doc 82-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 2:15-cv-2451-CJB-SS RONALD L. BLACKBURN, ANDREW V. REID, BRUCE A. GWYN, MICHAEL A. MULSHINE, LEE C. SCHLESINGER, SAMUEL E. WHITLEY, AND TREATY ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RONALD LEE BLACKBURN, ANDREW V. REID, BRUCE

GWYN AND MICHAEL A. MULSHINES MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (Plaintiff, SEC, or Commission)

files its Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to the Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment

filed by Defendants Ronald Lee Blackburn, Andrew V. Reid, Bruce Gwyn and Michael A.

Mulshine (together, Treaty Officer Defendants) [Doc. 74] (Motion), and in support thereof,

respectfully shows as follows:

1. This government enforcement matter involves a scheme to violate the antifraud,

registration, and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws by Defendants Treaty Energy

Corporation (Treaty) and five company officers, including the Treaty Officer Defendants.

[Doc. 1]

2. The Complaint alleges that between 2009 and 2013, the Treaty Officer

Defendants worked in concert to manipulate trading in the stock of Treaty, a publicly traded oil

Case 2:15-cv-02451-CJB-SS Document 82-1 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 4

SEC v. Blackburn, et al. Page 2 PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF MATERIALS FACTS

and gas company, for their own benefit. Defendants carried out their scheme by: (1) concealing

the key fact that Blackburn, a convicted felon, controlled and may continue to control Treaty

as a de facto officer and director; (2) engaging in a fraudulent promotional campaign intended to

artificially inflate Treatys stock price that included the issuance of a January 2012 press release

falsely claiming a major oil strike in Belize; (3) perpetrating a fraudulent trading scheme

involving the issuance and transfer of restricted and unrestricted Treaty stock, through which

Treaty and its officers with the aid of outside securities counsel raised millions of dollars

selling virtually worthless Treaty stock to unwitting investors; and (4) conducting an illegal and

unregistered offering of oil and gas working interests. The Complaint alleges that as a result of

their misconduct, Defendants reaped illicit profits of over $4.9 million. [Doc. 1.]

3. On July 28, 2015, the Treaty Officer Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment and a notice that the motion would be submitted on August 12, 2015. [Doc. 74]

4. The Treaty Officer Defendants submitted a Statement of Uncontested Facts,

that are not supported by a single citation to evidence, and which should not be considered for

summary judgment. [Doc. 74.] See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3) (The court need consider only the

cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.)

5. The first 24 pages of defendants brief in support of their motion have no relation to

any pending claim or defense.

6. The substance of defendants argument in support of their summary judgment

motion begins on page 25 of their brief and consists of three short paragraphs. In support of their

motion, the Treaty Officer Defendants merely state the phrase That did not happen, and nothing

else, as to each of the SECs claims. Defendants do not attach any relevant evidence or point to any

evidence in the record to support their motion. [Doc. 74-1]



7. The few documents defendants attach to their motion have no relation or relevance

to any pending claim.

8. The federal summary judgment standard imposes upon the movant the initial

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those

portions of the [record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

9. If the moving party fails to meet this initial burden, the motion must be denied,

regardless of the nonmovants response. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.

1994).

10. A mere conclusory statement that the other side has no evidence is not enough to

satisfy a movants burden. Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1993).

11. The Treaty Officer Defendants failed to meet their initial burden under the federal

summary judgment standard.

Dated: August 4, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

s/Jennifer D. Brandt Jennifer D. Brandt Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 00796242

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900 801 Cherry Street, Unit #18 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-6882

Direct phone: (817) 978-6442 Fax: (817) 978-4927 [email protected]

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 4, 2015, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2).

s/Jennifer D. Brandt Jennifer D. Brandt


doc 82-1

Documents