Oneida Eye Perspective & Vision for the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Thu, 17 Aug 2017 03:40:45 +0000 en-US hourly 1 JULY & AUGUST 2017 ROUNDUP Thu, 10 Aug 2017 09:39:22 +0000      

From Oneida Eye’s new

Timeline Pages:


07/09/17 : FOX 11 WLUK –  Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI elects new Business Committee chair

Ron “Tehassi” Hill was elected to serve as Chairman of the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin / ONWI] for the next three years.

Hill replaces Tina Danforth, who chose not to run this term.

[Cristina Danforth was elected to the Oneida Gaming Commission, the legal counsel for which is Atty. William Cornelius, former. President & Chair of Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC and Chair of OSGC-subsidiary Oneida Energy, Inc.]

Approximately 1600 enrolled Oneida citizens participated in the election.

There are 10 days for the election to be challenged, the present Oneida Business Committee is expected to accept the election results on August 9, 2017.

The newly elected Oneida Business Committee will be sworn in during an inauguration ceremony on August 10th [2017].

Also elected to Vice Chairman is Brandon Yellowbird Stevens, who ran for this seat for the first time but has served several terms as a councilman.

Re-elected for the Treasurer was Trish King.

Debra Powless was elected to serve as Secretary.

Re-elected to the Council is Jenny Webster and David Jordan.

Newly elected council members are Kirby Metoxen, Daniel King-Guzman and Ernie Stevens III.

The entire Business Committee is the governing board of the Oneida Nation and will serve for three year terms.









Oneida Nation of WI Constitution,

Article III – Governing Body,

Section 1:

The governing body of the Oneida Nation shall be the General Tribal Council composed of all the qualified voters of the Oneida Nation.



the  OBC


to  GTC.  


07/10/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette – Man sentenced to life, with eligibility in 45 years, in Oneida double homicide

A decade of violence perpetrated by a 20-year-old man preceded his slaying of a couple in the town of Oneida in September, a judge said at the man’s sentencing Monday afternoon.

Citing a pre-sentence report, Outagamie County Judge Mark McGinnis said Vance Reed had stabbed his mother 11 years ago, threatened to kill people in the past and at one point started questioning his school principal about what it feels like to kill someone.

“Seems like it’s been 10 years in the making,” McGinnis said of Reed’s brutal stabbing of Harry Brown Bear, 77, and his wife, Lorraine Brown Bear, 67, in the couple’s home.

McGinnis pressed Reed on what pain he thought he had caused in the community and how others could know that Reed was truly sorry. The judge focused particularly on Reed’s use of the word “taken” instead of “killed” when describing the Brown Bears’ violent deaths.

“In September last year, for whatever reason, you killed — and I’m not going to substitute any word for it — you brutally killed two older, innocent people,” McGinnis said in handing down his sentence.

These were senseless acts that McGinnis said he couldn’t wrap his head around. Usually, there’s some conflict that precedes a homicide, he said.

In this case, there’s nothing.

“What makes sense, if any of this does, is that you were the guy who did it,” McGinnis told Reed. …

The murders terrorized the Oneida community, especially in the time between the homicides and Reed’s arrest, Outagamie County District Attorney Carrie Schneider said. They wondered whether the murderer was still around — and what they might do next.

FOX 11 WLUK –  Vance Reed sentenced in deaths of Oneida couple

The man convicted of a killing an Oneida couple was sentenced to 45 years in prison Monday.

Vance Reed stabbed Harry and Lorraine Brown Bear to death in their home on the Oneida Indian Reservation in October 2016.

During Reed’s sentencing, the judge said he is a danger to the community and will hurt someone again.

The judge said the murders were “completely senseless” and Reed needs rehabilitation.

Reed told police a heated argument started after he had been drinking, court documents said.

Reed pleaded no contest to two counts of First Degree Intentional Homicide in May.

Reed was 19 years old when he committed the murders. He will not be eligible for release until he is 64 years old.

  • See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:

•  $1 Million Bond For 19-Year-Old Oneida Nation of Wisconsin Member Vance Reed In “Extremely Violent” Alcohol-Fueled Stabbing Murders Of Harry & Lorraine Brown Bear On ONW Reservation; Slashed Throat & Multiple Stab Wounds Made “Incredibly Gruesome, Bloody Scene”; Brown Bears’ Gun Found At Reed’s House; Reports Of ONWI Members & Officials – Including Oneida Nation High School Principal Artley Skenandore Jr. – Seeking Access To Double Homicide Scene To Seize Brown Bears’ Belongings

Oneida Eye has received multiple reports that Oneida Nation in Wisconsin members, including Oneida Nation High School Principal Artley Skenandore Jr., have made repeated – sometimes daily – requests to the Oneida Business Committee, the Oneida Housing Authority, and the Oneida Police Dept. (where Artley’s wife OPD Lieutenant Lisa Drew-Skenandore works) to gain access to the murder scene in order to take possession of Harry & Lorraine Brown Bears’ belongings, claiming that they had been ‘promised’ certain items by the Brown Bears.

07/12/17 : July 12, 2017 Response of the United States to Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s 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

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).

07/13/17 : According to a July 13, 2017 ‘Update Oneida’ Email to Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Employees from Phil Wisneski in the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs & Communications / OIAC: 

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 by the ONWI Election Board re: July 8, 2017 General Election Results Update following Recount Requests

 Ballots of Milwaukee polling location were put through the AccuVote Tabulator machine and one ballot was spoiled due to an over vote in the Business Committee Council Members area. The manual recount of all the ballots cast in the 2017 General Election resulted in a change to the tentative results shown below.

*The outcome of the recount shows the Secretary winner has now changed.

*The vote numbers for Appellate Judge have changed but outcome remains the same.

These results continue to be tentative until the time period to request a recount or to challenge the Election results has expired and the results are certified by the Oneida BusinessCommittee.

07/14/17 : July 14, 2017 TAK Investments LLC’s Proposed Findings of Fact in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Product Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak


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 MUTLIMILLION 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 backdated September 23) after the OBC rejected ACF/GCF’s request in August 2015 for a $9 MILLION settlment payment, with the OBC’s letter falsely telling GTC:

The Oneida Business Committee received a request from [Eric Decator / 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.




When Oneida Eye Publisher LEAH SUE DODGE inquired at the July 17, 2017 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting about what really happened, both the OBC and their attorney – OLO Chief Counsel Jo Anne House (who is oddly also GTC Parliamentarian) refused to answer for the record…

(a)  exactly when did the
OBC retroactively approve
the unauthorized & costly
usurption of GTC’s authority
violation of GTC’s rights by
OSGC ‘Managing Agent’
Pete King III and his sham
front King Solutions LLC?


(b)  exactly where 
did the OBC & OSGC
supposedly obtain

to play with for
looks & smells like
just another state &
federally funded

intentional tort
‘green investment’
white-collar extortion

criminal fraud scheme

with a treasonous,

genocidal twist?


Oneida Eye sources estimate the
actual ‘settlement’ amount of Pete King III’s
OBC-approved ‘payment’ to COOK COUNTY,

& ACF/ GCF principals
[of Door County, WI]
[of Door County, WI]
[of Cook County, IL]
[of Cook County, IL,
formerly of

as being


$10 – $15 MILLION.






has the following authority,

in accordance with the

Oneida Nation of WI Constitution,

Article VI –

Powers of the General Tribal Council

Section 1. Enumerated Powers.

The General Tribal Council of the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin] shall exercise the following powers, subject to any limitations imposed by the statutes or the Constitution of the United States:

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



the  GTC


created by the OBC & OSGC

due to any ‘settlement’…

as well as hold them

personally liable

for criminal fraud.



Witness this astounding display of Cognitive Dissonance later during the July 17, 2017 Semi-Annual ONWI GTC Meeting by ONEIDA TIMES Publisher Yvonne Metivier:

07/18/17 : July 18, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Stipulation to Enlarge Time, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Product Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

07/19/17 : According to Green Bay Press-Gazette, Seven men face meth charges in federal court

Seven men have been named in a federal indictment accusing them of involvement in a drug ring that sold large quantities of methamphetamine in Green Bay.

[Two are accused] of kidnapping, saying they confined and held someone for retaliation and used a firearm to threaten him. The press release provides no details of those charges, but court records indicate they held and beat a man whom they suspected of setting up one of their group and ripping him off at the Oneida Casino earlier this spring.

The case was investigated by the Brown County Drug Task Force, the North Central High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force, the Phoenix, Ariz., branch of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, the Scottsdale Police Department, and the Phoenix and Green Bay Divisions of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel R. Humble.

07/20/17 : July 20, 2017 Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC’s Objection To Little Rapids Corporation’s Motion To Quash Or, In The Alternative, For Protective Order, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11,  Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

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] …  


07/21/17 : July 21, 2017 ONWI Election Board’s Tentative Recount Results of the July 8, 2017 ONWI General Election

On July 19, 2017 the Election Board conducted a recount of the votes cast for the Gaming Commission positions and on July 20th for the positions of Business Committee Secretary and Business Committee Council Member. The Board continued with the recount process on July 21st. 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 manual recount of all the ballots cast in the 2017 General Election results shown below:

*The outcome of the recount of Gaming Commission has now resulted in a tie:

[Exiting OBC Chair] Cristina (Tina) Danforth –

[Exiting OBC Vice-Chair] Melinda J. Danforth –

According to ONWI Election Law:

Section B. Tie
102.11-3. In the event of a tie for any office, and where the breaking of a tie is necessary to determine the outcome of an election, the Election Board shall conduct an automatic recount of the votes for each candidate receiving the same number of votes. Any recount conducted shall be the only recount allowed for the tied candidates.
102.11-4. For Business Committee positions, a run-off election between the candidates with the same number of votes shall be held if there remains a tie after the recount. Said run-off election shall be held within twenty one (21) calendar days after the recount. For all other positions, if there remains a tie after the recount, the Election Board shall decide the winner of the tied positions at least two (2) business days after, but no more than five (5) business days after the recount through a lot drawing, which shall be open to the public.
(a) The Election Board shall notify each of the tied candidates and the public of the date, time, and place of the drawing at least one (1) business day before the drawing. Notice to the tied candidates shall be in writing. Notice to the public shall be posted by the Election Board in the prominent locations.
(b) On the date and at the time and place the drawing was noticed, the Election Board Chairperson shall clearly write the name of each tied candidate on separate pieces of paper in front of any witnesses present. The pieces of paper shall be the same, or approximately the same, color, size, and type. The papers shall be folded in half and placed in a container selected by the Election Board Chairperson.
(c) The Election Board Chairperson shall designate an uninterested party to draw a name from the container. The candidate whose name is drawn from the container first shall be declared the winner. An Election Board member other than the Chairperson shall remove the remaining pieces of paper from the container and show them to the witnesses present.

07/24/17 : FULL AUDIO – July 24, 2017, 2:04 P.M. Hearing re: Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s Motion to Modify Plan [Run Time  02:36:10], U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

[Atty. PAUL SWANSON, Trustee 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 gasps]
Who 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.



 as an ‘American Indian / Alaskan Native’ 
[see Door Co. Case No. 11FA160, In re: the marriage of Angela Hayes and Tony Hayes]

…but TONY HAYES IS NOT an Enrolled Member of Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI. 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 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 Transfer Station.



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.


AUDIO EXCERPT – Later during the 07/24/17 U.S. Bankruptcy Court Hearing re: Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC:

[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?

[Steven 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, 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, I think your lawyer said that. Would you agree with your –

[Steven 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 – um, we – I was fully aware of the transaction; I approved the transaction. Um, and, but your – your question is, “Do I know him?” No. “Is he ‘notorious’?” I don’t know. That’s all opinion.


A well-founded “opinion,” as it turns out:

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 against Tony Hayes [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.

07/26/17 : According to an Email by the ONWI Communications Dept.:

The results of the Oneida Gaming Commission in the 2017 General Election recount resulted in a tie between [exiting OBC Chair] Cristina Danforth and [exiting OBC Vice-Chair] Melinda Danforth.

The Election Board conducted a lot drawing for a tie within the [ONWIGaming Commission which had resulted from a requested recount. The lot drawing took place at noon on July 26, 2017, pursuant to the Election Law Section 102.11-4, and the winner of the lot drawing is Cristina “Tina” Danforth.

07/28/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette website,  Inability to raise funds delays Green Box NA reorganization,
by Jeff Bollier

A $176 million reorganization plan for Green Box NA Green Bay has been delayed by an inability to raise the cash needed to pay creditors.

[Stephen A. Smith of] GlenArbor LLC, a [Cook CountyChicago [Illinois]-based investor in Green Box, originally told U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Judge Beth Hanan the reorganization plan would be funded and able to pay $14 million to creditors by March 31, [2017]. In a June 1 [2017] motion, [GlenArbor LLC on behalf of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC] asked the court to push the date back to Sept. 30 [2017].

The reorganization would roll up De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel’s web of companies into a new company that would secure the equipment, technology and money needed to operate a system that would recycle waste that typically ends up in landfills into reusable products.

“Principals of the debtor, despite using their best efforts, were unable to raise the funds contemplated which were, in effect, the financing necessary to bridge the gap between confirmation of the plan and the roll up contemplated under the plan,” the motion reads.

GlenArbor plans to provide updated engineering reports, business plans and appraisals to reassure potential investors that the business is sound. It said even creditors understand failure to secure investors would mean no one gets paid.

“If the roll up does not come to fruition, it is unlikely that the various claims will be paid to any extent, if at all,” the motion states. “The investment bank’s study of the business plan and operations will provide a basis for potential investors to reasonably assess whether to invest in the project.”

GlenArbor has spearheaded the reorganization effort since Van Den Heuvel sought protection from creditors in April 2016. [Ron] Van Den Heuvel would retain an ownership stake in the revived venture, but he would not be involved in the company’s management.

When Green Box filed for bankruptcy, Van Den Heuvel listed less than $50,000 in assets and more than $10 million in debt. The company had been the subject of a string of lawsuits from unpaid creditors, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. [WEDC].

The bulk of the $176 million sought to fund the new company would build a new sorting facility, expand existing operations, connect various parts of the operation, pay off creditors and ramp up operations.

If financing can be secured, the new company has agreed to pay:

»  $605,000 in delinquent property, payroll and unemployment taxes Green Box owed to county, state and federal agencies.

»  $13.1 million to secured claimants owed a total of $24.3 million, and

»  $270,000 in legal fees and other administrative expenses.


From Oneida Eye’s ‘Documents’ page:  

•  AUDIO – July 24, 2017, 2:04 P.M. Hearing re: Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC’s Motion to Modify Plan [Run Time  02:36:10], U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

•  May 20, 2015 Complaint, Brown Co. Case No. 15CV769,  Dr. Marco Araujo [represented by GODFREY & KAHN], Cliffton Equities Inc. and Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC  v.  [Ron Van Den Heuvel dba] Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

•  September 30, 2011 Contract #WEDC FY12-21010, $1.3 Million Loan Agreement Between WEDC 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 Former Green Bay Mayor and Former WEDC CEO Paul Jadin, and renegotiation contract signed by WEDC Vice-President Jake Kuester

•  According to the July 2, 2015 Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. Search Warrants for Ronald Van Den Heuvel / Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC:

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

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

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

11.  Your affiant found that [RVDH], doing business as [GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY], failed to provide documentation, as promised, to WEDC, which would constitute proof of the required capital contributions of $629,000 from a related entity, E.A.R.T.H. … and $5,500,000 from VHC, Inc., and made material misrepresentations to WEDC about actually receiving the money as backing, despite the fact that money was never received. In addition, [RVDH] never listed VHC, Inc., which is comprised primarily of Van Den Heuvel family members, as having any ownership in [GBNAGB], despite the fact that [RVDH] represented to WEDC that VHC, Inc., contributed $5,500,000 of operating capital. …

19.  Thames stated that he saw a year-end financial statement which showed that
Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
VHC, Inc., and other
Van Den Heuvel
businesses approximately 


Stephen Smith of Glen Arbor, LLC
GlenArbor LLC
GlenArbor Equipment LLC
GlenArbor Partners Inc.
GlenArbor Capital LLC




is also member of the Board of Managers of CHICAGO, IL-based intelligence & investigation firm PRESCIENT:

… a global risk management company that delivers full-spectrum intelligence and technology solutions to corporate, federal and international clients.

Licensed Private Detective Agency #117001731

130 E. Randolph St., Ste. 3100

Chicago, IL 60601

7926 Jones Branch Dr., Ste. 1000
McLean, VA 22102

07/30/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette front page –


08/01/17 : August 1, 2017 Government’s Response to Defendant Wayde Mckelvy’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Eight of the Indictment Based on the Statute of Limitations, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:15-cr-398-JHS, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme

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 COLORADO 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.


Here’s Mantria Corporation creep Troy Wragg receiving recognition from Bill & Hillary Clinton, and meeting with foreign officials to promote EternaGreen Global & Mantria Corp.:

08/04/17 : August 4, 2017 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-9 of the Indictment, for Failure to State an Offense and in Support of Motion to Strike Parts of Count 10, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:15-cr-398-JHS, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme

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.

08/07/17 : August 7, 2017 Defendant American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]’s Opposition to Plaintiff CH2E Nevada LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment w/ Declaration of Abdul Latif Mahjoob, U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 2:15-cr-00695,  CH2E Nevada LLC  v.  [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Comubtion Tehcnonologies of California Inc. [ACTI]

Abdul Latif Mahjoob

See also : December 5, 2016 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Mahjoob et al. to Produce Documents, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada/Las Vegas, Case No. 2:2015CV694, CH2E Nevada LLC v. Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI

This action arises out of a business dispute. Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI], which allegedly did not perform as promised.

Additionally, [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & ACTI] 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.

ABDUL LATIF MAHJOOB was invited by Oneida Seven Generations Corp. to answer questions by GTC at the APRIL 11, 2011 GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL MEETING  [Click for Audio/Transcript]

Latif Mahjoob was asked questions by GTC about OSGC, Oneida Energy Inc. & Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC’s ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis fraud schemes.

[The July 2, 2015] 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 BCSO 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

Count 1 charges Ronald Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel with participating in a scheme to defraud Horicon Bank from January 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, by obtaining nine loans through six straw borrowers [including Ron’s business partners and former brother-in-law WILLIAM BAIN / BILL BAIN, VP of Vos Electric Inc.; STEVEN PETERS, Ron’s business partner with Artley Skenandore Jr. and Oneida Seven Geneations Corp. / OSGC in the Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. fraud scheme; Ron & Kelly’s children’s caretaker JULIE GUMBAN; Ron’s son-in-law and low-level employee PATRICK HOFFMAN] …

From left: Ron Van Den Heuvel, Carly Fiorina, Patrick Hoffman, Kristie VDH Hoffman at Pat’s business The Creamery Cafe in DePere, WI. Ron told the Green Bay Press-Gazette in April 2013 that he and Ted Cruz shared “Christian values.”

Vos Electric Inc. VP Bill Bain & wife Cynthia Bain – sister of Debra Stary

[NOTE: STRAW BORROWERS #5 & #6 are former Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Vice-President DEBRA STARY, BILL BAIN’s sister-in-law whom co-conspirator Paul Piikkila said in his JULY 1, 2016 PLEA AGREEMENT had been “browbeat” by Ron into taking that position at the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC-partner company; the other ‘straw borrower’  is Kelly Van Den Heuvel-owned KYHKJG, LLC which Julie Gumban says she was told she was “investing in.”]

Kelly Van Den Heuvel is expressly alleged to be involved with three of those loans. Counts 2 through 13 charge Ronald Van Den Heuvel with specific executions of the scheme to defraud and false statements regarding the Horicon Bank loans. Kelly Van Den Heuvel is also charged in Counts 10 and 11 regarding the loan to her live-in nanny [Philippine-national Julie Gumban].

The Horicon Bank fraud scheme was investigated principally by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC’s Division of Risk Management and Supervision received a complaint from Horicon Bank about Piikkila in 2010. The FDIC conducted an administrative investigation that collected the key evidence for each of the nine loans in the Horicon Bank fraud. In 2013, the FDIC imposed an administrative sanction on Piikkila and barred him from further participation in financial institutions.

In 2013, the U.S. Attorney’s Office received a referral from the FDIC Office of Inspector General (OIG) and opened a grand jury inquiry into potential criminal charges related to the Horicon Bank fraud. The FBI also assigned a case agent to assist this investigation. The investigation obtained received the evidence collected in the FDIC’s administrative action against Piikkila as well as additional materials from Horicon Bank and other sources.

In April 2015, Piikkila provided the investigators with an extensive statement regarding the Horicon Bank fraud, corroborating the documents and statements from Horicon Bank regarding each of the loans in the indictment. Representatives from the Brown County District Attorney’s Office attended Piikkila’s interview because Piikkila worked for Van Den Heuvel after Horicon Bank fired Piikkila, and thus, Piikkila had information relevant to the BCSO’s Green Box investigation. FDIC Special Agent Sara Hager is expected to testify that the investigation into the Horicon Bank fraud was almost complete before July 2015 when the BCSO executed its search warrants for its separate investigation.

The Horicon Bank fraud investigation continued through 2015 and into early 2016, interviewing additional witnesses and obtaining additional documents from financial institutions that received proceeds from the loans. In November 2015, FDIC Special Agent Sara Hager obtained copies of certain materials that the BCSO had seized during the July 2015 search warrant. On April 19, 2016, the case was presented to the grand jury, which returned the initial indictment charging the Horicon Bank fraud counts (1-13).

Counts 14 through 19 of the indictment charge Ronald Van Den Heuvel with pursuing a scheme to defraud three other financial institutions from June 10, 2013 through July 2, 2013. Ronald Van Den Heuvel arranged to have his employee [Patrick Hoffman, Ron’s son-in-law via daughter Kristie Hoffman] seek loans in his name that would be for Van Den Heuvel’s benefit. To make [Patrick Hoffman] appear credit-worthy, Ronald Van Den Heuvel gave [Patrick Hoffman] pay stubs with inflated wages and titled two Cadillac Escalades in [Patrick Hoffman]’s name even though [Patrick Hoffman] did not have control or custody of the vehicles. At Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s direction, [Patrick Hoffman] applied for loans from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank, and Pioneer Credit Union. All three financial institutions denied the loan applications.

The investigation that led to these charges arose from statements two witnesses gave to the BCSO in April 2015, before the BCSO executed its search warrants. Specifically, [Steven Huntington] and [Guy LoCascio] described how Van Den Heuvel had titled the two Escalades in P.H.’s name and directed him to seek loans from banks in mid-2013.

The BCSO subsequently executed the search warrants in July 2015 and recovered certain documents related to this scheme.

In mid-2016, federal investigators commenced an investigation into this fraud scheme. They interviewed [Patrick Hoffman] as well as [Steven Huntington] and [Guy LoCascio]. The investigators also obtained records from the financial institutions and interviewed their employees. This led to a [September 20, 2016 Superseding Indictment], returned September 21, 2016, adding Counts 14 to 19 to the indictment.

Independent of the federal investigations, the BCSO began investigating Ronald Van Den Heuvel related to his Green Box companies in approximately January 2015. The BCSO’s investigation determined that Ronald Van Den Heuvel was promoting Green Box as a process for converting fast food waste into useful products without any need for landfills or waste water discharges. Van Den Heuvel induced lenders and investors to provide funding for his Green Box companies but diverted large sums to other uses, including his own personal spending.

The BCSO’s investigation led to the execution of six search warrants on July 2, 2015, that were issued by Brown County Circuit Judge Zuidemulder. The affidavits established probable cause to believe that Van Den Heuvel operated pervasively fraudulent businesses. The search warrants authorized the seizure of a broad range of records, including “all business and financial records for organizations associated with Ronald Van Den Heuvel from December 31, 2010, to present.”

The search warrants were executed at these locations:

1. 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suite A, an office suite used by Van Den Heuvel.

2. 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suite B, another office suite used by Van Den Heuvel.

3. 2302 Lost Dauphin Road, the Van Den Heuvel residence.

4. 2107 American Boulevard, the site of Patriot Tissue, a paper-converting operation controlled by Van Den Heuvel.

5. 500 Fortune Avenue, De Pere, WI, a facility in which Van Den Heuvel stored equipment for Eco Fibre, a Van Den Heuvel entity.

6. 821 Parkview Drive, a warehouse with equipment controlled by Van Den Heuvel.

The [BCSO – Brown Co. Sheriff’s Office] led the operations to execute the search warrants. Because the operation involved searching multiple locations for a broad range of materials, the BCSO obtained the assistance of other law enforcement agencies, including local police departments, Brown County Drug Task Force, and the FBI. On the morning of July 2, 2015, the BCSO briefed all officers involved in the search. The briefing included instructions on the nature of the investigation, the materials to be seized, and the officers’ respective roles. The officers then executed the searches at the respective locations, summarized below.

1. 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suites A & B

As alleged in the search warrant affidavits, Ronald Van Den Heuvel maintained office Suites A and B at 2077 Lawrence Drive. Van Den Heuvel used that address for Green Box NA Green Bay LLC as well as other numerous entities that he promoted to induce investments and loans, to transfer funds to avoid creditors, and to pay personal expenses. He did not operate any business that actually provided any goods or services in these suites

The officers began searching the suites at 10:37 am. … 

Within the suites, the officers encountered a large volume of records that fell within the scope of the search warrant. In many areas, documents that predated December 31, 2010, were intermingled with records that followed that date. Nonetheless, the officers did not seize all documents. The officers made reasonable efforts to review the documents and determine which fell within the search warrant. The officers also seized some physical items that had evidentiary value, including a golf bag that contained drawings and documents related to Green Box and samples of pellets and oil that Van Den Heuvel used in promotional pitches. The officers’ searches of the suites lasted until approximately 7:00 p.m.

2. 2302 Lost Dauphin Road (Residence)

The officers conducted a comparatively brief search of the Van Den Heuvel residence. The search began at approximately 10:30 a.m. and concluded about two hours later. According to the search warrant return, the officers seized eleven digital devices that could hold relevant records, a briefcase with files, a checkbook, and a small amount of hard copy files.

The hard copy records seized from the residence included Green Box business plans and promotional materials, Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s call logs, credit card statements, and receipts from furniture purchased with funds from an account used in the Green Box fraud. These hard copy records also included bank records and correspondence between Kelly Van Den Heuvel and banks regarding bank accounts involved in the Green Box fraud scheme. Defendants claim that the BCSO seized medical records and children’s’ education records. To the extent such records reflected billing and payment information, they fell within the search warrant as potential evidence of how ill-gotten funds were spent. The affidavit expressly notes by way of example that one victim’s investment into Green Box was diverted to pay Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s dental bill.

3. 2107 American Blvd. (Patriot Tissue)

The building at 2107 American Boulevard housed Patriot Tissue, LLC, a Van Den Heuvel-controlled entity that converted paper rolls into tissue paper products. The search warrant affidavit stated that Patriot Tissue employees were paid by Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, and that employees would occasionally move between various entities controlled by Van Den Heuvel. The affidavit further stated that documents related to Green Box NA Green Bay were located at the Patriot Tissue facility. Patriot Tissue was the only Van Den Heuvel entity that actually operated, producing and selling products.

Because Patriot Tissue was an operating business, the officers sought to minimize their search’s intrusiveness. The officers imaged, rather than seized, computers that may have relevant records. The officers encountered a large volume of Van Den Heuvel’s hard copy business and financial records. The officers made reasonable efforts to review the records and seize only records that fell within the search warrant. At one point, the officers determined that they had inadvertently seized several pallets of records that predated the search warrant’s December 31, 2010 limit, and so the officers returned those pallets the same day.

The officers also encountered an office and living quarters occupied by Attorney Ty Willihnganz. The officers took steps not to seize records related to any entities that were not associated with Van Den Heuvel. The officers then instituted procedures to segregate any materials that arguably contained privileged communications.

The search warrant return indicates that, in total, the officers seized 9 file boxes from the front office storeroom, 2 file boxes from Willinganz’s living quarters, a file box and paperwork from the front officer, and samples of oil/chemicals from a production room.

Given the probable cause to believe that Van Den Heuvel was operating a pervasively fraudulent enterprise, and given the large volume of records Van Den Heuvel maintained, the BCSO ultimately seized a large volume of records and stored them in a secure warehouse at the BCSO facility. The BCSO reviewed the seized materials as part of its investigation. Given the volume and complexity of the materials, as well as the BCSO’s limited resources, the review required a substantial amount of time.

In early 2015, the BCSO apprised the FBI that it was investigating Van Den Heuvel for the Green Box fraud scheme. At that time, the FBI was working with the FDIC to investigate Van Den Heuvel for the Horicon Bank fraud and allowed the BCSO to take the lead in investigating the Green Box fraud scheme. In late 2015, the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office decided to investigate the Green Box fraud scheme actively, assigning prosecutors and case agents from the Milwaukee offices. The federal investigation into the Green Box fraud is continuing, although no charges have been filed to date.

As that federal investigation progressed into 2016, the FBI took the lead in processing the materials seized by the BCSO. In June 2016, the FBI devoted significant resources to completing review of the materials. The FBI segregated materials that could have significant evidentiary value for the Green Box fraud investigation from other materials that, although potentially relevant and properly seized within the search warrant, were not significant enough to retain. The FBI took custody of the significant materials and scanned them. The United States has provided them to defense counsel in discovery. Those retained materials totaled seven pallets and approximately 313,000 pages.

In late June 2016, the Brown County District Attorney initiated discussions with defense counsel, counsel for Green Box NA Green Bay, and the United States regarding the return of materials not being retained for evidentiary value. Discussions continued through July and August 2016, partly because Ronald Van Den Heuvel changed counsel and had to determine the proper parties to take custody of the material (e.g., Green Box versus Mr. Van Den Huevel). In August 2016, the BCSO returned to defendants the materials deemed not to have evidentiary value.

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 [Brown Co. Sheriff’s Office] 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]lthough the Horicon Bank fraud was not the subject of the BCSO investigation, the BCSO was aware that the FDIC and FBI were investigating Piikkila and Ronald Van Den Heuvel for the Horicon Bank fraud. Consequently, as the BCSO officers came across documents related to the Horicon Bank fraud, the incriminating nature of the documents would have been apparent. By virtue of the plain-view doctrine, the BCSO officers were not required to ignore that incriminating evidence but could lawfully seize it.

[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.


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.

08/08/17 : August 8, 2017 Government’s Response to Defendant Wayde Mckelvy’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine and to Strike Count Ten of t the Indictment, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:15-cr-398-JHS, United States of America v. Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy re: Mantria Corp. / EternaGreen Global / Speed of Wealth ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Pyrolysis Ponzi Scheme

The facts of the case, as alleged by the indictment, are quite simple. Co-defendants TROY WRAGG, AMANDA KNORR, and WAYDE MCKELVY raised $54 million in unregistered securities offerings for a company called Mantria, which they told investors earned substantial income from various real estate and green energy projects. In truth, Mantria was a Ponzi scheme which simply used new investor money to pay “earnings” to earlier investors. In order to raise the $54 million, WRAGG, KNORR, and MCKELVY made false statements to and omitted material facts from prospective investors. The false statements and material omissions are listed in the indictment. One of the key false statements and material omissions is the fact that MCKELVY told prospective investors that he did not make a “dime” off of their investment, when, in truth, WRAGG and KNORR were secretly wire transferring MCKELVY 10-15% of the new investor funds, totaling $6.2 million.

In his motion, defendant MCKELVY attempted an old and tired defense attorney tactic of attempting to [sow] confusion where none exists. His 33-page memorandum of incoherent and legally unsupported rambling is simply an attempt to try to use smoke and mirrors to convince this Court that somehow the indictment is legally insufficient when, by any legal standard, the indictment is beyond sufficient. To further attempt to [sow] confusion, the defendant adds legal issues irrelevant to the motion to dismiss, such a legal discussion of potential jury instructions. Strikingly, in his motion, defendant MCKELVY confessed that he made certain false statements to prospective investors, as alleged in the indictment, to induce them into investing in Mantria. Defendant MCKELVY further confessed in his motion that he lied to investors and told them that he did not make a “dime” off their investments in Mantria. This is the exact criminal conduct charged in the indictment. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, therefore, is a legally and factually unsupported effort to evade criminal responsibility for conduct which he freely admits in his motion.

Notably, in his motion, the defendant admitted that he made numerous false statements to prospective investors to induce them to invest in Mantria. The defendant also admitted that he lied to prospective investors when he told them he did not make a “dime” off their investments, as the indictment alleged that the defendant made $6.2 million which was secretly wired to him by co-defendants and co-conspirators TROY WRAGG and AMANDA KNORR. In his motion, the defendant conceded that these statements to investors were “materially false.” This is exactly the conduct for which the defendant is charged in the indictment. In making these admissions, the defendant admits that he is in fact guilty of the crimes charged. To suggest that the indictment should be dismissed when the defendant appears ready to admit the charged conduct is farcical.

Cutting and pasting all of the allegations from the 21-page Count One in each of the next nine counts does not confer any substantive rights or additional knowledge to the defendants – it is just a matter of killing more trees by turning a lengthy and descriptive 27-page indictment into an unwieldy and repetitive indictment in excess of 200 pages.

Respectfully submitted,
Acting United States Attorney
Assistant United States Attorney

08/08/17 : August 8, 2017 Defendant Sharad Tak’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Product Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

08/11/17 : August 11, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14CV1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Product Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak


Previously on Oneida Eye:




DISMISSED: Oneida Nation Of Wisconsin / ONWI-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corp. & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC’s Lawsuit Against City Of Green Bay FAILED To State Legitimate Claim re: OSGC & GBRE’s Waste-to-Energy Scam Linked To Ron Van Den Heuvel’s GREEN BOX NA Fraud Schemes; Gov. Scott Walker’s Quasi-public Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC Funded Both; UPDATE: 6/16 & 6/19 Filings In Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel BANK FRAUD Prosecutions; BOMBSHELLS !!! ~ “Debra Stary Was Vice-President Of Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp.]. She Didn’t Want To… But [Ron] Van Den Heuvel Browbeat Her Until She Agreed”; “Her Family Had An Intervention To Get Her To Quit”; 6/28/17: OBC & OSGC R.I.C.O. GANG FILED APPEAL Tue, 06 Jun 2017 19:32:31 +0000   





Despite the asinine insinuations of OSGC’s current ‘Managing Agent’
Pete King III
in the July 17, 2017 GTC Meeting video excerpt above, ONEIDA EYE HAS NOT received ANY funding from the Village of Hobart, Wisconsin nor from any other group.

INSTEAD, about $1,000 has been kindly donated over the course of FOUR years by FIVE enrolled ONWI members… plus $40 from just one non-ONWI member.

So far we’ve featured Letters from FIVE people, with THREE being ONWI Elders and only ONE non-ONWI enrollee.

Our TWO WRITERS/EDITORS – including ONEIDA EYE’s PUBLISHER – have personally spent 1,000’s of hours of work & more than $5,000 in website costs ($150/year) & court document costs (which range from 10¢ to $1.25 per page) as well as audio & videos of ONWI meetings ($3 each), all available to our readers for FREE on our Documents Page with about 100 posted so far JUST IN 2017 ALONE…

plus travel costs when records are only available in other counties & states and when the OBC & Oneida Law Office refuse to provide timely copies of important court filings – not to mention forgoing paid work hours & spending vacation time attending various meetings & court hearings in person.

In other words:



to DEFEND GTC & the General Public


…making the kind of personal sacrifices that Pete King III would know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about.


For our generous efforts we’ve been threatened with lawsuits by scam artists, unjustly detained & falsely charged with ‘obstruction’ by Oneida Police Department ignoramus #1832 Nathan L. Ness (whose vindictive citation was rejected by the Outagamie County Court), and endured public threats on Facebook by belligerant imbeciles like incoming OBC Member Ernie Stevens III

…the halfwit half-brother of incoming OBC Vice-Chair Brandon Yellowbird Stevens and the nephew of incoming OBC Chair Tehassi Ron Hill Jr., each of whom will be sworn into office on Thursday August 10, 2017.

Ernie Stevens III – who is the birth son of National Indian Gaming Association / NIGA Chair & Spokesperson Ernie Stevens Jr. (first-cousin of Oneida Eye’s Publisher) – openly stated on Facebook while he was formerly employed as an ONWI Communications Specialist:

When we find out who the admins and authors of this site, they should be disenrolled and banned from the reservation for life. For their own good.

At the time he made that threat on Facebook holding a weapon, Ernest Stevens III was on a deferred prosecution program for Domestic Violence.

Ernie Stevens III was later made Director Native American Tourism of Wisconsin [NATOW].

National Indian Gaming Association/NIGA Chair Ernie Stevens Jr., WI Dept. of Tourism Sec. Stephanie Klett, and Crooked Ernie the Turd


There is no plan to monetize Oneida Eye with advertising (as was suggested to us by the principals of the sketchy Oneida Small Business, Inc. when they strangely contacted us out of the blue in 2014 and offered to give us a large business loan), but we’re in the process of setting up a transparent method for those who’d like to support our ongoing efforts.

More information available soon.

Thank you for reading & sharing.


ON JUNE 28, 2017















•  June 28, 2017 Court Documents

for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals,

Docket No. 17-2341

Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay



•  Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

appealing lawsuit dismissal



USA Today/Green Bay Press Gazette:

•  Wisconsin Oneidas challenge New York Oneidas’ exclusive right to use trademarked names

…after voting to change the official name from ‘Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin’ to something they were warnedknew beforehand would infringe on two other native nations.


of ONEIDA NATION of Wisconsin

ONWI –  and the

Oneida Business Committee &

Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

ongoing Casino & WEDC-funded

Racketeer Influenced &

Corrupt Organization

[RICO] Act crime schemes

on Oneida Eye’s new



The TIMELINE contains NEW INFORMATION, such as…

provided by ONEIDA TIMES Publisher YVONNE METIVIER re: Statements made by former OSGC Secretary MIKE METOXEN to former OBC Chair EDWARD DELGADO about four (4) Wisconsin-registered corporate entities formed by OSGC for purpose of the “biomass grant project”
, which included:

•  Oneida Energy, Inc.

•  Oneida Recycling Solutions, LLC

•  Broadway Manufacturing, LLC, and

•  Oneida Manufacturing, LLC 


Italicized notes at the end of the Memo state

the “biomass pyrolysis device”

was being sold to OSGC by

“Alliance Energy

Alliance, LLC”

…and the notes said that the seller of the biomass pyrolysis device was in delinquent status with WDFI as of 04/04/11.




Oneida Eye believes “Alliance Energy Alliance, LLC” is a typo and was actually in reference to a company that the Oneida Nation of WI’s General Tribal Council was never informed even existed –



– which was registered w/ WDFI on 05/13/09 and delinquent as of 04/01/11; Registered Agent Mark Anthony Sweet; Principal Office:

2994 E. Service Road, Oneida, WI, 54155.All Nations Energy Alliance LLC business address was Tina Danforth's White Eagle Bar



. . .



 is also the listed as being the Manager of…

registered w/ Minnesota Secretary of State on 04/04/10;
Registered Office: 7241 Ohms Ln. #275, Edina, MN, 55439; Principal Office: 350 N. Main Street, Suite 236, Stillwater, MN, 55082






OBC & OSGC tried

to convince the ONWI

General  Tribal  Council

to borrow millions in loans

to buy a ‘machine’ from

a company located in

rez bar owned by

Cristina Danforth

(fmr. OBC Treasurer,

exiting OBC Chair)

whose sister

Caterina ‘Cathy’ Delgado

was on


Board of Directors

which the OBC ‘oversees.’


Cristina Danforth obtained & defaulted in bankruptcy on loans against her drinking establishment …
(and secret energy company headquarters) from…

ONEIDA SMALL BUSINESS, INC., which is funded by ONWI Gaming Compact monies and is currently under the management of convicted con-artist and insurance & investment fraudster DANIEL HAWK [husband of Judy Cornelius-Hawk].

According to court documents in Brown County Case No. 2013CV1838,  Oneida Small Business, Inc.  v.  White Eagle Sports Bar & Grill, LLC, Paul Danforth, and Cristina Danforth:

On November 18, 2009, Defendant, White Eagle Sports Bar & Grill, LLC, delivered to Plaintiff a Business Note for consideration. The Note was in the sum of $48,925.16. On August 18, 2006, Defendants, White Eagle Sports Bar & Grill, LLC, Cristina Danforth and Paul Danforth, signed a General Business Security Agreement pledging assets of the LLC as collateral on the Business Note and on August 18, 2006, Defendant, Cristina Danforth, married to Paul Danforth at the time, signed a Continuing Guaranty (Unlimited), personally guaranteeing the loans of White Eagle Sports Bar & Grill, LLC.

As of November 13, 2013, the date of Plaintiff’s Summons and Complaint, there is owed the sum of $54,358.80, comprised of principal, accrued interest and late charges. Interest against the principal accrues at 4.0% interest.

Cristina Danforth, in her Answer to the Summons and Complaint in this case, did not deny she was in default on the note.

As a result of the defaults in payment, Plaintiff, as it is entitled to do under the note, has declared the indebtedness immediately due and payable and demands payment in full and surrender of the business assets which secures repayment of the indebtedness.

…In her answer, Defendant, Cristina Danforth, failed to state any valid counter claim or defense relating to her failure to make payments on the note as they became due.

Excerpt from Defendant Tina Danforth’s handwritten Answer (with her own name misspelled TWICE):

Defendents [sic] demands
a trial by a jury of twelve.

[We have a feeling she’ll get at least one.]









at the JULY 17, 2017 ONWI



What remains unclear are the connections



have to the company most publicly associated with


[See image gallery at]


CARL J. ARTMAN – OSGC’s Attorney and GODFREY & KAHN Shareholder; Fmr. ONWI Law Office Chief Counsel; Fmr. Asst. Sec. for USDOI Indian Affairs; LOST the Oneida Nation of WI over $95 MILLION on AIRADIGM COMMUNICATIONS… 

PLUS who  knows how many TENS of MILLIONS MORE on OSGC’s waste-of-energy FRAUD SCHEMES.

The new Alliance Construction and Design, Inc. was registered w/ WDFI on 07/16/2009, w/ changes of Registered Agent on 09/27/11, and on 09/20/16 to Todd Parczick [seated middle].

The original ‘Alliance Construction and Design, LLC’ registered on 03/31/09 w/ WDFI was renamed Alliance GC, LLC on 07/16/09 [GC = ‘Global Conservation’], w/ changes of Registered Agent on 05/05/11, and 04/10/12, and 03/25/15 to Todd Parczick, who is also a principal of ‘plastics-to-oil’ company…

 P 2 O  Technologies, LLC

...for which the Registered Agent is Mark Verhaagh [seated right].

 P2O Technologies, LLC was registered w/ WDFI on 06/12/2012 and Dissolved on 6/09/2015.

According to the Ashwaubenon Press, ‘Village Learns of Bio-Mass Plant on Packerland’

[Village President Mike] Aubinger asked if there was another plant somewhere that the Village could look at. [Todd] Parczick said no, this is the first plant of its kind in the United States.

ALLIANCE CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN, LLC MEMBERSHIPS and PARTNERSHIPS LIST posted on the company’s website lists the following companies involved in OSGC’s & GBRE’s ‘Waste-to-Energy’ / ‘Plastics-to-Oil’ schemes:


•  Oneida-Kodiak 
[owned 51% by OSGC & 49% by Alliance Construction & Design]

•  NewWay Global Energy

[Wolf Creek HoldingsDavid J. Wolf, New Way Energy Inc.]

•  Alliance Global Conservation
[aka Alliance GC, LLC]

•  Dae Sung LLC –
[a member of the Mandaree Enterprises LLC family of companies, wholly owned by the Three Affiliated Tribes [Hidatsa, Mandan & Arikara] located on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota


Brandon Lee  Stevens

NOTE: BRANDON LEE YELLOWBIRD STEVENS – Oneida Business Committee Member & OBC’s Liaison to OSGC – is the birth son of an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes / Hidatsa, Arikara & Mandan.

BRANDON STEVENS is a Felonious Burglar and
Habitual Criminal who was found Guilty of
Domestic Violence in an assault with a police report of him
punching a fetus


Ernest ‘Ernie’ Stevens Jr. – NIGA Chair

Brandon Lee Yellowbird Stevens is also the adopted son of ERNEST LLOYD STEVENS JR. who is the Chairman and National Spokesperson of the NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION [NIGA].

NIGA selected Fmr. Three Affiliated Nations Chair TEX HALL for its ‘Wendell A. Chino Humanitarian Award’ in 2012.



CRISTINA DANFORTH and the Native American Finance Officers Association [NAFOA] – of which Tina is currently President – gave Tex Hall its Entrepreneur Award in 2012.

Brandon Lee Stevens continues to play dumb – or just stay dumb – about the insidious origins, noxious nature, and indisputable facts surrounding the toxic, fraudulent ‘PYROLYSIS’ boondoggles proposed by ALLIANCE, OSGC, ACTI / American Combustion Technologies Inc. / aka American Renewable Technologies Inc. / ARTIAbdul Latif Mahjoob, and OSGC’s partner Ron Van Den Heuvel.

Abdul Latif Mahjoob operates business under a variety of names, and each business takes credit for the same processes, equipment & operating facilities locations:


It is also unclear if ALL NATIONS ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC was the same company that may have sold a ‘biomass pyrolysis machine’ near the Gila River Indian Reservation perhaps related to the project approved by the same 2012 U.S. Dept. of Energy Tribal Energy Program

that also approved the ONWI Oneida Seven Generations Corporation’s ‘waste-to-energy’ & ‘plastics-to-oil’ fraud schemes

which may have something to do with this item being found for sale on Green Bay Craigslist from Chandler, Arizona

…next to the Gila River Indian Community:

•  Complete Biomass / Green Waste / Recycling Plant

"to be protected from the effects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations"

"to be protected from the effects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations"




Plaintiffs Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, (GBRE) filed this action against the City of Green Bay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the City violated their rights to substantive and procedural due process when the Common Council voted to revoke a conditional use permit it had granted only one year earlier. The case is before the Court on the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure. The City also contends that the complaint fails to allege facts showing GBRE has any interest or suffered any loss in the transaction and that OSGC lacks capacity to sue under the laws of the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin] under which it was chartered. For these reasons, as well, the City argues that the claims against it should be dismissed.

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleading party. Moranski v. General Motors Corp., 433 F.3d 537, 539 (7th Cir. 2005). I therefore begin with a summary of those allegations.


On March 1, 2011, Plaintiff Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) obtained a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin to build a facility to convert municipal solid waste into electricity and other useful products through a process known as pyrolysis. The facility, which was to be built on Hurlbut Street near the mouth of the Fox River, was designed to first sort and shred municipal solid waste, and then convey the waste to the pyrolysis unit, which would heat the waste to extremely high temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment. The process produces “syngas,” which is chemically similar to natural gas or methane. After being scrubbed, the syngas would then fuel three generators (large internal combustion engines) to produce electricity. Compl. ¶¶ 2–3.


• NOTE :

OSGC’s & Artley Skenandore Jr.’s


fraud scheme partner


called his own version of the


Waste-to-Energy fraud scheme


under the umbrella-company


renamed E.A.R.T.H., then renamed


which is currently under management

by Stephen A. Smith of

GlenArbor Partners Inc.

GlenArbor Investments / GlenArbor LLC.

CLICK HERE for a PDF of the


EB-5 Investors Brochure

…from the GREEN DETROIT REGIONAL CENTER’s EB-5 Immigrant Investors Program

which advertises opportunities to ‘invest’ cash in U.S. companies in exchange for U.S. Visas from U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS):

[See image gallery at]

CLICK for an archive of


See also:

•  May 20, 2015 Complaint in Brown Co. Case No. 15CV769,  Dr. Marco Araujo, Cliffton Equities Inc., and Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. [WEDC]  v.  Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

•  July 2, 2015 Brown County Sheriff’s Dept. Search Warrants for Ronald Van Den Heuvel / Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

•  February 12, 2016 Van Den Heuvel’s Response to the State’s Reply to Motion for Return of Property, Brown Co. Case No. 2015CV1614,  In the Matter of the Return of Property to Ronald Van Den Heuvel

•  July 1, 2016 Paul Piikkila Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Criminal Case No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Paul J. Piikkila  [former Interim Director of the Green Detroit Regional Center‘s EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program and Horicon Bank loan officer who has plead guilty to Conspiracy/Fraud schemes against Horicon Bank for the benefit of Ron Van Den Heuvel & his wife Kelly Van Den Heuvel]

•  September 20, 2016 Superseding Indictment [for a total of 19 Counts], U.S. District Court, WI Eastern District Docket No. 16-CR-064,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul J. Piikkila, and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel

•  January 23, 2017 Hearing re: Report & Recommendation,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

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.

06/28/17 UPDATE :


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


LATEST COURT FILINGS in 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  re: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MULTIPLE COUNTS OF BANK FRAUD

From Exhibit A therein:

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 Bedford.

They 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.

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


  • ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORP. – wholly-owned by the ONEIDA NATION of WI / ONWI and is currently suing the City of Green Bay in defense of its versions of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s criminal fraud schemes
  • ARTLEY M. SKENANDORE JR. – currently the Principal of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin High School and a ‘Faithkeeper’ of the Onayot aka Longhouse in Oneida, WI. According to the Brown Co., WI Sheriff’s Dept. website:

In 1957 with the election of Artley Skenandore [Sr.], Brown County [WI] became the first county to elect a full-blooded Indian to the position of sheriff.  

Artley Skenandore Jr.’s wife is Oneida Police Department Lieutenant Lisa Drew-Skenandore. The OPD is cross-deputized with the Brown County, WI Sheriff’s Dept. and with the Outagamie County, WI Sheriff’s Dept.

  • RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL – currently facing bank fraud charges with wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel and under investigation by no less than 5 federal agencies.

According to the Brown Co., WI Sheriff’s Dept. website, Ron’s grandfather – Henry Van Den Heuvel – served as Brown Co., WI Sheriff 1915–1916 and 1920-1921.

  • STEVEN C. PETERS – admitted complicity for his role in Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s criminal bank fraud scheme

[Paul J.] Pikkila presented the $7.1 million loan [proposal] to the [Horicon Bank] Loan Committee for approval. Piikila 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. Pikkila 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.

Pikkila 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 and wife Cynthia Bain – sister of  Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.’s  Vice-President Debra Stary.

Piikkila stated that [Ron Van Den Heuvel] came to him and asked if he could approve a loan to William Bain [Bill Bain]. 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]. Piikila 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
[E.A.R.T.H. / Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC / renamed Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC / 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 Bain] are sisters.

Debra Stary no longer works for [Ron Van Den Heuvel] and is now with NPS [Corp.]. 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].


[ CONTINUED FROM ABOVE –  Judge William C. Griesbach’s June 6, 2017 Decision & Order, Case No. 16CV1700,  OSGC  &  GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay ]


OSGC had applied for the CUP after it learned that the City was extremely interested in development of a waste-to-energy facility within the City limits of Green Bay. Representatives of OSGC met with staff of the City’s Economic Development and Planning Departments to select a site which OSGC later purchased. OSGC then submitted a lengthy application in which it described the project, addressed potential environmental impacts, and acknowledged the oversight and enforcement responsibility that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would exercise over its operations. City planning staff reviewed the information and issued a report to the City’s Plan Commission which recommended granting the application. After consideration of the staff report, a presentation by OSGC, and a public hearing on the matter, the Plan Commission unanimously recommended that the City approve the CUP conditioned upon the facility complying with all federal and state environmental regulations. The issue then went to the full Common Council which held a public hearing similar to the hearing held before the Plan Commission. Following the OSGC presentation and public comments, the Common Council voted ten-to-one to approve the permit. Id. ¶¶17–31.

After the City approved the application for the CUP, OSGC spent a significant amount of money to purchase equipment for the new facility and pursue the additional permits it needed from the DNR, the U. S. Department of Energy and other state and local government agencies. On July 14, 2011, the Safety and Buildings Division of the Wisconsin Department of Commerce conditionally approved OSGC’s plan, noting that the owner was “responsible for compliance with all code requirements.” On August 3, 2011, OSGC’s detailed site plans and building plans were approved by the City and a building permit was issued. In September 2011, the DNR issued permits and approvals for the facility under the State’s clean air and solid waste laws. The DNR issued a formal Environmental Analysis which concluded that approval of the facility was not a “major action” and would not have significant environmental effects. The U.S. Department of Energy likewise completed its Environmental Assessment and issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact.” With all the required approvals in hand, OSGC proceeded with preparatory construction work. Id. ¶¶ 32–40.

In the meantime, citizen opposition to the project had grown more active. At an April 10, 2012 meeting of the Common Council the opposition groups accused OSGC of lying to the City in applying for the CUP by claiming that the facility would have no smokestacks and would produce no emissions. Responding to political pressure, the Common Council voted to hold a public hearing regarding the CUP and to “continue further information.” Id. ¶ 44. The Council directed the Plan Commission to hold a public hearing to “determine if the information submitted and presented to the Plan Commission was adequate for it to make an informed decision whether or not to advance the Seven Generation Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that was recommended.” Id. ¶ 45.

The meeting before the Plan Commission was held on October 3, 2012. After hearing from all parties, including City Planning Director Rob Strong who was directly involved in reviewing the application, the Commission concluded there had been no misrepresentation. In a report to the Common Council, the Plan Commission stated:

Based on the information submitted and presented, the Plan Commission determines that the information provided to the Plan Commission was not misrepresented and that it was adequate for the Commission to make an informed decision, and recommends that the CUP stand as is. The Commission further determines that the information the Plan Commission received was adequate, and based upon information then available, that the Plan Commission did understand that there were emissions and venting as a part of the system, and therefore made sure that the Seven Generations Corporation would need to meet the requirements of the EPA and DOE, as well as meeting the requirements of the municipal code through a normal process of give and take.

Id. ¶ 51.

Despite the unequivocal report from the Plan Commission, a letter from OSGC counsel that any effort by the City to revoke the CUP would be met with a damages claim for millions of dollars, and the advice of the City Attorney that there was no legal basis for the City to revoke the CUP, the Common Council voted on October 16, 2012, to reject the conclusions of the Plan Committee and to rescind the CUP previously granted to OSGC by a vote of seven to five. Two weeks later the City Attorney sent a letter to OSGC stating that the Council had rescinded the CUP because OSGC had made “false statements and misrepresentations” to the City “relat[ing] to the public safety and health aspect of the Project and the Project’s impact upon the City’s environment”
and regarding

“emissions, chemicals, and hazardous materials,”
  The letter did not identify the particular statements that were false, however, nor did it explain the basis for the City’s determination that any statements were false. Id. ¶¶ 55–60.


On November 14, 2012, OSGC requested an administrative appeal pursuant to Section 68.10 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and requested a hearing under Section 68.11. The City concluded that the hearings already conducted substantially complied with Section 68.11, however, and summarily denied the appeal. OSGC then commenced an action for certiorari review of the City’s decision in the Circuit Court for Brown County, alleging that the City “had arbitrarily and capriciously rescinded the permit based on an implied, unwritten condition; had deprived OSGC of its vested right to develop the facility; had rescinded the permit without substantial evidence of misrepresentation; and had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.” Id. ¶¶ 61–63.

OSGC’s petition for certiorari was denied by the Circuit Court for Brown County. OSGC appealed the court’s decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which reversed the Circuit Court’s decision in a twenty-page decision issued on March 25, 2014. Notwithstanding its stated reluctance to “interfere in such discretionary functions” as the decision to revoke a CUP, the Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded that the City’s decision could not stand. ECF No. 1-1, ¶¶ 20, 43. Characterizing the City’s action as “fickle and inconstant,” the Court concluded there was no basis for the City’s finding that OSGC had made any misrepresentations to the City. The Court emphasized that the City had not even mentioned the Plan Commission’s report or explained why it had not adopted it, since the Plan Commission was in a much better position to determine whether misrepresentations had been made. Given the City’s failure to identify the false statement allegedly made by OSGC or consider the Plan Commission’s report, the Court concluded:

we cannot help but believe the City’s decision was not based on a rational analysis of the statements [OSGC] made to the Plan Commission, but the public pressure brought to bear on the Common Council after the CUP had been issued

Id. ¶ 27. The City filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which granted the petition but also concluded, with the Chief Justice dissenting, that the City’s action was not supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in a decision issued on May 20, 2015. ECF No. 1-2.

Although it ultimately prevailed in the state courts, OSGC never requested reissuance of the CUP. According to the complaint, “OSGC proposed the waste-to-energy project when it did because of the availability of federal, state, and local grants, tax deductions and other incentives.” Compl. ¶ 73. “Unfortunately,” the complaint alleges, “those opportunities have expired, such that the project is no longer economically viable.” (Id.) Instead, OSGC and GBRE, the wholly owned indirect subsidiary of OSGC which was formed for the purpose of developing the facility, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in an attempt to recover $5.2 million in out-of-pocket expenses OSCG incurred in developing the project, $16 million in profits they claim the facility would have generated, and the attorneys’ fees incurred in the state and federal court actions to vindicate their rights.


A. Threshold Issues

As an initial matter, the City argues that OSGC lacks the capacity to sue and that the complaint fails to allege any facts that show the GBRE has any claim against it. The City’s lack of capacity argument is based on OSGC’s status as a tribal corporation chartered under the laws of the Oneida Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe. According to the OSGC Corporate Charter, the Charter was granted by the Oneida Business Committee under the authority vested in it by the Oneida General Tribal Council. Under the Oneida Constitution and By-Laws, the General Tribal Council is the governing body of the Oneida Nation and the Business Committee, consisting of nine elected members, and is empowered to perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.

The City contends that on December 15, 2013, the General Tribal Council voted to dissolve OSGC. Although the Business Committee has begun the process of dissolution, it has apparently not been completed. Nevertheless, the City argues, based upon amendments of OSGC’s corporate charter and the tabling of a motion that would have expressly authorized OSGC to continue its litigation against the City, that it lacks authority to bring this action. Although the same argument applies to GBRE, a wholly owned subsidiary of OSGC, the City argues that the complaint fails to allege that GBRE suffered any injury in fact that would give it standing to sue in any event. For these reasons, the City argues the action should be dismissed.

Neither argument warrants dismissal at this stage of the proceedings. The City’s argument that OSGC, and GBRE too, lack capacity to sue is predicated on facts outside the pleadings and the attachments thereto. The City has attempted to support its argument by submitting documents concerning internal tribal governance and affairs. OSGC challenges the City’s interpretation of the documents and none provide unequivocal support for the City’s position. For the court to fully consider whether OSGC and GBRE lacked capacity, it would have to convert the pending motion to dismiss to one seeking summary judgment and, even then, the answer may not be sufficiently clear to allow a ruling as a matter of law. I therefore decline to do so.

As for the City’s contention that the complaint fails to allege that GBRE suffered any injury in fact, I note that the complaint refers to OSGC and GBRE collectively as OSGC. Thus, any injury that OSGC suffered the complaint attributes to GBRE as well. More specifically, the complaint alleges that GBRE was formed for the purpose of developing the facility. Given this allegation, it is not unreasonable to infer that at least some of the development costs for and profits from the project would have been borne by and later received by GBRE. At least at this stage, this is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

B. Procedural Due Process

The complaint alleges that the City deprived the defendants of their right to procedural due process. The Fourteenth Amendment provides, as relevant here, “nor shall any State deprive person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. To demonstrate a procedural due process violation of a property right, the plaintiff must establish that there is “(1) a cognizable property interest; (2) a deprivation of that property interest; and (3) a denial of due process.” Hudson v. City of Chicago, 374 F.3d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). It is with respect to the third element of its procedural due process claim that OSGC’s complaint fails.

To be sure, OSGC was entitled to due process. River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164, 166 (7th Cir. 1994). But this was essentially a zoning case, and “the procedures ‘due’ in zoning cases are minimal.” Id. (citing Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (1976)). “Municipalities need not use adjudicative procedures to make zoning decisions.” Coniston Corp. v. Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461, 467–68 (7th Cir.1988) (“The decision whether and what kind of land uses to permit does not have the form of a judicial decision.”). Here, there is no dispute that OSGC received notice and a hearing at which it was able to address the allegations that it had misrepresented certain features of the project prior to the initial vote granting its application for the CUP. But more importantly, the procedural protection afforded OSGC’s interest in the CUP did not end with the decision of the Common Council. OSGC sought judicial review in state court via writ of certiorari and ultimately succeeded in having the City’s decision rescinding its CUP overturned. “A person contending that state or local regulation of the use of land has gone overboard must repair to state court.” River Park, 23 F.3d at 167. This is because “when the claim depends on the due process clause, state litigation may supply that process.” Id. (citing Eastlake, 426 U.S. at 679 n.13).

That is precisely what occurred here. Whatever procedural protection OSGC believes it was denied by the City was supplied by the availability of judicial review in the state courts, which ultimately reversed the City’s decision to rescind the previously issued CUP. The fact that the project was no longer economically viable by the time the process was complete does not change the result. Leaving aside the question how a project OSGC claims would have generated $16 million in profit could have lost its economic viability in five years, OSGC successfully utilized the procedural safeguards that were available for restricting the City’s authority to impose zoning limitations on the use of its land. OSGC’s procedural due process claim therefore fails.

C. Substantive Due Process

The complaint also asserts a claim that the City deprived the defendants of substantive due process. “Substantive due process is admittedly an ‘amorphous’ concept.” Bettendorf v. St. Croix Cnty., 631 F.3d 421, 426 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Tun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 900 (7th Cir. 2005)). “It is perhaps for this reason that its scope remains ‘very limited.’” Id. (citing Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)). “A government entity must have exercised its power without reasonable justification in a manner that ‘shocks the conscience’ in order for a plaintiff to recover on substantive due process grounds.” Id. (quoting Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)).

In CEnergy-Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1 v. Town of Glenmore, 769 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2014), a wind farm developer claimed that the Town Board had deprived it of substantive due process by delaying action on its application for building permits for the windmill structure so as to cause the developer to lose a lucrative contract for the sale of the power the farm would have generated. This court dismissed the claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the grounds that “the Board’s actions were not arbitrary in the constitutional sense and because CEnergy did not seek recourse under state law as required by a long line of cases in this circuit.” Id. at 488. On the issue of arbitrariness, the Court noted that “a land-use decision must ‘shock the conscience’ to run afoul of the Constitution.” Id. (citing Bettendorf, 631 F.3d at 426). The Court also noted that it had “suggested that the action must have been ‘arbitrary and capricious’ or ‘random and irrational.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). In yet another formulation, the Court noted that “the Supreme Court has explained that a land-use decision must be arbitrary to the point of being ‘egregious’ to implicate substantive due process.” Id. (citing City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Foundation, 538 U.S. 188, 198 (2003)). Applying the standard to the facts alleged in CEnergy’s complaint in that case, the Court held that “the Glenmore Town Board’s decision to delay action on CEnergy’s building permit requests could not have been arbitrary in the constitutional sense.” Id. “As far as the Constitution is concerned,” the Court observed, “popular opposition to a proposed land development plan is a rational and legitimate reason for a legislature to delay making a decision. See River Park, 23 F.3d at 167 (explaining that ‘the idea in zoning cases is that the due process clause permits municipalities to use political methods to decide’).”

Likewise in this case, the City Council’s decision to rescind the CUP was in response to popular opposition which developed after the permit was issued. The Council determined that OSGC had made several misrepresentations about the project in the course of the public hearings on its application for the CUP. According to the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court attached to the complaint, the Council specifically focused on statements made by representatives of OSGC concerning emissions from the proposed facility, smoke stacks and the successful utilization of the same technology in other parts of the country. 2015 WI 50, ¶ 53. The majority opinion carefully analyzed the evidence bearing on the oral representations made by OSGC’s CEO, engineer, and project manager at the public hearing. Id. at ¶¶ 54–79. Based upon its review, the Court concluded that “the City’s decision to rescind the conditional use permit was not based on substantial evidence.” Id. at ¶ 81. The Court explained: “In conducting a certiorari review to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support a decision, we consider the evidence in context. Considering the context, we determine that based on the evidence presented, the City could not reasonably conclude that the statements by Oneida Seven’s representative to the City government regarding the proposed facility’s emissions and hazardous materials, its stacks, and its technology were misrepresentations.” Id. Chief Justice Roggensack filed a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority had failed to accord the City Council’s finding that OSGC had made misleading statements. She noted that the Common Council was not making a claim for actionable misrepresentation, but instead relied on the misleading statements as an equitable basis for rescinding the CUP. Id. at ¶¶ 82–84, 99 (Roggensack, C.J., dissenting).

Even though the Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the Council’s decision was not based on substantial evidence and could not stand, this does not mean it was arbitrary in a constitutional sense. Something more than a favorable state court ruling is needed in order for a municipal board’s decision on a zoning issue to be found to violate a property owner’s right to substantive due process. See Harding v. County of Door, 870 F.2d 430, 432 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Although the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ultimately determined that the Board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance was erroneous, this fact does not transform the Board’s rational decision into an irrational one.”). It is noteworthy that both the trial court and the Chief Justice found sufficient evidence to support the action taken by the City. Also of note is the fact that OSGC did not seek an award of actual attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Section 895.044 of the Wisconsin Statutes on the grounds that the City’s defense was asserted in bad faith or with intent to harass or injure, or that the City or its attorneys knew or should have known that its position was without any reasonable basis in law or equity.

In Eichenlaub v. Township of Indiana, town officials were alleged to have applied subdivision requirements to the plaintiffs’ property that were not applied to other parcels, pursued unannounced and unnecessary inspection and enforcement actions, delayed certain permits and approvals, improperly increased tax assessments, and maligned and muzzled the plaintiffs. 385F.3d 274, 286 (3d Cir. 2004). Noting that the complaints were typical of the kind of disagreement that is frequent in planning disputes and that there was no allegation of corruption or self-dealing, the court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the “misconduct alleged here does not rise sufficiently above that at issue in a normal zoning dispute to pass the ‘shocks the conscience test.’” Id.

Similarly in this case, there was no allegation of corruption or self-dealing by Council members who voted in favor of rescinding the CUP. The allegations of misrepresentation were based on the arguably misleading oral statements that OSGC’s representatives made, but which a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded, in context and considering the written statements and more direct involvement with the Plan Committee, did not amount to intentional misrepresentation of a kind that justified rescinding the CUP. That the analysis of a majority of the Council members failed to consider the entire context when confronted with angry constituents is hardly shocking.

Finally, the fact that OSGC ultimately prevailed and could have completed the project had it chosen to do so also makes the City Council’s decision less shocking or egregious than a substantive due process violation requires. There is no suggestion that the City Council members were aware that delay would essentially kill the project because it would lose whatever economic viability it might have had. In the final analysis, the City’s action caused a delay in the project; it was apparently a change in other factors over which the City had no control that caused OSGC to abandon it.


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 Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 6th day of June, 2017.

William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge United States District Court


• NOTE: On November 8, 2000, the Oneida Business Committee unanimously adopted OBC Resolution 11-08-00-B, ‘Dioxin & Persistent Organic Pollutants’

WHEREAS, the ability of our Native community to be protected from the effects of dioxin poisoning is critical to the future of our tribal nations and all 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 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 release of Dioxin and other Persistent Organic Pollutants in the United States

According to the March 7, 2011 GreenAction for Health & Environmental Justice’s Evaluation of the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation Proposal for a Pyrolysis Gasification facility at the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin:

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

We respectfully urege 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.

[See image gallery at]

On April 11, 2013 the Oneida Business Committee held an EMERGENCY OBC MEETING

re: Fmr. OBC Chair Ed Delgado’s call for OBC to acknowledge and address the blatant contradictions pointed out to him by GTC Petitioner Leah Sue Dodge between…

and the OBC’s Resolutions in support of OSGC’s DIOXIN-emitting waste incinerator project

whether built on or off the Oneida Reservation…

but the corrupt OBC voted UNANIMOUSLY to REAFFIRM their support for OSGC’s experimental DIOXIN-emitting waste incinerator schemes which OSGC & GBRE were marketing to tribes & municipalities throughout the United States

after consultation & guidance from
Carl Arman’s first cousin…


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: [Fmr. OBC Chair] Ed Delgado

All Nations Energy Alliance LLC business address was Tina Danforth's White Eagle BarMotion by [then-OBC Treas.] Tina Danforth to reaffirm resolution 12-08-10-B, ‘Supporting 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 Ninham

Not present: Brandon Stevens

04/12/13 Green Bay Press-GazetteOneida Business Committee reaffirms alt-energy support; Board still stands behind Green Bay gasification plant by Scott Cooper Williams

ONEIDA – [The Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s Business Committee] are standing behind a tribal company’s controversial efforts to build a waste-to-energy plant in Green Bay.

But members of theOneida Business Committee [OBC, subordinate to the General Tribal Council / GTC], are not divulging whether they also support continuing a court fight over the project.

Representatives of the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. met with tribal leaders Thursday for more than an hour, amid growing signs that the company is losing support among its own people.

[OBC] Chairperson Ed Delgado, in particular, has voiced concerns about the waste-to-energy initiative and, with regard to the lawsuit, has said he wants to “stop the spending.”

After Thursday’s closed-door meeting with company officials, however, Delgado joined other tribal leaders in a public show of solidarity with Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

Delgado and other [OBC] members declined to comment.

Before the vote, Oneida Seven Generations [Corp.] board member Paul Linzmeyer told reporters he was unsure if the company still had tribal leaders’ support in pursuing the Green Bay development.

“All we’re trying to do,” be said of the meeting, “is work through a lot of different issues together.”

The [OBC] voted unanimously to reaffirm its support of a resolution backing the Green Bay project. The resolution states that the proposed facility would not use “any type of incineration or burning” and “will not have smokestacks.”

[The OBC & OSGC claim that] the gasification plant would process tons of household trash at high temperatures in a way that leaves only charred waste, easing the need for landfill dumping while also creating a new source of electrical energy.

Green Bay city officials withdrew a permit for the project at 1230 Hurlbut St. after determining that Oneida Seven Generations [Corp.] had misled the city about emissions and other aspects of the facility.

After a judge ruled in the city’s favor in a resulting lawsuit, the development firm announced its plans to appeal.

Delgado moved to reconsider the company’s legal fees Thursday, but the [OBC] would not discolse its decision on the issue.

While waging the court fight, Oneida Seven Generations [Corp.] also has sought to locate a similar gasification plant on tribal land west of Green Bay.

Tribal members opposed to the project have circulated a petition for a General Tribal Council [Meeting] on the issue.

That gathering is scheduled for May 5 [2013].

Leah Dodge, a leader of the petition drive, said Thursday’s action by the Oneida Business Committee signals the importance of a [GTC Meeting] that stops the gasification concept from going forward.

“Now the General Tribal Council will have to step up to do the job to protect the Oneida Tribe which the Business Committee abdicated,” Dodge said.


•  NOTE: GTC can actually craft, adopt, change, and enforce Tribal Directives & Laws during GTC Meetings, so they are much more than just a “referendum.”

•  Gasification  IS  Incineration  /  Trash-to-Ash  /  Landfill-To-Skyfill-To-Lungfill

•  OBC Resolution 12-08-10-B actually states that 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

The 1230 Hurlbut St. parcel is located in the City of Green Bay and is NOT “on the Oneida Reservation.”

There was no mention nor disclosure to GTC of the existence nor true ownership of OSGC’s indirect-subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC – a Delaware corporation staffed with OSGC’s executives & officers – until after the lawsuit against the City of Green Bay began with GBRE as OSGC’s Co-Plaintiff.

ONEIDA, WI – Members of the Oneida Nation’s Business Committee voted Thursday to continue supporting efforts to build a waste-to-energy facility.

Resolution 12-08-10-B lays out backing of a project to build a gasification facility which aims, “to generate about 4 to 10 megawatts of electricity for 3,000 to 5,000 residential homes to be sold to Wisconsin Public Service.”

What the resolution doesn’t say is specifically where this plant will be constructed.

Tribal Council Chair Ed Delgado proposed rescinding the resolution of support, but a majority of members voted against the action. 

The resolution says, “the Oneida Business Committee enthusiastically supports this project and will work with OSGC and Oneida Energy to help them realize the opportunity and to locate the facility on a site that is most desireable.”

The Green Bay City Council revoked a conditional use permit for Oneida Seven Generations Corporation back in October for the plant on Hurlbut Street. The council felt OSGC lied about the nature of the project with regards to the existence of smokestacks and emissions. 

OSGC filed a lawsuit, but a Brown County judge ruled in favor of the city and its reasons for pulling the permit. 

Initial reports indicated that support among members of the Oneida Business Committee was dwindling. 

OSGC says it will appeal and has moved forward with a lawsuit seeking damages of more than $4 million.


06/06/17 DISMISSAL 

of  OSGC / GBRE LAWSUIT against


In the 13-page ruling, Judge William Griesbach said that because after the OSGC won a ruling in state court reversing the Council’s decision – but did not pursue the plant any further – the decision not to build belongs to the tribe, not the city.

“The fact that OSGC ultimately prevailed and could have completed the project had it chosen to do so also makes the City Council’s decision less shocking or egregious than a substantive due process violation requires. There is no suggestion that the City Council members were aware that delay would essentially kill the project because it would lose whatever economic viability it might have had. In the final analysis, the City’s action caused a delay in the project; it was apparently a change in other factors over which the City had no control that caused OSGC to abandon it,” the judge wrote.

In a statement, Mayor Jim Schmitt said, “We just learned the Federal Court dismissed the complaint filed by Oneida Seven Generations Corporation. The suit against the City of Green Bay was based on the revocation of a conditional use permit for their intended waste-to-energy facility. This is great news for City tax payers, as OSGC sought millions in damages from the City. The decision issued by Judge William C. Griesbach states that even though the City should not have revoked the permit, due process was adequately given. We respect the ruling by the federal court, and hope to move forward with mutual respect and relationships with the Oneida Nation.”

The Oneida Nation has not responded to Fox 11’s request for comment.

GREEN BAY –  A federal judge has dismissed a $21 million lawsuit against the city of Green Bay over its revocation of a permit for a waste-to-energy plant.

Oneida Seven Generations, a company created by the Oneida Tribe of Indians [now known as the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin] for economic development, filed the lawsuit in December alleging the City Council’s reversal on the permit in 2012 was illegal and had cost the company $5.2 million it had invested in the project and about $16 million in lost profit.

The city initially approved construction of a biomass-processing plant on Hurlbut Avenue, but the Council rescinded the permit after a group of residents and some aldermen claimed the company had misrepresented the threat of pollution from the plant’s emissions.

Oneida Seven Generations sued in Brown County Circuit Court. The case was settled in 2015 by a state Supreme Court ruling that the city had acted improperly in revoking the permit.

That lawsuit did not seek financial damages.

However, the company claimed in the subsequent federal lawsuit that the plant could no longer be built because grants that were needed to make the project financially viable were no longer available, resulting in a $21 million loss. 

The lawsuit called the city’s decision to revoke the permit “a reckless, arbitrary and irrational act resulting from abuse of political power and a disdain for established procedure.”

U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach on Tuesday rejected the company’s claim, finding that the city’s decision, while overruled by the Supreme Court, affected only the timing of the project.

“In the final analysis, the City’s action caused a delay in the project; it was apparently a change in other factors over which the City had no control that caused OSGC to abandon it,” Greisbach wrote.

Green Bay’s Common Council initially approved the OSGC permit in 2011. The Department of Natural Resources and Department of Energy also gave approval.

However, citizen opposition to the plant and its smoke stacks grew, and the Common Council accused OSCG of making misrepresentations about the plant. The council decided to rescind the permit.

OSGC filed suit trying to recover $5.2 million in expenses for development of the plant, and $16 million in potential lost profits.

The case eventually landed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of a lower court in favor of the OSGC.

However, the OSGC never requested a new conditional use permit. That was part of the federal judge’s decision to dismiss the case.

“The fact that OSGC ultimately prevailed and could have completed the project had it chosen to do so also makes the City Council’s decision less shocking or egregious than a substantive due process violation requires,” Judge Griesbach wrote.

In his ruling, [Judge] Griesbach said since the corporation had won an earlier case in the matter and had chosen not to pursue the energy project it is not entitled to damages.


Previously on Oneida Eye:

12/23/16 : Hubris – The Grift That Keeps On Taking: Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONW-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (GBRE) Sue The City Of Green Bay To Defend Incinerator Schemes Of Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Various Fronts (Green Box NA, et al.) & Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s American Combustion Technology Inc. (ACTI); But… General Tribal Council’s 12/15/2013 Directive To Dissolve OSGC Stands, While Motions On 8/10/2016 To Rescind OSGC’s Dissolution And Allow OSGC To Sue Green Bay Remained Tabled For Over 3 Months & Thereby Died

02/07/17 : BIFF!BANG!POW! City Of Green Bay Tells Federal Court: “Under Oneida Nation Law, OSGC Should Not Exist.” Oneida Seven Generations Corp. FAILED To Show State Law Remedies Inadequate, Exhaust Remedies, Identify Protectable Property Interest, Show ‘Conditional Use Permit’ Rescission Was Arbitrary, Or State Any Due Process Violation; Also, OSGC & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy / GBRE Lack The Capacity To Sue; MEANWHILE, Judge Rejects Mayor Schmitt’s Motion To Prohibit 2/20/2017 ‘Removal Petition’ Hearing [VIDEO]; FINAL 4–8 TALLY Sets Snake Loose By One Vote; Recall Petition Expected; PLUS, Lyin’ Sack O’ Schmitt Projecting Own Mental Illness/Damage In Podcast; Gives Fauxpology; UPDATE: OSGC’s & GBRE’s Response To City Posted

03/14/17 :  “As The Subordinate Entity, The Business Committee Cannot Interpret Its Own Authority To Override The Will Of The General Tribal Council.” – City Of Green Bay’s 03/14/2017 Reply In Support Of Motion To Dismiss 12/23/2016 Complaint Of Oneida Nation In Wisconsin / ONWI-owned Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & Subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC / GBRE; U.S. District Court, Green Bay Division, Case No. 1:16-CV-1700; UPDATE: Press-Gazette’s Front Page ‘Fake News’ Advert For Green Box NA Investment Fraud Scheme Omits ANY Mention Of EB-5 Immigrant Investor Scam Victims And Related Nature’s Way Tissue/OSGC/GBRE Fraud Schemes That Have Cost General Tribal Council Over $25 Million; Press-Gazette Publishes Correction After Eye’s Request: ‘PC FIBRE TECHNOLOGY DOES *NOT* OWN A PATENT’; OSGC/Nature’s Way Tissue Corp./GBRE = Criminal Fraud


Sometimes Wolves have to warn the Clan about other Wolves.