Excerpts of DR. RONALD GRAHAM’s testimony at the July 23, 2024 U. S. Congressional Oversight Committee hearing entitled, ‘HOW THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IGNORED CRIES FOR HELP FROM STUDENTS AT HASKELL INDIAN NATIONS UNIVERSITY’ regarding MORE THAN TEN YEARS OF NO BACKGROUND CHECKS for the HINU Board of Regents in order to protect & shield from scrutiny BRANDON LEE YELLOWBIRD STEVENS, the violent felon who beat an 8-month pregnant native woman, and also just happens to be the adopted son of the INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION / IGA Chairman & National Spokesperson, ERNEST LLOYD STEVENS, JR. – after whom the Haskell U / ‘Hassle U’ ‘ERNIE STEVENS JR. CLASSIC’ BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT IS NAMED:
July 28, 2023 Clay Mayes Letter to BIE Dir. Tony Dearman re: Withdrawal of Haskell Unjustified Contract Termination, Reinstatement as Haskell Cross-County Coach, Release of Undisclosed USPS and BIE Reports, Referral to FBI and US Attorney
In a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland in January, Haskell Indian Nations University students claim that a lengthy investigation into allegations of misconduct on campus wrapped up months ago but has yet to be made public.
The letter, which the Journal-World has obtained a copy of, claims a Bureau of Indian Education investigation took place at Haskell during a span of more than six months in 2022 and by the beginning of this year had uncovered “extensive evidence” of a number of crimes perpetrated by a group of about 10 employees — fraudulent reports to remove staff, multiple “forms of assault,” sexual abuse committed by students and employees, and the embezzlement and theft of federal property. The BIE oversees Haskell’s operations and is housed under the Department of the Interior.
“The faculty members we have exchanged some thoughts and ideas (with) believe, as do the students, the investigation’s findings are 100% being covered up,” the letter reads. “We have seen systematic abuse, neglect of victims and strong efforts by BIE officials in encouraging Haskell faculty to not discuss Haskell’s investigation.”
As you might be asking yourself, how does a felonious burglar like Brandon Stevens get past the background checks required to be a member of the Haskell Board of Regents?
COUNT I: cause bodily harm to another, to-wit: T**** D******, by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to that person and without the consent of the person so harmed; BATTERY, Misdemeanor[.] Furthermore, this incident…involves a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE.
…Brandon L. Stevens is aREPEATER, having been convicted within the past five years of the crime(s): On March 8, 1999, the defendant was convicted of three counts of Burglary, Felonies, in Brown County File No. 98CF568[.]
COUNT II: in a public or private place, engage in violent abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance; DISORDERLY CONDUCT, Misdemeanor[.] Furthermore, this incident…involves a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENSE.
…Complainant is an Assistant District Attorney with the Brown County District Attorney’s Office and knows of the above offense on information and belief based upon.
1. His review of the details of Officer Dakota House of the Oneida Police Department…; said details indicate that on October 29, 1999 at approximately 2:13 a.m., Officer House was dispatched to St. Mary’s Hospital in Green Bay in reference to a domestic violence complaint. Officer House…met with a female who identified herself as T**** D******. Officer House observed Ms. D****** lying in the hospital bed and that she was pregnant. He later learned that she was approximately eight months pregnant. Officer House observed that she had a redness under her left eye and he asked her what happened. At first she said that nothing happened but then admitted that her boyfriend, Brandon Stevens, and her got into an argument and that he shoved her. She admitted that he was drinking the night of the incident. She indicated that he shoved her. She indicated…that this shoving incident took place [at their residence] on October 28, 1999 at approximately 3:00 p.m. She then became uncooperative and would not give any further information to Officer House.
2. His review of a statement given by Rachel Baird to Officer House on October 29, 1999; in said statement, Ms. Baird indicated that she is a nurse on the maternity ward at St. Mary’s Hospital. She stated that on October 29, 1999, a twenty-two year old woman, later identified as T**** D******, was admitted to the Family Birthing Center from the Emergency Room with complaints of spotting and cramping. Baird stated that D****** is thirty-four weeks pregnant. D****** stated to Baird that there was something she needed to talk to her about. She informed Baird “My boyfriend hit me last night.” D****** then lifted up her short sleeved shirt and showed Ms. Baird bruised arms. Baird notices that D******’s arms were bruised with four to five finger sized bruises on each upper arm including the biceps and triceps. D****** stated that her boyfriend,…Brandon Stevens, grabbed her by the face, hit her head on the driveway, and pointed to the back left side of her head. She also stated her face was red and sore from where he grabbed her and pointed to the left side of her face on her cheekbone. Baird observed medium quarter size reddend areas along with a possible bruise orginating from the corner of her eye and extending under her left eye. Baird asked if he had struck her anyplace else and D****** stated he hit her one or two times in the abdomen. It is noted that D****** is approximately eight months pregnant.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Oneida Business Committee does hereby officially support the appointment of Councilman Brandon Stevens to the Board of Regents for Haskell Indian Nations University.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY BE RESOLVED, that this resolution be delivered to the next meeting of the Haskell Indian Nations University Board of Regents and that copies be provided to the President of the University, Linda Sue Warner and the Chair of the Board, George Tiger.
HINU attitudes toward perpetrators of domestic violence and sexual abuse and callousness toward their victims is addressed in this CNN.com iReport:
Have the members of the Haskell Board of Regents at Haskell Indian Nations University, a Bureau of Indian Education University in Lawrence, Kansas passed their background checks?
Washington D.C.’s Bureau of Indian Education is so particular about their background checks that it takes approximately six months to complete, compared to other agencies that take around 15 days. We do know that it is a requirement that anyone who works on the Haskell campus complete a check, even volunteers.
…Someone who is a quasi government employee should be required to have one that includes finger prints, especially since the entire board will be at Haskell for graduation ceremonies this weekend.
Based on that it seems Haskell University might actually not perform background checks on their Board of Regents… at all.
Also on the September 11, 2013 OBC Agenda among the items of the Legislative Operating Committee chaired by Melinda Danforth is this:
Violence against Women Act (VAWA) tribal pilot project/internal work group, Excerpt from July 24, 2013: Motion by Brandon Stevens to designate Brandon Stevens to establish an internal work group andbring back recommendations to the OBC to the first meeting in September, seconded by Greg Matson. Motion carried unanimously.
How generous of Brandon Stevens to nominate Brandon Stevens!
Given that the State of Wisconsin recognized Brandon as a ‘Habitual Criminal’ due to him being found guilty of Domestic Abuse & Battery, perhaps it’s time to ask Haskell Indian Nations University why Brandon Stevens is really the type of person they want on their Board of Regents and why they added him in the first place.
Did it have anything to do with his father, Ernie Stevens Jr., being the multi-term Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) and Haskell’s hopes that Ernie might be able to direct more donations and funding sources their way?
“I want to also mention my sons; Brandon YellowBird-Stevens andErnie Stevens III. These two watched their mom and dad play basketball at Haskell when they were just young boys. Brandon is currently serving his second term on the Oneida Nation Tribal Council, has an MBA and serves on the Haskell Board of Regents.Ernest III works in communicationsand co-produced the motion picture ‘Crooked Arrows.’“
When I arrived on scene I could hear a male speaking or yelling loudly at someone…. As I’m walking up to the residence I looked at the female through the glass storm door and I could see a female that was sitting in a chair hunched over holding her stomach with her arms. As I got closer to the residence the female looked out of the glass door and at me. I got within 15 feet of the female and I could see the female was upset and crying. The female appears as if she didn’t want to provoke the male any further and was staying submissive in appearance. I could hear the male speaking loudly at her, I heard him say, “This is your fault.” As I was looking at the female she made a gesture with her hand and waved me into the house. I could see the urgency and fear in her eyes and the tears rolling down her face. Officer Dan House and I continued to walk into the residence. Once inside the residence I observed a Native American male, approximately 6 feet tall and 200 lbs, standing and pacing the kitchen over a female that was 5 foot 4 inches and 100 lbs. … I explanied to the male that he was going outside with Officer Dan House and I be speaking with the female without him there.
[She] said her husband Ernest went out with his friends at about 5:30 p.m. last night and didn’t get home until around 5:50 a.m. this morning. [She] said she woke up to the sound of Ernest hitting the front door and yelling. He was calling her a “bitch” and a “c*nt” as he was hitting and kicking the front door. [She] said she walked to the front door and told Ernest to calm down and then she would open the door. Ernest then kicked the front door two times and it swung open. [She] stated she stepped toward the kitchen table and Ernest stepped toward her, he grabbed her by the shoulders with both of his hands and pushed into the dining table. [She] said after a few minutes of screaming at her about not letting him in, Ernest walked back towards the front door, about 8 feet, and picked up a piece of door jam that was about 10 inches long both ends. Ernest then walked back towards her while she was sitting down on a chair in the dining room. Ernest was ranting and raving about her being a “bitch” and said it was over.
[She] said Ernest wasn’t specific about “what was over” but he kept waving the piece of sharp wood about 4-6 inches away from her face. …
[She] said she and Ernest have been married for about 6 years and they have two children together. The children were home and sleeping in the bedroom at the time of the incident. …[She] stated she did not give Ernest permission to do this to her.
I advised Officer House I had enough for charges on Ernest and he would be arrested.
Ernie Stevens III had this to say about Oneida Eye in August 2013 while he was still in the deferred prosecution agreement in Brown Co. Case No. 13CM1711 regarding a Domestic Violence incident involving the use of a dangerous weapon:
Note that Ernie Stevens III is holding some kind of gun in his Facebook avatar alongside his implied threats of vengeance & violence against the admins and authors of OneidaEye.com while saying that any enrolled members of the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin who are involved with keeping General Tribal Council informed via this website should be disenrolled and banned from the ONWI Reservation for life, “fortheirowngood”.
On August 30, 2017 the Oneida Business Committee approved the following:
Lawrence, KS –“Native #GirlsLikeItWhenYou Slap Them Around. If They Say Otherwise, They’re Lying…” was what Haskell Student Senate President Joel Hernandez posted on his twitter October 15, 2012.
Just one week prior, Haskell Indian Nations University hosted a series of workshops and healing seminars to stop Domestic Violence. The goal of the workshops is to build awareness and provide intervention for all women to gain a better understanding that getting hit is not okay in a relationship. Women have a right to say ‘STOP.’ Haskell is also involved in a national initiative to stop domestic violence with the ‘Restoring the Circle: Ending Violence and Abuse on Tribal College and University Campuses’ announced by the Bureau of Indian Education.
In a tearful voice, Haskell student, Gwendolyn Charles, said, “It’s not what I asked for. I didn’t ask to get beat on. It doesn’t have to be that way. It’s not right, who wants to say they want that. Being beat on is treating me with ugliness. I will no longer allow a man to treat me like that again. Anyone who speaks like that has never been raised on the reservation. They haven’t learned the traditional ways. Women are sacred.” Charles was a speaker for the sharing session at the domestic violence workshops.
If the Oneida Business Committee has any shred of decency or ethics (ha ha!), Brandon Stevens will be not only denied his desired role with the VAWA group, he’ll be denied his travel request and the OBC will inform Haskell University they should find another member to take Brandon’s place on the Board of Regents.
More likely, General Tribal Council members will have to exercise the ethical decency of informing Haskell University officials, staff & students instead.
October 5, 2023 ORDER that by November 2, 2023 the BIE is to file report or dispositive motion to PEER Complaint re: Freedom of Information Act requests for Haskell Indian Nations University report on claims of sexual assault & crimes, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 23-CV-2194, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility [PEER] v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Education [BIE]
October 3, 2023 BIE Answer to PEER Complaint re: Freedom of Information Act requests for Haskell Indian Nations University report on claims of sexual assault & crimes, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 23-CV-2194, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility [PEER] v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Education [BIE]
August 30, 2023 Motion to Enlarge Time to File Answer or Other Response to Complaint re: Freedom of Information Act requests for Haskell Indian Nations University report on claims of sexual assault & crimes, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 23-CV-2194, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility [PEER] v. U.S. Bureau of Indian Education [BIE]
A federal judge has dismissed the bulk of a Title IX lawsuit against Haskell Indian Nations University, brought by a woman who accused two fellow students of raping her on campus.
Key to the decision: Title IX doesn’t apply to Haskell — a federal school — the same way it does to other universities, the judge ruled.
THE WORLD WE NEED: Stories and Lessons from America’s
Unsung Environmental Movement
Edited by Audrea Lim includes an interview with
Oneida Eye Publisher Leah Sue Dodge
RED HERRINGS:
A Cautionary Journey
for Citizen Opposition Groups
by John Filcher how Wisconsin locals & Oneida Nation members successfully battled incinerators on the reservation & beyond
This is a true story about an untrue story. It takes you through the experiences of an ordinary group of citizens and neighbors who banded together to fight against a proposed trash incinerator that would have threatened their neighborhoods. It is an accounting of a scandal that was based on fairy tales of impossible science, and sprinkled liberally with deception and corruption. The true events that unfolded gave meaning to the wry observation that oftentimes, truth really is stranger than fiction. It was finally stopped when a small group decided that enough was enough. They stood up and got the truth out. By telling the truth, they slowly turned the tables against the developer. Written from the point of view of one of those citizens who got involved in the effort to stop the proposed project, this book takes you inside the real-life campaign from the initial discovery of the development all the way through its final demise.
June 6, 2024 JUDGMENT, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
June 6, 2024 ORDER Dismissing Count IV of Amended Complaint re: conversion claim, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
June 3, 2024 Plaintiffs’ Response to Order for Plaintiffs to Show Cause for conversion claim, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
May 29, 2024 ORDER for Plaintiffs to Show Cause for conversion claim by 6/4/24, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
January 24, 2024 Bureau of Prisons Inmate LocatorUPDATE: One month and eleven days added to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s prison sentence on top of one year added back after it was subtracted due to the First Step Act; now he won’t be released until 7/27/2025
December 31, 2023 Bureau of Prisons Inmate LocatorUPDATE: One year added back to Ron Van Den Heuvel’s prison sentence after it was reduced due to First Step Act; won’t be released until 6/16/2025
December 15, 2023 Bureau of Prisons Email notifying media that RON VAN DEN HEUVEL back in BOP’s custody
December 14, 2023 Bureau of Prisons Email notifying victims that RON VAN DEN HEUVEL ESCAPED BOP’s custody & is on the loose
November 21, 2023 Clerk’s Entry of Default Against Tissue Depot Inc., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
November 20, 2023 Minute Entry for In-Person proceedings re: Plaintiffs’ Verified 2nd Motion for Possession & Injunctive Relief: MOTION GRANTED, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
November 2, 2023 ORDER for Great Lakes Tissue Co. to Show Cause re: why Court should not enter Default Judgment for Plaintiffs due to lack of counsel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
GLT’s show-cause response should be docketed on or before November 8, 2023. Failure to provide a timely or adequate response will result in the entry of the default judgment.
October 31, 2023 Joint Revised Discovery Plan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
October 12, 2023 Notice for Hearing on Motions to Withdraw, Tuesday October 24 @ 2PM – Counsel for & Representative of The Great Lakes Tissue Co. are required to attend, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company, Tissue Depot, Inc., and Cheboygan Energies & Biofuels Corp.
Tracy Morris, public information officer for the ATF’s Detroit bureau, said certified fire investigators are examining the scene to determine if there is any arson-related evidence.
July 21, 2023 Minute Entry for Telephonic Scheduling Conference: Plaintiff will amend complaint by 10/2/23 and thereafter all of the named parties will convene again for a follow-up Rule 26 conference, and Parties will submit a proposed scheduling order by 10/31/23, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company
May 24, 2023 SUMMONS & COMPLAINT, Brown Co. Case No. 23-CV-652, The Great Lakes Tissue Group, LLC v. Patriot Advanced Environmental Technologies, LLC & 4 R Planet, LLC
May 2, 2023 ORDER DENYING Ron Van Den Heuvel Requests to Work at Cheboygan, MichiganTissue Depot facility / aka Great Lakes Tissue Co. Inc.; to Clarify Sentence; to Address Restitution; & for Compassionate Release, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case Nos. 16-CR-64 & 17-CR-160, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
City Manager Dan Sabolsky: And last, going back to my questions over here: Mr. Ron Van Den Heuvel is no longer in Cheboygan, Michigan. He was the consultant for Great Lakes Tissue. I don’t, am not sure what that means now for Great Lakes Tissue. And, he has also been ordered not to come back to Cheboygan, Michigan. He’s on an ‘extended vacation.’
Q: Who ordered him?
Sabolsky: Feds.
Q: The judge or Bureau of Prisons?
Sabolsky: Bureau of Prisons. His latest interview, he was not, I think he violated his parole by doing the interview. And, also in the latest interview, he admitted he was more than an ‘owner’ [sic ‘consultant’].
So he is, what do we say? ‘Loose lips, sink ships’? There was a perfect example. So, that is all I have, Council[.]
April 14, 2023 Donald Swenson Declaration,U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 23-CV-10564, Prime Alliance Bank, Inc. and Sertant Capital, LLC v. The Great Lakes Tissue Company
FILED 3/22/2023 – Ron Van Den Heuvel Letter to Judge William Griesbach requesting permission to work at the Cheboygan, Michigan Tissue Depot facility (fka Great Lakes Tissue) w/ supplemental materials [39 PAGES], U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case Nos. 17-CR-160 & 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
Based upon Van Den Heuvel’s failure to respond to the government’s motion and his income earning capacity as reflected in the Presentence Investigation Report, the court finds that the payment schedule ordered as a condition of supervised release is reasonable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Van Den Heuvel is to begin making restitution payments within 30 days of the date of this order in the amount of $200 per month or 10% of his net earnings, whichever is greater.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Van Den Heuvel is to pay as restitution 100% of his annual federal and state income tax refunds.
This court sentenced Mr. Van Den Heuvel to a term of 90 months’ imprisonment in 17-CR-160, and his anticipated release date is technically May 26, 2025. … The Bureau of Prisons has nonetheless released Mr. Van Den Heuvel to “home confinement” pursuant to the…“CARES Act”. Neither the United States Attorney’s Office nor the victims were consulted in advance about that transfer. Mr. Van Den Heuvel is thus currently out of custody and residing inCheboygan, Michigan, where he is able to work. Indeed, multiple witnesses have reported to the government that he is, in fact, earning money. Mr. Van Den Heuvel has not, however, been making regular restitution payments, and continues to owe substantial outstanding restitution.
Based upon the foregoing, the United States respectfully asks this Court to modify the restitution orders in both cases to require Mr. Van Den Heuvel to begin paying restitution now, on the same terms as if he were on supervised release—i.e., “not less than $200.00 per month or 10% of his or her net earnings, whichever is greater,” and “100 percent of his or her yearly federal and state tax refunds.” Given that Mr. Van Den Heuvel is out of custody and equally able to work as he would be on supervised release, there is no reason for his victims to wait until his formal term of supervised release begins in 2025 to receive regular restitution payments. See, e.g., United States v. Tarnawa, 26 F.4th 720, 725 (5th Cir. 2022) (“A convicted criminal ‘cannot escape his responsibility to restore his victims by hiding behind his sentencing order, not when he has the means to pay and not when the law provides a remedy that the government and the district court may act upon.’”)
“Van Den Heuvel has paid…nothing towards restitution, with the only restitution payments coming not from Van Den Heuvel but from his co-defendants, and made to the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation,” the filing states. “The remaining payees/victims…have received nothing in restitution from Van Den Heuvel or anyone else.”
Frohling asked U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach to make Van Den Heuvel explain his reasons for the court filing, and depending on his explanation, find that he committed perjury.
Frohling also suggested Griesbach share his findings with the Bureau of Prisons for possible disciplinary action, and to the U.S. Probation Office, who will supervise Van Den Heuvel once he completes his sentence.
NOTE: Ron claims he should receive credit for the six months during which the Court allowed him to delay beginning his first sentence of 36 months, as if it were ‘home confinement’ rather than a suspension of his imprisonment. In reality, the suspension was curtailed when the Court discovered that Ron was continuing his fraud schemes and threatening victim witnesses via phone while awaiting the actual beginning of his sentence. Ron was later given a second additional sentence of 90 months to be served concurrently with the first. In Oneida Eye’s opinion, the Court should change the sentencing to be consecutive for wasting the Court’s time with frivolous filings.
January 21, 2020 Final Judgment, U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 19-1236, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Defendant-Appellant
January 21, 2020 ORDER by Circuit Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Michael B. Brennan, and Michael Y. Scudder DISMISSING APPEAL by Ron Van Den Heuvel of WIED 17-CR-160 to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 19-1236, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Defendant-Appellant
Based upon his thorough and conscientious review of the entire record of the proceedings in the district court below, and from communications with the Defendant-Appellant, the undersigned attorney has concluded that there exists no non-frivolous issue that can be raised in this appeal on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant.
August 14, 2019 Final Judgment Against Defendant Green Box NA Detroit LLC; Defendant must pay $2,739,121 to the SEC within 30 days, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CV-1261, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission [SEC] v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Detroit LLC
March 27, 2019 Ron Van Den Heuvel Response to SEC [55 pages], U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CV-1261, U. S. Securities & Exchange Commission [SEC] v. Ronald Van Den Heuvel and Green Box NA Detroit LLC
Most cities came on weekend’s to watch a Packer game and to go out to Oneida to talk Green Box! Why, because training of employees and cities for operations and safety will occur in Green Bay / De Pere complex.
February 11, 2019 ORDER by Circuit Judges William J. Bauer, Amy Coney Barrett, and Michael Y. Scudder dismissing appeal by Ron Van Den Heuvel of WIED 16-CR-64 to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 18-1147, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Defendant-Appellant
February 8, 2019 Attorney Robert LeBell Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Defendant Ron Van Den Heuvel, U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 19-1236, United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Defendant-Appellant
The defendant was sentenced, on January 23, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, on a single count of Wire Fraud, to seven and a half years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a previously imposed three year period of institutionalization in Eastern District of Wisconsin Case No. 16-CR-64. As part of the written plea agreement, the defendant waived his right to appeal. There exists a clear and irremediable communication breakdown between counsel and the defendant to the extent that further competent representation cannot be provided.
His pitches regarding Green Box were rife with material falsehoods, including claims of “zero waste water discharge” displaying fuel pellets that were actually made by a different company; and claims of patents and business relationships that did not exist. … Then after receiving funds, Van Den Heuvel told more lies to string victims along, changing stories as necessary to stay just ahead of trouble. …
…It is not accurate to say that the Green Box plan has been fully validated. …
Only significant incarceration will reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. As noted, Van Den Heuvel engaged in a long-term, deliberate fraud scheme that took advantage of a range of victims and undermined State and federal job-creation programs.
The need to “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” also supports a lengthy term of imprisonment. … Van Den Heuvel’s history, especially since indictment, has shown that he will engage in fraud unless he is actually restrained from doing so. Significant incarceration is necessary to restrain Van Den Heuvel and impress upon him that such conduct results in real consequences.
A significant sentence is required also to deter others from pursuing fraudulent schemes and abusing public programs. The potential for general deterrence is heightened here because Van Den Heuvel is well known in the Green Bay area. Indeed, because Van Den Heuvel defrauded the WEDC, news media throughout the State have followed this case and likely will report the sentence imposed here. Lengthy incarceration will send the proper message, whereas Van Den Heuvel’s requested sentence – just 24 months beyond his current 36-month sentence – could send the troubling message that crime pays. …
The United States respectfully requests that the Court impose a 90-month term of incarceration to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case No. 16-CR-64; a restitution order for at least $9,428,618.81; a period of supervised release; and a special assessment of $100.
December 17, 2018 Tami Phillips Plea Agreement re CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 18-CR-231, United States of America v. Tami Phillips
Philip Reinhart of De Pere is scheduled to enter his plea [TUESDAY October 30] in federal court in Green Bay. The offense carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. …
According to his plea agreement, Reinhart and an unnamed co-conspirator were hired to create records or purported training sessions at Green Box [NA] Green Bay [LLC], run by Ronald Van Den Heuvel of De Pere, already convicted of bank and wire fraud. …
“Between approximately 2011 and 2015,” Green Box and related entities got money from lenders and investors “under materially false pretenses, representations and promises,” according to the plea agreement.
WEDC [Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.] had offered $95,000 to reimburse Green Box [NA] Green Bay for training workers how to sort waste, make fuel pellets and about liquefaction. At Van Den Heuvel’s direction, Reinhart helped create three sets of records showing such training took place — even though it did not — and submitted them to WEDC in order to get the money.
…Ronald Van Den Heuvel was was convicted Friday [October 12] in a second fraud case in federal court.
[Ron] Van Den Heuvel was convicted previously of conspiracy to commit bank fraud for arranging an illegal loan from Horicon Bank for his business Green Box [NA]. He was sentenced to three years in prison in that case.
After that federal prosecutors filed 14 additional counts against Van Den Heuvel, alleging he raised more than $9 million from investors – including the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. [WEDC] – but used some of the money on personal items, including a car and Packers tickets.
Earlier this week, Van Den Heuvel agreed to plead guilty to a count of wire fraud – a plea which was accepted Friday – and the 13 other counts were dismissed. Sentencing is scheduled for December 10.
A sentencing hearing has been scheduled for a De Pere businessman accused of defrauding investors and lenders of more than $9 million in his Green Box business plan.
Ron Van Den Heuvel is scheduled to go before a federal judge in Green Bay on December 10 at 9:30 a.m. Van Den Heuvel faces a maximum of 20 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine at sentencing. …
According to the indictment, Van Den Heuvel produced false financial statements that inflated his personal wealth, giving investors the idea that he would be able to afford the equipment needed for his Green Box plan. He also misled the investors about major companies being interested in Green Box. …
Van Den Heuvel also convinced Wisconsin [Dept. of Commerce] officials that Green Box would create 116 new jobs at the EcoFibre facility in De Pere. The Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation [WEDC] loaned him $1,116,000 to purchase and install necessary equipment. He faked the mortgage statement on the EcoFibre building – he had never purchased it. He also received about $95,000 grant from the state for worker training. …
In a separate case, Van Den Heuvel was sentenced to three years in federal prison for defrauding Horicon Bank between 2008 and 2009.
These borrowers included Van Den Heuvel’s [foreign] nanny [Julie Gumban,] his administrative assistant [Debra Stary, Ron’s son-in-law Patrick Hoffman, and Van Den Heuvel family-owned Vos Electric Inc. Vice President William ‘Bill’ Bain – Ron’s partner in Ron & Bill Investments LLP who served as a straw borrower for former brother-in-law Ron beginning as early as 2000].
Van Den Heuvel called USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin on Thursday from the Brown County Jail. In two calls, the 65-year-old admitted he misled investors about how their money would be used and used some of the money for personal expenses.
“The government is right on the $9 million listed,” he said. “I treated it like the other money from family, friends and investors for business and development use. We put specific uses on those investments and I didn’t pay attention.” …
“I did wrong,” Van Den Heuvel said Thursday. “I misappropriated funds and I gave out misleading information. I’ll have to do some time for that, but I don’t deserve a life sentence.” …
Van Den Heuvel has been jailed since July, when federal prosecutors told U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach that Van Den Heuvel had continued to deceive potential investors.
Van Den Heuvel said he has lost 60 pounds in jail and has written the first 100 pages of a book.
In regards to the Green Box technology, the affidavit correctly states the Green Box technology was not fully functioning when the defendant informed investors it was fully functioning. The defendant’s Memorandum in Support and exhibits provide no evidence the technology was “fully functioning.” Regardless of whether or not the Green Box technology hypothetically could have produced the desired results in the future, probable cause was established by the defendant’s false representations about the status of Green Box’s business operations and the functionality of the technology. …
While investors and government entities may have theorized that the process could function properly, Green Box’s technology never did function as predicted by the defendant. …
The affidavit correctly states the defendant made false claims about the current status of Green Box to raise money from investors to fund his personal expenses. These facts establish probable cause. …
The affidavit details numerous fraudulent actions by the defendant, including grantingDr. [Marco] Araujo a security interest in business equipment, and then providing a security interest in the same equipment to later investors, and misstating the status of Green Box’s operations. The affidavit states the defendant’s fraudulent statements resulted in Dr. Araujo investing $600,000 in Green Box, and that the defendant used the majority of this money for personal expenses.
Amongst other facts, the affidavit also discusses foreign investor money raised through the EB5 program that the defendant misused for personal expenses including alimony payments and Green Bay Packers tickets. The affidavit establishes probable cause that the defendant operated an investment fraud scheme through Green Box as it details some of the defendant’s material false representations about Green Box, and the defendant’s use of investor money for personal expenses.
September 28, 2018 Decision, U.S. Tax Court Docket No. 21583-15, VHC Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service [IRS]
Pursuant to the determination of the Court, as set forth in its Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion (T.C. Memo. 2017-220) dated November 7, 2017, and incorporating herein the facts recited in respondent’s computations as the findings of fact of the Court, it is
ORDERED AND DECIDED that there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioner [VHC, Inc.] for the taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013 in the amounts of $1,916,625.00, $8,656,568.00, and $4,259,288.00, respectively.
August 6, 2020 DECISION/OPINION by Circuit Judges Joel M. Flaum, Amy Coney Barrett and Amy J. St. Eve affirming U.S. Tax Court Judgment in favor of IRS, U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Cases Nos. 18-3717 & 18-3718, VHC Inc. & Subsidiaries, Petitioner-Appellant v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-Appellee
October 11, 2018 ENTRY OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT against Ron Van Den Heuvel and RVDH Development LLC in the amount of $10,623,223 (Cook Co. IL Case No. 2017-L-013037, GlenArbor LLC v. Partners Concepts Development Inc.; RVDH Development LLC; Ronald Van Den Heuvel), Brown Co. Case No. 18-FJ-13, GlenArbor LLC v. Ron Van Den Heuvel; RVDH Development LLC [dismissed defendant: Partners Concepts Development Inc. / PCDI]
October 8, 2018 PLEA AGREEMENT, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17-CR-160, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
CHARGES
2. The defendant has been charged in a 14-count indictment, which alleges ten violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1349 and 2, and four violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1957 and 2.
3. The defendant has read and fully understands the charges contained in the indictment. He fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged, and those charges and the terms and conditions of the plea agreement have been fully explained to him by his attorney.
4. The defendant voluntarily agrees to plead guilty to the following count (Count One) set forth in full as follows:
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. …
The government agrees to recommend a sentence of no longer than 90 months of incarceration, to be served concurrently with the [3 year] sentence the defendant is serving for Case No.16-CR-64, and a term of supervised release.
A De Pere businessman who claimed to have a process that could turn fast-food wrappers into fuel and paper products has agreed to plead guilty to one county of wire fraud after facing allegations that he defrauded the state’s economic-development agency and other investors out of more than $9 million.
The case against Van Den Heuvel, and in particular the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.’s write-off of a $1.1 million loan to Van Den Heuvel, was criticized by Democrats as evidence of mismanagement of the agency by the administration of Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The Van Den Heuvel loan was one of several botched WEDC deals reported on by the Wisconsin State Journal and other news outlets in 2015 that prompted a review of agency practices and a temporary suspension of the agency’s loan program. …
Under the plea agreement, Van Den Heuvel agreed to pay at least $9.4 million in restitution to lenders and investors. In July, Van Den Heuvel was ordered sent to jail by a federal judge after U.S. Attorney Matthew Krueger presented evidence showing that he had continued to live a lavish lifestyle while free, even as he failed to repay creditors and requested legal representation by a federal defender instead of a private attorney paid from his own pocket.
But the plea agreement states that Van Den Heuvel “understands that because restitution for the offense is mandatory, the amount of restitution shall be imposed by the court regardless of the defendant’s financial resources,” and states that he agrees to cooperate in efforts to collect the restitution that he owes.
Van Den Heuvel also acknowledged that paying restitution won’t restrict or preclude the filing of civil lawsuits against him, the plea agreement states. …
To get the WEDC loan funds, prosecutors said, Van Den Heuvel had to show that Green Box had acquired an EcoFibre facility in De Pere and bought equipment to produce marketable pulp and other products, and provide documentation that VHC Inc., a company controlled by Van Den Heuvel’s brother, had made a $5.5 million capital contribution to the project.
But in fact, Green Box had not acquired the EcoFibre facility. Prosecutors said that instead the facility had gone into foreclosure and was obtained by VHC. WEDC stated that it would not have authorized the loan or disbursement of funds from it had it known of Van Den Heuvel’s false statements.
In addition, a group of Chinese investors lost nearly $4.5 million that it invested with Van Den Heuvel.
Prosecutors will recommend a prison sentence of no more than 7.5 years. The first three years of the sentence would be served at the same time as a three-year sentence in a separate bank fraud case.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years and a fine of $250,000. …
According to court documents …victims… include the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp, a Green Bay doctor, a Montreal investment firm and nine Chinese individuals who agreed to invest in the business as a pathway to American citizenship. …
In the bank fraud case, Van Den Heuvel pleaded guilty to one count of fraud in connection to a scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $1 million in bank loans under the names of Green Box employees and a relative. Prosecutors portrayed the employees and relative as straw borrowers who did not receive the money and were not expected to repay it.
Van Den Heuvel was allowed to remain free after sentencing to participate in his defense in the Green Box case. However, Griesbach ordered him jailed in July after prosecutors alleged he committed more fraud and also intimidated witnesses.
Businessman Ronald Van Den Heuvel says he donated money through Wisconsin residents to Gov. Tommy Thompson’s campaign for several years while living in Georgia – an apparent violation of state election laws.
In a recent interview, Van Den Heuvel was questioned about $10,000 in campaign donations that he and his wife [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] made one day before the state approved a large issue of tax-free bonds for one of his businesses. Van Den Heuvel responded by saying he had given similar amounts in the past.
When asked why reporters had not spotted those earlier donations on Thompson’s financial reports, Van Den Heuvel said, “Yeah, you may not have because when I was a Georgia resident, I gave it to people here.”
Those Wisconsin individuals, whom he did not name, then turned the money over to Thompson, he said. Van Den Heuvel, owner ofVOS Electric in Green Bay and other businesses, said he moved to Wisconsin three years ago. …
Kevin Kennedy, executive director of the state Elections Board, said state law specifically bars people from laundering campaign donations or knowingly accepting laundered funds. Kennedy said it could be either a civil or criminal offense, depending on whether prosecutors believe they can prove the campaign money was given or received in intentional violation of the law. …
Like others before him, Ron Van Den Heuvel, a Green Bay-area entrepreneur, found the route to state largess with the help of Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.
Van Den Heuvel hit the jackpot in late September when an obscure state board awarded $24 million worth of tax-free bond financing to help him reopen an Oconto Falls tissue factory – the largest such approval this year and among the largest ever made by the state.
The award culminated nearly a year’s effort that included a formal application through the Commerce Department. But Van Den Heuvel worked informal channels to Thompson as well. And last May – the day before an initial financing award was made by the state – Van Den Heuvel and his wife [Jan Marie Summers Van Den Heuvel] donated a total of $10,000 to the governor’s campaign fund. Van Den Heuvel said he had been asked for the donation by Thompson’s fund-raiser in November 1996.
When asked by reporters last month about the campaign donations, Thompson moved quickly to return the money.
The subsidy will save Van Den Heuvel’s company at least $2 million in short-term financing costs, Van Den Heuvel said. The financing covers nearly half of the $52 million cost of renovating the Oconto Falls factory.
The circumstances of the case and others reviewed by the Journal Sentinel in an eight-month investigation suggest a trend in which donors and well-connected firms enjoy a close and mutually beneficial relationship with the Thompson administration.
“You don’t pay, you don’t play,” said a veteran lobbyist, speaking of state government generally, including the governor and legislators. ….
The $24 million in financing aid, while large, was far less than the total of $70 million that Van Den Heuvel originally requested for the De PereRe-Box project, state officials noted. …
[L]obbyists for major firms and interest groups who do business with the state, and business executives interviewed by the newspaper, said the fund-raising events are sold as prime opportunities to bend the governor’s ear on state issues – often worth millions to major players in issues ranging fromutility regulation to Indian gaming. The fund-raisers often include discussion of those issues. …
A second lobbyist said Thompson’s fund-raising machine “systematically and methodically” milked firms with state business for donations. “Everybody understands if you go and ask the government to do something, you are going to have to make contributions.”
Both lobbyists asked not to be named, saying they feared retribution for speaking out.
September 25, 2017 First Amended Complaint, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Docket No. 17-CV-108, RNS Servicing, LLC v. Spirit Construction Services, Inc., Steven Van Den Heuvel, ST Paper, LLC and Sharad Tak
Exhibit D: March 28, 2007 Settlement Agreement between IFC Credit Corporation, Tissue Products Technology Corporation, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Eco-Fibre Inc., and Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc.
Ugh, [Ron Van Den Heuvel] continues to amaze in the number of ways he manipulates facts and his representations. The group I am representing is planning to go after Spirit[Construction Service Inc.] and Vos[Electric Inc.] for various bad faith representations related to Ron and his companies. …
I continue to believe any spotlight we can shine between RVDH, family members, and cracks in the “Chinese Wall” for RVDH, Steve Van Den Heuvel, family, and the associated comingling of Spirit and Vos will yield interesting results. They have done well to keep this below the radar for many years, and I am sure they would move quickly to avoid any attention to these subjects going forward. …
4 EPC contracts with/between Spirit Construction and ST Paper LLC for upgrades and construction for “Oconto Falls,” “St. George, Utah,” “De Pere, Wisconsin,” and “Pennsylvania” facilities. …
As we both know, Ron is living very well by monies that are funneled through friends and family eventually to Ron’s benefit.
December 4, 2017 Defendant Tak Investments LLC’s Post Trial Brief, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
The Plaintiffs – Tissue Technology, LLC, Partners Concepts Development, Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc. and Tissue Products Technology Corp. (collectively, the “OFTI Group”) – have now tried to this Court a claim for the enforcement of four notes (the “Investment Notes”) from Tak Investments, LLC (“Tak Investments”) in 2007. Through that claim, Plaintiffs seek a recovery of more than $34 million in principal and interest. The record developed before and at trial, however, establishes three fundamental flaws in the Plaintiffs’ case:
The Plaintiffs are not in possession of the Investment Notes and, therefore, lack standing to enforce them;
The Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations; and,
The Investment Notes were made without consideration.
Accordingly, on any one ground, this matter should be dismissed.
Plaintiffs’ post-trial brief offers few facts and little law but, instead, a stream of invective directed at Sharad Tak (“Tak”). The brief lacks any serious discussion of the evidence Plaintiffs believe entitles them to more than $34 million on notes signed more than ten years ago and even less discussion of the Defendant’s responsive arguments. Littered throughout the Plaintiffs’ brief are assertions that Tak admitted to “what is loosely termed bank fraud,” that Tak was “in jeopardy of having committed bank fraud,” and that Tak’s testimony was “disingenuous, deceitful and even criminal.” (Pls.’ Br. at 2, 4, 16, ECF No. 91.) That Plaintiffs would accuse Tak is rich in irony. As the Court knows, Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence brings to the fore the fact that Plaintiffs’ principal and chief witness, Ron Van Den Heuvel, himself has just been adjudged guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Change of Plea Hearing Minutes, United States v. Van Den Heuvel, No. 16-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 10, 2017), ECF No. 152.
Beyond their unfounded accusations of inappropriate behavior, Plaintiffs contend that Tak’s testimony lacks veracity. (Pls.’ Br. at 4, ECF No. 91) (“Sharad Tak is a liar and his testimony should be disregarded in its entirety.”). Here, too, irony abounds: Ron Van Den Heuvel’s credibility is, to put it mildly, subject to serious question. Early in one of his own criminal proceedings, this Court itself called into question Ron Van Den Heuvel’s credibility.
[Footnote: In an Order Appointing Counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, this Court observed that the affidavit Ron Van Den Heuvel submitted attesting to his income and assets was an inaccurate representation of his financial circumstances. United States v. Van Den Heuvel, No. 16-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. July 26, 2016).]
Then, here at trial, David Van Den Heuvel, Ron’s brother, testified that he had formed an opinion as to Ron’s character for truthfulness, but he declined to state that opinion in open court:
Q. …Have you had an opportunity through your interactions with [your brother Ronald] over your whole life to form an opinion as to his character for truthfulness?
A. I guess, yes.
Q. And what would that opinion be?
A. That he’s a very nice guy.
Q. But nothing in relation to truthfulness?
A. What do you want me to say about truthfulness?
Q. I’m asking for your opinion about whether… what his character for truthfulness is.
A. That’s a hard one for me to answer because I don’t know specifically what you’re – what you’re asking. I – I did a lot of things with my brother, Ron, through the years and a lot of them were very, very good things. A few didn’t work out so well, but most were very good.
Q. Separate from, I guess, the various feelings you’ve had, I just asked if you had an opinion about his character for truthfulness and if so what that was. You indicated you had the opinion, but apparently –
MR. GANZER: Your Honor, I’d object, that’s been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t think it’s been answered. If you have any other answer – I think you’re reluctant to answer, is that a fair statement?
THE WITNESS: That’s a fair statement.
(Day 1 Tr. at 19:21-20:20.) The inescapable implication is, of course, that David Van Den Heuvel did not credit his own brother with a truthful character. Further, the fact that Ron Van Den Heuvel is now a felon, convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and awaiting sentencing on January 5, 2018, is also evidence on the issue of Mr. Van Den Heuvel’s character for truthfulness. See Fed. R. Evid. 609. …
David Van Den Heuvel stated that his brother [Ronald] owed his company approximately $150 million altogether[.]
September 18-19, 2017 Court Trial Minutes, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
September 18, 2017 Court Trial Transcript Excerpts, U.S. District Court / Eastern Wisconsin, Green Bay Division Case No. 14-CV-1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp. v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak
November 7, 2017 Opinion,
U.S. Tax Court
Docket Nos. 4756-15, 21583-15, VHC Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue [IRS]
Excerpts:
In 1997 Ronald H. [Van Den Heuvel] formedPartners Concepts Development, Inc. (PCDI), in De Pere, Wisconsin. During the tax years at issue he owned a majority of PCDI shares and managed its business. He was PCDI’s president and chairman. In 2012 PCDI received a notice of administrative dissolution, but as of June 4, 2014, PCDI was a corporation in good standing with the State of Wisconsin. …
From 1998 through 2002 VHC shareholders that owned PCDI shares included all of the VDH brothers, as well as [VOS Electric Inc. VP William Bain], [Guy ‘Butch’ Piontek], [Craig Kassner], [Ronald Lentz], [VHC Inc. Secretary Nancy Van Den Heuvel / Nancy Stellpflug], and [Jim Rottier]. Raymond [Van Den Heuvel] also owned shares of PCDI. Most of these shares were canceled in November of 2003. [James Kellam] still owns his PCDI shares. …
PCDI owned 67% of Custom Tissue, LLC (Custom Tissue), and the remaining portion was owned by employees or other related parties. Custom Tissue was incorporated in Wisconsin in 2003. Custom Tissue owned 49% of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. (NWTC), a Wisconsin corporation that was majority owned by Native American investors. TPTC performed management functions for NWTC under a management agreement. NWTC converted tissue rolls into finished, packaged products. [Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.] owned 100% of both Custom Paper Products, Inc. (CPPI), and Purely Cotton Products Corp. (Purely Cotton). CPPI was incorporated in 2000 in Wisconsin. It operated as a converting operation, which took large tissue rolls and cut them into consumer-size rolls. Purely Cotton owned the patents, technology, and intellectual property regarding a process for making tissue out of cotton. Custom Tissue, NWTC, CPPI, and Purely Cotton were administratively dissolved in 2012.
Tissue Technology, LLC (TTL), was incorporated in 2006 in Wisconsin, and serves as a holding company. Ronald H. is one of its members and controls the company. In 2012 TTL received a notice of administrative dissolution, but it was restored to good standing in July 2014. …
Beginning in 2000 William Bain, a VHC shareholder and former brother-in-law, served as a straw borrower for Ronald H. by obtaining loans on behalf of Ronald H. at different banks. In 2000 he obtained a loan for $125,000 from Associated Bank and a loan for $250,000 through Nicolet Bank. In 2002 he used his personal credit to obtain a $500,000 loan of which Ronald H. used the proceeds to buy out an EcoFibre shareholder. …
Nicolet Bank merged with Baylake Bank in 2016. As part of the due diligence process, it discovered that Baylake Bank had an $8 million loan with Ronald H. on its books. Nicolet Bank requested that Baylake Bank write off the loan with Ronald H., which it did, before the merger. There had been no source of repayment or collateral for that loan. In 2008 or 2009 Nicolet Bank also wrote off loans with Ronald H. and his related companies because there was no source of repayment. …
… Conclusion
After consideration of the circumstances of VHC’s advances to or for the benefit of Ronald H. and/or his related companies, and in the light of the factors set forth above, we conclude that the advances did not represent bona fide debt. VHC did not intend to create a bona fide debtor-creditor relationship, and the economic circumstances that existed during the time VHC made itsadvances establish that it did not reasonably expect repayment. VHC is not entitled to related-party bad debt deductions for the advances it made to Ronald H. and his related companies during the tax years at issue. Because we conclude that the advances do not constitute bona fide debt, we need not address whether VHC established that the advances became partially worthless during the tax years at issue.
Ron & Bill’s ‘straw borrower’ bank fraud schemes continued long after the year 2000:
November 9, 2009 WIDoC Contract #LEG FY10-19812, $2 Million Legislative Award Agreement between the Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce and ONEIDA NATION of WI owned ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORP. / OSGC
September 30, 2011 Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. Contract #WEDC FY12-21010,$1.2 Million Loan Agreement Between the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and GREEN BOX NA GREEN BAY, LLC with exhibits, amendments and General Business Security Agreement with Ron Van Den Heuvel’s signed personal Unlimited Guaranty, along with the signature of Fmr. Green Bay Mayor & Fmr. WEDC CEO Paul Jadin, and renegotiation contract signed by WEDC Vice-President Jake Kuester
November 16, 2011 Contract #SEP FY10-20265, $2 Million State Energy Program Loan Agreement between the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC and ONWI owned ONEIDA SEVEN GENERATIONS CORP. / OSGC-subsidiary ONEIDA ENERGY INC.
[WEDC] hadinvited Green Boxas late as [March 20, 2015] to participate in a‘trade trip’toTanzania, even though Green Box is beinginvestigated and it might be something like aPonzi scheme or acheck-kiting organization.
On July 21, 2015 the Green Bay Press-Gazettereported 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].
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 [USCIS] EB-5 Immigrant Investment Program.
[Ron] Van Den Heuvel worked through Green Detroit Regional Center, which is owned by a Georgia law firm that is authorized to operate in Wayne, Livingston, St. Claire, Lapeer and Macomb counties.... The center finds “foreign clients, mainly from China and South Korea, to invest in large alternative energy projects,” according to its website.
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. …
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.
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.
First, [Ron] Van Den Heuvel’s offense was highly planned and elaborately deceitful. Van Den Heuvel was a sophisticated actor who knew how banks operate, having formed numerous business entities, obtained loans from various banks, and even served on the board of directors for a bank. …
Second, the size, scope, and complexity of Van Den Heuvel’s offense compels significant consequences. Through the use of straw borrowers, Van Den Heuvel obtained no fewer than nine additional loans, totaling over $1 million. … And, Van Den Heuvel went to considerable lengths to conceal that he was actually behind the loans. … This was a long-term, calculated scheme to deceive the bank.
Third, Van Den Heuvel repeatedly manipulated and abused the trust of vulnerable people in his life. Van Den Heuvel put forward not only his business associate Steve Peters and family friend William Bain to obtain loans from Horicon Bank. Van Den Heuvel also took advantage of Julie Gumban, the nanny for his children. … As a live-in nanny, Gumban was dependent upon the Van Den Heuvels for food, shelter, and wages. … The Van Den Heuvels exploited Gumban’s vulnerable position by using her credit cards and convincing her to take out a loan at Horicon Bank. … Van Den Heuvel also roped in his administrative assistant Deb Stary, a subordinate who likely felt compelled to follow her boss’s orders. … And Van Den Heuvel involved his wife, who helped secure two loans for KYHKJG, LLC, and the loan to Gumban, and as a result, was indicted as a co-conspirator. … That was not the last time Van Den Heuvel would enlist his family in fraud. In 2013, Van Den Heuvel offered a job to his son-in- law [Patrick Hoffman] but did not pay him for several months of work. … Van Den Heuvel then convinced his son-in-law to approach several banks with forged pay stubs, which falsely inflated his salary, to seek loans on Van Den Heuvel’s behalf. … Van Den Heuvel’s claim to be a selfless family man simply does not match reality.
Fourth, contrary to Van Den Heuvel’s claim to be driven by “a desire to create and/or maintain functioning corporations,” his offense was driven bygreed. Witnesses consistently described the Van Den Heuvels as living a high-end lifestyle that included:
• A riverfront, five-bedroom residence worth at least $1.9 million
• A second home in Florida
• Luxury automobiles, such as two Cadillac Escalades
• A live-in nanny
• Private schools for their children
• Country club memberships
• Frequent dining at expensive restaurants
• Annual trips to Las Vegas
• A private jet
The Van Den Heuvels lived that life even as his businesses failed to generate any significant income. … Earlier in his career, Van Den Heuvel may well have been a successful businessman, able to support that life and engage in philanthropy. Tellingly, most of the charitable efforts Van Den Heuvel cites date from the 1990s. … But by the mid-2000s, Van Den Heuvel’s fortunes had changed, and he was not generating much income. … Rather than scale back his expenses, Van Den Heuvel sought to maintain the image by borrowing money. To keep just ahead of creditors, he kept on borrowing and then pressed others to borrow for him. All the while, Van Den Heuvel continued living far beyond his means, projecting a false image of success and philanthropy. For example, Van Den Heuvel cites his work for the March of Dimes. … Although that service is admirable, at least one of Van Den Heuvel’s contributions to the March of Dimes came from investors’ funds that he represented would be used to promote his Green Box business plan. See Sara Hager Declaration (Jan. 2, 2018). Thus, Van Den Heuvel’s offense was quite like a Ponzi scheme, seeking loan after loan to maintain a mirage of success.
Finally, this offense is especially serious because it targeted a federally insured financial institution. … Congress … provided stiffer sentences for frauds that affect financial institutions. … Van Den Heuvel has thus made a practice of manipulating financial institutions for his personal gain. This makes Van Den Heuvel’s fraud more serious than frauds against other types of victims. If anything, criminal history category I understates Van Den Heuvel’s criminality. … Many other offenders in criminal history category I are first-time offenders who engaged in a one-off offense. That description does not remotely fit Van Den Heuvel. Thus, the Court should consider that Van Den Heuvel has a long history of manipulating others for his personal gain. …
The need for both specific and general deterrence also supports a term of imprisonment. Van Den Heuvel has shown a disturbing, serial pattern of manipulating others over a long period of years. As noted, several years after the Horicon Bank fraud scheme, Van Den Heuvel attempted to defraud other banks through his son-in-law [Patrick Hoffman]. … A period of incarceration is appropriate to prevent Van Den Heuvel from engaging in fraud and to send him a message that such conduct results in real consequences. Likewise, a significant sentence is necessary to deter others in the community who would be tempted to view banks as opportunities to engage in scams. The potential for general deterrence is increased by the fact that Van Den Heuvel and this case are well known in the Green Bay area. Indeed, a light sentence would send the troubling message thatcrime pays.
UNITED STATES’ MOTION FOR REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF RELEASE ORDER
The United States of America, by and through its attorney, Matthew D. Krueger, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, respectfully moves the Court to revoke its order releasing defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel and to order detention pending appeal in Case No. 16-CR-64 and trial in Case No. 17-CR-160. In the alternative, the United States respectfully moves the Court to modify its release order to impose additional conditions of release.
BACKGROUND
Van Den Heuvel has been under court supervision since April 2016 when he was indicted for bank fraud in Case No. 16-CR-64. In that case, Van Den Heuvel was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. In advance of the sentencing, Van Den Heuvel moved to withdraw his guilty plea. 16-CR-64, Doc. 171. The Court denied that motion and sentenced Van Den Heuvel to three years of imprisonment on January 5, 2018. 16-CR-64, Doc. 184. The Court ordered Van Den Heuvel to pay restitution of $316,445.47 to Horicon Bank, which to date he has not paid. Id.
In September 2017, Van Den Heuvel was indicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges in Case No. 17-CR-160. These charges allege that Van Den Heuvel pursued a scheme to defraud lenders and investors by making false representations about his “Green Box” business plan, and then used much of the lenders’ and investors’ funds for other purposes. 17-CR-160, Doc. 1. Trial is scheduled for November 13, 2018. 17-CR-160, Doc. 41.
Van Den Heuvel appealed his conviction in Case No. 16-CR-64. For the appeal, Van Den Heuvel obtained new, appointed counsel who has submitted three motions to extend the deadline to file the opening brief. See Case No. 18-1147, Doc. 12, 14, 16. The opening brief is currently due on August 9, 2018.
At sentencing in Case No. 16-CR-64, the Court ordered Van Den Heuvel to report to Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) custody. But BOP subsequently declined to designate a report date until Van Den Heuvel’s pending charges are resolved. See 16-CR-64, Doc. 207. At a February 20, 2018 hearing, the Court decided to “take no action and allow the sentence to be essentially stayed pending the appeal and pending the resolution of the remaining criminal case so long as it does not appear there is unreasonable delay.” Id. Consistent with the plea agreement in Case No. 16-CR-64, the government did not object to Van Den Heuvel remaining out of custody to face the charges in Case No. 17-CR-160 for six months from sentencing. 16-CR-64, Doc. 151 ¶ 34. That the six-month period elapses on July 5, 2018.
In April 2018, the government presented information to the Court showing that Van Den Heuvel engaged in, and attempted to engage in, financial transactions that carried indicia of fraud. See 17-CR-160, Doc. 40. The Court conducted a bond hearing and imposed three additional conditions of release:
• “Defendant shall seek approval by U.S. Probation for any transactions involving $500.00 or more, either personally or on behalf of his business entities.”
• “Defendant must provide full disclosure to any party he is attempting or soliciting to conduct business with that he” (a) was convicted of bank fraud and faces a 3-year sentence; (b) faces 14 additional counts of wire fraud and money laundering; and (c) has court-appointed counsel because he is indigent.
• “Defendant must submit monthly financial reports to Pretrial Services to include (a) any amount and source of monthly income received; (b) current assets and disposal of assets which are in his name, or over which he has control or is able to convey; (c) provide copies of account statements from any bank or financial institution held in his name or over which he has control.”
17-CR-160, Doc. 42.
On June 18, 2018, the United States provided information to Pretrial Services regarding Van Den Heuvel’s activities that appear to violate his release conditions. This information is summarized below and in Docket No. 46’s Release Status Report. In recent days, the United States has obtained further information, which is being presented here directly to the Court so that it can be considered at the upcoming July 6, 2018 hearing. The underlying records and reports of interview related to this additional information are being submitted to defense counsel by email today.
A. Payments to Oneida Country Club
On May 11, 2018, Van Den Heuvel paid $3,500 in cash to Oneida Golf and Country Club (“Oneida Country Club”) without Pretrial Services’ approval. See Doc. 46. According to the Oneida employee who received the payment, Van Den Heuvel remarked that the Court had lifted restrictions on his bank accounts, and that his wife Kelly was the signer on the accounts and could use funds without repercussions, making it easier for Van Den Heuvel to obtain cash. Van Den Heuvel also paid an additional $14,781 to Oneida Country Club between September 20, 2017 and February 23, 2018, and incurred charges of $2,3228.59 during May 2018. Id.
When questioned by Pretrial Services, Van Den Heuvel claimed the $3,500 cash payment came from Tissue Technology because the Oneida Country Club membership was used for business purposes. 17-CR-160, Doc. 46. But the release condition requires Pretrial Services’ approval not only for personal transactions but also transactions done for Van Den Heuvel’s businesses. Moreover, his claim of business purposes is doubtful. 17-CR-160, Doc. 42. Records from Oneida Country Club show numerous charges for pro shop purchases, lessons, and meals for Van Den Heuvel’s wife and family. These include a charge of $915.60 on September 14, 2017, for new golf clubs and a charge of $834.51 that Kelly Van Den Heuvel incurred on June 5, 2018, for new clubs for herself. See Ex. A (Oneida Country Club records for Sept. 2017); Ex. B (Email with Oneida Country Club and receipt for clubs in June 2018).
B. Transfer of Conversion Van Without Pretrial Services’ Approval
According to knowledgeable witnesses, Van Den Heuvel had control of a 2005 Chevrolet conversion van that was titled in Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s name. Until recently, Van Den Heuvel permitted employees of Patriot Tissue in De Pere, Wisconsin, to use the van. Van Den Heuvel recently transferred the title and keys to the van to an individual named [Tony Hayes] who had come to own equipment known as after-dryers that Van Den Heuvel was seeking to purchase. T.H.’s understanding was that the van was worth $2,500. A records search corroborated that, on June 8, 2018, registration of the van was changed from Kelly Van Den Heuvel to the girlfriend of T.H. U.S. Probation Officer Brian Koehler states that Van Den Heuvel did not seek approval from Pretrial Services before transferring the van.
C. Failure to Provide Complete Monthly Financial Reports
U.S. Probation Officer Brian Koehler reports that in late June 2018, Van Den Heuvel submitted documentation as his required monthly financial report. According to Mr. Koehler, Van Den Heuvel did not submit any account statements from any bank or financial institution.
This omission is concerning because Van Den Heuvel appears to keep bank accounts and assets out of his name to avoid detection. First, the government’s investigation has found numerous bank accounts that Van Den Heuvel controlled but titled in the names of entities or other individuals, often with his wife Kelly Van Den Heuvel having signatory authority. Second, as noted, Van Den Heuvel told the Oneida Country Club employee said that because Kelly was the signer on his bank accounts, she could use funds without repercussions, and he could obtain cash. Third, according to another Oneida Country Club employee, Kelly Van Den Heuvel recently asked to set up an automatic payment of the family’s account from their son’s trust account. (Oneida Country Club denied the request; the government does not have information about the son’s trust account.) Fourth, as noted, the 2005 Chevrolet conversion van was titled in Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s name, even though Van Den Heuvel allowed it to be used primarily for Patriot Tissue employees.
This pattern suggests that Van Den Heuvel is likely using bank accounts in others’ names without disclosing the accounts to Pretrial Services. It seems highly implausible that the Van Den Heuvels could maintain their high-end lifestyle without using any bank accounts.
D. Additional Attempts to Sell Kool Machine
The government recently learned that Van Den Heuvel attempted to persuade a company located in Boise, Idaho – [Dynamis Energy] referred to herein as Company A—to purchase a pyrolysis machine manufactured by Kool Manufacturing. Van Den Heuvel had purchased the Kool machine with funds from victim Cliffton Equities and EB-5 investors, as well as other entities. 17-CR-160, Doc. 40, at 3-4. The Kool machine remains in a warehouse in De Pere, Wisconsin, today. Those victims and other creditors have claims against the Kool machine, which became subject to the Green Box NA Green Bay bankruptcy case. Id. Despite those claims, from early 2016 through as recently as June 26, 2018, Van Den Heuvel periodically contacted Company A in attempts to persuade Company A to purchase the Kool machine.
E. Inappropriate Contacts with Witnesses
In recent weeks, Van Den Heuvel has contacted individuals after learning that they made statements to investigating agents. In several cases, Van Den Heuvel apparently had no legitimate reason to contact the witnesses but rather made the contact for the purpose of conveying his awareness of their cooperation with law enforcement.
First, on June 18, 2018, the United States submitted to Pretrial Services the report of interview of Oneida Country Club employee M.J. The United States also provided Van Den Heuvel’s counsel with a copy of the report. That same day, Van Den Heuvel called M.J. to “thank” her and express apologies for her having to speak with the investigative agent, whom he described as an “asshole.”
Second, that same day, June 18, 2018, Van Den Heuvel sent a text message to a witness [Mason Kashat] whose statement had been disclosed to Van Den Heuvel in discovery. They spoke by phone the next day and Van Den Heuvel claimed he had nearly closed a deal and would be able to repay Ma.K. soon. Van Den Heuvel also added that he had read Ma.K.’s “testimony” and was “not mad” at Ma.K. or his partner, who had also made a statement to investigators.
Third, also on June 18, 2018, Van Den Heuvel called [Brian Glimes], who previously worked for Van Den Heuvel at a sorting and pulping facility. Van Den Heuvel claimed he called to relay that he planned to purchase the facility. But then Van Den Heuvel went on to say he got a “cute note” from the FBI, which reflected that B.G. had used his own money to pay for business expenses at Van Den Heuvel’s request. This apparently referred to a statement that Van Den Heuvel read in a report of interview that B.G. had given.
Fourth, in April 2018, very shortly after receiving information in discovery about A.K.’s cooperation with the government, Van Den Heuvel called A.K. According to A.K., Van Den Heuvel screamed and cursed at him because A.K. had forwarded an email from Van Den Heuvel to the government.
DISCUSSION
I. Van Den Heuvel Should Be Detained for Violating Conditions of Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)
The consequences for violating a condition of release are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), which provides that the Court “shall enter an order of revocation and detention if, after a hearing,” the Court:
(1) finds that there is —
(A) probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local crime while on release; or
(B) clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated any other condition of release; and
(2) finds that —
(A) based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of [Title 18], there is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.
Thus, detention is required upon findings that (1) Van Den Heuvel either committed a crime or violated a condition of release, and (2) Van Den Heuvel poses a risk of flight or dangerousness, or is unlikely to comply with conditions of release. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). The government bears the burden of proof under § 3148(b).
A. Clear and Convincing Evidence Shows That Van Den Heuvel Violated Conditions of Release
The government has carried its burden under § 3148(b)(1)(B) because there is clear and convincing evidence that in at least two recent instances, Van Den Heuvel has violated the condition that he seek Pretrial Services’ approval for financial transactions exceeding $500. First, Van Den Heuvel admitted that he paid $3,500 to Oneida Country Club on May 11, 2018, and the payment is corroborated by the associated business records. Van Den Heuvel’s representation that the payment was a business expense is no defense because the release condition requires approval for business expenditures. 17-CR-160, Doc. 46. More importantly, his representation is false, as evidenced by the inherently personal nature of many of the expenses that led to the Oneida Country Club bills, such as new golf clubs.
Second, Van Den Heuvel did not obtain Pretrial Services’ approval before transferring title of the 2005 Chevrolet van, which T.H. believed to be worth $2,500. He may claim the transfer was not subject to Pretrial Services’ approval because it was titled in Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s name or because it was used for business purposes. But, again, the condition applies to business transactions and to any asset over which he has control, if not title. 17-CR-160, Doc. 46. Precisely because Van Den Heuvel routinely plays games with how he titles assets and comingles personal and business expenses, these violations are serious.
Third, as detailed above, Van Den Heuvel has not provided meaningful disclosure of his finances to Pretrial Services. He and his family must be using some bank accounts, but he has not disclosed any account records. It appears that the only financial records Van Den Heuvel has produced are records he generated himself. Given his bank fraud conviction and the pending charges in this case, the Court should be highly skeptical of records he produces. That is why obtaining records from third-party financial instiutions is so important. The government’s investigation has identified dozens of bank accounts opened by the Van Den Heuvels at numerous banks over the years. Because they switch accounts so frequently, however, Pretrial Services has no effective way to monitor Van Den Heuvel if he does not disclose his financial records. The three foregoing violations are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
B. There Is Probable Cause to Find that Van Den Heuvel Has Committed Additional Crimes While on Release
The government has also carried its burden under § 3148(b)(1)(A) because there is probable cause to find that Van Den Heuvel committed additional crimes while on release. The government incorporates here its April 3, 2018 Motion to Amend Conditions of Release (17-CR- 160, Doc. 40) and summarizes below facts that constitute probable cause that Van Den Heuvel committed, or attempted to commit, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, similar to conduct at issue in Case No. 17-CR-160.
1. Transactions with J.L.
From summer 2016 through early 2018, Van Den Heuvel negotiated with J.L., seeking funding for various projects and equipment. 17-CR-160, Doc. 40, at 2-4. Van Den Heuvel sent J.L. information that was false. Id. For example, Van Den Heuvel sent an “Executive Summary” of the “Great Lakes Tissue” project in Cheboygan, Michigan, claiming that $7.7 million in “EB5 Funds were paid” for equipment in the project. Doc. 40-1, Ex. A. In truth, Van Den Heuvel received substantially less than $7.7 million in EB-5 funds; moreover, most of the funds were not used for equipment for the Cheboygan, Michigan project. Doc. 40, at 3. Van Den Heuvel also sent a resume claiming that “Green Box has partnered with Cargill, Inc.,” Doc. 40-2, Ex. B, when in truth, Cargill never had an agreement with Green Box and had terminated its agreement with a different Van Den Heuvel-controlled entity back in 2013.
2. Attempts to Sell Kool Machine
In November 2017, Van Den Heuvel worked with J.L. in an attempt to sell the Kool machine that is in De Pere, Wisconsin. Doc. 40, at 3-4. As noted, the Kool machine is subject to claims by multiple victims and creditors. Van Den Heuvel nonetheless attempted to sell unit through J.L. and even attempted to charge $5,000 for giving a demonstration of the Kool machine. Id. (As detailed above, Van Den Heuvel also attempted to sell the Kool machine to Company A without disclosing that his ownership of the Kool machine was, at best, clouded by numerous creditors’ claims.) Although the government is not aware of evidence showing that Van Den Heuvel ultimately received any funds from or through J.L., these facts amount to probable cause to find at least attempted wire fraud. That is, Van Den Heuvel made false and misleading representations regarding his business plans and the Kool machines in an attempt to induce payment of funds.
3. Transactions with A.K., Ma.K., and Mi.K.
Van Den Heuvel persuaded [Alex Knapp] and Ma.K. of New York to make three loans, totaling $87,500, sent through interstate wires, to Van Den Heuvel-controlled entities Cotton, Tissue Techonology, Inc., and PCDI MI, from June 2017 through December 2017. Doc. 40, at 5. Among the collateral pledged by Van Den Heuvel for the loans were equipment known as after- dryers. Id. Yet, according to a knowledgeable witness, Van Den Heuvel no longer owned or controlled the after-dryers. Id. These facts constitute probable cause that Van Den Heuvel committed wire fraud. He made fraudulent representations about the nature of the collateral supporting the loans in order to induce payments, which were sent by interstate wire transfer.
In addition, Van Den Heuvel sent Ma.K. and a broker named [Mike Kalet] information in mid- 2017 in an attempt to obtain further funding. Id. at 5. The information contained false information, including that Kelly Van Den Heuvel was the President of Tissue Technology, LLC and PCDI Michigan and had a net worth of $29 million. Id. Van Den Heuvel also told Mi.K. that he had prevailed in a lawsuit against Sharad Tak when, in fact, Tak had prevailed in a federal suit against Van Den Heuvel. Id. The government has no information that indicates Van Den Heuvel successfully obtained funds through Mi.K., but Mi.K. relied on Van Den Heuvel to send misleading information to potential investors. Id. Although this scheme appears to have been less developed, it arguably still constitutes attempted wire fraud.
C. Van Den Heuvel Is Unlikely to Abide by Conditions of Release
Given the evidence that Van Den Heuvel violated release conditions and committed additional crimes, detention is warranted on the ground that Van Den Heuvel is “unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(B). Van Den Heuvel has demonstrated his inability to comply with even simple conditions of release, such as seeking Pretrial Services’ approval for financial transactions. The evidence suggest this inability flows from intractable dishonesty. Van Den Heuvel admitted to the Oneida Country Club employee that he has moved bank accounts out of his name to avoid detection. And when confronted with his Oneida Country Club payment, Van Den Heuvel obfuscated and lied to Pretrial Services. These patterns are longstanding with Van Den Heuvel, who was convicted of defrauding Horicon Bank and now faces charges for another convoluted fraud scheme in Case No. 17-CR-160.
Van Den Heuvel has displayed no sign of stopping his fraudulent conduct. In addition to the post-indictment conduct described above, it bears mentioning that Van Den Heuvel presented information to Pretrial Services on March 23, 2018, regarding multiple additional financial transactions that he claimed to be pursuing. See Doc. 40, at 6-8. First, Van Den Heuvel proposed selling 5% of stock in Tissue Technology for $5 million, even though he represented in his presentence report in Case No. 16-CR-64 that Tissue Technology shares were held in a trust controlled by other individuals, and that the stock had no ascertainable value. Id. at 7. Second, Van Den Heuvel proposed selling stock in Purely Cotton to Great Lakes Tissue in exchange for $2 million in patent royalties, even though the owner of Great Lakes Tissue informed government agents that he had no intention of buying Purely Cotton stock, nor did he have reason to think Purely Cotton had any assets. Id. Third, Van Den Heuvel proposed selling stock in PCDI to a man in Ghana for $6 million, even though Van Den Heuvel represented in his presentence report that PCDI shares were held in a trust controlled by others and had no ascertainable value. Id. at 8. Fourth, Van Den Heuvel proposed entering into a consulting agreement with Great Lakes Tissue and a royalty agreement with PC Fibre Box for intellectual property, even though, again, the ownership structure and value of any intellectual property is highly doubtful. See id. at 8-9.
The government does not yet have sufficient evidence to contend that these transactions amounted to wire fraud, but the proposed transactions remain highly questionable. What may be most striking about these are their sheer number. This reinforces the conclusion that [Ron] Van Den Heuvel is a persistent, unrepentant fraudster, even after being convicted of bank fraud and sentenced to three years of imprisonment.
In sum, the Court cannot find that Van Den Heuvel would comply with new release conditions. The defense will likely propose home confinement or restrictions on Van Den Heuvel’s ability to communicate with witnesses or engage in financial transactions. His track-record, however, provides no basis to believe he would comply with those conditions. In addition, the burden on Pretrial Services to try to monitor his compliance would be unreasonable.
D. No Conditions Can Assure that Van Den Heuvel Will Not Flee or Pose a Danger to Others’ Safety
In addition, the Court can find that detention is required because, based upon the factors set forth in § 3142(g), no condition or combination of conditions will assure that Van Den Heuvel will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of another person or the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2).
The nature and circumstance of the offense charged, although not a violent crime, is very serious, with fraud loss amounts exceeding $9 million. If convicted of the whole scheme, Van Den Heuvel would be exposed to the potential of lengthy incarceration. This creates an increased likelihood of flight and of Van Den Heuvel engaging in extreme actions, as he has already shown a willingness to contact witnesses inappropriately.
The second § 3142(g) factor is the weight of the evidence. The United States proffers that the evidence is very strong. Numerous witnesses, both victims and individuals who worked with Van Den Heuvel, will testify that Van Den Heuvel made false representations about the Green Box process and how lenders and investors’ funds would be used. Representations about how the funds would be used were also reduced to writing in agreements. Financial records and receipts of expenditures show, in concrete and undisputable fashion, how Van Den Heuvel quickly diverted huge sums of investors’ and lenders’ funds to unauthorized purposes to fuel his lavish lifestyle. This overwhelming evidence increases the risk that Van Den Heuvel will flee or act dangerously towards others.
Next, the history and characteristics of Van Den Heuvel are mixed. Without question, Van Den Heuvel has deep family ties and a long history in the community, and he has appeared consistently at court hearings in these two cases. At the same time, Van Den Heuvel has demonstrated increasingly erratic behavior, as shown by his inappropriate contacts with witnesses. Further, Van Den Heuvel is relatively sophisticated and well-traveled with an uncanny ability to persuade people to lend him large sums of money. His wife and children recently visited the Cayman Islands. Doc. 46. As the trial in this case approaches and Van Den Heuvel runs out of ways to delay incarceration, there is a significant risk that he may seek to flee.
Finally, the Court must assess the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community if Van Den Heuvel remained released. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4). Van Den Heuvel’s persistent track record of fraudulent conduct creates a real risk that he will continue to seek to defraud others around him, pressuring people to loan funds and invest in his fraudulent business plans. In addition, although Van Den Heuvel does not have a criminal history of violence, witnesses have stated that Van Den Heuvel can become verbally aggressive and that he physically assaulted one witness. Specifically in August 2011, former business partner [Howard Bedford] confronted Van Den Heuvel regarding his fraudulent misuse of funds, and Van Den Heuvel responded by punching [Howard Bedford] in the head. H.B. states that he took himself to a hospital afterwards and was diagnosed with a concussion. More recently, Van Den Heuvel was verbally abusive towards A.K., and he has engaged in subtle intimidation of witnesses in recent contacts.
Taken together, the Court could also base detention on the finding that no condition or combination of conditions will assure that Van Den Heuvel will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of another person or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2).
II. Van Den Heuvel Should Be Detained Pending Appeal in Case No. 16-CR-64 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143
The Court should also detain Van Den Heuvel pending appeal in Case No. 16-CR-64. Release or detention pending appeal is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), which creates a presumption of detention unless the Court makes findings that support release. The Court has not expressly make such findings in deciding whether to permit Van Den Heuvel to remain released. Section 3143(b)(1) provides that the Court “shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal . . . , be detained,” unless the Court finds:
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in —
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.
18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). The burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requirements for release have been met lies with Van Den Heuvel. See United States v. Bilanzich, 771 F.2d 292, 298 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding that § 3143 “requires the defendant, not the government, to shoulder ‘the burden of showing the merit of the appeal’”); see also, e.g., United States v. Hanhardt, 173 F. Supp. 2d 801, 805 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof on each element of § 3143, citing United States v. Holzer, 848 F.2d 822, 824 (7th Cir. 1988)).
Thus, to avoid detention pending appeal, Van Den Heuvel must show both that he is unlikely to flee or cause danger to others, and also that his appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact. The above discussion of the § 3142(g) factors shows why Van Den Heuvel cannot show that he is unlikely to flee, given the significant incarceration he faces, his ability to access funds, and his familiarity with international travel. Nor can he show he is unlikely to be dangerous to others, given his persistent fraud schemes and aggressive behavior to individuals who have been confronted him and cooperated with the government.
Van Den Heuvel also cannot carry his burden regarding the merits of his appeal. Although his opening brief has not yet been filed, it is anticipated that Van Den Heuvel will challenge the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The Court issued a detailed, thorough written order on that issue, and there is no apparent question of law or fact, let alone a substantial one by which Van Den Heuvel could carry his burden under § 3143(b). 16-CR-64, Doc. 183. Accordingly, detention under § 3143(b) is required.
Detention under this provision makes sense for the additional reason that the Court had ordered at sentencing that Van Den Heuvel should report to BOP custody. Given Van Den Heuvel’s disregard for his conditions of release, it is appropriate for the Court to follow through with its initial plan of having him begin to serve his sentence in Case No. 16-CR-64.
Defense counsel may contend that detention will prevent Van Den Heuvel from being able to prepare for trial in Case No. 17-CR-160, given the complexity of the case and volume of discovery. Without meaning to minimize the difficulty of preparing for trial while detained, numerous defendants must do so. Working with the U.S. Marshals Service, the Court is likely able to ensure that the Brown County officials provide Van Den Heuvel with reasonable access to counsel and discovery. To date, he has had well over six months to review discovery and confer with counsel, which is far more than many defendants receive.
III. In the Alternative, the Court Should Modify the Conditions of Release
In the alternative that the Court decides not to detain Van Den Heuvel, the Court should modify the release conditions to require Van Den Heuvel to provide meaningful financial information and to limit Van Den Heuvel’s ability to contact witnesses or pursue business plans. Specifically, the government would recommend these additional conditions:
(a) home confinement with GPS monitoring;
(b) a prohibition on communicating in any manner with potential witnesses in this case; and
(c) a prohibition on soliciting, proposing, or considering any transactions that involved any business investments or loans or transfer or leases of equipment, including but not limited to any transactions related to any pyrolysis units (a/k/a Kool Units) or after-dryers.
Additionally, if the Court does not order Van Den Heuvel detained or subject to home confinement, the United States respectfully requests that Van Den Heuvel be required to seek full-time employment with an employer that would pay him wages, subject to approval of Pretrial Services. Theoretically, working full-time for wages would limit the amount of time that Van Den Heuvel could spend trying to pursue new fraud schemes and would help Van Den Heuvel earn legitimate wages for the payment of restitution and the reimbursement of appointed counsel fees.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the United States respectfully requests that Van Den Heuvel be detained pending trial in Case No. 17-CR-160 and appeal in Case No. 16-CR-64. In the alternative, the United States respectfully requests that the conditions of Van Den Heuvel’s release be modified as described above.
Dated this 3rd day of July, 2018 at Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew D. Krueger
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Wisconsin
July 5, 2018 Brief and Required Short Appendix of Plaintiffs-Appellants Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., & Tissue Products Technology Corp., U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 18-1835, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak, Defendants-Appellees
July 6, 2018 Bond Review Hearing Minutes re: Government’s Motion for Revocation or Modification of Release Order of Ron Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case Nos. 17-CR-160 and 16-CR-64, United States of America v. Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel
[Ron] Van Den Heuvel has been convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud for using straw borrowers to obtain loans under false pretenses for personal use and to keep his business, Green Box NA, and associated businesses afloat. He was sentenced in January to three years in prison, but he was allowed to remain free under certain conditions while additional federal charges — wire fraud and money laundering — remain pending.
U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach had required Van Den Heuvel to notify the government of any financial transactions larger than $500, file monthly reports disclosing income and bank statements and disclose his legal and financial troubles to potential investors.
Prosecutors alleged that Van Den Heuvel in May paid $3,500 in cash to Oneida Golf and Country Club without the government’s approval and had previously paid nearly $15,000 to the club between September 2017 and February 2018.
The government also alleged that Van Den Heuvel failed to submit bank account statements as required, even though prosecutors believe that Van Den Heuvel has numerous accounts under his control but not in his name. …
Van Den Heuvel also was accused of engaging in “subtle intimidation of witnesses in recent contacts,” selling a van without authorization and attempting to sell a pyrolysis machine that is the subject of claims from multiple creditors.
Van Den Heuvel is charged in federal court with 14 counts of wire fraud and money laundering related to $9 million collected from investors in his now-bankrupt Green Box recycling business. The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 13.
Ron Van Den Heuvel, the De Pere businessman accused of bilking millions from investors, was jailed Friday after authorities alleged he committed more fraud and intimidated witnesses while free on bond.
“Fraud has continued,” U.S. District Court Judge William Griesbach said. “He’s continued to commit crimes.”
Van Den Heuvel was sentenced to three years in prison in January for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and, in a second case, also faces 14 counts of wire fraud and money laundering for allegedly deceiving investors out of $9 million in his now-bankrupt Green Box recycling business. …
Court records show Van Den Heuvel and his family spent more than $18,000 in total at the club between September and May — all while he claimed to be indigent and in need of a public defender.
Van Den Heuvel, who took the witness stand to testify, said he told the lender the $20,000 loan would be used for business expenses.
Receipts show most if not all of the money was used to buy equipment, golf lessons and food such as shrimp cocktails and tacos for Van Den Heuvel’s wife and children.
Van Den Heuvel’s wife also transferred the title of a van worth $2,500 to help pay down a debt.
Krueger said Van Den Heuvel also failed to submit bank account statements as required. Investigators believe that Van Den Heuvel has numerous accounts under his control even though not all are in his name.
On July 6, the court ordered a bond hearing. There was testimony that Van Den Heuvel had received a $20,000 loan and spent thousands of dollars at Oneida Golf and Country Club.
“The Court is satisfied that fraud has continued and the defendant has shown disregard for the orders of this Court,” reads the federal court records. “The Court finds the temptation to flee or take steps to avoid responsibility of facing trial is strong.”
Prosecutors say he fraudulently obtained more than $9 million in loans and investments for his eco-friendly “Green Box” business plan.
The indictment alleges that Van Den Heuvel claimed that Green Box could turn post consumer waste into usable consumer products and energy. …
Van Den Heuvel allegedly 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 of 2011, WEDC provided Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC with a loan of $1,116,000 to purchase equipment to create 116 jobs in the “Green Box” operation.
Instead, the indictment says he submitted false certifications claiming to have spent the funds properly.
In January of 2012, WEDC also awarded Green Box with a $95,000 grant to reimburse the company for costs to train new workers. Van Den Heuvel is accused of submitting fraudulent time records for training that never happened.
Counts 1-10 of the indictment charge Van Den Heuvel with executing the scheme to defraud by use of interstate wire communications. Maximum penalty on each count includes not more than 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 or both, plus a mandatory $100 special assessment and a period of supervised release.
Counts 11-14 charge Van Den Heuvel with unlawful financial transactions involving the ill-gotten gains. The maximum penalty for each individual count includes not more than 5 years in prison a fine of $250,000 or both. Plus a mandatory $100 special assessment and a term of supervised release not to exceed three years.
August 9, 2018 Brief of Defendant-Appellee TAK Investments LLC, U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 18-1835, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc., Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TAK Investments LLC and Sharad Tak, Defendants-Appellees [44 pages]
[Atty. Jonathan Smies / Godfrey & Kahn SC for Sharad Tak] Q: So as you sit here today it’s your view, at least, that [Ron] Van Den Heuvel or his companies in some way owe you or more precisely [Van Den Heuvel siblings-owned] VHC[Inc.] 150 million dollars approximately?
[David Van Den Heuvel] A: Roughly.
[Atty. Smies] Q: Do your companies owe [Ron] Van Den Heuvel anything?
[David Van Den Heuvel] A: We do not. He does have some shares at VHC, but they’re pledged to us against his personal debt that he owes us. The personal debt is more than the value of the shares.
[Atty. Smies] Q: What are the value of the shares?
Based upon his thorough and conscientious review of the entire record of the proceedings in the district court below, and from communications with the Defendant-Appellant, the undersigned attorney has concluded that there exists no non-frivolous issue that can be raised in this appeal on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant. …
Wherefore, Thomas W. Patton respectfully requests the entry of an order granting him leave to withdraw as the Defendant-Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal in the above-entitled cause.
[Ron] Van Den Heuvel cannot raise any argument regarding the motion to suppress because it has been waived for direct appeal in this case. He waived the issue by withdrawing the motion in the district court and by entering into a unconditional guilty plea.
Any argument challenging Van Den Heuvel’s conviction would be frivolous where he entered into an unconditional, knowing, and voluntary plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, and the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when accepting his plea. The Rule 11 colloquy in this case was thorough and adequately advised Van Den Heuvel. Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying Van Den Heuvel’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea. He was not coerced into the plea because it contained an agreement to dismiss charges against his wife and he did not provide any evidence that he was actually innocent of the conspiracy he pled guilty to.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Van Den Heuvel’s motion to adjourn the sentencing hearing and did not err in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney. Both motions were made a few days prior to sentencing and were not supported by evidence or adequate reasons for granting.
Any argument challenging Van Den Heuvel’s sentence would be frivolous where his sentence was not imposed in violation of the law, was not the result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, and was not unreasonable. The district court did not err by imposing a term or the conditions of supervised release.
Although the parties have not exchanged witness lists, the United States currently expects that as many as 75 witnesses may testify. Of those witnesses, approximately 55% are located in the State of Wisconsin, and 45% are located outside of Wisconsin. With respect to the Wisconsin-based witnesses, approximately 70% live in the greater Green Bay area, meaning that a significant plurality (approximately 40%) of the total witnesses live in or near Green Bay. Several of the other Wisconsin-based witnesses live in the Madison area, meaning they will have to travel either to Green Bay or Milwaukee. The non-Wisconsin witnesses live in States ranging from Illinois to Florida and California, as well as foreign countries including Canada and China.
[V]irtually every event that has occurred in the defendant’s cases, as well as matters relating to the defendant, but not specifically part of the court filings, is described in the blog or is easily accessible through a link conveniently provided by the blog’s author. There is virtually no need for access to PACER in this case because the Oneida Eye has provided the same service to the public. PACER, at least, offers the reader the documents in a non-editorialized fashion. The blogger from the Oneida Eye has depicted [Ron]Van Den Heuvel as the virtual Anti-Christ. Contrary to the claim of the government, the pretrial coverage is not simply routine press offerings. They, in concert, paint a vivid picture of the defendant’s alleged criminal conduct.
10:16 am The Court FINDS that Mr. Van Den Huevel has knowingly and voluntarily given up his right to have an attorney represent him.
10:21 am Further inquiry as to competence, mental alertness and competence to make the decision to represent himself. The Court notes the record is to reflect that his wife is shaking her head no in the back of the Courtroom. The Court inquires as to any question of competence. Mr. Krueger requests further questioning, not a formal evaluation. Mr. LeBell responds that both criteria are satisfied. Mr. Krueger responds, does not see need for further evaluation. The Court inquires as to blood sugar levels and documentation. Mr. LeBell responds.
10:24 am The Court is satisfied that defendant is not suffering from any mental incompetence or impairment. The Court finds that Defendant has freely and voluntarily waived his right to have counsel represent him and ACCEPTS his waiver of right to counsel. Mr. LeBell is to supplement record with any evidence of Defendant’s physical condition today.
10:25 am Motion to remove Mr. LeBell as legal counsel is GRANTED. The Court would like Mr. LeBell to remain on this case as stand-by counsel. The Court will enter an order clarifying the responsibilities of stand-by counsel.
10:26 am The Court takes a recess.
10:44 am The Court resumes. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for change of venue at this time. …
4:24 pm … The Court inquires if Defendant would like to reconsider his Motion to dismiss court appointed counsel.
Defendant WITHDRAWS his Motion to dismiss court appointed counsel. GRANTED.
Mr. LeBell is re-appointed as counsel of record for Defendant.
September 4, 2018 Notification of Docket Entry, Status Hearing set for 12/06/18, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Docket No. 17-CV-108, RNS Servicing, LLC v. Spirit Construction Services, Inc., Steven Van Den Heuvel, ST Paper, LLC and Sharad Tak
5. Fortune Avenue [LLC] is now and was at the time of filing the Complaint, a citizen of the States of Wisconsin and Georgia for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Upon information and belief, the sole member of Fortune Avenue isSpirit Construction Services, Inc. Spirit Construction Services, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with a principal place of business located in Green Bay, Wisconsin and is, therefore, a citizen of Georgia and Wisconsin for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction.
6. [Howard] Bedford is now and was at the time of the filing of the Complaint a citizen of the State of Florida.
One such credit line came shortly before 2000, when VHC [Inc.] issued a line of credit to Ron’s cotton fiber plant for the installation of a key machine. It did so at the request of United Arab Emirates Investment Ltd., [UAEI] which had made an offer on the plant that would have far exceeded the amount of the company’s debt for the machine. However, UAEI withdrew from the deal at the last minute after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, saying the status of a Middle Eastern company in the U.S. at the time was too risky.
Around the same time, Enron, one of the debtor’s key backers, filed for bankruptcy.
“With the collapse of both deals, lenders began contacting petitioner about accelerating repayment of the loans to the debtor’s companies and calling in the guarantees of petitioner,” VHC said.VHC gave the company even more money following the two collapses to help the debtor get back on its feet, according to the petition.
NEVER FORGET : No plane hit 7 World Trade Center on 9/11
Wally Hilliard’s links to American intelligence go back (at least) to November of 1981, when his insurance company, Wisconsin Employer’s Group, wasbought out byMyron Du Bain, a World War II OSS/CIA operative and the Chairman of Fireman’s Fund of San Francisco.
Myron du Bain
We discovered the connection in a trip to Green Bay several years ago.
But only recently did we learn that Myron Du Bain’s life-long ties to the CIA included two stints at the helm of the Stanford Research Institute (SRI)….
Wally Hilliard’s connection with Myron Du Bain may shed light on Hilliard’s curious metamorphosis after retiring to Florida in 1996.
Hilliard went from being a wealthy Green Bay WI insurance executive whose official corporate slogan was “Love God & Back the Pack” to fronting for clandestine operations bearing the almost unmistakable mark of the CIA.
His two flight schools trained dozens of Arabs, several later made infamous for having killed thousands in New York and Washington D.C., and others less well known but who are today nonetheless considered terror suspects.
Hilliard also served duty as the “paper” owner of record on FAA registrations for dozens of airplanes. that some of them were used in CIA renditions and international drug trafficking.
On July 25, 2000, Wally Hilliard’s LearJet was surrounded by machine-gun-toting DEA agents at Orlando Executive Airport. They found 43 lbs. of heroin aboard. …
The list of individuals that Wallace J. Hilliard is associated with who are involved in America’s “Clandestine Services” and who can fairly be described as “covert operatives” is a long one.
After retiring to Naples in 1996, Hilliard hobnobbed with an assortment of international ‘players’ who are decidedly uncharacteristic of circles a retired-to Florida insurance executives might normally travel in.
A retired insurance executive from Green Bay Wisconsin, Hilliard appears to be the last person anyone would suspect of up-to-their-necks involvement in international intrigue, drug trafficking, or geo-political stratagems.
Aviation mechanic Dave Montgomery, known as “Jet Dave” at the Naples Airport, thinks that may have been the point. Montgomery witnessed a secretive meeting between Hilliard and the founder of Waste Management, garbage king Wayne Huizenga, conducted entirely inside a helicopter on the tarmac at Naples airport.
Huizenga, who at that time was also the owner of the Miami Dolphins, flew in on a chopper with a Dolphins helmet emblazoned on the side, Montgomery said. Hilliard went out to meet it, and got in.
Then the two men then sat inside the helicopter for almost an hour.
“And it was hot that day in Naples,” the aviation mechanic said. “And they just sat there, in the sun.”
Naples flight manager Danielle Clarke told us Hilliard didn’t act like someone who had retired. Naples was in the middle of the action. 9/11 hijackers Atta and Marwan flew there regularly.
“The man quickly purchased—and in very short order—a fleet of fifteen jets. He spent between $30 and $40 million on planes. He still (in 2003) has 20 very expensive airplanes left, including Lear 35s, and Gulfstreams.”
Clarke, a British aviatrix who came to Florida after her British pilot husband died, snorts at Hilliard’s attempt at portraying a “pious man.”
“Wally came in quite a bit, seemed very compassionate, made a lot of references to God,” she said. “You’d be talking about business; then all of a sudden he’d mention the Good Lord.”
She waved a hand dismissively. “It got to be a bit much.”
Especially in light of the fact that Hilliard’s taste in secretaries was particularly un-Godly. Summer (Hilliard’s personal secretary) was 5 foot 7, long blond hair, and a real looker, Danielle Clarke said.
“She wore exceedingly short skirts and very low cut tops,” Clarke remarked tartly.
“You struggled to find a bit of cloth on the woman!”
Also, at some point in there, 22-year old Summer Jeffries was busted for heroin at the airport.
May 2, 2006 Third Amended Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2005-CV-694, Kenneth Jossart, Bernie Dahlin, et al. [36 Plaintiff entities] v. Wallace J. Hilliard / Wally Hilliard re: Sunrise Airlines Inc., Florida Air Holdings Inc./FAH, Plane-1 Leasing Co. Inc., & [Rudi] Dekkers Aviation Group Inc.
June 25, 2015, AGREED JUDGMENT, Judge Barbara B. Crabb; U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 3:2014-cv-408, United States of America v. Patricia Hilliard, Wallace Hillard, Bank of America NA, Hilliard Limited Partnership, Daniel Hilliard and Andrew Hilliard as Trustees of the Wallace J. Hilliard Flint Trust, and Green Bay Air, Inc.
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. Wallace Hilliard is indebted to the United States for the Form 1040 federal income taxes, penalties and additions to tax assessed against him for the 1996 tax year, in the aggregate amount of $2,258,402.04 as of May 29, 2015, plus interest and other additions to tax allowed by law accruing thereafter … until paid.
2. Wallace Hilliard is indebted to the United States for the Form 1040 federal income taxes, penalties and additions to tax assessed against him for the 1997 tax year, in the aggregate amount of $726,963.33 as of May 29, 2015, plus interest and other additions to tax allowed by law accruing thereafter under … until paid.
July 17, 2003 Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 03-CV-669, Industrial Technology Ventures LP v. Partners Concepts Development Inc., Ronald Van Den Heuvel, Daniel Platkowski, Steven Peters, Kathleen Berg, James Kellam, Bernard Dahlin, and Tissue Products Technology Corp.
81. Upon information and belief, Ron Van Den Heuvel and Steven Peters, as Directors of [Partners Concepts Development Inc. / PCDI], and the Directors of [Tissue Products Technology Corp. / TPTC] are contemplating selling a majority ownership interest [in Custom Paper Products Inc. / CPPI] to the Oneida Nation [of Wisconsin / ONWI]. Such a sale would be unlawful and would result in obvious irreparable harm for which no adequate remedy at law exists.
82. The Plaintiff [Industrial Technology Ventures LP / ITV] seeks temporary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the sale of CPPI to the Oneida Nation [of WI / ONWI] based on the allegations set forth above and the resulting irreparable harm.
[Artley] Skenandore had no expertise in the paper industry. Nevertheless, he was made president [of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.]
Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. fraud scheme principals: OSGC, Artley Skenanadore Jr., Ron Van Den Heuvel, and Steven Peters (who was also a ‘straw borrower’ in Ron’s bank fraud scheme during the same time period that Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. violated state tax laws and ONWI lost over $4 million dollars)
November 7, 2017 Opinion,
U.S. Tax Court
Docket Nos. 4756-15, 21583-15, VHC Inc. and Subsidiaries v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue [IRS]
B. VHC Ownership and Employees
During the tax years at issue members of the Van Den Heuvel family (VDH family), including relatives by blood and marriage, had a controlling interest in VHC. In 1998 the following VDH family members collectively owned approximately 75% of the voting stock and 63% of the nonvoting stock of VHC: Ronald H., Steven, Raymond II, David, Guy Piontek (G. Piontek), Timothy, and C. Kassner. [VOS Electric Inc. VP] William Bain (W. Bain) was related to the VDH family by marriage until approximately 30 years ago. In 1998 W. Bain owned approximately 7% of the voting stock and 10% of the nonvoting stock – the same percentage of shares as David, Timothy, and Raymond II. G. Piontek is married to one of Raymond and Patricia’s daughters. …
PCDI owned 67% of Custom Tissue, LLC (Custom Tissue), and the remaining portion was owned by employees or other related parties. Custom Tissue was incorporated in Wisconsin in 2003. Custom Tissue owned 49% of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp. (NWTC), a Wisconsin corporation that was majority owned by Native American investors. TPTC performed management functions for NWTC under a management agreement. NWTC converted tissue rolls into finished, packaged products. NWTC owned 100% of both Custom Paper Products, Inc. (CPPI), and Purely Cotton Products Corp. (Purely Cotton). CPPI was incorporated in 2000 in Wisconsin. It operated as a converting operation, which took large tissue rolls and cut them into consumer-size rolls. Purely Cotton owned the patents, technology, and intellectual property regarding a process for making tissue out of cotton. Custom Tissue, NWTC, CPPI, and Purely Cotton were administratively dissolved in 2012. …
Beginning in 2000 William Bain, a VHC shareholder and former brother-in-law, served as a straw borrower for Ronald H. by obtaining loans on behalf of Ronald H. at different banks. In 2000 he obtained a loan for $125,000 from Associated Bank and a loan for $250,000 through Nicolet Bank. In 2002 he used his personal credit to obtain a $500,000 loan of which Ronald H. used the proceeds to buy out an EcoFibre shareholder.
05/26/16: Tribe looking into
waste-to-energy program The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
in North Carolina is currently looking into
a waste-to-energy process known as pyrolysis at the Tribal Transfer Station – by Scott McKie / Cherokee One Feather
A machine currently located at the Tribal Transfer Station off of Olivet Church Road looks like something out of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, but it is the future of waste disposal and energy production according to the Tribe’s energy program coordinator.
The machine is running a two-week demonstration of pyrolysis (thermal distillation) which converts recycled bottles, old tires and other waste into a synthesis gas known as Pyrogas. “This process has been around since World War II,” said Cameron Cooper, who garnered three grants from the Department of Energy and Mineral Development for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians totaling over $750,000 to study this process. …
The second part of the grant is the two-week demonstration itself, and the third portion of the grant will allow for a prolonged demonstration and allow Cooper and staff to experiment with different feed stocks and municipal solid wastes. …
Cooper said the reason for the two-week demonstration is easy. “I wanted to bring it here for the Cherokee people to see. I want them to come out here to kick the tires so to speak. I didn’t want them to get the wrong impression that it was an incinerator. I didn’t just want to submit a business plan. I wanted people to feel it, touch it, smell it, see it.”
The Office of Indian Energy, in partnership with Western Area Power Administration, hosted a webinar on best practices for tribal energy business structures, including their advantages and disadvantages, goals associated with different business models, and examples of various models. Tribal leaders and community members will also learn how to select the best structure for their goals, existing codes, and laws.
Our tribal case study today is from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. We have two individuals presenting their project: Cameron Cooper and Kevin Cornelius. Mr. Cooper was formerly the energy coordinator for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. While serving as the energy coordinator he started a waste energy project to look at reducing waste-hauling and convert those waste _____ into energy. Mr. Cooper is presently serving as the retail development specialist for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. This position supports retail development efforts by providing research data and marketing of the commercial interests of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Mr. Cooper still plays an integral role in the energy initiative and has oversight of the waste energy project that has been funded through multiple grants awarded by the Division of Energy and Metal Development.
Mr. Kevin Cornelius works for the Red Fern LLC to develop green energy projects. Over the past five years Red Fern has worked with multiple tribes on feasibility studies to determine the viability of using a variety of heat ducts for conversion to renewable energies. …
Mr. Cornelius was CEO of [Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC] and he completed thermal conversion technology demonstration projects and had the technology completely vetted and received EPA and State of Wisconsin DNR permits. …
CARL ARTMAN is also Former ONEIDA NATION WI CHIEF COUNSEL, and he is the first cousin of Wisconsin Bar-licensed attorney and current ONWI CHIEF COUNSEL JO ANNE HOUSE]
Cameron Cooper: And so one of the things I’m easily started looking at was well, if I can put municipal solid waste through, what it’s getting out on the back end is a synthetic gas, and that synthetic gas appears to be, you know, pretty reliable and comparable to natural gas. And I was like, “Well heck, if I can do that then I can run generators and I can run electricity.” So, you know, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, that’s the way I started looking at this project. Well, as I started kind of researching it more I run into Kevin Cornelius, who you’ll hear from here in a little bit, and they were looking at this stuff in the Oneida region in Wisconsin. And so as was talking to him, you know, he kind of even broadened my horizons even more that, “Cameron, I mean plastics is the way to go.” You know, plastics is oil, as it’s created from oil anyway, so if we can break it back down to it’s baser form or what it just was created from then we can recapture that and sell the byproduct.
And so what you find is even with this municipal solid waste, where there’s plastics, and the real kicker, tires; all three of those put together, you can create biofuels from all three, and each one of them have some other byproducts that are valuable to several different markets.
One of the things we’ve really found this past go-around is that tires have valuable byproducts. And so when we got to this point for us—and I feel like I need to explain this for everybody in the room is, you know, we came up with a goal within our strategic energy plan and we moved forward with that goal, and that goal was to see what was out there, not only to help offset tribal costs, but to offset, you know, or to create money and generate revenue, ’cause that’s how I look at stuff, there’s always a way to potentially help your tribe out in several different classes.
And so one of the things we noticed right off the bat when he started talking to me about plastics, and even tires and municipal solid waste, immediately I started saying, “Well, we have it.” All right? So in Western North Carolina, as I talked about it being mountainous, the western-most counties, so west of Asheville, North Carolina—if you’re a Google person and like to get on Google Maps, look up Asheville, North Carolina, and to the west of Asheville pretty much every county past Buncombe County, which is where Asheville sits, is they’re hauling their trash. So they’re transferring it. They have transfer stations and they’re hauling it to – Georgia is pretty much the biggest spot that they’re tipping their municipal solid waste, and that’s everything from plastics to tires to just regular municipal solid waste. And so there’s tipping fees involved in that, there is hauling fees involved in that, and, you know, for us as a tribe it’s pretty much about, you know, a $300,000.00 haul bill a year. And so, you know, immediately I was like, “Well, if we can offset that and create electricity off of that, or even create oil products or even other potential byproducts, that would be great.”
And so as we started coming up with this idea in our head, well, we’ve got to figure out a way to vet this, because there is nobody – and I challenge each and every one of you on this call to get on Google and look up waste energy projects. You’re going to see a million different leads and what you’re going to find out is nobody is doing this the correct way or the right way in any facet. Everybody’s idea is kind of the same, but it’s all different, and everybody holds everything close to the chest. And the reason why is because the technology is not patent-able. The reason why is because it is so basic. I mean in reality I like to joke with people and I say—when I show you, and you’ll see a picture of it in the next slide or two, I like to equate it to, you know, we’re here in the mountains, so we tend to love our moonshine here in Western North Carolina. And one of the things about that is that this to me is a glorified still, a glorified moonshine still is what I like to call it.
And so when you look at it from that perspective, everybody holds everything close to their chest. So we had to go out there and figure out a way that we could vet this to our people. Not only that, but to see if it looks true and if it holds a value there. And so what we did is we worked with the Department of Energy and Mineral Development, Michael Stephenson there, you know, he really helped us get our feet underneath us as we went through a waste characterization study to look at our waste and to see how much plastics was in there, ’cause that was kind of the focused when we started, was to look and see how much plastic stream we had coming through our transfer station.
And then with the second grant we went out there to demo version to get the demo version here so that everybody could kind of kick the tires, so to speak, and see that it wasn’t detrimental to the environment. And that’s the cool thing about this process, at no point does feedstock every come in contact with an open flame. Everything is degraded over an amount of time, and so you have what they call a retort time, where your byproduct is sitting there breaking down and then basically you condense that gas into usable items.
And so with the third grant we just prolonged the demonstration project to really start looking at feedstocks and then what we’re getting out of that third grant was an actual business model or a business plan. And I think you can go to the next slide there, James.
And so to reiterate this, this is the thermal conversion unit. And as you can see, you see where it says “feedstock hopper.” This is a dual _____ system; you want this thing completely oxygen-deprived as much as possible. You do not want oxygen in this. And so they go as far as proving to your constituency or even paper that you’re trying to sell this to, that there is no open flame to feedstock. Where you see the upper and lower retort auger chambers, those are internal. So the feedstock goes into that, and that big blue bin basically is the chamber. And underneath that is a low-burning natural gas or propane burner.
But here’s the neat thing, it’s a self-sustaining system. So once the system is up and running and you’re running it 24/7 you can basically produce enough gas that it runs itself to heat that chamber. But on top of that, through the pyrolysis process the feedstock, as it breaks down, creates its own heat. And so it’s actually heating up as it’s breaking down as well. And so then you have the discharge valves, where it comes out, and then after that point, like I said, it goes through what I consider a glorified distiller, so you can siphon off whatever gases or byproducts that may be available.
The one thing that we found with our tire study is that there is a lot of carbon, and that carbon we have found at this point appears to be carbon black. Now it might not be the most purified form of carbon black, but it’s pretty close. And so with that being said, what that gives us is another byproduct that is pretty valuable out there on the market. And I’d say it can go anywhere from, what is it, $0.49 a pound now?
Kevin Cornelius: _____ to $1.96 a pound.
Cameron Cooper: Yeah, up to $1.96 a pound. And if it’s pure, if we can figure out a process to create pure carbon black, I mean you’re talking, what is it 500—yeah, go ahead. I’ll let Kevin kind of talk about the carbon black.
Kevin Cornelius: So just a little bit with the tires, when we went through the process, we’re trying to get the best carbon black. And that’s something when we started, the system is not designed to handle tires, and so we had to make some modifications for it to run without jamming up with the carbon black in it. And we’ve been able to do that. We get – on our test results we’re about 92-percent pure carbon black. For it to have the high value we’ve got to be at 99-percent. And some of it has some graphene in it, but it’s not a pure graphene. So if we’re looking at how we can refine the carbon black, the value of that can increase to quite a bit if we can get the higher-value carbon black. But the problem is getting from that 92-percent to the 90-percent, and we’ve done that through – or we’re working on that through different temperatures and different residence time of the tires. But it does work well.
So what we’ve done is we’ve really taken a system and made changes to it so that it can run tires through effectively. The system itself is only designed to run 100 pounds per hour, and we’re running at 75 pounds per hour. So even though the tires with the carbon black is difficult, we’re still almost running it as efficient as you can run the machine if you were just running what it was intended to do.
So with that I think what we’re looking at is working with the tribe to say how can we go forward with – the tribe owns the intellectual property because we’ve been doing all this testing and modifications on their behalf, and so now we want to look at how can we combine and take this to the next step.
Cameron Cooper: The reason why I kind of want to get it detailed a little bit more so on the project itself is so that I can show people kind of where we’re at as far as moving forward with the structure, because this has a lot of moving parts, as we’ve kind of found out over the past couple years in looking at this project. And as I said before, earlier, there’s nobody to turn to, there’s nobody I can go out here and say, “Build me one and get it up and running tomorrow.” We’re having to do this. And nobody wants to do that. There’s no tribe out here that I’ve ever seen to have an appetite that won’t just be the first on the block to do anything. We’re kind of a monkey-see monkey-do so to speak for lack of a better phrase. And so in reality, you know, we’ve kind of had to figure out a lot of this stuff as we’ve went along.
But as you can see in this picture, the one thing I want you to notice too which makes this business venture even more kind of—another moving part, is the fact that I hope that you can see the scale there, and underneath, where that says “dual discharge valve,” that’s a wheelbarrow. Now the most efficient part of this system would be that you would want a one-ton unit. This one that’s in this picture is pretty much the one that we have here, which is a 100-pound unit. A one-ton unit you’re probably looking at I’d say around about 15-percent larger than what we’re looking at in this picture right now, which means it’s very mobile.
And so that’s one of the other things that we’re looking at too, is how do we make this mobile and potentially go out here to Indian Country or anybody else that may need or have a landfill that’s overfilled, ’cause we can put already-processed landfill waste back through this system. Or plastics that are sitting out here or, you know, case-in-point, one of the examples I think that we would want to go after eventually is the fact that China has recently said that they no longer want our recyclable plastics. And so you’re going to have an influx of plastics sitting somewhere and this machine is definitely a machine that can take that load and produce something from it. And so that’s kind of where we’re at. So next slide, James.
Which brings us to _____ just kind of explained to at this point is, you know, LLC/Section 17. Well, we’ve looked at both, and it took us an education period of about five years for our tribe to get to the point where our constituency understood what Section 17 and LLC means. Let’s see, hold on just a second. I was bringing up something I needed to look at real quick so I can explain this next part.
So anyway, what we’re looking at is kind of from an LLC standpoint, because we kind of feel like we’re behind the ball; we’ve got some extenuating circumstances here in Western North Carolina, as our only pretty much income for the Tribe itself and its operation is its casino operation. We enjoy a 200-mile radius of no competition in Western North Carolina. We’re within 75-percent of the entire USA population within a day’s drive. So needless to say, we kind of like we say we’re sitting in the catbird seat in Western North Carolina with our casino, which is great. But there’s impending doom on the horizon for the Tribe as we’re looking—as Georgia is looking to potentially get some formed of organized gaming. And so on the horizon we have tried to prove to our constituency that we do need to diversify our economy and one of those ways is Section 17.
Well, we did a summit of Section 17, which basically said, you know, “Hey, Tribe, you can set this up how you want. It comes down to you setting up and you can put in it what you want to.” And then you have other tribes out there at _____ Summit that say, “We have a Section 17 but we’ve shelved it. We’re primarily using an LLC structure.” And so as a tribe right now we’re kind of in that crunch point where we don’t have really time to sit down for a Section 17, though I do believe that we will exercise that later down the road because I think it is something that we can shelf and have for future purposes.
So right now we have set up an LLC code as of this year. Earlier this year we set it up, so as of next month and our next council session we are going to be hopefully putting a board together to, you know, come force with LLC plan for the LLC and obviously to request money for that LLC. And so as we move forward in this project we’ve gotten to a point where like we know at this point we’re just going to have to pretty much jump off the deep end with this technology and invest in it.
And that’s one reason, even though, you know, I know some of you probably think it would be a lead and they’d potentially be able to help us from a granting perspective, and that is true, I think this is definitely something up that road, but I just don’t think that we’re ready yet. And so what we’ve got to have is we’ve got to have a buy-in from an LLC standpoint of the tribe’s going to have to set up an initiative for this because of so many moving parts and the upswing of it potentially having, you know, from the different byproducts that we can produce off of this machine. So it needs to be more of a business decision as opposed to a government entity or a government decision.
And so I put LLC code there because obviously I just said that we’ve created one, and so that’s definitely an option that we’re looking at, and that may be the best option for us as far as just this project is concerned. However, that’s where the other moving part comes in and where a joint venture for us may make sense underneath the LLC parent company and spinning off a subsidiary LLC, which would be a joint venture with Red Fern. And the reason why we’d have to do that is even though the tribe owns the studies from DEMD and the reports and everything that goes along with that, Red Fern pretty much has the technology in hand, and so they’re the experts in the field for us. And so there’s probably most likely going to have to be some form of a joint venture or there’s going to have to be an outright buying out of Red Fern for the technology purposes.
The reason why I put Boys Club there, Boys Club is our – it was a service set way back in like I think the ’50s is whenever it was started, and it was actually done through the state. And it kind of laid in the weeds and nobody really thought about it as we started talking about Section 17 five years ago, and now all of a sudden it’s come to the forefront. Well that charter was actually set up through the state. It’s its own corporate charter, even though it’s a 501(c)3. And what they do is they provide bus service for ourlocal school. They also provide mechanic work for our local area and they also have charter bus service as well, and they provide most of the fuel for the tribal vehicle fleet.
And so they have a lot of the technology that this wasted energy could utilize or even help kind of put out there. So we’ve put Boys Club in the mix because their current board, which is not necessarily a business-oriented board as much as it is a community board, though it is a legitimate board, because of the 501(c)3 they’re kind of looking at that we could potentially change the structure so the Boys Club can be less of a breakeven 501(c)3. We could keep that arm of it, but we need to create an LLC part of it so that we can go after. So that’s potentially another factor for us to exercise and look at to see if it’s the way we want to take this venture. And so it’s definitely an option.
But I think what this whole time what I’m trying to get across is that with the project that we have there are so many different moving parts as far as the byproducts that are available is that we’re going to have to look at a mix of a joint venture. We’re also going to have to look at a mix of whether we do it with our tribal LLC or whether the Boys Club actually creates their own LLC and they kind of have that infrastructure that would be needed for this venture and there would be less buy-in from the LLC. So it’s one of those things, it’s kind of like a flip of the coin, but we’re really not just flipping the coin; we’ve really got to see which one is going to make more sense. And that’s where we are in our stage. And so it took a lot of planning to get to this point, but in reality we’re kind of at that precipice, we’ve got to make that next step, and so what we’re really trying to do is create a model that makes sense, that can be explained to our public but also can be explained to either our LLC board, which is pending, or the Boys Club pending board.
And so at that point I’ve pretty much said all I need to say. I’ll let Kevin kind of take over from here to kind of fill in any gaps that I’ve left.
Kevin Cornelius: So part of the reason why we would look at a joint venture is, as I mentioned before, our system wasn’t really designed to take tires, and working with the Tribe, we’ve modified it so we’ll take tires. The Tribe collects 50 to 60 tons of tires and with the Tribe’s help we’ve created a front-end system that will do a proper feed and when we distill the oil, as it comes out at the back end, you know, we’re getting the naphtha, the kerosene, the gasoline, the diesel, and what that dose is tires are made with sulfur so that they don’t catch fire. Because naphtha is one of our byproducts, we’re able to separate and really get a clean sulfur. And that’s got value; it’s not a lot, but still, it’s got value.
So the point for us to work with the Tribe is our system can take 50 to 60 tons of tires per year, they have 50 to 60 tons of tires per year and they have a site where we can do it without having to go through a lot of hurdles. So it makes it beneficial for us because they have the site, they have the tires. We as a corporation can go through the state and get certified as a tire collection facility and therefore get reimbursed for the tires they collect, along with the selling of the byproducts. So it makes those benefits to us along with the Tribe.
Cameron Cooper: And one of the things I forgot to mention is, and if you’ve kind of seen the vision here, if I’ve explained it well enough, is the ability to build capacity with this project. We’re just solely talking about our waste stream on the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. So the 300,000 haul bill I was talking about earlier, that includes all the potential municipal solid waste we get now, that includes the tires we get now as well. And so in reality this is not including going out to the other surrounding counties and asking them to bring their waste to us to cut down on their haul bill, but on top of that, going ahead and collecting the tipping fees that they’re currently paying. And we could charge them probably the same tipping fees that they’re paying the Georgia landfill now and, you know, _____ _____, but it would still be cheaper for them because they’re having to haul it less—or they’re having to haul it less of a distance.
And so, you know, that’s just kind of where we’re at in our business structure moving forward and what our options are. So, you know, as far as a case study I would like to say that we’re in the infancy of looking at moving forward with a structure; however, our tribe is technically in infancy looking at that type of LLC. Though our casino has its own separate board and entity, you know, we’ve never expanded into looking at what seems to be the trend right now in Indian country, which is a diversification move. And so that’s kind of where we’re at. …
James Jensen: … A question for the Eastern Band Cherokee project, how soon are you ready to commercialize?
Cameron Cooper: I think initially as soon as we get the LLC or whatever structure we’re going to go within place. I’d say we’re within a year of making sure that the market—that we vet the market out there who would buy the byproducts, to make sure that we have a quality product to sell and make sure that we have vendors out here in our area that are willing to buy those products. I think once we have that year underneath our belt, I’d say that within two years after that they should be—we would move from a 100-pound unit up to one-ton units. And I think the overall initial business plan would be that we would own three one-ton units. This would just be for our area, for our purposes at this point, before we’d make it mobile or anything of that nature. And we would own three one-ton units: one devoted to tires, one devoted to plastics, and one devoted to municipal solid waste, and each one would have their own form of byproducts.
So I think commercialization is just right around the corner, as soon as we have a structure and we can get an LLC or the Boys Club to buy into that structure.
James Jensen: Great. A few more questions on the details of the project. And if you don’t want to make it public that’s certainly understandable. But how much did it cost to build the system and how much electricity is it producing?
Cameron Cooper: I’ll let Kevin answer that one.
Kevin Cornelius: Yeah. We don’t really want to talk about how much it cost us. For a 100-pound unit, tires, we can produce right around 54 to 55 kw of energy. The system uses 12 kw. And if we added a second unit of that size then—it’s about 54 kw off of 100 pounds of tires.
This action arises out of a business dispute. … Plaintiff purchased specialized equipment from [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI], which allegedly did not perform as promised. …
Additionally, [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & ACTI] did not provide certain documents that Plaintiff asserts they were contractually required to provide. … Plaintiff therefore brought claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and revocation…
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants provided equipment that, “as designed and manufactured,” cannot “function at the levels promised and warranted by Defendants.”… The information Plaintiff seeks is relevant and necessary to determining whether manufacturing defects exist.
November 2, 2017 CH2E Nevada LLC’s Motion for Status Conference w/ Exhibits re:“[American Combustion Technologies Inc.] ACTI’s threatened bankruptcy and fraudulent conveyances to its new company, ARTI [American Renewable Technologies Inc.]“, U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 15-CV-694, CH2E Nevada LLC v. [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]
8. CH2E believes that ACTI is filing this bankruptcy as a litigation tactic to avoid paying any judgment to CH2E. After the commencement of this litigation, ACTI’s founder, Latif Mahjoob, started a new company called American Renewable Technologies Inc. (“ARTI”). When asked about ARTI at his November 4, 2015 deposition, Dr. Mahjoob testified that ARTI was not a pyrolysis company like ACTI, but instead was a “gas to liquid fuel” company:
Q. Okay. What is American Renewable Energy [sic], Inc.? A. It’s a company I own. Q. What does it do? A. It customer [sic / converts ] gas to liquid fuel. We take natural gas and turn it into liquid fuel. Q. It’s not a pyrolysis unit – process? A. No, not really. [Ex. C (Mahjoob Dep. Tr.) at 174:10-16. 9.]
However, publicly available information demonstrates that Dr. Mahjoob is now using ARTI to carry on the pyrolysis business of ACTI, the assets of which he is depleting in an attempt to avoid paying any judgment in this case. Indeed, ARTI is holding itself out as ACTI with respect to its experience as a pyrolysis company—including with respect to the pyrolysis equipment ACTI sold to ARTI.
See Ex. D (ARTI Website, available at https://www.americanrenewabletech.com).
May 24, 2018 TEXT ONLY Chapter 7 Trustee’s Report of No Distribution, U.S. Bankruptcy Court / California Central District Case No. 17-bk-23617, Chapter 7, American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. /ACTI
Key information about this case as reported in schedules filed by the debtor(s) or otherwise found in the case record: This case was pending for 7 months. Assets Abandoned (without deducting any secured claims): $2,056,146.04, Assets Exempt: Not Available, Claims Scheduled: $11,049,423.32, Claims Asserted: Not Applicable, Claims scheduled to be discharged without payment (without deducting the value of collateral or debts excepted from discharge): $11,049,423.32.
To date, no notice of appearance by an attorney for Defendant has been filed. Further, Defendant has not responded to the Courts order to show cause, or requested an extension of the deadline to do so. See Docket. Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Court’s orders and to retain counsel is an abusive litigation practice which interferes with the Court’s ability to hear this case, delays litigation, wastes judicial resources, and threatens the integrity of the Court’s orders and the administration of justice. …
Sanctions less drastic than default judgment are unavailable here because Defendant has willfully refused to comply with the Court’s orders and to obtain counsel in order to continue to participate in the case at hand.
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that default judgment be entered against Defendant.
March 29, 2019 ORDER of Default Judgment for Proven Damages in the amount of $11,885,669.91 against Defendant American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. / ACTI, U.S. District Court / Nevada Case No. 15-CV-694, CH2E Nevada LLC v. [Abdul] Latif Mahjoob and American Combustion Technologies of California Inc. [ACTI]
Oneida Eye has previously reported that an owner and an executive of Generation Clean Fuels, LLC [GCF, f/k/a Arland Clean Fuels, LLC / ACF] – Gaylen La Crosse and associate Michael Galich hold a patent for a “waste recycling system” which is supposedly a “portable reactor system for pyrolysis of waste plastic materials.”
On 04/23/97 Ron and Gaylen’s business Aqua 2MG, Inc. was registered w/ WDFI; it was renamed Recovering Aqua Resources, Inc. one month later on 05/23/97, with changes of Registered Agent on 08/18/98, and 08/28/00, and 11/16/04, and 07/12/06, and 05/21/09 to Ron Van Den Heuvel; Dissolved 06/12/12.
April 23, 1997 Articles of Incorporation for Aqua 2MG, Inc. filed with WDFI; Registered Agent: Atty. C. David Stellpflug of Stellpflug, Janssen, Hall & Hammer, S.C., 325 Reid Street, De Pere, WI 54115; Shares issued: 9,000 (shareholders not listed)
On 02/07/01 Recovering Aqua Resources Technologies, Inc. [RARTI] was registered w/ WDFI, with Registered Agent Steven C. Peters and its primary offices at 2079-A Lawrence Dr., De Pere, WI.
RARTI’s Registered Agent Steven Peters was also part-owner and General Manager of Nature’s Way Tissue Corp., in partnership with Ron Van Den Heuvel, Oneida Seven Generations Corp., and Artley Skenandore Jr., who was made President of the company despite the WI Tax Court’s finding that “Skenandore had no expertise in the paper industry.”
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.
Terry Gaouette was also the signatory
Lessee as Executive VP & CFO of • Arland Clean Fuels LLC / aka Generation Clean Fuels LLC, and • Arland Energy Systems LLC in the
Master Lease Agreement between ACF / GCF and Naples, FL-based ASC Lease Income LLC and Veterans Capital Corp. of which Joseph E. Wold Jr. is President.
Veterans Capital Corp. was to lease a “poly conversion liquefaction machine” that was to be located & operated at
437 South Main Street
CHEBOYGAN, MI 49721 after being manufactured by Spartan, Inc. of Bakersfield, CA,
of which the President was
ACF / GCF Principal Louis Stern and its Vice-President Charles Hinson,
co-patent holder with Gaylen La Crosse.
On May 24, 2013 and June 10, 2013 ACF / GCF CEO Louis Stern signed Master Lease & Service Agreements with OSGC CEO / GBRE Chair Kevin Cornelius resulting in ACF / GCF filing a $400 Million lawsuit against the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin which appears to be an extortion racketdesigned to defraud the ONWI General Tribal Council of MULTIMILLIONS.
To defend their criminal fraud scheme, OSGC & GBRE have engaged in malicious litigation against the City of Green Bay at the behest of OSGC / GBRE counsel and co-conspirators… GODFREY & KAHN S.C.
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.
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. …
September 19, 2017 SEC 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. …
19. [OSGC associate Ron] Van Den Heuvel touted the Green Box Process as a world-changing technology that allowed 100% reclamation of food-contaminated waste. The Green Box facilities allegedly would recycle food-contaminated waste, such as garbage from fast-food restaurants, cafeterias, concession stands, stadiums, and theme parks. The Green Box Process allegedly would transform post-consumer waste into usable products such as recycled paper napkins, facial tissue, and brown and white paper pulp, as well as fuel pellets that could be used to create synthetic gas, electricity, and biodiesel fuel. He claimed that the Green Box Process would result in total solid waste reclamation with zero wastewater discharge and zero landfill deposits.
20. In reality, the Green Box Process largely became a vehicle for Van Den Heuvel to attract money from investors, and then spend it as he pleased.
The Cliffton Equities Offering
21. Cliffton Equities, Inc. is a Canadian company based in Montreal, Canada. Cliffton Equities manages assets for its principals. Cliffton Equities invested with Van Den Heuvel in 2012 and 2014, and is the victim of his fraud. Cliffton Equities was a signatory on the Loan and Investment Agreement dated
September 20, 2012, as well as an amended agreement in 2014. …
25. Van Den Heuvel told Cliffton’s principals that a certain piece of equipment, known as a pyrolysis or liquefaction unit, was the missing link in the Green Box Process to convert food and plastic waste from the paper pulping process into oil, gas and other useful products.
26. Van Den Heuvel told the principals of Cliffton Equities that he would use its money to purchase and install sorting equipment and a pyrolysis unit made by a particular manufacturer. The principals of Cliffton Equities were attracted by the promises of Van Den Heuvel that he would use their funds to purchase equipment for an eco-friendly manufacturing process.
27. Based on Van Den Heuvel’s representations, Cliffton Equities agreed to invest $2 million in 2012.
28. On or about September 20, 2012, Cliffton Equities entered into a Loan and Investment Agreement (the “Loan and Investment Agreement”) with Green Box Green Bay and EARTH, two entities controlled by Van Den Heuvel. Van Den Heuvel executed the agreement on behalf of Green Box Green Bay and EARTH in his capacity as Chairman. …
35. The Loan and Investment Agreement entitled Cliffton Equities to a share of future profits. The Loan and Investment Agreement provided that Cliffton Equities would receive “one-half of the future income generated from pellet processing liquification pyrolysis units (‘LPPUs’) installed at each of the first four (4) geographic locations constructed in the United States after the date of this Agreement.”
Recall that the
Master Lease Agreement between ACF / GCF and Naples, FL-based ASC Lease Income LLC and Veterans Capital Corp. was signed
Contract with Environmental Systems Technology Research, Inc. (ESTR) for purchase of the oil generated
07/20/2015 – Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreported in its physical version:
A Milwaukee Journal Sentinelreview 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. …
Despite the troubles with Green Box, WEDC suggested a company representative go on aMay trip to East Africa as recently as March of [2015].
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!”
WHICH IS OWNED IN PART BY ANOTHER COMPANY FOR WHICH HENRY VAN DEN HEUVEL IS A BOARD MEMBER, AND WHICH IS A PART OWNER OF PATRIOT FABRICATION SERVICES, LLC…
It’s ‘Back to School’ time and that includes Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas.
Beginning in 2000 William Bain
September 4, 2018 Notification of Docket Entry
Sheri & Kevin Cornelius
CARL ARTMAN
