Treaty Energy Corp. (fka TECO)

[Russian-Trader]

LMAO! By those standards Lois who washes dishes for a living who never made it past the 4th grade would qualify as a genetic scientist! Everybody knows she's dumber than a box of rocks and twice as sharp as a bowling ball!

So Clearly no experience running a company! Not that Treaty needs an experienced person because they have absolutely nothing and will be revoked shortly anyway.

"David Hallin was a TECO BOD member and got scammed"

Agreed he got scammed by Blackburn...Well documented in court records!

filed 13 failed lawsuits

Still waiting for the list! Wouldn't want to make Lois out to be a LIAR!

OOOPS! Guess lying is all Lois has:

COURT CASE WINS

Case 10-01042 Doc 67 Filed 05/29/12 Entered 05/29/12 15:18:41 Main Document
Page 1 of 2

With respect to adversary proceeding 10-1042, the court finds that plaintiff David Hallin
has proved his case with respect to the breach of contract and fraud claim against Ronald
Blackburn, accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald Blackburn is personally liable to David Hallin
on the promissory note he signed in the amount of $45,000.00 dated May 16, 2008, according to
the terms of the note.
The court also finds that plaintiff Highground, Inc. has proved its case with respect to the
breach of contract and fraud claim against Ronald Blackburn, accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald Blackburn is personally liable to Highground,
Inc. on the two promissory notes he signed in the amounts of $150,000.00 and $59,950.00, dated
May 16, 2008, according to the terms of the notes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other claims and counterclaims in adversary
proceeding 10-1042 are DISMISSED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 29, 2012.
______________________________
Jerry Brown

The defendant s, as movants, showed that the materials cited by the non movant, TECO, failed to establish an element essential of TECO’s case and on which TECO would bear the burden of proof. To succeed, TE CO would have to demonstrate at trial either that t he sa les pr ice of r est rict ed shar es a ct u ally
declined or tha t it in tended to sell r estr icted shar es at 40% off th e mar ket price
for un rest rict ed sha res. The evidence that TECO introduced, however, was
either inadmissible or failed to substantiate those elements of Its case.

Case: 15-30113 Document: 00513248470 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2015

The evidence that TECO introduced, however, was either inadmissible or failed to substantiate those elements of Its case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellant pay to appellees the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.



CIVIL ACTION
NO: 15-594
Bankruptcy No. 13-11238 "B"
SECTION: "N" (2)
J U D G M E N T
For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order and Reasons dated July 13, 2015 (Rec. Doc.No. 11); accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of July, 2015.



Case 2:15-cv-02451-CJB-JVM Document 155-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 7
1. Defendant Treaty Energy Corporation (“Defendant”) acknowledges having been
served with the complaint in this action, enters a general appearance, and admits the Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant and over the subject matter of this action.
3. Defendant agrees that the Court shall order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
prejudgment interest thereon, and a civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)].Defendant further agrees that the amounts of the disgorgement and civil penalty shall be determined by the Court upon motion of the Commission, and that prejudgment interest shall be calculated from December 15, 2014, based on the rate of interest used by the Internal Revenue Service for the underpayment of federal income tax as set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6621(a)(2).


Case 2:11-cv-01314-CJB-ALC Document 63 Filed 11/09/12 Page 6 of 7

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’motions to quash are hereby granted and plaintiff’s supplemental motion for leave to conduct discovery is denied.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of ______________, 2012.
ALMA L. CHASEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE