6 PM – TUES. JAN. 16, 2018 : GTC SPECIAL MEETING To Retain GROSS & KLEIN LLP To Recover MILLIONS From ‘GREEN ENERGY’ FRAUD SCHEMES; 7th Circuit STAYED Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC / GBRE’s Bogus Appeal Against City of Green Bay re: Waste Pyrolysis; Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC Filed Brief To Convert Green Box NA Green Bay LLC Bankruptcy To Ch. 7 “To Investigate The Additional Assets [That] Somehow Since Disappeared” Because “Creditors & A Neutral 3rd Party Are Entitled To Know Exactly What Advice GlenArbor Provided” To Longtime OSGC Partner Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Who Must Prove He’s ‘Indigent’ To Retain Court-Appointed Counsel For 14-Count ‘Wire Fraud’ & ‘Money Laundering’ Criminal Indictment



JANUARY 16, 2018

General Tribal Council


   Oneida Eye Publisher
   Leah Sue Dodge’s Petition
   is on the Agenda

Purpose: For GTC to hear a presentation from the law firm of GROSS & KLEIN, LLP about GTC’s options to recover millions of dollars in losses & damages in accordance with the ONWI Constitution, Article IV, Powers of the General Tribal Council, Section 1. (b): “To employ legal counsel, the choice of counsel and fixing of fees,” and for GTC to discuss and vote on retaining GROSS & KLEIN, LLP, which has agreed to represent GTC at a 20% discount.



GROSS & KLEIN, LLP represents individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, governmental entities, and Tribes in litigation and regulatory proceedings throughout the United States.

The firm handles a variety of matters, with focus areas in complex civil litigation, business litigation, environmental and natural resource litigation, aviation litigation and regulatory proceedings.

GROSS & KLEIN, LLP approaches every matter with the intelligence, creativity, and tenacity needed to win.





  • November 14, 2017
    ORDER re: Circuit Rule 33
    U. S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
    Docket No. 17-2341,
    ONEIDA NATION of WI-owned

       & OSGC subsidiary 

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, all proceedings in this appeal are STAYED pending further court order.

Counsel for the Appellant and Appellee are directed to make a telephonic or electronic mail Status Report to the Circuit Mediation Office by December 13, 2017. This requirement may be satisfied by filing a motion under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) to dismiss the appeal.


Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this appeal is SUSPENDED pending further court order.

For the reasons set forth above, the City’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is granted.

  • November 18, 2017
    Green Bay Press-Gazette:
    Letter to the Editor –
    Law takes away local control

GREEN BAY – Changes in state law are coming that will take away the ability of cities, villages, towns and counties to have a say in what projects happen in their local communities and backyards.

Senate Bill 378 and Assembly Bill 479, the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, passed the Legislature in its final days of the session. The bill removes the deliberative process in the issuance of conditional use permits, or CUPs. Under then proposed change, public testimony could no longer be used to deny an applicant. If the applicant meets, or agrees to meet, the criteria of the CUP, the municipality would be required to issue it.

Public input was crucial in proposed projects like the failed Walmart Supercenter in downtown Green Bay or the revocation of the CUP for Oneida Seven Generations Corp.’s planned trash incinerator.

CUPs are designed to be flexible tools for municipalities. Citizens can weigh in and their ideas and concerns can lead to specific conditions for approval within a zoning district. Denials can open municipalities to litigation. However, a local municipality should be able to decide on issuing a CUP, as long as it does not arbitrarily deny a permit or place unreasonable conditions on upon it.

The erosion of local control is not new to state lawmakers. They have already passed nearly 140 new laws that in some way erode the decision-making power of elected or appointed bodies. This needs to end. People power must be restored. I want to be able to say ‘not in my neighborhood.’

– Terry Lee




















A bogus scheme
to build an eco-friendly
green energy
waste processing facility in Detroit defrauded lenders and investors — including Chinese investors hoping to qualify for U.S. visas — of $4,475,000, according to a federal grand jury in Milwaukee.

[Ron] Van Den Heuvel worked through Green Detroit Regional Center, which is owned by a Georgia law firm that is authorized to operate in Wayne, Livingston, St. Claire, Lapeer and Macomb counties.... The center finds “foreign clients, mainly from China and South Korea, to invest in large alternative energy projects,” according to its website.

“Green Detroit Regional Center promoted the EB-5 investments in Green Box Detroit based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations,” the SEC suit said. It said the chief executive officer of the Green Detroit Regional Center, Georgia lawyer Simon Ahn, marketed the project to investors through immigration consultants in China. …

Ahn said, “If the charges are true,
it is completely shocking to learn about the extent that Ron Van Den Heuvel hid the truth from me,” the center and investors.

All of us visited the plants in Wisconsin many times, including the potential site in Detroit, and everything checked out fine. All the financials from a recognized accounting firm indicated that everything was proceeding on track, Ahn said.

The SEC suit said Van Den Heuvel falsely told investors that the MEDC [Michigan Economic Development Corp.] had approved tax exempt bonds for the project. However, the MEDC rejected the request after discovering five tax liens, one construction lien, two state tax warrants, four civil judgments and three civil lawsuits, according to court documents.


United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced that the grand jury indicted Ronald Van Den Heuvel (age: 62) of De Pere, on wire fraud and money laundering charges today. The indictment alleges that Van Den Heuvel fraudulently obtained over $9 million in loans and investments for his eco-friendly “Green Box” business plan but diverted much of the funds to his own purposes.

  • September 19, 2017 Indictment, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WI, Case No. 17-CR-160,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel



1.  Beginning at by March 8, 2011, and continuing at least through August 2015 in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin and elsewhere,


knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud lenders and investors, and to obtain money from lenders and investors by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises related to his “Green Box” business plan, which scheme is more fully described below.

2.  As a result of his scheme, Van Den Heuvel fraudulently obtained more than $9,000,000 from a range of lenders and investors, including individual acquaintances, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”), a Canadian institutional investor, and Chinese investors who participated in the EB-5 immigrant investor program.

  • September 19, 2017 Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WI, Case No. 17-CV-1261,  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Detroit LLC


The United States Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows: Nature of the Action

Nature of the Action

1. This case involves misrepresentations and the misappropriation of millions of dollars of investor funds by defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel. He took advantage of investors who believed that they were investing in a new way to recycle post-consumer waste.

2. Van Den Heuvel lured investors with promises that he would use their funds for an eco-friendly recycling process called the Green Box Process. He claimed that the Green Box Process would take food-contaminated waste and convert it into usable products, such as recycled paper. Van Den Heuvel represented that he would use investor funds to buy equipment, open a Green Box facility, and ultimately help to create a green solution for post-consumer waste.

3. In reality, Van Den Heuvel misappropriated a substantial percentage of the funds contributed by investors. Instead of using investor funds to implement the Green Box Process, Van Den Heuvel used a significant portion of their investments for improper purposes, such as a Cadillac Escalade, payments to his ex-wife, overdue taxes, Green Bay Packers tickets, and cash for himself.

4. Van Den Heuvel took advantage of foreign investors who put their trust in him. In particular, in 2012 and 2014, Van Den Heuvel raised over $3 million from a Canadian asset management firm named Cliffton Equities. Van Den Heuvel promised to use its investment to buy and operate specific pieces of equipment, but in reality, he spent the money as he pleased.

5. Van Den Heuvel also exploited investors from China. Between 2014 and 2015, Van Den Heuvel and his company (Green Box NA Detroit, LLC) raised approximately $4,475,000 in investment proceeds from at least nine investors from China. The investors made their investments through the EB-5 immigrant investor program, which is a U.S. government immigration program for foreign nationals seeking permanent U.S. residency.

6. Van Den Heuvel promised to use the funds from the EB-5 investors from China to develop a Green Box facility in Michigan. In reality, Van Den Heuvel misappropriated millions of dollars, using investor funds to pay unrelated business and personal expenses.

7. Van Den Heuvel made other misrepresentations about the Green Box Process in order to attract funds from investors. He touted a relationship with Cargill and the ability to use a key additive when, in reality, Cargill had terminated the relationship and sued his company. He claimed that tax-exempt bonds would provide approximately $95 million to $125 million in financing when, in reality, he knew that the State of Michigan had all but denied the application. He represented that his company held seven patents when, in reality, it held only one. He also told different investors that their funds had purchased the same pieces of equipment.

8. Based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations, the investors believed that they were investing in a new, environmentally-friendly project to recycle waste. In reality, they unwittingly provided the financing for Van Den Heuvel’s improper spending spree. …

  • October 31, 2017 Clerk’s Entry of DEFAULT as to Green Box NA Detroit LLC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WI, Case No. 17-CV-1261,  SEC  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Detroit LLC




•  November 20, 2017 Affidavit of Atty. Brian P. Thill for WEDC

•  November 20, 2017 Affidavit of Brian Nowicki, CFO of WEDC


Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (“WEDC”), a creditor and party-in- interest, in support of conversion of this case to Chapter 7, rather than dismissal, respectfully represents to and requests from the Court as follows:


WEDC has been asked to provide specific facts demonstrating the basis for one or more claims or assets, including fraudulent transfer claims, that may be owned by the Debtor, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC (“Debtor”), as of the date of the filing of this case on April 27, 2016, and administered by a hypothetical Chapter 7 trustee for the benefit of creditors. As more particularly described below, these facts consist of, for example:

•  The marked difference between the Debtor’s previously-disclosed assets and the Debtor’s currently-disclosed assets;

•  The undercapitalization of the Debtor, combined with the commingling of assets between the Debtor and several related entities, and common management of the Debtor and the same related entities; and

•  The Debtor’s management, which: (a) previously included a Chairman, Ronald Van Den Heuvel (“RVDH”), now both guilty and federally indicted in two separate cases, the latter of which directly implicates his actions occurring during his management of the Debtor in this case; (b) currently necessarily admits a lack of understanding of certain relevant pre-petition transactions; and (c) for the purposes of this case, is a new Manager, Stephen Smith (“Smith”), who is also the President and CEO of GlenArbor Capital, a major creditor of the Debtor.

Any one of these categories of facts would be sufficient to compel the conversion of this case to Chapter 7.



Attached to the Affidavit of Brian Nowicki filed herewith are three documents. The first attached document, a Balance Sheet for the Debtor as of June 30, 2014, for example, shows:

1. Patents & Intellectual Property —not just licensed to the Debtor, but owned by the Debtor;

2. Ownership of a “TAK Case”, or Case No. 14-CV-01203-WGC (E.D. Wis.), Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue & Tissue Products Technology Corp v. TAK Investments LLC & Sharad Tak (trial held September 18, 2017 and September 19, 2017, and pending decision following post-trial briefing)l

3. Ownership of 50% of “WFRT”, an unknown company or asset; and …

4. Ownership of 60% of “PCDI”, or Partners Concepts Development, Inc. (see Nowicki Aff., Ex. N-1).

[NOTEOneida Eye believes “WFRT” is actually
Waste Tire Recovery Technology, LLC
    Registered Agent – E.A.R.T.H. LLC;
    reg’d in Wisconsin 12/29/09 –
    –  f/k/a
Waste Fibre Recovery Technology, LLC
    –  f/k/a Waste Fibre Recovery, LLC

Different than Waste Fiber Technology, Inc.

    … & Waste Poly Recovery Technology, LLC 
      –  f/k/a Waste Material Recovery Technology, LLC

    … & Waste Liquid Recovery Technology, LLC

    … & Military Waste Recovery Technology, LLC
      –  f/k/a PC Material Technology, LLC]

None of these assets or interests appear on the Debtor’s Petition, Schedules, or Statement of Financial Affairs filed in this case (see Docket 14).

The second document attached to the Affidavit of Brian Nowicki is a flowchart of the Debtor’s alleged parent company, E.A.R.T.H.

[NOTEEnvironmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC
    –  n/k/a Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC

         Registered Agent: GlenArbor, LLC;
         Registered Agent Office: 2107 American Blvd. De Pere, WI

Different than, but related to

         Registered Agent: Artley Skenandore, Jr.
         Registered Agent Office: 2107 American Blvd. De Pere, WI

… (see Nowicki Aff., Ex. N-2).This document, among other things:

1. Confirms the Debtor’s 60% ownership in PCDI; and

2. Further claims the Debtor’s 60% ownership in Patriot Tissue, LLC.

Neither asset or interest is disclosed in Debtor’s Petition, Schedules, or Statement of Financial Affairs filed herein (see Docket 14).


The importance of the Patriot Tissue, LLC ownership is demonstrated by the third document attached to the Affidavit of Brian Nowicki – Patriot Tissue, LLC’s Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2014 (see Nowicki Aff., Ex. N-3). As evidenced by its Balance Sheet, Patriot Tissue was or is not a minor company. It had combined assets of over $17 million.

This case should be converted to Chapter 7, if nothing else to investigate the additional assets the Debtor claimed to own within the two (2) years of the filing of this case and have somehow since disappeared.


Whether an entity is the alter ego of another requires examination of the three (3) factors outlined by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Consumers Co-Op of Walworth County v. Olsen. See 142 Wis. 2d 465, 484, 419 N.W.2d 211 (1988). Those factors are:

1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own;

2. Such control must have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or dishonest and unjust act in contravention of plaintiff’s legal rights; and

3. The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.

Consumers Co-Op, 142 Wis. 2d at 484 (citation omitted).

In this instance, the Debtor testified at least two times through RVDH prior to the filing of this case. On the first occasion, RVDH testified regarding an equipment list that combined the assets of not less than ten (10) RVDH-related companies (see Thill Aff., Ex. T- 3). According to RVDH, “We create this list daily. . . . Every time we move or sell equipment, the list changes” (see id., Ex. T-1 at 13:9 & 11-12). When asked who has used the equipment, RVDH testified, “All four of those entities [PCDI, Green Box NA Green Bay, TPTC, and now Eco Hub {EcoHub Wisconsin LLC / Green Box Wisconsin LLC / Green Box Wisconsin OP LLC}]” (see id., Ex. T-1 at 26). Indeed, employees of the Debtor itself operated and maintained machines allegedly owned by E.A.R.T.H. for not just E.A.R.T.H, but “For Glen Arbor or Quotient . . . or RVDH” (see id., Ex. T-1 at 57-58). Even the payments for the Debtor’s Utica leases were paid by five different entities – PCDI, Green Box NA Green Bay, TPTC, Eco Hub [EcoHub Wisconsin], and RVDH Development (see id., Ex. T-1 at 30-31).

This is because for the Debtor [Green Box NA Green Bay LLC], an alleged $277 million company, “There was only one bank account, ever (see id., Ex. T-1 at 27:24). When pressed about current location and ownership of equipment, RVDH refused to answer and stated,I have criminal investigations you’re well aware of, and I am not going to go into every company and where everything is owned today . . . ” (see id., Ex. T-1 at 43:16-18).

Just two (2) days after giving the above testimony, RVDH pled the Fifth Amendment to virtually every question asked, including the following:

•  Being an officer, director, or manager of the Debtor and numerous related entities (see id., Ex. T-2 at 124-126);

•  Removing two (2) computers containing information regarding the Debtor from his possession (see id., Ex. T-2 at 126-127);

•  Having no documents to confirm the ownership or liens listed on the joint equipment spreadsheet (see id., Ex. T-2 at 127);

•  Transferring a Kool unit out of state without the receiver’s permission (see id., Ex. T-2 at 129);

•  Making payments to insiders (see id.); and

•  Insufficiently capitalizing the Debtor (see id., Ex. T-2 at 164-165).

All of the answers to these questions entitle WEDC to an adverse inference. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S. Ct. 1551 (1976).

Whether the Debtor is entitled to property of one or more other RVDH-related entities must be examined [by] a Chapter 7 trustee.


There is a large void in pre-petition information and documentation available to both the Debtor’s current management and its attorneys. This has occurred for several reasons. First, it has long been established in this case that the Debtor was previously chaired by RVDH, a man who has now pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud (see Thill Aff., Ex. T-5), and is further charged with more than a dozen counts of wire fraud and unlawful financial transactions involving the Debtor in this case (Docket 330, Ex.). Second, even at the point of the Debtor’s plan confirmation, “A substantial portion of the important documents have yet to be returned” (Docket 182:14). Third, Mr. Kolasinski did not join the Debtor until late 2015 (Docket 182:22). Fourth, the Debtor’s current Manager, Smith, did not assume that position until April of 2016 at the earliest (Docket 182:12). Accordingly, neither the current attorneys nor management of the Debtor can hardly state with any certainty what exactly the Debtor and/or RVDH did or did not do in the months or years leading up to the filing of this bankruptcy case. Of course those transactions are precisely what a Chapter 7 trustee is charged to investigate.

Additionally, Smith is of course both the current Manager of the Debtor and a principal of GlenArbor Capital, “a significant investor in the project prior to Fall 2015” (Docket 182:10 & 21). This relationship is on its face a conflict. However, outside of the facial conflict, “Indeed, [Ron Van Den Heuvel] relied on the advice of GlenArbor as an investor in moving the project forward . . .” (Docket 182:10). Creditors and a neutral third party are entitled to know exactly what advice GlenArbor provided and what occurred as a result. To the extent the Debtor has any claims against GlenArbor and GlenArbor is ostensibly left in charge of the Debtor, it is highly questionable whether those claims would ever be prosecuted, much less reviewed or even considered. These claims would also be assets of the bankruptcy estate as of the date this case was filed.


This case should be converted to one under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to allow a Chapter 7 Trustee the opportunity to pursue any claims of the Debtor. A Chapter 7 Trustee will have significant guidance in doing so. The above facts recounted by WEDC in this Brief are specific, multiple, and real. They are not fictional or abstract.


WHEREFORE, WEDC, for the reasons stated herein and on or to be on the record, respectfully requests the Court convert this matter to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, and grant WEDC the relief requested herein any other relief in this matter deemed fair and/or equitable, including but not limited to its attorneys’ fees and costs.

Attorneys for Wisconsin Economic
Development Corporation
By: Brian P. Thill,
Wisconsin State Bar No. 1039088


…Responses by any parties advocating dismissal rather than conversion must be filed by December 4, 2017.

…Reply briefs by WEDC and Paper Holdco must be filed by December 11, 2017.


In the holiday spirit, the Debtor is willing to make a gift to WEDC by way of requesting dismissal. If the Court dismisses this case, WEDC and the State of Wisconsin will be free to pursue any claims it has from anyone it believes is liable to them. It will then be paid before Debtor’s counsel and other administrative expenses. In other words, if WEDC believes there are significant assets or claims, it is free to use its own resources. If its hunches are correct, it will benefit by being paid before all other creditors. Such a result would benefit WEDC and Wisconsin’s tax payers.


On September 19, 2017, the plaintiff in this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), filed a complaint alleging that Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Detroit LLC (“Green Box Detroit”) violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by engaging in fraudulent conduct relating to the offer or sale of securities.Also on September 19, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin returned an indictment charging Van Den Heuvel with multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering based upon his fraudulent conduct in obtaining money from investors and lenders on behalf of Green Box Detroit and other related companies. See United States v. Van Den Heuvel, 17-CR-160 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 19, 2017).

The SEC’s complaint and the criminal indictment involve the same defendant, as well as overlapping facts and law. Specifically, according to both the SEC’s complaint and the criminal indictment, Van Den Heuvel obtained funds from investors and lenders with promises that he would use their money for an eco-friendly recycling process called the Green Box Process. Van Den Heuvel formed and controlled numerous business entities that, he claimed, were furthering the Green Box Process, including Green Box Detroit, Green Box NA LLC, and Green Box NA Green Bay LLC. Van Den Heuvel represented to investors and lenders that their funds would promote the Green Box Process through these corporate entities. In reality, according to both the SEC’s complaint and the criminal indictment, Van Den Heuvel misappropriated a substantial percentage of the funds contributed by investors and lenders. Instead of using his victims’ funds to implement the Green Box Process, Van Den Heuvel used a significant portion of their money for improper purposes, such as a Cadillac Escalade and Green Bay Packers tickets.

The SEC’s complaint and the criminal indictment identify numerous specific victims of Van Den Heuvel’s fraud. Some of the same victims are identified in both cases – specifically, Cliffton Equities, a private investment firm located in Canada, and multiple foreign persons who invested through the EB-5 visa program. The SEC’s complaint and the criminal indictment also identify numerous specific misrepresentations made by Van Den Heuvel in the process of obtaining these victims’ funds. Again, some of those misrepresentations overlap; in both cases, for example, it is alleged that Van Den Heuvel lied to investors about his business relationship with Cargill, about his ability to obtain tax-exempt bonds to fund Green Box Detroit, and about how he would use the money he obtained from investors and lenders. Van Den Heuvel has not filed an answer to the SEC’s complaint and has instead moved to stay proceedings in this case.The parties have not yet engaged in discovery. The United States now seeks to intervene in this civil proceeding in order to seek a stay of discovery pending resolution of the criminal case. The SEC does not oppose this motion.


The motion for stay is granted based on the representation that the SEC does not oppose the motion and Van den Heuvel has in fact filed his own motion for a stay. The United States is permitted to intervene in this civil case, and discovery in this case is stayed until the resolution of the related and recently indicted criminal case.



[Artley] Skenandore had no expertise in the paper industry. Nevertheless, he was made president [of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.]

Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. scheme principals: OSGC, Artley Skenanadore Jr., Ron Van Den Heuvel, and Steven Peters (who was also a ‘straw borrower’ in Ron’s bank fraud scheme during the same time period that Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. violated state tax laws and ONWI ‘wrote off’ over $5 million dollars)

•  Exhibit A: July 6, 2015 Brown Co. Search Warrant for 2077 Lawrence Drive Suite A, De Pere, WI 54115

Debra Stary worked as [Ron] Van Den Heuvel’s secretary for 17-18 years. She was his right hand person, kept all the ledgers and was in charge of and maintained finances. She had no decision making authority.

Debra Stary was the Vice President of Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp.] She didn’t want to be on the Board but [Ron] Van Den Heuvel browbeat her until she agreed. [Paul] Piikkila didn’t know if Stary and Van Den Heuvel had a romantic relationship.

Van Den Heuvel was intimidating and Piikkila once saw [Ron] punch Howard BedfordThey had a fight because Van Den Heuvel approached [Ken Dardis] and asked him to invest $30,000. Bedford told him not to invest. Van Den Heuvel needed the money immediately for the Waste Fiber facility.

•  Exhibit B: July 6, 2015 Brown Co. Search Warrant for 2077 Lawrence Drive Suite B, De Pere, WI 54115

•  Exhibit C: July 6, 2015 Brown Co. Search Warrant for 500 Fortune Avenue, De Pere, WI

•  Exhibit D: July 6, 2015 Brown Co. Search Warrant for 2107 American Boulevard, City of De Pere, WI

•  Exhibit E: July 6, 2015 Brown Co. Return of Search Warrant by Law Enforcement Officer for 2303 Lost Dauphin Road, Town of Lawrence, WI

•  Exhibit F: March 14, 2008 Email from Paul Piikkila to John Jez regarding Source of Solutions, LLC $7.1 million financing request

•  Exhibit G: 2009 Horicon Bank Loan Documents for Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel’s KYHKJG, LLC [91 pages]

•  Exhibit H: April 15, 2015 FDIC Memorandum of Interview of Paul Piikkila at US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of WI

[Paul J.] Piikkila presented the $7.1 million loan [proposal] to the [Horicon Bank] Loan Committee for approval. Piikkila stated that [the] loan purpose was to purchase equipment for the paper mill. Piikkila said that the loan committee denied the loan because they did not like [Ron Van Den Heuvel]’s character. Piikkila reviewed the loan presentation and his attention was brought to the section intended to list the other related loans (Attachment 2). The RVDH [LLC] loan previously discussed was not listed in this section. Piikkila could not explain why he hadn’t listed that loan.

Piikkila restructured the $7.1 million loan [request] several times and presented it to the loan committee. The loan was denied each time.

Piikkila denied multiple times that bank management told him not ot loan money to [Ron Van Den Heuvel] or his related businesses. He was presented an email from Schwab to Piikkila which stated that the bank was not interested in loaning to [Ron Van Den Heuvel] unless the loan was collateratlized by CDs (Attachment 3). Piikkila did not remember that email. Piikkila stated that he continued to loan to [Ron Van Den Heuvel] because he felt he “could handle” him.

William Bill Bain & Cynthia Cindy Bain

Piikkila stated that [Ron Van Den Heuvel] came to him and asked if he could approve a loan to William Bain. [Bill] Bain is [Ron Van Den Heuvel]‘s former brother-in-law [and partner in Ron & Bill Investments LLP,  and  Vice-President of Vos Electric, Inc.] [Ron Van Den Heuvel] said that he would pledge collateral for the loan.

Piikkila claimed that he thought the loan proceeds would be a split between Bain and [Ron Van Den Heuvel]. Piikkila said that at the closing Bain said he was not going to make any payments to the loan. Piikila counseled him that he should not sign the loan if he did not understand that he was responsible. Bain then signed for the loan. When asked if he thought this was a red flag, Pikkila said he didn’t think so because Bain was an accomplished businessman and knew what signing for a loan entailed.

Piikkila stated that Kelly Van Den Heuvel, [Ron Van Den Heuvel]‘s wife, introduced Julie Gumban … to him for a loan.Piikkila stated that it seemed as though [Julie] Gumban did not really understand what was going on because she didn’t speak English very well. He thought that Kelly Van Den Heuvel was pushing [Julie Gumban] into getting the loan. Piikkila approved the loan anyway. Piikkila thought that Gumban was investing in KYHKJG, [LLC] owned by Kelly Van Den Heuvel.

Piikkila stated that [Julie] Gumban had taken out previous loans and credit cards for the Van Den Heuvel[s]. Piikkila was asked why he approved a loan for Gumban because she had a low credit score, lots of credit card debt and the unsecured loan was half of her annual salary. Piikkila stated that he thought Gumban’s living expenses were low and therefore she would be able to repay the loan.

Pikkila then admitted that he knew that [Julie] Gumban’s loan would be used to pay down [Ron Van Den Heuvel]s other loans at Horicon [Bank]. Piikila stated that he approved this loan so [Ron Van Den Heuvel]‘s loans would stay off the watch list.

At this point in the interview Piikkila’s attorney’s asked for a break so they could speak to their client.

After the break, Piikkila explained why he thought doing business with [Ron Van Den Heuvel] would be beneficial to the bank. He said that [E.A.R.T.H./ Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC / formerly named NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE CORP. / renamed Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / R.T.S. / RTS] was the endgame and Piikkila had full faith that [Ron Van Den Heuvel] would be successful in this venture. After [E.A.R.T.H.] took off, [Ron Van Den Heuvel] would bring his deposits to Horicon [Bank] and this would be a big payoff. Piikkila stated that he did this for his reputation and would hopefully get an additional bonus. Piikkila had worked closely with [Ron Van Den Heuvel] while he was at Anchor Bank and spoke to him on a weekly basis. Piikkila reiterated that he did not know how [Ron Van Den Heuvel] knew that he was at Horicon Bank and did not seek him out for business.

Piikkila made a $250,000 loan to Source of Solutions [LLC]. The authorized signer was Debra Stary. [Ron Van Den Heuvel] made her a Vice President of the company so she could sign for the note to keep [Ron Van Den Heuvel]‘s name off the paperwork so [Horicon Bank] management would not notice it. Piikkila added that [Debra] Stary also typed up the lease agreements which were later disputed by the bank.

Piikkila’s attorney’s noted that [Debra] Stary’s signature looked very similar to the renewal signature for the $70,000 KYHKJG line of credit.

Piikkila worked for [Ron Van Den Heuvel] after he was fired from Horicon Bank. He provided some information on [Ron Van Den Heuvel] and potentially defrauded investors.

Debra Stary and William Bain’s wife [Cynthia / Cindy Bain] are sisters.

Debra Stary no longer works for [Ron Van Den Heuvel]. She was very close to [Ron] Van Den Heuvel and would do anything he asked. Pikkilla stated that her family had an intervention to get her to quit working for [Ron Van Den Heuvel].



  • November 3, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Post Trial Brief,  U.S. District Court / Eastern WI, Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

From a macro prospective, [Sharad] Tak took a position in this case that he believed would exonerate him from having to pay the investment notes. However, that position taken to its logical conclusion put Mr. Tak in jeopardy of having committed bank fraud. That fraud takes two forms. First, Mr. Tak claims to have issued the “worthless” notes so Ron Van Den Heuvel could use them to obtain financing from conventional sources. That is, he willingly executed the “worthless” notes for Mr. Van Den Heuvel to present to lending institutions to obtain more financing. … Second, Mr. Tak executed documents granting his approval of the use of the Notes as collateral by lending institutions, notes that he claims were of no value but were nevertheless utilized to secure borrowing. … Of course, his testimony in this regard is not worthy of any belief as he was clearly motivated to lie so as not to have to pay the plaintiffs the money he had promised on behalf of his company. Sharad Tak is a liar and his testimony should be disregarded in its entirety. He lied to the Court on repeated occasions leaving the only reasonable version of facts upon which this Court can rely to be those presented by the plaintiffs. Despite the fact that the strict falsus in uno inference has been abandoned, the modified doctrine applies here. When a witness’ falsehoods have been so pervasive, as have Mr. Tak’s, that his entire testimony is tainted, the trier of fact can reject the entirety of the witness’ testimony. … Mr. Tak’s lies were pervasive and central to the substance of the case thereby enabling the modified falsus in uno analysis. It is respectfully requested that this Court order judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the four Notes with interest and attorney’s fees.


Ron Van Den Heuvel and Sharad Tak are the principals of the respective parties herein. Their stories and clashes have been recounted numerous times in the various pleadings submitted to this Court. Their business relationship commenced in 2005 when they talked about various projects including the building of tissue mills in De Pere, Wisconsin, the State of Utah and Oconto Falls, Wisconsin. In fact, the parties prepared a document on December 27, 2005 describing the scope of their anticipated projects. … This yielded a memorandum of understanding executed by the same parties on May 5, 2006. … They executed a joint business development agreement on the same date. … At trial, the defense tried to hone in on the fact that these were non-binding agreements–which is true. However, the documents were submitted in order to demonstrate the background that brought the parties to the execution of the Final Business Terms Agreement and the four Promissory Notes on April 16, 2007. … The four Notes, termed the “Investment Notes”, were executed in anticipation of some rather significant construction projects that would benefit Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s construction company, Spirit Construction. … The scope of the project was as significant as $550 to $600 million. … Nevertheless, all of the documents taken together serve as the backbone for what became the Final Business Terms Agreement. … This background is vitally important to understanding why the four Investment Notes were issued, how and why they relate to the Final Business Terms Agreement and how those Notes were to be terminated should the parties enter into the overarching construction contracts they had anticipated.

The parties’ agreements were paired down in scope as they neared the April 16, 2007 closing at which time the defendant was to complete the purchase of the assets of the Oconto Falls tissue mill. It is clear that the financing of the project was cut substantially immediately before the closing by Goldman Sachs. … Because of that reduction in funding and the fact that there were various outstanding loans that needed to be satisfied at or before closing, Ron Van Den Heuvel and his companies made certain agreements, including with Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s brothers, to ensure that Sharad Tak received clean title. … It was clear that the Investment Notes and the Final Business Terms Agreement were to further reflect the agreement between the parties, to wit: Sharad Tak and his companies and Ron Van Den Heuvel and his companies, to clear title as well as to prospectively govern their conduct. … As set forth in the Closing Statement, …there were various parties who were not paid out of closing, but were paid outside of closing and were otherwise given security for the loans in order to have the deal go through. This included certain side deals that satisfied debts with Nicolet Bank, Johnson Bank, Associated Bank, William Bain, Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s brothers’ companies and others. …

…Not only should Mr. Tak’s testimony be disregarded as disingenuous, deceitful and even criminal – his testimony as to the meaning of the documents is not consistent with the Wisconsin requirement that the documents must be read so as to make sense.


It is time for the Defendant’s charade to end. Mr. Tak has lied to this Court in brazen fashion. He has tried in every way to avoid his legal obligations and promises. The Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in this case as of December 1, 2017 in the amount of $ $34,191,050.00 along with actual attorney’s fees as called for in the Notes. It is respectfully requested that the Court so order.

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2017.

STATE BAR NO. 1005631


The Plaintiffs – Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp. (collectively, the “OFTI Group”) – have now tried to this Court a claim for the enforcement of four notes (the “Investment Notes”) from Tak Investments, LLC (“Tak Investments”) in 2007. Through that claim, Plaintiffs seek a recovery of more than $34 million in principal and interest. The record developed before and at trial, however, establishes three fundamental flaws in the Plaintiffs’ case:

The Plaintiffs are not in possession of the Investment Notes and, therefore, lack standing to enforce them;

The Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations; and,

The Investment Notes were made without consideration.

Accordingly, on any one ground, this matter should be dismissed.

Plaintiffs’ post-trial brief offers few facts and little law but, instead, a stream of invective directed at Sharad Tak (“Tak”). The brief lacks any serious discussion of the evidence Plaintiffs believe entitles them to more than $34 million on notes signed more than ten years ago and even less discussion of the Defendant’s responsive arguments. Littered throughout the Plaintiffs’ brief are assertions that Tak admitted to “what is loosely termed bank fraud,” that Tak was “in jeopardy of having committed bank fraud,” and that Tak’s testimony was “disingenuous, deceitful and even criminal.” (Pls.’ Br. at 2, 4, 16, ECF No. 91.) That Plaintiffs would accuse Tak is rich in irony. As the Court knows, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence brings to the fore the fact that Plaintiffs’ principal and chief witness, Ron Van Den Heuvel, himself has just been adjudged guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Change of Plea Hearing Minutes, United States v. Van Den Heuvel, No. 16-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 10, 2017), ECF No. 152.

Beyond their unfounded accusations of inappropriate behavior, Plaintiffs contend that Tak’s testimony lacks veracity. (Pls.’ Br. at 4, ECF No. 91) (“Sharad Tak is a liar and his testimony should be disregarded in its entirety.”). Here, too, irony abounds: Ron Van Den Heuvel’s credibility is, to put it mildly, subject to serious question. Early in one of his own criminal proceedings, this Court itself called into question Ron Van Den Heuvel’s credibility.

[Footnote: In an Order Appointing Counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, this Court observed that the affidavit Ron Van Den Heuvel submitted attesting to his income and assets was an inaccurate representation of his financial circumstances. United States v. Van Den Heuvel, No. 16-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. July 26, 2016).]

Then, here at trial, David Van Den Heuvel, Ron’s brother, testified that he had formed an opinion as to Ron’s character for truthfulness, but he declined to state that opinion in open court:

Q. Have you had an opportunity through your interactions with [your brother Ronald] over your whole life to form an opinion as to his character for truthfulness?

A.  I guess, yes.

Q.  And what would that opinion be?

A.  That he’s a very nice guy.

Q.  But nothing in relation to truthfulness?

A.  What do you want me to say about truthfulness?

Q.  I’m asking for your opinion about whether what his character for truthfulness is.

A.  That’s a hard one for me to answer because I don’t know specifically what you’re – what you’re asking. I – I did a lot of things with my brother, Ron, through the years and a lot of them were very, very good things. A few didn’t work out so well, but most were very good.

Q.  Separate from, I guess, the various feelings you’ve had, I just asked if you had an opinion about his character for truthfulness and if so what that was. You indicated you had the opinion, but apparently –

MR. GANZER: Your Honor, I’d object, that’s been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t think it’s been answeredIf you have any other answer – I think you’re reluctant to answer, is that a fair statement?

THE WITNESS: That’s a fair statement.

(Day 1 Tr. at 19:21-20:20.) The inescapable implication is, of course, that David Van Den Heuvel did not credit his own brother with a truthful character. Further, the fact that Ron Van Den Heuvel is now a felon, convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and awaiting sentencing on January 5, 2018, is also evidence on the issue of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s character for truthfulness. See Fed. R. Evid. 609. …

David Van Den Heuvel stated that his brother [Ronald] owed his company approximately $150 million altogether[.]




  • November 7, 2017 Opinion,
    U.S. Tax Court
    Docket Nos. 4756-15, 21583-15,
    VHC Inc. and Subsidiaries  v.
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue [IRS]


In 1997 Ronald H. [Van Den Heuvel] formed Partners Concepts Development, Inc. (PCDI), in De Pere, Wisconsin. During the tax years at issue he owned a majority of PCDI shares and managed its business. He was PCDI’s president and chairman. In 2012 PCDI received a notice of administrative dissolution, but as of June 4, 2014, PCDI was a corporation in good standing with the State of Wisconsin.

From 1998 through 2002 VHC shareholders that owned PCDI shares included all of the VDH brothers, as well as [VOS Electric Inc. VP William Bain], [Guy ‘Butch’ Piontek], [Craig Kassner], [Ronald Lentz], [VHC Inc. Secretary Nancy Stellpflug], and [Jim Rottier]. Raymond [Van Den Heuvel] also owned shares of PCDI. Most of these shares were canceled in November of 2003. [James Kellam] still owns his PCDI shares. …

PCDI owned 67% of Custom Tissue, LLC (Custom Tissue), and the remaining portion was owned by employees or other related parties. Custom Tissue was incorporated in Wisconsin in 2003. Custom Tissue owned 49% of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. (NWTC), a Wisconsin corporation that was majority owned by Native American investors. TPTC performed management functions for NWTC under a management agreement. NWTC converted tissue rolls into finished, packaged products. [Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.] owned 100% of both Custom Paper Products, Inc. (CPPI), and Purely Cotton Products Corp. (Purely Cotton). CPPI was incorporated in 2000 in Wisconsin. It operated as a converting operation, which took large tissue rolls and cut them into consumer-size rolls. Purely Cotton owned the patents, technology, and intellectual property regarding a process for making tissue out of cotton. Custom Tissue, NWTC, CPPI, and Purely Cotton were administratively dissolved in 2012.

Tissue Technology, LLC (TTL), was incorporated in 2006 in Wisconsin, and serves as a holding company. Ronald H. is one of its members and controls the company. In 2012 TTL received a notice of administrative dissolution, but it was restored to good standing in July 2014. …

Beginning in 2000 William Bain, a VHC shareholder and former brother-in-law, served as a straw borrower for Ronald H. by obtaining loans on behalf of Ronald H. at different banks. In 2000 he obtained a loan for $125,000 from Associated Bank and a loan for $250,000 through Nicolet Bank. In 2002 he used his personal credit to obtain a $500,000 loan of which Ronald H. used the proceeds to buy out an EcoFibre shareholder. 

Nicolet Bank merged with Baylake Bank in 2016. As part of the due diligence process, it discovered that Baylake Bank had an $8 million loan with Ronald H. on its books. Nicolet Bank requested that Baylake Bank write off the loan with Ronald H., which it did, before the merger. There had been no source of repayment or collateral for that loan. In 2008 or 2009 Nicolet Bank also wrote off loans with Ronald H. and his related companies because there was no source of repayment. …

… Conclusion

After consideration of the circumstances of VHC’s advances to or for the benefit of Ronald H. and/or his related companies, and in the light of the factors set forth above, we conclude that the advances did not represent bona fide debt. VHC did not intend to create a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship, and the economic circumstances that existed during the time VHC made itsadvances establish that it did not reasonably expect repayment. VHC is not entitled to related-party bad debt deductions for the advances it made to Ronald H. and his related companies during the tax years at issue. Because we conclude that the advances do not constitute bona fide debt, we need not address whether VHC established that the advances became partially worthless during the tax years at issue.


Ron & Bill’s ‘straw borrower’ bank fraud schemes continued long after 2000:

See, Compare & Contrast:






  • September 30, 2011 Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. Contract #WEDC FY12-21010, $1.2 Million Loan Agreement Between the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC with exhibits, amendments and General Business Security Agreement with Ron Van Den Heuvel’s signed personal Unlimited Guaranty, along with the signature of Fmr. Green Bay Mayor & Fmr. WEDC CEO Paul Jadin, and renegotiation contract signed by WEDC Vice-President Jake Kuester


  • November 16, 2011 Contract #SEP FY10-20265, $2 Million State Energy Program Loan Agreement between the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC and Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC-subsidiary Oneida Energy Inc.


On July 21, 2015 the Green Bay Press-Gazette reported in its physical edition:

Green Box has been under scrutiny since the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported earlier this month that Van Den Heuvel failed to disclose prior business lawsuits to WEDC in a 2011 loan application. The agency approved the loan after a background check failed to identify the lawsuits.

A review of Brown County Circuit Court records by Press-Gazette Media identified multiple civil lawsuits filed by creditors against Van Den Heuvel’s companies for failing to repay loans and investors.

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

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

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

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

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



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.


On July 20, 2015 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in its physical version:

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel review found that WEDC failed to run adequate checks and gave two awards worth more than $1.2 million to a financially troubled De Pere businessman who had not disclosed his money problems to the state. Despite those omissions in 2011 and 2012, WEDC kept working with Ron Van Den Heuvel and his ‘clean’ energy company, Green Box, into 2014, state records show.

There is no record so far of WEDC notifying the City of De Pere about the company’s money troubles even though Green Box was working with the city in an unsuccessful attempt to get federally tax-exempt bonds — in part to repay the state’s soured loan.

[Ron Van Den Heuvel, a] financially troubled businessman who has since defaulted on more than $1.2 million in loans from Wisconsin’s flagship jobs agency voiced frustration with state officials for not giving him more money.

Ron Van Den Heuvel wrote to an official with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation in spring to say his energy company, Green Box, was “disappointed” it had not received more money from the agency.

Green Box is disappointed in the amount of assistance we got bringing in $200,000,000 of capital and 500 manufacturing jobs in to the state of Wisconsin,” Van Den Heuvel wrote.

Those figures are disputed by the state, who say the company created a small fraction of the jobs numbers he cited.

The De Pere businessman, who did not disclose his problems to the state when he applied for the loans, suggested that Wisconsin’s lagging job creation figures may be the result of failing to give more money to companies like Green Box.

In 5 other states that Green Box is building new facilities with less jobs, no one is under $17,000,000 of assistance,” Van Den Heuvel wrote in the March 21 letter. “Now reading in the Milwaukee newspaper that Wisconsin new job growth is lagging other states, maybe there’s a reason.”

Despite Van Den Heuvel’s omissions in 2011 and 2012, Gov. Scott Walker’s administration kept working with him and Green Box into 2014. But he made it clear he wasn’t impressed with their efforts.

“Green Box supports Governor Walker’s programs everywhere and cannot understand why this program is lacking behind the other states,” he wrote in the letter to Steve Sabatke, an economic development consultant with WEDC. “The other states business development and jobs area promotional personnel are more persistent, aggressive and hardworking; maybe that’s why they are winning.”

Despite the troubles with Green Box, WEDC suggested a company representative go on a May trip to East Africa as recently as March of this year.

On March 20 — just one day before Van Den Heuvel voiced concern that Green Box hadn’t received more money — Katy Sinnott, the vice president of the Division of International Business Development, wrote in a letter to Green Box’s human resources director that the agency was planning a trade venture to Tanzania and Kenya.

“Your project is extremely exciting and we are proud to have Green Box in Wisconsin making a difference in waste management,” she wrote to Phil Reinhart. “I look forward to hearing more about the next project cleaning the seas!


More like cleaning out victims’ wallets.

You know…

Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization / RICO activities.





November 2, 1997:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

by Daniel Bice

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 [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] 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.

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 StellpflugVan Den Heuvel’s lawyer [and  husband of VHC Inc. Secretary Nancy Stellpflug], 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.”

11/02/1997 – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

by Steve Schultze
and Daniel Bice

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 [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] 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. ….

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.

[L]obbyists 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.


A second lobbyist said Thompson’s fund-raising machine “systematically and methodicallymilked 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.



What does the ‘H.’ stand for?

  • July 23, 2017 Order, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 14370-17,  Ronald Hewry Van Den Heuvel & Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel  v.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue

For cause, it is ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read,
Ronald Hewry Van Den Heuvel &
Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel ,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue,

  • October 20, 2017 Order, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 14370-17,  Ronald Hewry Van Den Heuvel & Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel  v.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue
  • November 6, 2017 Order, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 14370-17,  Ronald Hewry Van Den Heuvel & Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel  v.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue


On November 3, 2017, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioner Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel, on the ground that the petition was not executed or filed by Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel or on her behalf by a party with proper authorization and capacity pursuant to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rather, the petition had been signed only by Ronald Hewry Van Den Heuvel. If a petition has not been has not been properly signed by a petitioner personally or by a representative admitted to practice before this Court, then in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction to consider the case as to that taxpayer, it is necessary to obtain a Ratification of Petition bearing the taxpayer’s original signature and ratifying the petition previously filed. The Tax Court, unlike the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), does NOT recognize powers of attorney.

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that, on or before November 27, 2017, Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel shall file with the Court a Ratification of Petition, bearing her original signature (preferably in blue ink), in which petitioner states, if such be the case, that she has read the petition filed June 29, 2017, and ratifies and affirms the filing of said document. If no such Ratification of Petition is received by that date, the Court may dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner should note that the Ratification of Petition may NOT be filed electronically.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to attach to the copies of this Order served on petitioners a form which may be used for the purpose of ratifying the petition. Respondent’s motion to dismiss shall be held in abeyance.

(Signed) L. Paige Marvel Chief Judge


  • November 20, 2017 Order directing Defendant Ron Van Den Heuvel to meet with pre-trial services by November 28, 2017 and provide information under oath required to establish his eligibility for CJA counsel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-160,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel

On October 10, 2017, at the defendant’s arraignment in the above matter, the court orally appointed Robert LeBell as CJA counsel for the defendant based upon the finding of indigency in an earlier case to which the defendant entered a plea agreement on the same date. At the same time, however, the court indicated that Van Den Heuvel would be required to meet with pre-trial services and complete a financial disclosure affidavit to establish his eligibility for a CJA appointment. Counsel for the defendant has filed several motions requesting authorization for expenditures related to his representation of the defendant. During a discussion of one of the expenditures, the court reminded counsel of his client’s obligation to complete the financial disclosure declaration required to establish his eligibility for CJA counsel. It appears that the defendant has yet to do so. Instead, he has simply deposited with the Clerk a collection of documents and a handwritten statement that contains little of the kind of information that would allow Pretrial Services to confirm the information provided. This is not sufficient.

Based upon the foregoing, defendant is directed to meet with pre-trial services and provide the information under oath required to establish his eligibility for CJA counsel on or before November 28, 2017. Failure to do so will result in the termination of the CJA appointment.





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 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

November 2017
« Sep