UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., James A. 

Donelson, Timothy M. Evans, Jeremy S. 

Ruth, and Andrew D. Nelson, 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 20-3758 

Hon. Thomas A. Durkin 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF 

AGAINST DEFENDANT DONELSON1

Defendant Donelson’s perfunctory arguments in response to the CFTC’s motion for 

supplemental relief are unavailing. Apart from expressing general disagreement with the Court’s 

summary judgment ruling, Donelson’s position seems to be that his violations of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Regulations aren’t that bad, restitution and disgorgement are 

punishment enough, he doesn’t have any money, and he needs to be able to trade commodity 

interests in order to get money. These arguments are easily disposed of. 

Donelson argues that the supplemental relief sought by the CFTC—a permanent 

injunction against trading in commodity interests, and a civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) in the 

amount of three times disgorgement—is unwarranted because his fraud is not as bad the fraud in 

the cases cited by the CFTC. (Doc. 116, Donelson’s Resp. to Mot. for Supp. Relief (“Resp.”) at 

1-2, 4.) Donelson’s argument misses the point. The point is that defendants who commit 

 

1 Defendants Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc. (“Long Leaf”) and Jeremy Ruth did not file responses to the 

CFTC’s motion. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 117 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2854
2

intentional fraud should be banned from trading in commodity interests to protect prospective 

customers and, indeed, the market, from a person with a demonstrated capacity for dishonesty. 

(See Mot. at 5-6 (citing cases).) In recognition of the seriousness of intentional fraud, such 

defendants should be subject to the maximum allowable CMP. (See id. at 10-11.) In any event, 

Donelson’s conduct compares unfavorably (for him) to other cases involving similar penalties. 

Donelson was the mastermind of a systematic, ongoing fraud scheme resulting in more than $2.3 

million in losses for more than a hundred customers, with $1.2 million in ill-gotten gains 

redounding to Long Leaf. (Doc. 106, Order on CFTC’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Order”) at 4 (fraud 

scheme, losses); Doc. 77.19, Patrick Decl. ¶ 21 (number of customers).) The facts of this case

reflect a level of egregiousness at least commensurate with those relied upon by the CFTC in 

duration, number of victims, and loss amount.

2

 

Donelson argues that a CMP is unnecessary because the Court’s order on restitution and 

disgorgement constitutes sufficient “deterrence.” (Resp. at 4.) This argument fails. Restitution

and disgorgement put Donelson and his victims in the same place they would have been but for 

the fraud. This is not a punishment, it is merely a return to the status quo. Given Donelson’s 

high level of scienter and leadership role in a two-year, multimillion-dollar fraud scheme, a CMP 

 2 (Doc. 111, CFTC Mot. for Supp. Relief (“Mot.”) at 6, 11 (citing, e.g., CFTC v. Wilshire Inv. Mgmt. 

Corp., 531 F.3d 1339, 1346 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming permanent injunction on basis of 

misrepresentations made to nine customers); CFTC v. McDonnell, 332 F. Supp. 3d 641, 727 (E.D.N.Y. 

2018) (entering permanent injunction and imposing maximum CMP where customers lost a total of 

$290K in fraud scheme); CFTC v. Yumin Li, No. 15 C 5839, 2016 WL 8256392, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 

2016) (imposing maximum CMP where defendant defrauded employer out of $300K); CFTC v. Driver, 

877 F. Supp. 2d 968, 974 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (entering permanent injunction and imposing maximum CMP 

where defendant defrauded “over 100 participants”), aff’d, 585 F. App’x 366 (9th Cir. 2014)).

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 117 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:2855
3

is warranted. To hold otherwise would give Donelson and other, would-be fraudsters an 

incentive to roll the dice.3

Donelson claims that he will “likely never be able to pay” his restitution or disgorgement 

obligations, so a CMP would be pointless. (Id. at 4.) As a threshold matter, Donelson provides 

no evidence—not even a declaration—to support his claim.

4

 The Court should not credit 

Donelson’s unsupported assertion with respect to his finances. Even assuming Donelson is 

currently unable to pay his restitution or disgorgement obligations (or a CMP) in full, there is 

nothing to say Donelson will not be able to do so in the future, or over time. Donelson argues 

that a CMP would inhibit any ability he may have to pay restitution or disgorgement. (Id. at 4.) 

This is problem is easily dealt with. The CFTC hereby requests that the Court order Donelson to 

satisfy his restitution and disgorgement obligations before paying any CMP. 

Donelson argues that “if [his] capacity to trade commodity interests is permanently 

enjoined, it will be impossible for him to make any meaningful payments towards the amount set 

forth in this Court’s Order.” (Resp. at 3.) Donelson’s trading strategies at Long Leaf resulted in 

customer losses totaling more than $2.3 million. (Order at 5.) The idea that Donelson could 

make enough money trading to repay his restitution or disgorgement obligations does not pass 

the straight-face test. Moreover, Donelson’s expressed desire to continue trading militates in 

favor of an injunction. Allowing him to trade would put him in a position to defraud future 

 3 Courts do not consider “deterrence” as a factor in determining whether to impose a CMP. Rather, courts 

consider the nature of, and injuries caused by, the violations, as well as penalties imposed in similar cases. 

(See Mot at. 11 (citing cases).) Those factors mitigate strongly in favor of a CMP against Donelson. 

4 Citing CFTC v. Reisinger, No. 11-CV-08567, 2017 WL 4164197, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2017), 

Donelson argues that a court has discretion to consider a defendant’s ability to pay in determining a CMP. 

(Resp. at 4.) In Reisinger, however, the defendant submitted a declaration stating that she was 

unemployed and had a net worth of -$37,000. Reisinger, 2017 WL 4164197, at *10. Donelson has 

adduced no such evidence of his own financial wherewithal. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 117 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:2856
4

victims. He should be able to repay his victims here without engaging in the conduct that 

resulted in this lawsuit. Donelson has not historically made his living trading commodity 

interests. Before starting at Long Leaf, Donelson worked as a CPA. (Doc. 82.5, Donelson Dep. 

75:10–75:18.) Since Long Leaf ceased operation, Donelson worked as an independent 

consultant for various companies on tax and accounting issues. (See id. at 217:5–219:10.) There 

is no reason why Donelson’s income from this work should not be used to satisfy, if only in part, 

his restitution, disgorgement, and CMP obligations. 

Accordingly, the CFTC respectfully requests that the Court grants the CFTC’s motion for 

supplemental relief. 

/s/ Ashley J. Burden

Ashley J. Burden

aburden@cftc.gov

Elizabeth M. Streit

estreit@cftc.gov

Jody Platt

jplatt@cftc.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff CFTC

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Division of Enforcement

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60604 

(312) 596-0700

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 117 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:2857
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 5, 2022, I provided service to the persons listed below, 

and by the following means:

Via the Court’s electronic CM/ECF system: Via email, pursuant to agreement, to:

Jim Falvey 

Falvey Law Office

200 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100

Chicago, IL 60606-5877

jimfalvey@yahoo.com

Charles E. McElvenny

Law Office of Charles E. McElvenny

33 N. Dearborn St., Ste. 1000

Chicago, IL 60602

Counsel to James A. Donelson and Long Leaf 

Trading Group, Inc.5

Jeremey S. Ruth

11220 Brista Way

Austin, TX 78726

jeremysruth@hotmail.com

Pro se

/s/ Ashley J. Burden

Ashley J. Burden

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Division of Enforcement

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Suite 800

Chicago, IL 60604 

(312) 596-0700

aburden@cftc.gov

 5 Mr. McElvenny is counsel to Defendant Donelson only, and not to Long Leaf Trading.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 117 Filed: 10/05/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:2858