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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD L. BLACKBURN,

ANDREW V. REID, BRUCE A. GWYN,

MICHAEL A. MULSHINE, LEE C.

SCHLESINGER, SAMUEL E. WHITLEY,

AND TREATY ENERGY

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:15-cv-2451-CJB-SS

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE 56 MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF RONALD LEE BLACKBURN, ANDREW V. REID,
BRUCE GWYN AND MICHAEL A. MULSHINE
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (Plaintiff, SEC, or Commission)
files its Response 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:
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Treaty Officer Defendants, as the movants,
bear the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323.

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).

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

This burden is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by
conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence. Id.
(internal quotations and citations omitted). Plainly, a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving
party has no evidence is insufficient to discharge the movants burden. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 328
(White, J. concurring); St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 440 (5th Cir.
2005). Only when the moving party satisfies this initial burden of production does the burden
shift to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Little, 37 F.3d
at 1075; First Natl Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968).
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
The first 24 pages of the Treaty Officer Defendants 25 page motion for summary judgment
consist of a frivolous and abusive rant 1 centering on an unsupported (and untrue) belief that the SEC
[filed its] complaint at the behest of individuals with a personal agenda and was associating with
persons abusing its process. (See Defs. Motion at p. 8.) Not a single sentence relates to any
pending claim or defense, and cannot be considered for determining whether summary judgment is
appropriate. See Tucker v. SAS Institute, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 715, 723 (N.D. Tex. [Dallas]
2006) (Unless the assertions contained in the [] brief are supported by accurate citations to the
record, they are merely unsubstantiated assertions which are not competent summary judgment
evidence.); Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F. 3d 721, 725 (5th Cir. 2002). The
Court should disregard all uncited allegations contained within the brief and the accompanying
Statement of Uncontested Facts, which are not supported by a single citation to evidence. FED.
1

Throughout their motion and in other public filings with this Court, Defendants have made repeated
unsubstantiated and impertinent allegations of misconduct by Commission staff and have demonstrated a bizarre
obsession with the Commission staff attorney who investigated this matter. See Defs. uncited Statement of
Uncontested Facts (nearly all of which facts the SEC contests, and half of which center on a particular SEC
attorney). These allegations and personal attacks on counsel are frivolous, defamatory, and abusive, and have
nothing to do with the merits of SECs enforcement action. The SEC reserves the right to raise these issues in a
separate Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11(c).

SEC v. Blackburn, et al.

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO TREATY OFFICERS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page 2

Case 2:15-cv-02451-CJB-SS Document 82 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 4

R. CIV. P. 56(c)(3) (The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other
materials in the record.); Forsynth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir. 1994) (unsubstantiated
assertions are not summary judgment evidence); Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 585
(6th Cir. 1992) (holding that conclusory allegations and subjective beliefs . . . are wholly
insufficient evidence[].).
The substance of defendants argument in support of their summary judgment motion
begins on page 25 and consists of three short paragraphs. 2 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.3
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., 477 U.S. at 323. 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); Thomas v.
Abbott, 2009 WL 900740 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009), at 2 (denying summary judgment when
defendant merely stated that Plaintiff cannot produce support for an essential element of her
claim). Here, Defendants are one step removed from alleging no evidence: they merely deny

Although Defendants moves only for summary judgment under Rule 56 (See Defs. Motion [Doc. 74]), their brief
in support of the Rule 56 Motion, cites Rule 12(f) and asks the Court to strike various paragraphs of the
Complaint, based only on the unsubstantiated assertion that the calumny regarding Blackburn had nothing to do
with the securities laws and similar conclusory and uncited statements. The Court should disregard this minimotion within the brief.

The few documents defendants attach to their motion have no relation or relevance to any pending claim, and appear to
be offered in support of the aforementioned irrelevant rant.

SEC v. Blackburn, et al.

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO TREATY OFFICERS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page 3

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

that the alleged violation occurred. Defendants have not met their burden under the well-established
summary judgment standard, and the Court must deny Defendants motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should: (1) deny the Treaty Officer Defendants
Motion for Summary Judgment; and (2) grant the SEC such other relief as it may be entitled. A
proposed Order is attached to this motion.
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
brandtj@sec.gov
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

SEC v. Blackburn, et al.

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO TREATY OFFICERS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Page 4