Con-Man, Fraud, Swindler Ron Van Den Heuvel Tells Green Bay Press-Gazette: “I Don’t Know Who’s After Me For A Witch Hunt. We’ll Figure Out Who It Is.”; 10/20/2016 UPDATE: New Documents & Hearings Audio Posted Of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Bankruptcy Case; PLUS, Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt Campaign Worker Quit Due To Campaign Manager Chris Rand’s “Stonewalling” & Donor Database Tampering

GREEN BAY – Federal prosecutors have expanded their case against a De Pere businessman accused of using straw borrowers to defraud financial institutions.

In late September, prosecutors filed six new charges against Green Box founder Ron Van Den Heuvel. accusing him of having an employee make false statements to secure loans from three different banks and credit unions in northeastern Wisconsin in the summer of 2013.

The revised complaint said Van Den Heuvel had an office assistant [with the initials “P.H.” for Patrick Hoffman, who is Ron’s son-in-law and owner of The Creamery Cafe and Registered Agent of PRH Enterprises LLC] making $12-per-hour inflate his annual income and claim he was a sales director with one of Van Den Heuvel’s companies in order to secure four loans ranging from $25,000 to $60,000 from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank and Pioneer Credit Union in 2013. The complaint also alleges the straw borrower offered two vehicles as loan collateral that were owned by Van Den Heuvel-controlled companies.

The charges are similar to [the previous thirteen criminal charges] federal authorities filed against Van Den Heuvel, his wife Kelly [Yessman Van Den Heuvel] and an Appleton banker, Paul Piikkila, in spring.

Federal prosecutors allege [PaulPiikkila, a Horicon Bank loan officer [and the Interim Controller of the Green Detroit Regional Center EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program that promoted Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Detroit LLC scheme], used his position to fraudulently provide more than $1 million in loans to the Van Den Heuvels under the names of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s employees and a former relative between Jan. 17, 2008, and Sept. 25, 2009. Piikkila and Van Den Heuvel turned to using straw borrowers after Horicon Bank management refused to lend money to Van Den Heuvel after a credit review.

Court documents state the employees and relatives who served as straw borrowers who did not receive the money and were not expected to repay it.

The Van Den Heuvels have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. A status conference is scheduled in federal court on [November 16, 2016].

Piikkila pleaded guilty in July, but sentencing has been postponed indefinitely due to the new charges against Ron Van Den Heuvel. [July 1, 2016 Paul Piikkila Plea Agreement in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case No. 16-CR-64]

Van Den Heuvel denies any wrongdoing.

“In the end, I will prevail. I didn’t do anything illegal,” he said. “We’ll get to the bottom of this. I don’t know who’s after me for a witch hunt. We’ll figure out who it is.

He said all of the people identified by investigators as straw borrowers were, in fact, business partners who were entitled to seek financing for the shared businesses. He also said giving collateral (the vehicles) to a business partner is not illegal.

“Every one has signed on as a business partner,” Van Den Heuvel said. “They’ve signed agreements where he may be called upon to borrow money for the company … every single straw borrower they have listed has been a partner of mine in a business and still is. Every one.”

At least five agencies are investigating Van Den Heuvel over claims he defrauded investors — including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.[/WEDC]— through a series of companies that he claimed would be able to convert food-contaminated paper and other difficult to recycle waste into new products and energy in a process that created no pollution.

Van Den Heuvel’s primary [?] company, Green Box NA [Green Bay LLC] ,  filed for federal bankruptcy protection in April. According to court documents, the company had less than $50,000 in assets and more than $10 million in debt.



Don’t forget these Ron Van Den Heuvel-related ‘companies’:

  • Green Box NA LLC, for which the Registered Agent is listed as Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
  • PC Fibre Technology LLC, for which the current Registered Agent is Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, about which the October 19, 2016 Court Minutes in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern WI District Case 16-24179-beh, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, state: “the entity that is in possession of the intellectual property, Pcfiber, should be identified
  • Green Box NA Macon Georgia Ethanol LLC, for which the Registered Agent is listed as Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC [E.A.R.T.H. / EARTH / currently known as Reclamation Technology Systems LLC / RTS]




  • NOTICE OF HEARING as to Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel re: Request for Waiver Hearing set for 10/26/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C Griesbach. The government need not appear. Probation, however, should be present.
  • October 3, 2016 Court Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel
  • TEXT ONLY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Jones on 10/11/2016. The Motion for Leave to Withdraw filed by Attorney Kristen D. T. Viglione, ECF No. 61 , is GRANTED. Ms. Viglione is permitted to withdraw as counsel for Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel.

The United States Trustee, by Attorney Amy J. Ginsberg, objects to approval of the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement because it requires creditors, other parties in interest, and the United States Trustee to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to obtain its financial projections. In addition, the Disclosure Statement fails to address fundamental financial information such as: (1) the conditions precedent for obtaining financing for NewCo; (2) a timetable for completing tax returns; (3) conditions necessary to obtain new capital; and (4) the absolute priority rule. …

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

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

14.  The Debtor admitted that it failed to provide financial projections in its Disclosure Statement and justifies the omission arguing that such projections are (1) not available yet; and (2) only for creditors who will sign off on a non-disclosure agreement.

15.  Next, the Bankruptcy Code requires debtors to provide adequate financial information to all creditors, not just some creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 1125. According to the Disclosure Statement, detailed financial projections are only offered to “creditors on the basis of enforceable non-disclosure agreements being signed once such financial projections are finalized and approved by the Investment Bank.” Docket Entry #81, p. 23. The Debtor also claims that financial projections are proprietary and therefore cannot be disclosed. Docket Entry #81, p. 22.

16.  The Debtor’s requirement for a non-disclosure agreement in order for creditors to receive financial projections flies in the face of the requirement for a debtor to provide adequate disclosure of its finances and is contrary to law. 11 U.S.C. §§ 107(a) and 1125(b). The Disclosure Statement needs to contain financial projections and hard financial data. This Court should not allow the Debtor to shield its true financial prospects from creditors. …

17.  In addition, not only creditors, but the public is also entitled to information about the Debtor’s financial projections. …

19.  According to the Disclosure Statement, Ron Van Den Heuvel has been trying to fund this food-contaminated paper reclamation project since 2012. Docket Entry #81, p. 8. …

26.  The Debtors’ Disclosure Statement violates the absolute priority rule in that it allows the equity holders to retain property without paying unsecured creditors in full. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B).

27.  Although the Disclosure Statement provides that equity holders’ interests will be canceled, the equity holders will receive at least a 60% ownership in NewCo. The Debtor’s equity holders receive their new share in NewCo from their interest in the Debtor. See Docket Entry #81, p. 22. As such, the Debtor has not satisfied the requirements of section 1129(b)(2)(B)(i) and therefore cannot receive or retain an interest in property of the estates. …

28.  According to the Disclosure Statement, “the intellectual property has been previously evaluated by independent consultants, which [sic] have placed significant value on it.” Docket Entry #81, p. 19.

29.  The Disclosure Statement should itemize this intellectual property, identify the owner of the intellectual property, the valuation of the intellectual property and if anyone holds an exclusive license to use it.

The Disclosure Statement provides that the Debtor “has managed to contractually secure a nationally recognized Investment Bank who has been engaged in taking the entire project forward.” See Disclosure Statement, p. 13, ¶ 1. However, when prompted to identify which bank is providing services at the United States’ Trustee’s Hearing on its Motion to Dismiss conducted on September 30, 2016 (the “Hearing”), Stephen Smith (“Smith”), an investor and individual with various ties to the Debtor and related entities, stated that he would “rather not disclose.” (See Hearing Transcript, p. 67, Ln. 11.) Although Smith provided some limited information about this financing, the Disclosure Statement fails to include any pertinent information about how the Debtor will move forward.

Among other things, the Debtor fails to identify in the Disclosure Statement a commitment letter, lending terms, the amount of any funds that have been secured, or the party providing the funds. Also, it doesn’t appear that the Debtor has any assets which are not fully encumbered, underscoring the question of how such capital can be secured. The Disclosure Statement provides that the Debtor will have funding by the end of the first quarter in 2017, but fails to specifically set forth how this will be accomplished. …

Conspicuously absent from the Disclosure Statement are such details as, among other things, what is the intellectual property, who owns it, why it is necessary to the plan, the assignability of such intellectual property, and information supporting the basis for the “significant value” attributed to such intellectual property. Although this intellectual property is ostensibly critical to the Debtor, creditors have next to no information by which they can evaluate it within the context of the plan. This valuable intellectual property is an asset of the Debtor which must be specifically identified and described in the Disclosure Statement. …

A debtor “is required to make a full, clear, and complete disclosure of all underlying assumptions” with respect to its projections. See Malek, 35 B.R. at 444. Notwithstanding Debtor’s failure to provide any information to creditors with which they may assess the viability of the Debtor based on its own projections, Debtor nonetheless offers that “[d]etailed financial projections concerning the Project will be shared with creditors on the basis of enforceable non- disclosure agreements being signed once such financial projections are finalized and approved by the Investment Bank.” (See Disclosure Statement, p. 23, ¶ 4 (emphasis added).) Setting aside that this statement is an admission that the Debtor does not currently have any financial projections, Debtor nonetheless attempts to pacify creditors with an empty offer to provide these prospective projections subject to non-disclosure agreements. When prompted at the Hearing whether the Debtor would provide the Trustee without their assent to sign a non-disclosure agreement, Smith replied “No. I want a nondisclosure agreement. Why would I?” (See Hearing Transcript, p. 50, Ln. 10.) Providing financial projections and other necessary financial information is not a conditional requirement; creditors must be permitted access to these documents without any strings attached. Debtor’s failure to provide these projections through the Disclosure Statement is inexcusable. See Hirt, 97 B.R. at 982 (Finding that the debtor’s disclosure statement could not be approved due in part to “gross inaccuracies in cash flow projections.”) Debtor also fails to point out which assets will be rolled up into the NewCo in order to support the feasibility of its projections. …

Debtor’s Disclosure Statement casually mentions that releases will be necessary from certain of the Debtor’s creditors to confirm the plan. (See Disclosure Statement, p. 23, ¶ 3.) Debtor fails to address such releases including who will be released, why they will be released, and whether there will be any consideration to support such releases. Debtor offers no details about the necessity for such releases. …

Debtor’s Disclosure Statement provides that GlenArbor, through Smith, has “entered into agreements with various entities” and “continues to negotiate contracts for both products generated from the process as well as inputs which are necessary to fuel the process.” See Disclosure Statement, p. 12, ¶ 5. The agreements and contracts, aside from this casual mention of them, are completely omitted from the Disclosure Statement. Again, while the Debtor stresses the importance of these actions to bolster confirmation on the one hand, it undercuts its credibility by failing to provide concrete and specific information about such efforts. …

The Debtor’s Disclosure Statement does not provide adequate information. Without adequate information, creditors have no idea what is going on in a debtor’s bankruptcy case and, under such circumstances, are not in a position to accept any proposed plan. In the event that the Debtor provides creditors with the requisite information, it can amend and resubmit its Disclosure Statement – accompanied by a confirmable plan – for consideration. However, given the near total lack of information from the Debtor and the speculative prospects for confirmation of its plan, approval of the Disclosure Statement is not appropriate at this time.

B.  Where will payment to creditors come from? There is no dispute that Debtor has no cash and no ability to get cash. (Disclosure Stm., Doc. 81, P. 13). Therefore, any payments made to creditors must necessarily come from either capital contributions from existing members, cash flow of the “rolled-up” entity (“NewCo”), or financing arrangements made by NewCo. Debtor has not disclosed adequate information regarding any source of cash that will be used for payment to creditors.

First, Debtor admits that it is surviving on funds received from Glen Arbor, which is being provided on an “as needed basis.” (Disclosure Stm., Doc. 81, P. 13). Even the minimal1 adequate protection payments to Ability of approximately $10,000 per month are being advanced by Glen Arbor. (Disclosure Stm., Doc. 81, P. 13). The Plan is void of any suggestion that Glen Arbor or other members are committed and able to make future contributions as may be needed to fund the Plan. Accordingly, Debtor’s life-line is dependent on the will of third parties.

Second, with respect to NewCo’s future cash flow, Debtor provides no projections to suggest that NewCo will have sufficient cash flow to pay creditors under Debtor’s Plan. Debtor has conditioned further disclosures of information (the adequacy of which cannot be determined, in part, because the financial information is not even complete yet)2 upon the execution of a non- disclosure agreement. (Disclosure Stm., Doc. 81, P. 23). In addition to the fact that the financial projections admittedly do not exist, Debtor’s unilateral limitations on providing even basic financial information should not be allowed by this Court.

Finally, with respect to NewCo’s financing arrangements, Debtor claims that it has “managed to contractually secure a nationally recognized Investment Bank who has been engaged in taking the entire project forward.” See Disclosure Statement, P. 13, ¶ 1. Debtor then summarily states that “Glen Arbor has managed to put in place many of the prerequisites for the Investment Bank to go to the capital markets to privately place the debt…” Id. Debtor, however, has refused to disclose the identity of this investment bank, nor has Debtor been able to produce any commitment from any investment bank or investor identifying any of the prerequisites that Glen Arbor has allegedly satisfied (or what prerequisites may remain outstanding). If Debtor has identified an investment bank willing to invest its time and resources in Debtor’s future, all creditors should know and understand the extent of the bank’s involvement. …

D.  Would a vote against the Plan possibly yield more payment to creditors? Debtor has an incestuous relationship with numerous insiders, each of whom will benefit from the Plan. Creditors are entitled to information regarding the possibility of recovery from these related entities outside a reorganization plan.

First, Debtor’s largest account receivable (more than $1 million) is due from Patriot Tissue, LLC (“Patriot Tissue”), a related entity. The Disclosure Statement incorrectly states that Patriot Tissue has ceased operations when, in fact, Steve Smith testified that it is still operating. Debtor says that the account is “deemed uncollectible” but provides no information or analysis for that conclusion. (Disclosure Stm., Doc. 81, P. 15). If this account receivable can be collected by a party that has an incentive to collect it (i.e. an unrelated party), that recovery would go far to pay unsecured creditors’ claims.

Second, Debtor makes no attempt to identify or quantify transfers to related entities that could be recovered for the benefit of creditors. For example, Debtor’s SOFA states that Ron Van Den Heuvel took various payments from Debtor during the one year before filing the Petition, but summarily states the value as “unknown.” If money or assets were in fact transferred to Ron Van Den Heuvel (or other related parties) during the preference period, the value of those assets could be recoverable for the benefit of creditors. This missing information is relevant to Ability’s decision to vote for the Plan.

Third, Debtor’s analysis of why this Plan is in the best interest of non-related creditors is perfunctory, at best. …

Finally, the Disclosure Statement states that it will be necessary for certain non-debtor insiders (i.e. RTS [Reclamation Technology Systems LLC]) to be released form any direct payment obligation to creditors. That release includes the guaranty executed by RTS in favor of Ability. Debtor fails to detail why creditors should agree to such a release (other than Debtor’s claim that it is “crucial to maintain the timeline” of the roll up), or whether the non-debtor insiders will contribute any consideration to support such a release. Absent a release, Debtor may be able to collect some or all of its debt from RTS.

12.  WEDC cannot be both: (a) forced to make an informed decision regarding the Debtor’s Plan or Newco; and (b) denied relevant information regarding both the Debtor and NewCo.

13.  For the reasons stated, WEDC respectfully requests that approval of the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement be denied.

1.  The Debtor’s Plan does not acknowledge or provide for the payment of rent for Debtor’s ongoing use of warehouse space at 821 Parkview Road in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin, subsequent to the termination of the lease. Objector has not received any administrative rent payments during these proceedings.

2.  The Disclosure Statement inaccurately provides that Objector obtained relief from stay in these proceedings to terminate a lease for the warehouse located at 821 Parkview Road in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin (the “Parkview Lease”). Disclosure Statement, ¶ 8, p. 28. This is untrue because the Parkview Lease was terminated by agreement of the Receiver and Objector prior to the Petition Date.

3. The Disclosure Statement and testimony presented at the recent hearing on the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss suggest that Debtor and/or Reclamation Technology Solutions, LLC (“RTS”) has reached an agreement with Little Rapids for extended lease terms. This is untrue. Objector reached a tentative agreement with Debtor, but discussions stalled when it became clear that Debtor would not have funds to pay past due post-petition rent.

4.  Moreover, the Disclosure Statement provides a vague disclosure of an asset sale of multiple entities to one purchaser as part of a financing and “roll up” of assets. The Disclosure Statement fails to provide adequate information regarding the Plan, including but not limited to, details surrounding the viability of the RTS financing, the sale of assets, and the financial projections of RTS, which must support the RTS financing.

5.  For the reasons stated herein, Objector respectfully objects to the Court’s approval of the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement.

Crossgate Partners, LLC (“Crossgate”) and Advanced Resource Materials, LLC (“ARM”), as creditors and parties in interest, by and through their counsel, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., hereby object to the entry of an order approving the disclosure statement dated September 26, 2016 [Dkt. No. 81] (the “Disclosure Statement”) filed by Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC (the “Debtor”). To the extent that the objections, in whole or in part, contained herein are deemed to be an objection to confirmation of the Plan of Liquidation dated September 26, 2016 [Dkt. No. 82] (the “Plan”) rather than, or in addition to, an objection to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement, Crossgate and ARM reserve the right to assert such objection, as well as any other objections, to confirmation of the Plan. …

6.  Here, the Disclosure Statement fails to adequately disclose information regarding claims by Crossgate and ARM against the estate. These claims arise from the extension of $700,000 in credit to the Debtor or its affiliates. The Debtor granted Crossgate security interests in a Kool unit on September 2, 2014, when Crossgate provided Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor, and Ronald Van Den Heuvel, the Debtor’s principal, a loan for $200,000. Crossgate perfected its security interest in the Kool unit by filing a UCC financing statement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions on September 3, 2014. Crossgate agreed to extend credit on these terms after an attorney representing the Debtor at that time provided an opinion to Crossgate on August 29, 2014 that the Kool unit was the property of Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, the Debtor, and was free and clear of all liens.

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

8.  The Disclosure Statement and Plan note the existence of two Kool units, and allege that creditor Cliffton Equities, Inc.’s (“Cliffton”) claim is secured in part by these two units. While it appears that Cliffton did file a financing statement on June 19, 2014 covering “any tire or pellet liquefaction thermal degradation units purchased from Kool Manufacturing Company using Loan proceeds,” Cliffton did not advance funds to the Debtor for the purchase of any Kool unit until November 13, 2014, after the recording of Crossgate’s interest. The actual amount of the funds Cliffton advanced to the Debtor for purchase of the Kool units in which Cliffton claims a security interest was $300,000. Thus, the Disclosure Statement contains an apparent misstatement concerning the extent of Cliffton’s interest in the Kool units.

9.  The Disclosure Statement and Plan ignores the Debtor’s obligations to Crossgate and Crossgate’s security interest in the Kool units. Crossgate therefore objects to the Disclosure Statement for failing to provide necessary information concerning the claims against the estate.


See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting: 



A worker hired to track donations to Mayor Jim Schmitt’s re-election campaign said he quit because the campaign manager was “stonewalling” use of the campaign’s finance management system.

Brian Lueth said he was hired by Schmitt in September 2015 to set up NationBuilder, a campaign finance tracking system, but quit after about two months because other staff didn’t follow protocol for entering contributions data. One staff member also wanted to disable a feature that automatically rejected donations over the legal limit, Lueth said.

“I started questioning the accuracy of the database, and that’s ultimately why I left, because I couldn’t stand behind the database and recordkeeping,” Lueth told the Green Bay Press-Gazette this week.

Lueth was among those interviewed in a 20-month investigation that resulted in Schmitt being charged with three misdemeanor campaign finance violations: 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 limit.

Schmitt has agreed to plead guilty to the charges [in Brown Co. Case 2016CM1239State of Wisconsin v. James J. Schmitt; Election Fraud–Fraud/Registration; Unlawful Political Contributions; Int. Personal Campaign $/Candidate(<=$100)], which carry a maximum sentence of nine months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, the special prosecutor who led the investigation, agreed not to recommend jail time or probation as part of the plea.

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for [December 5, 2016].

Lueth shared his recordkeeping concerns with investigators in December 2015. He was one of 24 witnesses interviewed by the Brown County Sheriff’s Office, which assisted Landgraf with the case, according to the Sheriff’s Office investigative report. …

Lueth told investigators Schmitt was supposed to give him copies of contribution checks to input into the system. He said he received about three pages of copied checks, after which campaign manager Chris Rand stopped providing copies. He told invesitgators he quit the campaign because of “a lot of stonewalling,” that affected his ability to accurately input data.

Lueth this week said he was supposed to be the only person entering data in order to ensure its accuracy, but Rand started uploading spreadsheets with contributor data into the system. This caused duplicate records for individual donors, preventing the system from correctly totalling their contributions. …

Investigators interviewed Lueth and other witnesses between May 2015 and May 2016.

They also examined hundreds of pages of campaign finance and bank records to verify the origin of donations to Schmitt’s campaign, according to the Sheriff’s Office report.

The report provides many of the same details as other court records documenting Schmitt’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in illegal donations while campaigning for his 2015 re-election. After political opponents pointed out the donations, Schmitt turned in amended campaign finance reports that falsified the source of the money.


See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:


See also:



Sorry, Comments are closed.


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

As It Happens

October 2016
« Sep   Nov »