9

TIMELINE PART 9

12/02/16 : December 2, 2016 DECISION and ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C. Griesbach, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:2014CV1203, Tissue Technology LLC, Partners Concepts Development Inc, Oconto Falls Tissue Inc., and Tissue Products Technology Corp.  v.  TAK Investments LLC

 

Abdul Latif Mahjoob

12/15/16 : December 5, 2016 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Mahjoob et al. to Produce Documents, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada/Las Vegas, Case No. 2:2015CV694,  CH2E Nevada LLC  v.  Abdul Latif Mahjoob & American Combustion Technologies Inc. / ACTI

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

Additionally, [Abdul Latif Mahjoob & ACTI] did not provide certain documents that Plaintiff asserts they were contractually required to provide. … Plaintiff therefore brought claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and revocation…

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

12/06/16 : December 6, 2016 Revised Pretrial Scheduling Order, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

12/07/16 : December 7, 2016 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case 16-745,  Jeremy Meyers, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated  v.  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin [Oneida Nation of Wisconsin]

12/08/16 : December 8, 2016 Defendant Quotient Partners’ Answer to First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Answers Against Plaintiff, Brown Co. Case No. 16CV1137, Daniel J. Platkowski  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel; Howard Bedford [rep’d by Godfrey & Kahn]; Tissue Technology LLC; Glen Arbor LLC; Quotient Partners [dismissed defendants: GlenArbor Equipment LLC; Reclamation Technology Systems LLC; Stonehill Converting LLC; Horicon Bank]

12/12/16 : December 12, 2016 Objection of the Securities & Exchange Commission to Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Second Amended Plan & Disclosure Statement, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

12/14/16 : December 14, 2016 Court Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

12/19/16 : Wisconsin Gazette,
2016 Rewind:

Another Year,

Another WEDC Scandal

There’s a reason why critics say Gov. Scott Walker’s “job creation” agency is really a corporate welfare agency that gives away millions to political donors without holding them accountable for creating jobs in return for the money. Discoveries of corruption and malfeasance are uncovered at the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation on a fairly regular basis, and 2016 was no different.

Well, it was different in one respect: Someone who fraudulently took money from WEDC was actually charged with a crime, although it was not for defrauding the state’s taxpayers. Instead, De Pere businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel was indicted for fraudently borrowing $700,000 from [Horicon] Bank (whose motto is: “the natural choice”). An accomplice in the scam turned state’s evidence in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Van Den Heuvel, a longtime Republican donor, got even luckier with WEDC, which handed him over $1.2 million. Due to his political connections, Van Den Heuvel never underwent a background check. If he had, WEDC, which was headed by Walker at the time, would have learned that he owed millions in legal judgments to banks, business partners, state tax officials and even a jeweler.

Van Den Heuvel’s modus operandi was borrowing money to pay for equipment and operations of seven businesses that he claimed to operate. But the money actually supported a lavish lifestyle that included a luxurious house, a Florida residence, expensive cars, a luxury box at Lambeau Field, a private plane, and a live-in nanny, who told authorities that she was never paid. She also said Kelly Van Den Heuvel ran up large debts on her credit cards. …

That isn’t to say that WEDC did nothing about the scandal. WEDC CEO Mark Hogan enacted a gag order to prevent WEDC board members from talking about its operations.

Following a backlash, Hogan cited feedback from “various board members” in announcing that he would withdraw the order, which would have barred WEDC board members from talking to reporters or sharing information about the agency, which is taxpayer-funded.

 

12/22/16 : Green Bay Press-Gazette –

Green Bay Mayor Jim Schmitt’s

conviction is 2016’s top story

 

12/23/16 : December 23, 2016 Court Minutes and Order from the December 22, 2016 Hearing regarding 1) Little Rapids Corporation’s Application for Administrative Expenses, 2) Approval of Debtor’s Amended Disclosure Statement, 3) Cliffton Equities Inc.’s Motion for Relief from Stay, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

THESE HAPPENED…

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Therefore, the Amendment “to allow [OSGC] to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay” remained tabled and unadopted by GTC since August 10, 2016, as did the Main Motion to “rescind” GTC’s December 15, 2013 Directive to dissolve OSGC.

 

Moreover, the Main Motion & Amendments remained ‘on the Table’ for longer than a quarterly time interval (3 months) … thus
– in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order –
the Main Motion and all of its Amendments died.

 

However, GTC’s December 15, 2013 Directive to fully dissolve OSGC stands.

 

 

Despite facts, THIS HAPPENED…

  • December 23, 2016 Complaint & Jury Demand, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CV-1700,  Oneida Seven Generations Corporation [OSGC; represented by Godfrey & Kahn] & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC [GBRE; represented by Godfrey & Kahn]  v.  City of Green Bay

 

12/28/16 : Green Bay Press-Gazette: Green Bay sued by OSGC & GBRE over waste-to-energy plant

 

01/03/17 : January 3, 2017 Defendant Howard Bedford’s Answer to First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Brown Co. Case No. 16-CV-1137,  Daniel J. Platkowski  v.  Ron Van Den Heuvel; Howard Bedford [rep’d by Godfrey & Kahn]; Tissue Technology LLC; Glen Arbor LLC; Quotient Partners [dismissed defendants: GlenArbor Equipment LLC; Reclamation Technology Systems LLC; Stonehill Converting LLC; Horicon Bank]

01/09/17 : January 9, 2017 Letter and Order dated November 3, 2016 re:  Case Remanded to Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Law Division, Case No. 2016-L-00789, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Case No. 16-CV-08251,  ChrisKen Group LLC and CK Property Management LLC  v.  HAS Capital LLC, Stephen A. Wheeler, Eric R. Decator LLC; Eric R. Decator; BMO Harris Bank NA; and Konstantino Apostolou –
Nature of Suit:  Racketeer Influenced &
Corrupt Organizations / RICO

01/13/17 : January 13, 2017 U. S. Magistrate Judge David E. Jones’ Report and Recommendation, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

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

01/17/17 : January 27, 2017 Motion to File Under Seal by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

01/18/17 : January 18, 2017 Court Minutes, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

 

  • MH Resources Corp. Notice of Administrative Dissolution mailed on 01/18/17 RTND UNDELIVERABLE, and mailed again on 03/29/17; Registered Agent Marc Hess, 2701 Larsen Road, Green Bay, WI

01/19/17 : January 19, 2017 U.S. Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Chapter 11 Plan Dated December 21, 2016, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

01/23/17 : January 23, 2017 Hearing re: Report & Recommendation,U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

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

01/25/17 : January 25, 2017 Brief in Response to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Objection to Confirmation (of Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

01/26/17 : January 26, 2017 Statement of the Securities and Exchange Commission Regarding Its Objection to the Third Amended Plan (Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization), U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

01/27/17 : January 27, 2017 Motion to File Under Seal by Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, U.S. District Court, Eastern Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Van Den Heuvel

01/30/17 : January 30, 2017 Court Minutes (filed January 31, 2017) of the Confirmation Hearing regarding Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Revised Third Amended Chapter 11 Plan filed on December 22, 2016, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

01/31/17 : January 31, 2017 Notice of Plea Hearing of Troy Wragg scheduled for March 2, 2017 at 10:30 a.m before the Honorable Joel H. Slomsky, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:15-cr-398-JHS,  United States of America  v.  Troy Wragg, Amanda Knorr & Wayde McKelvy

02/07/17 : February 7, 2017 Defendant City of Green Bay’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ OSGC & GBRE Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 1:16-cv-1700,  Oneida Seven Generations Corporation / OSGC & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

[C]orporate capacity to sue is determined by the law under which a corporation was organized. Under Oneida Nation law, OSGC should not exist. To the extent OSGC exists at all, it is not authorized to bring the present lawsuit as it does not advance OSGC’s authorized commercial leasing activities. OSGC’s lack of capacity was confirmed when the General Tribal Council tabled the motion to prosecute this suit. …

OSGC has not alleged a violation of a substantive constitutional right. Its allegations that the City “acted arbitrarily and capriciously” do not cut it. …

The timing of the state law remedies also does not undermine their adequacy. OSCG alleges that it “proposed the waste-to-energy project when it did because of the availability of federal, state and local grants, tax deductions and other incentives [which]have expired, such that the project is no longer economically viable.” … It does not allege when these incentives expired relative to its available remedies, but it does not matter.Due process does not require that state law remedies arrive in time to preserve business expectations. In CEnergy- Glenmore Wind Farm No. 1, LLC v. Town of Glenmore, a wind farm developer complained that the city’s arbitrary failure to issue building permits in time to save a profitable power purchase agreement violated his right to due process. … As this Court observed, “[t]he fact that it might not have succeeded in time for CEnergy to meet its contractual deadline anyhow is of no moment. Due process requires only a state court remedy, not a guaranteed win by the applicant’s contractual deadline.” … (J. Griesbach, presiding), see also River Park v. City of Highland Park … (finding no due process violation where city deliberately delayed rezoning until developer went bankrupt); Harding … (finding no due process violation where condominium developer won reversal of zoning decision in state court but, by that time, lacked financing to complete the project).

Similarly, it does not matter that the state court remedies might not recompense OSGC for its alleged “out-of-pocket expenses of approximately $5.2 million, lost profits of approximately $16 million, and substantial legal expenses, including attorney’s fees to pursue the state court proceedings and this federal case.” … 

OSGC alleges that after the Court of Appeals’ decision, it “met with the City to request the re-issuance of the CUP” and then “sent a follow-up letter,” …that “[t]he City also refused OSGC’s request to re-issue the CUP after the Court of Appeals decision in favor of OSGC,” …and that “the City never re-issued the conditional use permit to OSGC[.]” ... [OSGC] does not allege that it ever attempted to enforce either the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or Wisconsin Supreme Court judgments by execution, let alone renew its request for the CUP after receiving the Wisconsin Supreme Court judgment.

This Court is free to ignore OSGC’s colorful, but conclusory allegation that “OSGC has exhausted its potential state law remedies. Only this honorable court remains as a venue to deliver justice to OSGC.” ... The allegation is contradicted by the Exhibits attached to the Complaint. OSGC cannot seek federal review of a local land-use decision without first taking full advantage of state law remedies, particularly when those remedies include a judgment that could eliminate the offending conduct if onlyOSGC would enforce it. …

Plaintiff OSGC is “a tribal corporation chartered under the laws of the Oneida Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe.”… Plaintiff GBRE is “a Delaware limited liability company” and “wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.” …

According to the OSGC Corporate Charter, the Charter was granted by the Oneida Business Committee based upon authority vested in it by the Oneida General Tribal Council. …

As described by the Oneida Nation constitution, the General Tribal Council is “[t]he governing body of Oneida Nation” and is “composed of all the qualified voters of the Oneida Nation.” … The Business Committee consists of nine elected members and is empowered by the constitution to “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.” …

On December 15, 2013, the General Tribal Council moved to dissolve OSGC. … The motion was recorded as “Motion by Cathy L. Mextoxen to dissolve [Oneida] Seven Generations Corporation and for Frank Cornelius to assist and work with the Business Committee on the dissolution, seconded by Scharlene Kasee. Motion approved by a hand count: 814 yes, 689 no, 69 abstained, total-1,572.” …

On December 24, 2013, the Oneida Business Committee adopted “BC Resolution 12-24- 13-A Reorganization of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation.”… The resolution was “to begin the process of dissolution of the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation in a business-like manner.” … It acknowledged that “the General Tribal Council and the Oneida Business Committee have been informed that dissolution of Oneida Seven Generations Corporation may take up to or exceed 10-12 months in order to minimize negative financial consequences and wind up the activities of the corporation in a business-like manner.” … Under the resolution, Article VI of the OSGC corporate charter, “PURPOSES AND POWERS” was modified as follows:

The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in any lawful activity within the purposes for which the corporation may be organized under the Oneida Constitution and Oneida tribal laws, ordinances and jurisdiction activities related solely to the purposes of commercial leasing. …

On May 27, 2015, the Oneida Business Committee adopted “BC Resolution 5-27-15-B Adoption of Amendments to the Oneida Seven Generations Corporate Charter Limiting Purposes to Commercial Leasing Activities Only.”… This Resolution recognized that “the General Tribal Council, on December 15, 2013, directed the Oneida Business Committee to dissolve the corporation” and “the Oneida Business Committee began the process of dissolution of the corporation by adoption of amendments to the corporate charter limiting its purposes, removing the board of directors, and appointing an agent for the sole purposes of dissolving the corporation in a financially responsible manner.” ... It also recognized that OSGC, GBRE, and the Oneida Tribe had been “sued in regard to alleged contract violations.” ...

[T]he litigation, began in early 2014, remains yet unresolved and subject to the appeals process, such that the Oneida Business Committee has determined that a longer term solution and compliance with the General Tribal Council directive is needed to clearly limit the corporation to commercial leasing and restrict its powers and authorities to maintaining the value of existing assets.

[Footnote: The 2014 litigation was the suit by ACF Leasing, LLC, ACF Services, LLC, and Generation Clean Fuels, LLC, against Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin [n/k/a Oneida Nation of  Wisconsin / ONWI].  ACF Leasing, LLC et al.  v.  Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC et al., No. 1–14–3443 …]

The Oneida Business Committee, therefore, resolved to amend the OSGC Corporate Charter again … such that Article VI, “PURPOSES AND POWERS,” now states:

The purpose of this Corporation is to engage in activities related solely to the purposes of commercial leasing. The Corporation is prohibited from engaging in any action not specifically for the purposes of commercial leasing and nothing in the powers granted under this Articke [sic] shall be interpreted to authorize any other purpose or power. In the event of any cause for interpretation of the purposes and powers granted in this article, such interpretation shall be narrowly construed to limit the purposes and powers to commercial leasing activities. The powers of the Corporation are: …

(H) To sue and be sued in its Corporate name as herein specifically provided to the extent allowed by Oneida tribal, state or federal law upon any contract, claim or obligation of the Corporation arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes…

On August 10, 2016, there was a special General Tribal Council meeting. … In response to pressure to finally dissolve OSGC as resolved by the General Tribal Council in 2013, opponents to the dissolution moved “to rescind the December 15, 2013 action dissolving the Oneida Seven Generations Corporation and restrict the corporation to commercial leasing activities.” …The motion was amended as “to allow Oneida Seven Generations Corporation to continue litigation with the City of Green Bay.” … This amendment to the motion was made specifically to allow OSGC to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay. … The main motion to rescind OSGC’s dissolution was not voted on. Instead, proponents of the dissolution moved to table it. …Ex. 9, [August 10, 2016 GTC Meeting VIDEO] at 2:44:29 (Frank Cornelius addressing the General Tribal Council: “What I think we should do is table the main motion because… the General Tribal Council already voted…to close it and you didn’t do that… the Business Committee failed…”). The General Tribal Council voted to table the main motion and its amendments. … On October 2, 2016, the meeting reconvened, and a motion was made to take the item from the table, but this motion failed. …

The General Tribal Council follows Robert’s Rules of Order. … Under “Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council,” a motion to table “has the effect of taking the entire subject matter out of discussion.” … When tabled in a special meeting like the August 10, 2016 meeting, “the matter dies, unless there is another meeting scheduled to discuss the subject.”

This lawsuit was initiated by plaintiffs OSGC and GBRE on December 23, 2016. … The Complaint alleges due process violations based on the City’s decision on October 16, 2012, to rescind a conditional use permit that would have allowed OSGC to build a waste-to-energy facility. … OSGC has already litigated the decision in Wisconsin courts and won a reversal. …

Rather than dissolve OSGC as directed by the General Tribal Council in 2013, the Business Committee amended the OSGC Corporate Charter. Before the dissolution, the purpose of OSGC was “to engage in any lawful activity within the purposes for which the corporation may be organized under the Oneida Constitution and Oneida tribal laws, ordinances and jurisdiction,” and OSGC was empowered to sue on any claim “arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes.” … At the time this lawsuit was filed, OSGC was “prohibited from engaging in any action not specifically for the purposes of commercial leasing…” … OSGC may still sue on claims of the Corporation “arising out of the accomplishment of its purposes,” but its purposes are strictly limited to “commercial leasing.” ... In determining whether the present lawsuit “arise[s] out of the accomplishment” of commercial leasing, OSGC’s powers and purposes “shall be narrowly construed to limit the purposes and powers to commercial leasing activities.” …

The claims raised in the Complaint do not “arise out of the accomplishment” of commercial leasing activities. Any rights that might even tangentially impact OSGC’s ability to commercially lease the property at issue were already determined by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court. … The state court lawsuits reversed the City’s decision to rescind a conditional use permit (and affirmed the reversal), restoring the conditional use permit and any commercial leasing interest OSGC may have had in the conditional use permit. ... This lawsuit will not accomplish any commercial leasing activities, and OSGC is “prohibited” from bringing it.

But to even reach this analysis presupposes the ongoing existence of OSGC. Under Oneida law, the will of the Business Committee is clearly subordinate to that of the General Tribal Council. The Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation designates the General Tribal Council as “the governing body of the Oneida Nation.” … The Oneida Constitution also instructs the Business Committee to “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.” ... This structure is affirmed in the Corporate Charter of Oneida Seven Generations which was granted by the Business Committee “based upon authority vested in it by the Oneida General Tribal Council.” …

The 2013 General Tribal Council resolution to dissolve OSGC stripped the business committee of any authority to continue OSGC’s corporate charter. At the time this lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2016, OSGC should no longer have existed under the law of Oneida Nation.

Whether or not OSGC still exists, and whether or not the present lawsuit accomplishes a commercial leasing activity, any doubts as to whether OSGC was authorized to bring the present lawsuit were resolved on August 10, 2016 by the General Tribal Council. The capacity of a corporation to sue is determined by the state of its incorporation, even if the corporation is dissolved. … Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi. … (applying the law of the state of incorporation pursuant to Rule 17(b)(2) to determine a dissolved corporation’s capacity to sue). The Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation are silent on whether a dissolved corporation can sue… but the General Tribal Council – the governing body of the Oneida Nation – entertained a motion specifically designed to allow OSGC to continue litigation against the City of Green Bay. That motion did not pass. … It was tabled, and died. … This lawsuit should have died with it.

As to GBRE, even if OSGC continues to exist, it cannot delegate authority it does not have. GBRE has no more capacity to sue the City than OSGC.

CONCLUSION

OSGC has failed to show that its state law remedies were inadequate, failed to exhaust those remedies, failed to identify a protectable property interest, and failed to show that the decision to rescind the CUP was arbitrary in the constitutional sense. For each of these independent reasons, the Complaint fails to state a due process violation cognizable under § 1983 and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

As to GBRE, the Complaint has failed to allege anything at all beyond its own citizenship, let alone state a claim upon which relief can be granted or injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. GBRE should be dismissed pursuant to either Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim or 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Complaint should further be dismissed because OSGC and GBRE lack of capacity to sue under Rules 12(b)(2), 9(a), and 17(b)(2).

Dated this 7th day of February, 2017.

GUNTA LAW OFFICES, S.C.
Attorneys for Defendant, City of Green Bay

Instead of responding to the OSGC claims, the city’s attorneys make a two-fold argument for why the case should be dismissed: the tribal company failed to exhaust its options in state court, and it doesn’t make a valid due process violation claim.

On the first point, the city notes that after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in May 2015 that the city improperly revoked the plant’s permit, OSGC never followed up with the courts to have the court order implemented. …

On the second point, the city argues that OSGC fails to meet the federal standards for making a due process violation claim. … 

The city’s brief also argues that the OSGC wasn’t authorized by the Oneida General Tribal Council to pursue the lawsuit.

02/14/16 : February 14, 2017 Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Brown Co. Case No. 2017CV193,  James Schmitt  v.  City of Green Bay Common Council

02/20/17 : February 20, 2017 Decision & Order of Judge John Des Jardins, Brown Co. Case No. 2017CV193,  James Schmitt  v. City of Green Bay Common Council

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

ORDER

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

02/22/17 : Oneida Business Committee adopted February 22, 2017 OBC Resolution 02-22-17-E, ‘Adoption of Amendments to the Oneida Seven Generations Corporate Charter’

 

02/28/17 : February 28, 2017 Plaintiffs’ OSGC & GBRE Response in Opposition to Defendant City of Green Bay’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case#1:16-cv-1700, Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC v. City of Green Bay

03/02/17 : NBC 10 WCAU – Philadelphia: Temple University Graduate Admits to Running $54M Green-Energy Ponzi Scheme; The scam allegedly ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr’s Bala Cynwyd-based Mantria Corp.

Philadelphia Inquirer: Two years out of Temple, he built a $54 million Ponzi scheme

Their 2015 indictment came six years after the Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against the company in Colorado, shut down the firm, and obtained a court order barring its principals from raising new funds. Various people linked to the company and its associated entities have agreed to a $6 million settlement with investors.

03/03/17 : Denver Post –  Troy Wragg admits to running $54Million “trash-to-fuel” Ponzi scheme with ties to Colorado; Colorado salesman Wayde McKelvy among those indicted in scheme that included a seminar featuring a speech by John Elway

Prosecutors say the trio lied to investors, saying their “biochar” technology and “carbon-negative” housing in Tennessee made millions of dollars, but they had almost no earnings, and the three used the money to repay earlier investors and kept some for themselves.

McKelvy, who prosecutors say has never been licensed to sell securities, raised money through his Speed of Wealth seminars in Colorado, Las Vegas and elsewhere, including one that featured a speech from former Broncos quarterback John Elway. …

The company had a site testing the production of biochar in Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how much it was producing.

03/11/17 : Wisconsin State Journal, Lawmakers reintroduce bipartisan bill to make WEDC fraud a felony by Matt DeFour

A bipartisan proposal making it a felony to defraud the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. was reintroduced Friday, almost two years after the Wisconsin State Journal reported on a failed $500,000 loan to a Milwaukee businessman who lied on his application.

The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Samantha Kerkman, R-Salem Lakes, and Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, would make defrauding the state’s flagship job-creation agency a Class E felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and five years of extended supervision and/or a $50,000 fine. Offenders and their companies would also be ineligible for WEDC benefits for seven years and could be liable for damages.

A similar bill passed the Assembly last session but never received a hearing in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Commerce and Local Government. The previous chairman of that committee, former Sen. Rick Gudex, died last year. His successor, Sen. Dan Feyen, R-Fond du Lac, didn’t respond to a request for comment. …

The State Journal reported in May 2015 that WEDC had given a $500,000 loan to a struggling Milwaukee construction company in 2011 without a thorough review and at the urging of Gov. Scott Walker’s top aides, including then Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch. …

The company had been sued three times in the previous five years, though owner William Minahan claimed in an application for $4.3 million in WEDC funds it faced no lawsuits. Minahan also misrepresented the extent of his partnership with a La Crosse company and UW-Milwaukee.

Minahan had stiffed creditors, including a luxury car dealership that leased him a Maserati, and told them he could pay them back with money he was getting from the state. The loan was supposed to fund a business venture to make energy efficiency upgrades to credit unions.

WEDC successfully sued Minahan’s now-defunct company Building Committee Inc., but the loan has not been repaid. Minahan has not been charged with a crime.

In another 2011 case, the state loaned $1.2 million to Green Box LLC owned by De Pere-area businessman Ron Van Den Heuvel to help the company create 116 jobs as part of a more than $13 million project to turn fast-food wrappers and other waste paper into synthetic fuel and paper products while producing zero waste.

Van Den Heuvel, who now faces unrelated bank fraud charges, falsely told WEDC he hadn’t faced any lawsuits in the previous five years. A Brown County Sheriff’s Office investigator testified Van Den Heuvel used the money to pay off personal and business debts, such as Green Bay Packers box seats, trips to Las Vegas and $2,000 weekly alimony payments to his ex-wife.

When Walker and the Republican Legislature created WEDC in 2011, they didn’t create specific criminal penalties for defrauding WEDC similar to laws against bank fraud.

“unrelated”?

UNRELATED?!

NO MENTION OF BANK FRAUD CO-CONSPIRATOR PAUL PIIKKILA’S DUAL ROLE IN THE EB-5 IMMIGRANT INVESTOR FRAUD SCHEME OFFERING OF GREEN BOX NA DETROIT, LLC?

DESPITE THE FACT THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS SAID THE FOLLOWING IN COURT FILINGS:

•  November 16, 2016 Objection of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Proposed Plan and Disclosure Statement, filed by Senior Bankruptcy Counsel Atty. Angela D. Dodd, SEC Chicago Regional Office, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

The SEC is currently investigating whether Ronald Van Den Heuvel, entities he founded or operated, or their officers, directors, owners, or employees, violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The Commission is examining, among other things, whether Van Den Heuvel or others, including [Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC] and [GBNAGB], made misrepresentations to investors in the course of securities offerings, and whether money raised through offerings was misused. Part of this inquiry focuses on whether Van Den Heuvel and his companies, including RTS and Green Box NA Green Bay LLC, followed corporate formalities, or if they commingled the assets and liabilities of the various entities. …

Van Den Heuvel has been involved in several securities offerings relating to his “Green Box” paper-recycling process since 2012. [GBNAGB] and its parent company, Environmental Advanced Reclamation Technology HQ, LLC (“EARTH,” a/k/a Reclamation Technology Systems, LLC (“RTS”)) [f/k/a Nature’s Choice Tissue, LLC, formed in 2011], appear to be responsible for one set of offerings. In addition, another subsidiary of EARTH, Green Box NA Detroit, LLC (“Green Box Detroit”), appears to have participated in a different offering made to investors participating in the EB-5 immigrant investor program administered by the United States Customs and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). It also appears that EARTH offered several different types of guaranties of the EB-5 investments in Green Box Detroit, including guaranteeing, through Van Den Heuvel, the refund of EB-5 investors’ $500,000 investments should their visa application be denied. In addition, EARTH, through Van Den Heuvel, appears to have represented to EB-5 investors that it had pledged up to $40 million of its assets as security for their investments related to Green Box Detroit. …

03/14/17 : ST Paper, LLC changed Registered Agent w/ WDFI as a Foreign LLC, and on 03/17/10, and on 03/29/16, and on 03/14/17 to G&K Wisconsin Service, LLC

OSGC’s arguments against dismissal are rife with contradiction. OSGC invokes federal court jurisdiction, but assert that this Court lacks authority to determine whether OSGC has the capacity to bring this Complaint. … OSGC claims that it exhausted the state law remedies before repairing to federal court and that state law remedies were inadequate, but admit that state law remedies could have reversed the exact land-use decision of which OSGC complains. … OSGC complains that the decision to revoke its conditional use permit violated due process, but assert a constitutionally protected interest in their building permit. … But the most glaring contradictions are the two favorable state court decisions as Exhibits A and B to a Complaint for deprivation of due process. … This is more than the Constitution and §1983 can bear. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, fail to establish subject matter jurisdiction, and fail to prove corporate capacity to sue. For any one of the following, independent reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed.

A. The Business Committee cannot cure OSGC’s lack of capacity by resolution. This Court is authorized to find as much, or if the Court lacks authority, should dismiss the Complaint.

Despite having brought this complaint in federal court, OSGC now argues that a federal court cannot decide whether OSGC has capacity to bring this suit. … Although they fail to name it, OSGC has invoked the “tribal exhaustion rule.” As explained by the Seventh Circuit, “[t]he concept of federal court abstention in cases involving Indian tribes known as the ‘tribal exhaustion rule’ generally ‘requires that federal courts abstain from hearing certain claims relating to Indian tribes until the plaintiff has first exhausted those claims in tribal court.” Jackson v. Payday Financial, LLC …. This rule plainly does not apply where a plaintiff has voluntarily submitted its claim to the Court’s authority.

In Altheimer & Gray v. Sioux Manufacturing Corporation, the Seventh Circuit held that the doctrine of tribal exhaustion did not bar a federal court from deciding a contract dispute filed against tribal defendants where the defendants had, “explicitly agreed to submit to the venue and jurisdiction of federal and state courts.” … see also Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. v. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians …. While the defendants in Altheimer and Stifel agreed by contract, OSGC has just as clearly “agreed to submit to the venue and jurisdiction” of this Court by selecting this forum. OSGC cannot ask the Court to hear its Complaint and deny the Court’s authority in the same action. …

But even if OSGC was correct that the Court must abstain from deciding OSGC’s capacity, Business Committee Resolution No. 02-22-17-E (the “Resolution”) would not become binding authority. Courts abstaining in deference to tribal jurisdiction do not simply adopt the tribal court decision—they dismiss. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante … (affirming district court’s decision to abstain, but remanding for a determination on whether to dismiss or stay pending further tribal court proceedings). If this Court cannot decide whether OSGC has capacity to bring this lawsuit, the lawsuit must be dismissed.

This Court can and should decide whether OSGC lacks capacity to sue, and not by reference to the Resolution. OSGC’s reliance on the Resolution ignores the fundamental problem with OSGC’s capacity – the Oneida General Tribal Council, not the Business Committee, voted to dissolve OSGC and then affirmed that OSGC cannot continue litigation against the City. … OSGC acknowledges that the powers of the Business Committee are “subject to General Tribal Council review.” … see also … Constitution and By-Laws of the Oneida Nation (2015), Article III, § 3 (The business committee may only “perform such duties as may be authorized by the General Tribal Council.”). As the subordinate entity, the Business Committee cannot interpret its own authority to override the will of the General Tribal Council. …

According to OSGC, the appellate judgments were untimely because they did not arrive in time to allow OSGC to take advantage of grants and other incentives that made the project economically viable. … Thus, OSGC argues that its state law remedies were inadequate by counting its alleged damages.

But adequacy of state law remedies is not measured by damages. … OSGC’s alleged losses (including lost grants, contracts, and permits) do not undermine the adequacy of its available state law remedies. …

The only reason it has not “receive the permit it sought during or as a result of the state court proceedings” is that it has failed to enforce the state court judgments.

OSGC cannot have it both ways – either OSGC pursued available state remedies or it did not. OSGC admits that it did not: “Could OSGC eventually have placed this dispute in a posture in which the City was under an enforceable order to re-issue the CUP? Probably…” …

If OSGC was not satisfied with the outcome of certiorari review, it also could have sought a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of the building permit. Indeed, OSGC initially filed exactly such a writ of mandamus, but voluntarily dismissed it. … 

OSGC’s alleged interest was not made in reliance on state law – it was made “in reliance on the CUP.” … The CUP cannot “support claims of entitlement” … because “[a] conditional use permit is not property.” ….

The theme throughout OSGC’s Complaint and arguments is that OSGC is not dissatisfied with the process they received – it is dissatisfied with its losses. In Shipyard Development, LLC v. City of Sturgeon Bay, this Court denied just such a claim: “[I]t is clear from its complaint that Shipyard is not seeking notice and a hearing on its right to a prompt determination. Shipyard wants money for the losses it claims to have sustained as a result of the delay. Shipyard’s claims are not for a denial of procedural protections.” ….

OSGC attempts to distinguish CEnergy-Glenmore by citing the loss of its building permit and “significant funds spent in reliance on the town’s actions.” … As to the building permit, the loss of a building permit clearly does not entitle plaintiffs to a claim for substantive due process. Harding v. County of Door … (finding no substantive due process violation for withdrawal of building permit). As to the “significant funds,” OSGC has put the cart before the horse. Before it can state a claim for damages under section 1983, OSGC must first allege a constitutional violation. Instead, OSGC asks the Court to find a violation based on the measure of its losses. OSGC repeats this theme throughout its bulleted list of grievances. … The “magnitude” of OSGC’s damages is not a proxy for arbitrariness.

Dec 23 2017 Airing of OSGCs & GBRE's Grievances by the Festivus pole before feats of strength.

The only Seventh Circuit case OSGC cites as having found a violation of substantive due process is Peninsula Properties, Inc. v. City of Sturgeon Bay[.] There, plaintiffs presented a viable case for substantive due process violations by alleging that the City “refused to act as a means to coerce a citizen to take unwarranted action.” … OSGC has not alleged conduct that amounts to coercion. … Nor does the conduct support an inference “that the City intentionally sought to harm OSGC.” … The worst that might be said about the allegations is that the City yielded to political pressure, an allegation that decidedly does not support a claim for procedural due process. River Park … (“the due process clause permits municipalities to use political methods to decide [land-use matters]”).

Plaintiffs argue that by referring to OSGC and its subsidiary GBRE collectively, they are excused from showing that GBRE is independently entitled to relief. … According to Plaintiffs, the facts alleged on behalf of OSGC were alleged for both entities and the City is free to parse out the distinctions in discovery. …

Exactly this style of “vague drafting” was rejected by the Eastern District in Holmes v. City of Racine… (citing Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife…). There, multiple plaintiffs pursued RICO claims against multiple defendants, but the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to make clear which defendants harmed which plaintiffs. … The court found this insufficient to confer standing:

Here is what is clear: each plaintiff must allege facts that, taken as true, would show a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. In other words, the Court will not allow them to escape dismissal simply by pleading a host of facts which they then incorporate into claims against all or groups of the defendants…. [A]bsent factual allegations that would establish facial plausibility of RICO claims against specific defendants by specific plaintiffs, the Court will be obliged to dismiss the RICO portions of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Id. (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal…) … This reasoning applies with equal force here – Plaintiffs’ Complaint failed to establish facial plausibility of claims against the City “by specific plaintiffs” and must be dismissed for lack of standing. 

The reasoning from Holmes also renders GBRE’s claim deficient for purposes of Rule 8(a)(2). Where a complaint fails to show damages sufficient to confer standing, it also necessarily fails to “show[] that the pleader is entitled to relief,” fails to “give the defendant fair notice of what the… claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” and fails to satisfy Rule 8. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly … (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Dated this 14th day of March, 2017.
GUNTA LAW OFFICES, S.C.
Attorneys for Defendant, City of Green Bay

03/22/17 : Green Bay Press-Gazette –  FAKE NEWS
 Green Box ready to emerge
from bankruptcy by Jeff Bollier

A Chicago company’s $176 million reorganization plan for Green Box NA Green Bay would pay nearly $14 million in unpaid taxes and debts to untangle founder Ron Van Den Heuvel’s web of lawsuits and unpaid bills.

GlenArbor LLC, an investor in Green Box, has spearheaded efforts to pull the De Pere-based company out of bankruptcy since Van Den Heuvel sought protection from creditors in April 2016. Its plan calls for the creation of a new company that would secure the equipment, intellectual property and money needed to operate a complex system for recycling waste that typically ends up in landfills.

Green Box and two related companies under the new company’s umbrella, Reclamation Technology Systems LLC and PC Fibre Technology LLC, would provide the equipment, technology, know-how, space and materials needed to convert food-contaminated paper products, plastics, tires and other materials into sanitized raw materials suitable for making new products.

Van Den Heuvel would retain an ownership stake in the revived venture, but he would not be involved in the company’s management, according to a reorganization plan filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

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

[Ron Van Den Heuvel] is also scheduled for trial in July on federal bank fraud charges. Van De Heuvel, his wife, Kelly [Yessman Van Den Heuvel], and a banker [Paul Piikkila] are accused of a scheme in which they used employees and relatives to borrow more than $1 million from Horicon Bank in 2008 and 2009. The bank claimed it lost more than $750,000 on the loans.

________________

[NOTE: Paul Piikkila, who has already pled guilty and agreed to testify about Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel’s bank fraud schemes, was ALSO the Interim Controller of the Green Detroit Regional Center EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program that promoted Ron Van Den Heuvel’s Green Box NA Detroit LLC investment fraud scheme to foreign victims. “Employees & Relatives” of the Van Den Heuvel’s who were ‘straw borrowers’  include:

•  Patrick Hoffman – Ron & Kelly’s son-in-law;
•  Steven Peters – Ron’s employee and partner with Ron, Artley Skenandore, Jr. & OSGC in Nature’s Way Tissue Corp.;
•  William C. Bain – Ron’s business partner in Ron & Bill Investments, LLC and Ron’s former brother-in-law;
•  Julie Gumban – Ron & Kelly’s 2004-2010 live-in nanny from the Philippines who sued Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvel – twice.]

________________

“They got everything pretty well lined up but it’s been so difficult because of everything swirling around it,” Green Box bankruptcy attorney Paul Swanson said. “It’s a great concept and I think we’ve demonstrated it could go and really be successful.”

 

                  

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Beth Hanan laid out the terms of the reorganization in a Feb. 17 court filing. GlenArbor still has to secure funding to pay off claimants and launch the operation before the case can formally be resolved.

GlenArbor’s Stephen A. Smith declined to comment until the agreement is made official. Van Den Heuvel also declined to comment.

Under the reorganization plan, Van Den Heuvel would retain ownership of 6.35 percent of Green Box and a 55.6 percent of Reclamation Technology Systems.

Green Box would focus on operating, servicing and selling machines that convert plastics and used tires into oil, black carbon, synthetic gas and other re-usable materials through a process called pyrolysis. Reclamation Technology Systems sorts and processes food contaminated waste to create pulp, tissue and other products. PC Fibre Technology owns the patent for that process. 

__________

[DOES IT REALLY NOW?  SINCE WHEN?

• October 18, 2016 United States Trustee’s Objection to the Debtor’s Disclosure Statement, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11, Green Box NA Green Bay, LLC

6.  According to the Disclosure Statement, the FDA approved the paper recycling process. However, although the process may be feasible, the Debtor has not provided any evidence that the process is profitable.

7. The Disclosure Statement provides that the patent for the technology needed to process food-contaminated waste was filed in 2011 but has not yet been approved. The Debtor states that approval of the process patent is not expected until 2017.

…WHOOPS!!! {UPDATE SEE BELOW FOR GBPG’s CORRECTION}]

__________

Green Box would have a 30 percent stake in the new company created to bring together the disparate parts of the businesses. Green Box would use its share of the profits and revenue from pyrolysis operations to pay off nearly $1.1 million in unsecured claims against Green Box.

GlenArbor owns 3.75 percent of Green Box and 25.8 percent of RTS.

Building a new company

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

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

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

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

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

In exchange for the payments, investors agreed to give up claims to various machinery Van Den Heuvel offered as collateral to secure financing from various sources and transfer it to RTS and Green Box. The equipment is needed to operate the new company.

The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. would receive $650,000 in exchange for giving up its security interest in some of the equipment in question, but it also agreed to defer repayment of the $1.1 million loan WEDC gave Green Box. The new company would assume responsibility for the loan.

The new company faces a March 31 deadline to finance all the disparate parts of the operation, though the deadline can be extended into the second quarter if necessary.

03/24/17 :  GREEN BAY PRESS-GAZETTE PUBLISHED A CORRECTION AT ONEIDA EYE PUBLISHER LEAH SUE DODGE‘s REQUEST…

DESTROYING GBPG’s LUDICROUS FRONT PAGE ‘FAKE NEWS’ CLAIM THAT GREEN BOX NA IS “READY TO EMERGE FROM BANKRUPTCY”

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

Ya’ think?!

 

SO WHAT ‘PATENT’ DID OSGC SUPPOSEDLY
INVEST (at least) $2 MILLION IN…

ONLY TO LOSE (at least) $4 MILLION…

as stated in the Oneida Nation in Wisconsin’s
FY2012 Annual Reports to ONWI’s General Tribal Council

which was later fraudulently copied & pasted in

FY2017 Annual Reports to ONWI’s General Tribal Council?

They both say:

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Tribe approved $2,000,000 in the investment of Seven Generations to become a 20% owner in Nature’s Way (Glory LLC). Nature’s Way [Tissue Corp.] was a paper converting company that has ownership of a tissue patent. In FY2008, a $4,000,000 loss was written off due to the closing of Nature’s Way. Oneida Seven Generations is currently in litigation against Nature’s Way principals of the corporation.

IF PC FIBRE TECHNOLOGY, LLC HAS NEVER HAD A PATENT AS OSGC HAS CONTINOUSLY CLAIMED TO ONWI’s GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL…

NATURE’S WAY TISSUE CORP. & OSGC HAVE BEEN NOTHING BUT FRONTS FOR RON VAN DEN HEUVEL’s CRIMINAL FRAUD SCHEMES SINCE AT LEAST 2005.

TWELVE YEARS…

OVER $25 MILLION DOLLARS GONE…

BUT NOW OSGC & GBRE ARE SUING THE CITY OF GREEN BAY IN FEDERAL COURT CLAIMING “THE CITY [of GREEN BAY] INTENTIONALLY TRIED TO HARM OSGC” ?!?!

Meanwhile, the Green Bay Press-Gazette’s propaganda is only serving to help Ron Van Den Heuvel lure more domestic & foreign victims to ‘invest’ in his fraud schemes, like this:

What GlenArbor LLC & Green Box NA investors should expect:

Kinda like the Press-Gazette’s Alexa.com Rankings:

03/27/17 : VIDEO – March 27, 2017 ONWI GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL ANNUAL MEETING PART 2 [reconvened from February 20, 2017] excerpt:

03/29/17 : MH Resources Corp. Notice of Administrative Dissolution mailed 2nd time on 03/29/17 after 01/17/17 notice was RTND UNDELIVERABLE; Registered Agent Marc Hess, 2701 Larsen Road, Green Bay, WI; Started on 02/05/07

Marc Hess was a consultant for OSGC’s ‘energy’ project via IEP Development, LLC.

03/31/17 : PCDI Michigan, LLC registered w/ WDFI; Registered Agent: Christopher Jusko; 2077 Lawrence Drive, Suite A, De Pere, 54115; Changed Registered Agent to Tissue Technology, LLC on 2/12/18; Changed name to True Sustainability Michigan, LLC on 3/21/18

04/11/17 : WLUK – Ron & Kelly Van Den Heuvels’ bank fraud trial rescheduled 

The trial date for a De Pere…man and his wife accused of bank fraud has been pushed back again.

Ron Van Den Heuvel and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel were scheduled to go on trial July 31, but at a hearing Tuesday, that was pushed back to [October, 23, 2017].

They are accused of bank fraud for allegedly illegally arranging a series of loans regarding the operations for a company known as Green Box [NA].

Their former banker, Paul Piikkila, agreed to plead guilty and testify against the Van Den Heuvels. His sentencing has not been set.

The federal indictment alleges that Piikkila, a loan officer at Horicon Bank in Appleton, approved a series of loans totaling more than $1 million. The indictment says Horicon Bank had told Piikkila not to loan any money to Van Den Heuvel, so none of the loans mentioned in the indictment were written to him by name. The couple has pleaded not guilty.

 WTAQ: Van Den Heuvels’ Bank Fraud Trial Delayed

Ron Van Den Heuvel and Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel’s trials were pushed back Tuesday from July 31 to October 23.

The Van Den Heuvels are accused of illegally arranging a series of loans in connection with their business, Green Box [NA].

Paul Piikkila, the Van Den Heuvel’s former banker, has agreed to plead guilty and testify against the couple.

According to the federal indictment, Piikkila approved a series of loans for the Van Den Heuvels when he was a loan officer with Appleton’s Horicon Bank location.  

Bank management reportedly told Piikkila not to approve loans for the Van Den Heuvels so they were made out in other names.

04/23/17 : APRIL 23, 2017 ONWI GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL ANNUAL MEETING PART 3 [reconvened from February 20 & March  27] excerpt wherein OBC Council member and candidate for OBC Vice-Chair in the July 2017 ONWI General Election said Ron Van Den Heuvel had nothing to do with OSGC’s Pyrolysis plan.

Therefore – according to Brandon Yellowbird Stevens – there’s absolutely no need for anyone to ask any local, state, nor federal agency to investigate anyone nor anything anymore.

Whatsoever.

Later…

Oneida Election Board Chair Racquel ‘Rocky’ Hill tried to make hay about the February 7, 2017 Declaration of Leah Sue Dodge in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Lack of Capacity to Sue, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, Case No. 1:16-cv-01700,  Oneida Seven Generations Corporation & Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC  v.  City of Green Bay

…as if were somehow scandalous to help defend the City of Green Bay against the criminal fraud schemes of OSGC, GBRE, et al.

Then…

OBC Chair Cristina Danforth’s Senior Policy Advisor Michael Debraska recounted for GTC his experiences two months previous in February 2016 when he accompanied Oneida Eye Publisher Leah Sue Dodge to track down ONWI Dept. Chief Counsel James Bittorf at the ONWI Law Office [OLO] following weeks of having emails and phone calls ignored…

only for Mike Debraska & Leah Dodge to be told by Atty. Bittorf that John Breuninger had been made ‘Sole Director’ of Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE and Oneida Energy Inc. (though Atty. Bittorf wasn’t comfortable saying appointed by whom)…

and that John Breuninger (the husband of ONWI Law Office / OLO Senior Paralegal Jeri Bauman) was responsible for entering a ‘confidential’ multimillion settlement agreement with litigants Arland Clean Fuels LLC / Generation Clean Fuels LLC / ACF / GCF… (though Atty. Bittorf couldn’t say how much or the origin of the funds)…

only to later have OSGC Managing Agent Pete King III claim that he – not John Breuninger – made the “business decision” after being asked by Mike Debraska during the 08/10/16 GTC Special Meeting while the OBC sat there, looked on, listened, and said nothing to the contrary…

only to later have (OSGC Attorney Carl Artman‘s first cousin) Chief Counsel Jo Anne House later admit at the 07/17/17 GTC Semi-Annual Meeting that OSGC ‘Managing Agent’ PETER J. KING III [of KING SOLUTIONS, LLC] DID NOT have the authority to usurp GTC and enter into a ‘confidential’ multimillion dollar settlement agreement with ACF / GCF …

 

but the OBC retroactively approved Pete King III’s actions anyway without coming back to GTC for any action…

as was promised in the OBC Letter to GTC mailed in late-October 2015 (but strangely dated September 23, 2015).

05/17/17 : Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:  Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. / WEDC double-counts some jobs, cites others from closed firms

Two-fifths of the past due loans involved awards to two companies: $3.4 million owed by aircraft manufacturer Kestrel; and $1.1 million owed by Green Box, an environmental technology company in De Pere. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel first reported that in making the loan to Green Box WEDC failed to turn up the many legal and financial problems of company Chairman Ron Van Den Heuvel.

05/23/17 : May 23, 2017 Federal Indictment, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 17CR92,  United States of American  v.  Jay L. Fuss  [Fmr. Oneida Housing Authority Construction Supervisor]

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

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

JAY L. FUSS

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

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

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

•  Sauk Co. Case No. 2013CF208, State of Wisconsin vs. Spencer A. Cornelius; Substantial Battery / Intend Bodily Harm (Felony; Repeater), regarding Spencer Cornelius’ brutal assault on fellow OHA employee Jonathan Delabreau during an OHA training trip to the Wisconsin Dells when harassment & intimidation wasn’t enough to satisfy Spencer’s bloodlust; the brutal attack was allegedly done in order to please Spencer’s and Jonathan’s boss, former OHA Construction Superintendent Jay Fuss, who was at that time dating Jonathan’s mother (among other women). That assault was not the first time Spencer Cornelius has violently attacked people as seen by Brown Co. Case No. 2009CF630

•  Related:

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

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

06/01/17 : FILED – June 1, 2017 Summons & Complaint, Oconto Co. Case No. 17-CV-104,  Oconto Falls Tissue, Inc.  v.  ST Paper LLC [added in 03/08/19 Amended Complaint: VHC Inc., David Van Den Heuvel, Nicolet Bankshares Inc. & Ability Insurance Company]

06/06/17 : June 6, 2017 Decision and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 16-CV-1700,  [Oneida Nation of Wisconsin-owned] Oneida Seven Generations Corp. [OSGC] & [OSGC’s subsidiary] Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC [GBRE]  v.  City of Green Bay: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge United States District Court

06/16/17 : From U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket No. 16-CR-64,  United States of America  v.  Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel, Paul Piikkila, and Kelly Y. Van Den Heuvel

06/19/17 : June 19, 2017 Defendant Ronald Van Den Heuvel’s Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Materials and Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Disclosure

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

06/23/17 : June 23, 2017 Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation’s / WEDC’s Objection to Debtor Green Box NA Green Bay LLC’s Motion to Modify Confirmed Third Revised Amended Chapter 11 Plan, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Wisconsin Eastern District Docket No. 16-24179-beh, Chapter 11,  Green Box NA Green Bay LLC

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

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

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

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

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

06/27/17 : June 27, 2017 Oneida Nation of WI / ONWI Petition for Cancellation of Oneida Indian Nation of New York’s Trademark Registrations, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Cancellation No. 92066411,  Oneida Nation of Wisconsin  v.  Oneida Indian Nation of New York

06/28/17 : USA Today Network /
Green Bay Press Gazette

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

… after the Oneida Business Committee / OBC encouraged GTC to change the official name from ‘Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin’ to something that the OBC had been warned & knew beforehand would infringe on two other native nations.

06/29/2017 : FOX 11 WLUK

Oneida Seven Generations Corp.

appealing lawsuit dismissal

against Green Bay

 

Oneida Eye reiterates Questions & Advice from our December 23, 2016 post:

Questions:

How will OSGC’s ‘undisclosed settlement’ of millions of dollars taken out of Tribal coffers by Pete King III be reflected/hidden in the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin/ONWI’s Tribal Budget as presented to General Tribal Council by OBC Treasurer Trish King?

What gives OSGC & GBRE the right to instigate litigation against the City of Green Bay after GTC directed the OBC to dissolve OSGC…

…and especially after GTC allowed motions to rescind dissolution & continue litigation to lapse over three meetings over three months, rejecting calls to take the motions off the table, and thus allowing the main motion & amendments to die on the table?

Free Legal Advice:

GTC shouldn’t allow OSGC & GBRE to hire Godfrey & Kahn to sue the City of Green Bay for refusing to allow OSGC & GBRE to perpetrate what appears to be just one facet of a fraud scheme in the wide-ranging criminal enterprises of OSGC’s partner, Ron Van Den Heuvel, whom Godfrey & Kahn has successfully sued for fraud on behalf of their client, Dr. Marco Araujo, with the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation / WEDC as Araujo’s Co-Plaintiff…

…especially given that Ron & his wife Kelly Yessman Van Den Heuvel have been charged with several counts of bank fraud, to which their co-conspirator, Paul Piikkila, has pled guilty as a former Horicon Bank loan officer and the Interim Controller of the Green Detroit Regional Center EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program which promoted Ron’s Green Box NA Detroit LLC scam to multiple foreign investors, among other things the Van Den Heuvel’s are under investigation for by the Brown County Sheriff’s Department and no less than five federal agencies.

Instead, GTC and the City of Green Bay should confront what appears to be a treasonous criminal fraud scheme against GTC, the City of Green Bay, the State of Wisconsin, and the U.S. Government, perpetrated in part from the highest levels of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s government, institutions and corporations … conspiring with Ronald H. Van Den Heuvel & Abdul Latif Mahjoob … which has cost (and will likely continue to cost) GTC millions of wasted dollars and countless opportunities.

Accordingly, the City of Green Bay should file a countersuit against OSGC, GBRE, Oneida Energy Inc., Godfrey & Kahn, Ron Van Den Heuvel & Abdul Latif Mahjoob for attempting to perpetrate criminal fraud schemes against GTC and the Green Bay City Common Council.

Finally, GTC should hire outside counsel to oversee quick dissolution of OSGC, and subequently hold individual Tribal officials & executives involved in negligence, fraud, abuse, and/or cover-ups meaningfully accountable, while simultaneously adopting enforceable corporate transparency, accountability & ethics laws to prevent hubris from further squandering GTC’s resources and ONWI’s reputation.

Will GTC & Green Bay fight back…

against OSGC, Ron, Godfrey & Kahn

…together?

07/06/17 : July 6, 2017 Seventh Circuit Transcript Information Sheet by Michael B. Apfeld, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341,  Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

 

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

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

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

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

The OGC oversees the ONEIDA NATION of WI-owned ONEIDA CASINO – not to be confused with the New York casinos of the ONEIDA INDIAN NATION of NY – and the OGC must approve all operational contracts entered into by the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO.

OSGC supposedly ‘leases’ buildings to the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO, including the business offices of the OGC…

yet the ONWI ONEIDA CASINO itself pays for capital improvements for the buildings supposedly ‘owned’ by OSGC, for which Oneida Gaming Manager Louise King Cornelius’ nephew – OBC-appointed OSGC Managing Agent Pete King III of King Solutions, LLC– receives a salary to ‘oversee.’]

Approximately 1600 enrolled Oneida citizens participated in the election.

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

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

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

Re-elected for the Treasurer was Trish King.

Debra Powless was elected to serve as Secretary.

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

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

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

 

FALSE.

 

IN REALITY…

GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL / GTC

is the GOVERNING BODY of

ONEIDA NATION of WI / ONWI.

 

Oneida Nation of WI Constitution,

Article III – Governing Body,

Section 1:

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

 

THUS…

the  OBC

is  SUBORDINATE

to  GTC.

NEVER FORGET.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this case, there’s nothing.

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

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

 

“You are a violent, dangerous person that has absolutely no remorse, very low character. You will hurt someone again,” said McGinnis.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • See Oneida Eye’s previous reporting:

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

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

 

 


07/11/17 : July 11, 2017 Notice of Rule 33 Mediation scheduled for July 27, 2017, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341,  Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

07/12/17 : July 12, 2017 Order:  Circuit Rule 33 – Briefing, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341, Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

 

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

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

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

07/13/17 : July 13, 2017 Amended Notice of Rule 33 Mediation scheduled for July 27, 2017, U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 17-2341, Oneida Seven Generations Corp. / OSGC & subsidiary Green Bay Renewable Energy, LLC / GBRE  v.  City of Green Bay

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

IV.  [RON VAN DEN HEUVEL], A NON-LAWYER, CANNOT FILE ANSWER ON BEHALF OF [TISSUE TECHNOLOGY LLC], NOR CAN HIS ANSWER SERVE AS AN ANSWER FOR A CO-DEFENDANT.

To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, RVDH is not licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. The RVDH Affidavit impliedly admits as much, stating that RVDH is acting “prose” [sic] in this matter. …

An answer filed by a non-lawyer representing a corporation is insufficient to prevent entry of default judgment. … It is insufficient for another party to deny liability on behalf of a non-answering defendant. … Accordingly, in no event can the RVDH Affidavit constitute an answer on behalf of [Tissue Technology LLC]. Tissue Tech has yet to file an Answer, more than six months after its initial deadline to file an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

 

07/17/17 : FULL VIDEO – JULY 17, 2017 ONWI GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING

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

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

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

BUT THAT’S OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

A SECRET MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT WAS PAID.

GTC MEMBERS HAVE BEEN TOLD VARIOUS VERSIONS OF EVENTS.


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

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

and…

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

SECRET MULTIMILLIONS
to play with for what
looks & smells like
just another state &
federally funded
intentional tort
‘plastics-to-oil’
‘waste-to-energy’
‘green investment’
white-collar extortion

criminal fraud scheme…

with a treasonous,

genocidal twist?

 

Oneida Eye sources estimate the
actual ‘settlement’ amount of Pete King III’s
OBC-approved ‘payment’ to COOK COUNTY,
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS-based
ARLAND CLEAN FUELS, LLC
ACF SERVICES, LLC
ACF LEASING, LLC
aka
GENERATION CLEAN FUELS, LLC
& ACF/ GCF principals


MICHAEL FLAHERTY
[of Door County, WI]


GAYLEN LACROSSE
[of Door County, WI]


LOUIS R. STERN
[of Cook County, IL]


ERIC DECATOR
[of Cook County, IL,
formerly of
COLORADO]
as being

between

$10 – $15 MILLION.

 

 

HOWEVER…

GENERAL TRIBAL COUNCIL / GTC

– the GOVERNING BODY of ONWI –

has the following authority,

in accordance with the

Oneida Nation of WI Constitution,

Article VI –

Powers of the General Tribal Council

Section 1. Enumerated Powers.

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

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

 

THUS…

the  GTC

can  VETO ANY ENCUMBRANCE

created by the OBC & OSGC

due to any ‘settlement’…

as well as hold them

personally liable

for criminal fraud.

NEVER FORGET.

 

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

 

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

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PART 10

Comments are closed.