.”).  See also, In re SHAP, 457 B.R. 625, 628 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2011).

24.  In order to confirm a plan, the Debtor must be able to fund it.  Income projections must not be speculative. In re Cherry, 84 B.R. 134, 139 (Bankr.N.D. Ill. 1988).

25.  In May 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, and a -$17,153 net operating loss.  See Docket Entry #40.  Similarly, in June 2016, the Debtor reported that it had no cash, no cash flow, $34,306 in accounts payable, $18,903 in accrued attorney’s fees and a net loss of -$36,056.  See Docket Entry #51.  The Debtor’s downward trend continued in July, 2016.  In July 2016, the Debtor reported that it received $450 from its parent company EARTH [recently renamed  Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / RTS], which funded the opening of its bank accounts, accrued $41,212 in accounts payable and a net operating loss of -$7,234.  The Debtor failed to account for Eco-Hub’s unpaid rent in all of its MORS.  As time passes, the Debtor’s accounts payable and receivable increase. There is no evidence this trend will change.

26.  Smith testified at the § 341 meeting that Eco-Hub still does not pay rent to the Debtor because its cash flow is insufficient to pay the rent.  Smith has not provided any information indicating when that Eco-Hub will generate sufficient cash flow to pay rent.

27.  The Debtor claims that the Kool Units are ready to generate cash flow and that used tires for recycling in the Kool Units can be obtained at no cost.  Despite this opportunity to generate cash, since the commencement of this case, the Debtor has yet to recycle any tires on a commercial basis or sell any carbon black.  In addition, the second Kool Unit is in South Carolina, is not assembled and subject to a $200,000 possessory security interest of Advanced Resources Materials.  In addition, the Debtor cannot operate the Kool Units until it obtains a license to use the necessary technology.  The Debtor’s ability to generate cash from recycling tires in the Kool Units remains speculative.

28.  Smith argues that the Kool Units’ unique process will generate cash from third-party investors.  However, until investors deposit cash into the Debtor’s bank account, the interest of third-party investors also remains speculative.  Anticipation of investment cannot fund a chapter 11 plan.

29.  The Debtor’s total lack of cash, combined with failure to generate any cash from its paper conversion facility or from operating the Kool Units, demonstrates that the Debtor cannot fund a plan, which constitutes cause for dismissal of this case. 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(1)(M).

Cause for Dismissal: Continuing Loss or Diminution of the Estate and Absence of a Reasonable Likelihood of Reorganization
11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)(A)

30.  Continuing or substantial loss to the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of reorganization is grounds for dismissal or conversion of a chapter 11 case.  11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A).

31.  Cause for dismissal under this section of the United States Bankruptcy Code requires the movant to prove two elements – (1) continuing or substantial loss to the estate;  and (2) the absence of a reasonable likelihood of reorganization.  In re Creekside Senior Living Apartment, LP, 489 B.R. 51, 61 (6th Cir. BAP 2013).

32.  Continuing loss or diminution of the estate can be proven in this case in several ways: (1) by negative cash flow:  In re Loop Corp.v.U.S.Trustee (In re Loop Corp.), 379F.3d511, 515 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, Loop Corp. v. United States Tr., 543 U.S. 1055 (2005);  (2) failure to collect post-petition rent: In re CCN Realty Corp., 23 B.R. 261, 264 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 1982);  and (3) reliance on a non-debtor to pay ordinary business expenses: In re Hassen Imps. P’ship v. City ofW. Convina (In re Hassen Imps. P’ship), 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 3870 at *40 (9th Cir. BAP 2013) (inability to pay obligations without outside money establishes loss to the estate.)

33.  In the instant matter, the movant can establish substantial and continuing operating losses to the estate by all three methods discussed above, meeting the first prong of 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A).  In its monthly operating reports (MORs), the Debtor reported accrued net operating losses: May 2016, -$17,153 and June 2016, -$36,056 and July 2016. -$6,793.  See Docket Entries #41, #51 and 57.  Next, the Debtor did not report collecting any post-petition rent in May or June of this year nor did it take any action to collect the more than $1 million in back rent.  See Docket Entries #40, #51 and #57.  Finally, the Debtor relies on other entities to pay its operating expenses. EARTH [recently renamed Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / RTS], which owns 79% of the Debtor, used $450 to fund the initial deposits opening the Debtor’s bank accounts.  See Docket Entry # 57, page 4.  Eco-Hub paid the Debtor’s counsel’s retainer, and other entities pay its utilities, insurance, maintenance and repairs.  See Docket Entry #4.

34.  The second element of 11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(4)(A), the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, can be demonstrated when the debtor (1) does not have unencumbered assets to serve as assets for refinancing: Paccar Financial Corp. v. Pappas, 17B.R.662, 666 (Bankr.D. Mass. 1982);  (2) has no operating income: CCN Realty Corp at 262;  and (3) is unable to service its debt at the outset of the case and remains unable to do so for the foreseeable future: In re Fall, 405B.R. 863, 869 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2009).

35.  Like the first prong of 11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(4)(A), the evidence demonstrates the absence of a reasonable likelihood of the Debtor’s rehabilitation.  Rehabilitation signifies more than reorganization; “rehabilitation means to put back in good condition, reestablish on a firm-sound basis.” Loop Corp. at 108; In re Fall at 868.  As one court stated, “[T]his is not a technical [test] to see if the debtor can confirm a plan, but rather, whether the debtor’s business prospects justify continuance of the reorganization effort.”  In re Original IFPC Solutions, Inc., 317B.R.738, 742 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2004).

36.  The Debtor does not have any unencumbered assets to provide collateral for new financing.  See Docket Entry #14.  When Smith obtained his General Business Security Agreement and filed his UCC-1 in the fall of 2015, while the Debtor was in receivership, Smith perfected a lien on all the Debtor’s assets, leaving the Debtor without collateral for a new lender.

37.  To date, the Debtor has not reported any operating cash flow.  Without rent revenue, the Debtor does not have cash to pay its ordinary business expenses including taxes, utilities, insurance, repairs and maintenance or its administrative expenses.  See Docket Entries #40, #51, and #57, May, June and July, 2016 MORs.

38.  For years, the Debtor survived by obtaining cash from new investors, including Smith. The Debtor received $800,000 from Araujo in April 2011; $1 million from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp in October 2011; $3.2 million from Clifton Equities in October 2012; $9 million from Ability Insurance in December 2013; and $4.7 million from Smith’s company, GlenArbor, during 2014-2016.  See Docket Entry #14.

39.  Despite these [$18.7 Million in] cash infusions, the Debtor failed to pay more than $300,000 in property taxes, accrued payroll taxes, never filed a Federal tax return, and owes more than $68,000 for employee health insurance premiums, among other debts.  See Docket Entry #14, Schedules E/F.

40.  In order to proceed in chapter 11, “courts require the Debtor to do more than manifest unsubstantiated hopes.”  In re Canal Place Ltd. Partnership, 921F.2d569, 577 (5th Cir. 1991);  See also Tennessee Publishing Co. v. American Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 18, 22 (1936).

41.  In this case, the Debtor offers little hope of rehabilitation.  Although the Debtor now argues that its Kool Units establish firm footing for its financial future, no concrete information about refinancing or outside investment has been presented to the court.

42.  The Debtor’s financial circumstances changed little, if any, since the filing of its petition. Accordingly, the Debtor does not have a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.

43.  Therefore, there is cause for dismissal of this case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(B).

Cause for Dismissal: The Debtor Failed to Comply With its Statutory Duties to Complete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs
11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F)

44.  Unexcused failure to satisfy timely any filing or reporting requirement established by the Bankruptcy Code is grounds for conversion or dismissal.  11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(F).

45.  The Bankruptcy Code requires the Debtor to file a complete and thorough disclosure of the Debtor’s assets, liabilities, and financial affairs within 14 days of the filing of the petition.  11 U.S.C. § 521(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c).  See In re Justice, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1857 at *12 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2002).

46.  The person preparing these documents must do so with reasonable diligence.  In re Gaulden, 522 B.R. 580, 589 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2014) (“A debtor must answer all questions contained in the schedules and other disclosure documents accurately so that creditors have a complete understanding of a debtor’s financial condition.”  See also Lewis v. Summers (In re Summers), 320B.R.630, 642-44 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2005).  In this case, the Debtor has not used reasonable diligence in preparing its Schedules and SOFA.

47.  Three months after commencement of the case, the Debtor’s Schedules and SOFA remain incomplete. Smith’s assertion that he has no information about the Debtor’s financial performance in 2014, 2015 and 2016 is disingenuous; during those years he invested $4 million in the Debtor.  During his testimony at the hearing on cash collateral, Smith stated that he performed his “due diligence” before he invested in the Debtor.  Presumably, during his due diligence process, Smith received and reviewed documents related to the Debtor’s finances, assets and liabilities.  Smith needs to use his own resources to compile information for the Debtor’s Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs.

48.  During the § 341 meeting, Smith asserted that only Van Den Heuvel would have all the information pertaining to the Debtor’s assets, liabilities, and financial affairs but failed to explain why he did not obtain accurate and complete information from Van Den Heuvel prior to filing the Schedules and SOFA.  Pre-petition Smith applied sufficient power to oust Van Den Heuvel from the Debtor’s management.  Smith also possessed the ability to obtain the necessary information to complete the Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs.

49.  The Debtor’s response to SOFA Question #4 is insufficient.  Question #4 requests information about any payment or transfer of property within a year of filing that benefited an insider.  The vague response indicates that Van Den Heuvel received “various payments of rent from subtenants” in an “unknown” amount and was used to “pay labor, insurance, and material.”

50.  Over three months into this bankruptcy the following information remains unclear: bank accounts used by Debtor in 2014, 2015, 2016;  whether the Debtor has any liabilities arising from any retirement plan;  the validity of claims made by Ferrellgas, Inc. and Evoqua Water;  how much rent was collected by Van Den Heuvel from subtenants, where that money was deposited, and what “labor, insurance, and material” bills were paid;  whether Van Den Heuvel transferred the Debtor’s assets to related non-debtor businesses;  and whether the Debtor has a claim against Van Den Heuvel personally or against another Van Den Heuvel business.  As a result, creditors’ picture of the Debtor’s pre-petition financial information remains incomplete.

51.  On SOFA Question #7, “legal actions within one year prior to filing,” Smith failed to list all the actions reported on CCAP.

52.  Upon information and belief, the Debtor sponsored a retirement plan.  The Schedules and SOFA do not contain any information about the Debtor’s employees’ retirement plan. The Debtor’s former employees do not have notice to pursue their claims.

53.  Accordingly, there is cause for dismissal because the Debtor’s Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs are incomplete.  11 U.S.C. §1112(b)(4)(F).

Other Cause for Dismissal 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1)

54.  Finally, administrative insolvency is cause for dismissal.  In re Hassen Imports Partnership, 2013 Bankr. LEXIS (BAP 9th Cir. 2013).

55.  According to the Debtor’s MORs, this estate is administratively insolvent. The Debtor has no cash flow to pay any administrative expenses, including attorney’s fees and post-petition expenses. See Docket Entries #40 and #51.

56.  The estate’s administrative insolvency is cause for dismissal of this case.  11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1).

57.  Another hurdle presented is the Debtor’s failure to file tax returns since its inception in 2011.  A confirmable plan must provide for payment of delinquent taxes within 60 months of the date of the filing of the petition. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C).  Although more than three months have elapsed since the filing of this bankruptcy, the Debtor has yet to retain an accountant to prepare its delinquent tax returns.  The critical tax issue remains at a standstill.

Conclusion

58.  This case should not proceed because it is a half-hearted effort by management to buy time, which is particularly demonstrated by the incomplete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs.  The Debtor’s management’s failure to collect its only source of revenue – rent – from a related, non-debtor entity, Eco-Hub, demonstrates management’s disinterest in the estate.  Without complete Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs, the Debtor cannot file an adequate disclosure statement or confirm a plan.  This case should be dismissed and the Debtor left to deal with its creditors outside of the bankruptcy forum.

59.  The foregoing issues constitute cause for dismissal of this case.  11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1), (b)(4)(A) and (b)(4)(F).

WHEREFORE, the United States Trustee requests that the Court dismiss this case.  The United States Trustee does not intend to file a brief in connection with this pleading, but reserves the right to file a responsive brief or pleading, if necessary.

Dated: August 26, 2016.

PATRICK S. LAYNG
United States Trustee

AMY J. GINSBERG
Attorney for the United States Trustee

Case 16-24179-beh, Doc 59
Filed 08/26/16

 

Related recent documents from U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC:

 

From U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Criminal Case No. 16-CR-64, U.S.A. v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel regarding BANK FRAUD

From Page 2 of the above document:

The United States provided defendants with a disc containing the core discovery related to the indicted bank fraud in May 2016 at the time of the arraignment. The United States also provided an index describing the materials. The disc contained approximately 16,000 pages. About 9,000 of those pages are bank records and deposit or withdrawal items from banks other than Horicon Bank where Van Den Heuvel, his companies, or witnesses had accounts.

From Pages 4-5 of the above document:

By way of background, in July 2015, the Brown County Sheriff’s Office executed search warrants on Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s business locations and residence. The supporting affidavits established probable cause to believe that Ronald Van Den Heuvel was committing securities fraud and theft in violation of state law. The affidavits described how Mr. Van Den Heuvel fraudulently represented his waste reclamation businesses, including Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC (“Green Box”), to induce loans and investments that he used for other purposes, including personal expenses. The search warrants authorized the seizure of records and electronic devices related to those offenses.

In executing the search warrants, the Brown County Sheriff’s Office seized a substantial volume of material, both hard copy files and electronic devices. The nature and the complexity of the alleged theft and securities fraud violations, as well as the volume of material involved, required substantial resources and time to review the seized material.

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office has given federal law enforcement agents access to the seized material as there is a parallel federal investigation into the theft and securities fraud alleged in search warrant affidavits.

COURT: Due to the volume of discovery materials, volume and potential complexity given these are financial records requires certain expertise and understanding, and the organizing and synthesizing of the materials, court finds this matter designated complex.

 

The terms “Byzantine,” “devious,” “surreptitious,” “intricate,” “labyrinthine,” and “complex” do not even begin to describe the expansive fraud schemes of Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel and his wife, Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel, and their various ‘business’ partners and corporate fronts, about which the January 29, 2016 WI State’s Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Return of Property, Brown Co. Case No. 2015CV1614, In the Matter of the Return of Property to Ronald Van Den Heuvel, states:

[C]ases involving complex schemes to defraud, “may require piecing together, like a jigsaw puzzle, a number of bits of evidence which if taken alone might show comparatively little.” …

The State’s affidavits supporting the search warrant applications clearly demonstrate that Mr. Van Den Heuvel, through his forty-four business entities, was engaged in a pervasive scheme to defraud investors and lenders, contrary to Wis. Stat. 943.20(1)(d) and Chapter 551 of Wisconsin Statutes. 

 

ON A RELATED NOTE,

During the August 10, 2016 General Tribal Council Special Meeting, GTC foolishly voted to support the following two (2) Motions in defense of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s and Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s affiliated fraud schemes, actually voting to keep itself in the dark about exactly who has been funding, aiding & abetting those fruad schemes that have resulted in untold TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LOSSES by the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s GTC.

As seen in the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting Action Report Draft. GTC voted to support:

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.

…and…

Motion by Sherrole Benton to reject resolution titled Investigation in Oneida Seven Generations Corporation. Seconded by Donna Metoxen. Motion carried by hand count: 655 support; 347 opposed; 69 abstentions

…although some Oneida Nation in Wisconsin GTC Members said after the vote was taken that they were confused by the wording of the latter Motion as displayed on the monitors in the meeting hall.

The continuation of the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting is scheduled to be held on October 2, 2016, and GTC will convene for the Fiscal Year 2017 GTC Tribal Budget Meeting on September 19, 2016.

Will GTC finally find out how many millions of GTC’s Tribal dollars the Oneida Business Committee allowed OSGC’s ‘Managing Agent’ Pete King III of King Solutions LLC to use to pay off a secret settlement agreement that looks more like an extortion shakedown scheme?

Not if GTC continues to keep its head in the sand, and continues to allow the Oneida Business Committee to waste tens of millions of dollars perpetratingdefending ECO-FRAUD rather than fighting it!

 

MEANWHILE, rather than getting & staying in bed with devious crooks and surreptitious scam & con artists, and instead of wasting tens of millions of their tribes’ own dollars destroying their own reputations by blindly & foolishly defending toxic waste incinerator fraud schemes like those of Ron Van Den Heuvel & OSGC and OSGC’s subsidiaries Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC & Oneida Energy Inc., which OSGC’s executives and OBC Chair Cristina Danforth wanted to try to profit from by MARKETING & SELLING DANGEROUS WASTE INCINERATOR FRAUD SCHEMES TO OTHER TRIBES

….members of other First Nations are actually protesting corporate polluters’ schemes:

 

Of course, you can always count on slimy habitual liars like OBC Member & OSGC Liaison and incinerator advocate Brandon Stevens to try to hypocritically capitalize on the situation in the media.

 

See also:

 

 


Atty. Joe Nicks Of Godfrey & Kahn Advised General Tribal Council To Vote For Oneida Seven Generations Corp. To Continue Lawsuit Against City Of Green Bay Over OSGC’s Rescinded Conditional Use Permit For Waste Incinerator Project Linked To OSGC Partner Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Expansive Green Box NA Fraud Scheme, While Godfrey & Kahn’s Client Dr. Marco Araujo & His Co-Plaintiff Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. Are Suing Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Waste Incinerator Company Green Box NA For Fraud; INSTEAD, GTC & The City Of Green Bay Should Sue WEDC & OSGC & OSGC Subsidiaries Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC & Oneida Energy Inc. For Enabling And Perpetrating Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Fraud Scheme Which Is Under Investigation By The Brown Co. Sheriff’s Department And No Less Than Five Federal Agencies

Since people seem to be having trouble finding these court documents from Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768, ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.  which wer referenced during the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting presentation by Frank Cornelius, Sr., which Oneida Eye’s Publisher travelled to Chicago to purchase copies of and posted on this website in October 2014:

 

__________________________________________________________

 

At the August 10, 2016 General Tribal Council Special Meeting Attorney Joseph Nicks of law firm Godfrey & Kahn advised GTC Member Dan Hawk of Oneida Small Business Inc. on the wording of a motion to direct Oneida Seven Generations Corp. to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay:

Having been lied to and kept in the dark for years by the Oneida Business Committee about the fraudulent nature of the waste incinerator schemes of Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and OSGC’s partner Ron Van Den Heuvel, General Tribal Council foolishly took Atty. Joe Hicks advice and voted for Dan Hawk’s motion as seen in the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting Action Report Draft, which says:

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.

 

Instead of suing the City of Green Bay, the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s General Tribal Council should join with the City of Green Bay to sue the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. for funding Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and OSGC’s subsidiaries IEP Development LLC, Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC, Oneida, Energy Inc., and Oneida Energy Blocker Corp., which helped enable those companies to perpetrate facets of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expansive fraud scheme against the General Tribal Council and the City of Green Bay…

…as well as sue OSGC’s executives & officials along with those of OSGC’s subsidiaries for having perpetrated Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud schemes against the General Tribal Council and against the City of Green Bay…

…and GTC should also sue OSGC’s partners Ron Van Den Heuvel; Artley Skenandore dba Swakweko LLC; and Abdul Latif Mahjoob dba American Combustion Technologies Inc. (ACTI) / American Renewable Technologies Inc. (ARTI) / American Renewable Energy Inc. (AREI).

 

Also at the August 10, 2016 GTC Meeting, OSGC Managing Director Peter King III of King Solutions LLC claimed that he – and not John Breuninger as Tribe members were previously told by the Oneida Law Office – made the decision to use Tribal money to pay a secret multi-million dollar settlement (that looks more like an extortion shakedown) to settle a $400 Million lawsuit filed in Cook County Illinois against OSGC and its subsidiareies by Evanston-IL based Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services.

As Oneida Eye has reported, on October 21, 2015, Oneida Tribe members received a letter in the mail from the Oneida Business Committee (which was dated September 23, 2015) stating that the OBC had declined a settlement offer by the Plaintiffs which would have allowed the Oneida Tribe to settle the matters described above for $9 million:

The OBC’s letter clearly stated regarding the latter lawsuit:

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.

After ignoring several previous requests by Oneida Eye’s Publisher for updated copies of the lawsuit’s court filings, OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf finally provided Oneida Eye’s Publisher with a copy of the Order for Dismissal when she went to his office in person with GTC Member Michael Debraska on February 22, 2016, Mike relates in the video above:

Howver, Oneida Eye’s Publsiher and Mike Debraska were told by Oneida Law Office Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf that Tribe member John Breuninger had been made Managing Director of OSGC’s subsidiaries – although Dept. Chief Counsel Jim Bittorf refused to say by whom – and that it was John Brueuninger – – not Peter King III – who had agreed to pay the undisclosed multi-million dollar settlement amount using Tribal funds because there was no insurance coverage for the loss. [John Breuninger’s wife, Jeri Bauman, is the Senior Paralegal for the Oneida Law Office.]

Notice that in the video clip above, neither Peter King III nor OBC Chair Cristina Danforth acknowledge the letter that OBC sent to GTC and they both say that GTC will not be informed how many millions of Tribal dollars OSGC’s subsidiaries paid to settle a lawsuit that looks more like an extortion shakedown.

Note also that neither OSGC Managing Director Pete King III nor OBC Chair Cristina Danforth dispute the range of the secret multi-million dollar settlement paid with Tribal funds being in the range of $9 to $15 Million. Perhaps it was more than that. How will GTC ever know?

Given the OBC’s letter to the GTC stating that GTC would be the body to take action on any settlement agreement…

HOW WHY were Pete King III or John Breuninger allowed to make that major decision using Tribal funds as Atty. Bittorf claimed, which is believed to have cost the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s GTC between $9 TO $15 MILLION ON TOP OF THE $5 MILLION WASTED TO NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP. and ANOTHER $5 MILLION WASTED ON OSGC-subsidiary GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY – ALL LINKED TO THE FRAUD SCHEMES OF RONALD VAN DEN HEUVEL – rather than bringing that very important & costly matter back to GTC for discussion & action just as the OBC plainly told GTC in writing that they would?

It’s ALL MORE PROOF of the OBC’s LIES and VIOLATIONS of General Tribal Council’s authority & Tribe members’ rights…

…all while the OBC & the OLO are PROTECTING CORRUPT TRIBAL CORPORATIONS – whose Boards the OBC appoint & oversee – that POCKET and WASTE TENS OF MILLIONS of the GENERAL TRIBAK COUNCIL’s dollars on EXECUTIVES’ INFLATED SALARIES … and LAWSUITS … and PYROLYSIS PONZI SCHEMES… and ENERGY SCAMS with local NOT-SO-GOOD-OL’-BOYS.

 

Compare and contrast the two cases involving WEDC, Ron Van Den Heuvel, OSGC, and Godfrey & Kahn:

  • Brown Co. Case No. 2015CV769, Dr. Marco Araujo, Cliffton Equities Inc. & Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. v. Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

In that suit, Godfrey & Kahn sued Ron Van Den Heuvel’s waste incinerator fraud scheme Green Box NA Green Bay LLC on behalf of Green Box investor Dr. Marco Araujo.

But in the following suit, Godfrey & Kahn sued the City of Green Bay defending the waste incinerator scheme of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s business partner Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and OSGC’s subsidary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC, which were funded by WEDC:

Think about that…

Godfrey & Kahn are suing Ron Van Den Heuvel for defrauding their client Dr. Marco Araujo as an individual investor who was misled by Ron about the Green Box NA Green Bay LLC waste incinerator scheme that was funded by Dr. Araujo’s Co-Plaintiff WEDC…

…yet Ron’s claims of owning patents and having the right to license technologies to other companies forms the very basis of the business model of Godfrey & Kahn’s clients OSGC and GBRE which were funded by WEDC and had their Conditional Use Permit rescinded by the City of Green Bay due to the Green Bay Common Council feeling misled about OSGC & GBRE’s claimes about their WEDC-funded waste incinerator project.

Despite the polluter-friendly decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court…

…it now turns out that OSGC’s & GBRE’s waste incinerator project was far more misleading in many more ways than those which resulted in the City’s recision:

 

By the way, WEDC’s Chief Legal Counsel is Atty. Hannah Renfro, formerly of Godfrey & Kahn.

Seeing a pattern, yet?

If not, you can use this handy guide on how Native American tribes can be used for use their tax exemption status to build trash incinerators which they can supposedly later sell to non-tribal businesses, brought to you from the law firm of … you guessed it!

 

For your consideration: 

Heavy-hitting law firms…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.

 

Oneida Eye will post further analysis on the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting & updates about the evidence regarding criminal charges filed & pending against OSGC’s business partner Ron Van Den Heuvel and his various schemes, such as:

These consolidated cases are calendared for a special session commencing on August 15, 2016, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Pursuant to a Court Order, the parties filed issues memoranda on May 27, 2016. On June 24, 2016, petitioners filed a motion in limine regarding new issues allegedly raised in respondent’s issues memorandum. On July 1, 2016, respondent filed a response to petitioners’ motion in limine. On August 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing in Washington, D.C., on so much of the motion in limine as regards the substantiation of the $90 million in claimed loans. The parties appeared and were heard.

The primary issue in this case is respondent’s disallowance of deductions in taxable years 2004 through 2013, excluding taxable year 2005, for partially worthless debt. Petitioners contend that advances to the debtors were debt based on all the facts and circumstances. In the alternative, to the extent the Court finds that petitioners’ advances were not debt, petitioners argue the advances are deductible as ordinary expenses under section 162.[[All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue.]

Petitioners contend that respondent’s issues memorandum raises the new issue that petitioners have not provided substantiating documents reflecting the $90 million in loans petitioners claim were extended to Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and/or his entities. 

At this point, it cannot be determined whether petitioners have substantiated their position. Absent agreement between the parties on this point, the question remains to be decided by the Court after consideration of the evidence presented at trial, not before.

Premises considered, it is ORDERED that so much of the motion in limine as regards the substantiation of the $90 million in claimed loans is denied.

Signed,
Kathleen Kerrigan, Judge

 

From U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC:

 

From U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Criminal Case No. 16-CR-64, U.S.A. v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel:

 

 

See also:

 


MISLEADERSHIP: Oneida Business Committee Chair Cristina Danforth’s Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds, Yet Not One OBC Member Is Innocent Of Violating Tribal Law & Treasonously Undermining The Constitutional Authority Of General Tribal Council Under The Treacherous Advice And Direction Of Law Office Chief Counsel Jo Anne House; Was GTC’s Per Capita Reduction Used To Pay The Secret Multi-Million Dollar Shakedown That John Breuninger Paid On Behalf Of Oneida Seven Generations Corp.’s Subsidiaries Using Tribal Funds Despite GTC Having The Constitutional Right To Veto Encumbrance? That & Other Important Questions Should Be Asked & Answered At The 6 PM Wednesday August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meeting

As Oneida Eye has previously reported, Oneida Business Committee Chair Cristina Danforth continuously fails to attend ~50% of OBC Regular Meetings and also fails to attend many General Tribal Council Meetings due to her external employment as President of the Native American Finance Officers Association / NAFOA Board of Directors and membership of the Board of Directors of both the Native American Bank, NA & the Native American Bancorporation Co. located in Colorado.

Oneida Eye also previously posted a video in which OBC Chair Cristina Danforth admitted at the July 6, 2016 General Tribal Council Semi-Annual Meeting that her absence due to non-Tribal employment combined with the negligence and incompetence of herself and her staff resulted in the loss to the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin of $3 to $4 MILLION from a federally funded prescription drug negotiated cost program.

 

Apparently, Cristina Danforth was too busy planning for the NAFOA Board’s recent trip to Cuba and she expensively failed to the atend to the business that GTC elected her and pays her to do as Oneida Business Committee Chair…

just as Tina failed in her own personal business resulting in bankruptcy.

Tina Danforth with NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba

Tina Danforth with the NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba

At that same July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting, OBC Chair Cristina Danforth claimed that – in her absence from the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting –  OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth had taken action as based on the opinion of OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian Jo Anne House and allowed GTC to vote on a Main Motion which increased Tribe members’ Per Capita payments to $2,000 for five years and also allowed GTC to vote on Amendments reducing that amount to $1,300 for three years, as seen in the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting Action Report Draft which shows the following:

Motion by Yvonne Metivier to direct the OBC to pay $2,000 Per Capita beginning Fiscal Year 2017 through 2021. Seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion carried by hand count: 1068 support; 200 opposed; 35 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by Nancy Skenandore to revise the Per Capita payment amount to $1,300 instead of $2,000. Seconded by Don Charnon. Motion carried by hand count: 791 support; 702 opposed; 32 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by Debra Schnell to revise the Per Capita payment plan to be in effect for the next three (3) fiscal years instead of the next five (5) fiscal years. Seconded by Linn Cornelius. Motion failed by hand count: 642 support; 829 opposed; 52 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by David P. Jordan to go with the OBC’s plan to pay off the debt. Seconded by Chris Cornelius. Motion carried by hand count: 697 support; 612 opposed; 87 abstained

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s criticism regarding OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s opinion and OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth’s actions can be seen below in a video excerpt from the July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting:

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I understand at the [June 13, 2016] General Tribal Council meeting, um, we had a discussion around Per Capita, and there a Motion and some Amendments made. There were some irregularities in [that] the Amendments were contradictory, and, um, there was a failure to adhere to some of the Robert’s Rules [of Order]. … I’ve been in Tribal government for seventeen going on eighteen years now and, um, so I’m very familiar with the procedures around the rules that General Tribal Council has used. At the last meeting, um, as I stated there were irregularities and the Amendments were contradictory to the Main Motion, and that is something that has to get addressed. Um, and I wanted to mention it here first before I take it anywhere else because this was General Tribal Council’s meeting. It’s not a meeting of the [Oneida] Business Committee. It’s a meeting of the membership, of our – uh – our constituency here. And so, I am not sure how this is going to get resolved and how we’re going to move forward, because an Amendment cannot contradict the Main Motion. The Main Motion was voted affirmatively, and it was voted affirmatively with a small margin, and the affirmation of the Main Motion was to provide a $2,000 Per Capita. That is the Main Motion. Unfortunately, as I said, the irregularities that were allowed in the Amendment was contradictory which said that we would pay, um, $1,300 instead of $2,000, and we would provide it for 3 years instead of 5 years was the other Amendment. So those things trumped the Main Motion, and so there is an issue here about what really exists because an Amendment does not go forward unless the Main Motion passes and, as I stated, the Main Motion passed as an affirmative. So that is an issue that this body needs to resolve. I don’t think tonight is the time to do that, but I just wanted to mention it because, um, I am concerned about it. Um, the interpretation of it is not clear and, um, it’s also important because as we proceed tonight we need to be clear about our Motions and our Amendments and how they’re to be followed so that we can have an orderly meeting without contradiction, without confusion, without – um – superceding the Main Motion in the Amendments. So, that’s kind of the issue, um, we’re dealing with…. So now we’re in a situation where we have to maybe unwind what happened at the last meeting regarding the Per Capita on June 13th[, 2016].

Despite OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s claim that her many years in elected positions within the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin/Oneida Nation in Wisconsin means that she understands, values and abides by Robert’s Rules of Order as used by the General Tribal Council, Oneida Eye will demonstrate below that – once again – Cristina Danforth is simply not telling GTC the truth and she is the epitome of misleadership.

Below is a excerpt from the video of the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting regarding the Main Motion and Amendments that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth calls into question:

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you David [‘Fleet’ Jordan], and before we start the discussion, we do have a Motion on the floor, and that Motion is to, um, approve the $2,000 [Per Capita] payout. There’s no caveats on that right now. It’s a [Per Capita] payout strictly of $2,000. Um, so, again, please keep that in the back of your mind that that motion is on the floor. We will keep our comments, um, to the Per Capita and the motion and I will begin with, um, our overflow room. Nancy [Skenandore]?

Nancy Skenandore: Hello, Melinda. So, it’s too late for me to ask for support for the Per Capita plan proposed by the Oneida Business Committee? 

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: At this point, um, you could make [an] Amendment to the, um, the amounts that are proposed. Right now it says, “$2,000.” You can make an Amendment to the amount or you could add restrictions to it if you would wish. Um, or we could vote and vote it down. So there’s, uh, a number of options.

Nancy Skenandore: Ok. Can I do what you said then? Make to $1,300 instead of $2,000. The proposed plan from the Business Committee is $1,300, and that would be fiscally responsible, correct?

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you. So your Amendment, Nancy, is to amend the Main Motion to, say, $1,300 instead of $2,000? 

Nancy Skenandore: Correct.

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Ok.

At that point in the video, FORMER & ILLEGAL OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan leaned in to whisper to OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth.

We will explain in detail below why David ‘Fleet’ Jordan should only be considered an ILLEGAL OBC Member due specifically to the ‘procedural irregularities’ created by the unlawful & unethical actions of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth…

as well as subsequent unlawful & unethical actions by the Oneida Business Committee, the Oneida Law Office, and the Oneida Election Board.

Fleet obviously wanted to keep his conspiratorial private coaching comments to Melinda Danforth out of the earshot of GTC and thereby omitted from the official transcript. However, turning up the volume of the video allows one to hear Fleet whisper in Melinda’s ear:

Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan: You have to use the [OBC’s] Plan, otherwise it won’t work.

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth then turns off her microphone to respond to Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan, and as Melinda Danforth’s microphone remains turned off – keeping GTC in the dark about discussions on the stage during their own GTC Meeting – Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth received further conspiratorial private coaching out of GTC’s earshot from Assistant Chief Financial Officer RaLinda Ninham-Lamberies.

After keeping GTC out of the loop of their private conspiracy, the following occurred:

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Is there support? I heard somebody say, ‘Second.’ Don Charnon? So the Motion, or the Amendment made by Nancy Skenandore and seconded by John Charn – Don Charnon is to revise the Per Capita amount in the Main Motion from $2,000 to $1,300. Ok, questions?

OBC Treasurer Patricia ‘Trish’ King: Madame Chair?

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Trish?

OBC Treasurer Trish King: Um, I’d like to either offer an amendment or get a clarification from the Motioner, um, because she did state that it was the Business Committee’s Plan. It’s very important that we identify that the Motion is to adopt the Business Committee’s Plan as presented in order to take care of the debt to use the permanent Contingency Fund for the debt. The Plan works all together.

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Right, but it’s my understanding that the Business Committee could take that action even if it’s reduced. Because we don’t need the General, we don’t need the General Tribal Council action to tap the Government Contingency [Fund] because we have rules in place for us [the OBC] to tap the Government Contingency [Fund]. So if we do allow for the $1,300 we should be able to take that action ourselves back at the Business Committee table, is what I’m understanding. Privileged question, go ahead Sherrole [Benton].

Sherrole Benton: Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, it’s my belief that, um, uh, Nancy’s Amendment would be subject to the Main Motion. The Amendment doesn’t override the Main Motion. So if we want to support the BC’s Per Capita Plan we have to vote down the Main Motion and then bring a new motion forward to, um, to accept, uh, the BC’s Per Capita Plan.

Nancy Skenandore: Ok, whatever it takes.

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: [OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian] Jo Anne [House], what do – can you please render a decision on whether or not the $1,300 [Amendment] would overrule the $2,000 in the Main Motion?

OBC Chief Counsel & GTC Parliamentarian Jo Anne House: The question is whether or not the, uh, first Amendment is is order. The Main Motion calls for a $2,000 Per Capita payment. The Amendment reduces that $2,000 to $1,300. The Amendment is in order and would be effective if it were adopted and the Main Motion were adopted. The Per Capita payment would be $1,300.

OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth: Thank you.

One month later, the OBC discussed what had occurred during the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting, as seen below in excerpts & video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting (which OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth did not attend):

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The next item is a request to adopt a Resolution titled ‘Per Capita Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2021’ which was adopted by General Tribal Council on June 13, 2016. Um, I have questions regarding this item. Um, it hasn’t been my understanding that if General Tribal Council approves something we don’t need to approve it, but if we approve something it could go to General Tribal Council, and the other thing is there is an item on – later on the Agenda that’s asking for a Declaratory Ruling on the actions taken at the June 13th [GTC] Meeting, and I’m also asking referring that this, um, be deferred, um, for a legal opinion by an outside attorney. I think the procedural issues regarding the June 13 [GTC Meeting] action, um, need to be addressed, so I think this item should be be deferred, at a minimum. Jo Anne?

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Under the Per Capita Law, um, a Per Capita is adopted by a Resolution. The current Per Capita Plan, that we’re paying the last one out, uh, was adopted by Motion of the General Tribal Council. The Business Committee ratified that Motion by a Resolution in order to conform to the Per Capita Law itself. This is the same action that’s occurring. This Resolution simply conforms to the Per Capita Law by a Resolution.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I understand that when we do a Rev– Revenue Allocation Plans that there are Resolutions that accompany this. Again, my concern is that on June 13th General Tribal Council took action to approve a $2,000 payment to the membership for 5 years, and then there was a subse– there was also an, uh, adjoining Amendment for $1,300 for 3 years. So, I think there, there is a contradiction here between the Amendment and the Main Motion, and therefore I don’t think this is ready for adoption at this point in time. There’s no need to do it today. There’s no reason why it can’t wait and be deferred until we get the Decla– Declaratory Ruling that’s on the Agenda later, and if that doesn’t suffice I am also going to be looking for an outside legal opinion based on the procedural aspects of the decis– the decision that was conducted at the GTC Meeting. I’m not questioning the Per Capita, not questioning the amount, not questioning the years. I’m questioning the procedural irregularities. I think that needs to be very clear.

OBC Sec. Lisa Summers then made a Motion to adopt an OBC Resolution entitled ‘Implementing Per Capita Plan for Fiscal Year 2017-2021 Adopted by General Tribal Council on June 13, 2016,’ and stated “we can always go back and rescind this Resolution” if there were to be a later Declaratory Ruling which determined that there had been procedural irregularities during the June 13, 2016 GTC Meeting. OBC. Sec. Summers’ Motion was seconded by OBC Member Brandon Stevens, but was then stopped dead in its tracks by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth who declared the Motion to be ‘Out of Order.’

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I don’t believe it’s– it’s appropriate to– to move forward on this, and that is for the record. Um, my statements for the record will be entered regardless of how the outcome of this vote is. And, again, this is a plan for 2017 through ’21, and it’s not clear because the Main Motion was for 5 years at $2,000, and in here it’s saying it’s– it’s going to be $1,300 instead of $2,000. So, I think there are some contradictions here and I don’t think this is ready to move forward. So, I’m going to ask for a ruling if– if I can call this ‘Out of Order,’ because that is my next step. And it’s based on the content of the Resolution and based on the irregularities and the contradictions between the Motion and the Amendments that were made on June 13th. So, Jo Anne?

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: I think that the question is whether the Resolution is in order in front of the Business Committee. Um, there are two issues involved in this. One is carrying out the directives of the General Tribal Council. This, uh, as, uh, the Chairwoman has pointed out, um, is not the issue. The issue is the process, uh, the procedures by which the General Tribal Council took action. Um, based on that, the Resolution would be in order. However, (clears throat) pardon me, it is the discretion of the Chairwoman, uh, to determine that this Resolution would be ‘Out of Order,’ uh, since I believe there is a– a sufficient amount of gray area in this. It is not a black and white decision.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you, Jo Anne. Any questions or comments from the Committee at this time? If not I’m going to go to the floor.

OBC Secretary Lisa Summers: Can you just state your decision then for the record, please?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Um, based on what Jo Anne said, she said it is my discretion to call it ‘Out of Order’ due to the gray areas and, again, I think due to the uncer– uncertainty of what the outcome of the June 13th, because the Main Motion is the Main Motion, and the Main Motion was $2,000 for 5 years. That stands, and if there’s an Amendment that’s contradictory then, then we’re not ready to move forward unless we’re going to pay $2,000 plus $1,300, and I don’t think that was the intent of the floor on that day. And I think from a procedural standpoint this is, this needs to be addressed, and it’s not clear. It is just totally not clear. A Main Motion passes, the entirety of the Main Motion passes, along with its Amendments. Based on that, I’m going to say that it’s ‘Out of Order,’

OBC Sec. Lisa Summers then made a motion to Table the item until the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting, which was seconded by Fmr. & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan, and approved unanimously.

However, there was a related discussion later on during the meeting as seen below in another excerpt of video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting:

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The next item is a request to approve, um, to direct the [OBC] Treasurer and Chief Counsel to submit Declaratory Ruling requests to the Oneida iciaryiciary by July 15[, 2016,] regarding the [OBC] Chairwoman Tina Danforth’s opinion that the June 13[, 2016] General Tribal Council Meeting Per Capita Motion and Amendments had irregularities and needed further discussion by General Tribal Council. This is – questions, comments? Jo Anne, do you have a question or comment?

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Um, yes. When this, uh, matter was brought forward I began doing the research with regards to prior [Oneida] Appeals Commission actions, uh, which are applicable under the Judiciary Law. …

As we will discuss below, that admission by OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House that Oneida Appeals Commission actions remain applicable is very important with regard to the unlawful actions of the OBC & the Oneida Election Board which resulted in an illegal election held to fill an OBC vacancy despite the undeniable fact that GTC NEVER VOTED TO ADOPT ANY MOTION TO ENACT SUCH AN ELECTION as is required by the Oneida Election Law.

Thus, the OBC Chief Counsel’s acknowledgment that the decisions of the Oneida Appeals Commission remain binding despite the fact that the OAC was dissolved goes to very heart of why DAVID ‘FLEET’ JORDAN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A LEGAL OBC MEMBER due to the procedural irregularities created by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, as will be explained later in this post.

Jo Anne House’s commentary continues:

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: There were two prior actions, excuse me [gets up to retrieve documents]. Uh, the first occurred in, uh, 2000, um, regard – uh, [Fmr. OBC Chair] Ed Delgado v. the Oneida Business Committee, and in that, uh, ruling the Oneida Appeals Commission, uh, stated that it is not in a position to respond to Declaratory Rulings [requests] regarding actions taking place within a General Tribal Council Meeting. That the, uh, structure of the Tribe is set up such that the General Tribal Council is a legislative body and the legislative questions are best, uh, process questions are best answered by that body, and they dismissed that request, uh, from Mr. Delgado, uh, regarding a Declaratory Ruling. Uh, it came up again in, uh, 2013, uh, Racquel Hill v. the Oneida Business Committee & the General Tribal Council. Um, that, uh, was regarding, um – I believe it was the adoption of the Election Law and the SEOTS voting. …

More specifically, Former Oneida Election Board Chair Racquel ‘Rockhead’ Hill became several shades of butthurt following the Oneida Eye Publisher’s successful effort garnering GTC’s support to adopt a directive requiring the Oneida Election Board to provide a polling site for all future Tribal elections at the Southeastern Oneida Tribal Services/SEOTS facility

…rather than continue to allow the OBC & OEB to selectively disenfranchise Tribe members in Milwaukee/Chicago areas by preventing them from having access to a SEOTS polling site as the OBC & OEB had planned to do for the inaugural election of the Oneida Judiciary.

The OBC’s Chief Counsel continued:

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: … Uh, the Appeals Commission, uh, heard that request for a Declaratory Ruling and ultimately dismissed it, um, indicating again that this is a legislative procedural action best responded to by the body itself. The Judiciary Law identifies that Declaratory Rulings can be brought for, um, actions regarding, uh, interpreting Tribal law. Um, Tribal law is identified as something adopted under the Legislative Procedures Act. It is possible, um, and, uh, to bring a request for a Declaratory Ruling, uh, framing this as a procedural – not framing this as a procedural question, but as in regards to whether the action itself is valid in adopting what I’ve always interpreted as a ‘law.’ A directive of the General Tribal Council, it equates to, um, a law, uh, a legislative action. Um, so it is possible to bring a Declaratory Ruling. Uh, I simply, uh, caution the Business Committee that it is likely that it would be dismissed. Um, I’m not entirely certain a Declaratory Ruling is necessary at this point. The General Tribal Council acted at that GTC Meeting. Um, they took action. They had the opportunity to question the action. They had the opportunity to challenge, um, and request rulings on whether Motions were in order, um, and those answers were given. The meeting was closed. Uh, in the past, um, our – our [Oneida Law] Office, uh, myself, I’ve always indicated that those challenges needed to be raised in the meeting and that, um, carrying out that act – directive afterwards was the responsiblity of the Business Committee. So, um, it, in regards to the Declaratory Ruling, um, I’m not entirely certain that the Judiciary will accept it. Although, if directed I will write as strong a request for that Declaratory Ruling as I can.

At that point, OBC Secretary Lisa Summers made a Motion to approve the OBC Chair’s request to direct the OBC Treasurer and the OBC Chief Counsel to submit requests to the Oneida Judiciary for a Declaratory Ruling by July 15, 2016, regarding the interpretation of the opinion that on June 13, 2016, General Tribal Council’s Per Capita Motions & Amendments had irregularities and require further discussion by GTC.

However, despite OBC Chair Cristina Danforth making three calls for support for OBC Sec. Lisa Summers’ Motion, none of the other legally elected OBC Members in attendance seconded the Motion, including Jennifer Webster, Brandon Stevens, Fawn Billie, and Treas. Trish King. [Former & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan was also improperly sitting on the dais, but he didn’t try to second the Motion, either]. Thus, Sec. Lisa Summers’ Motion failed for lack of support.

OBC Treas. Trish King then said she did not support the request for a Declaratory Ruling and that it was up to GTC to take action to challenge the validity of the procedures conducted by OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth during the June 13, 2016 GTC Meeting.

OBC Treas. Trish King then said that in order to be in compliance with GTC’s June 13, 2016 directives she had already begun the process of paying off debt as stated in one of the Main Motion’s Amendments, which had also resulted in the finalization of the budget on Tuesday, July 12, 2016.

King concluded her remarks by saying:

OBC Treas. Trish King: Unless the General Tribal Council wants to bring it up and address it … it doesn’t make a difference unless General Tribal Council makes a difference, takes action on it.

We’ll discuss below what might actually be meant by the term ‘DEBT’ and how it might actually refer to the SECRET MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT (EXTORTION?) PAYMENT THAT OBC SECRETLY ALLOWED JOHN BREUNINGER TO USE THE TRIBE’S FUNDS TO PAY on behalf of companies which are subsidiaries of Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and are involved in the expansive fraud schemes of Ron Van Den Heuvel under investigation by the Brown County Wisconsin Sheriff’s Dept. and no fewer than five federal agencies, and which DO NOT have ‘Sovereign Immunity.’

Following OBC Treas. Trish King’s comments, OBC Sec. Lisa Summers said:

OBC Sec. Lisa Summers: [G]etting an opinion from outside of the Tribe’s processes, I don’t think is conducive to where we are. You’re absolutely right when you – you stated that an outside attorney isn’t necessarily going to understand all the nuances of the dynamics between the legislative, judicial and the General Tribal Council.

TRANSLATION:

An outside legal opinion might not be based on the nepotism, favoritism, and tortured ‘logic’ that the OBC relies on to continuously violate Tribal laws in their efforts to bully, intimidate, and undermine the authority of the General Tribal Council, which is the Supreme Governing Body of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin.

Speaking of which, at that point Former & Illegal OBC Member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan asked OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House some questions to which she replied by further explaining why she believed the Amendments were in order:

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: There was…a wage increase petition submitted and there was a Motion to approve the petition. There was a second, uh – there was an Amendment to that Motion, uh, that reduced the salary, uh, level in the petition and placed additional limitations, um, on the payment of that wage increase similar to what we have in front of us today. 

What OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House failed to mention was that the OBC, the Treasurer’s Office, the Finance Office, and the Human Resources Department, with the advice & counsel of Jo Anne House and the Oneida Law Office, had all worked together to weasel around the expressed will & stated intent of GTC which clearly voted to limit wage increases to those employees making less than $65,000. By doing so the OBC, Treasurer’s Office, Finance Office, HR Dept. and Oneida Law Office thereby demonstrated – once again – that they collectively and regularly disregard and ignore the directives of GTC.

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne went on to explain regarding the use of Amendments during GTC meetings:

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: Robert’s Rules of Order says that any Amendment related to the subject matter of the Main Motion is in order. Uh, they, in fact have a specific example, um, where a Main Motion, um, is offered to ‘commend’ a member, um, and an Amendment to that Motion deletes the word ‘commend’ and inserts the word ‘censures,’ and [Robert’s Rules of Order] identifies that is an action that is in order. It is germane to the Main Motion, even though it flips it on its head.

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House then admitted there are some ways in which General Tribal Council regularly deviates from Robert’s Rules of Order, but tried to justify those deviations as being based on ‘precedents,’ yet she did not explain how such precedents had been officially established and what would be required to establish new precedents.

Later in the discussion, Tribe member Cathy ‘Kiss Ass-kateer #1’ Metoxen strangely & falsely claimed that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth does “a good job” at abiding by Robert’s Rules of Order. WRONG, as we’ll discuss below.

Oneida Personnel Commissioner Brad ‘Kiss Ass-kateer #2’ Graham then said that the Tribe had paid for him to be trained in Robert’s Rules of Order and that he did not agree with Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s analysis, and then he strangely & falsely claimed that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth “knows what she’s doing.” WRONG, as we’ll discuss below.

[Oneida Eye was surprised to see Cathy Metoxen & Brad Graham acting as Tina’s Kiss Ass-kateers in the video above given that Cathy Metoxen is usually fearless in holding OBC Members accountable and Brad Graham was actually a Co-Appellant with Oneida Eye’s Publisher in a matter brought before the Oneida Appeals Commission which sought to require OBC to bring back to GTC the question of how to address an OBC vacancy due to OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s blatant violations of Robert’s Rules of Order as Used by GTC and her equally egregious violations of the Oneida Election Law during the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting as discussed below.]

Tina laughingly replied “Most times” to her Kiss Ass-kateers‘ false claims, and then explained again why she personally did not agree with the OBC Chief Counsel’s analysis:

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I guess my last concern is, an Amendment doesn’t carry unless the Main Motion carries, and the Main Motion was to adopt the $2,000 payment for 5 years. That carried. Positive, in and of itself. Amendments go with the Main Motion, and the Amendment provided for the the [$1,300], and it said “instead” but, whether is said “instead” or not, it contradicted the Main Motion. An Amendment cannot go forward unless the Main Motion goes forward. The Main Motion fails, all the Amendments go away. So you can’t have an Amendment without a Main Motion. The Main Motion passed in the affirmative. Right here it says there was 1,068 in support of the Motion to adopt the $2,000 Per Capita payment; 200 opposed; 35 abstained. And, so, that is – that’s the fundamental issue here. So they both passed, so they both get paid, or one goes away, or they both go away. It’s not clear, and I listened to the tape. I listened to excerpts of the tape. There was confusion. People were asking, “What are we voting on?” And they were told – they were, they were ignored, they were shut down, they were told, “Well, uh, you can’t ask.” I – uh, and different excerpts there were questions of clarity being asked. Specifically, Mary Ann said, “What are we voting on?” and, and she was told, “We’re voting; we can’t discuss,” whatever, but sh– but we weren’t voting at that point in time. It could have been answered. I listened to it 3 times, that excerpt. So, there was confusion, there was not clarity, and there was procedural irregularities in the sense that the Amendment was not called out of order. Two distinct issues. You can’t – you can’t do one that trumps the other. An Amendment cannot trump a Main Motion, and that’s the issue. Nor can an Amendment go forward unless the Main Motion passes in the affirmative. It passed in the affirmative, allowing for $2,000. That is the issue here.

The item remained tabled at the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting after OBC Chair Cristina Danforth made three unanswered calls for action. Tribe Member Cathy Metoxen reminded the OBC that it was the OBC Chair’s prerogative to call for a GTC Special Meeting to address the issue if she felt so inclined.

Having researched OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s statements at the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting regarding an Amendment to change ‘commend’ to ‘censure,’ Oneida Eye’s Editors found a document by the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding the use of Robert’s Rules of Order with a section listed as “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised” that seems to support what Jo Anne House said and negates what Cristina Danforth and Brad Graham claimed. It reads as follows (page 17; marked as Section 5-75):

[A]ssume that the following is the pending motion: “that the City Council commend Officer George for his action in…” An amendment to strike out commend and insert censure, although antagonistic to the original intent, is germane and in order because both ideas deal with the Council’s opinion of the officer’s action. Also, since a motion to censure the officer for the same act could not be introduced independently in the same session after the adoption of a motion to commend him, the amendment to change commend to censure is germane under the rule given above. It should be noted that censure is different from not commend.
There are borderline cases where a presiding officer will find it difficult to judge the germaneness of an amendment. Whenever in doubt he should admit the amendment or, in important cases, refer the decision to the assembly: “The chair is in doubt and will ask the assembly to decide whether the amendment is germane. [Debate, if any, provided that debate is in order.] The question is on whether the amendment is germane to the resolution [or “to the primary amendment”]. As many as are of the opinion that the amendment is germane, say aye…Those of the opinion that it is not germane, say no…, etc.

Based on the above information, Oneida Eye has revised its prior analysis and now concludes that – in this one instance, and likely only because it deprived GTC of $700 per person – OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House was remarkably and surprisingly correct, and the Amendment to lower the Per Capita payment from $2,000 to $1,300 was in order.

Specifically, Oneida Eye contends that Jo Anne House only made the right call in this one instance because it comes at a net loss to GTC and the money will most likely be used to pay the secret multi-million dollar shakedown settlement that John Breuninger [the husband of Jo Anne House’s Law Office subordinate Jeri Bauman] secretly agreed to pay using Tribal funds on behalf of Oneida Seven Generations Corporations subsidiaries to suspect companies in the Cook Co. IL lawsuit, and despite the fact that under Article IV of the Oneida Constitution, GTC had the right to veto any encumbrance created by Tribally-owned corporations and could have simply voted to refuse to pay the perpetrators of what appears to be an extortion racket which some Tribal officials & members thought they personally stood to benefit from due to their own personal investment (just as other investors in those exact same companies were told that they would make millions before they sued and won their investments back), and also stood to lose their own personal investments had GTC voted to veto the shakedown.

MOREOVER, Oneida Eye still maintains that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House has a track record of making misleading and false statements to GTC, including making false statements in her legal analysis as published in a GTC Meeting Packet regarding GTC’s access to ‘Disclosure Reports’ of Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation. One might even conclude that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House LIED IN WRITING to GTC, and Oneida Eye’s reporting has shown that the OBC Chief Counsel has FAILED to properly advise the OBC to hold OSGC and its subsidiaries accountable for refusing to provide accurate ‘Disclosure Reports’ and for blatantly violating  the May 5, 2013 GTC directive to prohibit OSGC and its subsidiaries from utilizing any kind of gasification, pyrolysis, or plastics-to-oil facility on the Oneida Reservation:

Recall as we cited above that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House claimed during the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting:

OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House: [A GTC directive is] what I’ve always interpreted as a ‘law.’ A directive of the General Tribal Council, it equates to, um, a law, uh, a legislative action.

So why did Jo Anne House aid, abet, and possibly direct the OBC to refrain from taking action as OSGC engaged in breaking the law of GTC’s directive, not to mention violating local zoning ordinances?

Oneida Eye likewise maintains that OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s ‘sins of omission’ include another important example of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth blatantly and indefensibly violating Robert’s Rules of Order, yet Jo Anne predictably kept her mouth shut about Tina’s violations of Robert’s Rules of Order in order to aid & abet the OBC in violating Tribal law and disenfranchising GTC in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act.

Specifically, the Action Report, the  Official Transcript, and excerpts of the video of the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting regarding whether to and, if so, how to fill a vacancy on the Oneida Business Committee demonstrate that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s newfound ‘concern’ for doing things right and heeding the protestations of GTC members when they call her out for doing things wrong isn’t convincing in the least, and is in fact just another example highlighting Tina’s blatant hypocrisy as OBC Chair as she accuses others of her own crimes.

Oneida Eye apologizes for audio & video syncing problems due to our editing certain portions of the time required for vote counting, but we encourage readers to compare the video above with excerpts below from the Official Transcript of the October 26, 2014 GTC Meeting.

The OBC had outlined six different ways to address the OBC vacancy as described in the GTC Meeting Packet, including Option B which was Motioned, and Seconded, and Failed by a vote of 539 Yes; 728 No; 14 Abstained.

After some discussion as to other Options that were included in the packet that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth declared to be ‘Out of Order,’ and a statement by Former OBC Member & failed OBC Treasurer candidate David ‘Fleet’ Jordan criticizing the OBC inclusion of Option E, which simply allowed the next highest vote-getter (Tribe member Danelle Wilson, Executive Asst. to OBC Member Ron ‘Tehassi’ Hill) to be given the position. Following Fleet’s comments, Tribe member Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas made a Motion to Reconsider Option B. Robert’s Rules of Orders As Used by the General Tribal Council (page 3) says regarding the definition and meaning of a “Motion to Reconsider”:

Motion to Reconsider
This motion is brought forward by a member wishing to bring a matter back before the body. The matter must be on the agenda and the membership must have received reasonable notice. The motion must be seconded, and it requires a majority vote. If the vote passes, the motion or prior action is on the floor as if the prior vote did not occur. Note: There are circumstances when reconsidering a prior motion is not in order.

THEREFORE, A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ IS MERELY A MATTER OF BRINGING A REJECTED MOTION BACK TO THE FLOOR FOR FURTHER DEBATE & DISCUSSION AFTER WHICH A MEMBER MAY SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE A NEW ‘MOTION TO ADOPT‘…

BUT, A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ IS NOT & CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE SAME THING AS A “MOTION TO ADOPT.’

Starting on Page 14 of the Official Transcript of the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting:

Leyne Orosco: Good Morning, my name is Leyne Orosco. I make a motion that we do Plan B with the polling open from 7am – 7pm on election day and also that there be a polling site in the Milwaukee area.

Continuing on Page 17 of the Official Transcript:

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: What does the body want? You want a hand count? I will support that. I will support that. You know, it was relatively close, but I think the difference was in the overflow room. I know there was a majority in here and I believe the majority was in there was with a good number in here as well. So I will honor that. I will honor that there is a hand count on Plan B. Ok, I will honor that. I’m just trying to be fair and I don’t want any questions coming out of this body afterwards so I will respect the wishes of General Tribal Council. Kind of was expecting that anyway. All those who are in favor of Plan B which goes for a caucus today and the deadline for November 3rd to apply as a candidate and that the election occur on November 22nd. All those in favor, again, for Plan B, please raise your hand so you can be counted. Plan B. All those who oppose Plan B which allows for a November 22nd polling site, both here and in Milwaukee. Plan B; if you are opposed please raise your hand so you can be counted. All those abstaining to Plan B, please raise your hand. We have the results, voting yes is 539, voting no is 728, abstaining is 14. Total number of votes cast was 1,281. Plan B now has failed, or Option B has failed so now the floor is open for consideration.

Continuing on page 24 of the Official Transcript:

David ‘Fleet’ Jordan: … For the Business Committee to make a recommendation to take the next [highest] vote-getter[, Danelle Wilson, who] actually works for the Business Committee in…Councilman[ Ron Tehassi Hill]’s office is I think is a major conflict of interest. Thank you.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you, David. I’m going to go to Linda.

3rd Highest Vote-Getter Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas: I’d like to make motion for the General Tribal Council to reconsider Option B. The accelerated special election that would caucus today with the election on November 22nd. And I make that recommendation because November 22nd is where we have a chance where it’s going to be reasonable weather yet, it is still not going to be cold. And the process is all outlined in there and it gives everyone a fair chance to participate in the election process and it follows the rules and the laws of the tribe.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a motion to reconsider Option B based on the discussion; is there a support on the motion?

Sherrole Benton: Point of order Madam Chair.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a motion it is seconded by Madelyn Genskow. What is your point of order Sherrole?

Sherrole Benton: Thank you, Madam Chair. I heard Larry Smith make this motion for reconsideration of Option B. Did you recognize that motion?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I did not, no. I did not know he was necessarily making a motion.

Robert Steffes: I have something from the overflow room.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Yes sir. State your name please.

Robert Steffes: Half the people that are saying something over there, I can’t even hear them. Your speakers are low or whatever but I cannot hear. So turn it up.

Corinne Robelia-Zhuckkahosee: I have a point of order.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Just one second, please. There is a motion on the floor by Linda, seconded by Madelyn to reconsider Option B. That is the motion. What is the point of order, Corinne?

Corinne Robelia-Zhuckkahosee: The point of order is we already had a motion on the floor for E. We still haven’t voted on that yet?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: No, it was out of order, Corinne. You’re correct, it was but it was out of order. Thank you, Corinne. Yes, Sir. Can you please state your name?

Matt Johnson: I’m just wondering two things, maybe. If we can adjourn and sometime and have a vote some other day, like a big election. Or maybe we can do it easy, a hand count today and vote if you have to vote we can do a hand count. Or adjourn and do another vote some other day maybe.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you.

Sherrole Benton: I’m going to call for the question.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There is a call for the question made by Sherrole, Sherrole Benton.

Debbie Thundercloud: Madam Chair, I have a privileged question in the overflow room.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Debbie, what is your privileged question?

Debbie Thundercloud: My privileged question has to do with your ruling out of the previous motion. I’m trying to understand how the Appeals Commission could over rule a valid section of the constitution which allows General Tribal Council to make this decision?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: The out of order ruling was based both on my perspectives and based on Jo Anne House perspectives and I will stand with that. Thank you for your question. There has been a call for the question for the vote on Plan B. There also was again a consideration for a hand count so I’m going to move us forward with a hand count for reconsideration on Plan B. All those in favor of Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted please.

Linda ‘Buffy’ Dallas: Tina, can you explain why we are reconsidering Plan B? Because of the legalities of the judicial opinion.

Tina Danforth: We are voting on Plan B as a reconsideration, Option E was ruled out of order and based on the conversation it is now a motion for Plan B. Please raise your hand to be counted.

Brenda John Stevens: Can I ask a privileged question during a count?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: No, no questions during a count, during the voting. Once the voting process starts, we’re voting so please be patient.

Unidentified Speaker: Hello, we need the election board to come vote.

Mark A. Powless: Madam Chair, the count isn’t taking place maybe they should come forward and make a count.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I’m sorry; we’re going to do a count, a hand count. I’m going to apologize there is some confusion between this room and the next room. All those who are in favor of Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. The election board shall count. Thank you, I guess they didn’t hear the last go around. All those in favor of Plan B raise your hand so you can be counted by the election board.

Unidentified Speaker: Privileged question, Madam Chair.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: There are no questions during the voting process. Can you please show the over flow room so I can see if the counting is completed or not, whoever has the cameras. All of those opposed to Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. All of those abstaining on Plan B please raise your hand so you can be counted. Abstentions raise your hand.

Rocky Hill: Privileged question Madam Chair.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Is the election board done with their counting?

Rocky Hill: Privileged question Madam Chair.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Yes, what is your privileged question?

Racquel ‘Rocky’ Hill: Because the vote was voted on previously and failed does this require 2/3 majority vote to pass?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: I don’t know to be honest. It is a simple majority vote based on my conservation with the parliamentarian. Majority vote. We have the votes. The motion to reconsider Option B, those voting yes 738, those voting no 469, abstaining 51, motion carries with Option B. We now need to go into a caucus of the body for the candidates for consideration for the election.

Sherrole Benton: Madam Chair.

Tina Danforth: Yes, Sherrole.

Sherrole Benton: I’d like to nominate Greg Matson for the vacant position. Kaylynn Gresham: Privileged question.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Who has a privileged question? Kaylynn.

Kaylynn Gresham: Wasn’t that to reconsider adopting B, not actually adopting it?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That motion was to reconsider but it was also to adopt B.

AND THERE ON PAGE 27  OF THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT WE SEE THE FLAT OUT LIE TOLD TO GTC BY OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH CREATING A MASSIVEPROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY‘ IN WHICH TINA CONFLATES A ‘MOTION TO RECONSIDER‘ WITH A ‘MOTION TO ADOPT‘ DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE SAME THING, ACCORDING TO ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER.

Kaylynn Gresham: Where did it say that?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That was my understanding.

Kaylynn Gresham: It was just to reconsider whether or not we were going to adopt Option B not to actually adopting Option B.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Where is the motioner? It was made by; motion was by Linda seconded by Madelyn. I guess I’m going to go back to your intent. That is what I understood that we were voting based on the discussion we wanted to reconsider it and so based on the parliamentarian, we could go forward and so that was my understanding is we were voting on Option B. Those in favor of motion B or Option B that is what I stated when the motion was made. Linda, you are the motioner as well as Madelyn is that also your intent? Please verbally respond.

Linda Dallas: Yes, yes it was.

Tina Danforth: Madelyn.

Madelyn Genskow: Yes, that was the intent to vote for Option B.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Thank you.

GUESS WHAT? IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THEIR INTENT WAS!

WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THEY MOTIONED & SECONDED, AND ALL THAT LINDA  & MADELYN MOTIONED FOR – AND THE ONLY THING GTC ACTUALLY VOTED ON – WAS A ‘RECONSIDERATION,’ NOT ON ‘ADOPTION’ JUST AS STATED IN THE OCTOBER 26, 2014 GTC MEETING ACTION REPORT.

Kaylynn Gresham: Can I get the parliamentarian to state something? Because that is not what was written as the motion.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: You know what? The call for the consideration should have been before the vote not after the vote.

Kaylynn Gresham: But that is not what the motion says.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: That is what the motioner’s intent was and that what the vote was, that was how I stated the vote, that was my understanding and right now we’ve just concluded a vote with the numbers and the motion passed. That is my ruling based on the vote, based on the motion, based on the intent. Cathy, I don’t know, what is your privileged question?

Cathy Metoxen: I’m just curious, I didn’t hear you recognize anyone and then you’re going to back and forth with somebody if you didn’t recognize them.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Well.

Sherrole Benton: Madam Chair.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: Let’s have some decorum here, yes Sherrole.

Sherrole Benton: I guess my, the way I’m reading the motion now, it says to reconsider Plan B so I guess this is kind of, just for clarification, should we be in discussion now or should we be nominating candidates.

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth: My understanding is we should be voting on the candidates that we should be going into a caucus and that is why I believe people are lined up to nominate people.

WHY DIDN’T GTC PARLIAMENTARIAN JO ANNE HOUSE ANSWER KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION?

BECAUSE JO ANNE HOUSE KNEW DAMN WELL THAT KAYLYNN GRESHAM WAS CORRECT AND THAT OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH WAS DEAD WRONG AND WAS VIOLATING ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER AS USED BY GTC, AND THEREBY VIOLATING GTC’S RIGHTS.

WHERE WAS LEYNE ‘LAME-O’ OROSCO TO HOLD TINA DANFORTH ACCOUNTABLE FOR VIOLATING ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER?

WHERE WAS LINDA ‘BUFFOON’ DALLAS WHO OFTEN COMPLAINS ABOUT THE OBC NOT FOLLOWING THE TRIBE’S RULES & LAWS COMING TO KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S DEFENSE AMD ADMITTING THAT IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HER INTENT WAS, AND THAT HER FRIEND TINA GOT IT WRONG?

WHERE WAS DAVID ‘FLUNKY’ JORDAN COMING TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAYING THAT KAYLYNN GRESHAM WAS RIGHT AND THE CHAIR WRONG?

WHY DID CATHY ‘KISS ASS-KATEER’ METOXEN RUN INTERFERENCE FOR TINA BY QUESTIONING KAYLYNN GRESHAM’S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH AFTER TINA BLATANTLY VIOLATED ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER AND REFUSED TO REQUEST A PARLIAMENTARY OPINION DESPITE BEING ASKED, THEREBY VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF GTC?

CRISTINA DANFORTH’S KISS ASS-KATEERS DIDN’T CARE ABOUT TINA VIOLATING GTC’S RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY AND THEIR FRIENDS WANTED TO RUN FOR THE VACANT OBC POSITION OR BE HIRED AS THEIR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANTS.

IN FACT, OBC CHAIR CRISTINA DANFORTH WAS HOPING THAT ONE HER KISS ASS-KATEERS WOULD BE ELECTED SO SHE MIGHT FINALLY HAVE AT LEAST ONE FRIEND ON THE OBC.

IN FACT, CRISTINA DANFORTH HAD CAMPAIGNED WITH DAVID ‘FLUNKY’ JORDAN IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTION IN WHICH HE LOST HIS CAMPAIGN TO BE TREASURER, AND WITH HIS FORMER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT LEYNE OROSCO LOST HIS BID TO BE OBC SECRETARY:

2014 Campaign Ad

Leyne Orosco, Tina Danforth, Chief Judicial Officer Winnifred Thomas, David “Fleet” Jordan in a shared campaign advertisement for the 2014 General Election published in Kalihwisaks

Beyond the massive ‘procedural irregularity’ created by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s blatant violation of Robert’s Rules of Order, the Oneida Tribal Election Law requires that a Primary be be held whenever there are sixteen or more candidates as were caucused at the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting and were listed on the Sample Ballot, which OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, the rest of the OBC, and Chief Counsel Jo Anne House completely and unlawfully disregarded the Election Law:

2.12-1. When a primary is required under 2.12-2, it shall be held on a Saturday at least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the election.

2.12-2. There shall be a primary election for Business Committee positions whenever there are three (3) or more candidates for any officer positions or sixteen (16) or more candidates for the at-large council member positions. …

(b) The fifteen (15) candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast for the at-large council member positions shall be placed on the ballot.

When Oneida Eye’s Publisher confronted OBC Chair Cristina Danforth after the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting and informed Tina that not only was the Caucus held that day illegal but also that forgoing a Primary when there were 16 candidates was in clear violation of the Election Law, Tina admitted that Oneida Eye’s Publisher was right … and shrugged:

As long-time Oneida Eye readers will recall, due to the blatant violations of Tribal Law by OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, Oneida Eye’s Publisher – along with Tribe members Michael T. Debraska and Franklin Cornelius, Sr. – filed a request for a Temporary Restraing Order & Preliminary Injunctive Relief against the November 22, 2014 Special Election for the vacant OBC position which the Oneida Appeals Commission Trial Body granted and the Oneida Election Board Cancelled the November 22, 2014 Special Election:

Oneida Eye’s Publisher and Co-Appellants asked OBC Chair Cristina Danforth and the rest of the OBC to take the matter back to GTC so that GTC could make a decision in keeping with the Election Law, which the OBC refused to do with the guidance & advice of OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House. As Tribe Member Cathy Metoxen noted above in the excerpt of the July 27, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting, it is the prerogative of the OBC Chair to call Special GTC Meetings, yet when OBC Chair Cristina Danforth was responsible for violating Robert’s Rules of Order, she refused to bring the matter back to GTC for corrective action,

The OAC Trial Body lifted their stay on the illegal Special Election:

Oneida Eye’s Publisher and Co-Appellants appealed the OAC Trial Body’s Decision to the OAC Appellate Body, which found in Appellants’ favor and reinstated a Stay against the rescheduled Special Election planned for January 10, 2015, which was then cancelled:

The OAC Appellate Body ruled in their January 6, 2015 Appellate Body Initial Review Decision, Docket # 14-AC-018Cornelius, Debraska, Dodge & Graham v. OBC, Oneida Election Board & Oneida Law Office, that the Trial Body’s December 16, 2014, decision to lift the Stay and allow the Oneida Election Board and Oneida Business Committee to set a date for a secondary election was:

…clearly erroneous and is against the weight of the evidence presented at the [Trial] hearing level.

Further, the OAC Appellate Body also determined that:

There is exhibited a procedural irregularity which would be considered a harmful error that may have contributed to the final decision, which if the error had not occurred, would have altered the final decision.

In their February 2, 2015 Appellants’ Brief in Oneida Appeals Commission Docket #14-AC-018, the Appellants noted the following acknowledgment by an OBC Member that OBC Chair Cristina Danforth had violated Robert’s Rules of Order and created a massive ‘procedural irregularity’:

Interestingly, in the November 14, 2014 edition of the Kalihwisaks, one of the Respondents, OBC Council Member Ron ‘Tehassi’ Hill, concedes that the Petitioners/Appellants are correct in his column of that issue’s OBC Forum by stating: “Another irregularity was the vote to reconsider option B (election process). Normally we would have had two votes in the reconsideration process. The first vote would be to see if there is support to readdress the previous action to vote down option B. If that vote succeeded, then we would revote on option B. We only voted once and it was recognized as the actual vote for option B. I feel this action was out of order.”

As Oneida Eye stated in its March 3, 2015 post, Traitors: Oneida Business Committee & Oneida Election Board Illegally Schedule Unlawful Election,’ on February 25, 2015, the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Appellate Body dismissed Docket # 14-AC-018, Debraska, Dodge, Cornelius & Graham v. Oneida Business Committee, Oneida Election Board & Oneida Law Office stating:

This case will not be concluded prior to March 1, 2015. Pursuant to the provisions of Resolution 1-7-13-B as enacted by the Oneida General Tribal Council this matter is therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs-Appellants had until March 30, 2015, to file an appeal of that dismissal with the Oneida Tribal Judiciary, a body whose election circumstances, ethics, basic competency of jurisdiction, and legitimate existence are all questionable at best.

On March 3, 2015, the Oneida Business Committee illegally adopted the unlawful recommendation of the Oneida Election Board to schedule a Special Election to address an OBC vacancy:

The Oneida Business Committee has approved the recommendation of the Oneida Election Board for a Special Election to fill the vacancy on the Oneida Business Committee.  The election is set for Saturday, April 11, 2015 with polls open from 7 am to 7 pm. Should you have questions please contact the Oneida Election Board at election_board@oneidanation.org

Eventually David ‘Flunky’ Jordan became an Illegal OBC Member and hired Leyne ‘Lame-o’ Orosco as his Executive Asst., but not before the Oneida Election Board mailed letters to GTC and published notices in the Tribal newspaper ‘Kalihwisaks’ with the wrong address for the SEOTS polling site:

BUT FACTS REMAIN FACTS.

THE VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT AND ACTION REPORT FROM THE OCTOBER 26, 2014 GTC SPECIAL MEETING ALL PROVE – BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT – THAT GTC NEVER VOTED ON ANY ‘MOTION TO ADOPT’ ANY RESOLUTION ENACTING A SPECIAL ELECTION AS REQUIRED BY TRIBAL LAW.

Article III, Section 3 of the Oneida Tribal Constitution is clear:

The General Tribal Council may at any regular or special meeting fill any vacancies that occur on the Business Committee for the unexpired term.

Only GTC is allowed by Tribal Law to decide whether to fill an OBC position or to just leave it vacant. Not the OBC.

Nothing in the Oneida Constitution nor the Election Law allows OBC nor the Election Board to usurp GTC’s sole Constitutional authority on this matter.

Why couldn’t OBC Chair Cristina Danforth just admit that she was flat-out wrong to falsely claim that a ‘Motion to Reconsider’ is the same as a ‘Motion to Adopt’ and simply bring the matter back to GTC by calling a Special Meeting – as is the perogative of the OBC Chair to do as stated above – and allow GTC to decide whether to fill the OBC vacancy in accordance with the Constitution?

Because – like other OBC members and Election Board members, as well as OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House – Tina Danforth is an ignorant and unethical traitor undermining the authority and violating the rights of the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin and violating the Indian Civil Rights Act.

THE ONEIDA BUSINESS COMMITTEE AND THE ONEIDA ELECTION BOARD ARE MERELY DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO OPENLY VIOLATE THE TRIBAL CONSTITUTION AND LAWS WITH THE ASSISTANCE AND BLESSING OF THE ONEIDA LAW OFFICE AS LED BY CHIEF COUNSEL JO ANNE HOUSE WHO AIDS, ABETS & OFTEN DIRECTS THE OBC’S TREACHERY.

Tina Danforth’s ‘concern trolling’ about how the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting was conducted in her absence and any ‘procedural irregularities’ is the height of hypocrisy given that she still refuses to admit that:

(a) a ‘Motion to Reconsider’ is not the same thing as a ‘Motion to Adopt;’ therefore,

(b) she violated both Robert’s Rules of Order as Used by the Oneida General Tribal Council and the Oneida Election Law during the October 26, 2014 GTC Special Meeting; thus,

(c) the Special Election held on April 11, 2015, was illegal due to the fact that GTC never voted on any ‘Motion to Adopt’ any option to enact an election as required by the Oneida Election Law;

(d) her friend David ‘Fleet’ Jordan cannot lawfully be considered a legal OBC Member; and, therefore,

(e) David ‘Fleet’ Jordan’s continuing unlawful participation as an illegal OBC Member in any OBC meeting or GTC meeting is itself not simply a ‘procedural irregularity’ but an outrageous violation of Tribal law and the Indian Civil Rights Act.

All of this perfectly exemplifies the OBC’s collective belief that ‘Sovereignty’ boils down to their right to be as or more dishonest, corrupt, treacherous, and treasonous than non-Tribal governments.

 

 

As David ‘Fleet’ Jordan has said himself on the record about the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin:

Such a lack of ethics in this entire organization.

 

Finally, as for the claim that the $700 reduction in Per Capita payment per Tribal enrollee would be used to pay down DEBT:

NOWHERE during the presentation that Asst. CFO RaLinda Ninham-Lamberies gave at the July 6, 2016 GTC Meeting did she ever mention the DEBT generated by the SECRET MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT MADE WITH TRIBAL FUNDS BY JOHN BREUNINGER AFTER HE WAS SECRETLY MADE ‘MANAGING AGENT’ OF OSGC SUBSIDIARIES GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ONEIDA ENERGY INC. & ONEIDA ENERGY BLOCKER CORP. WHICH WERE NAMED IN A LAWSUIT IN COOK CO. ILLINOIS.

Oneida Eye has reported that on Monday, February 22, 2016, Oneida Eye’s Publisher was informed by Oneida Law Office Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf that at some point in time (although Atty. Bittorf refused to say when, other than to indicate that it was after the companies’ Boards had been dissolved) Former Tribal Planning Director John Breuninger (and husband of OLO Senior Paralegal Jeri Bauman) was made ‘Sole Director’ of Oneida Energy Inc., Oneida Energy Blocker Corp. & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC (although OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf did not say by whom), and that John Breuninger single-handedly made the decision to pay an undisclosed amount of Tribal money (although Atty. Bittorf said he was “not comfortable” revealing how many MILLIONS of dollars) to settle the lawsuit filed against those OSGC subsidiaries by Evanston, IL-based Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services against OSGC’s subsidiaries.

After ignoring several previous requests by Oneida Eye’s Publisher for updated copies of the lawsuit’s court filings, OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf finally provided Oneida Eye’s Publisher with a copy of the Order for Dismissal when she went to his office in person on February 22, 2016:

HOWEVER, as Oneida Eye has reported, on October 21, 2015, Oneida Tribe members received a letter in the mail from the Oneida Business Committee (which was dated September 23, 2015) stating that the OBC had declined a settlement offer by the Plaintiffs which would have allowed the Oneida Tribe to settle the matters described above for $9 million:

The OBC’s letter clearly stated regarding the latter lawsuit:

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.

Then how & why was John Breuninger allowed to make that major decision all on his own as Atty. Bittorf claimed, which is believed to have cost the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin between $5 TO $15 MILLION ON TOP OF THE $10 MILLION LOST TO NATURE’S WAY TISSUE & OSGC-subsidiary GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, rather than bringing that very important & costly matter before GTC for action just as the OBC plainly told GTC in writing that they would?

It’s ALL MORE PROOF of the OBC’s LIES and VIOLATIONS of General Tribal Council’s authority & Tribe members’ rights…

…all while the OBC & the OLO are PROTECTING CORRUPT TRIBAL CORPORATIONS – whose Boards the OBC appoint & oversee – that POCKET and WASTE TENS OF MILLIONS of the Tribe’s dollars on EXECUTIVES’ INFLATED SALARIES … and LAWSUITS … and PYROLYSIS PONZI SCHEMES… and ENERGY SCAMS with local NOT-SO-GOOD-OL’-BOYS.

Why didn’t the OBC tell GTC about the settlement that John Breuninger paid with the Tribe’s money to Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services at the SATURDAY, February 20, 2016 continuation of the GTC Annual Meeting?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth claimed to Oneida Eye’s Publisher on MONDAY, February 22, 2016, that she was not informed nor aware of a settlement of any kind being paid by the Tribe nor its corporations, although it’s impossible to know whether she was lying or just clueless.

Michael Debraska, who was with Oneida Eye’s Publisher when they spoke to OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Jim Bittorf on February 22, 2016, about the secret appointment and secret settlement, asked Atty. Bittorf what type of insurance was used to pay the settlement.

Atty. Bittorf answered that there was NO insurance, and that the multi-million ‘confidential’ settlement was paid directly from Tribal funds, presumably from the Government Contingency Funds.

Oneida Eye was later informed by a Tribe member who is also a U.S. military veteran that he had spoken directly to John Breuninger about the ‘confidential’ settlement agreement and that John Breuninger told him that he had approved a settlement in the amount of $15 MILLION, and that John Breuninger seemed oblivious to the fact that there had even been a $9 Million settlement offer that the OBC had rejected, or that the OBC had sent a letter to every GTC Member saying that the OBC would bring the matter back to GTC for GTC to decide how to take action on any settlement decision.

Let’s say that the final settlement that John Breuninger secretly paid was somewhere between $9 to $15 MILLION.

The OBC’s plan was to reduce Tribe members’ Per Capita payments from a proposed to $2,000 per person to $1,300 per person; a difference of $700 per person.

The July 6, 2016 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting Packet states that as on May 12, 2016, there were 17,105 Enrolled Members.

17,105 Members x $700 =

$11,973,500

 

IN OTHER WORDS…

THE OBC CONVINCED GTC SURRENDER $12 MILLION TO PAY OFF ‘DEBT’ AFTER REPORTS THAT THE OBC SECRETLY ALLOWED JOHN BREUNINGER TO USE TRIBAL FUNDS TO SECRETLY PAY A SECRET SETTLEMENT IN THE BALLPARK OF $9 TO $15 MILLION…

…RATHER THAN BRINGING THAT MATTER BACK TO GTC FOR ACTION AS THE OBC HAD TOLD GTC IT WOULD DO IN WRITING…

…THEREBY DISALLOWING GTC TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO “VETO ANY…ENCUMBRANCE” AS STATED IN ARTICLE IV – POWERS OF THE GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL:

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

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

 

LYING TO GTC IN WRITING AND PREVENTING GTC FROM EXERCISING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO VETO ENCUMBRANCE OF TRIBAL ASSETS BY TRIBALLY-OWNED CORPORATIONS & THEIR SUBSIDIARIES IS

TREASON

…PLAIN & SIMPLE.

 

Cui bono? (Who profits?)

 

Note that as of August 6, 2016, the OBC & OLO have still not updated the information on the Tribe’s website in the ‘Litigation Updates’ Section which still says regarding ACF LEASING, LLC, ACF SERVICES, LLC, AND GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC V. GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORPORATION, AND THE ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, CASE NO. 14 L 002768 (CIRCUIT COURT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS):

In 2014, the ACF plaintiffs sued the Nation, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (“OSGC”), and Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (“GBRE”) in relation to contracts between ACF Leasing/ACF Services and GBRE for a proposed plastics-to-oil project. Among other things, the ACF plaintiffs claim the Nation, OSGC and GBRE breached the contracts and were unjustly enriched by learning about ACF’s technology. They also claim the Nation and OSGC intentionally interfered with the contracts, interfered with ACF’s prospective economic advantage, interfered with ACF’s business expectancy, and are vicariously liable for all of the debts and obligations of GBRE. The Nation and OSGC moved to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction. GBRE moved to dismiss the claims against it for failure to state a claim. The court ruled in favor of the Nation and OSGC, and dismissed all of the claims against the Nation and OSGC. The court also dismissed some of the claims against GBRE, but allowed the ACF plaintiffs to amend their complaint to restate those claims. The ACF plaintiffs have appealed the court’s order dismissing the claims against the Nation and OSGC. On April 7, 2015, the ACF plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Illinois Court of Appeals. On May 11, 2015, the Nation and OSGC filed their response brief, and the ACF plaintiffs have filed their reply brief. We anticipate the Illinois Court of Appeals will issue a decision in 12-18 months.

On December 15, 2013, GTC gave OBC an unambiguous directive to fully dissolve Oneida Seven Generations Corporation which OBC claimed they could not carryout until all lawsuits involving OSGC were completed.

Given that John Breuninger’s secret multi-million dollar payment to ACF & GCF resulted in the February 1, 2016 Order for Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement, why hasn’t the Oneida Business Committee proceeded to carry out GTC’s December 15, 2014, directive to dissolve OSGC with the same level of gusto that OBC Treas. Trish King said on the video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting she was required to use to start making ‘DEBT‘ payments on July 12, 2016, based on GTC’s directive at the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting?

In fact, on August 10, 2016, OBC Treasurer Trish King sent a memo stating she’d already spent down $36.44 MILLION on ‘DEBT.’

How much of that $36.44 Million went toward the undisclosed multi-million dollar settlement figure?

Is that a negative seven question mark figure in the Tribal budget ledger?

– ?,???,???

Or an eight question mark figure?

– ??,???,???

 

When will the OBC FINALLY do what the GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL – THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF THE ONEIDA NATION IN WISCONSIN – voted to direct the OBC to do more than THREE YEARS ago and dissolve OSGC?

Or will the OBC continue to violate Tribal law in order to defy the directives of THEIR SUPERIORS?

In fact, the Oneida Business Committee is so foolish and tone-deaf that they’ve stated in the GTC Meeting Packet for the August 10, 2016 GTC Special Meetig that – based on the utterly erroneous and counter-factual decision of the corporate puppets known as the Wisconsin Supreme Court but despite the erupting volcano of evidence of the corruption of Oneida Nation High School Principal Artley Skenandore’s & OSGC’s business partner Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel – the OBC are actually considering allowing OSGC to undertake litigation against the City of Green Bay to recover ‘damages’ due to the City’s Common Council having rescinded OSGC’s ‘Conditional Use Permit’ to build a trash incinerator which was nothing but a facet of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expanisve fraud scheme:

 

Was the secret multi-million dollar settlement agreed to by John Breuninger and paid for with Tribal funds in what looks like an extortion shakedown of GTC actually the ‘DEBT’ that OBC Treas. Trish King said during the video of the July 13, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting that she had already started paying on July 12, 2016?

Undeniably, such a large amount will have an impact on the Tribal budget and GTC members have a right to know not only what the exact amount of the settlement was and who authorized John Breuninger to pay it with Tribal funds, but also deserve to know how the OBC paid for it and why they lied in writing to GTC about bringing any settlement decision to GTC for action.

Yet here’s what happens when Tribe members try to get OBC to answer those questions:

That cutting off of the Oneida Eye Publisher’s microphone at the April 11, 2016 GTC Special Meeting occurred just after OBC Chair & OSGC fraud scheme travelling cheerleader Cristina Danforth ran away from the stage right after she acknowledged Leah Sue Dodge at the microphone, abandoning OBC Vice-Chair Melinda J. Danforth to chair the meeting and try to keep GTC in the dark by ordering Oneida Eye’s Publisher’s microphone cut off (though you can still hear Dodge in the background asking OSGC fraud scheme cheerleader Melinda Danforth what she’s trying to hide from GTC).

That’s not the first time an OBC Vice-Chair has bullied GTC members and refused to allow them to speak during a GTC Meeting to keep GTC in the dark about the $397 MILLION lawsuit by GCF/ACF against OSGC in Illinois …which actually seems more like an EXTORTION RACKET that OSGC officers & executives personally entangled the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin in, along with OSGC’s local business partners in Oneida-Kodiak Construction, LLC, which was supposed to build OSGC’s proposed trash incinerators based on Ron Van Den Heuvel’s ‘patented’ technology.

Just like Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair Greg Matson, current OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth prevented GTC’s knowledge & discussion about the bogus GCF/ACF lawsuit – and the $uper $ecret $ettlement agreement – in a doomed attempt to prevent OBC’s & Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s corruption & fraud from being exposed to the light of day, even after GTC has already voted to direct the OBC to fully dissolve OSGC.

Obviously, the OBC lied to the GTC in writing about bringing any settlement decision before GTC for action, and the result of the OBC’s & OSGC’s ongoing corruption scandals is the mysterious loss of many more MILLIONS of dollars of GTC’s money at Tribe member John Breuninger’s sole discretion for a possible SHAKEDOWN in an EXTORTION SCHEME that might be linked to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expansive & pervasive fraud schemes, which Oneida Eye has reported on extensively.

 

Again, it must be asked…

Cui bono? (Who profits?)

 

The next GTC Special Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday August 10, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.

 

Sometimes Wolves have to warn the Clan about other Wolves.

Sometimes Wolves have to warn the Clan about other Wolves in the Clan.

 


OBC Chair Cristina Danforth Admits At July 6 GTC Meeting That Traveling For One Of Her Other Jobs & Her Staff’s Incompetence Resulted In Loss Of $3 To $4 Million From Negotiated Prescription Drug Price Program [VIDEO]; ALSO, Tina Claimed That Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth Under Guidance Of Chief Counsel Jo Anne House Allowed Vote On Unlawful Amendment Reducing Tribal Per Capita Payments At June 13 GTC Meeting; PLUS, Media Reports That GTC Members Were Asked To Not Discuss Possible New Sales Tax For Non-Indian Businesses On Reservation; Read The Oneida Law Office’s CONFIDENTIAL Analysis; UPDATE: Fmr. Loan Officer Paul Piikkila Pleads Guilty In Bank Fraud Case Involving Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel; Read The Plea Agreement & Media Reports

At the July 6, 2016 Semi-Annual General Tribal Council Meeting, Oneida Business Committee Chair Cristina Danforth admitted that the Oneida Health Center lost access to a federal negotiated prescription drug cost program resulting in a loss to the Tribe of $4 Million due to her own extreme carelessness in failing to sign the required documents in a timely manner due to the fact that she was away traveling for one of her other jobs.

As Oneida Eye has reported, OBC Chair Cristina Danforth is also 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 we’ve also reported, the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin has already lost over half of its $1 Million investment in NABNA.

Although some Tribe members have speculated that Comprehensive Health Division Director Debra Danforth may have withheld the documentation from the Chair’s office until Tina Danforth had already left on travel in an act of political gamesmanship, OBC Chair Tina Danforth told GTC at the July 6 Semi-Annual Meeting that her office had been notified by email about the necessity of her signing the documents in order to access the discounts.

Yet, Tina Danforth claimed that she receives too many emails for her staff to keep track of, suggesting that she would have failed to sign the required forms in time even if she had not been away on travel for another job.

As Oneida Eye reported, OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s Executive Assistant Lora Skenandore was given that position by Tina immediately following Lora’s dismissal from the Oneida Gaming Commission due to her conviction for ‘Welfare Fraud.’

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth also claimed at the July 6 Semi-Annual GTC Meeting that – in her absence from the June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting due to travel for another job – OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth had unlawfully allowed a vote to reduce GTC’s Per Capita to $1,300 for as an amendment by Nancy Skenandore to a main motion by Yvonne Metivier to raise GTC’s Per Capita to $2,000 for five years.

The June 13, 2016 GTC Special Meeting Action Report Draft shows the following:

Motion by Yvonne Metivier to direct the OBC to pay $2,000 Per Capita beginning Fiscal Year 2017 through 2021. Seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion carried by hand count: 1068 support; 200 opposed; 35 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by Nancy Skenandore to revise the Per Capita payment amount to $1,300 instead of $2,000. Seconded by Don Charnon. Motion carried by hand count: 791 support; 702 opposed; 32 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by Debra Schnell to revise the Per Capita payment plan to be in effect for the next three (3) fiscal years instead of the next five (5) fiscal years. Seconded by Linn Cornelius. Motion failed by hand count: 642 support; 829 opposed; 52 abstained

Amendment to the main motion by David P. Jordan to go with the OBC’s plan to pay off the debt. Seconded by Chris Cornelius. Motion carried by hand count: 697 support; 612 opposed; 87 abstained

__________________

07/28/2016 UPDATE & REVISION:

Oneida Eye has posted below video of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s admission that the incompetence & negligence of herself and her staff cost the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin millions of dollars, and we will be posting our updated analysis of OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s and OBC Chief Counsel Jo Anne House’s competing claims about the lawfulness of the actions of OBC Vice-Chair Melinda Danforth in an upcoming post.

 

Apparently, Cristina Danforth was too busy planning for the NAFOA Board’s recent trip to Cuba and she expensively failed to the atend to the business that GTC elected her and pays her to do as Oneida Business Committee Chair…

just as Tina failed in her own personal business resulting in bankruptcy.

Tina Danforth with NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba

Tina Danforth with the NAFOA Board enjoying themselves in Cuba

__________________

Another motion was made at the July 6 Semi-Annual GTC Meeting by Oneida Personnel Commission Administrator Gina Powless-Buenrostro, and seconded by Mike Debraska, to create a new CEO position despite the fact that GTC has previously voted to eliminate the former Chief of Staff position and General Manager positions as part of the adoption of a restructuring endeavor named ‘Plan B.’

Fmr. & illegal OBC member David ‘Fleet’ Jordan asked for the Parliamentarian’s opinion on whether doing so would require a 2/3 majority vote given the proposed CEO position would be essentially the same as the eliminated positions, stating that he didn’t want GTC to once again be misled into taking unlawful actions, which is ironic given that the election that resulted in him returning as an OBC member was itself unlawful due to OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s incompetent insistence that “reconsidering” a motion is the same thing as “adopting” a motion despite objections by GTC members…

…and despite the fact the Oneida Appeals Commission’s Appellate Body determined that the OAC’s Trial Body’s decision to allow an election to proceed despite OBC Chair Tina Danforth’s unlawful actions was clearly erroneous and is against the weight of the evidence presented at the [Trial] hearing level.”

Some Tribe members believe that the OBC would most likely try to fill any such ‘CEO’ position by hiring current Oneida High School Principal and former General Manager Artley Skenandore

…who is also the fraud scheme partner with Tribally-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corp. in the expansive machinations of Ron Van Den Heuvel.

 

Gina Buenrostro’s motion to undo GTC’s previous directive failed to achieve a 2/3 majority in a split vote with almost as many voting to reject the motion as voting to adopt it.

General Tribal Council was not able to make it through the entire Semi-Annual Meeting Agenda and must now meet within 60 days to continue the agenda due to a motion by Madelyn Genskow which GTC voted to approve.

OBC Secretary Lisa Summers claimed that directive wasn’t feasible because the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center did not have any availability. When challenged by Madelyn Genskow if OBC Sec. Summers had asked the Radisson yet Lisa admitted that she had not, and GTC openly laughed out loud at OBC Sec. Summers.

At that future continuation of the Semi-Annual Meeting, GTC is scheduled to further discuss the possible implementation of a sales tax on non-Indian owned businesses on the Oneida Reservation on top of the existing 5% sales tax imposed by the State of Wisconsin, which GTC members were asked not to discuss with the public or media.

BROWN COUNTY – (WLUK) The Oneida Nation Indian Tribe is considering adding a sales tax for retailers operating on tribal land. …

Walmart, Sam’s Club, Festival Foods, and Home Depot are among major retailers operating on Oneida tribal land, according to Brown County land records. …

According to tribal documents, last July, tribal members voted [359 to 133] in favor of a referendum whether the tribe should supplant the state’s five percent sales tax on tribal trust land.

The money would be dedicated to a trust fund for ‘Per Capita distribution.’

“[Oneida Judiciary Trial Court Chief Justice Denice Beans] had an initiative in…her mind to go forth and ask the question,” said Webster. “So [she] asked for it to be put on a referendum and [Tribe members] have the right to put the questions out as referendums.”

Tribe documents show [Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf] wrote the tribe has the authority to impose a sales tax on non-Indian companies that operate retail businesses on the Tribe’s trust lands. However, [Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf] clarified the tax would have to be in addition to the state’s tax.

[Dept. Chief Counsel James Bittorf] also wrote those businesses would be placed at a competitive disadvantage to companies whose businesses are not located on tribal trust lands.

[Dept. Chief Counsel James Bittorf] wrote the businesses would have the incentive to challenge the validity of the Tribe’s sales tax, and may seek to terminate their leases.

“I think the General Tribal Council would want more information,” said [PR Director Bobbi] Webster. “They would want to know what is the impact, what would you forecast, the impact financially, socially, business development.”

There is no word on how much the tax could be. Webster tells FOX 11 it’s too early in the process for that answer.

Before the meeting Wednesday evening, a tribal member told FOX 11 members were asked not to discuss the sales tax issue.

 

7/13/2016 UPDATE:

GREEN BAY – The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is considering adding a sales tax on retailers located on tribal land.

That has some Green Bay aldermen worried that big-box stores on tribal land within the city limits could leave the area or other businesses avoiding it altogether. …

City staff have drafted an ordinance opposing the Oneida sales tax at the request of Alderman Joe Moore, who chairs the Council’s finance committee.

“I think that it’s very important we express our concern. (The city’s west side) falls on tribal land, and I’m sure you don’t want to see retailers moving out of the district or decreased development because of this extra sales tax,” Moore told the committee.

The committee did not act on the resolution. It will take up the issue in August after reaching out to the tribe for more information on its intentions with the tax. …

The relationship between Green Bay and Oneida governments has been strained recently. In April, the city backed out of a 15-year service agreement with the tribe because of a dispute over who should have jurisdictional control of land within the tribe’s historical reservation boundaries.

City leaders opposed a provision in the agreement prohibiting them from challenging the tribe’s transfer of properties it owns into a federal tax-exempt trust. The transfers are a key component of the tribe’s plan to reclaim its original 65,400-acre reservation. 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.

 

  

 

Imposing a tax on non-Oneida business owners is certainly one way to try to make up for the unnecessary losses of millions of dollars created by the incompetence, unlawful actions and extreme carelessness of the Oneida Business Committee Chair & members and Chief Counsel Jo Anne House…

…not to mention trying to fill the gap left by the millions of GTC’s dollars wasted on fraud schemes and secretly given away in a possible extortion shakedown, all involving Artley Skenandore, John Breuninger, Oneida Seven Generations Corp. & its subsidiaries, and Ron Van Den Heuvel, which now totals somewhere between $15 and $25 MILLION.

However, the better option seems obvious:

Stop electing and hiring incompetent, reckless, deceitful, and malfeasant individuals in the first place, and start holding Tribal officials & employees accountable when they behave stupidly & selfishly to the detriment of the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin.

Capisce?

 

 

Speaking of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s many costly fraud schemes:

BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WBAY) – Federal court records show a former loan officer accused of helping a De Pere businessman in a loan scheme has entered a plea agreement.

Paul Piikkilla could face 5 years in prison.

The trial for Ronald Van Den Heuvel is expected to start on Monday.

Van Den Heuvel is accused of defrauding Horicon Bank out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Investigators say he used other people, sometimes workers or relatives, to obtain the loans for him and give him the money. Prosecutors say Van Den Heuven never paid it back.

Actually, Ron Van Den Heuvel’s trial will not start on Monday, July 11, but will be pushed back given that, as Oneida Eye reported, Ron’s former counsel, Atty. Nancy DePodesta, has withdrawn from Ron’s case due to “potential conflict issues.”

In fact, as FOX 11 WLUK reports, a telephone status conference for Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel is scheduled for 11 a.m. on Friday, July 15, 2016:

GREEN BAY (WLUK) – The banker who allegedly conspired with a De Pere businessman to illegal funnel loans has agreed to plead guilty – and testify in the case, according to federal court documents obtained by FOX 11.

Paul Piikkila, then with Horicon Bank, authorized a $240,000 loan for a former relative of Ron Van Den Heuvel – and then Van Den Heuvel used the funds to pay for personal expenses and other loans at different banks. While prosecutors allege Piikkila helped arrange multiple loans after his bank instructed him not to, court documents indicate Piikkila has agreed to plea guilty for that specific transaction.

Piikkila faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

As part of the plea deal, Piikkila also “agrees to fully and completely cooperate with the government in its investigation of this and related matters, and to testify truthfully and completely before the grand jury and at any subsequent trials or proceedings,” the document states.

Prosecutors and Piikkila’s attorney will jointly recommend to the court that his sentencing wait until after the other case are completed. …

Van Den Huevel and his wife, Kelly, also face charges in the case. A status conference in those cases is scheduled for July 15. Ron Van Den Huevel faces 13 charges, while Kelly faces three.

Van Den Huevel, who founded a company called Green Box, also faces state review for late loan re-payments to the state.

 

An Appleton loan officer has entered a plea deal in a federal bank fraud case that involves a De Pere businessman whose green technology company owes the state’s job creation agency more than $1.2 million.

Paul Piikkila, of Appleton, admitted committing conspiracy to defraud his employer Horicon Bank of more than $700,000, according to a plea agreement filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee. Piikkila originally pleaded not guilty and a hearing on his change of plea is scheduled for July 22.

As part of the deal, Piikkila agreed to testify in the case involving De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel, who pleaded not guilty to a 13-count grand jury indictment related to the case filed in April.

According to the agreement, Piikkila helped Van Den Heuvel and Van Den Heuvel’s wife secure more than $1 million in loans from the bank, mostly through straw borrowers, between January 2008 and September 2009. The money was used to pay off Van Den Heuvel’s other debts and mostly wasn’t repaid, the agreement said.

The bank told Piikkila not to loan money to Van Den Heuvel after turning down his attempt to secure a $7.1 million loan for one of Van Den Heuvel’s companies in 2008, the agreement said. The bank’s attempts to investigate Van Den Heuvel’s financial record convinced them that he “was not a good credit risk,” the document said.

 

GREEN BAY – An Appleton banker has pleaded guilty to his part in what federal authorities claim was a bank fraud scheme led by De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel.

Paul J. Piikkila, a loan officer for Horicon Bank’s Appleton office, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Green Bay to one count of participating in a scheme to defraud the bank.

Prosecutors claim Piikkila used his position to provide more than $1 million in loans to Van Den Heuvel and his wife, Kelly Van Den Heuvel, in 2008 and 2009. …

Piikkila prepared the paperwork for the loans to prevent his bosses from realizing that he was violating their instructions not to loan money to Van Den Heuvel or his businesses.

Neither the straw borrowers, at least some of whom worked for Van Den Heuvel, nor Van Den Heuvel himself paid back any of the loans. At least one of the straw borrowers was Van Den Heuvel’s former brother-in-law and another was the Van Den Heuvels’ nanny, a woman who barely could speak English. Kelly Van Den Heuvel was primarily responsible for the loan obtained through the nanny. Kelly Van Den Heuvel allegedly told Piikkila the nanny earned $50,000 a year, but the nanny told authorities she wasn’t getting paid at all and that, in fact, Kelly Van Den Heuvel had been running up debt on the nanny’s credit cards. …

While many of the straw investors believed the money was going for purchase equipment or operating capital for Van Den Heuvels’ businesses, large sums were going toward various unpaid debt, and some went toward the Van Den Heuvels’ personal expenses, including rent they paid for a luxury box at Lambeau Field. …

Once the bank started trying to collect on collateral offered as security on the loans, it learned that much of the collateral property wasn’t worth what it had been represented or was already encumbered by other banks trying to collect on loans. …

Piikkila faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. In exchange for the guilty plea, prosecutors agree not to charge him with additional offenses. He will be sentenced July 29.

The Van Den Heuvels, like Piikkila, each face a count of conspiring to commit bank fraud. Ron Van Den Heuvel also faces seven counts of executing a bank fraud scheme and five counts of making false statements to influence a bank loan. He faces up to 30 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines on each count.

Kelly Van Den Heuvel also faces one count of executing a bank fraud scheme and one count of making false statements to influence a loan action.

Both are awaiting trial.

Along with the criminal charges, Ron Van Den Heuvel faces numerous lawsuits by investors whom he led to believe he was developing a waste-to-energy procedure that would put an end to landfill waste.

That company, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, filed for bankruptcy in April.

 

The fraud case is unrelated to another, higher-profile scandal in which Van Den Heuvel received $1.2 million from Gov. Scott Walker’s “job-creation” agency, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. Critics have branded WEDC as a corporate welfare agency for giving away millions to political donors without holding them accountable for creating jobs in return for the money.

In some cases, WEDC recipients took money and shipped jobs to other states or overseas. In other cases, the loans weren’t properly recorded, tracked or repaid — with impunity.

Van Den Heuvel, a longtime Republican donor, seems in some ways typical of WEDC awardees. He received the loans just months after the agency’s creation in 2011 based on his connections. He never underwent a background check. If he had, WEDC, which was headed by Walker at the time, would have learned that Van Den Heuvel owed millions in legal judgments to banks, business partners, state tax officials and even a jeweler.

Despite Van Den Heuvel’s failure to produce jobs or repay his initial loan, WEDC officials considered giving him more money as recently as February 2015.

Van Den Heuvel’s proposed business to create jobs was called Green Box NA. He claimed the company would convert dirty napkins and plastic eating utensils into synthetic fuel and paper products, but it apparently never had either a facility or the technology to perform such functions.

Van Den Heuvel faces numerous lawsuits from investors who loaned the business money, thinking that it was legitimate.

Green Box has declared bankruptcy. The state apparently is not pursuing charges or repayment from Van Den Heuvel.

 

According to PACER:

NOTICE OF HEARING as to Paul J Piikkila. (cc: all counsel) Change of Plea Hearing set for 7/22/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C Griesbach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julie Gumban] agrees that Kelly asked her to take out the loan to invest in KYHKJG. [Julie Gumban] agrees that her financial statement was false and she did not know where the money went.

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

[Paul Piikkila], by entering into this agreement, further agrees to fully and completely cooperate with the government in its investigation of this and related matters, and to testify truthfully and completely before the grand jury and at any subsequent trials or proceedings, if asked to do so. The government agrees to advise the sentencing judge of the nature and extent of the defendant’s cooperation. The parties acknowledge, understand and agree that if the defendant provides substantial assistance to the government in the investigation or prosecution of others, the government, in its discretion, may recommend a downward departure from the applicable sentencing guideline range. The defendant acknowledges and understands that the court will make its own determination regarding the appropriateness and extent to which such cooperation should affect the sentence. …

In order to allow the defendant to complete his cooperation and to allow both the court and the government to fully evaluate his cooperation, the parties will jointly recommend postponing the defendant’s sentencing until his cooperation has been completed.

 

Speaking of so-called ‘SOLUTIONS’…

As Oneida Eye previously reported, Oneida Nation in Wisconsin-owned Bay Bank also loaned money to Ron Van Den Heuvel after it was obvious to other local banks that Ron “was not a good credit risk”:

It should be noted that former OSGC incinerator fraud scheme Project Manager PETER KING III  – whose sham business KING SOLUTIONS, LLC, was appointed by the Oneida Business Committee as ‘Managing Agent’ of Oneida Seven Generations Corp. – is a Board member of Bay Bancorporation, Inc.

 

It is unknown at this time if OSGC’s fraud scheme partner Ron Van Den Heuvel – or his wife Kelly or any of their ‘straw borrowers’ – took out illegal loans from Tribally-owned Bay Bank that may have been ‘written off‘ due to non-repayment, but Oneida Eye presumes that the FDIC and other federal agencies have been investigating all of the named parties’ banking activities for the last few years.

Was Pete King III/Bay Bank a ‘source of solutions’ for Ron?

Or just a source of mo’ ill-gotten money, mo’ legal problems?

 

 

See also:

 

 

 

 

 


“You Guys Have A Great Thing Of Using My Depositions And Doing Other S#it With It.”; U.S. Tax Court Judge Allows Van Den Heuvel Family-Owned Holding Company VHC Inc. To Subpoena & Depose Schenck SC Accountants About Estranged Ron Van Den Heuvel’s $90 Million Debt; Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC / E.A.R.T.H. Officially Changed Its Name On 6/16/2016 To RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC And Listed GlenArbor Partners LLC As RTS’ Registered Agent, But EVERETT Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC Still Exists With The Same Address As RTS & Green Box NA – 2107 American Blvd., De Pere, WI; Ron’s Attorney Nancy DePodesta Withdraws Due To “Potential Conflict Issues”

What I’m answering is I’m not going to answer itemized questions on a list that I don’t know how you got, that is at least seven months old, and I don’t have the expertise to answer it. I wasn’t given it before, I wasn’t asked any questions on this. I don’t know. But I’m not going to go in here, because you guys have a great thing of using my depositions and doing other sh¡t with it.

So sayeth Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel, under oath, on page 44 of the…

…and Ron Van Den Heuvel doing a lot of this:

…in Brown County Case No. 15CV769Dr. Marco Araujo, Cliffton Equities LLC & Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. (WEDC) v. Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

…which is being used as an exhibit in Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Chapter 11 proceedings in U.S. Eastern District of Wisconsin Bankruptcy Court Case No. 16-24179-beh

… while Ron Van Den Heuvel, wife Kelly Van Den Heuvel, and Green Box NA Green Bay LLC (and 40+ of Ron & Kelly’s other businesses) are being investigated by the Brown County Sheriff’s Department and “no less than five federal agencies”

…for alleged crimes including federal indictments for a bank fraud scheme involving a bank loan officer and multiple straw borrowers.

 

See also this exhibit from Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s bankruptcy proceedings:

Page 7:

The Debtor lacks any reasonable probability of an effective reorganization.

“The clearest case of bad faith is where the debtor enters Chapter 11 knowing there is no chance to reorganize his business and hoping merely to [stave] off the [evil] day when the creditors take control of his property.” In re James Wilson Associates, 965 F.2d 160 (7th Cir. 1992)  In this case, there is no operation to reorganize. The Debtor has no employees with which to operate. The Debtor owns one significant asset, which it has allowed a related company to use for free during at least the past six months. All the while, the Debtor has purposefully evaded all direction from the Brown County Court, and has consistently stonewalled the efforts of the Receiver and creditors to discover the Debtor’s assets. This evidence suggests that the Debtor has no purposeful business operations to reorganize in the first instance.

 

Related:

Law360, Washington (June 13, 2016, 5:22 PM ET) — The U.S. Tax Court has granted a Wisconsin holding company’s request to subpoena the accountants for allegedly deadbeat paper companies as part of the firm’s attempt to establish bad debt deductions in a $17 million fight with the IRS.

Judge Kathleen Kerrigan gave family-owned VHC Inc. the go-ahead to serve a subpoena and notice of deposition on Schenck SC that seek the financial statements and tax returns of clients ST Paper Holdings, Tak Investments and other affiliated companies, according to an order entered last week.

The companies allegedly acquired the debt when they purchased a business formed by an estranged relative of VHC’s founders.

Counsel for the parties could not be reached for comment Monday.

In its March 2015 petition, VHC said it owned debt and not equity in relative Ron Van Den Heuvel’s spinoff business, 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.

VHC, which was first formed as a contracting firm by Ron’s older relative Raymond Van Den Heuvel, underwent “significant expansion” from the 1980s to the 1990s, prompting Ron to form his own company in 1997 and begin buying paper mills and other businesses, the petition said.

Though VHC declined Ron’s solicitations to invest in those firms –– saying doing so would conflict with its customer base –– VHC began issuing debt in the form of promissory notes to Ron’s acquired companies for equipment and overhead costs. The firm cited Ron Van Den Heuvel’s experience as a sales representative for VHC along with potential funding from major banks and companies, including Enron, which ultimately purchased a $5 million stake in his company in 1998, the petition said.

Shortly before 2000, VHC issued a line of credit to Ron’s cotton fiber plant for the installation of a key machine. It did so at the request of United Arab Emirates Investment Ltd., which had made an offer on the plant that would have far exceeded the amount of the company’s debt for the machine. 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 following the two collapses to help it get back on its feet, according to the petition.

Starting in 2003, VHC and the debtor company began a series of “often heated” meetings for repayment plans, according to VHC. However, a series of bad deals prevented the payments for years, causing VHC to declare the bad-debt deductions on each year’s tax returns.

In 2007, however, it appeared that the debt would be repaid with an offer on the mill from Goldman Sachs-backed ST Paper, which offered to purchase Ron Van Den Heuvel’s assets. Believing that the deal would bear fruit, VHC waived its bad debt deduction for its 2006 returns. However, VHC recanted when it learned that under a new arrangement, it would receive only promissory notes rather than cash payments for the loans.

VHC is represented by Robert M. Romashko, Robert E. Dallman, Daniel B. Geraghty, Thomas R. Vance and Patrick S. Coffey of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC.

The IRS is represented by Christa A. Gruber.

The case is VHC Inc. et al v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case number 004756-15, in U.S. Tax Court.

 

ORDER

These consolidated cases are calendared for a Special Session commencing on August 15, 2016, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On May 31, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for leave to serve subpoena and notice of deposition of non-party Schenck, S.C. pursuant to Tax Court Rule 74(c)(2)(B). Attached to the motion, petitioners included the notice of deposition with proof of service. The Court granted petitioners’ motion on June 7, 2016.

Upon due consideration, it is

ORDERED that the deposition of Schenck, S.C. shall take place on June 30, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the offices of petitioners’ counsel,  One Law Group, S.C. [formerly doing business as Stellpflug Law, S.C.], 444 Reid Street, Suite 200, DePere, Wisconsin 54115.

It is further

ORDERED that in addition to the usual service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on: Dennis J. Langenberg, Schenck S.C., 200 E. Washington Street, Appleton, WI 54911, and on Brian C. Spahn, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., 780 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590.

 

Atty. Mark Bartels of SC Acquisition Company, LLC, is the ‘Registered Agent’ for One Law Group/Stellpflug Law…

…and, oh… by the way…

Nancy Stellpflug – wife of One Law Group/Stellpflug Law partner C. David Stellpflug who retired in January 2016 – just happens to be Secretary of VHC, Inc.

 

 

As Oneida Eye has reported, Ron Van Den Heuvel said the following regarding Schenck SC in the Supplemental Examination of Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel Before James O’Neil, Court Commissioner May 8, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 12:59 p.m.:

[Atty. Jonathan T. Smies of Godfrey & Kahn SC:] How are those shares of [Environemental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC/E.A.R.T.H] valued, if you know?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Outside firms.

[Atty. Smies:] When was the last time you had an outside firm prepare a valuation of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Six months ago.

[Atty. Smies:] And what was the share price valuation at that time?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Three something, $3 and some cents.

[Atty. Smies:] And how many shares are outstanding or issued of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] A hundred million.

[Atty. Smies:] I just want to know, how many shares do you own of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I personally don’t own any of E.A.R.T.H.

[Atty. Smies:] It’s all through –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] That’s correct.

[Atty. Smies:] It’s all through – I have to go back.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] RVDH or PCDI. I personally don’t own any.

[Atty. Smies:] Indirectly through your ownership of those entities, what is your percentage of interest in E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I wouldn’t be able to –

[Atty. Smies:] You have no sense as –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No. 

[Atty. Smies:] – you sit here today?

[Atty. John Petitjean of Hinkfuss, Sickel, Petitjean & Weiting:] He’s already indicated he doesn’t own –

[Atty. Smies:] He doesn’t own directly, but he has an interest in entities that have a proportionate interest in –

[Atty. Petitjean:] And all those entities, he’s indicated, have numerous shareholders.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] It would be hard to figure out.

[Atty. Smies:] But it could be figured out. I mean, you –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Schenck could do it.

[Atty. Smies:] But as you sit here, you don’t know if you have three or other entities. You don’t know if you have one percent or 80 percent of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I wouldn’t know. I mean, I know I have more than one percent, okay? But I couldn’t – I couldn’t venture a guess that would be worth putting under oath.

 

UPDATE:

ACCORDING TO WDFI.org…

‘E.A.R.T.H./ENVIRONMENTAL ADVANCED RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY HQ, LLC’

…WHICH FIRST DID BUSINESS REGISTERED UNDER THE NAME ‘NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE, LLC’

…OFFICIALLY CHANGED ITS NAME ON JUNE 16, 2016, TO ‘RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC’ / RTS

…(AFTER ALREADY HAVING CHANGED E.A.R.T.H.’s NAME TO ‘RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC’ TWO DAYS EARLIER ON JUNE 14, 2016)…

…AND RTS’ NEW ‘REGISTERED AGENT’ IS LISTED AS  ‘GLENARBOR, LLC’WITH THE SAME ADDRESS AS RTS/GREEN BOX (2107 American Blvd. De Pere, WI)…

…BUT IS PRESUMABLY THE SAME AS OR AFFILIATED WITH CHICAGO-BASED GLENARBOR PARTNERS, INC.

…OF WHICH GREEN BOX NA BOARD MEMBER

STEPHEN A. SMITH IS PRESIDENT & CEO…

…BUT STEVE SMITH IS LISTED INDIVIDUALLY AS THE REGISTERED AGENT FOR ECOHUB WISCONSIN, LLC

…WHICH WAS ISSUED A DELINQUENT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX WARRANT IN BROWN CO. CASE NO. 16UC145 ON JULY 7, 2016 IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,036.70…

…AND WAS FORMERLY DOING BUSINESS AS BOTH ‘GREEN BOX NA WISCONSIN OP, LLC,’ and ‘GREEN BOX WISCONSIN, LLC,’ BEFORE CHANGING ITS NAME TO ECOHUB WISCONSIN LLC.

 

ECOHUB WISCONSIN, LLC, IS AFFILIATED WITH GEORGE GITSCHEL’S ECOHUB USA, LLC & ECOHUB HOUSTON, LLC,..

…FOR WHICH THE  www.ECOHUB-USA.com WEBSITE WAS RECENTLY CREATED, ACCORDING TO WebAnalyzer.com WHICH PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION:

Michael Garsow CEO WebAura LLC

Michael Garsow, Co-Founder & CEO of WebAura LLC, and Director of Marketing, Sales & Webservices for Reclamation Technology Systems LLC, and Webmaster of EcoHub-USA.com

Creation Date: 2016-02-15
Registrant Name: RONALD VAN DEN HEUVEL
Registrant Organization: TISSUE DEPOT
Registrant Street: 2077B LAWRENCE DRIVE
Registrant City: DE PERE
Registrant State/Province: WI
Registrant Postal Code: 54115
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.9203473838
Registrant Email: MIKEG@GREENBOXNA.COM

The same graphics & general layout are also used on George Gitschel’s www.ECOHUB-HOUSTON.com.

“Mike G” appears to be Michael Garsow of Evolve MTS, LLC, who is named in Plaintiffs’ Affidavits in Brown Co. Case No. 15CV1066re: the Matter of the Return of the Wrongfully Seized Property of: Ty C. Willihnganz; Ty Will Law, LLC; Savannah Brault; Jeremy McGown; Evolve MTS, LLC; Michael Garsow; Nancy Van Lanen; and Meng Qiao, which was filed in the wake of the execution of Brown Co. Sheriff’s Dept. Search Warrants issued for Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC.

In fact, Michael Garsow’s LinkedIn page has been updated to state that he is currently the Director of Marketing, Sales & Web Services for Reclamation Technology Systems LLC, and he lists the following accomplishments:

  • Increased sales of pulp and tissue products by over 50% through expanding current converting operations and the newly acquired pulping facility. Building on existing client base as well as acquiring new clients was key to obtaining this sales increase.
  • Assisted with the acquisition of $400 MM in tax exempt bonds through a well known and respected financial services agency.
  • Assisting in the acquisition of 10 year off-take agreements for tissue, pulp and linerboard with an estimated value of $1.2 billion dollars.
  • Head of web services for Reclamation Technology Systems & Tissue Depot – strategy & production to online retail

Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC’s newly created website can be seen at www.ReclamationTechnologySystems.com, and the ‘Contact’ page lists RTS’ address as 55 E. ERIE ST #2304, CHICAGO, IL, 60611 (which Trulia.com lists as a condominium), but it lists RTS’ phone number with a Wisconsin area code: 920-347-3838.

That’s the same phone number Ron Van Den Heuvel used for Green Box NA and other fraudulent entities at 2077 B, Lawrence Dr., De Pere, WI.

HOWEVER

…although Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC, (E.A.R.T.H. #1) changed names twice in 3 days just two weeks ago, finally settling on ‘Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC,’…

EVERETT ADVANCED RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY HQ, LLC (E.A.R.T.H. #2) still exists (albeit currently ‘Delinquent’ according to WDFI.org), and E.A.R.T.H. #2 still lists the same address as E.A.R.T.H. #1, and the ‘Registered Agent’ for E.A.R.T.H. #2 is still listed as E.A.R.T.H. #1.

Likewise, WDFI.com shows the existence of GREEN BOX NA II, LLC…among other Green Box tentacles.

 

 

UPDATE:

Atty. Nancy DePodesta of Arnstein & Lehr has witdrawn and is no longer Ron Van Den Heuvel’s counsel:

Due to ongoing investigations involving defendant and his companies, potential conflict issues have arisen. In light of potential conflicts, Mr. Van Den Heuvel and counsel agree that it is appropriate for Mr. Van Den Heuvel to be represented by other counsel in the above referenced matter. Mr. Van Den Heuvel advised [Atty. DePodesta] that he has spoken to other counsel regarding their representation of him in this and other matters.

 

Govt:

– no concerns with attorney withdrawal – feel there is a potential conflict

– feel could have potential issue w/ some of the search warrant material

– Govt is excused

Court requests remainder of this hearing to be SEALED

 

 

See also:

  • Brown Co Case 2008CV2028Chris J. Hartwig vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank; Oconto Falls Tissue Inc.; Partners Concepts Development Inc.; Tissue Products Technology Corp.; Eco Fibre Inc.; Recovering Aqua Resources Inc.; Anchorbank FSB; Stockhausen Inc.
  • Brown Co. Case No. 2009CV1050Wisconsin Public Service Corporation vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; (Ron’s sister) Ann Murphy; (Ron’s brother-in-law) Patrick Murphy; Chris J. Hartwig; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank; Eco Fibre Inc.; Baylake Bank; Fortress Credit Corp.; SHF XII LLC (Stonehill Financial LLC); Anchorbank FSB; Cordova Ventures; Industrial Technology Ventures LP; Yale Materials Handling Green Bay Inc.; Stockhausen Inc.; Sterling Industrial Sales LLC; Brian A. Everson; Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.; State of Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development; United States of America; Garnishees: Chase Bank; Spirit Construction Services Inc.; VOS Construction Services Inc.
  • Brown Co. Case No. 2010CV2318SC Acquisition Company LLC (Mark Bartels of Stellpflug Law SC) vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; Chris J. Hartwig; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Ron’s sister) Ann Murphy; (Ron’s brother-in-law) Patrick Murphy; Brian A. Everson; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank; Custom Paper Products Inc.; Partners Concepts Development Inc.; Eco Fibre Inc.; Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.; Tissue Products Technology Corp.; Oconto Falls Tissue Inc.; Tissue Technology LLC; Anchor Bank FSB; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Cordova Ventures; Industrial Technology Ventures LP; Stockhausen Inc.; Sterling Industrial Sales LLC; Yale Materials Handling Green Bay Inc.; ADT Security Services Inc.; State of Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development; United States of America; Other: SHF XII LLC (Stonehill Financial LLC)

 

9/11 terrorist hijackers’ Venice, Florida flight school and heroin smuggling airline owner and Green Bay philanthropist Wallace J. ‘Wally’ Hilliard was a client of high-risk tribal debt & ‘investment’ consulting and law firm Godfrey & Kahn, just as Godfrey & Kahn served as counsel for Ron Van Den Heuvel’s scheme partners at Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and OSGC subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC all the way to the the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

Yet, Wally Hilliard was also a client of Godfrey & Kahn in a lawsuit against Ron Van Den Heuvel:

 …including exhibits of depositions of Ron Van Den Heuvel in which Ron says of Wally Hilliard’s son:

[Dan Hilliard] works for me.

 

What’s wRONg with North East Wisconsin?

And the con ARTists of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin?

Wallace J. 'Wally' Hilliard, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, United Arab Emerites, Enron... You do the math. Operation Northwoods for a New Ametican Century

Wallace J. ‘Wally’ Hilliard, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Enron, United Arab Emirates investors, 9/11… You do the math. Operation Northwoods for a New American Century

Ron Van Den Heuvel mugshot Brown Co Sheriff Dept

Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel – Conman, Thief, Fraud & Swindler… & EcoSchlub

Artley Skenandore: Failing Upwards!

Artley Skenandore – Ron’s partner with OSGC in fraudulent $cumfu¢kery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel

Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel – Facing his & hers federal bank fraud charges with husband Ron

OPD Lt. Lisa Drew-Skenandore

Oneida Police Dept. Lt. Lisa Drew-Skenandore – What does she know & how did she benefit from husband Artley’s schemes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See also:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Amanda Knorr Admits Guilt For Her Role In $54 Million Mantria Corporation/EternaGreen Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme Eerily Similar To Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay LLC/EcoHub Wisconsin LLC And Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC Fraud Schemes Associated With Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s California-Based American Combustion Technologies Inc. (ACTI) aka American Renewable Technologies Inc. (ARTI) aka American Renewable Energy Inc. (AREI); BIZARRE Connections Of Mantria Corp., Green Box NA, ACTI, OSGC, Gene Keluche/Sagestone Mgmt., Generation Clean Fuels LLC, Atty. Eric Decator, OBC Chair Cristina Danforth, Native American Bank NA & The State Of COLORADO

When Amanda Knorr graduated from Temple University in 2006, the Hellertown woman put her biological anthropology degree to use as the “science expert” for her college boyfriend’s green energy company, which promised to turn “trash to cash” for investors.

Knorr joined Troy Wragg of Philadelphia, whom she met at Temple, to explain the science behind their bioenergy firm to backers, while promising returns of up to 484 percent and assuring them that real estate worth twice as much as their investments secured the venture.

Between 2005 and 2009, Wragg and Knorr’s company, Mantria Corp., raked in more than $54 million with the help of a pitchman from Colorado, Wayde McKelvy, who ran get-rich-quick seminars promising to make the investors “filthy, stinking rich.”

In reality, federal prosecutors allege, Mantria in Bala Cynwyd, Montgomery County, was a Ponzi scheme based on a plan to sell building lots in a polluted Tennessee wasteland possibly littered with unexploded World War II artillery shells.

The biofuel technology Wragg claimed would make Mantria “the next Microsoft” was unproven and ill-suited for the projects he falsely told investors were already up and running, prosecutors say.

“Although the economic and scientific reality of the situation was grim, Wragg, Knorr and McKelvy were able to raise such fantastic sums because they presented a fantasy world to prospective investors,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Livermore said in a court filing.

Knorr, 33, admitted her role in the scheme Tuesday, pleading guilty before U.S. District Judge Joel H. Slomsky to two conspiracy charges, seven counts of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud.

The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 240 years, according to a guilty plea memorandum filed in federal court in Philadelphia. Knorr could also be fined $12.5 million and ordered to make full restitution and forfeit any property linked to her crimes.

The judge set Knorr’s sentencing for Nov. 3, court records show.

An attorney for Knorr, Glennis L. Clark of Allentown, did not respond to a phone call or email Wednesday.

Wragg, 34, and McKelvy, 53, face trial on the same charges. Wragg’s lawyer, Joseph Mancano of Philadelphia, said his client maintains his innocence. McKelvy’s lawyer did not return a call.

Federal prosecutors allege Knorr, Wragg and McKelvy misled more than 300 investors across the country, lying about Mantria’s financial health to gain backing for projects in what a Denver magazine described as “The Biggest Green Scam in America.”

They included planned communities in Tennessee, clean-energy plants nearby that purportedly produced fuel from household waste and a valuable charcoal-like substance used in farming called biochar, and a firm to produce equipment for clean-energy installations elsewhere.

[Side Note: Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Human Resources Director Philip J. Reinhart testified that Ron Van Den Heuvel’s GBNAGB holds patents for creating “biochar,” and on October 5, 2011, Former Green Bay Mayor Paul Jadin, acting as WI Gov. Scott Walker‘s quasi-public Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDCCEO, signed Contract #WEDC FY-12-21010 awarding Green Box a $1.1 million loan for its operations in the City of De Pere, WI, to “recycle food-contaminated waste to create tissue products, oil, diesel, ethanol compressed syngas, synthetic fuels, sugars, biochar soil enhancement material, paper cups, and electricity” using “pyrolysis,” which is also referred to as “thermal conversion.” {Also, click this link for an archived page of www.greenboxna.com/about-us discussing Green Box’s claims regarding biochar}.

On March 19, 2012, Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, later received an additional $191,231 from WEDC via Contract #WEDC FY12-21248 for the same pyrolysis project.

Based on Ron Van Den Heuvel’s partnership with Oneida Tribe member Artley Skenandore’s Swakweko, LLC, and with OSGC in the ill-fated Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. debacle, Oneida Eye believes that the “proprietary systems for gasification” which OSGC, OEI, and GBRE sought to construct – and OSGC-subsidiary IEP Development, LLC, said it had “exclusivity to market” to tribes, counties, and municipalities – are presumably the same technology and processes which Ron Van Den Heuvel has claimed are his to bestow to companies, especially given that OSGC’s and Green Box’s energy projects involved participation by Mr. Latif Mahjoob of American Combustion Technologies (of California) Inc. / ACTI.

Ron’s & OSGC’s business associate Abdul Latif Mahjoob has registered a new company in California. American Combustion Technologies, Inc. / ACTI has re-branded itself as American Renewable Technologies, Inc. / ARTI, after ACTI was sued for Fraud. regarding the failure of ACTI’s equipment to function as advertised that was sold to the Nevada subsidiary of a company based in Colorado. More on Colorado below.]

Back to the Law360.com article:

But the land Wragg agreed to sell for his sister’s father-in-law in 2005 was essentially worthless. Timber and strip mining left the groundwater undrinkable and its use as a World War II firing range posed questions about its safety. Years earlier, a boy in a neighboring county lost his hand playing with an unexploded shell, prosecutors noted.

To sell the land, Wragg and Knorr needed to build roads and infrastructure. But they had no money, so the couple sought investors, promising triple-digit returns and guaranteeing the loans with property that the company technically didn’t own. Under its purchase agreements, Mantria had to sell the property, or it would revert to its original owners after two years, prosecutors said.

When the 2006 financial crisis caused real estate values to crash, the land became harder to sell and Mantria struggled to stay afloat. Wragg turned to McKelvy, an insurance salesman by trade, to attract new investors.

McKelvy touted Mantria in his “Speed of Wealth” seminars on television and radio, promising the returns on its property deals would make investors rich. In his talks, McKelvy urged listeners to liquidate their savings and invest in Mantria, prosecutors said.

“Knowing that the two-year real estate contracts were ticking time bombs which would destroy Mantria, Wragg needed a new scheme to generate investor interest and enthusiasm,” prosecutors said in the plea memo.

With energy prices soaring, Wragg devised a plan to make the Tennessee planned communities “carbon neutral” by building facilities to turn the forests that would be cut down to make way for homes and, later, trash from the homes, into profitable biochar. He also proposed a partnership to build a factory in New Mexico to produce biochar equipment, prosecutors said.

Knorr touted the company on McKelvy’s Internet radio show with false statements about the success of Mantria’s biochar plants, her plea memo says. She told potential investors that its process was 20 percent more efficient than competitors’ plants and was producing product for shipment to Africa, Australia and India. In reality, the company had produced very little because the sites and technology were unfeasible, prosecutors said.

“After listening to the sales pitches of Wragg, McKelvy and Knorr, investors threw millions of dollars into these green energy projects believing that Mantria was on the cusp of a revolutionary technology,” the plea memo says.

In 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took action against Mantria in federal court in Colorado, and the Ponzi scheme collapsed. The court appointed a receiver to distribute assets to investors, but of the $54.5 million Mantria took in, only about $600,000 remained. Prosecutors said money brought in from new investors went to earlier ones, an effort to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

The SEC won a $37 million civil judgment against Wragg and Knorr in 2012, and investors who filed a class-action suit won a $6 million settlement in 2014 from those who gave Mantria business and legal advice.

 

But wait, there’s more!

Amanda Knorr, who was one of three defendents named in a September indictment for allegedly carrying out a Ponzi scheme that tricked investors nationwide into sinking money in the group’s failed green energy business plan, entered a guilty plea during a change of plea hearing Tuesday.

[Knorr] and co-defendant Troy Wragg were the founders of Mantria Inc., while defendant Wayde McKelvy ran seminars and advertisements encouraging potential investors to liquidate their savings and invest in [Mantria].

Wragg, a Pennsylvania resident, and McKelvy, of Colorado, are scheduled to stand trial in September on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, securities fraud, and seven counts of wire fraud. …

Wragg’s attorney, Joseph D. Mancano of Cedrone & Mancano LLC, who was granted a request Wednesday to access Knorr’s sealed plea hearing transcripts, told Law360 on Thursday that based on the information he had, Knorr’s plea deal “was not unexpected.”

According to prosecutors, Mantria started out as a real estate businesss, and Wragg, Knorr and McKelvy did spend some of the investment money on land in Tennessee, purportedly creating a “carbon negative” housing community. But after making limited improvements to the land in order to create the appearance of development for investors, they moved toward “green energy,” and began investing in facilities to manufacture “biochar,” a charcoal substitute made from organic waste. …

Recall that Oneida Nation in Wisconsin-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation also “started out as a real estate business” and we know in addition to Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. – the failed business partnership of Oneida Nation’s former General Manager Artley Skenandore, Ron Van Den Heuvel, Steven Peters and OSGC which was judged in 2013 to have illegally withheld state payroll taxes– there also exists Nature’s Way Estates LLC, for which the Registered Agent is Patrick Murphy, husband of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s sister Ann Murphy.

The Law360 article then says:

The one facility that was built lacked the logistical infrastructure to ever achieve profitability, and two other promised facilities were never built.

Reminds the Oneida Eye of when the Wisconsin State Journal reported regarding search warrants for Ron Van Den Heuvel:

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office has been investigating Ron Van Den Heuvel and his waste-[incinerator] company Green Box NA Green Bay since January 2015, when a doctor who had invested $600,000 in Green Box filed a fraud complaint. Detectives executed search warrants at Van Den Heuvel’s home and business in early July and seized a truckload of documents.

Brown County Sheriff’s Office Capt. David Konrath said in an interview this week that the FBI, Securities and Exchange Commission and Internal Revenue Service have since joined the investigation and that the lead detective in his office is hoping to wrap up her investigation before retiring in May. …

In October, the Wisconsin State Journal obtained the previously sealed search warrant affidavits, which alleged Van Den Heuvel had defrauded investors, including [the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.], with a vacant building that “was never for sale but was used as a prop” and claiming he held seven technology patents “when, in fact, he holds none.

 

Back to the Law360 article about Knorr, Wragg, McKelvy and the Mantria Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme:

Still, the company managed to raise more than $54 million, mainly because of the efforts of McKelvy, who operated what he called “Speed of Wealth” clubs. These entities advertised on television, radio and the Internet. They also held seminars for prospective investors, promising to make them rich.

The indictment says McKelvy taught investors to liquidate all their assets such as mutual funds and 401(k) plans, to take out as many loans as possible, such as home mortgages and credit card debt, and invest all those funds in Mantria. During those seminars and other programs, Wragg, Knorr and McKelvy allegedly lied to prospective investors to dupe them into investing in Mantria and promised investment returns as high as 484 percent.

The scheme continued until November 2009 when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission initiated civil securities fraud proceedings against Mantria in Colorado. In September 2010, U.S. District Judge Christine M. Arguello found in favor of the SEC, ordering an injunction against the company and calling for more than $17.5 million to investors. The indictment also said Wragg and Knorr paid McKelvy $6.2 million in commission for raising investor funds.

While the SEC investigation provided for the basis of the criminal charges, the scheme also prompted another civil suit against Mantria affiliates who allegdly aided the deception. In July 2014, lead plaintiff Touchstone Group LLC…saw its [offer for a] $6.05 million settlement with a series of defendants approved by Judge Arguello.

Knorr is represented by Glennis L. Clark.

Wragg is represented by Joseph D. Mancano of Cedrone & Mancano LLC.

McKelvy is represented by William J. Murray and Walter S. Batty.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Livermore.

The case is USA v. Wragg et al, case number 2:15-cr-00398, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

 

For consideration from a similar situation: 

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

 

Consider that Illinois-based Atty. Eric Decator’s Generation Clean Fuels (GCF; formerly known as Arland Clean Fuels/ACF) lost lawsuits to Wisconsin investors Tina Fritsch and David J. Wolf for the return of their money after GCF/ACF preposterously projected that individuals who invested $250,000 would have returns of $1.5 million over six (6) years.

That’s a 600% return on investment!

How on E.A.R.T.H. could that be possible?!

Supposedly through Oneida Seven Generations Corp.-subsidiaries Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC’s & Oneida Energy Inc./Oneida Energy Blocker Inc.’s roles in ‘Plastics-to-Oil’ schemes initiated by contracts signed on May 6, 2013, by Tribe member Kevin Cornelius who was an executive of all three Tribally-owned companiess… 

THE VERY DAY after GTC – the Supreme Governing Body of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin – voted to prohibit ‘Plastics-to-Oil’ anywhere on the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s Reservation on May 5, 2013.

Was it all a part of a scheme between GCF/ACF, OSGC-subsidiaries Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC, Oneida Energy Inc. and OSGC’s partner in Oneida-Kodiak Construction, Alliance Construction & Design/P2O Technologies, among others, to defraud the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin and individual investors, some of whom sued & got their money back while GTC is left encumbered with $5 – $15 million of its money taken by GBRE/OEI/OEBI’s ‘Sole Managing Director’ John Breuninger and given in a secret settlement payment to Atty. Eric R. Decator’s GCF/ACF?

 

Oneida Eye reported that on Monday, February 22, 2016, Oneida Eye’s Publisher was informed by Oneida Law Office Deputy Chief Counsel James Bittorf that at some point in time (although Atty. Bittorf did not say when, other than indicate that it was after the companies’ Boards had been dissolved) Former Tribal Planning Director John Breuninger was made ‘Sole Director’ of Oneida Energy Inc., Oneida Energy Blocker Corp. & Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (although OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf did not say by whom), and that John Breuninger single-handedly made the decision to pay an undisclosed amount of Tribal money (although Atty. Bittorf said he was “not comfortable” revealing how many millions of dollars) to settle the lawsuit filed against those OSGC subsidiaries by Evanston, IL-based Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services against OSGC’s subsidiaries.

After ignoring several previous requests by Oneida Eye’s Publisher for updated copies of the lawsuit’s court filings, OLO Dept. Chief Counsel Bittorf finally provided Oneida Eye’s Publisher with a copy of the Order for Dismissal when she went to his office in person:

HOWEVER, as Oneida Eye has reported, on October 21, 2015, Oneida Tribe members received a letter in the mail from the Oneida Business Committee (which was dated September 23, 2015) stating that the OBC had declined a settlement offer by the Plaintiffs which would have allowed the Oneida Tribe to settle the matters described above for $9 million:

The OBC’s letter clearly stated regarding the latter lawsuit:

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.

Then how & why was John Breuninger allowed to make that major decision all on his own as Atty. Bittorf claimed, which is believed to have cost the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin between $5 TO $15 MILLION ON TOP OF THE $10 MILLION LOST TO NATURE’S WAY TISSUE & OSGC-subsidiary GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, rather than bringing that very impotant & costly matter before GTC for action just as the OBC plainly told GTC in writing that they would?

It’s ALL MORE PROOF of the OBC’s LIES and VIOLATIONS of General Tribal Council’s authority & Tribe members’ rights…

…all while the OBC & the OLO are PROTECTING CORRUPT TRIBAL CORPORATIONS – whose Boards the OBC appoint & oversee – that POCKET and WASTE TENS OF MILLIONS of the Tribe’s dollars on EXECUTIVES’ INFLATED SALARIES … and LAWSUITS … and PYROLYSIS PONZI SCHEMES… and ENERGY SCAMS with local NOT-SO-GOOD-OL’-BOYS.

Why didn’t the OBC tell GTC about the settlement that John Breuninger paid with the Tribe’s money to Generation Clean Fuels, ACF Leasing & ACF Services at the SATURDAY, February 20, 2016 continuation of the GTC Annual Meeting?

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth claimed to Oneida Eye’s Publisher on MONDAY, February 22, 2016, that she was not informed nor aware of a settlement of any kind being paid by the Tribe nor its corporations.  Is that true?

Did any other members of the OBC know about a settlement? None of the five who were at the WEDNESDAY, February 24, 2016 OBC Regular Meeting mentioned it – including OBC Chair Tina Delgado-Danforth.

Surely the Oneida Law Office knew and it was brought up during theTUESDAY, February 23, 2016 OBC Executive SessionRight, OLORight, Atty. Bittorf? Right, Chief Counsel Jo Anne House? Right, TinaHello?

So when & what will OBC eventually tell GTC now that there is no longer any litigation involving OSGC – which the OBC said was necessary to conclude before they could comply with GTC’s unambiguous December 15, 2013 directive to OBC to completely DISSOLVE OSGC?

So when will OBC FINALLY do what GTC – THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF THE ONEIDA NATION IN WISCONSIN – voted to direct the OBC to do more than THREE YEARS ago?

Instead – at great expense – the OBC appointed Gene Keluche‘s Sagestone Management, LLC, based in Colorado (of all places) to act as the ‘Managing Agent‘ for OSGC. Keluche is also Former Director of the Colorado-based Native American Bank NA, of which OBC Chair Cristina Danforth sits on both NABNA’s Board of Directors and the Native American Bancorporation Board of Directors. (More information about who else works for NABNA below.)

Obviously, the OBC lied to the GTC in writing about bringing any settlement decision before GTC for action, and the result of the OBC’s & OSGC’s ongoing corruption scandals is the mysterious loss of many more MILLIONS of dollars of GTC’s money at Tribe member John Breuninger’s sole discretion.

How many more MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of General Tribal Council’s money did John Breuninger SECRETLY and UNJUSTLY hand over to Eric Decator & Generation Clean Fuels LLC with the blessing of the OBC for what looks like a possible SHAKEDOWN in an EXTORTION SCHEME that might be linked to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s expansive & pervasive fraud scemes?

WERE THOSE SECRET MILLIONS OF GTC’s DOLLARS ACTUALLY USED TO PAY OFF OTHER DEFRAUDED GCF INVESTORS – INCLUDING ONEIDA TRIBE MEMBERS, AND TRIBAL OFFICERS & EXECUTIVES – IN ORDER FOR GCF AND OSGC TO AVOID EVEN MORE LAWSUITS, AS WELL AS POSSIBLE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR WHAT MAY AMOUNT TO NOTHING BUT A PYRAMID SCAM & PONZI SCHEME?

Current OBC Chair CRISTINA DANFORTH declared  personal Bankruptcy in 2014 and regularly fails to attend & chair 50% of OBC Meetings, as well as General Tribal Council Meetings due to travel to Colorado and other states because she just happens to also be the…

President of the Native American Finance Officers Association / NAFOA Board of Directors 

and is also on the Board of Directors of both the Native American Bank, NA & the Native American Bancorporation Co. which is located in Wayde McKelvy’s home-state…

COLORADO…  (of all places! More on that below).

 

While she was OBC Treasurer Cristina Danforth travelled in order to promote Ron Van Den Heuvel’s & OSGC’s fraud schemes to other tribes as a safe & sound investment, as did OBC Member & OSGC Liaison Brandon Yellowbird-Stevens.

But wait…

Guess who else just happens to work at the Native American Bank NA located in Colorado (of all places!)…

Shannon Loeve, Native American Bank NA's Vice-President & Senior Relationship Manager for the Lending Department

Shannon Loeve, Native American Bank NA’s Vice-President & Senior Relationship Manager for the Lending Department

SHANNON LOEVE … (does that name ring a bell, GTC members?) …about whom the 2015 Native American Bank NA Annual Report says on page 11:

Native American Bank is pleased to welcome Shannon Loeve as the Vice President and Senior Relationship Manager to oversee our Lending Department. Shannon Loeve’s skills and experience will complement Native American Bank’s established expertise in state and federal government guaranteed lending, economic development and sustainability in Indian Country. She will focus on maintaining the current relationships and expanding the loan portfolio.

“We are fortunate to have Shannon come to Native American Bank with her expertise and knowledge of lending in Indian Country” said Thomas Ogaard, [NABNA] President and CEO.

Prior to joining Native American Bank, Shannon was the Principle Project Manager for the Tribal Energy Program at New West Technologies, LLC and served as Interim Chief for the Division of Capital Investment at the U.S. Department of Interior, providing nationwide management for the Indian Loan Guarantee Program. Shannon was a lender at Native American Bank when she had accepted the position at the Department of Interior and she is very familiar with Native American Bank’s lending activity. Shannon is a graduate of University of Wyoming and an enrolled member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservatioin.

The NABNA 2015 Annual Report states in a timeline on page 5:

2014 … Achieved near break-even performance with the help of a Bank Enterprise Award from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. We became a dominant institution in the utilization of BIA loan guarantees, accounting for nearly 30% of all dollars under this type of guarantee in the country.

Nice revolving-door ya got there, NABNA!

 

GTC members and Oneida Eye readers might recall that Ron Van Den Heuvel’s incinerator fraud scheme partners, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, invited two guests to the April 11, 2011 GTC Special Meeting:

 1) Abdul Latif Mahjoob of American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI, who was invited to discuss his working partnership with OSGC and OSGC-subsidiaries Oneida Energy Inc. and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, to build a municipal solid waste incinerator that ACTI & OSGC claimed would profitably produce electricity & other products, exactly as ACTI business partner Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s Ron Van Den Heuvel proposed in his fraudulent sales literature for that now bankrupt company.

 

Who did OSGC invite to explain to GTC whether or not the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin / Oneida Nation in Wisconsin would have to pay back debts encumbered by Tribally owned corporations and their subsidiaries:

 2 ) Shannon Loeve …as seen in the transcript and heard in the audio recording

Below is an excerpt from the Transcript of April 11, 2011 GTC Meeting, starting on page 17:

Former OSGC CEO, Oneida Energy, Inc., CEO and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, President Kevin Cornelius [WARNING! Much of what Kevin says is false and/or misleading, at best]: Ok, one of the questions we [were asked] on the funding and what we’d like to do; there was an insinuations, actually it was not an insinuation; it was just plainly said that we shouldn’t get one more dime, or we shouldn’t invest any money in this. So the funding, the sources, the amount of money that we are getting from the Oneida Tribe is zero. We have not received money from the Oneida Tribe since 2004. So, for this project, we’re getting no money to do this project. There was mention before that we talked about a grant and it wasn’t a grant, but we have two grants. One from the state for $2 million; we have another grant from the Federal Government for $584,000 and we have that information you can see that we’ve shared that with the BC and it is from the [Wisconsin] Department of Commerce grant. Also we have a loan guarantee from the Federal Government for $19 million and that is a program set up by the Bureau. Actually, I’m going to get through this and then…. What we do also have from the state is a low interest, non-secured loan. So we have a $2 million low-interest loan which we don’t have to put up any collateral for, and we also have a $2 million grant. So that brings the total project, sources of funding that we have received up to $24 million and that is the cost of the project. I would like to ask Shannon [Loeve], she is here and she can maybe talk a little bit about the loan guarantee program and the amount of, as far as somebody said there wasn’t any kind of money guaranteed or committed. So I’ll let her answer that question. …

Shannon Loeve: Hello, my name is Shannon Loeve and I’m with the Division of Capital Investment. We are an agency under the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development. My office is responsible for adminstrating the Loan Guarantee Program, and you’ve heard it referred here tonight as the BIA Loan Guarantee Program. It’s the same thing. People are more familiar with the BIA Loan Guarantee Program. We are a federal agency. We provide a 90 percent loan guarantee to the lender. So we don’t actually give any money, we don’t fund the program. What we do is we provide an added insurance to the lender who is actually fronting the money, to give them an incentive to make the loan. The purpose of our program is to provide capital to Indian Country. Basically, the intention of our program is to help lenders make loans that they may not otherwise be able to make, simply because they are located on a reservation or because they are a start-up enterprise. There’s generally something about the actual loan that’s requested that prohibits them from making the loan that is specific to Indian Country. The general intention behind our program is to have an economic impact in Indian Country. With that being said, I’ll go ahead and just take questions now.

Former OBC Chair Rick Hill: Any questions about the Loan Guarantee Program?

Kevin Cornelius: Question is, that was mentioned before, was the money committed to the Tribe?

Shannon Loeve: I think what’s important to make note of right now is that the Loan Guarantee has not been approved. What we did is we obligated funds from last year’s budget. To put that into perspective, I think what you saw here is $19 million, is what we’ve obligated toward the project. We have to do our due diligence and we have to know the project is going to meet all of our requirements under our regulation, prior to making it an obligation. So the $19 million that we’re talking about, in the context of our budget last year, our entire guarantee was $89 million. So that is a huge portion of what we were able to provide last year, so we couldn’t make that obligation, we wouldn’t take that lightly. If we make the obligation to an organization or borrower, those funds cannot be used by any other group. Because we know that we have limited resources, we wouldn’t possibly make that obligation without knowing that this is a project that we wanted to see happen.

Rick Hill:

OBC member & OSGC Liaison Brandon Stevens: One of the questions that I got from a lot of Tribal members, over and over again was, in worse case scenario, what would happen in case of a default?

Shannon Loeve: In the case of a default, what happens is the lender has the ability to make a claim for loss to my program. We pay the lender their 90 percent. 90 percent of their balance. At that point we take over the note, we being the Federal Agency, and we begin to see if there is some way that we can collect on the guarantee. Either it’s liquidation; if we got a viable business, we will try to restructure the loan and so forth. I think the real question that we’re getting at is whether or not the Tribe is on the hook for this. The answer to that is that our obligation is actually to the corporation, it is not the Tribe and in the event of a default, there is no recourse to the Tribe. …

Yvonne Metivier: This [question is] definitely about the DOI/BIA Guaranteed Loan Office. Yes, Pat [Cornelius], I was the spy who went to Washington D.C. at the end of February and I met with Phil Viles[, Chief of the Division of Capital Investment in the DOI’s Office of Indian Energy & Economic Development]. Almost everything that you say is exactly what Phil Viles told us – it has not yet been approved. However, what is going on now is that Doherty Limited, the finance company, may have approved this loan but the DOI/BIA has not guaranteed Doherty and they may change that process. Phil Viles has sent us an e-mail that this is not a done deal. He also sent us an e-mail in September, which I gave to the Business Committee. Phil Viles is the one who signed off on this and he told me in person. I went, an old lady, dragging my bad foot. ..poor me, but I wanted to ask him in person – what is going on? He said yes, they do allocate the money but there [are] other projects they may give it to because [OSGC] has not yet met the standards that they need to, to approve the loan. That is my bottom line.

Shannon Loeve: I would like to point out, you made the observation that the money has been allocated but the funding, the ability to provide a guarantee from those funds that have already been obligated, could go elsewhere. The answer to that is no. The obligation is specific to the borrower and because we are in a different fiscal year, we obligated from last year’s fiscal year. So those funds cannot go elsewhere and because we knew that, I guess I want to reiterate that our due diligence prior to obligating those funds was extensive. We worked with the lender. We made sure that all of the documentation requirements were met. Again, we’re governed by regulation. There are minimum standards that we have to meet. …

Rick Hill: …Now I’m going to have Tina explain. There were questions about the guaranteed loan and how it works and where the liabilities lie, so we’ll have her quickly do that so you got a fuller understanding of the Bureau Guarantee Program.

Then-OBC Treasurer & current OBC Chair Cristina Delgado-Danforth: Good evening, everybody. I’m just going to be brief in my comments. I just wanted to explain that in order to apply for a BIA guaranteed loan, as Shannon said, they are guaranteeing the loan by 90 percent. [OSGC] is liable for the other 10 percent regardless, but in the case that we aren’t able to make our obligations to the lender, the BIA makes that obligation for us. There was a lot of due diligence, a lot of regulatory requirements that have to go forward in order for us to even get a guaranteed loan. This is a good thing and one of the reasons why BIA has guaranteed loans is because a lot of Tribes, all throughout the United States, even gaming Tribes and Tribes with other resources of revenue, still have difficulty getting access to capital. So Oneida Seven Generations is a corporation of the Tribe, but they are separate from the Tribe for the reasons of liabilities. So that in the event that they’re liable for anything, they are sued for anything, that it was the corporation that is financially responsible and obligated, not the Tribe and that’s the difference between being a corporation of the Tribe and the Tribe itself being liable. So I just wanted to explain that it’s a very rigorous process and we are very glad that the BIA has guaranteed this loan on behalf of [OSGC]. And I know there’s a lot of a historical problems with some of the past financials of Seven Gens, but that was before Kevin Cornelius’ time, that was before this current board’s time. And so your comments are heard and I understand why they are being made, but I appreciate everyone’s patience and I especially appreciate the attentiveness of our guests[, Abdul Latif Mahjoob of ACTI, and Shannon Loeve then from DOI/BIA and currently Vice President at NABNA, NA]. Thank you …

Yet now, somehow, somewhere, behind closed doors and at the sole discretion of Former Oneida Tribal Planning Director John Breuninger, who was authorized as the ‘Sole Managing Director’ for OSGC’s subsidiaries by parties that Deputy Chief Counsel Atty. James Bittorf told Oneida Eye’s Publisher that he was “not comfortable disclosing,” seven or eight figure sums were secretly and unaccountably allowed to be paid with Tribal dollars in undisclosed and supposedly confidential settlement agreements that had to have been ultimately approved by the Oneida Business Committee as Chaired by Cristina Danforth, who is on the Board of the Native American Bank/NABNA which benefits from tribes taking out BIA-guaranteed loans, be it for good reasons or to fund fraud schemes like the one Tina Danforth travelled to advocate as a sound economic development opportunity for Tribes on behalf of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin and Tribally-owned OSGC (of which her sister was a Board member) while Tina Danforth is also President of the Native American Finance Officers Association/NAFOA, which supposedly represents the kind of people who should have been and should be blowing the whistle loud and long about Ron Van Den Heuvel & OSGC’s types of fraud schemes a long time ago instead of trying to defend them …or sweep them under the rug.

So much for all that so-called “due diligence” … which amounted to epic fail at every level of the process.

A lot of good that does when the General Tribal Council has to endure $15 to $30 Million in losses to fraud schemes due to the actions and inactions of the Oneida Business Committee and the Tribal corporations whose Boards the OBC appoints and is supposed to oversee and hold accountable.

 

 

Oh… by the way…

Atty. Eric R. Decator

Atty. Eric R. Decator

Did we forget to mention that Atty. Eric R. Decator of Generation Clean Fuels LLC which received an undisclosed multi-million settlement from the person secretly made Sole Director of OSGC’s subsidiaries in what looks like a possible extortion shakedown associated with a pyramid pyrolysis Ponzi scheme just also happens to be the Former Assistant Attorney General for the State of…

(wait for it)

COLORADO?

 

(Of all places!!!)

 

 

See also:

 

 

 


Manchester Mortgage Co. Owner Jim George Comes To The Rescue At Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Federal Court Bond Hearing On Bank Fraud Charges With $200,000 Bond Leveraged Against House Already Leveraged For $65 Million Which Judge Griesbach Strangely Settles For; ALSO, Ron Van Den Heuvel Installs Stephen A. Smith Of Chicago’s GlenArbor Partners Inc. As The New Registered Agent For EcoHub Wisconsin LLC & Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC (E.A.R.T.H.); PLUS, Ron & Steve’s Fellow EcoSchlub George Gitschel Threatens To Sue Oneida Eye’s Publisher For Libel

From the United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin website:

Case Number & Title:  16-cr-0064; USA v. Van Den Heuvel

Time:  3:30 PM

Location:  Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI

Purpose:  Bond Hearing

 

Related:

 

 

On May 6, 2016, Judge Griesbach set Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Bond at $300,000 to be provided by May 16.

Will Ponzi Ron’s 74 Millionaires pass the hat and raise bond money for him?

 

Maybe Ron can get a loan from the latest to attain EcoSchlub rank, Green Box Board member… 

STEPHEN A. SMITH

Stephen A Smith President & CEO of GlenArbor Partners Inc. & Registered Agent of E.A.R.T.H. and Ecohub-USA LLC

Stephen A Smith President & CEO of GlenArbor Partners Inc. & Registered Agent of E.A.R.T.H. and Ecohub Wisconsin LLC

The Wisconsin Dept. of Financial Institution’s website WDFI.org shows that on May 5, 2016 – the day before Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s last court appearance – the ‘Registered Agent’ for both Ecohub Wisconsin, LLC (formerly known as Green Box Wisconsin, LLC, and Green Box OP Wisconsin, LLC), and Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (or E.A.R.T.H.*) was changed to Stephen A. Smith, who is the President & CEO of GlenArbor Partners, Inc.

[*Not to be confused with Ron Van Den Heuvel’s second E.A.R.T.H., Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC,  for which the ‘Registered Agent’ is listed as the first E.A.R.T.H. Got that?]

 

So GlenArbor Partners Inc. is based in Chicago

Ron’s PR rep is from Chicago

and Ron & Kelly‘s new attorneys are from Chicago…

Wonder if they know anyone at Evanston, Illinois-based Generation Clean Fuels / Arland Clean Fuels / ACF Services / ACF Leasing?

 

05/07/2016 UPDATE: Manchester Mortgage Company Owner Jim George comes to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s rescue with $200,000 bond against Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s shared criminal lair at 2303 Lost Dauphin Road in De Pere, WI (or Lawrence, WI – it isn’t clear), which according to court documents had already been leveraged against $65 Million of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s debt.

From the Supplemental Examination of Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel Before James O’Neil, Court Commissioner May 8, 2015 10:00 a.m. to 12:59 p.m. starting on page 36:

[Atty. Smies:] You live in a house; is that correct?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Yes.

[Atty. Smies:] And at one time you did own that house, didn’t you?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Yes.

[Atty. Smies:] And now it is the case that Manchester Mortgage [Company], LLC (Link 1), owns the property.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Correct.

[Atty. Smies:] And do you pay rent then to Manchester Mortgage Company, LLC (Link 2)?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No.

[Atty. Smies:] Do you have any kind of agreement with Manchester Mortgage Company, LLC, concerning your ability to live in the residence?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I have a handshake.

[Atty. Smies:] What’s the nature of this handshake, as you call it?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] He holds three million shares in E.A.R.T.H., and as long as I’m working for the betterment of E.A.R.T.H., I stay in the property. If the shares ever go over $6 apiece, he gives me my house title back.

[Atty. Smies:] Who is he? Who are you referring to?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Manchester Mortgage. Jim George is the president of it.

[Atty. Smies:] Does Mr. George then – Is it Manchester Mortgage Company, LLC, that has an interest in E.A.R.T.H. or Jim George?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Manchester Mortgage. They bought the note from Citizens [Bank].

[Atty. Smies:] And your agreement with Mr. George, was this reduced to writing?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No.

[Atty. Smies:] When did you come to this agreement?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] After.

[Atty. Smies:] So after Manchester Mortgage Company, LLC, obtained – presumably foreclosed on the house, bid at the sale –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] There were $65 million of debt against it.

[Atty. Smies:] There were $65 million of debt against your residence?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Yes.

[Atty. Smies:] And Manchester Mortgage was the senior lender, senior secured lender?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] It bought the loan from Citizens Bank, foreclosed on the first, and everybody went off the back.

[Atty. Smies:] And after they obtained the property through the process and the courts, they then had an agreement with you, just a verbal – an oral agreement essentially that you would stay there rent free as long as – Can you explain what as long as – As long as what, I guess.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I cut the lawn, remove the snow, keep the repairs up, pay the heating and lighting bills.

[Atty. Smies:] So you’re responsible to pay the utilities for the property. Are you responsible to pay the property taxes?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Yes.

[Atty. Smies:] Have you paid any property taxes since the Manchester Mortgage Company took ownership of the property?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Yes, twice.

[Atty. Smies:] And what years was that?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:]  ’11 and ’12. And I personally didn’t pay them.

[Atty. Smies:] Who paid them?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Someone else. I don’t remember which person paid them each year.

[Atty. Smies:] Do you have a sense of how much – You did pay them for a number of years when you owned the house, right?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Right.

[Atty. Smies:] And do you have a sense as to how much they were then at least?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] $48,000 a year.

[Atty. Smies:] But as you sit here today, you can’t remember who was willing to pay property taxes for 2011 and 2012 for the property you’re living in?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No. I mean, I can go find out.

[Atty. Smies:] Do you think it was a family member or friend?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Probably somebody that owed me money.

[Atty. Smies:] Was there any agreement written to reflect that payment on your behalf?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No.

[Atty. Smies:] So –

[Atty. Petitjean:] Other than a tax receipt?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I got a receipt from the courthouse

[Atty. Smies:] So your understanding of this oral agreement you have with – between you and Manchester Mortgage Company, LLC, is that you are to maintain the property, cut the grass, plow the driveway, pay the utilities, pay the property taxes. And what else? Anything else that relates to the property?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Nothing else to the property.

[Atty. Smies:] And were there any conditions concerning your role at E.A.R.T.H. and your ability to stay in the residence?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No. At my dad’s funeral we talked about it a long time again and perfectly comfortable. He sees the share value going up. It’s on the board.

[Atty. Smies:] So if the shares –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Hit $6 a share, I get the title back to the house.

[Atty. Smies:] Presumably, that would allow Manchester to liquidate their shares and/or do whatever they want. That’s their decision, I guess.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] It’s their shares.

[Atty. Smies:] How are those shares valued, if you know?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Outside firms.

[Atty. Smies:] When was the last time you had an outside firm prepare a valuation of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Six months ago.

[Atty. Smies:] And what was the share price valuation at that time?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Three something, $3 and some cents.

[Atty. Smies:] And how many shares are outstanding or issued of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] A hundred million.

[Atty. Smies:] I just want to know, how many shares do you own of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I personally don’t own any of E.A.R.T.H.

[Atty. Smies:] It’s all through –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] That’s correct.

[Atty. Smies:] It’s all through – I have to go back.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] RVDH or PCDI. I personally don’t own any.

[Atty. Smies:] Indirectly through your ownership of those entities, what is your percentage of interest in E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I wouldn’t be able to –

[Atty. Smies:] You have no sense as –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] No. 

[Atty. Smies:] – you sit here today?

[Atty. Petitjean:] He’s already indicated he doesn’t own –

[Atty. Smies:] He doesn’t own directly, but he has an interest in entities that have a proportionate interest in –

[Atty. Petitjean:] And all those entities, he’s indicated, have numerous shareholders.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] It would be hard to figure out.

[Atty. Smies:] But it could be figured out. I mean, you –

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] Schenck could do it.

[Atty. Smies:] But as you sit here, you don’t know if you have three or other entities. You don’t know if you have one percent or 80 percent of E.A.R.T.H.?

[Ron Van Den Heuvel:] I wouldn’t know. I mean, I know I have more than one percent, okay? But I couldn’t – I couldn’t venture a guess that would be worth putting under oath.

 

Think about that:

SIXTY-FIVE MILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT leveraged against a property valued at less than $2 Million.

 

Is Manchester Mortgage Co.’s Jim George acting as Ron Van Den Heuvel’s own ‘Alex Molinaroli’?

 

It’s not clear why U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach agreed to lower Ron Van Den Heuvel’s bond to $200,000 leveraged against a property that had already had $65 Million leveraged against it, but perhaps state and federal authorities want Ron Van Den Heuvel to be free on bond so they can continue to monitor him in case he visits various hidey holes and/or contacts co-conspirators in his array of fraud schemes.

 

Speaking of which…

As Oneida Eye reported, ‘Green Box Wisconsin, LLC’ – previously known as ‘Green Box NA Wisconsin OP, LLC’ – is currently registered with the Wisconsin Dept. of Financial Institutions as ‘EcoHub Wisconsin, LLC’ …

… and Ron recently started a new website to display his latest shade of lipstick on a criminal pig:

Creation Date: 2016-02-15
Registrant Name: RONALD VAN DEN HEUVEL
Registrant Organization: TISSUE DEPOT
Registrant Street: 2077B LAWRENCE DRIVE
Registrant City: DE PERE
Registrant State/Province: WI
Registrant Postal Code: 54115
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.9203473838
Registrant Email: MIKEG@GREENBOXNA.COM

This entity is connected with George Gitschel‘s Ecohub Houston, LLC & Organic Energy Corp. scams:

  • www.EcoHub-Houston.com

    Ron Van Den Heuvel's fellow EcoSchlub, George Gitschel of Organic Energy Corp. & EcoHub LLC / EcoHub Houston LLC

    Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fellow EcoSchlub, George Gitschel of Organic Energy Corp. & EcoHub LLC / EcoHub Houston LLC

 

After Oneida Eye published that information, George Gitschel sent Oneida Eye the following email on FRIDAY APRIL 29, 2016:

Subject: George Gitschel – EcoHub – Organic Energy Corporation
Date: 2016-04-29 09:47
From: George Gitschel <gkgitschel@comcast.net>
To: editor@oneidaeye.com
Cc: Tommy Fibich <tfibich@fibichlaw.com>, Jay Henderson <jhenderson@fibichlaw.com>

Leah,

You have made slanderous and highly libelist claims against me and my company in your blog. None of your claims have any basis in fact. I demand an immediate full retraction and apology by you. I also demand that you immediately take down any and all references to me, EcoHub, LLC, EcoHub-Houston, Organic Energy Corporation, EcoHub-USA or anything related to me or any of my companies from your blog post. If you ignore my request, I will pursue action against you through my attorneys, who are copied on this email.

George Gitschel

GEORGE GITSCHEL
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3950 Houston, Texas 77

GKGitschel@organicenergycorp.com
O (832) 390-2755
F (832) 218-6222
M (650) 346-6574

 

That’s George Gitschel at 9:47 A.M. … (we assume it was sent by him, but it could be someone pretending to be George Gitschel … his Twitter account seems to have died in 2013) …

… but by 12:46 P.M. later that day George’s tone softens:

Subject: I would like to talk to you
Date: 2016-04-29 12:46
From: George Gitschel <gkgitschel@comcast.net>
To: editor@oneidaeye.com

Leah,

You have falsely accused me of things that I have never done, nor would I ever condone. In fact, I have dedicated my life, while sacrificing virtually all of my material possessions, to saving the environment. It has been my mission for the past 20 years. My goal to to bring about the end of garbage and by so doing, save the planet and bring about the end of poverty. Is that such a bad idea?

There is so much more to this than meets the eye. As a responsible journalist and blogger, it’s important that you have the facts from both sides, before you put your opinion on the Internet. Will you please call me so that I can tell you about my mission to change the world?

Best regards,

George

GEORGE GITSCHEL
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3950 Houston, Texas 77002

GKGitschel@organicenergycorp.com
O (832) 390-2755
F (832) 218-6222
M (650) 346-6574

www.OrganicEnergyCorp.com

 

Gee, George . . . schizo much?

Note that George appears to suffer from the same level of delusional gradiosity as his fellow EcoSchlub Ron Van Den Heuvel, or perhaps – like Ron – George simply hopes to exploit the naïvete of other people due to sociopathic greed.

Oneida Eye’s Publisher replied to George Gitschel via email as follows, which was also CC’d to U.S. District Attorney Greg Hanstaad, Brown Co. District Attorney David Lasee, Brown Co. Sheriff’s Dept. Investigative Division Captain David Konrath, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, and various media outlets:

On May 2, 2016, at 7:54 AM, Oneida Eye wrote:

George,

I suggest you instead speak with the authorities and tell them everything about your relationships – business or otherwise – with Ron Van Den Heuvel.

Leah Sue Dodge
Publisher, OneidaEye.com

 

George Gitschel replied to Oneida Eye’s Publisher and CC’d the list of recipients with the following:

From: “Mr. George Gitschel” <gkgitschel@organicenergycorp.com>
Date: May 2, 2016 at 9:31:21 PM CDT
To: Oneida Eye
Subject: Re: Ecohub threatens to sue Oneida Eye

Leah,

I tried to be reasonable with you and engage in a civil discourse to present you with the facts about me and my companies. You have never met me or interacted with me in any way. You have no idea who I am or anything about any of my companies. Yet, through your beef with Ron Van Den Heuvel (which I had never known anything about), you have falsely accused me of things that I have never done. Your slanderous actions and character assassinations directed towards me are both despicable and highly irresponsible. To make matters worse, you have also “named” and “linked” some of my business associates with this nonsense. You have committed slander and libel against me and some of my associates. I am now referring this action to my attorneys. I will not tolerate your reckless and reprehensible behavior.

George Gitschel

 

Thus far, Oneida Eye has not heard since from George Gitschel nor his attorneys.

Kind of a shame, really, because the discovery process would likely be very interesting … to say the least.

 

In the news:

 

See also:

 


Third Anniversary Of General Tribal Council’s Vote To Prohibit Oneida Seven Generations Corp. & OSGC’s Subsidiaries From Engaging in Pyrolysis, Gasification Or Plastics-To-Oil Anywhere On The Oneida Reservation; ALSO, At May 6 Arraignment For Federal Bank Fraud Scheme Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel Claim To Be Worth $700 MILLION But Have Only SIX-HUNDRED DOLLARS In The Bank; PLUS, Was May 5 Emergency OBC Meeting To Approve Hiring Outside Legal Counsel Related To A Whistleblower Report To The FBI & U.S. Sen. Baldwin About Thefts Of HUD Funds & Materials At Oneida Housing Authority, And Retaliatory Physical Violence? UPDATE: Oneida Business Committee Uses $400,000 Of General Tribal Council’s Money To Pay For Outside Legal Counsel As Federal Grand Jury Is Convened

 

HAPPY 3RD ANNIVERSARY OF GTC’s VICTORY AGAINST RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’s & OSGC’s INCINERATOR FRAUD SCHEMES!

Is this our future?

WHY DID WI GOV. SCOTT WALKER’s WEDC GIVE OVER $5 MILLION TO RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’s & OSGC’s INCINERATOR FRAUD SCHEMES THAT HAVE COST THE GTC $15 MILLION OR MORE?

Here are some clues:

 

Maybe Bill Bain never learned that old adage:

Neither a ‘Straw Borrower’ nor a ‘Straw Donor’ be.

 

BILL BAIN’S serial ‘business’ partner & associate, RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL, and Ron’s wife, KELLY YESSMAN VAN DEN HEUVEL, are due to appear in U.S. District Court in Green Bay on FRIDAY MAY 6, 2016 to be arraigned, along with their alleged co-conspirator, PAUL PIIKKILA, on multiple federal counts of BANK FRAUD:

The filing shows Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. as one of 21 creditors. It says Green Box has less than $50,000 in assets and owes between $10 million and $50 million. …

Last week a judge issued an arrest warrant for Van Den Heuvel after he was found in contempt of court for selling company machinery to someone in another state and not being able to repay creditors.

He was also charged with 13 counts of federal bank fraud last week for an alleged scheme dating back to 2008 and 2009. He is due in court May 6.

 

United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced that the grand jury has today indicted Ronald Van Den Heuvel (age: 62) of De Pere, his spouse Kelly Van Den Heuvel (age: 52) of De Pere and Paul Piikkila (age: 53), of Appleton on a series of criminal charges based on a scheme to fraudulently obtain loans from Horicon Bank, a federally insured financial institution operating at various Wisconsin locations. The indictment alleges that these loans were obtained on the basis of false representations.

In 2008 and 2009, Ronald Van Den Heuvel was a Green Bay businessman operating various business entities. Kelly Van Den Heuvel was his wife who also had her own corporation.  Paul Piikkila was a loan officer at Horicon Bank.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Piikkila approved a series of loans totaling more than $1 million for the benefit of the Van Den Heuvels and their business entities.  Horicon Bank had instructed Mr. Piikkila not to loan any money to Mr. Van Den Heuvel so none of the loans discussed in the indictment are to him by name.  Many of the loans were made to straw borrowers who did not receive the money and were not expected to pay it back.  The loans were not used for the business purposes represented on the loan applications and the collateral offered by Mr. Van Den Heuvel was inadequate to secure the loans.

 

Click below to view or download a copy of the Indictments in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case No. 2016-CR-064

 

Overt Acts

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect its objects, the defendants performed the following overt acts.

  1. Prior to September 12, 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel persuaded his employee, S.P. [STEVEN PETERS, Co-Owner of NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP., LLC], to act as a straw borrower to obtain loans for Ronald Van Den Heuvel from Horicon Bank
  2. On or about September 12, 2008, Piikkila authorized a loan of $100,000 to straw borrower [STEVEN PETERS] Proceeds from that loan were transferred to two of Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s business entities.
  3. On or about November 7, 2008, Piikkila authorized two loans of $250,000 and $70,000, respectively, to KYHKJG, LLC.
  4. Prior to January 2, 2009, Ronald Van Den Heuvel persuaded W.B. [WILLIAM C. BAIN / BILL BAIN of VOS ELECTRIC] to act as a straw borrower to obtain a loan for Ronald Van Den Heuvel from Horicon Bank.
  5. On or about January 2, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $240,000 to straw borrower, [WILLIAM C. BAIN], a former relative of Ronald Van Den Heuvel by marriage. These funds were used to pay personal expenses of Ronald Van Den Heuvel and to pay off different loans obtained for Ronald Van Den Heuvel at different banks.
  6. On or about February 11, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $30,000 to straw borrower [STEVEN PETERS] Those funds were promptly used for the benefit of two of Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s business entities.
  7. On or about May 15, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $129,958 to straw borrower [STEVEN PETERS]. This loan consolidated the debts due on the loans noted in paragraphs 2 and 6 above.
  8. Prior to May 15, 2009, Ronald and Kelly Van Den Heuvel persuaded their employee, J.G. [JULIE GUMBAN], to act as a straw borrower to obtain a loan for the Van Den Heuvels from Horicon Bank.
  9. On or about May 15, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $25,000 to straw borrower [JULIE GUMBAN], an employee of Ronald and Kelly Van Den Heuvel. These funds were promptly paid to RVDH, Inc., and KYHKJG, LLC; paid to [STEVEN PETERS] as payment on the loan noted in paragraph 7 above; or paid to [WILLIAM C. BAIN] to be used as payment on the loans noted in paragraph 5 above.
  10. On or about September 11, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $240,000 to Source of Solutions, LLC, one of Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s business entities. Signing the business note for Source of Solutions was D.S. [DEBBIE STARY], Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s adminstrative assistant. These funds were promptly transferred to Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s other business entities, paid out to Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s employees, used to pay off Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s debts to other companies and other banks, and used to make payments against balances due on the loans noted in paragraphs e., 7 and 9 above.
  11. On or about September 25, 2009, Piikkila authorized a loan of $10,000 to RVDH, Inc.. These funds were promptly transferred to another of Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s business entities.

All in violation of Tite 18, United States Code, Section 371.

 

05/06/2016 UPDATE:

De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel, his wife Kelly Van Den Heuvel, and banker Paul Piikkila all pleaded not guilty to charges of bank fraud in federal court on Friday. …

Eastern District of Wisconsin Judge William Griesbach ordered all three defendants to surrender their passports and scheduled trials to begin July 11.

While no bond was required for Kelly Van Den Heuvel or Piikkila, U.S. Attorney Mel Johnson requested a $300,000 property bond for Ron Van Den Heuvel, saying that a number of factors about him “give the government pause” including: a warrant issued for his arrest last month in a civil case involving unpaid loans loans from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. and other lenders, his decision to file for bankruptcy for one of his companies to quash the warrant, and Van Den Heuvel’s consistent over-inflation of his wealth and business interests.

Johnson said Van Den Heuvel listed more than $800 million in assets in court documents, but less than $700 in cash.

Griesbach agreed to set the property bond, until Nancy De Podesta [of Arnstein & Lehr LLP], Van Den Heuvel’s defense attorney, said he did not actually own the house in the town of Lawrence that was to be posted as bond. Wisconsin Circuit Court records indicate the house on Lost Dauphin Road was foreclosed on by Manchester Mortgage Co. in 2009.

“His financial statement listed the house as an asset with no mortgage,” Johnson said.

Griesbach said he will revisit the bond issue when the case continues at 3:30 p.m. May 16.

 

Prosecutors say loan officer Paul Piikkila provided more than $1 million in loans to Ron and Kelly Van Den Heuvel and their businesses even after the bank Piikkila worked for told him not to.

A federal indictment says they used other people — often the Van Den Heuvels’ relatives or employees — to apply for loans but the money would actually go to the Van Den Heuvels. The US Department of Justice says the loans were never repaid, except for one, and the bank lost nearly $1 million on loans to the Van Den Heuvels and their straw borrowers.

An arrest warrant was issued for Ron Van Den Heuvel when he failed to respond to law enforcement, but that was dismissed after Van Den Heuvel filed for bankruptcy late last month.

He was noticeably agitated after entering not guilty pleads to the 13 counts against him. He told his attorney it was difficult to listen to the accusations made against him, to a point his attorney even told him to keep his voice down. …

The federal court in Green Bay ordered them to surrender their passports and check in regularly with a court officer.

Their trial is scheduled to start July 11 and take about a week, but defense attorneys said they may need more time to prepare.

Neither the defendants nor their attorneys would comment after the proceedings.

 

During court, the U.S. attorney said, “There are a number of factors of Mr. Van Den Heuvel that give the government pause.”

The attorney went on to say Van Den Heuvel claimed his net worth to be more than $700 million but after further review, the court found he only had around $682 in his bank account. 

The judge ordered Ron Van Den Heuvel to pay a property bond of $300,000. The court says Van Den Heuvel owned his home but the defense disagreed and told the judge he does not own the home. 

The judge noted both sides will have until May 16 to come to an agreement on bond. 

Van Den Heuvel’s and Piikkila did not comment after court. A trial date was set for July 11

If convicted Van Den Heuvel could face a maximum penalty of 365 years and Kelly could face up to 65 years behind bars

Piikkila could face up to five years behind bars if convicted.

Search warrants indicate Van Den Heuvel also defrauded the state’s economic development agency.

__________________

 

Does this…

Whistleblower’s Report to the FBI about alleged theft of HUD funds & materials from the Oneida Housing Authority, as well as claims of retaliatory physical violence:

 

… have anything to do with today’s OBC Emergency Meeting?

A. New Business

 1. Approve limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Attorney Retainer Contract # 2016-0470
Sponsor: Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

 

UPDATE:

From the Draft of the OBC’s Emergency Meeting Minutes:

Present: Vice-Chairwoman Melinda J. Danforth, Secretary Lisa Summers, Council members Fawn Billie, Tehassi HIll, David Jordan, Jennifer Webster;

Not present: Councilman Brandon Stevens;

Arrived at: Chairwoman Tina Danforth at 3:17 p.m., and Treasurer Trish King at 3:08 p.m.

Others present: Dale Wheelock, Scott Denny, Jim Bittorf, RaLinda Ninham-Lamberies, Larry Barton, Jo Anne House …

Chairwoman Tina Danforth arrives at 3:17 and assumes responsibility of the Chair.

Councilman Tehassi Hill departs at 3:40 p.m. …

A. New Business

1. Approve limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Attorney Retainer Contract # 2016-0470
Sponsor: Jo Anne House, Chief Counsel

Motion by Jennifer Webster to approve the limited waiver of sovereign immunity – Attorney Retainer Contract # 2016-0470, seconded by Trish King. Motion carried unanimously:

Ayes: Melinda J. Danforth, Fawn Billie, David Jordan, Trish King, Lisa Summers, Jennifer Webster

Not present: Tehassi Hill, Brandon Stevens

Motion to have the Chair and Vice-Chair as additional primary points of contact for this issue.

Ayes: Fawn Billie, David Jordan, Trish King, Lisa Summers, Jennifer Websrer

Abstained: Melinda J. Danforth

Not Present: Tehassi Hill, Brandon Stevens

 

Politicians & Attorneys lawyering up on GTC’s dime … 

… to cover up their own crime.

That’s fun.

 

UPDATE: Sources tell Oneida Eye that the Oneida Business Committee has added an additional $400,000 of GTC’s money to a Purchase Order originally created in Fiscal Year 2014 [RDO-67350-14-PO] to pay for the services of law firm Whyte Hirschboek & Dudek, and that a federal grand jury has been convened regarding illegal activities at the Oneida Housing Authority as well as the Oneida Business Committee’s refusal to provide information & documentation to HUD and to the FBI.

It remains unclear when – or if – the Finance Committee voted to approve OBC’s use of that additional $400,000 of Tribal money.

 

See also:

  • Sauk Co. Case No. 2013CF208State of Wisconsin vs. Spencer A. Cornelius; Substantial Battery / Intend Bodily Harm (Felony; Repeater), regarding Spencer Cornelius’ brutal assault on fellow OHA employee Jonathan Delabreau during an OHA training trip to the Wisconsin Dells when harassment & intimidation of Jonathan just wasn’t enough to satisfy Spencer’s bloodlust, and was allegedly done in order to please Spencer’s and Jonathan’s boss, former OHA Construction Superintendent Jay Fuss. That assault wasn’t the first time Spencer Cornelius has violently attacked people as seen by Brown Co. Case No. 2009CF630

 


Back To The Future: Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Money Laundering, Tax Evasion, Illegal Campaign Donations & Pay-To-Play Schemes For Corporate Welfare From Wisconsin Governors Spans From The 90’s With Tommy Thompson’s Commerce Department To Not-So-Great Scott Walker’s Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation; So Why Do The Feds Endorse Ron Rather Than Prosecute Him? (Is It The Power Of Love? Or The Love Of Power?)

CHANGED: Contempt Hearing scheduled for November 20, 2:30 p.m., in Brown Co. Case No. 2015CV769, Dr. Marco Araujo, Cliffton Equities & Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. (WEDC) vs. Ron Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

RELATED: Status Conference scheduled for November 6, 3:00 p.m. and Hearing scheduled for November 20, 1:15 p.m. in Brown Co. Case No. 2015CV1066, Ty Willihnganz, Ty Will Law LLC, Savannah Bault, Jeremy McGown, Evolve MTS LLC, Michael Garsow, Nancy VanLenen & Meng Qiao for Return of Wrongfully Seized Property

____________________________

Scott Walker isn’t the first Wisconsin Governor to use lax oversight of state-controlled agencies to benefit criminally scheming campaign donor Ron Van Den Heuvel at the expense of taxpayers.

Doc Brown & Marty McFly ready to investigate Ron Van Den Heuvel's history of misdeeds

Doc Brown & Marty McFly are shocked at what they discover as they investigate Ron Van Den Heuvel’s history of misdeeds and his Spook-y Green Bay associates

Get in the DeLorean, Marty!

We’re gonna go back in time to examine Ron Van Den Heuvel’s starring role in Wisconsin corporate/political corruption!

All the way back… to November 1997!

 

Van Den Heuvel says he donated through others when he lived in Georgia

By Daniel Bice
of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
November 2, 1997

Businessman Ronald Van Den Heuvel says he donated money through Wisconsin residents to Gov. Tommy Thompson’s campaign for several years while living in Georgia — an apparent violation of state election laws.

In a recent interview, Van Den Heuvel was questioned about $10,000 in campaign donations that he and his wife made one day before the state approved a large issue of tax-free bonds for one of his businesses. Van Den Heuvel responded by saying he had given similar amounts in the past.

When asked why reporters had not spotted those earlier donations on Thompson’s financial reports, Van Den Heuvel said, “Yeah, you may not have because when I was a Georgia resident, I gave it to people here.”

Those Wisconsin individuals, whom he did not name, then turned the money over to Thompson, he said. Van Den Heuvel, owner of VOS Electric in Green Bay and other businesses, said he moved to Wisconsin three years ago.

“I didn’t want to do it as a non-resident, which is fine,” he said. “You got to do some separate things if you’re a non-resident. I didn’t want to do that.”

Kevin Kennedy, executive director of the state Elections Board, said state law specifically bars people from laundering campaign donations or knowingly accepting laundered funds. Kennedy said it could be either a civil or criminal offense, depending on whether prosecutors believe they can prove the campaign money was given or received in intentional violation of the law.

Kevin Keane, spokesman for the governor, said the governor and his campaign were unaware of any laundered money. If Van Den Heuvel did pass money through others to Thompson, Keane said, the governor will return the money immediately once it is identified.

C. David Stellpflug, Van Den Heuvel’s lawyer, called the Journal Sentinel to say that his client was talking about giving money to political parties. But in his interview, Van Den Heuvel was critical of parties, specifically saying he did not give to the Republican National Committee.

“To me, parties — they kind of get in the way,” Van Den Heuvel said. “I like to know the person and what kind of person that person is.”

 

 

By Steve Schultze
and Daniel Bice
of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
November 2, 1997

Like others before him, Ron Van Den Heuvel, a Green Bay-area entrepreneur, found the route to state largess with the help of Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

Van Den Heuvel hit the jackpot in late September when an obscure state board awarded $24 million worth of tax-free bond financing to help him reopen an Oconto Falls tissue factory — the largest such approval this year and among the largest ever made by the state.

The award culminated nearly a year’s effort that included a formal application through the Commerce Department. But Van Den Heuvel worked informal channels to Thompson as well. And last May — the day before an initial financing award was made by the state — Van Den Heuvel and his wife donated a total of $10,000 to the governor’s campaign fund. Van Den Heuvel said he had been asked for the donation by Thompson’s fund-raiser in November 1996.

When asked by reporters last month about the campaign donations, Thompson moved quickly to return the money.

The subsidy will save Van Den Heuvel’s company at least $2 million in short-term financing costs, Van Den Heuvel said. The financing covers nearly half of the $52 million cost of renovating the Oconto Falls factory.

The circumstances of the case and others reviewed by the Journal Sentinel in an eight-month investigation suggest a trend in which donors and well-connected firms enjoy a close and mutually beneficial relationship with the Thompson administration.

“You don’t pay, you don’t play,” said a veteran lobbyist, speaking of state government generally, including the governor and legislators.

Most public attention has focused on Thompson’s upbeat personality and bulldog tenacity in achieving his goals during his unprecedented 11 years as governor. The newspaper’s investigation found another side of the Thompson story: an administration marked by the strong appearance of favoritism.

Thompson has relied on a close-knit group of lobbyists, corporate executives and friends to pull the strings of government, with many moving in and out of state jobs, the paper found. Some of those who were Thompson’s closest staff advisers now work as private consultants and lobbyists, trading on their access to the governor and blurring the line between government and private interests.

Thompson dismissed such criticism in a lengthy interview and complained about the scope, methods and findings of the newspaper’s investigation.

“Somebody gives you a rumor, you take that and you run with it, and you are trying to tear down this administration for no reason whatsoever,” Thompson said. “We’re doing a wonderful job running the State of Wisconsin.”

Thompson said he had almost no role in fund-raising and that the state favors never are granted for contributions. He said his administration was a model of efficiency.

“My whole state government . . . is a (model) of best practices,” Thompson said.

For the series, the Journal Sentinel interviewed more than 120 people: Government officials, lobbyists, business executives and others, many with direct experience in how insiders do business with the Thompson administration. The newspaper also examined records from eight state agencies and created or expanded computer databases of Thompson’s telephone records, state contracts, campaign donations and campaign spending.

The investigation found that campaign donations often correlate with success in winning state contracts, direct aid and other favorable treatment. Road builders, utilities, investment bankers and other groups have found their way to the inside track with Thompson’s administration.

For example, executives of four top road-building companies that have won $218 million in state contracts since mid-1995 also have donated at least $119,000 to Thompson, according to state records.

State law bans state officials from personally gaining from their positions, from swapping state aid for campaign donations. Using surrogates to make such deals also would be illegal.

Allegations of influence peddling in the Thompson administration are the subject of an ongoing state Justice Department investigation. The investigation has focused on whether state favors have been granted in exchange for political donations. That probe started early this year with utility deals but has broadened to include other areas of state government, according to persons close to the case. The department declined to comment.

A Case Study

The Oconto Falls paper mill financing provides a case study on how influence works in the Thompson administration and who can help get deals done.

Last year, Van Den Heuvel’s Re-Box Packaging Co. hired investment banker P. Nicholas Hurtgen, a former top aide to Thompson and the brother-in-law of Thompson’s paid fund-raiser, Phil Prange. Hurtgen was hired as the project’s financial adviser, but he also helped open doors for Van Den Heuvel with the governor and other administration officials.

At a face-to-face meeting with Thompson in his Capitol office last January, the governor made a point of telling Van Den Heuvel that granting state aid wasn’t his call, but he encouraged him anyway. “I told him to work with (Commerce Secretary) Bill McCoshen. I’m almost positive of it.

He also said: “I encourage people, that’s my style,” Thompson added. ” ‘Sounds good! Let’s do it! Let’s get it done!’ That’s Tommy Thompson,” he said.

Van Den Heuvel says he recalled Thompson saying to him: “I think it’s a hell of an idea.”

Van Den Heuvel said that he and his wife, Jan, donated a total of $10,000 to the governor’s campaign account earlier this year — the checks were delivered May 15, one day before Re-Box Packaging won state approval for $9 million in tax-free bonds. That approval was intended for financing to build a De Pere factory for Re-Box.

Van Den Heuvel and two partners also each gave $500 to the governor three days before the state’s five-member Volume Cap Allocation Council voted on the financial aid. Three other partners gave a total of $2,100 between late April and June.

An hour after the newspaper asked Thompson about the donations, Thompson’s press secretary, Kevin Keane, said the Van Den Heuvels’ donations would be returned because “we are just not comfortable about” the timing of the cash gifts. Van Den Heuvel later confirmed that $10,000 of his donations were returned. Keane said the other donations might be returned.

Before using the $9 million in state financing, Van Den Heuvel decided to drop his aid application for the De Pere plant and apply for even more aid for PCDI Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., the tissue-mill project. The council that awarded the earlier sum readily agreed to authorize the $24 million in financing aid.

Commerce Department staffers who reviewed the Oconto proposal, however, declined to make any recommendation on the request, also noting the large sum, if approved, would “significantly impact” the amount of tax-free bonding authority available for other projects. Numerous other projects proposed by other firms were not funded by the council.

Van Den Heuvel made the project switch, he said, because the Oconto Falls mill offered the opportunity to get government financing aid for a much larger portion of that project’s overall costs than the $9 million financing offered him for the De Pere project.

Van Den Heuvel, Thompson and other administration officials say the project was approved on its merits and there was no link between the campaign cash and the state aid.

“None whatsoever,” Thompson said. “Absolutely none.”

The donations “wouldn’t have anything to do with” the state aid, Van Den Heuvel said.

Officials said the Oconto Falls mill will provide 160 jobs in an area hit hard by this year’s plant closure. The $24 million in financing aid, while large, was far less than the total of $70 million that Van Den Heuvel originally requested for the De Pere Re-Box project, state officials noted.

Commerce Secretary Bill McCoshen also stressed that the aid, while allocated by the state, actually comes from the federal government, and no state tax dollars are involved.

Under the financing plan, company executives also could pay themselves and other company employees bonuses and pay shareholders dividends with the tax-free bonds, Van Den Heuvel said. They would not have been able to do that with taxable bonds.

Built a Record

By far Wisconsin’s longest-serving governor, Thompson, 56, has enjoyed enduring popularity and state economic prosperity during his administration. Since taking office in January 1987, Thompson has cut taxes and welfare, relentlessly boosted business, tamed the state bureaucracy and whipped the Legislature into submission.

Thompson also has snared national attention for his cutting-edge welfare reform efforts, something that may serve him as he pursues his continued interest in national office. He’s also expected to soon formally announce his candidacy for a fourth term as governor.

The image shifts when the focus is aimed at how power and influence work in Thompson’s administration. To move to the inside track, becoming a “friend,” in the code of Thompson insiders, requires loyalty, deference and never publicly criticizing the governor, said sources close to Thompson — both in and out of government. And those who are seeking government assistance are expected to “help,” which means making a donation.

Thompson has often said his policy decisions have no link with donations. In the interview, he emphasized his distance from fund raising, saying his role was limited to attending money-raising receptions. James R. Klauser, Thompson’s former top deputy and longtime campaign mastermind, declined to discuss fund raising in detail. He described a passive system in which volunteers vie to host fund-raisers.

Access to Thompson is offered by aides and advisers outside the administration to firms seeking contracts, favorable regulatory decisions and other state aid, the paper found.

For example, Thompson and his aides pressed state utility regulators on issues worth millions to large utilities, including Ameritech and Wisconsin Energy Corp., both major donors to the governor.

When Thompson allowed the governor’s mansion to be used for a charity event on Nov. 15 last year for the Camp Five Timber Museum, Thompson’s paid fund-raiser, Phil Prange, called large Wisconsin firms to suggest their attendance and the opportunity to have a one-on-one with the governor — for a price.

Lumber Museum Event

“Phil called me and said, ‘Do you want to have 20 minutes of quality time by contributing five grand ($5,000) to my mother’s museum?’ ” recalled one Wisconsin executive, who works for a firm with major state issues pending. Prange’s mother, Mary Connor, is spearheading the drive to upgrade the lumber museum in Laona, Wis.

Prange, responding only to written questions, denied promising access to Thompson in exchange for a donation to the museum. He also said the museum group did not use “political fund-raising lists” to identify potential donors.

As governor, Thompson has raised record sums, more than $6.5 million in his last run for governor and almost $15 million overall since his first gubernatorial bid in 1986.

The method for getting campaign money from firms interested in state help includes pleas made at opportune times.

In the Oconto Falls case, fund-raiser Prange called on Van Den Heuvel last November for a donation, a few months after Van Den Heuvel’s request for state aid had first been broached, according to Van Den Heuvel and state Commerce Department records. Prange was aware of Van Den Heuvel’s pending request for state financing aid when he asked for a donation, Van Den Heuvel said. Prange had approached him for donations in previous years.

“I made that $10,000 commitment to him in November (of 1996), OK?” said Van Den Heuvel. He claimed he’d been a longtime large donor to Thompson’s campaign, but the governor’s campaign finance records show just two other, smaller donations from Van Den Heuvel before the big donations were made last May.

Thompson insisted he never personally solicits donations and knows few details of how his campaign operation functions, despite his aggressive hands-on approach to campaigning and governing. But interviews with Thompson insiders, phone records and his own campaign records suggest the governor has taken a much more active role in his campaign money-raising machine.

The governor’s Capitol phone records, dating to January 1996, show 32 calls to fund-raiser Prange’s line at the governor’s campaign office, 26 calls to the state party or to state GOP chairman Dave Opitz, and 60 calls to the four businessmen who coordinate Thompson’s fund-raising strategy. They are Fred Luber, chief executive of Milwaukee’s Super Steel Products Corp.; J. Carleton “Sandy” MacNeil, a Mequon investment broker; Butch Johnson, president of Johnson Timber in Hayward; and San Orr Jr., chief executive of Wausau Paper Mills.

Thompson regularly phones and meets with those who run his fund-raising operation, including Klauser and other informal advisers outside of government. Although Klauser downplays his role, Klauser has expanded his campaign role since he left state government late last year to return to political consulting and lobbying, Thompson said. The governor only occasionally turns to Klauser for policy advice, he said, though others said Klauser’s policy role remained large.

Thompson said others in the office have access to his phone lines and might have made some of the calls. Furthermore, some calls likely would have been made to schedule events for the governor, aides said, which is allowable under state ethics rules.

Thompson denied personally making calls to Prange. Prange said others in the governor’s office called him “regarding scheduling,” but he didn’t elaborate.

None of the calls from Thompson’s lines to his fund-raisers was about fund raising, Thompson said. And he said he doesn’t know who gives or how much he’s raised until he reads a story in the newspaper. He denied having any current role in his own campaign money operation.

“I don’t do any of that,” Thompson said. “I hate it. I don’t like it. I am reluctant to do it. And so I’m not good at it.” The extent of his involvement is to show up at fund-raisers others arrange for him, he said. He never talks about money or policy there, he said.

“I go in, I schmooze and I leave,” Thompson said.

However, lobbyists for major firms and interest groups who do business with the state, and business executives interviewed by the newspaper, said the fund-raising events are sold as prime opportunities to bend the governor’s ear on state issues — often worth millions to major players in issues ranging from utility regulation to Indian gaming. The fund-raisers often include discussion of those issues.

“It’s wonderful, the access that’s provided” at Thompson’s fund-raisers, said one lobbyist who does business with the state.

A second lobbyist said Thompson’s fund-raising machine “systematically and methodically” milked firms with state business for donations. “Everybody understands if you go and ask the government to do something, you are going to have to make contributions.”

Both lobbyists asked not to be named, saying they feared retribution for speaking out.

State phone records also showed top aides to the governor, with whom he regularly confers, made numerous calls to the Thompson campaign office and GOP fund-raisers.

Klauser, in his last three months as Thompson’s top aide, called Prange 19 times, his phone records show. And Commerce Secretary McCoshen, who oversees a wide range of state subsidy programs for businesses, including the Oconto Falls financing, called Prange and the governor’s campaign office 21 times since January 1995.

State phone records show a series of calls during the period Van Den Heuvel was negotiating for his state financing aid, including a string of calls linking Thompson, his campaign, top state officials and Hurtgen, Van Den Heuvel’s project manager.

Thompson acknowledged that he might have talked to Hurtgen, his former aide, about Van Den Heuvel’s request for state financing aid.

“Possibly could have,” Thompson said. “I don’t know.”

Hurtgen declined to comment. Matthews and McCoshen said their calls to Hurtgen were not related to the Van Den Heuvel project.

“I’ve been a supporter of Gov. Thompson for a long time. I happen to think he’s the best governor,” Van Den Heuvel said. 

 

 

November 02, 1997

MILWAUKEE (AP) Campaign contributions to Gov. Tommy Thompson often correlate with success for donors in winning state contracts, direct aid and other favorable treatment, according an investigation by a state newspaper.

Road builders and other groups who have contributed to Thompson’s campaign fund frequently are on the inside track with the governor’s administration, the report stated.

For example, executives of four top road-building companies that have won $218 million in state contracts since mid-1995 also have donated at least $119,000 to Thompson, according to state records.

An Associated Press review in June of road builder contributions to the Transportation Projects Commission found that at least $363,987 was contributed over the past decade to Thompson, the commission’s chairman.

The TPC has been criticized by state auditors for spending more on new roads than Wisconsin can afford.

The newspaper also reported that the Department of Justice is conducting an ongoing investigation of influence peddling in the Thompson administration.

The investigation has focused on whether state favors have been granted in exchange for political donations, according to the report. That probe started early this year with utility deals but has broadened to include other areas of state government, sources close to the case told the newspaper.

The justice department itself declined to comment to the paper and did not immediately respond to a call from The Associated Press.

Thompson said in an interview that he had almost no role in fund-raising and that the state favors are never granted for contributions.

“My whole state government… is a (model) of best practices,” he said.

The paper said its investigation also found that:

• Green Bay-area entrepreneur Ron Van Den Heuvel and his wife donated a total of $10,000 to Thompson’s campaign fund last May a day before Van Den Heuvel won state approval for $9 million in tax-free bonds to build a De Pere factory.

Van Den Heuvel and two partners also each gave $500 to the governor three days before the state’s five-member Volume Cap Allocation Council voted on the financial aid.

Three other partners gave a total of $2,100 between late April and June.

An hour after the newspaper asked Thompson about the donations, Thompson’s press secretary, Kevin Keane, said the Van Den Heuvels’ donations would be returned because “we are just not comfortable about” the timing of the cash gifts.

Van Den Heuvel later told the paper that $10,000 of his donations were returned.

Thompson, Van Den Heuvel and other administration officials say the project was approved on its merits and there was no link between the campaign cash and the state aid.

• Thompson may take a much more active role in raising campaign money than he says.

The governor’s Capitol phone records, dating to January 1996, show 32 calls to paid fund-raiser Phil Prange’s line at the governor’s campaign office, 26 calls to the state Republican Party or its chairman Dave Opitz, and 60 calls to the four businessmen who coordinate Thompson’s fund-raising strategy, the paper reported.

Thompson said others in his office have access to his phone lines and might have made some of the calls. He added none of the calls from his lines to his fund-raisers was about fund raising.

Some calls likely would have been made to schedule events for the governor, which is allowable under state ethics rules, the governor’s aides said.

Thompson also denied personally making calls to Prange.

As governor, Thompson has raised record sums, more than $6.5 million in his last run for governor and almost $15 million overall since his first gubernatorial bid in 1986. He has not said whether he would run for an unprecedented fourth term.

• Prange called large Wisconsin firms to request their attendance for a price when Thompson allowed the governor’s mansion to be used for a charity event on Nov. 15 last year for the Camp Five Timber Museum.

That price was a large donation to the lumber museum in Laona, where Prange’s mother is spearheading a drive to upgrade it, said one Wisconsin executive, who works for a firm with major issues pending before the state.

The newspaper did not name the executive.

Prange, responding only to written questions from the paper, denied promising access to Thompson in exchange for a donation to the museum. He also said the museum group did not use “political fund-raising lists” to identify potential donors.

The paper said it interviewed more than 120 people for a series of investigative stories about influence in Thompson’s administration. Many had direct experience on how insiders do business with the Thompson administration, the newspaper said.

Reporters also examined records from eight state agencies and created or expanded computer databases of Thompson’s telephone records, state contracts, campaign donations and campaign spending.

 

 

By Jack Dolan and Aaron Rothenburger
Campaign Finance Information Center

A direct link between campaign contributions and favoritism is the Holy Grail of campaign finance reporting.

In the 1997 series “Money and Influence,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters Steve Schultze and Daniel Bice connected campaign contributions to preferential treatment by Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson.

The two reporters examined records from eight state agencies, state contracts, campaign contributions and expenditures, and Thompson’s phone records. The eight-month investigation revealed a startling correlation between those who gave money to Thompson’s campaign and those who got lucrative state contracts.

In one instance, Schultze and Bice found that Ron Van Den Heuvel, a Wisconsin businessman, donated $10,000 to Thompson’s campaign fund the day before a state agency awarded him $24 million in tax-free bond financing to build a paper-manufacturing plant. Van Den Heuvel says a Thompson fund raiser asked him for the donation. The newspaper’s inquiry forced Thompson to return the contribution.

Schultze and Bice say the Van Den Heuvel affair was not an isolated incident. “The [Van Den Heuvel] case and others reviewed by The Journal Sentinel in an eight-month investigation suggest a trend in which donors and well-connected firms enjoy a close and mutually beneficial relationship with the Thompson administration,” they wrote.

You can investigate that claim for yourself by downloading current Wisconsin campaign finance data from the CFIC or by searching the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Web site at http://www.wisdc.org/.

Another strength of using campaign finance data is the ability to show how big money flows around the sometimes useless legal breakwaters that are meant to stem the tide.

Darrel Rowland of The Columbus Dispatch found that non-cash loans and in-kind contributions to parties or legislative campaign committees are exempt from state limits in Ohio. According to The Dispatch, the biggest beneficiary so far of this loophole is Cleveland area state Senator Robert A. Gardner. State Republicans funneled more than $900,000 into Gardner’s last campaign, or more than 90 percent of Gardner’s total reciepts. A sudden, last-minute $384,000 advertising campaign paid for by the state party and “loaned” to Gardner may have been the deciding factor in Gardner’s narrow victory. The loan was especially generous since there is no time line for Gardner to repay it, no state law that prohibits the party from simply forgiving it, and no requirement to report who repays it if it is repaid. Rowland also reports that a new headquarters for the Ohio Republican Party was “custom-designed around the state’s campaign finance laws.” The building was financed by a party trust fund that allowed corporations to exceed normal contribution limits. Rowland calls the new Republican headquarters “a veritable factory for in-kind contributions” since the TV and radio ads, computer services, and direct mailings that originate in the new headquarters count as in-kind contributions to party candidates.

Rowland’s series also details how the Democratic and Republican national parties used Ohio’s less restrictive campaign finance laws to their benefit. In 1996, the Democratic National Committee directed out-of-state contributors to send unsolicited contributions to the Ohio Democratic Party. The money is then transferred, or even sold back, to the national party. The biggest single contributor to the Ohio Democratic party in 1992 was Indonesian businessman James T. Riady, who gave $75,000 to the state party six days before President Clinton’s election.

The latest Ohio campaign finance data can be searched online at the Ohio Open Elections Project on the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics.

When the bureaucrats in charge of computerizing state campaign finance records settle into their customary glacial rhythm, reporters have two choices: cover well-rehearsed sound bytes and photo opportunities while waiting for an information thaw, or start a fire by building their own campaign finance database.

A consortium of 29 newspapers and two TV stations in New York lit their own fire under local politicians this year when they set aside traditional rivalries to join forces and turn over 10,000 paper records into the most comprehensive campaign finance database in New York history. The result, according to Newsday’s Ford Fessenden, was “a blizzard of stories” putting state politicians on notice that the public is interested in their campaign finances. A telling example of the impact: A couple of years ago, a Newsday reporter noticed that the paper contribution reports from Governor Pataki’s office came sorted alphabetically by the contributor’s first name. Suspecting a computer was used to generate that order, the reporter called Gov. Pataki’s press secretary, Zenia Mucha, to ask for the governor’s campaign contributions in electronic form rather than on paper. Mucha laughed at the reporter.

Today, after hundreds of stories on state campaign finances generated by consortium members, Pataki files contribution reports electronically.

The CFIC library, located online at www.campaignfinance .org/stories/index.html, is an archive of local, state and federal articles that use campaign contribution reports to “follow the money.” The library also serves as a complement to the CFIC’s online databases of state campaign finance contributions.

The three investigative series described above are just a few of the excellent examples of how campaign finance data can enhance state and local political reporting.

 

 

Ron Van Den Heuvel

Ron Van Den Heuvel

It’s almost as if the U.S. Dept. of Justice doesn’t want – or simply refuses – to prosecute Ronald Henry Van Den Heuvel for anything he does, no matter what he does or how many people he hurts.

 

Kind of like the kid gloves they’ve used with Ron’s buddy, Wallace J. ‘Wally’ Hilliard.

 

At least Green Bay-resident and Philanthropist Wally Hilliard can get arrested in Florida

Hilliard-Mugshot

…even if Wally only gets a slap on the wrist and his many … many major crimes – including using Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida as a continuing criminal enterprise – are swept under the rug by state and federal authorities, just like the State of Wisconsin and the U.S. Government have done for Wally‘s buddy Ron Van Den Heuvel.

Guess it pays to know ‘friends’ (and handlers) in the CIA, the DEA, the FAA, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security!

Just like it pays to know Fmr. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson (once you’ve paid to know him).

 

And, NO, Uncle Sam.

This doesn’t qualify as holding Wally Hilliard fully accountable:

  • June 25, 2015, AGREED JUDGMENT in favor of United States of America against Wallace Hilliard in the amounts of $2,258,402.04 for the tax year 1996; $726,963.33 for the tax year 1997; $6,018.07 for the tax year 2007 and $3,616.37 for the tax year 2008. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case No. 3:2014-cv-408, United States of America v. Patricia Hilliard, Wallace Hillard, Bank of America NA, Hilliard Limited Partnership, Daniel Hilliard and Andrew Hilliard as Trustess of the Wallace J. Hilliard Fint Trust, and Green Bay Air, Inc.
  • September 9, 2015 ORDER granting Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case No. 3:2014-cv-408, United States of America v. Patricia Hilliard, Wallace Hillard, Bank of America NA, Hilliard Limited Partnership, Daniel Hilliard and Andrew Hilliard as Trustess of the Wallace J. Hilliard Fint Trust, and Green Bay Air, Inc.

 

Wait a minute…

September 11?!

WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!

 

By the way, Ron & Wally

Did you ever clear up that $911k dispute in Brown Co. Case No. 2008CV2265, in the matter of Hilliard Limited Partnership vs. Ronald Van Den Heuvel & Evergreen Development LLC over a few cold ones in The Pub at the Thornberry Creek at Oneida golf course?

 

UPDATE/NEW DOCUMENTS:

Starting page 14 of transcript marked Exhibit B from the above link:

Godfrey & Kahn: So we understand, as you sit here today, you don’t know of any writing evidencing the understanding we’ve been referring to, and you’re going to le me know if your understanding is incorrect by reviewing e-mails so that the next time we meet, you can deny your understanding if it turns out you’re mistaken, correct?

Ron Van Den Heuvel: Incorrect. The bank documents and the two resolutions from the shareholders and the board of directors definitely says I cannot buy  anybody out without paying them in full.

G&K: The shareholders and board of directors of what entity?

RVDH: Eco-Fibre [formerly Re-Box] and TPTC [Tissue Products Technology Corp.]

G&K: Okay. I’ll request copies of those documents.

RVDH: Okay.

G&K: Is there anything — any board of directors or members vote or writing evidencing an understanding between you and the members of Evergreen Development, LLC, to renew the promissory notes until the assets of Evergreen are sold?

RVDH: Other than the fact it just keeps happening. They understand. But no, I don’t think anything’s in writing. …

G&K: Is it your testimony then that you had an understanding with the Hilliard Limited Partnership that it would agree to renew the promissory note represented in Exhibit 1 until such time as the assets of Evergreen Development, LLC, were sold?

RVDH: Yes.

G&K: Okay. Was that ever put in writing?

RVDH: I’m not sure.

G&K: When was that understanding reached with Hilliard Limited Partnership?

RVDH: I talked to the guys many a time. And when we turned it from stock to a note, that was the understanding. I mean, they wanted on their balance sheet a note instead of stock so that they could value it, and I agreed to do it through an arm’s length transaction with full awareness that there was no way to pay it until the assets were sold and that I would work very diligently to sell the assets and not receive a wage from either one of the companies. I agreed to it.

G&K: With whom on behalf of Hilliard Limited Partnership did you reach this understanding to renew the promissory note represented by Exhibit 1?

RVDH: Mostly with Dan Hilliard, but I did talk to Neal Maccoux several times on it also.

G&K: And what role does Dan Hilliard play with Hilliard Limited Partnership?

RVDH: I don’t know.

G&K: Okay.

RVDH: He works for me though.

Starting page 77 of transcript marked Exhibit B from the above link:

Godfrey & Kahn: Did you discuss the compromise and settlement with Andy — Andy Hilliard’s father at all?

Ron Van Den Heuvel: Well, I didn’t. I said —I told him we had a tough situation going forward and financing was tough in this market; but I do believe that I used the term your boys are comfortable now that no assets will be sold underneath them without them being paid in full and/or that I’m diligently working hard and its a real project? And I shoed him the off-take agreement signed by the Kraft family and Wassau Paper. They were fairly — I think everybody is very comfortable that this deal is progressing as fast as possible.

G&K: Did you have a conversation with the senior Hilliard regarding the compromise and settlement referred to in paragraph 12 of your answer?

RVDH: The only thing I said to them is we came apart with a mortgage that should satisfy any issues that they had. I didn’t get into specifics. Wally and I were friends for a long time. I used to do all of his work, built all of his buildings as an architect, and did electrical work for him for years.

G&K: Did the Hilliard Limited Partnership agreement sign anything in writing documenting the compromise and settlement referred to in paragraph 12 of you answer?

RVDH: The only evidence I have that they did is they recorded the mortgage. So I don’t really have anything signed by them back because they always bring things for me to sign back to them and then they accepted it because they took the mortgage and filed it. So the mortgage went to them a couple times back and forth, and they wanted to talk about it and this and that. Finally, they agreed; and then shortly after they agreed they filed the mortgage.

G&K: When you say they agreed, who communicated to you that the Hilliard Limited Partnership agreed to the compromise and settlement contained in paragraph 12 of the answer?

RVDH: Well, Dan negotiated or I shouldn’t say negotiated. Dan is the one who told me that they agreed, and basically a couple different times he said the mortgage was a good idea, and I know Dan is inside of our group working as hard as anybody to get this closed.

 

Now, Marty, it’s time to get a new perspective on September 11, 2001!

We’re headed down the FOURTH DIMENSIONAL
JACKRABBIT BLACK BUDGET HOLE OF NARCO-TRAFFICKING, STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM, AND THE 9/11 HIJACKERS’ FLORIDA FLIGHT SCHOOL TRAINING
!!!

In other words, Marty, if you click that pink link and read about the history of Ron’s buddy and Green Bay resident spook Wally Hilliard… you’re going to see some serious sh¡t!

We’re talking…

Operation Northwoods for a New American Century!

Great Cheney’s Ghost!

Buckle up and hang on to your hoverboard, Marty!

 

OUTATIME

 

Related:

  • Brown Co Case 2008CV2028, Chris J. Hartwig vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank; Oconto Falls Tissue Inc.; Partners Concepts Development Inc.; Tissue Products Technology Corp.; Eco Fibre Inc.; Recovering Aqua Resources Inc.; Anchorbank FSB; Stockhausen Inc.
  • Brown Co. Case No. 2009CV1050, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; (Ron’s sister) Ann Murphy; (Ron’s brother-in-law) Patrick Murphy; Chris J. Hartwig; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank; Eco Fibre Inc.; Baylake Bank; Fortress Credit Corp.; SHF XII LLC (Stonehill Financial LLC); Anchorbank FSB; Cordova Ventures; Industrial Technology Ventures LP; Yale Materials Handling Green Bay Inc.; Stockhausen Inc.; Sterling Industrial Sales LLC; Brian A. Everson; Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd.; State of Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development; United States of America; Garnishees: Chase Bank; Spirit Construction Services Inc.; VOS Construction Services Inc.
  • Brown Co. Case No. 2010CV2318, SC Acquisition Company LLC (Mark Bartels of Stellpflug Law SC) vs. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel; Chris J. Hartwig; Hilliard Limited Partnership; (Ron’s sister) Ann Murphy; (Ron’s brother-in-law) Patrick Murphy; Brian A. Everson; (Oneida Tribe-owned) Bay Bank;  Custom Paper Products Inc.; Partners Concepts Development Inc.; Eco Fibre Inc.; Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.; Tissue Products Technology Corp.; Oconto Falls Tissue Inc.; Tissue Technology LLC; Anchor Bank FSB; Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Cordova Ventures; Industrial Technology Ventures LP; Stockhausen Inc.; Sterling Industrial Sales LLC; Yale Materials Handling Green Bay Inc.; ADT Security Services Inc.; State of Wisconsin Dept. of Workforce Development; United States of America; Other: SHF XII LLC (Stonehill Financial LLC)

 

And, look again! Wally Hilliard was a client of law firm Godfrey & Kahn, just like Ron Van Den Heuvel’s buddies at Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and its subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy:

Yet, Wally Hilliard was also a client of Godfrey & Kahn in a lawsuit against Ron Van Den Heuvel!

 

Interestingly, law firm Godfrey & Kahn defended OSGC’s & GBRE’s ‘waste energy’ scam against the City of Green Bay to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (who foolishly fell for it, or simply looked out for the ‘interests’ of their campaign donors)…

and yet Godfrey & Kahn also defended Dr. Marco Araujo against Ron Van Den Heuvel’s ‘waste energy’ scam, which was itself the basis for OSGC’s & GBRE’s ‘waste energy’ scam against the City of Green Bay and the WEDC.

So which is it, Godfrey & Kahn?

Was Ron Van Den Heuvel running a criminal enterprise about which your clients OSGC & GBRE made the same misrepresentations to the City of Green Bay that Ron Van Den Heuvel also made to individual investors like your client Dr. Marco Araujo, or not?

Before you answer, Godfrey & Kahn, don’t forget G & K’s own pro-‘waste energy’ presentation:

It sure looks like your client OSGC and their business partner Ron Van Den Heuvel were following your described plans but using the Oneida Tribe to fraudulently obtain state & federal financing for their shared scam which you ‘successfully’ defended before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The same waste energy scam you ‘successfully’ defended your client Dr. Marco Araujo against as a Plaintiff in Brown County Case No. 2015CV769, Dr. Marco Araujo, Cliffton Equities and Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) v. Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC.

OOPS!!!

The same scam that has now cost the General Tribal Council of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin over five-and-a-half million dollars and would have cost them tens of millions of dollars more if GTC had not voted to tell OSGC “NO!” and voted to dissolve OSGC.

OOPS, AGAIN!!!

Or is that what you call a real GODFREY & KAHN JOB?

Godfrey & Kahn’s Eric J. Wilson also represented Global Environmental Infrastructure Technology Solutions / GEITS Corp. in their attempt to launch a ‘waste energy’ tourism destination/attraction in the Town of Adams, WI, in which GEITS went so far as to hire the town’s Mayor to promote the project, which the people then rejected.

TRIPLE OOPS!!!

 

See also: