T-11


TIMELINE PART 11

  

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 1

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 2

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 3

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 4

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 5

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 6

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 7

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 8

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 9

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 10

 


08/21/17 : Law360.com: United States Dept. of the Interior sued by Oneida Indian Nation of New York over decision to allow Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin to officially change name to ‘Oneida Nation’

 

In any event, ACTI did not respond to or put forth any evidence to contest the following facts presented by CH2E in the Motion—meaning that the Court should deem them admitted:

• As early as November 1, 2013, CH2E [Nevada, LLC] contacted ACTI [American Combustion Technologies of California, Inc.] to notify it that the Equipment was suffering from numerous defects and not operating at the warranted levels.

• ACTI represented that it could fix the defects in a manner that would enable the Equipment to operate at the promised levels, and, on multiple occasions between November 1, 2013 and October 31, 2014, ACTI replaced and redesigned various components of the Equipment.

None of ACTI’s attempted repairs, replacements or redesigns succeeded in fixing the individual defects in the Equipment or in bringing the Equipment into a state where it could process at the warranted levels.

• After ACTI could not fix the Equipment, CH2E incurred over $2 million in costs paid to third parties in its attempt to cure the defective and non-conforming Equipment.

ACTI’s only defenses are that its principal does not remember specific requests related to each of the costs CH2E incurred, and arguments by counsel that it is possible that CH2E incurred these costs because of how it purportedly operated the Equipment. ACTI presents no admissible evidence to support either of these “defenses.”


08/24/17 :

            

   

  • Tissue Products Technology Corp. changed Registered Agent to Ron Van Den Heuvel; TPTC was Organized w/ WDFI on 12/11/01 as Oconto Falls Tissue Technologies, Inc, but changed names 02/04/02; Registered Agent also changed on 04/11/07, and 05/20/09, and 11/11/14
  • Tissue Technology, LLC changed Registered Agent to Ron Van Den Heuvel; TTL was organized 04/17/06; Registered Agent also changed on 05/19/09, and 06/29/15 

  

Oneida Energy, Inc. (BIA can get $ back)
Oneida Recycling, LLC (BIA cannot get $)

4. Investors and Shareholders
     (who will have oversite?)
     Must disclose under GTC Directive

Ed,

In 2007, Glory [LLC / OSGC] allowed Nature’s Way [Tissue] Corporation to switch to be TTL, LLC. That way Artley [Skenandore Jr.] et al [i.e. Ron Van Den Heuvel & Steven Peters] could not have personal assets attached for repayment as a corporation, but as an LLC could only have the business’ assets attached. [OSGC CEO] Kevin Cornelius et al plan to do the same with Oneida Energy, Inc. switch to Oneida Recycling [Solutions], LLC.

Highly Suspect

 

According to WDFI.org, Oneida Recycling Solutions, LLC was Organized on 01/12/10 and officially Dissolved on 05/29/17;
Principal Office: 1239 Flight-Way Dr., De Pere, WI 54115-9596;
Registered Agent: Kevin I. Cornelius

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

 

  • QUESTION:

 

WHAT IS…
  

CHEYBOYGAN ENERGY & BIOFUELS, LLC

AND WHY DID RON VAN DEN HEUVEL ON AGAIN/OFF AGAIN

SOMETIMES ‘ATTORNEY’ TY C. WILLIHNGANZ ORGANIZE IT

ON MAY 24, 2013 [ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION] WITH RON’s

E.A.R.T.H. AS ‘REGISTERED AGENT’ … THE EXACT SAME DAY  

ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORP. / OSGC CEO & SUBSIDIARY

GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY LLC CEO KEVIN CORNELIUS

SIGNED MASTER LEASE CONTRACTS WITH ACF LEASING LLC,

ACF SERVICES LLC & GENERATION CLEAN FUELS LLC

FOR OSGC’s ‘PYROLYSIS’ SITES IN MONONA, WISCONSIN…

& CHEBOYGAN, MICHIGAN?

 

•  GAYLEN LA CROSSE  /  GAYLEN LACROSSE
•  TERRY GAOUETTE
•  AQUA 2MG, INC. / RECOVERING AQUA RESOURCES, INC.
•  RECOVERING AQUA RESOURCES TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
•  STEVEN PETERS
•  ESTR, INC. /
ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH
•  JOSEPH WOLD, JR.

•  GULF POINTE CAPITAL, LLC
•  RUDOLPH TREBELS
/ RUDY TREBELS
•  IFC CREDIT CORPORATION
•  IFC CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC
•  MARUBENI CORP.
•  MARUBENI AMERICA CORP.
•  MARUBENI GROUP
•  PIC / POWER INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS
•  RON VAN DEN HEUVEL
•  KELLY VAN DEN HEUVEL
•  MANCHESTER MORTGAGE CO., LLC
/ CITIZENS BANK
•  JIM GEORGE
•  ATTY. JOHN PETITJEAN
•  VHC, INC.
•  ONEIDA ENERGY, INC.
•  ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORP. / OSGC
•  VETERANS CAPITAL CORP.
•  ASC LEASE INCOME, LLC
•  DAVID PENDELL
•  MICHAEL S. FLAHERTY
•  LOUIS STERN
•  SPARTAN, INC.
•  ERIC DECATOR
•  ARLAND CLEAN FUELS, LLC
•  ACF LEASING, LLC
•  ACF SERVICES, LLC
•  ACF IP, LLC
•  GCF EQUIPMENT, LLC
•  GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC
•  GREEN BAY RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC
•  KEVIN CORNELIUS
•  ATTY. WILLIAM CORNELIUS
•  CHEYBOYGAN ENERGY & BIOFUELS, LLC
•  U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR / DOI
•  BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS / BIA
•  ONEIDA ENERGY CORP. / OEC
•  ONEIDA ENERGY BLOCKER, INC.
•  BRUSSELS PROPERTIES, LLC
•  GREEN BOX NA MICHIGAN, LLC
•  MICHIGAN STRATEGIC FUND
•  MI GOV. RICK SNYDER

The complaint also alleges that Woodside followed H&K’s recommendation to hire [Midwest] Engineering Services [Inc.] and Environmental Systems Technology & Research (ESTR) to design and install a wastewater treatment system to meet state Department of Natural Resources’ permit requirements.

The suit claims that neither company disclosed that ESTR planned to use a proprietary wastewater system, invented and patented by an ESTR principal, Gaylen LaCrosse, that later failed to meet DNR requirements.

The proprietary system had no track record of approval by state regulators for the planned application and was more expensive than other systems already backed and recommended by the DNR, the complaint alleges.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the companies attempted to hide that the proposed wastewater system had run afoul of DNR regulators and that H&K later incorrectly claimed that the [DNR] had issued the needed permit and that the company had also obtained related loans and grants.

ESTR later allegedly hired Midwest Engineering Services (MES) to assist with obtaining the DNR permit without notifying Woodside, according to the complaint.

The employee MES assigned to the project, Jeffrey Fischer, had previously surrendered his state license to work as a professional geologist after felony fraud convictions related to the state’s Petroleum Environmental Cleanup-up Fund and had no expertise in wastewater systems, the suit claims.

The suit also claims that H&K was negligent in not disclosing that a company executive, Terry Gaouette, had pleaded guilty to falsifying financial records of the Milwaukee Public Museum when he served as a top museum executive.

From the September 2016 issue of Plastics Engineering SPE Magazine:







08/25/17 : August 25, 2017 Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Reply Brief to the Government’s responses to the pretrial motions, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

 

  • August 25, 2017 Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

08/28/17 : August 28, 2017 Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Reply Memorandum in Support of His Amended Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-8 of the Indictment, Based on the Statute of Limitations, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398,  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 [47 pages]


08/29/17 : August 29, 2017 Order that the Clerk of Court docket the attached letter from counsel for Defendant Wayde McKelvy dated August 28, 2017, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398, 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

 

Dear Ms. Dodge,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

ONEIDA LAW OFFICE

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

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

More like…

‘NO-IDEA ABOUT LAW’ OFFICE.


08/30/17 : August 30, 2017 Order Denying as Moot Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Motion to Compel Discovery, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

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

 


08/31/17 : August 31, 2017 Order granting the Government’s Motion to Admit Tape Recordings and Transcripts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398,  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

 

Related:

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

 


09/01/17 : September 1, 2017 Order Denying Defendants Ronald and Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Motions to Disclose Grand Jury Materials, 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

 

  • September 1, 2017 Supplemental Declaration of Jonathan T. Smies, counsel for Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

09/05/17 : September 5, 2017 Motion Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

The Court states that the matter is set for court trial on September 18, 2017.

The Court inquires as to why the case should be dismissed now as the record is very confusing.

Mr. Smies responds.

Mr. Ganzer responsds that they will be prepared for trial on 9/18. Ganzer states that [Sharad] Tak’s ownership interest has been transferred.

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

Mr. Ganzer responds.

The Court denies the motions. The case will proceed to trial on 9/18. The Court gives directions regarding exhibits and instructs them to confer on joint exhibits and to talk to the clerk.

Mr. Smies states that the plaintiff can’t prevail on both claims. The Court responds. Mr. Ganzer responds.

The Court directs the parties to file pretrial documents, including exhibits by Wednesday September 13, 2017.

 

 

  • September 5, 2017 Settlement Reached in FRAUD Complaint, Case No. 2016-L-007891 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Law Division from the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251, ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC v. HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; Adam Peterson, Louis Stern, BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou

 


09/07/17 : According to the September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius re: OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION effective 09/25/17:

The Gaming Commission took official action on Friday, September 7, 2017 to accept the resignation of Commissioner Cristina S. Danforth effective Monday, September 25, 2017.

The Gaming Commission would like to initiate the posting of the vacant Commissioner position. Upon closing the posting the Gaming Commission may provide their recommendation of the vacant Commissioner position.

?????

According to the ONWI Gaming Ordinance 501.6-13:

501.6-13: Vacancies. Any vacancy in an unexpired term of office, however caused, must be filled by appointment by the Oneida Business Committee of a person qualified pursuant to sections 501.6-5 and 501.6-6 pursuant to the Comprehensive Policy Goveringing Board, Committees and Commissions.

 

 


09/08/17 : September 8, 2017 Order Denying Defendant’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

Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel is charged for his role in two schemes to defraud financial institutions by using straw borrowers to obtain loans for his personal benefit. The government alleges in Counts One through Thirteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel, his wife, and a loan officer participated in a scheme to defraud Horicon Bank by obtaining a series of loans through straw borrowers [Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Partner & General Manager Steven Peters; Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. Vice-President Debra Stary; Vos Electric, Inc. Vice-President William Bain / Bill Bain; Philippine-national live-in nanny Julie Gumban; and wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel‘s sham company KYHKJG, LLC  (the Horicon bank scheme). The government further alleges in Counts Fourteen through Nineteen that Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone participated in a scheme to defraud several other financial institutions by having his employee [& son-in-law Patrick Hoffman] attempt to obtain loans using fraudulent employment information and backed by two vehicles that Mr. Van Den Heuvel had titled in the employee/ son-in-law]’s name (the car loan scheme).

Mr. Van Den Heuvel has moved to sever the car loan counts from the Horicon Bank counts, arguing that the charges were improperly joined and, alternatively, that he will suffer unfair prejudice if the charges are all tried together. The United States opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the car loan counts are properly joined with the Horicon Bank counts and that a joint trial on all counts will not unfairly prejudice Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Court therefore will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion.

The following allegations are taken from the Superseding Indictment. In 2008 and 2009, Paul J. Piikkila was a loan officer for Horicon Bank, working at the branch in Appleton, Wisconsin. He had authority to make loans up to $250,000 on his own, but he needed approval from the bank’s Business Lenders Committee for loans above that figure.

In late 2007 or early 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel approached Mr. Piikkila seeking loans from Horicon Bank to himself and his business entities. Mr. Van Den Heuvel represented himself as a Green Bay businessman. At the time, he was married to Kelly Van Den Heuvel. On or about January 17, 2008, Mr. Piikkila authorized a loan to one of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities. Two months later, Mr. Piikkila sought approval for a $7,100,000 loan to a different entity owned by Mr. Van Den Heuvel. The Business Lenders Committee refused to authorize that loan because, based on their investigation, Mr. Van Den Heuvel was not a good credit risk. Mr. Piikkila’s supervisors instructed him not to make any more loans to Mr. Van Den Heuvel or his business entities.

Mr. Piikkila ignored those instructions and issued a series of loans that were used to benefit Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his businesses. Those nine loans, each of which was for $250,000 or less, were issued to individuals who did not receive the loan proceeds and who did not regard themselves as responsible for repaying the loans. Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels knew that those loans did not go to the straw borrowers.

One of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s business entities was a company called EARTH. In June 2013, Mr. Van Den Heuvel persuaded an EARTH employee [and son-in-law Patrick Hoffman], to apply for loans from financial institutions that would be used by Mr. Van Den Heuvel and his business entities. To help [Patrick Hoffman] qualify for loans, Mr. Van Den Heuvel transferred the titles to two Cadillac Escalades from EARTH to [Patrick Hoffman]. The Escalades, however, remained in EARTH’s custody and control. Mr. Van Den Heuvel also had pay stubs created for [Patrick Hoffman] that substantially inflated his income, and he had [Patrick Hoffman] falsely represent his job title, responsibilities, and income on loan applications. … [Patrick Hoffman] used this fraudulent information to apply for loans from Community First Credit Union, Nicolet National Bank, and Pioneer Credit Union, offering the two Escalades as security.

WDFI.org says EARTHEnviornemental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, now named RECLAMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC / RTS – was Organized on 05/29/08 and was first named NATURE’S CHOICE TISSUE, LLC

Mr. Piikkila and the Van Den Heuvels were indicted in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 19, 2016. Count One charges all three defendants with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and to make false statements to Horicon Bank from on or about January 1, 2008, through on or about September 30, 2009. Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone is charged in Counts Two through Thirteen. Ms. Van Den Heuvel is charged along with her husband in Counts Ten and Eleven 

DURING THE SAME PERIOD AS THE FAILURE & STATE TAX WITHHOLDING LITIGATION OF RON & OSGC’s NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP.

The grand jury returned a superseding indictment on September 20, 2016, charging Mr. Van Den Heuvel alone with devising and participating in a scheme to defraud federally insured financial institutions and to obtain loans from those institutions by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations from on or about June 10, 2013, through on or about July 2, 2013.

… JUST AFTER GTC VOTED TO PROHIBIT OSGC & SUBSIDIARIES FROM PYROLYSIS ON THE ONWI RESERVATION, WHICH OSGC THEN PARTNERED WITH RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’S AQUA 2MG, INC. / RECOVERING AQUA RESOURCES, LLC ‘INVESTMENT’ SCHEME ASSOCIATE

GAYLEN LACROSSE’s company

GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC

TO DO ANYWAY, JUST BEFORE GCF SUED ONWI & OSGC & SUBSIDIARIES FOR $400 MILLION) …

The matter is assigned to United States District Judge William C. Griesbach for trial and to this Court for resolving pretrial motions. Mr. Piikkila has pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment and is currently awaiting sentencing. On August 30, 2017, this Court granted Ms. Van Den Heuvel’s unopposed motion to sever her trial from that of Mr. Van Den Heuvel.

On June 16, 2017, Mr. Van Den Heuvel filed a motion seeking to sever Counts Fourteen through Nineteen from Counts One through Thirteen. The United States filed its response on July 12, 2017.

A review of the Superseding Indictment demonstrates that the car loan counts and the Horicon Bank counts are categorically related. Both schemes involve Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly using straw borrowers and making false statements to obtain loans from financial institutions for his personal gain.

Mr. Van Den Heuvel maintains that a joint trial would be highly prejudicial to him because of the disparate nature of the car loan and Horicon Bank schemes, the significant passage of time between the two schemes, the inadmissibility of evidence of one scheme in a separate trial on the other, and the strong potential that the jury will use evidence introduced to support one scheme as proof of guilt regarding the other scheme. These potential sources of prejudice, according to Mr. Van Den Heuvel, cannot be alleviated by curative or cautionary jury instructions.

The Court finds that Mr. Van Den Heuvel has not made the strong showing of prejudice necessary to justify severance under Rule 14(a). The two schemes took place during distinct time periods and involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly attempting to obtain separate loans from different financial institutions. The risk of jury confusion is therefore minimal, given that the evidence to support each scheme appears to be relatively short and simple. As such, the Court is not convinced that a jury could not keep separate the evidence used to support each scheme. Likewise, given that both schemes involved Mr. Van Den Heuvel allegedly making false statements to obtain loans for his personal benefit, the Court is not persuaded that evidence of one scheme could not be used to prove motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) with respect to the other scheme.

Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s assertion that no jury instruction could cure the prejudicial effect of a joint trial is unavailing. It appears that a jury could capably sort through the evidence, and juries are presumed to follow limiting instructions to consider each count separately.Accordingly, severance of the the car loan counts under Rule (14)a is not necessary to provide Mr. Van Den Heuvel a fair trial in this case.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s severance motion.


 

09/11/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette –  
Oneida Tribe appeals ruling in lawsuit against Green Bay over waste-to-energy plant


09/12/17 : September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius re: OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION effective 09/25/17

 

  • Letter dated September 12, 2017 and ‘signed’ with rubber stamp by Abdul Latif Mahjoob of ‘American Combustion Technology Inc.‘ sent to Oneida Eye Publisher Leah Sue Dodge

Latif Mahjoob
American Combustion Technology Inc.
Compton, CA 90220
09/12/2017

Dear Leah Sue Dodge:

It has come to ACTI’s attention that a defaming comment was posted on www.youtube.com under the username “Oneida Eye” that has been linked to Ms. Dodge. ACTI asks that Ms. Dodge immediately remove all comments made about Latif Mahjoob and ACTI or legal action will be taken for defamation of character.

Your failure to remove all the defaming material will result in an immediate legal action against you.

Sincerely,

A. L. Mahjoob (rubber stamped)
Latif Mahjoob
American Combustion Technology Inc.

Cc: James Kawahito, attorney.

PROBLEM:

Beyond the fact that the letter does not contain a valid signature, Oneida Eye is not aware of any companies owned by Abdul Latif Mahjoob that are named “American Combustion Technology Inc.

The only companies owned by Abdul Latif Mahjoob that Oneida Eye is aware of include:

  • American Renewable Energy Corp. / AREC in Kansas City, MO; President, Director, Treasuer – Stuart Z. Hirschman; President – Eduart Z. Itiraclussas; Secretary – Irving M. Bush; Director – A. Latif Mahjoob

  • Green Peak, Inc. in Nevada; President & Director – Latif Mahjoob; Treasurer – Lila Mahjoob;  Director – Daniel Rekitar; Member – Regina Kautskaya
  • Q & L Holdings, LLC in California; Members – Abdul Latif Mahjoob; Qudsia Mahjoob (age 61)

Perhaps the threat letter was sent to Oneida Eye by one of Abdul Latif Mahjoob’s relatives:

  • Arian Mahjoob
  • Qays Mahjoob

Related?:

On April 4, 2013, Geraldine B. and her eight-year-old daughter Grace spent the day at Disneyland. Geraldine and Grace returned to their car, a 2000 Toyota Camry, and left Anaheim around midnight. An hour later, at roughly 1 a.m. on April 5, 2013, Geraldine was stopped at a red light at an intersection near her house. The road she was travelling on had two lanes running in each direction, with a center lane in the middle for turn lanes. Geraldine was waiting to turn left; her car was in the left pocket turn lane on the correct side of the double yellow line. Geraldine saw a car driving toward her on the opposite side of the road in the lane closest to the center of the road. The car had its headlights on. The oncoming car hit Geraldine’s car head on, propelling her car out of the turn lane to the side of the road, and causing the driver’s side airbag to deploy. Geraldine and Grace both sustained serious injuries as a result of the crash and were taken by paramedics to U.C. Irvine Medical Center. Doctors performed surgery on Geraldine’s foot. Grace required immediate abdominal surgery and a subsequent surgery on her back. …

The laboratory test revealed defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.22 percent.

24-year old Qays Mahjoob—nicknamed Matt—thought he was coming to see a 13-year-old girl. The decoy invites him inside.

Decoy: Hello? Are you comin’? How was the drive? 

Mahjoob suddenly hears a walkie-talkie in the background.

Qays Mahoob:  What’s that?

Decoy:  What’s what?

Mahjoob: That sound?

Decoy: What sound?

It was the decoy’s walkie-talkie. Instructions to her from inside the house were mistakenly broadcast in the driveway.

Mahjoob gets spooked, but he circles around and comes in anyway.

Decoy: Okay. Why did you go away?

Mahjoob: ‘Cause I thought it had something to do with the police.

Decoy: (laughs) Yeah, I’m not that retarded.

Mahjoob: Oh.

Online, Mahjoob—screen name longbeachdude19–  thought he was chatting with a 13-year-old girl.

He tells her that he will perform oral sex on her.

(chat log) longbeachdude19: “I will show u heaven,” he writes. “I love it. I can do that all day.”

Mahjoob asks  if she’s performed oral sex,  asks if she’s good at it, and other specifics we can’t tell you about here.

And remember, he’s chatting with someone who said she was 13.

Decoy: What have you been up to?

Majhoob: Not much.

Decoy: Did it take you that long to come back?  Do you wanna have a seat or something?

Mahjoob: Gimme a tour.  (laughs)

Decoy: Gimme a tour?  Oh, I see.  Well, this is the hot tub.

Mahjoob:  Cool.

Decoy: We could hang out here.

Hansen: Hey man, how are you?  Matt, I need to talk with you for a minute.

Mahjoob: I know what—

Hansen: Matt, why don’t you have a seat right over there.

But talking is not what he has in mind.

When he is confronted by police, they ask him put his hands up. He doesn’t respond fast enough, and the result is a taser shot.

Hansen: Why was it necessary to use the taser on this guy?

Sgt. Lee DeBrabander: He’s already demonstrated that he’s not going to listen to the orders of the police officers. A lot of these guys, they are confronted with the reality that they are about to be exposed for what they did.  And a lot of them may try violence to get away.  The taser was used to prevent any injury to him and also to any police officers.

At the processing center, police find condoms in his car.

He’s pleaded not guilty to an attempted lewd act on a child.


09/13/17 : September 13, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Final Pretrial Report,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

PLAINTIFFS’ FINAL PRETRIAL REPORT

NOW COME the plaintiffs, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., and hereby submit the following as their final pretrial report in reference to this action:

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The plaintiff companies seek enforcement of the Notes and Agreements they made with defendant Tak Investments, LLC surrounding the sale of the Oconto Falls tissue mill from those plaintiff companies to various companies owned by Sharad Tak. The parties had been working on a sale agreement for quite some time, going back to 2005, which was finally consummated at a closing with transfer of all assets of the mill on April 16, 2007. Leading up to that time, there were several agreements which anticipated a level of funding so as to satisfy debts of the OFTI Group and ensure “clean title” to those assets upon sale.

The course of dealings between the parties clearly established that there was a substantial shortfall in funding which was to be made up by 4 Promissory Notes that are now the subject of this action. In exchange for the transfer of the assets of OFTI Group, which are all companies controlled by Ronald Van Den Heuvel, Defendant Company, Tak Investments, LLC, and individual defendant, Sharad Tak, provided the Van Den Heuvel entities three (3) different avenues of income in order to facilitate the transaction and satisfy the obligation. The parties entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement which provided a small percentage of gross revenues to Tissue Technology, LLC. In addition, four (4) Notes were executed at closing called the “Seller Notes” with the combined value of $30,589,000.00. Those Notes are payable to the Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and were subordinated to the debt of Goldman Sachs, which has now been paid in full and has released the Tak companies from liability therefore. Also executed at the time of the closing were the Notes that are the subject of this lawsuit, termed the “Investment Notes”. These three recovery avenues for the plaintiff are all discussed together since none of the Tak companies have paid any of them and all three are currently in litigation, with the Sales & Marketing Agreement and the Seller Notes cases pending in Oconto County, Wisconsin.

At the time of the closing, the Final Business Terms Agreement was also executed by and between the parties hereto and serve as some additional complications to this lawsuit. The Final Business Terms Agreement provided that the Investment Notes could be satisfied in two ways. First, the Final Business Terms Agreement provided that if the plaintiffs deemed the Notes canceled, they would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. Demand was made for that 27% and the defendant’s denied the plaintiffs that avenue of recovery. The second avenue was cancelation of the Investment Notes if Tak Investments, LLC and associated companies would enter into a construction contract with the Spirit Construction, Inc., a Van Den Heuvel family company, in the amount of $315 million. No such contract was ever consummated. All of the above having been said, that leaves the parties hereto with simply the Notes which currently provide for outstanding principal and interest in the amount of $37,028,423.00. The Notes also contemplate payment of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s respectfully request judgment in that amount and an award of attorney’s fees. Finally, in defense of the plaintiff’s allegations, Sharad Tak and Tak Investments, LLC take the position that the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement make no sense, that they were issued favorably toward Tak and his companies in that he has testified that the Notes were meant to be vehicles so that his company could borrow against them. His explanations make no sense such that the only credible interpretation of the contract is that proffered by the plaintiffs such that the Notes must be enforced.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Are the Promissory Notes issued validly executed?
Short Answer: Yes.

2. Was consideration given for the Notes?
Short answer: Yes.

3. How much is currently due under the Notes?
Short answer: $37,028,423.00 plus attorney’s fees.

4. Election of Remedies. Note, the plaintiffs seek a money judgment and hereby elect that as their requested remedy herein.

WITNESSES EXPECTED TO TESTIFY

1. Ronald Van Den Heuvel
2303 West Dauphin Road
DePere, WI 54115

2. Sharad Tak
3101 South Ocean Drive
Hollywood, FL

3. Steven Van Den Heuvel
3131 Market Street
Green Bay, WI 54304

4. David Van Den Heuvel
3131 Market Street
Green Bay, WI 54304

5. Robert Cera c/o Greenwood State Bank
123 North Main Street
Lake Mills, WI 53551

6. William Bain
3131 Market Street
Green Bay, WI 54304

7. Records Custodian Associated Bank
330 East Kilbourn Avenue
Suite 200 Milwaukee, WI 53202

8. Edward Kolasinski
6760 Kawula Lane
Sobieski, WI 54171

Note: witnesses may be culled depending upon admissibility of documents.

BACKGROUND OF EXPERTS

Edward Kolasinski did some simple math to come up with the current damages amount. He is a Certified Public Accountant who was worked both as a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer and consultant. His curriculum vitae is attached hereto.

LIST OF EXHIBITS

See attached.

DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION OR PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPTS

The plaintiffs will offer the deposition testimony of Sharad Tak at pages 74-76; 81, 89 and 91, if necessary. Otherwise, all transcripts will be used in the normal course of cross- examination, refresh recollection, etc.

TIME TO TRY CASE

The plaintiffs anticipate it will take two to three days to try this matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The proposed Findings of Fact are submitted herewith. Dated this 13th day of September, 2017.

TERSCHAN, STEINLE, HODAN & GANZER, LTD. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
By: MICHAEL J. GANZER
STATE BAR NO. 1005631

  

PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

NOW COME the plaintiffs, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., by its attorneys, Terschan, Steinle, Hodan & Ganzer, Ltd., by Michael J. Ganzer, and pursuant to Civ. L. R. 16 (c)(1)(i), hereby submit the following Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

1. The plaintiff companies, Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp., are domiciled in the State of Wisconsin.

2. The principal of each of the four (4) plaintiff companies is Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel.

3. Defendant Tak Investments, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.

4. Defendant Sharad Tak is the managing member of Tak Investments, LLC.

5. In 2005, Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel and Sharad Tak commenced discussions about a business relationship between their respective companies which revolved around the purchase and construction of tissue mills, including an existing tissue mill in Oconto Falls, Wisconsin and other prospective mills to be built around the country.

6. Through the course of their dealings in 2005 and into 2006, the parties entered into several memoranda of understanding.

7. The memoranda included discussions of the purchase of the Oconto Falls tissue mill and funding for that purchase by a Goldman Sachs consortium for approximately $84 million.

8. A short time before the closing, which occurred on April 16, 2007, the prospective funding from Goldman Sachs was reduced from $84 million to $65 million.

9. In order to continue with the transaction and to satisfy various debt holders to a reduced level so as to ensure that the transaction would move forward, the plaintiff companies agreed to be responsible for various debts of the seller, Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., and defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak agreed to the issuance of four (4) Notes in the amount of $16,400,000.00.

10. In addition to the foregoing, the parties had previously entered into a Sales & Marketing Agreement by and between Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s companies and ST Paper, Inc., the company which ultimately owned the tissue mill after closing.

11. In support of the four (4) Promissory Notes, the parties agreed to and executed a Final Business Terms Agreement regarding the prospect of business between the parties on those Notes.

12. In addition to the foregoing, at closing, plaintiff Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. was issued Notes by ST Paper, which is owned by Tak Investments, LLC, deemed subordinated notes and referred to by the parties as “Seller Notes”, in the approximate amount of $30,589,000.00.

13. The Final Business Terms Agreement supporting the four (4) Notes herein, termed the “Investment Notes”, called for those Notes to be canceled in the event the parties entered into a contract with Spirit Construction, Inc. for the building of tissue mills in the amount of $315 million.

14. The construction of those prospective paper mills was never consummated. No agreements were reached with Spirit Construction for the $315 million construction contracts.

15. The Final Business Terms Agreement also provided that the Notes could be canceled and the plaintiff companies would receive a 27% interest in Tak Investments, LLC. 16. The plaintiff companies made due demand for issuance of the 27% by Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak. They refused and failed to deliver the 27%.

17. Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak took the position that the Notes could not be canceled.

18. Since the defendants failed to offer 27% of its interest in Tak Investments, LLC and since Spirit Construction never entered into a $315 million contract with Tak Investments, LLC or any of the Tak related companies, the plaintiffs sought enforcement of the Notes themselves.

19. Defendants Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak received consideration for the issuance of the four (4) Promissory Notes.

20. The four (4) Promissory Notes were issued as the result of a funding gap when defendant, Tak Investments, LLC purchased the mill from the plaintiff companies. Despite due demand having been made, defendant Tak Investments, LLC and Sharad Tak have failed and refused to honor their Notes.

21. The plaintiff companies hold all of those Notes, though proceeds of the Notes have been pledged to various parties.

22. The only Note that was assigned outright was assigned to William Bain, who later returned the Note to the plaintiffs.

23. The plaintiffs have pledged proceeds from those Notes as collateral to Associated Bank and VHC Inc.

24. The Notes held by the plaintiff companies are valid and enforceable.

25. Sharad Tak, the managing member of defendant Tak Investments, LLC, has testified that the Notes were for the benefit of his company so that he could obtain financing for his company and as a line of credit.

26. The testimony of Sharad Tak regarding the purpose of the Notes and Final Business Terms Agreement makes no commercial sense.

27. The Notes remain unpaid and there is currently due and owing on those Notes as of September 1, 2017 the principal and interest amount of $37,028,423.00.

28. According to the terms of the Notes themselves, the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees for having to enforce the Notes.

  • September 13, 2017 Exhibit & Witness List By by All Plaintiffs,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

______________________________

According to the 12/01/07 issue of The Washingtonian, ‘Living the American Dream,’ by Madhu Jain:

Mahinder Tak, a radiation oncologist and retired US Army colonel, is another player on Washington’s cultural scene. Her home in a wooded area in Bethesda, where she lives with her entrepreneur husband, Sharad, houses arguably the largest personal collection of modern and contemporary Indian art in the United States. Last year Art & Antiques magazine listed her among the top 100 collectors of art in the country.

Sharad Tak, the entrepreneur who lives in Bethesda, was the pioneer. In 1974, he lobbied for Indian-Americans to be considered minorities, enabling them to take advantage of incentives given to minority-owned businesses.

Tak’s company, ST Systems Corporation, provided programming and systems integration to agencies including NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration. He brought in other Indian-Americans to work with him, including Frank Islam[.]

Hillary Clinton fundraiser at Mahinder & Sharad Tak residence

______________________________

 

  • September 13, 2017 Defendants’ Pretrial Report,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL REPORT

Defendants Tak Investments, LLC (“Tak Investments”) and Sharad Tak (“Tak”), by and through their attorneys, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., submit the following pretrial report pursuant to Civil L.R. 16(c):

I. Short Summary of Facts, Claims and Defenses.

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 30, 2014, seeking specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement’s provision requiring a transfer of a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs upon the Plaintiffs’ deeming cancelled four Investment Notes made by Tak Investments, seven years earlier, on April 16, 2007. This action is the second Plaintiffs have filed in this Court seeking this relief. The Court dismissed the prior suit, Case No. 12-C-1305.

With their now Amended Complaint here, Plaintiffs seek relief under two mutually contradictory theories. First, they seek enforcement of the Investment Notes themselves against Tak Investments, asking between $30 million and $37 million in damages. That assumes the notes have not been cancelled. They also again seek specific performance of the Final Business Terms Agreement by Tak, requesting that Tak personally transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to the Plaintiffs. That assumes the notes have been deemed cancelled. It also assumes Tak owns an interest that can be transferred.

The Defendants assert a series of factual and legal defenses to the Plaintiffs’ claims. In its motion for summary judgment, Tak Investments contended that the claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes are barred by the statute of limitations and that the Investment Notes were without consideration. Mr. Tak was only recently made a party to this action. He filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the election of remedies doctrine, as well as a motion for summary judgment on the basis that he has no ownership interest in Tak Investments, precluding him from being able to transfer any interest in Tak Investments. Beyond these issues, which will be re-presented at trial, discovery has now uncovered that at least two third parties are in possession of the Investment Notes. Specifically, documents produced by Nicolet National Bank indicate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 was assigned to Baylake Bank and remains assigned to Nicolet Bank as a result of the merger of Nicolet Bank and Baylake Bank. In addition, documents produced by Associated Bank demonstrate that the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 was assigned to Associated Bank. This evidence defeats the Plaintiffs’ claims for enforcement of the Investment Notes as well as the equitable claim for enforcement of the Final Business Terms Agreement against Mr. Tak.

II. Prior Decisions/Judicial Analysis.

The Court has entered at least three substantive decisions and orders prior to the trial that begins on Monday: a summary judgment decision dismissing the 2012 Complaint and a summary judgment decision dismissing, in part, the 2014 Complaint and giving rise to the Amended Complaint that will be the basis of trial. In addition, the Court has denied Tak Investments’ section 1292(b) motion for permissive appeal based on the second summary judgment decision. In the course of these decisions, the Court has reached a series of, at the least, informal conclusions about the claims. It is not necessary to engage in a discussion about whether or not they form part of the “law of the case” because their relevance is readily apparent. The defendants replicate them here without advocacy:

On the purpose and effect of the Investment Notes:

In light of these indemnification provisions [binding the Plaintiffs], it is evident that the parties to the Final Agreement did not intend the notes to function as traditional promissory notes. The payee, OFTI, effectively promised that it would never seek to collect the $16,400,000. Instead, it appears that the notes functioned as an incentive for Tak to consummate Phase 2 Financing and enter into an additional contract worth over $315,000,000. Paragraph 2(H) stated that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing on or before the tenth anniversary of the notes, the Notes would be deemed cancelled. In addition, ¶ 2(G) provided that if Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing after the notes had been cancelled and the 27% share had been transferred, OFTI would return the 27% share to Tak. Thus, the notes provided Tak an incentive to consummate Phase 2 Financing quickly. If Tak consummated Phase 2 Financing before the third anniversary of the notes, Tak would not be required to transfer a 27% share to OFTI. If OFTI deemed the notes cancelled after the third anniversary, Tak would suffer the 27% loss until it consummated Phase 2 Financing.

Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4, Apr. 28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).

On the effect of the assignment of one or more of the Notes:

Accordingly, the Court concludes that because [Ron] Van Den Heuvel assigned [even] one of the four Investment Notes to [Bill] Bain, OFTI lacked authority to deem all four notes cancelled on April 20, 2010. As a result, OFTI could not satisfy the condition precedent required to trigger the ownership transfer outline in ¶ 2(G) of the Final Agreement at that time. There is also no evidence that Bain properly assigned his interest in the note back to [Ron] Van Den Heuvel at any subsequent time. OFTI has therefore failed to meet its burden at summary judgment, and Tak is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on OFTI’s contract claim.

Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p.14, Apr.28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).

On the significance of the indemnity provisions to which the Plaintiffs agreed:

Paragraph 2(G) provided that through the third anniversary of the notes, OFTI agreed to pay any payments due for interest or principal as required by the notes. OFTI also agreed to indemnify Tak and hold it harmless against any “damages, losses, deficiencies, actions, demands, judgments, fines, fees, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, of or against Investments [Tak]” resulting from OFTI’s failure [to] make such payments. This indemnification included claims made against Tak by any future holder of the notes. (Id.) Paragraph 2(I) provided that OFTI agreed to indemnity Tak against all claims to enforce the notes brought by OFTI or future holders, “other than the enforcement of the pledge described above,” presumably referring to the 27% ownership transfer provision. Paragraph 2(I) did not contain a termination date for this indemnification.

Order on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 3, Apr. 28, 2014 (Case No. 12-C-1305, ECF No. 37.).

On the transfer of ownership interests:

The Plaintiffs protest that LLCs have, under state law, all kinds of rights to convey interests and dispose of property. That, of course, is true. But none of the statutory provisions Plaintiffs cite stands for the principle that an LLC may convey something it does not possess, namely, an ownership interest in itself.

Decision and Order, p. 3, Dec. 2, 2016 (ECF No. 40.).

On the status of pending legal issues:

It is possible that Plaintiffs do not have a viable claim against Tak Investments for the breach of the promissory notes, either because the amended claim does not relate back to the original complaint and is thus barred by the statute of limitations or because the claim is incompatible with Plaintiffs’ principal claim that the notes were canceled. Plaintiffs’ claims largely survived at summary judgment and at the amended pleading stage because the record required further development. I was unable to conclude at summary judgment that judgment should be entered in the Defendants’ favor on the entire case due to an underdeveloped record. (ECF No. 40 at 7.) I allowed Plaintiffs’ amended claim against Tak Investments to proceed because I could not conclude at the pleading stage that such a claim would necessarily be futile. (ECF No. 48 at 8.) The upcoming bench trial provides an opportunity to potentially resolve both of Plaintiffs’ claims or, at the very least, produce a more developed and clear record for any subsequent litigation. There is no clear and controlling question of law for the Court of Appeals to resolve that would speed up this case. The currently schedule trial will.

Order Denying Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal, p. 4, June 21, 2017 (ECF No. 57.).

III. Statement of the Issues.

A. Whether the Investment Notes are supported by consideration.

B. Whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ attempt to enforce the Investment Notes against Tak Investments.

C. Whether any of the Investment Notes are assigned to third parties, precluding their enforcement.

D. Whether Sharad Tak possesses any membership units of Tak Investments.

E. The extent of any damages resulting from any breach of the Investment Notes.

IV. The Name and Address of Any Witnesses Expected to Testify.

1. Sharad Tak
c/o Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.
200 S. Washington St., Ste 100
Green Bay, WI  54301

2. Brad Hutjens
Nicolet National Bank111
North Washington Street
Green Bay, WI 54301

3. Ed Kolasinski
EARTH, LLC
2107 American Blvd.
De Pere, WI 54115

4. Ronald Van Den Heuvel
2303 Lost Dauphin Road
De Pere, WI 54115

5. David Van Den Heuvel
VHC, Inc.
3909 Holmgren Way
Green Bay, WI  54304

The defense reserves the right to call rebuttal witnesses who have not been identified above, as well as any witness identified by Plaintiffs. V. Background of All Expert Witnesses. Defendants do not anticipate calling any expert witnesses. VI. Defendants’ Listed Exhibits. Defendants will file a separate Exhibit List. While the parties have conferred regarding the exhibits to be offered at trial and will stipulate to the admissibility of exhibits (with exceptions), the Defendants anticipate at least one evidentiary issue with respect to the exhibits. The four Investment Notes are central to the litigation. The Defendants contend that they were given without consideration, that the Plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary damage as a result of their issuance, that they have been deemed cancelled and, finally, that one or more of the notes has been assigned to other parties, depriving the Plaintiffs of the ability to try to enforce them. Accordingly, the Defendants will request that the Plaintiffs produce the original Investment Notes for trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 1002.

VII. Deposition Designations.

Defendants do not intend to offer any testimony through portions of transcripts or other recordings or depositions to be read into the record or played at trial as substantive evidence.

VIII. Estimated Time Needed to Try the Case.

Defendants estimate that the trial in this matter will take no more than two days. This matter is scheduled for a trial to the Court.

IX. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

A. Findings of Fact

1. On April 16, 2007, Tak Investments, Tak and Plaintiffs Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc., Tissue Products Technology Corp., and Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel entered into a Final Business Terms Agreement.

2. Paragraph 2G of the Final Business Terms Agreement provides that upon the deemed cancellation of the four investment notes by the OFTI Group, “the OFTI Group shall receive an undiluted 27 percent ownership interest of the highest class in investments and such ownership interest shall be above and beyond the ownership interest in Items 2.K of this agreement; provided however, if Phase II, as defined below, occurs after the transfer of ownership interest and prior to the tenth anniversary of the date of the investment notes, the OFTI Group shall return any ownership interest received from the investment notes.”

3. On the same day that the Final Business Terms Agreement was signed, Tak Investments made four notes totaling $16.4 Million in favor of Tissue Products Technology Corp. These are referred to by the parties as the “Investment Notes” and in the Final Business Terms Agreement.

4. Tak Investments, as maker of the Investment Notes, received nothing in exchange for making the Investment Notes. No money was paid to Tak Investments and no credit was given to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes.

5. On April 17, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to William Bain.

6. On April 24, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,000,000 to Associated Bank, N.A. to secure indebtedness of Partners Concepts Development, Inc.

7. On July 12, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $5,000,000 to VHC, Inc. for existing debt owed by Tissue Products Technology Corp., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. or Partners Concepts Development, Inc. to VHC, Inc.

8. On July 12, 2007, Tissue Products Technology Corp. assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $3,000,000 to VHC, Inc. for existing debt owed by Tissue Products Technology Corp., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. or Partners Concepts Development, Inc. to VHC, Inc.

9. On March 5, 2008, Tissue Products Technology Corp. and Tak Investments signed documents amending the Investment Notes to change the payee to Tissue Technology, LLC.

10. On March 12, 2008, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $650,000 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel as documented in Note No. 490474 dated March 12, 2008. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.

11. On June 30, 2008, Associated Bank charged off two loans to Partners Concepts Development, Inc., one in the amount of $517,630.60, and the other in the amount of $341,746.93. Associated Bank’s records indicate that the collateral for these loans was a note from Tak Investments valued at “$0.”

12. On December 28, 2009, Ronald Van Den Heuvel, through Tissue Technology, LLC, assigned the Investment Note in the amount of $4,400,000 to Baylake Bank. This assignment was collateral for a $702,485.83 loan from Baylake Bank to Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Nature’s Choice Tissue, LLC as documented in Note No. 513406 dated December 24, 2009. The assignment was accepted by Baylake Bank as collateral to secure all debts and obligations of Tissue Technology, LLC and Ronald Van Den Heuvel.

13. Nicolet National Bank, as a result of a merger with Baylake Bank, holds the $4,400,000 Investment Note.

14. Records kept by the Plaintiffs concerning the Investment Notes reflect the assignment of the Investment Notes to VHC, Inc. and Associated Bank.

15. Plaintiffs, through Ronald Van Den Heuvel and counsel, have repeatedly notified the Defendants of the fact they have deemed the Investment Notes cancelled.

B. Conclusions of Law

1. The Investment Notes are Void for Lack of Consideration. For a contract to be valid under Wisconsin law, it must be supported by consideration. This includes the conferral of value in exchange for the note. In making the notes, there was no benefit conferred on Tak Investments. No money was paid to Tak Investments as a result of it making the notes, and no credit extended. Similarly, there was nothing done by Tissue Products Technology Corp. to its detriment as a result of Tak Investments making the notes. As the Investments Notes were not supported by consideration, they are void and unenforceable.

2. The Statute of Limitations Bars Plaintiffs’ Claim to Enforce the Investment Notes. The Investment Notes matured on April 16, 2010. Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the Investment Notes accrued on that date for purposes of the applicable six-year statute of limitations, Wis. Stat. § 893.43. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserting claims for breach of the Investment Notes was not filed until April 3, 2017. Since this is beyond the six-year period of the statute of limitations, and these claims do not relate back to the Complaint filed on September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs’ claims are barred. That Complaint nowhere sought the enforcement of the Investment Notes, nor did it implicate Sharad Tak personally. 3. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Enforce the Investment Notes Assigned to Third Parties. Since all of the Investment Notes have been, and remain, assigned to third parties, Plaintiffs are without standing to enforce the Investment Notes. The assignment of any one note precludes their enforcement.

4. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak is Impossible. Because he does not possess any units in Tak Investments, Mr. Tak cannot be compelled to transfer a 27 percent interest in Tak Investments to Plaintiffs. 5. The Specific Performance Sought Against Sharad Tak Cannot Be Ordered Given the Plaintiffs’ Failure to Satisfy a Condition Precedent. The assignment to third parties of the Investment Notes precludes the Plaintiffs from being capable of deeming the Investment Notes cancelled so as to require Mr. Tak to transfer the 27 percent interest in Tak Investments.

6.The Election of Remedies Doctrine Precludes the Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their mutually-inconsistent claims. “A party to a contract cannot both affirm and disaffirm it to suit the party’s purposes at different times. Rather, a party must elect to treat it either as void or as valid and then stand by that election.” 1 Jay E. Grenig, Wisconsin Pleading and Practice § 7.6 (5th ed. 2017). Plaintiffs’ claim for enforcement of the Investment Notes is inconsistent with, “and repugnant to, another certain state of facts relied on as the basis of another remedy,” Jarosch v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 837 F. Supp.2d 980, 1017 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (quoting Bank of Commerce v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, 39 Wis. 2d 30, 38, 158 N.W.2d 350 (1968)), namely, Plaintiffs’ deeming the Investment Notes cancelled.

Dated this 13th day of September, 2017.

GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.
By: Jonathan T. Smies
State Bar No. 1045422

  • September 13, 2017 TAK Investments LLC Exhibit & Witness List,  U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak

09/14/17 : As published in the Late October 2017 Oneida Times:

Dear Chairman Hill:

Shekóli. On June 21, 2017, members of [the Oneida Indian Nation of New York / OINNY] Council and I accepted an invitation from [former Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Business Committee Chair] Cristina Danforth, through our respective attorneys, to meet in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to longstanding issues between us. At [Cristina Danforth’s] request, we travelled to Detroit with the intent and authority to reach an understanding among our governments, and to form a framework to address future issues that may arise between us.

Upon arriving at the meeting, we were surprised to discover that [Tina Danforth] did not show up to the meeting. Without affording us the courtesy of any advance notice, there were representatives who lacked authority to make any agreements to reach a resolution, and who were prepared only to reassert your position and only request concessions from us. The meeting was therefore futile. Sending delegates who lack authority to enter an agreement, after your attorney assured us that she would be present to negotiate in good faith, was just another example of how your tribe has approached dealings with us throughout the years.

After the meeting, your tribe resumed its efforts to obfuscate and undermine our governmental authority in New York, by again creating confusion as to your presence here. Your tribe’s application to cancel our federally-registered trademarks, which we sought more than a decade ago, are a continuation of your effort to misappropriate the historic name and tribal identity of the Oneida Indian Nation. We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent to Chairwoman Danforth, outlining these facts. Your tribe purchased land within our reservation and has asserted a right to govern it, even though the DOI does not recognize it. In 1993, your tribe created a new entitity called the “Oneida Preservation Society” to impersonate the Oneida Nation of New York. You sent thousands of mailings and broadcasting advertisements in central New York addressing political/legal land claims issues. When we sued to stop the impersonation, the Vice Chair of your tribe entered into a court-ordered consent decree barring efforts to create future confusion. Your tribe has paid dissidents to challenge our government and has urged DOI to withdraw recognition of the government. You even claimed a share of our casino profits. After failing at that effort, you underwrote the cost of a lawsuit to close our Oneida Nation casino.

Most recently, without public notice – and without any notice to us – your tribe manipulated the federal process for recognizing Indian nations by seeking to change its name from “Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin” to “Oneida Nation.” That change dropped all words that distinguished the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin from the Oneida Nation in New York. The Federal Register states that Larry Roberts, a member of (and former lawyer for) the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, was the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs who authorized publication of the revised list. Even before approving the name-change request, the BIA’s Midwest Regional Office told your tribe that “changing the name will cause confustion” and that “compounding the difficulty will be the name of the tribe in state of New York, called the ‘Oneida Nation of New York.” The BIA warned that “[w]hile the two names would not be exactly the same they are close enough that they will undoubtedly be confused more often than they are now.” Your tribe did not dispute any of this, and, in fact, admitted that its name change may result in confusion with the Oneida Nation of New York.”

In justifying its name change, the Wisconsin tribe told the BIA that the name change is “more responsive to the Tribe’s governmental status.” That was revealing. It showed that the name change is intended to claim the Oneida Nation’s root name as part of a false claim to be the one, true Oneida Nation. As a result, you are attempting to mislead the DOI to portray us as a subset or offshoot of an alternate Oneida Nation in Wisconsin, which creates unnecessary confusion and conflict. Your tribe doesn’t seem to be able to just live with us in peace. In fact, your tribe already has started exploiting the new name in a commercial setting that will cause confusion. You attempted to create a national golf event called the “Oneida LPGA Classic,” even though we had prior use and reputation as a premier national golf destination in Indian country.

Based upon this history, as detailed more fully in the attached letter, we do not have any confidence in your tribe’s willingness to conduct itself in an appropriate government-to-government manner, and to confer in good faith on matters of tribal interest. We must protect our Nation’s interests from your Tribe’s unwarranted
aggression.
 Your tribe’s conduct has compelled us to file a lawsuit in federal court to reverse this injustice, and to restore us to the proper standing. Accordingly, we are enclosing a copy of the lawsuit that details the violations.

N∧ ki? wa,

Ray Halbritter
[OINNY] Representative

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


09/18/17 : PRESS RELEASE

Members of Oneida Nation of WI electorate file Petition to retain CA law firm Gross & Klein LLP as legal representation for General Tribal Council

Wisconsin tribe members seek to recover losses & damages from ‘green’ fraud schemes

Oneida, WI  –  On Monday, September 18, 2017, at 8:00 a.m., enrollees of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin (ONWI) delivered to the ONWI Business Committee (OBC) Secretary’s Office a Petition signed by 124 members of the General Tribal Council (GTC – the Tribe’s governing body) in order to convene a special GTC meeting to hear a presentation from Gross & Klein LLP and to vote on retaining the California law firm’s services with the aim of recovering millions of dollars in losses and damages from ‘green energy’ fraud schemes.

On July 17, 2017, the ONWI GTC adopted new requirements for the OBC’s processing of GTC petitions and the scheduling of GTC meetings: “General Tribal Council petitions submitted to the Tribal Secretary’s Office shall be processed and a General Tribal Council meeting be convened within 120 days of receipt by the Tribal Secretary’s Office.”

On June 28, 2017, ONWI-chartered Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (OSGC) and its Delaware-registered subsidiary, Green Bay Renewable Energy LLC (GBRE), filed an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court (Case #17-2341) following U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach’s June 6, 2017 Order granting the dismissal of OSGC & GBRE’s December 23, 2016, lawsuit against the City of Green Bay in the Eastern District of WI (Case #16-C-1700). Chief Judge GriesbachAugust 24, 2017 Order stated, “Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this appeal is SUSPENDED pending further court order.”

OSGC & GBRE’s lawsuit stems from the City’s Common Council’s 2012 vote to rescind a Conditional Use Permit for OSGC to build a facility purported to safely and profitably convert trash to electricity and other products. Some ONWI members contend that the endeavor was another version of long-time OSGC-associate and Lawrence / De Pere, WI, resident Ron Van Den Heuvel’s international “Green Box Investment Fraud Scheme” currently under investigation by the Brown County Sheriff’s Office and five federal agencies.

OSGC & GBRE are represented by the Wisconsin law firm of Godfrey & Kahn S.C., which successfully sued Green Box NA Green Bay LLC for breach of contract on behalf of individual investor Dr. Marco Araujo (Brown Co. Case # 13-CV-463), and prevailed on appeal (WI Court of Appeals, District III, Appeal # 2014AP2846).

Araujo was later joined in another lawsuit against Green Box NA Green Bay LLC (Brown Co. Case #15-CV-769) with GBNAGB creditors as Co-Plaintiffs, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. (WEDC). From 2009 to 2011 the WI Dept. of Commerce and quasi-public WEDC loaned $1.2 million to Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, $2 million to OSGC, and another $2 million loan to OSGC subsidiary Oneida Energy, Inc. 

In July 2015, the Brown County WI Sheriff’s Office issued Search Warrants for Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, and GBNAGB subsequently filed bankruptcy in April 2016 (USBC, Eastern WI, Docket #16-24179).

Ron Van Den Heuvel and his wife, Kelly Van Den Heuvel, also face federal bank fraud charges for schemes using straw borrowers (USDC, Eastern WI, Docket # 16-CR-64). Co-conspirator Paul Piikkila, a former loan officer and former Interim Director of the Green Detroit Regional Centers EB-5 Immigrant Investor program regarding another Green Box NA endeavor in Michigan, has already pled guilty for his role.

Additional counts were added regarding fraudulent loan applications by Ron’s son-in-law / employee using two vehicles owned by Green Box NA parent-company Reclamation Technology Systems (RTS), formerly known as Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technologies HQ LLC (EARTH, previously known as Nature’s Choice Tissue Corp., a different entity than either Nature’s Way Tisue Corp. – in which OSGC was Ron’s partner – and a different company than the ‘other EARTH,’ Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ LLC, which was administratively dissolved on September 16, 2017). RTS is currently under the management of Stephen A. Smith of Chicago-based Glenarbor LLC / Glenarbor Partners Inc.

Gross & Klein LLP has focus areas in representing Native American tribes and in complex civil litigation and cases involving antitrust and trade law, as well as in cases involving environmental and natural resource issues.

“General Tribal Council will have an opportunity to select its own legal representation, as guaranteed by the ONWI Constitution, and have attorneys advocate for the interests and rights of the full ONWI membership. In order to have someone look out for all of us, GTC needs to hire legal representation which isn’t related to any of us,” said petition organizer Leah Sue Dodge.

 

 


09/18-19/17 : September 18-19, 2017 Court Trial Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203,  Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak


09/19/17 : September 19, 2017 Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CV-1261,  United States Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]  v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel & Green Box NA Detroit LLC

COMPLAINT

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

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

RONALD H. VAN DEN HEUVEL

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

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

Background

3.  At all times material to this indictment:

a.  Defendant Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel purported to be a businessman in De Pere, Wisconsin. Earlier in his career, Van Den Heuvel had some success in the recycling and paper-making industry. By the end of 2010, however, Van Den Heuvel did not own or control any facilities that generated any significant revenue. Around then, Van Den Heuvel began promoting his “Green Box” business plan to obtain funds in the scheme.

b.  As represented by Van Den Heuvel, the Green Box business plan was to purchase the equipment and facilities necessary to employ proprietary processes that could convert solid waste into consumer products and energy, without any wastewater discharge or landfilling of byproducts.

c.  As part of his scheme, Van Den Heuvel formed and controlled numerous business entities, including ones identified below, that he used interchangeably for business and personal purposes.

d.  Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH”) was the operating name of Everett Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC, which Van Den Heuvel formed as a Wisconsin limited liability corporation. Van Den Heuvel represented EARTH as the holding company for his other entities.

e.  Green Box NA, LLC (“Green Box NA”) is a Wisconsin limited liability corporation that Van Den Heuvel formed and controlled.

f.  Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC (“Green Box-Green Bay”) was a Wisconsin limited liability corporation that Van Den Heuvel formed and represented as pursuing the Green Box business plan in De Pere, Wisconsin.

g.  Green Box NA Detroit, LLC (“Green Box-Detroit”) was a Michigan limited liability corporation that Van Den Heuvel formed and represented as pursuing a Green Box operation in Detroit, Michigan, that would sort waste and create fuel products.

The Scheme

Van Den Heuvel’s scheme was essentially as follows:

4.  Beginning by at least March 8, 2011, and continuing through at least August 2015, Van Den Heuvel obtained funds from lenders and investors under materially false pretenses, representations, and promises, including the following:

a.  Van Den Heuvel represented and promised that he would use, and had used, the lenders’ and investors’ funds to advance the Green Box operations. In many instances, Van Den Heuvel entered into agreements with lenders and investors that dictated specific uses for the funds, such as the purchase of particular equipment.

b.  Van Den Heuvel produced false financial statements that grossly inflated his personal wealth and his companies’ assets, including its intellectual property.

c.  Van Den Heuvel promised potential investors or lenders that their funding would allow him to acquire critical equipment and begin full-time Green Box operations quickly.

d.  Van Den Heuvel falsely claimed to have entered into agreements with major companies when, in truth, Van Den Heuvel never had such agreements or they had been terminated.

e.  Van Den Heuvel falsely represented that particular business entities had title and control of property where Green Box operations would occur when, in fact, those entities lacked title and control of the property.

f.  Van Den Heuvel provided security interests in the same equipment to multiple investors and lenders, misleading them about the existence and value of their security interests.

5.  Soon after receiving funds from lenders or investors, Van Den Heuvel diverted significant portions of the funds to purposes that did not advance the Green Box business plan, let alone the specific uses dictated in funding agreements. In the course of diverting the funding, and to conceal the diversion:

a.  Van Den Heuvel opened numerous bank accounts at different financial institutions and in different business entities’ names.

b.  Van Den Heuvel made multiple transfers of the funds between the bank accounts.

c.  Van Den Heuvel converted large amounts of investors’ and lenders’ funds to cash.

d.  Van Den Heuvel used significant amounts of the lenders and investors’ funds to pay personal expenses, creditors, and legal obligations that were unrelated to the Green Box business plan.

e.  Van Den Heuvel also used substantial amounts of the lenders’ and investors’ funds to further promote the scheme. For example, Van Den Heuvel paid employees and consultants to prepare Green Box promotional materials, valuations, and financial statements that were based upon misleading assumptions Van Den Heuvel provided. Van Den Heuvel used those materials to obtain additional loans and investments.

6.  As part of the scheme, Van Den Heuvel took steps to conceal how he had misused lenders’ and investors’ funds, lull lenders and investors into a false sense of security, and deter them from taking action to recoup their funds. Such steps included the following:

a.  Van Den Heuvel claimed that new investments of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars were imminent, and that he would use those new investments to pay earlier lenders and investors.

b.  Van Den Heuvel falsely represented to lenders and investors that their funds had been used for the intended purposes.

c.  When lenders or investors questioned why the Green Box operations were not proceeding, Van Den Heuvel provided false excuses and did not reveal that he had diverted much of the funding. …

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

09/20/17 : September 20, 2017 U.S. Dept. of Justice Press Release,
‘De Pere Businessman Indicted for $9 Million Green Energy Fraud’

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

From 2011 through 2015, Ronald Van Den Heuvel was a businessman in the Green Bay area promoting his Green Box process. The indictment alleges that Van Den Heuvel claimed that the Green Box process could turn post-consumer waste from sources like fast food restaurants completely into usable consumer products and energy. Van Den Heuvel obtained over $9 million in loans and investments, having falsely pledged to use the funds for Green Box operations. Van Den Heuvel spent much of the funds to pay old debts and personal expenses, including a new Cadillac Escalade, pricey Green Bay Packers tickets, and court-ordered support payments to his ex-wife.

As alleged in the indictment, Van Den Heuvel defrauded a range of victims, including individual acquaintances, the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), a Canadian private investment firm, and Chinese investors in the EB-5 immigrant investor program. In October 2011, the WEDC provided Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC, one of Van Den Heuvel’s companies, with a loan of $1,116,000. The funds were to be used solely to purchase certain equipment to allow for the creation of 116 jobs in a Green Box operation in De Pere, Wisconsin. Instead, Van Den Heuvel diverted large amounts of WEDC funding to his own ends and then submitted false certifications claiming to have spent the funds properly. In addition, in January 2012, the WEDC awarded Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC with a $95,500 grant to reimburse the company for the costs of training new workers. To draw the grant funds, Van Den Heuvel submitted fraudulent time records for training that never happened.

Separately, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced today that it filed a civil lawsuit against Van Den Heuvel and Green Box Detroit, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The SEC alleges that Van Den Heuvel violated securities laws by defrauding the Canadian investment firm and EB-5 investors. The case is United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Detroit, LLC, Case No. 17-CV-1261.

Counts One to Ten of the indictment charge Van Den Heuvel with executing the scheme to defraud by use of interstate wire communications, in violation of Title 18, United States Code § 1343. On each of these counts, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for not more than twenty years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both, plus a mandatory $100 special assessment and a period of supervised release not to exceed three years.

Counts Eleven through Fourteen charge Van Den Heuvel with unlawful financial transactions involving the ill-gotten gains, in violation of Title 18, United States Code § 1957. On each of these counts, a convicted defendant would face imprisonment for not more than 5 years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both, plus the mandatory $100 special assessment and a term of supervised release not to exceed three years.

The criminal case leading to the indictment is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The case will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Mel S. Johnson, Matthew D. Krueger, and Rebecca L. Taibleson.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

#####
For Additional Information Contact: Public Information Officer Dean Puschnig 414-297-1700

 

 


09/21/17 : FOX 11 WLUK – Search begins for record of human remains in Green Bay’s 9/11 memorial

 

      


09/22/17 :  USA TODAY / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Matthew Krueger nominated by President Trump to be U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of Wisconsin


09/27/17 :
September 27, 2017 ONWI Business Committee / OBC Regular Meeting Agenda 

Regarding the September 12, 2017 Letter from Oneida Gaming Commission / OGC Exec. Dir. Tamara VanSchyndel to Records Clerk Lee Cornelius about the OGC’s 09/07/17 acceptance of recently ‘elected’ Commissioner Cristina Danforth’s RESIGNATION:

IX. NEW BUSINESS

A. Post one (1) vacancy on Oneida Gaming Commission with a term end date of 8/31/22

Requestor Kathleen Metoxen, Records Tech II/BC Support Office
Sponsor: Lisa Summers, Secretary

According to the ONWI Gaming Ordinance 501.6-13:

501.6-13: Vacancies. Any vacancy in an unexpired term of office, however caused, must be filled by appointment by the Oneida Business Committee of a person qualified pursuant to sections 501.6-5 and 501.6-6 pursuant to the Comprehensive Policy Goveringing Board, Committees and Commissions.

 

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

 

Mr. Lebell informs the court that Ronald Van Den Heuvel and the government have a tentative agreement on this case. The parties have scheduled a change of plea hearing with the clerk for October 10. Mr. LeBell states that the jury instructions and motions in limine were due today and that the final pretrial can be removed from the court’s calendar.

The Court holds the deadline for jury instructions and motions in limine in abeyance.

Mr. Johnson asks that the final pretrial and jury trial remain on the court’s calendar until the plea is entered. The Court states that the case will remain on the trial calendar. The final pretrial scheduled for October 6 is moved to the scheduled change of plea hearing date on October 10.

Mr. Sanders states that a guilty plea has been entered by Piikkila and he is awaiting sentencing.

Mr. Johnson states that the case against Kelly Van Den Heuvel may resolve as part of the agreement with Ronald Van Den Heuvel.

Mr. LeBell informs the court that they have discussed any concerns or conflicts regarding the plea agreement and the case against Kelly Van Den Heuvel.

The Court states it can inquire into the condition regarding Kelly Van Den Heuvel at the plea colloquy. The Court asks if it needs to address the objection to the order regarding grand jury materials.

Mr. Porter states that he has not seen the plea agreement for Ronald Van Den Heuvel. He agrees that the objection can be held in abeyance. Mr. Johnson states that the government will be filing a response by Friday.

The Court makes finding and excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act.

  • Change of Plea Hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, October 10, 2017 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 201, 125 S. Jefferson St., Green Bay, WI 54301 before Chief Judge William C. Griesbach.

09/29/17 : September 29, 2017 United States’ Response to Defendant Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s Objection to Order Denying Motion for Discovery of Grand Jury Materials, 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

[T]he defendant’s objection errs in claiming that the government has not “articulate[d] a theory of fraud” with respect to the KYHKGJ loan. The United States’ response [Doc 119]  and the evidence in discovery explain clearly the government’s theory that the KYHKGJ loan benefitted Ronald Van Den Heuvel by helping him satisfy his marital support obligations to his ex-wife [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] who was living in the property refinanced with the loan. The defendant simply disagrees with the government’s theory, which is precisely the purpose for a trial.

[T]he Magistrate Judge’s order requires the United States to disclose grand jury transcripts 14 days before trial. That is two weeks earlier than the United States customarily provides the transcripts. The defendant thus is already receiving an accommodation, and she has not shown a need for any further benefit.

For the reasons given above and those stated in the United States’ prior response, the defendant’s motion should be denied.

  

  

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

10/03/17 : October 3, 2017 Second Renewed Motion of Ability Insurance Company for Relief from Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d) or, In the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11,  Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

7. Debtor [Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC] did not successfully “roll up” the Plan by September 30, 2017. …

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

A. Debtor has failed to facilitate the “roll up” within the time period allowed in the confirmed Plan.

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

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

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

9. Debtor’s failure to facilitate the “roll up” evidences the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.

10. Debtor has also failed to effectuate substantial consummation of its confirmed Plan.

11. Debtor is in material default with respect to its confirmed Plan.

12. Each of the above constitutes cause for dismissal of this action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112.


10/04/17 : October 4, 2017 Defendant Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel’s Plea Agreement, 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

See also:

•  September 20, 2016 Superseding Indictment, 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 Y. Van Den Heuvel

•  July 1, 2016 Paul Piikkila Plea Agreement, U.S. District Court, 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 Y. Van Den Heuvel


10/10/17 :  October 10, 2017 Change of Plea Hearing Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

 

Ron Van Den Heuvel & extended ripped-off family [click to enlarge]

 

Ron Van Den Heuvel, 63, [pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud] in federal court, with prosecutors agreeing to dismiss 18 other counts. Sentencing is set for Jan. 5.

Meanwhile, Van Den Heuvel also entered a not guilty plea on 14 new charges – 10 counts of wire fraud and four counts of unlawful financial transactions – that prosecutors filed last month. No trial date was set in that case.

Ron Van Den Heuvel faces up to five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine. Van Den Heuvel also agreed to pay restitution of $316,445.79.

Judge Griesbach clarified with Van Den Heuvel that the elements of the conspiracy count include that he knowingly entered into the conspiracy.

As for the newest case, prosecutors allege Van Den Heuvel raised more than $9 million from investors, including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., for his company, Green Box, but used some of the money on personal items, including a car and Packers tickets. If convicted of all 14 counts, he faces up 240 years in prison and more than $2.5 million in fines.

Assistant U.S. Attorney [Matthew] Krueger said prosecutors have more than 700,000 pages of evidence to turn over to the defense in the case, so no trial date was set. Instead, the parties return to court Dec. 13 for a status conference.

U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach accepted [Ron Van Den Heuvel’s] plea agreement and found Van Den Heuvel, 63, guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

The terms of the plea agreement will keep Van Den Heuvel out of jail until a Securities and Exchange Commission fraud case against him is resolved. The agreement calls for him to pay Horicon Bank $316,445 in restitution. The other 18 counts were dismissed but can be factored in at sentencing.

Prosecutors said Tuesday [the prison sentencing] range will be between 33 and 41 months, though Griesbach can ignore all guidelines and recommendations in deciding the sentence.

Van Den Heuvel will be sentenced at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 5 [2018]. …

[Judge] Griesbach told [Ron Van Den Heuvel] the court was “not going to play games” when it came to intent since intent is inherent in a conspiracy to defraud a bank. When Griesbach asked whether he was guilty of conspiring to commit bank fraud, Van Den Heuvel paused before answering, “Yes, sir.”

After accepting Van Den Heuvel’s guilty plea, Griesbach pivoted to the SEC’s 14-count complaint that Van Den Heuvel defrauded investors out of $9 million. The complaint includes 10 counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud by making false statements and four counts of conducting unlawful financial transactions.

Van Den Heuvel entered not guilty pleas to all 14 counts.

For each wire fraud charge, Van Den Heuvel faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The unlawful transactions charges each carry a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine equal to twice the value of the transactions in question.

The Press-Gazette link continues to inexplicably host a wildly misleading video suggesting that ‘Green Box is ready to emerge from bankruptcy,’ which is demonstrably false given that the October 3, 2017 Second Renewed Motion of Ability Insurance Company for Relief from Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(d) or, In the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11,  Green Box NA Green Bay LLC plainly states:

7. Debtor [Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC] did not successfully “roll up” the Plan by September 30, 2017.

9. Debtor’s failure to facilitate the “roll up” evidences the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation.

Soon after the Press-Gazette first published its phony claims about the Green Box Investment Fraud Scheme the failing newspaper issued the following Correction when Oneida Eye’s Publisher contacted them with facts DESTROYING THE GBPG’s LUDICROUS FRONT PAGE ‘FAKE NEWS’ CLAIM THAT GREEN BOX NA IS “READY TO EMERGE FROM BANKRUPTCY”:

PC Fibre Technology LLC has applied for a patent for a process for sorting and recycling food contaminated waste. A March 22 story about Green Box NA Green Bay’s bankruptcy recovery plan incorrectly reported the status of the patent.

Ya’ think?!

So why does Green Bay Press-Gazette Editor Robert Zizzo insist on continuing to publish falsehoods that seem designed to try to help Ron Van Den Heuvel’s fraud scheme duplicitously entice low-info or foreign victims?

Contact the Press-Gazette at 920-435-4411 or metro@greenbaypressgazette.com and ask Bob yourself.


10/11/17 : October 11, 2017 Motion for Leave to Dismiss Charges in Indictment Against Kelly Van Den Heuvel, 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


10/12/17 : October 12, 2017 Oneida Nation of Wisconsin / ONWI Brief on Motion to Clarify Burdern of Proof, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 16-CV-1217,  Oneida Nation  v.  Village of Hobart, Wisconsin


10/13/17 : October 13, 2017 U.S. Gov’t Opposition to Defendant McKelvy’s Motion to Continue, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398,  United States of America  v.  Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy

The government primarily objects because the victims and the public in general have a right to a speedy trial. The defendant has had more than adequate time to prepare for trial. The government has not opposed prior motions to continue the trial date because the defendant certainly needed a significant amount of time to prepare. However, two years is more than sufficient time to prepare in a case of this nature.

Secondarily, the government objects to the defendant’s motion because of the undue burden it would place on the victims of the defendant’s fraud scheme and other government witnesses. The government notes that almost all of the government’s witnesses, including the victims of this fraud scheme, live out of district. Making travel arrangements for all of those witnesses and victims to appear at trial has been a very challenging task.

Over the past year, the parties have engaged in extensive plea negotiations. In light of huge logistical undertaking required to produce these witnesses, the government gave the defendant a firm deadline of September 22, 2017 to accept the government’s final plea offer. The defendant rejected that offer and indicated that he wished to proceed to trial. As recently as a phone conversation between counsel on Tuesday, October 10, the defendant, through counsel, indicated that he planned to go forward with trial on November 13.

Since the deadline passed on September 22, the government has been making flight, hotel, and other travel arrangements for victims and other witnesses. Victims and other witnesses have been scheduling time off work, rearranging holiday travel plans, making child care arrangements, and canceling other commitments in order to appear at trial. To postpone the trial at this juncture would be a tremendous burden on the victims and other witnesses. Many plans they have made to accommodate the current trial schedule simply cannot be undone. Furthermore, the victims and other witnesses would have to take additional time off work and spend additional time rescheduling their lives in order to appear at whatever new trial date the Court ordered.


10/16/17 : October 16, 2017 Response by Defendant Wayde McKelvy to the Government’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for Continuance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398,  United States of America  v.  Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy 


10/17/17 : October 17, 2017 Order Granting Defendant Wayde McKelvy’s Motion for Continuance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 15-CR-398,  United States of America  v.  Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy 

 

The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. delayed a vote on a nearly $3 billion incentive package for Taiwanese manufacturer Foxconn until November after an unspecified problem was discovered with the deal board members were set to vote on Tuesday.

Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, declined to describe the problem but characterized it as a “nuclear bomb” that, had it not been addressed, would have resulted in a contract that “would not have protected taxpayers whatsoever.” …

“If WEDC has been secretive in the past with protecting taxpayers, they’re continuing that to the Nth degree,” Carpenter said.

 

FLASHBACK: At the September 9, 2015 Joint Legislative Affairs Committee, Fmr. WEDC Board Member & WI State Sen. Julie Lassa testified:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________

ORDER

These consolidated cases are calendared for a Special Session commencing on August 15, 2016, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On May 31, 2016, petitioners filed a motion for leave to serve subpoena and notice of deposition of non-party Schenck, S.C. pursuant to Tax Court Rule 74(c)(2)(B). Attached to the motion, petitioners included the notice of deposition with proof of service. The Court granted petitioners’ motion on June 7, 2016.

Upon due consideration, it is

ORDERED that the deposition of Schenck, S.C. shall take place on June 30, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the offices of petitioners’ counsel,  One Law Group, S.C. [formerly doing business as Stellpflug Law, S.C.], 444 Reid Street, Suite 200, DePere, Wisconsin 54115.

It is further

ORDERED that in addition to the usual service, the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on: Dennis J. Langenberg, Schenck S.C., 200 E. Washington Street, Appleton, WI 54911, and on Brian C. Spahn, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., 780 North Water Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3590.

Atty. Mark Bartels of SC Acquisition Company, LLC, is the ‘Registered Agent’ for One Law Group/Stellpflug Law…

…and, oh… by the way…

Nancy Stellpflug – wife of One Law Group/Stellpflug Law partner C. David Stellpflug who retired in January 2016 – just happens to be Secretary of VHC, Inc.

_________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

More like cleaning out victims’ wallets.

You know…

Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organization / RICO activities.

5.  Ultimately, Mr. Van Den Heuvel was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on certain charges alleged by the SEC. Immediately thereafter, the Investment Banker withdrew from the engagement as it became apparent that the project was too closely associated with Mr. Van Den Heuvel, at least in its eyes, in order to spend any further time on it, as no assurances could be given to it that the government’s investigation would not somehow involve the entity into which the asset were to be rolled.

6.  Lacking any immediate additional funds to continue to finance the roll up or engage a new investment banker, the Debtor has determined that there is no other option at this time for continuing with the proposed roll up and, therefore, there is no point to continuing this Chapter 11 case.

7.  Significant sums of money invested post-petition in this project will be lost by investors other than Mr. Van Den Heuvel. No assets, other than assets which are fully pledged over their value to secured creditors remain. The major asset owned by the Debtor is the real estate, subject to the Motion for Relief from Stay and the Motion to Dismiss. There appears to be no equity in it.


10/18/17 : GreatLakesEcho.org /
Capital News Service:
Major ‘recycling’ scam in Michigan & Wisconsin sparks indictment,
by Eric Freedman

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

Project promoter Ronald Van Den Heuvel promised the victims that his Green Box-Detroit would build and operate a facility to recycle paper, process other waste and produce synthetic fuel, the indictment charged. …

In a related civil suit against Van Den Heuvel and Green Box-Detroit, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said, “He claimed that he had developed a breakthrough recycling process that could turn post-consumer waste into usable products. He represented that the Green Box process would be both environmentally friendly and profitable, and would allow Green Box-Detroit to repay investors.”

But it was a scam because Van Den Heuvel never acquired the promised facility or equipment and used the money for other purposes, the indictment said.

His defense lawyer, Robert LeBell of Milwaukee, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The primary victims of the Detroit project were nine investors from China who poured $4,475,000 into the failed endeavor. They’d hoped to become permanent residents — green card-holders — by investing at least $500,000 each under the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services EB-5 Immigrant Investment Program.

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

The Green Box-Detroit project was portrayed as creating 35 direct and indirect jobs per each Chinese investor.

“Green Detroit Regional Center promoted the EB-5 investments in Green Box Detroit based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations,” the SEC suit said. It said the chief executive officer of the Green Detroit Regional Center, Georgia lawyer Simon Ahn, marketed the project to investors through immigration consultants in China. Neither Ahn nor Green Detroit Regional Center have been charged or sued by the SEC.

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

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

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

“Van Den Heuvel did not satisfy MEDC’s concerns. He did not provide additional information to the MEDC, and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the issues that it had raised,” the SEC suit said.

MEDC vice president of marketing and communications Emily Guerrant said “Yes, they did approach us. No, we never engaged with them.”

Ahn said it is likely that a receivership will be established to help Chinese investors recoup their money. He said it is “hard to determine at this point” whether they will qualify for green cards.



 

TIMELINE PART 12

 

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 10

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 9

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 8

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 7

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 6

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 5

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 4

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 3

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 2

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 1

 

 


Sorry, Comments are closed.

Tags

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

As It Happens

November 2017
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930