Documents

 

See also:
Oneida Eye’s YouTube Channel,
our Media page,
and our Timeline pages
.

 

In reverse chronological order:

 

  






  • November 20, 2017 Order directing Defendant Ron Van Den Heuvel to meet with pre-trial services 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






  • November 16, 2017 Order for Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 re: American Combustion Technologies of California, Inc.’s Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy Under Chapter 7, U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 15-cv-694,  CH2E Nevada LLC  v.  [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]


  • November 14, 2017 ORDER re: Circuit Rule 33, U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Docket No. 17-2341, Oneida Seven Generations Corp. and OSGC subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

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.






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





  • 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


  • November 3, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Post Trial Brief,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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





  • November 2, 2017 CH2E Nevada LLC’s Motion for Status Conference re: “ACTI’s threatened bankruptcy and fraudulent conveyances to its new company, ARTI [American Renewable Technologies Inc.], U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 15-CV-694,  CH2E Nevada LLC  v.  [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]









  • 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

















  • September 29, 2017 Information, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-92,  United States of America  v.  Jay L. Fuss  [Fmr. ONWI Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]




  • September 27, 2017 Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-92,  United States of America  v.  Jay L. Fuss  [Fmr. Oneida Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]


  • September 25, 2017 USA’s Response to Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s objection to the magistrate judge’s denial of his Motion for Severance of Counts, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel







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 Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-160,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

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

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

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.

Arraignment is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 2:00 P.M. in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C. Griesbach.


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

COMPLAINT

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. …



  • September 18-19, 2017 Court Trial Minutes,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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



  • September 13, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Final Pretrial Report,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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
  • September 13, 2017 Exhibit & Witness List By by All Plaintiffs,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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

  • September 13, 2017 Defendants’ Pretrial Report,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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
  • September 13, 2017 TAK Investments LLC Exhibit & Witness List,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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





  • September 5, 2017 Motion Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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

The Court states that this case needs factual development. The business agreements, transaction, and notes are confusing and the record is unclear. The Court believes two claims survive at this time, the specific performance claim and the breach of promissory notes claim. …

The Court denies the motions. The case will proceed to trial on 9/18. …


  • September 1, 2017 Supplemental Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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




Related:

•  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request results re: Documents relevant to the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI’s ’Fee-to-Trust’ land status conversion efforts with the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Midwest Regional Office / BIA MRO [335 pages]





  • August 30, 2017 Stipulation, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel




Dear Ms. Dodge,

The Oneida Casino was made aware of the Oneida Eye’s unauthorized use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on a recent blog entry discussing the July 2017 election. The Oneida Casino’s logo is proprietary to the Oneida Casino. As permission was not provided for the Oneida Eye’s use of the Oneida Casino’s logo, the Oneida Casino respectfully requests that the logo be removed from the blog page and that the Oneida Eye refrain from any future use of the Oneida Casino’s logo on its blog page.

If the Oneida Casino’s logo is not removed from the Oneida Eye’s blog page within three (3) business days from the date of this letter, the Oneida Casino may consider legal enforcement of its request for removal.

The Oneida Casino appreciates your understanding and your timely response to its noted concern.

Sincerely,

ONEIDA LAW OFFICE

By: Krystal L. John, Staff Attorney
Wisconsin State Bar No. 1093818

CC: Interoffice with Return Receipt at Oneida Casino
Oneida Casino General Manager, Louise Cornelius











  • August 25, 2017 Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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



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





  • August 18, 2017 Notice & Filing Order, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 5:17-CV-913,  Oneida Indian Nation  v.  United States Department of the Interior

Rule 16 Initial Conference set for 11/16/2017 at 09:30 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks. Civil Case Management Plan must be filed and Mandatory Disclosures are to be exchanged by the parties on or before 11/9/2017.


  • August 18, 2017 Summons in a Civil Case, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 5:17-CV-913,  Oneida Indian Nation  v.  United States Department of the Interior

  • August 17, 2017 Complaint and Exhibits, U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case No. 5:17-CV-913,  Oneida Indian Nation  v.  United States Department of the Interior [86 pages]

3. The Nation sues the Department under the Administrative Procedure Act to overturn a series of final agency actions taken during the previous administration. By those actions, the United States first gave federal approval to and then federally recognized the change of name of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin (“the Wisconsin tribe”) to Oneida Nation, causing confusion with and damaging the Nation. The last of the challenged agency actions – the Department’s decision to change the Wisconsin tribe’s federally recognized name that is published in the Federal Register in the official list of federally recognized tribes – appears to have been approved by a Department official who was a member of and a former attorney for that Wisconsin tribe who thus had a disqualifying conflict of interest….

46. The Department appears to have acted under the direction of and notwithstanding the conflict of interest of the Acting Assistant Secretary. The Federal Register indicates that the revised list was published by or under the authority of “Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs.” 81 Fed. Reg. 26826 (May 4, 2016) …(bold and italics omitted); see 82 Fe3d. Reg. 4915, 4917 (Jan. 17, 2017) (most recent published list, under Mr. Roberts’ name, republishing Wisconsin tribe’s changed name). In 2016, the Nation, by counsel, made FOIA requests to the Department in Washington, D.C. for documents regarding Mr. Roberts’ recusal from decisions regarding the May 4, 2016 list. The Department neither produced documents nor indicated that it had no responsive documents.

47. Mr. Roberts, who served during the prior administration and left the Department on January 20, 2017, could not be a neutral decision-maker. He is a member of the Wisconsin tribe, which had included Mr. Roberts’ name in a list provided to the Department in connection with the name-change election, titled “Final List of Registered Voters for the May 2, 2015 Secretarial Election Amending the Constitution and Bylaws of the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.” As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts had previously represented his tribe and had reason to believe he would continue to do so after leaving government service and returning to private practice. His interests could be substantially affected by the decision to change or not to change the name by which the United States officially recognizes his tribe, and his impartiality in the matter would reasonably be questioned.








  • August 11, 2017 Evidentiary Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

  • August 11, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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






[The July 2, 2014 Brown Co. WI Sheriff’s Office] affidavit established that the defendants’ enterprise was permeated with fraud. …

The large quantity of materials seized reflects not officer misconduct, but rather the pervasive, complex, and long-term nature of the defendants’ fraudulent activities. …

This case arose from federal investigations regarding the defendants pursuing two schemes to defraud banks by obtaining loans through straw borrowers. Separately, the [Brown County WI Sheriff’s Office] was investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel for defrauding investors and lenders by promoting his Green Box businesses. Federal agencies also subsequently began investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box scheme; that investigation is ongoing and has not led to charges yet. …

Courts have applied this “permeated by fraud” doctrine to approve of broad search warrants when there was probable cause to believe an enterprise was fraudulent. …

This doctrine applies here because the BCSO affidavits establish ample cause to believe that Ronald Van Den Heuvel conducted his businesses through a long series of interlocking fraudulent maneuvers. To illustrate, following are facts asserted in the affidavits…:

•  Mr. Van Den Heuvel made false representations to a series of investors to get them to make large investments in his Green Box enterprise …

•  Mr. Van Den Heuvel pledged the same collateral to multiple creditors …

•  Mr. Van Den Heuvel represented Green Box to be a functioning entity to possible investors when it was not …

•  Money obtained from investors for Green Box was used by Mr. Van Den Heuvel for clearly personal expenses, not for stated purposes …

•  Those expenditures included items like alimony to his ex-wife, payments on a house for his ex-wife, payments on a Green Bay Packers luxury box, and a trip Las Vegas …

•  Mr. Van Den Heuvel directed his employees to make false accounting entries in order to mask his financial activities …

•  In order to stall creditors, Mr. Van Den Heuvel wrote large checks that he knew had insufficient funds to cover them …

•  He regularly withdrew money from his business entities for his own personal purposes …

•  He inflated the value of his purported assets …

•  He knowingly made false representations in a civil suit …

•  Mr. Van Den Heuvel transferred titles to company vehicles to his son in law in order to use as collateral to obtain loans for Van Den Heuvel’s benefit …

•  He took money out of the company but did not pay himself wages in order to avoid paying tax debts to the IRS …

•  The affidavit makes clear that Mr. Van Den Heuvel ran his businesses as a fraudulent enterprise meant to finance his high-end lifestyle with other people’s money. As such, his businesses were permeated by fraud, thus justifying the seizing of all of his business records. …

[A]s detailed above, before the search warrant executions in July 2015, the federal investigation had already gathered the vast majority of the necessary evidence and information to prosecute the Horicon Bank fraud. Among its final investigative steps, the FDIC and FBI would have approached Van Den Heuvel directly, whether by subpoena or search warrant, for any additional evidence he had. It just so happened that the BCSO executed its search warrants first. If the [Brown County Sheriff’s Office] had not executed its search warrants, the federal investigators would have inevitably recovered the same documents from Van Den Heuvel directly.

Similarly, for the [Patrick Hoffman] straw borrower fraud, key witnesses [Steve Huntington] and [Guy LoCasico]. had already described the fraud to the BCSO before the search warrant was executed. When federal officers later began investigating this scheme, they reviewed those witness statements and followed their leads, obtaining evidence from [Patrick Hoffman] and the financial institutions as independent sources.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, and for reasons to be stated in subsequent briefing after the evidentiary hearing, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendants’ motions to suppress evidence and return property.



The fact that Mantria Financial might have eventually declared bankruptcy at some indefinite point in the future is irrelevant. The defendant is essentially arguing that he cannot be convicted of murder because his victim would have eventually died of natural causes at some indefinite point in the future. Many legitimate banks suffer financial problems, that does not mean they are not banks. Here, there is no question that the defendant’s fraud scheme “affected” Mantria Financial as defined by the statute.


On September 2, 2015, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a ten-count indictment charging TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud…, seven counts of wire fraud…, 1 count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud…, and one count of securities fraud…. The charges in the indictment stem from the defendants’ participation in the Mantria Ponzi scheme which collapsed in November 2009 when the SEC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order with the United States District Court in COLORADO.

In his motion, defendant MCKELVY requests the Court to order the government to produce all the e-mails of certain government witnesses. Quite frankly, the government’s desire to obtain these e-mails probably surpasses defense counsel’s desire to obtain these e-mails, because the government believes that these e-mails contain a significant amount of inculpatory evidence. Unfortunately, the government simply does not have and cannot obtain the e-mails requested by defense counsel. All e-mails in the government’s possession have been turned over in discovery. For this reason, the defendant’s motion must be denied.

In order to understand why the government does not have possession of these e-mails, it is necessary to review the investigative process. E-mails are typically obtained in a criminal investigation through the use of a search warrant. The first two government agencies to investigate Mantria were the COLRADO Division of Securities and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Because the SEC was able to quickly obtain a temporary injunction and, shortly thereafter, a permanent injunction, the SEC’s investigation of Mantria was abbreviated. Thus, the SEC did not obtain any of the e-mails at issue here. The FBI in Denver [COLORADO] then began a limited investigation of Mantria. This investigation was hampered by the untimely death of the assigned Assistant United States Attorney and the retirement of the FBI case agent. As a result, the FBI in Denver did not obtain the e-mails at issue here. In late 2014, the criminal investigation was transferred to the FBI in Philadelphia. By this point, five years after Mantria collapsed, the government simply could not obtain the necessary search warrants to seize the e-mails at issue here due to the lapse in time, even though there is no question that these e-mails would contain a significant amount of incriminating evidence. Consequently, the government does not have the e-mails requested by the defendant.






  • July 24, 2017 Court Minutes from Hearing re: Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s Motion to Modify the Confirmed Revised Third Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

[Atty. PAUL SWANSON, Attorney for GBNAGB]:  Have you paid subtantial monies to these various entities to get these projects, get these studies, or whatever, rolling?

[STEPHEN A. SMITH of  GBNAGB ‘Registered Agent’ GlenArbor Partners, Inc.]: Yes. [sighs]

[Atty. Swanson]:  And how much time have you spent?

[Stephen Smith]:  Too much. Um, I’ve spent, I mean, it’s been Ed [Kolasinski]‘s full-time job, times probably 50%, and it’s been virtually my full-time job for the last 3 or 4 months. I’ve had investments elsewhere.

[Atty. Swanson]:  Now, let me back up just to uh, clarify and for full disclosure  that PCDI [Partners Concepts Development, Inc.] contract, who signed that?

[Stephen Smith of GlenArbor Partners]: Ron Van Den Heuvel.

[Atty. Swanson]:  And, was that ‘personally guaranteed’?

[Stephen Smith]:  Yes.

[Atty. Swanson]:  By who?

[Stephen Smith]:  By him.

[Atty. Swanson:] [softly gaspsWho would take Ron Van Den Heuvel’s ‘personal guarantee’?

[Stephen Smith]: I don’t know, but it wasn’t going to be my personal guarantee, though. That was really where that started, um, is um, the, the – When we approached the scrap dealer [TONY HAYES], he wanted a personal guarantee and I was not about to do that for this. I’ve got enough, probably way too much money in this project already and I wasn’t going to guarantee performance.

 

NOTE:  Court records list TONY HAYES of Door County, WI [see Door Co. Case No. 11FA160, In re: the marriage of Angela Hayes and Tony Hayes] as an ‘American Indian / Alaskan Native’ but he IS NOT an Enrolled Member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI.

WDFI.org lists Tony Hayes as the Registered Agent for:

•  FULL CIRCLE RECYCLERS, LLC [reg’d w/ WDFI on 01/10/2006; Principal Office: 1456 Shiloh Rd., Sturgeon Bay, WI, 54235; Dissolved on 05/29/2017]

An archive of SBISMetal.com lists the address
for Full Circle Recyclers, LLC as
:
3751 Creamery Road, De Pere, WI, 54115

…across the street from Ron Van Den Heuvel’s son-in-law & bank-fraud stooge Patrick Hoffman’s business, The Creamery.

•  STURGEON BAY IRON & SCRAP METAL, LLC [reg’d w/ WDFI on 08/06/2003; Principal Office: 1456 Shiloh Rd., Sturgeon Bay, WI, 54235; Notice of Administrative Dissolution on 07/17/2017] 

•  HOBART IRON & METAL, LLC [reg’d w/ WDFI on 07/24/2014; Principal Office: 1456 Shiloh Rd., Sturgeon Bay, WI, 54235; Notice of Administrative Dissolution on 07/17/2017]

Hobart Iron & Metal, LLC is located at 3807 W. Mason St, Hobart, WI, next to the ONWI-owned Ridgeview Plaza, across the street from the Brown County Waste Trasfer Station.

HOWEVER

TONY HAYES IS NOT a Licensed Waste Hauler in the State of Wisconsin, according to the WI Dept. of Natural Resources / WDNR official online database of Licensed Transporters.

 

Later during the 07/24/2017 GBNAGB Bankruptcy Hearing as heard in this Excerpt:

[Attorney BRIAN THILL of Murphy Desmond S.C. for WEDC]:  Is there an arrangement between PCDI and Green Box for the purchase of the equipment?

[Stephen Smith]:  I have… Yes, I have complete control of that So, there’s no – there’s no contractual arrangement. I have the ability to sell that, uh, equipment, and, um, uh, at – at whatever points I deem appropriate for whatever amounts I deem appropriate.

[Atty. Thill]:  How do you know you have that authority?

[Stephen Smith]:  It’s in the operating agreement of the company.

[Atty. Thill]:  When’s the last time you saw that document?

[Stephen Smith]:  Oh, in the last month or two? It’s been in place – it’s been in place for 2 (two) years.

[Atty. Thill]:  Do you trust Ron Van Den Heuvel?

[Laughter & snickering]

[Atty. Thill]:  So, what would stop Ron Van Den Heuvel from entering into some sort of amended agreement with Tony Hayes. He’s already signed one agreement, right?

[Stephen Smith]:  Because he needs to get my approval to do so. It’s very well documented.

[Atty. Thill]:  But, you yourself said you don’t – I believe the word was that Tony Hayes himself was ‘notorious.’ Is that accurate?

[Stephen Smith]:  No, I didn’t say that.

[Atty. Thill]:  Ok, your lawyer said that. Would you agree with you –

[Stephen Smith]:  I would never agree with my lawyer. I’m not nuts. No, I don’t know Tony Hayes. I’ve never met him. So if Tony Hayes is notorious, then – then, uh, that’s – that’s [Atty.] Paul [Swanson]’s opinion.

[Atty. Thill]:  So you have no idea who the scrap dealer is?

[Stephen Smith]:  No, no. That’s not – I didn’t say I don’t have idea who he is. We looked into it carefully. I’ve never met him. I’ve – uh, we – I was fully aware of the transaction; I approved the transaction. Um, and, but your – your question is, “Do you know him?” No. “Is he ‘notorious’?” I don’t know. That’s all opinion.

TONY HAYES filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on July 23, 2013 [U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 13-29932-svk, Chapter 7, Tony Hayes aka Hayes Salvage]. Although the Order Discharging Debtor(s) was originally filed on October 28, 2013, it was later vacated on November 12, 2015 and the case closed on September 14, 2016.

Chapter 7 Trustee for Debtor / Tony Hayes was Attorney PAUL SWANSON, whose October 20, 2014 Complaint For Revocation of Discharge [U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Adversary Proceeding No. 14-02563-svk,  Paul G. Swanson  v.  Tony Hayes] states:

NOW COMES Paul G. Swanson, the Plaintiff and Chapter 7 Trustee, and respectfully represents as follows:

1. On July 23, 2013, the above named Debtor [Tony Hayes] filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7, Title 11 of the United States Code. The Debtor was granted a discharge herein on October 28,2013. The case is still open and the trustee is administering assets of the estate.

2. On July 23, 2013, the Debtor [Tony Hayes] filed his bankruptcy Schedules in this case listing all of his assets and all of his liabilities.

3. On August 22, 2013, the Debtor attended the first Meeting of Creditors wherein he testified under oath that he had listed all of his assets and that his Schedules were true and complete.

4. Among those assets listed are 100% interest in Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC, Full Circle Recycling, LLC, and AAAAA Sanitation, LLC [for which the Registered Agent is Angela Hayes, Tony’s ex-wife]. The Trustee has, since he was appointed to the case, taken possession of the assets of the LLCs for the benefit of creditors as it appears there is substantial equity in the same even though the Debtor did not list a value but rather scheduled them as “indeterminate”.

5. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) or (2), the Trustee may request revocation of the discharge previously granted.

6. The Trustee is in the process of selling the assets of the Debtor’s wholly-owned LLC, Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC and, as such, has taken possession of all the assets of that entity. In the course of the investigation by the Trustee and his counsel, certain facts have been revealed concerning missing assets from that entity.

7. Specifically, the entity had an interest in a Caterpillar mini excavator, a Lowboy semi trailer and approximately 20 metal dumpsters for the collection of scrap metal.

8. Through the investigation, it was determined that the Debtor [Tony Hayes] was in possession, personally, of these assets. Despite repeated demands upon the Debtor and his counsel for the return of the assets, the Debtor has failed to do so for no justifiable excuse. Such assets are rightfully the property of the LLC which is property of the estate. Such assets have a significant value.

9. Additionally, during the investigation it was also determined that the Debtor is the title owner to a 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor as the Trustee’s counsel observed him driving the same. Once again, despite repeated demands to turn over the semi tractor, the Debtor [Tony Hayes] has failed to do the same.

10. The 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor has, according to the records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, been titled in the Debtor’s name for years. The Debtor omitted the Peterbilt semi tractor from his schedules. The Peterbilt semi tractor has significant value.

11. Upon information and belief, after the date of the filing of the Petition and while the Debtor was still operating one or more of his LLCs, the entities took in substantial amounts of money, a significant amount of which is not accounted for. Trustee believes that the Debtor is withholding funds which are actually property of either Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC or Full Circle Recycling, LLC, which rightfully belong to those LLCs, both of which are property of the state.

12. The Trustee alleges that the Debtor acquired property that is property of the estate, to wit, property of one of his LLCs and, despite repeated demands to do so, has failed to deliver or surrender of such property to the Trustee.

13. The Trustee has also ascertained that the Debtor materially misrepresented the value of his interest in Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC to the Trustee when he knew that the business and its assets had a substantial value to the estate. The Trustee [ATTY. PAUL SWANSON] alleges that this representation or omission rises to the level of fraud and that the Debtor obtained his discharge through such fraud, contrary to 11 U.S.C. § 727 (d)(1).

14. The intentional undervaluation of substantial assets of the Debtor, to wit, his interest in his LLCs, in his Schedules constitutes fraud in fact as does the failure to disclose his ownership interest in a 1996 Peterbilt semi tractor.

15. Such fraud would have prevented the discharge had it been known and timely brought to the attention of the Court.

16. The Trustee did not know of the fraud until approximately July 2014, after the discharge was granted to the Debtor.

17. The Trustee asserts that this is a core proceeding in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7008.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests the following relief:

A.  The discharge of the above-named debtor be revoked.

B.  That the Debtor be ordered to account for all property in his hands that belongs to Sturgeon Bay Iron & Scrap Metal, LLC or any one of his LLCs and turn the same over to the Trustee for liquidation for the benefit of creditors of this estate.

C.  For whatever further relief the Court deems equitable under the circumstances.


  • 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 , Petitioner(s) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent.”


  • July 21, 2017 Order granting motion to seal an exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 2:15-cr-00695,  CH2E Nevada LLC  v.  [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]


2. The Debtor claimed in its Motion to Modify the Revised Third Amended Plan that “A contract has been entered into for the reacquisition of all of the equipment” which had allegedly been previously been abandoned (Docket 255, ¶7) (emphasis added). Yet as of the time of the filing of this Objection, not all of the Debtor’s property has been removed from Little Rapids’ warehouse…

[4]c. Little Rapids’ Motion makes a vague reference to potentially “privileged or other protected matters” which “may” require disclosure, but fails to state what those possibly could be, particularly if they merely involve a third-party salvage dealer [Tony Hayes, Hayes Salvage]…





10. Since confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan, both the Debtor and Little Rapids have represented that all or substantially all of the Debtor’s personal property located in the Warehouse has been surrendered to Little Rapids and subsequently transferred to a third party (see Docket 255, ¶7).

11. WEDC has attempted for months to obtain particulars regarding the alleged surrender, both from counsel [of] the Debtor and Little Rapids, and both in writing and verbally; in response, WEDC has received only partial information.



McKelvy’s daughters have a company, Contact TRACS, which provides marketing software for small businesses. McKelvy’s daughters plan to hold seminars to present their services to small businesses outside COLORADO beginning in September 2017. McKelvy seeks permission to travel outside COLORADO to assist his daughters in presenting Contact TRACS’ services to small businesses. McKelvy will inform Pretrial Services of his travel plans prior to leaving COLORADO.



  • July 18, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Stipulation to Enlarge Time, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division 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

For the reasons stated above, CH2E [Nevada LLC] respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and enter judgment in CH2E’s favor and against ACTI on: (1) CH2E’s claim for breach of contract, with damages in the amount of $6,636,000.00; (2) ACTI’s counterclaim for breach of contract; and (3) ACTI’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment.


In the excerpt below, the OBC’s attorney – Chief Counsel Jo Anne House –  admits that Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC Managing Agent Peter J. King III / King Solutions, LLC, DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO A CONFIDENTIAL MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT with Atty. Eric Decator and Arland Clean Fuels / Generation Clean Fuels / ACF / GCF

but the OBC retroactively and surreptitiously approved the multimillion settlement anyway instead of bringing the matter back to GTC for action as had been promised in the OBC’s Letter mailed to GTC members in late-October 2015 (strangely dated September 23) after the OBC rejected ACF/GCF’s request in August 2015 for a $9 MILLION settlment payment.

After Oneida Eye Publisher Leah Sue Dodge’s inquiry at the July 17, 2017 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting, both the OBC and Attorney Jo Anne House refused to say…

(a)  exactly when the OBC retroactively approved the unauthorized actions of Pete King III

or

(b)  exactly where OSGC actually got multimillions for what
looks & smells like just another white-collar extortion / intentional tort / ‘waste-to-energy’ / ‘plastics-to-oil’ / ‘green investment’

criminal fraud scheme

with a treasonous,

genocidal twist?

Oneida Eye’s sources estimate the actual settlement amount between $10 – $15 MILLION:

Witness this astounding display of Cognitive Dissonance
by ONEIDA TIMES Publisher Yvonne Metivier:











  • July 13, 2017 Amended Notice of Rule 33 Mediation scheduled for July 27, 2017, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

  • July 13, 2017 ‘Update Oneida’ Email to Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Employees stated:

On July 12, 2017 the Election Board conducted a recount of the votes cast for the positions of Business Committee Secretary and Judiciary – Appellate Court Judge. The recounts were conducted pursuant to Section 102.11 Section C of the Election Law which requires a manual recount to be completed upon request of a candidate (Section 102.11-7). The recounts were observed by an Attorney from the Law Office and an Oneida Police Officer to ensure proper procedure was followed.

The General Election results are tentative until all recounts have been completed. Per Election Law 2.11-5. A candidate may request the Election Board to complete a recount, provided the margin between the requesting candidate’s vote total and vote total for the unofficial winner was within two percent (2%) of the total votes for the office being sought or twenty (20) votes, whichever is greater. A candidate requests a recount by hand delivering a written request to the office of the Nation’s Secretary, or noticed designated agent, within five (5) business days after the election. Requests shall be limited to one (1) request per candidate.

The updated results can be seen here.

 

•  July 12, 2017 Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI General Election Updated Tentative Results PDF Posted by the Oneida Election Board re: July 8, 2017 General Election Results Update following Recount Requests


The defense memorandum in support of the motion to sever counts raises generic concerns over possible jury confusion, evidentiary overlap, and evidence admissible on some counts but not others. None of the defense arguments go beyond mere allegations to actually establish any reason to conclude that prejudice will necessarily result from one trial of all the counts in this indictment.

Without any analysis of the evidence, defendant Van Den Heuvel’s memorandum simply states that evidence of one of the two schemes alleged would not be admissible to prove the other scheme in separate trials. That may not necessarily be correct. On the face of the indictment, both schemes involve violations of the same statutes, allegations that Mr. Van Den Heuvel used others as straw borrowers to obtain loans for Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities, and allegations that collateral controlled by Mr. Van Den Heuvel was used as security for the loans. With these points in mind, the United States does not concede that evidence of the one scheme could not be used to prove motive, intent, plan, absence of mistake, or lack of accident with regard to the other scheme…

The defense also asserts that the jury might be confused between schemes and convict the defendant in one scheme based on evidence of the other. That is theoretically possible but unlikely here because the charges are relatively simple (lying to get money) and they involve separate loans from separate financial institutions. When the evidence of separate counts is relatively short and simple and there is no reason established for concluding that the jury could not keep the evidence relevant to each count separate, there is no basis to sever counts under Rule 14(a).



  • July 11, 2017 Notice of Rule 33 Mediation scheduled for July 27, 2017, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay





  • June 28, 2017 Court Documents for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay


  • June 27, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time to serve the Summons and Amended Complaint Upon Defendant, Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC, and Sharad Tak

  • June 27, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion to Enlarge Time to serve the Summons and Amended Complaint Upon Defendant, Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC, and Sharad Tak

7.  Debtor’s Motion offers no specific terms for the ‘contract’ which ‘has been entered into’ for ‘reacquisition’ …

8.  The Debtor is currently delinquent filing one or more of its monthly operating reports…

9.  Upon information and belief, the Debtor further misrepresented, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the nature and extent of all interested secured parties in the various personal property formerly or currently located at 821 Parkview Road…and WEDC has been substantially prejudiced as a result.

10.  Debtor has not offered any proof of the alleged reports, studies, appraisals, accountings, returns, engagements, or contracts referenced in Paragraph 8 of its Motion.

11.  Upon information and belief, the sums raised by the Debtor since the Order have not been paid by any third party interested in investment, but rather solely represent the continued cash contribution by the Debtor’s principal, Glen Arbor…


From U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Docket No. 16-CR-64,
United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel,
Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel

 


From U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin,
Docket No. 16-CR-64,
United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel,
Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel




CONCLUSION

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.








THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1 .  Beginning in approximately September 2012, and continuing thereafter until at least May 2013, in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin,

JAY L. FUSS

as an agent of an Indian tribal government that received benefits in excess of $10,000 in a one-year period from a federal grant program, did knowingly obtain by fraud, and convert without authority to his own use, and intentionally misapply, property valued at $5,000 or more that was under the care, custody, and control of the Indian tribal government and its agency.

See also: Whistleblower Report to FBI about alleged HUD Funding & Materials Theft from Oneida Housing Authority, as well as claims of retaliatory physical violence:

•  February 21, 2016 Dawn M. Delebreau Privacy Act Release Form & Report to U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin regarding FBI investigation of Case No. 194B-MW477598

Sauk Co. Case No. 2013CF208State of Wisconsin vs. Spencer A. Cornelius; Substantial Battery / Intend Bodily Harm (Felony; Repeater), regarding Spencer Cornelius’ brutal assault on fellow OHA employee Jonathan Delabreau during an OHA training trip to the Wisconsin Dells when harassment & intimidation of Jonathan just wasn’t enough to satisfy Spencer’s bloodlust, and was allegedly done in order to please Spencer’s and Jonathan’s boss, former OHA Construction Superintendent Jay Fuss. That assault was not the first time Spencer Cornelius has violently attacked people as seen by Brown Co. Case No. 2009CF630

Related:

•  Vince Biskupic’s Shady ‘Justice For Sale’ Deals & The Oneida Business Committee’s Employment of Biskupic Legal Group As Counsel for Oneida Housing Authority Audit Matters [UPDATE 2]

•  Judge Vince Biskupic’s Conflict Of Interest In Outagamie Co. Case #2014-CF-1027, State of Wisconsin v. Jay Fuss; Plus: Oneida Housing Authority Problems Linger [UPDATE: Biskupic Recused Himself]













Additionally, despite numerous oral and written requests from the undersigned to Debtor’s counsel over a period of multiple weeks, WEDC has been unable to receive basic information regarding, among other things, the location of WEDC’s collateral…

The undersigned has been informed by the counsel for the Parkview property landlord that

a.  All of the Debtor’s personal property located therein is currently in the process of being removed, and

b.  The location or even existence of certain specific personal property in which WEDC believe it holds a first position security interest cannot be confirmed.




7.  This Court confirmed Debtor’s Chapter 11 Plan on February 17, 2017…

8.  The Plan provided for a “roll up” on or before March 31, 2017 and stated that, if the Debtor did not successfully “roll up” by March 31, 2017, the Debtor would immediately consent to this Court’s lift of the automatic stay.

9.  Debtor did not successfully “roll up” the Plan by March 31, 2017…

10.  Cause exists for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) of Bankruptcy Code. Specifically:

A.  Debtor has failed to make adequate protection payments to Ability.

B.  Debtor has no equity in the Real Estate, as evidenced by the terms of the Plan.

C.  Debtor’s reorganization attempts have failed, so the Real Estate is no longer necessary for its successful reorganization.

D.  Debtor consented to relief from the automatic stay in the Plan.





  • April 12, 2017 Telephone Scheduling Conference, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC, and Sharad Tak


  • April 11, 2017 Summons in a Civil Action to Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC, and Sharad Tak

  • April 3, 2017 Decision and Order, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC
  • April 3, 2017 Amended Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC, and Sharad Tak














 

Additional information regarding this meeting can be found online: 

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


Schmitt used his official position as Mayor to direct the City Clerk to conduct an audit of his campaign finance reports, thus merging his acts as mayor with his acts as a candidate. As a result, the Common Council has shown that it is proceeding on alleged wrongs connected to Schmitt’s actions as Mayor. … 

ORDER

Schmitt’s Petition for a Writ of Prhohibition is DENIED. Schmitt is not entitled to an award of his costs and disbursements.


  • February 17, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief to Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC



















1:45 pm  [Asst. U.S. Attorney Matthew] Krueger informs the Court of separate ongoing federal investigations, government in possession of approximately 313,000 pages of material, potential relevance, and agrees the volume of material is not realistic for manual review.


  • January 20, 2017 Notice of Hearing, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

  • January 19, 2017 Order for Hearing, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel


  • January 18, 2017 Court Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

  • January 17, 2017 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to extend the time Tak Investments has to file a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit Amendment of Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC

…Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Krueger provided a fulsome summary of the electronic discovery produced by the United States, particulary focused on materials secured through execution of a search warrant by Brown County, Wisconsin, authorities [that] resulted in the seizure of approximately 317,000 pages … purportedly related to allegations concerning a fraud scheme involving the Green Box Investment Fraud scheme.



  • January 9, 2017 Letter and Order dated November 3, 2016 re:  Case Remanded to Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Law Division, Case No. 2016-L-00789, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251,  ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC  v.  HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou 
    Nature of Suit:  Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations / RICO

  • January 4, 2017 Notification of Plaintiff’s Change of Counsel from Arnstein & Lehr LLP (Sharilee Kempa Smentek) to Michael J. Ganzer and Terschan, Steinle, Hodan & Ganzer, Ltd., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC




  • December 23, 2016 Complaint & Jury Demand, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CV-1700, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC  v.  City of Green Bay














  • December 7, 2016 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case 16-745, Jeremy Meyers, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin [Oneida Nation of Wisconsin]


This action arises out of a business dispute. … Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from Defendants, which allegedly did not perform as promised. …

Additionally, Defendants did not provide certain documents that Plaintiff asserts they were contractually required to provide. … Plaintiff therefore brought claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and revocation

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants provided equipment that, “as designed and manufactured,” cannot “function at the levels promised and warranted by Defendants.” … The information Plaintiff seeks is relevant and necessary to determining whether manufacturing defects exist.



  • December 2, 2016 Telephone Scheduling Conference Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC







 









  • November 16, 2016 Court MinutesU.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64, United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel








 

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

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

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

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

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

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

























•  October 17, 2016 Memorandum in Support of Defendants BMO Harris Bank, N.A.’s and Konstantino Apostolou’s Motion To Dismiss, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251,  ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC  v.  HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou –
Nature of Suit:  Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations / RICO
 

•  October 17, 2016 Memorandum in Support of Defendants HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC, and Eric R. Decator’s Motion To Dismiss Complaint, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251,  ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC  v.  HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou –
Nature of Suit:  Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations / RICO
 



{See October 12, 2016 First Amended Complaint}




  • 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

  • October 3, 2016 Second Arraignment Form, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel














  • September 9, 2016 Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 16-CV-1217,  Oneida Nation  v.  Village of Hobart, Wisconsin













 

  • August 10, 2016 Oneida Nation in Wisconsin General Tribal Council Special Meeting excerpts


















































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

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

BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.


















See also: March 6, 2015 Criminal Complaint & Affidavit in Support, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 15-MJ-1812,  United States of America  v.  Mao Peng 




WHEREAS, the General Tribal Council adopted a motion on December 15, 2013 to dissolve the tribally chartered corporation Oneida Seven Generations Corporation; and

WHEREAS, the Oneida Business Committee, by resolution # BC-12-24-13-A, amended the corporate charter and replaced the board with an Agent for the purposes of carrying out the directive of the General Tribal Council in a financially responsible manner designed to protect the assets of the corporation; and

WHEREAS, prior to finalizing the dissolution process the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, the Tribe and a subsidiary entity of the corporation, were sued by other companies which prohibited completing the dissolution of the corporation; and

WHEREAS, the Oneida Business Committee continues to work to fulfill the directives of the General Tribal Council and maintain the value of the assets of the corporation and has adopted permanent amendments to restrict the activities of the corporation to commercial leasing actions; and

WHEREAS, the Oneida Business Committee has determined that it cannot quickly and in a financially responsible manner wrap up the business activities of the corporation and must respond in a financially responsible manner to the ongoing litigation involving the corporation and has determined that a change in the Agent is in the best interests of the corporation and in carrying out the General Tribal Council’s directive;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Oneida Business Committee, in accordance with Article VII of the Corporate Charter, appoints [Peter King III] King Solutions LLC, as the agent for the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and directs such Agent to take any and all necessary steps to carry out the limited and restricted responsibilities of the corporation until such time as the General Tribal Council directive can be carried out.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appointment is immediate upon adoption of this resolution and shall extend for a one year period.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that the Oneida Business Committee, acting in its shareholder capacity on behalf of the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation, approves the professional services contract with King Solutions LLC to provide management of the corporation.














See also: May 29, 2015 Information / Background Allegations To All Counts, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 15-CR-113,  United States of America  v.  Mao Peng 





  • December 5, 2014, Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.

























  • August 14, 2014, Court Order re: Plaintiffs’ Motion Granted, Cook Co. IL Case No. 2014-L-002768,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.



    • June 17, 2014 Deposition of Ty Christopher Willihnganz;
    • April 10, 2014 Letter from Ty Willihnganz to Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation re: Answer to Complaint Against Ty Willihnganz;
    • May 28, 2014 Letter from Ty Willihnganz to Judge Donald Zuidmulder re: Motion to Quash Subpoena in Brown Co. Case No. 13CV463, Araujo v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC






  • June 5, 2014 Order for Judge Margaret Brennan as Substitution, Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.




  • May 9, 2014 Order for Substitution of Judge, Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.

  • May 6, 2014 OTIW’s Motion for Substitution of Judge, Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.









  • April 30, 2014 Affidavit of Gene Keluche, Cook County IL Case # 14-L2768,  ACF Leasing LLC, ACF Services LLC & Generation Clean Fuels LLC  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC. Oneida Energy Inc. & Oneida Energy Blocker Corp.






























4. New Business

a. Petitioner Frank Cornelius: General Tribal Council directs the Business Committee to dissolve the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation based on the Law Office’s March 2013 finding that the OSGC’s corporate charter identifies that the shareholder (i..e. the Tribe), as represented by the Oneida Business Committee, can dissolve the corporation (petition submitted 7/9/13)

Motion by Cathy L. Metoxen to dissolve Seven Generations Corporation and for Frank Cornelius to assist and work with the Business Committee on the dissolution, seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion approved by a hand count: 814 yes, 689 no, 69 abstained, total-1,572




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That rejected OBC Resolution was proposed by some OBC members following the various media reports about the discovery of an illegal ‘open-flame’ operation being conducted in OSGC’s 1201 O’Hare Blvd. facility.

Oneida Eye’s reporting & analysis:







  • VIDEO – August 28, 2013 Oneida Business Committee Regular Meeting excerpt re: Analysis of Frank Cornelius Sr.’s Petition for GTC to Direct the OBC to Dissolve OSGC, as well as OSGC Report by ONWI Legislative Affairs Director & OSGC Board Member Nathan King announcing the ‘Mutual Separation Agreement’ with former OSGC CEO Kevin Cornelius, and falsely claiming OSGC was not involved in pyrolysis nor gasification on the ONWI Reservation when it was illegally occuring in violation of local zoning laws at their 1201 O’Hare Boulevard commercial building in Hobart, WI, as well as the OBC refusing to acknowledge OSGC’s plan to market pyrolysis & gasification incinerators to other Tribes and municipalities


As you know, you and we have devoted substantial amounts of time, effort and money to developing the Project. We understand that you have devoted in excess of $5.8 million to the Project. We have also devoted thousands of hours and over $3.0 million to the Project. Now that the Project is about to be financed, it would be a horrible waste of all those hours and dollars to abandon it at this point. …

 Because of the close working relationship we have developed with your team, we have Made many concessions, which have increased your potential benefit and reduced (if not eliminated) your risks with respect to this Project.

•  Leasing the equipment for the Project to you at a substantial discount to its market price.

•  Agreeing to defer almost half of the Project cost owed to us for as long as 9 years.

•  Lending GBRE $870,000 to fund half of the required debt service reserve fund.

•  Guaranteeing the entire amount of the loan. In addition, I am personally guaranteeing $3.0 million of the loan.

•  Providing OSGC with a royalty of 11% of gross revenues off the top.

•  Providing OSGC with a $250,000 development fee at Closing.

•  Depositing $2.2 million in cash as additional collateral for the loan.

We need to know as soon as possible whether you plan to complete the Project. We have many other customers who would like to acquire equipment from us. We have been deferring these customers because of our commitment to you. However, if you do not tell us by August 23, 2013, that you are planning to complete the Project, we will need to divert our assets and attention to servicing our other customers. At this point, even if you decided to complete the Project, we would need to reconsider whether we would still be willing to do the Project on the same basis (including all of the concessions outlined above).

We hope to hear from you soon and look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship.

















4. Petitions …

b. Petitioner Leah Sue Dodge: General Tribal Council directs the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any “gasification” or “waste-to-energy” or “plastics recycling” plant at N7329 Water Circle Place, Oneida, WI or any other location within the Oneida Tribal reservation boundaries

Motion by Karen Skenandore, seconded by Tammy Skenandore, to end discussion. Motion approved by show of hands.

Motion by Leah Sue Dodge, seconded by Cathy L. Metoxen, to direct the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any ‘gasification’ or ‘waste-to-energy’ or ‘plastics recycling’ plant at N7329 Water Circle Place, Oneida, Wisconsin or any other location within the Oneida Tribal boundaries. Motion by Loretta V. Metoxen, seconded by Larry Smith, to table [the petition submitted by Leah Sue Dodge]. Motion to table failed by hand count: Yes—755, No—814, Abstentions–18, Total votes–1,587

Motion by Leah Sue Dodge, seconded by Cathy L. Metoxen, to direct the Oneida Business Committee to stop Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) from building any ‘gasification’ or ‘waste-to-energy’ or ‘plastics recycling’ plant at N7329 Water Circle Place, Oneida, Wisconsin or any other location within the Oneida Tribal boundaries. Motion approved by a show of hands.

 

TRANSCRIPT – May 5, 2013 General Tribal Council Meeting Transcript, including GTC’s vote to prohibit OSGC & its subsidiaries from engaging in ‘pyrolysis,’ ‘waste-to-energy’ and ‘plastics-to-oil’ anywhere on the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin reservation.

AUDIO – May 5, 2013 GTC Meeting re: OSGC wherein GTC votes to prohibit OSGC from conducting gasification on the Oneida reservation, yet OSGC did it anyway

 


“On or about May 3, 2013, Kevin Cornelius informed ACF that 4 out of 5 OSGC Board members approved the commitment letter.” [April 6, 2015 Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Brief, Cook Co. IL, ACF/GCF v. ONW/OSGC et ]

Kevin:

Did you sign the commitment letter yet?

Eric

We are still waiting for one more board member to give us a yes. We have 4 yes votes, but we’d like to have all 5 votes.

We have two options. First, we will talk with Craig at the bank and if he needs it by today then we will sign the commitment letter since we have the votes.

Second, if we wait till Monday [May 6, after the Sunday, May 5, 2013 GTC Meeting Kevin Cornelius attended on behalf of OSGC where GTC voted to prohibit OSGC from engaging in ACF/GCF’s project on the Oneida Reservation,] then we will work with the board member to get his vote by Monday. He is not opposed, but  he had a few questions and we have sent him the answers, but he has not gotten back to us.



A. Executive Session

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

Sponsored by: [OBC Chair] Ed Delgado

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

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

Not present: Bradon Stevens

Media coverage:

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

as corporations wholly owned by the Tribe constructing this facility on the Oneida Reservation, OSGC and Oneida Energy are bound to comply with tribal land use and environmental laws as well as federal environmental laws

HOWEVER, the Hurlbut St. parcel  in the City of Green Bay which the OBC claimed their reaffirmation vote was in favor of is NOT on the Oneida Reservation.

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



































  • March 2, 2012 Complaint, Brown Co. Case No. 12CV479,  Julie Gumban  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel, Kelly Van Den Heuvel, KYHKJG LLC, Tissue Products Technology Corp. & Tissue Technology LLC




OSGC President & Chair William ‘Bill’ Cornelius, Esq., was later employed by Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLC






[Ed] must read the [CONFIDENTIAL October 30, 2008 OSGC AUDIT by the Tribe’s INTERNAL AUDIT DEPT.] as it appears that [OSGC] is still not in compliance with the issues brought up there …. While my previous emails may have seemed to soften my stance on [OSGC] after reading the 2008 audit I am very concerned. [Ed] should order a followup to the 2008 audit and then have an independent counsel review how the tribal law was violated and possible action. (much of this is business 101)…

I am very concerned about this whole mess.


  • 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.






This letter is, also, to inform you that the information submitted is incomplete. …

Due to the nature of this operation, and to improve our knowledge, as well as, provide a appropriate evaluation, we have asked for supporting information (i.e. from lab testing and existing operations). The submittal provides information that mixes “waste-to-energy” (WTE) under differing applications. For example, in some literature, there are references to biomass waste burned in boilers to produce energy. There are also references to municipal solid waste (MSW) being incinerated. However, biomass waste differs in energy production than MSW, and boilers differ in operation than incinerators, which also differ in operation than the pyrolysis gasification process. Although there are number WTE boilers and MSW incinerators in the US, it appears that current operating pyrolysis applications are at research and testing locations and do not exist on a commercial scale. We are concerned that your proposal is for a large scale facility versus an initially scaled down pilot facility (with the potential for growth pending proven operating success). I cautiously note, in its current for, the information submitted does not provide us with a confidence level that would ensure a reasonable expectation of success.



Mike Debraska: I have a couple of questions here. Can everyone please turn to page 55 [of the meeting packet]? If you all go down to that fourth paragraph, where it starts out “the Oneida Business Committee has authorized two types of corporate entities,” jump down to the sixth sentence there. It says “the Oneida Tribe does not currently have laws regarding corporations in place.” Why on God’s green earth are we supporting Seven Gens when you guys don’t even have laws, rules or regulations to govern those people? That’s first, okay. Secondly, look at a couple lines down from there in that paragraph that says…in the second sentence, “however, in the case where the corporation has a small number of shareholders or in the case where the Tribe is the sole shareholder, liability” – LIABILITY – “may pass through the corporation to the Tribe.” You mean we’re responsible for their blunders and their errors? That’s my second point. I got about 20 others in here because I’ve spent about 14 hours going through this thing and picking it apart. On page 58, if you notice, on the bottom there, or, excuse me, go one page back to letter H. It says, “to elect or appoint officers or agents of the corporations and define their duties and set their compensation, provided that such elections or appointments comply with the laws of the Oneida Nation and policies of the corporation….” What laws?! You just told me on the page before you have no laws, rules or regulations governing these people! This is what I mean about conflicting information. Bad, bad news. I can’t make heads or tails of this and every time I’ve asked for information and had requests about Seven Gens, I’ve never gotten anything. I don’t think we should be giving them one more dime.

[Fmr. OBC Chair] Rick Hill: Kathy Hughes?

[Fmr. OBC Vice-Chair] Kathy Hughes: On the question, I guess the first one, about the Tribe having no corporate laws, that is basically correct.


  • 2011 BC Res 03-23-2011-C Support Energy Project, ‘Renewable Energy Topic Area 3 – Development of a Renewable Energy Project for Power Production by Oneida Seven Generation[s Corporation]’ on “Indian Lands identified and committed to the proposed project is a fee simple parcel, identified as 1230 Hurlbut St., Green Bay, WI, 54303 and in the process of purchase by the [Oneida] Seven Generations Corporation” [NOTE: IN FACT, THE HURLBUT ST. PARCEL IS NOT ON RESERVATION LAND.]




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

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





[A]s corporations wholly owned by the Tribe constructing this facility on the Oneida Reservation, OSGC and Oneida Energy are bound to comply with tribal land use and environmental laws as well as federal environmental laws




 

When BIA pays the lender on its claim for loss, the lender must sign and deliver to BIA an assignment of rights to its loan agreement with the borrower, in a document acceptable to BIA. Immediately upon payment, BIA is subrogated to all rights of the lender under the loan agreement with the borrower, and must pursue collection efforts against the borrower and any co-maker and guarantor, as required by law.


  • June 23, 2010 Oneida Business Committee Resolution 06-23-10-B, ‘Department of the Interior / Bureau of Indian Affairs / Energy and Mineral Development Program / Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Grant Program / Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development Grant Program to Assess, Evaluate and Promote Development of Tribal Energy and Mineral Resources FY2010’





  • GTC Resolution 11-15-08-C, Treasurer’s Report to include all Receipts and Expenditures and the Amount and Nature of all Funds in the Treasurer’s Possession and Custody:

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Oneida General Tribal Council hereby directs that all Treasurer reports hereinafter include an independently audited annual statement that provides the status or conclusion of all the receipts and debits in possession of the Treasurer of the Tribe including, but not limited to, all corporations owned in full or in part by the Tribe, and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Oneida General Tribal Council hereby directs that aU Treasurer’s reports to the Oneida General Tribal Council at the semi-annual and annual Oneida General Tribal Council meetings hereinafter include an independently audited annual financial statement that provides the status or conclusion of all receipts and debits in possession of the Treasurer of the Tribe and including, but not limited to component units (Tribally chartered corporations and autonomous entities, limited liability companies, state chartered corporations, any tribal economic development authority, boards, committees and commissions, vendors and consultants) owned in full or in part by the Tribe, and

Be It Further Resolved, that no “agent” of the Tribe shall enter into any agreement with any corporation that prohibits full disclosure of all transactions (receipts and expenditures and the nature of such funds) and that such an agreement is not binding to the Tribe, and

Be It Finally Resolved, that the Oneida General Tribal Council hereby directs implementation of this resolution at the next regular Oneida General Tribal Council meeting or at such special meeting of the Oneida General Tribal Council whereby a Treasurer’s report is requested.





WHEREAS, the ability of our Native community to be protected from the affects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations and a1l life that sustains us,
and…

WHEREAS, tribal communities and families continue to be disproportionately exposed to dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants. Many of our tribal members are more susceptible to these dangerous toxins due to our land-based culture and subsistence practices, and…

WHEREAS, dioxin has been classified as a “known human carcinogen” with the “highest” level of certainty by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and acknowledged by the World Health Organization that dioxin exposure is linked to severe health effects…

NOW, THERE, BE IT RESOLVED: that the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin requests that the United States State Department pursue ending the production and releas eof Dioxin and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the United States.




[The] charter granted on October 16, 1996 did not make it clear that Oneida Seven Generations Corporation must comply with the banking laws






 



 

PRIMER :


Sorry, Comments are closed.

Tags

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
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930