Zeons Corporation (ZEON)

[pineyhill]

200 shares @ 4.95 up 82%. SMH.....

[mrnutsandbolts]

I've been an owner since before the beginning...why do you say it is not over? John has passed on...I can find no one to contact, the phone number is assigned to someone else...and there has been no news for years....WHAT DO YOU KNOW???

[kenmitz]

Hang on to whatever shares you own! Selling will only leave the door open to REGRETS. THIS ISN'T OVER YET!!

[A Dinosaur]

I haven't looked at this stock - or this board - since answering your post in August 2014. I finally managed to sell my few shares remaining after the reverse splits in April 2015.

I have no idea, nor desire to know, what the company is doing...if anything. This is the first time I've looked at the stock since then. I see that http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ZEON/quote shows the stock with a skull and crossbones. Probably a valid warning.

I wish you good luck.

Dino

[mrnutsandbolts]

Any knowledge of why people are buying this stock? You mention the Board is still active, do you know anyone on the Board who can give us some information as to what the future of this company might be?

Been a stockholder from the beginning.

[mrnutsandbolts]

I've been a stockholder of ZEON from the beginning and before. I bought in when it was La Forza, then into the transition as it became SSTP, and now with the spin off of ZEON.

I'm wondering if anyone out there knows of the viability of this company. Would like to know.

[mrnutsandbolts]

Who is buying this stock and why? What about SSTP? Does anyone know????

[A Dinosaur]

The old board is still active. They're even discussing ZEON there. I don't think they realize that this board exists.

Dino

[paper man]

I see that SSTP is gone for good (delisted) from IHUB.
Can we use this site to keep connected?

[SnakeOil]

Maybe someone found a real value in the technology. Just not inflated broken dreams.

Regards,
Snake

[SnakeOil]

Looks like someone thinks there is something going on with this shell!!!


Regards,
Snake

[MorningLightMountain]

Rivera's scrap is getting a makeover:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=95679462

[pineyhill]

Wow, a few hundred shares traded today. Been a long time...

[EarnestDD]

Poor Stanton ... getting three squares in a correctional facility.
jmo

[scion]

Yes, he is.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=79798135

[EarnestDD]

Is Stanton still in jail?

[MorningLightMountain]

good stuff, thanks for posting it!!!!!

[scion]

Q. (By Mr. Rue) All right. How -- what is the relationship between Phoenix Eco and U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., the Mississippi corporation?

A. The relationship is that neither of them exist.

Q. That's not responsive to my question.

A. Excuse me. You said what is the relation -- they don't exist anymore.

Q. What was their relationship in October of 2006?

A. When U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., the Mississippi corporation came to be, okay, Phoenix Eco ceased to be because it took on or U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. took over the licensing -- the license agreement and the process that Phoenix Eco had because U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. -- okay, it was another joint venture agreement between John Stanton and myself.

Q. All right. As I understand the record in this case, then, there was a time or up until a certain time, Mr. Stanton funded the operations of Phoenix Eco; is that correct?

A. For a short time, yes.

Q. And then --

A. Let me modify that answer -- that answer.

Q. Sure.

A. For a short time, okay, while U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. Mississippi was being formed.

Q. Okay. All right. And there came a time when he didn't fund it any longer. Why not?

A. I have already testified that John Stanton's purpose of joint ventures or funding my operation in any way, shape or form was to gather information to steal my technology. Once he has -- once he was satisfied that he had enough information, he'd stopped funding it and continue with his operations in Mobile, Alabama.

Q. All right. All right. Tell me about the -- tell me what you know about the trans – transaction between U.S. Sustainable Energy and Zeons Corporation.

A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that second word.

Q. Zeons Corporation.

A. No. The, and then there was a second word that did not understand what you said. I could not hear it properly.

Q. All right. What's the relationship between USSE and Zeons Corporation?

A. I have absolutely, positively no knowledge of Zeon Corporation other than the fact that I read on the Internet that Zeon Corporation or USSE became Zeon Corporation. Other than that, the -- anything that had to do with Zeon Corporation was handled by Richard Cutler.

Q. All right. Did you transfer shares of USSE to the people involved with Zeons Corporation?

A. No sir, I did not.

Q. Okay

A. I would like to clarify for the record that when I dis -- when I resigned from the board and as president and everything, and Richard said that there was a company that had a chain of gas stations that wanted to buy USSE, okay, and they wanted to compensate me for it and this, that and the other, I said I want nothing to do with it. He said, well, they can't do it because you're the -- you're the major stockholder. And I said, well, I'll give them my proxy to do whatever the hell they want, okay. And as a result of that, they did some ungodly -- and I don't even know what the numbers are -- reverse split. Basically, I don't know if I had 300 million or 400 million. I don't know what I had, but I -- I think that after all the smoke clears, I may have 500 shares from -- it was -- I never even heard of a reverse split that big. But that's all I know about Zeon.


OCR extract
Doc 102 PDF file
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111784724/SEC-v-U-S-Sustainable-Energy-Corp-Et-Al-Doc-102-Filed-15-Oct-12

[scion]

Q. Not yet. Cyber Care, tell me what Cyber Care is or was.

A. Cyber Care, the direct vivid memory of Cyber Care was a public company used by John Stanton to continue his fraud and his career of ripping off stockholders in public companies.

Q. What role did you play with Cyber Care?

A. John Stanton, who was a investor several times with me in various of my companies before I was a public company, was inducing me to put my technology into Cyber Care. And since he was contributing large sums of money to assist me in bringing my technology to fruition, I agreed in principle to putting my technology into the Cyber Care shell until I found out that it was another one of his scams and that the shell was in bankruptcy.

[...]

Q. Okay. All right. Let's move back to the businesses. We've talked briefly about Cyber Care. We need to talk about Phoenix Eco. We need to talk about Earth First Technologies, USSE, SSTP and Zeons. Which of those businesses came first?

A. I'm sorry, sir. You said a platitude of businesses, and I don't know what chronological order you're putting them in.

Q. I'm asking you to put them in chronological order.

A. I can't. Well, I have no direct knowledge, all right, of the time frames of any of those businesses.Excuse me. I have no direct recollection of the time frame of any of those businesses.

Q. Well, Cyber Care was something that you did with Mr. Stanton, you've testified to. Was Mr. Stanton also involved in Earth First Technologies?

A. Earth First Technologies, Mr. Stanton was the owner, president, chairman of the board of Earth First Technologies.

Q. What role did you play in association with Earth First Technologies?

A. They had a license with me.

Q. A license for what with you?

A. To participate in my process.

Q. Can you explain that for me? How were they going to participate in your process?

A. They were going to get a percentage of the profits derived thereof.

Q. All right. And what was Earth First Technologies' business?

A. The scope of their business changed faster than I changed my -- my shoes. They had everything from plasma arc furnaces to medical supplies to wrecking companies to steel foundries to -- I could not begin to delineate all the different purported businesses that Earth First Technologies was in or is in. I don't even know if they're still in existence. They shouldn't be.

Q. All right. Who was involved in that besides Mr. Stanton?

A. Mr. Stanton is a master of misdirection. He only dealt -- I only dealt with him or Walter Hammock.

Q. Pardon me?

A. Walter Hammock.

Q. Okay.

A. Or Mark Clancy. But for me to delineate who else was involved with Earth First and John Stanton, I would have a easier task as to delineate as to who's involved with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Q. All right. That's fine. Is it fair to say that Mr. Stanton controlled the business?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Did you hold any title with the business as an officer or an employee?

A. To the best of my recollection, I was never paid as an employee of Earth First Technologies. I did receive compensation from them or one of their entities or one of their Does or from John Stanton in the capacity of a joint venture agreement with various of my companies.

Q. Which companies would those have been, your companies there?

THE WITNESS: Did you say something?

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: No.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.

A. If I misstate the names, it is not being done on purpose. EFWE, which is a acronym for Earth First Waste Energy. GWE which is Green Waste Energy. And I believe Phoenix Eco.

Q. All right. Did you ever -- how were you compensated by Mr. Stanton or Earth First Technologies? In cash?

A. No.

Q. In shares?

A. I had shares of Earth First Technology that predates John Stanton. Earth First Technologies was originally Tubes Technology Licensing, and I was instrumental in securing contracts and land purchases and various other things in the Dominican Republic for Tubes Technology Licensing. And I was compensated millions of shares of that company as far as shares goes. When Tubes violated the joint venture agreement trying to take over my technology, which they've been trying to do for eight years, nine years, I took those shares and I encumbered them with a loan to continue my work with my mechanical -- my chemical- mechanical process using a catalyst vacuum system. It's a chemical mechanical process utilizing a modified pyrolysis type system as a carrier. I borrowed $500,000 to continue my work.

Q. From whom?

A. Hmm?

Q. From who?

A. An offshore company that lends money against restricted stock.

Q. Okay. What's the name of it?

A. I don't remember. Oh, wait a minute. I am not sure. Mr. Rue, rather than risk the possibility of stating something that is false, I will answer that question by stating that I will do my utmost to find the name of that company and, if possible, find the loan agreement and have it delivered to you.

Q. Okay. Was there any relationship between Earth First and Cyber Care?

A. The best way I could answer that question would be is there any relationship between Chrysler Corporation and Fiat? They're all owned by the same person.

Q. So I can translate that into meaning --

A. It was all one entity owned --

Q. These were --

A. -- by John Stanton.

Q. They were both owned by John Stanton.

A. I did not say that. Cyber Care owns Earth First or Earth First owns Cyber Care. I'm saying they all are owned by John Stanton.

Q. All right. That's what I wanted to find out. And what is Phoenix Eco?

A. Phoenix Eco was a company that I started to continue my R&D for my tire process when Stanton reneged on his joint venture and paid one of my employees for a sample of the catalyst. I threw him out in violation of the joint venture agreement and started Phoenix Eco. He had already obtained copies of blueprints of my system and how it was built. And he had probably spent a half a million dollars in having engineers come out and design, reduce to blueprints my system where he promptly went to Mobile, Alabama and duplicated my system. Then when he found out that it didn't work because he didn't have the right catalyst, he came back.

Q. Back to Earth First a minute. I believe you testified --

THE WITNESS: Are you having trouble hearing him?

MR. LELAND: No.

THE WITNESS: It's probably me.

Q. (By Mr. Rue) I believe you testified with regard to Earth First Technologies that you licensed your process to them; is that correct?

A. That is incorrect. I had a licensing -- they were the benefactor of a licensing agreement that I had with Tubes Technology Licensing that when Stanton bought Tubes Technology Licensing, he inherited that licensing agreement.

Q. Okay. Did Earth First sell any product that was the subject of that licensing agreement?

THE WITNESS: Do you have any in your purse?

MR. RUE: Do you need to take a break?

THE WITNESS: No. It's just -- I was just

surprised. I drink expresso by the gallon, and I must have distracted my wife this morning because she only put Splenda in two of them. The third one had no sweetener in it whatsoever, and it just got my attention.

MR. RUE: Ah.

THE WITNESS: I am like (indicating).

A. I'm sorry, sir, what was the last question?

Q. (By Mr. Rue) You had a licensing arrangement with Earth First.

A. I had a licensing arrangement with Tubes Technology Licensing which Earth First inherited --

Q. Okay.

A. -- when it purchased --

Q. Tubes Technology?

A. -- Tubes Technology. And they immediately sent their generals and gurus and loan crushers down to tell me what I was going to do, how, when and where. And needless to say, I was not intimidated, and it did not happen.

Q. So can I conclude from what you've just told me that Earth First Technologies did not take advantage of the process that you were licensing or that they had inherited through Tube Technologies?

A. You may not.

Q. All right. Explain then.

A. They instructed me to do a 48-hour run with their engineers, their processing engineers, all right, so that they came in, they documented every nut and bolt and hose and temperature setting of the entire process from the first tire chip going in to the steel carbon gas and oil going out. Then they stole the technology and rebuilt it in Mobile, Alabama. So if that's not taking advantage and grand theft in the first degree, then your interpretation of taking advantage of the license and the situation and mine are totally different, sir.

Q. All right.


OCR extract
Doc 102 PDF file
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111784724/SEC-v-U-S-Sustainable-Energy-Corp-Et-Al-Doc-102-Filed-15-Oct-12

[scion]

10/15/2012 102 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Deposition I of John Rivera, # 2 Deposition II of John Rivera, # 3 Exhibits to Deposition II of John Rivera, # 4 Exhibit P-1, # 5 Exhibit P-37, # 6 Exhibit D-1)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Doc 102 PDF file
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111784724/SEC-v-U-S-Sustainable-Energy-Corp-Et-Al-Doc-102-Filed-15-Oct-12



Document Number: 102 88 pages 156 kb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibits to Deposition I of John Rivera 11 pages 1.3 mb
2 Deposition II of John Rivera 75 pages 138 kb
3 Exhibits to Deposition II of John Rivera 115 pages 3.1 mb
4 Exhibit P-1 76 pages 30.3 mb
5 Exhibit P-37 2 pages 49 kb
6 Exhibit D-1 105 pages 3.6 mb

[paper man]

OK, now that we have all of these exhibits.
What do they say?

[EarnestDD]

Wow ... lots of exhibits.
jmo

[scion]

10/15/2012 108 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 75-12, # 2 Dkt. No. 75-13, # 3 Dkt. No. 75.14, # 4 Dkt. No. 75-15, # 5 Dkt. No. 75-16, # 6 Dkt. No. 79, # 7 Dkt. No. 90-2, # 8 Dkt. No. 90-3, # 9 Dkt. No. 90-4, # 10 Dkt. No. 90-5, # 11 Dkt. No. 90-6, # 12 Dkt. No. 90-7, # 13 Dkt. No. 90-8)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)


Document Number: 108 77 pages 1.4 mb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 75-12 6 pages 183 kb
2 Dkt. No. 75-13 2 pages 1.3 mb
3 Dkt. No. 75.14 4 pages 502 kb
4 Dkt. No. 75-15 77 pages 1.4 mb
5 Dkt. No. 75-16 37 pages 0.7 mb
6 Dkt. No. 79 23 pages 325 kb
7 Dkt. No. 90-2 14 pages 432 kb
8 Dkt. No. 90-3 5 pages 126 kb
9 Dkt. No. 90-4 9 pages 243 kb
10 Dkt. No. 90-5 32 pages 1.2 mb
11 Dkt. No. 90-6 17 pages 306 kb
12 Dkt. No. 90-7 3 pages 73 kb
13 Dkt. No. 90-8 4 pages 76 kb

or 310 pages 8.2 mb

[scion]

10/15/2012 107 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-45, # 2 Dkt. 75-1, # 3 Dkt. 75-2, # 4 Dkt. 75-3, # 5 Dkt. 75-4, # 6 Dkt. 75-5, # 7 Dkt. 75-6, # 8 Dkt. 75-7, # 9 Dkt. 75-8, # 10 Dkt. 75-9, # 11 Dkt. 75-10)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)


Document Number: 107 13 pages 1.0 mb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-45 117 pages 1.0 mb
2 Dkt. 75-1 36 pages 3.3 mb
3 Dkt. 75-2 4 pages 1.6 mb
4 Dkt. 75-3 2 pages 0.6 mb
5 Dkt. 75-4 1 page 1.0 mb
6 Dkt. 75-5 2 pages 466 kb
7 Dkt. 75-6 29 pages 1.2 mb
8 Dkt. 75-7 2 pages 472 kb
9 Dkt. 75-8 23 pages 1.7 mb
10 Dkt. 75-9 7 pages 3.4 mb
11 Dkt. 75-10 1 page 55 kb

or 237 pages 15.7 mb

[scion]

10/15/2012 105 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-30, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-31, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-32, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-33, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-34, # 6 Dkt. No. 61.35, # 7 Dkt. No. 61-36, # 8 Dkt. No. 61-37, # 9 Dkt. No. 61-38, # 10 Dkt. No. 61-39, # 11 Dkt. No. 61-40, # 12 Dkt. No. 61-41, # 13 Dkt. No. 61-42)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)


Document Number: 105 48 pages 1.2 mb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-30 4 pages 186 kb
2 Dkt. No. 61-31 31 pages 0.8 mb
3 Dkt. No. 61-32 50 pages 1.2 mb
4 Dkt. No. 61-33 40 pages 1.1 mb
5 Dkt. No. 61-34 41 pages 1.1 mb
6 Dkt. No. 61.35 28 pages 0.7 mb
7 Dkt. No. 61-36 35 pages 1.0 mb
8 Dkt. No. 61-37 35 pages 1.0 mb
9 Dkt. No. 61-38 21 pages 0.6 mb
10 Dkt. No. 61-39 46 pages 1.4 mb
11 Dkt. No. 61-40 32 pages 0.8 mb
12 Dkt. No. 61-41 14 pages 393 kb
13 Dkt. No. 61-42 3 pages 70 kb

or 428 pages 11.6 mb

[scion]

10/15/2012 104 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-13, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-14, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-15, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-16, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-17, # 6 Dkt. No. 61-18, # 7 Dkt. No. 61-19, # 8 Dkt. No. 61-20, # 9 Dkt. No. 61-21, # 10 Dkt. No. 61-22, # 11 Dkt. No. 61-23, # 12 Dkt. No. 61-24, # 13 Dkt. No. 61-25, # 14 Dkt. No. 61-26, # 15 Dkt. No. 61-27, # 16 Dkt. No. 61-28)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Document Number: 104 4 pages 164 kb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-13 5 pages 356 kb
2 Dkt. No. 61-14 8 pages 322 kb
3 Dkt. No. 61-15 2 pages 109 kb
4 Dkt. No. 61-16 2 pages 107 kb
5 Dkt. No. 61-17 2 pages 63 kb
6 Dkt. No. 61-18 2 pages 63 kb
7 Dkt. No. 61-19 2 pages 70 kb
8 Dkt. No. 61-20 2 pages 87 kb
9 Dkt. No. 61-21 5 pages 162 kb
10 Dkt. No. 61-22 15 pages 0.8 mb
11 Dkt. No. 61-23 5 pages 149 kb
12 Dkt. No. 61-24 2 pages 44 kb
13 Dkt. No. 61-25 2 pages 38 kb
14 Dkt. No. 61-26 2 pages 40 kb
15 Dkt. No. 61-27 16 pages 0.5 mb
16 Dkt. No. 61-28 25 pages 1.2 mb

or 101 pages 4.2 mb

[scion]

10/15/2012 103 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-5, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-6, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-7, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-8, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-9, # 6 Dkt. No. 61-10, # 7 Dkt.No. 61-11)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Document Number: 103 25 pages 1.3 mb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-5 29 pages 1.9 mb
2 Dkt. No. 61-6 57 pages 1.7 mb
3 Dkt. No. 61-7 25 pages 1.4 mb
4 Dkt. No. 61-8 23 pages 1.1 mb
5 Dkt. No. 61-9 30 pages 1.6 mb
6 Dkt. No. 61-10 8 pages 166 kb
7 Dkt.No. 61-11 6 pages 167 kb

[scion]

10/15/2012 102 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Deposition I of John Rivera, # 2 Deposition II of John Rivera, # 3 Exhibits to Deposition II of John Rivera, # 4 Exhibit P-1, # 5 Exhibit P-37, # 6 Exhibit D-1)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)


Document Number: 102 88 pages 156 kb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibits to Deposition I of John Rivera 11 pages 1.3 mb
2 Deposition II of John Rivera 75 pages 138 kb
3 Exhibits to Deposition II of John Rivera 115 pages 3.1 mb
4 Exhibit P-1 76 pages 30.3 mb
5 Exhibit P-37 2 pages 49 kb
6 Exhibit D-1 105 pages 3.6 mb

or 472 pages 38.6 mb

[scion]

10/12/2012 101 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Deposition of Robert Davis, # 2 Deposition of Kelmer Smith, # 3 Exhibits to Deposition of Kelmer Smith, # 4 Deposition of Keith Mazer, # 5 Exhibits to Deposition of Keith Mazer, # 6 Deposition of Richard Cutler, # 7 Exhibits to Deposition of Richard Cutler, # 8 Deposition of Alice Rivera, # 9 Exhibits to Deposition of Alice Rivera)(dtj) (Entered: 10/12/2012)


Document Number: 101 119 pages 225 kb

Attachment Description
1 Exhibits to Deposition of Robert Davis 76 pages 3.0 mb
2 Deposition of Kelmer Smith 81 pages 153 kb
3 Exhibits to Deposition of Kelmer Smith 75 pages 2.8 mb
4 Deposition of Keith Mazer 58 pages 107 kb
5 Exhibits to Deposition of Keith Mazer 6 pages 1.1 mb
6 Deposition of Richard Cutler 71 pages 1.4 mb
7 Exhibits to Deposition of Richard Cutler 124 pages 4.5 mb
8 Deposition of Alice Rivera 49 pages 84 kb
9 Exhibits to Deposition of Alice Rivera 125 pages 5.8 mb

or 784 pages 19.1 mb

[scion]

Pacer update 15 Oct 12 - SEC v. U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp et al 5:08-cv-00245-DCB-JMR

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

Date Filed # Docket Text

10/15/2012 108 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 75-12, # 2 Dkt. No. 75-13, # 3 Dkt. No. 75.14, # 4 Dkt. No. 75-15, # 5 Dkt. No. 75-16, # 6 Dkt. No. 79, # 7 Dkt. No. 90-2, # 8 Dkt. No. 90-3, # 9 Dkt. No. 90-4, # 10 Dkt. No. 90-5, # 11 Dkt. No. 90-6, # 12 Dkt. No. 90-7, # 13 Dkt. No. 90-8)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 107 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-45, # 2 Dkt. 75-1, # 3 Dkt. 75-2, # 4 Dkt. 75-3, # 5 Dkt. 75-4, # 6 Dkt. 75-5, # 7 Dkt. 75-6, # 8 Dkt. 75-7, # 9 Dkt. 75-8, # 10 Dkt. 75-9, # 11 Dkt. 75-10)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 105 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-30, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-31, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-32, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-33, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-34, # 6 Dkt. No. 61.35, # 7 Dkt. No. 61-36, # 8 Dkt. No. 61-37, # 9 Dkt. No. 61-38, # 10 Dkt. No. 61-39, # 11 Dkt. No. 61-40, # 12 Dkt. No. 61-41, # 13 Dkt. No. 61-42)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 104 EXHIBITS to Hearing held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-13, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-14, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-15, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-16, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-17, # 6 Dkt. No. 61-18, # 7 Dkt. No. 61-19, # 8 Dkt. No. 61-20, # 9 Dkt. No. 61-21, # 10 Dkt. No. 61-22, # 11 Dkt. No. 61-23, # 12 Dkt. No. 61-24, # 13 Dkt. No. 61-25, # 14 Dkt. No. 61-26, # 15 Dkt. No. 61-27, # 16 Dkt. No. 61-28)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 103 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dkt. No. 61-5, # 2 Dkt. No. 61-6, # 3 Dkt. No. 61-7, # 4 Dkt. No. 61-8, # 5 Dkt. No. 61-9, # 6 Dkt. No. 61-10, # 7 Dkt.No. 61-11)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/15/2012 102 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Deposition I of John Rivera, # 2 Deposition II of John Rivera, # 3 Exhibits to Deposition II of John Rivera, # 4 Exhibit P-1, # 5 Exhibit P-37, # 6 Exhibit D-1)(dtj) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

10/12/2012 101 EXHIBITS to Hearing Held 8-9-2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits to Deposition of Robert Davis, # 2 Deposition of Kelmer Smith, # 3 Exhibits to Deposition of Kelmer Smith, # 4 Deposition of Keith Mazer, # 5 Exhibits to Deposition of Keith Mazer, # 6 Deposition of Richard Cutler, # 7 Exhibits to Deposition of Richard Cutler, # 8 Deposition of Alice Rivera, # 9 Exhibits to Deposition of Alice Rivera)(dtj) (Entered: 10/12/2012)


Defendant U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp

Defendant John H. Rivera

Defendant Alice M. Price

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

[scion]

25. Where a securities law violator has enjoyed access to funds over a period of time as a result of his wrongdoing, requiring the violator to pay prejudgment interest is consistent with the equitable purpose of disgorgement. Id. at 1090. The Internal Revenue Service’s delinquent tax rate reflects what it would have cost to borrow a sum of money from the government and therefore reasonably approximates one of the benefits a defendant receives from having access to the proceeds of fraud. See First Jersey, 101 F.3d at 1476.

26. Rivera’s death is not a bar to a disgorgement order. “A civil action for damages commenced by or on behalf of the United States or in which it is interested shall not abate on the death of a defendant but shall survive and be enforceable against his estate as well as against surviving defendants.” 28 U.S.C. § 2404. Several courts have held that a cause of action for violation of Rule 10b-5, sounding in equity and calling for remedial recovery, survives under the statute. See, e.g., Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Fielding, 316 F.Supp. 82, 85 (D. Nev. 1970).

Doc 100 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/xdXlba

[MorningLightMountain]

thanks scion for keeping us updated.....good to see that some sort of justice was served, even though JR was able to delay the legal system until he passed, leaving the burden on his partner.....even in death, he left someone ELSE holding the bag of his accountability.....unbelievable......


I think he stole a lot more than that over the years, but it is what it is......

PS: what, no angel icon for JR?????

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=84401

[scion]

23. The purpose of disgorgement is to deprive a wrongdoer of his unjust enrichment and to deter others from violating the securities laws. SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir. 1978); SEC v. First City Fin. Corp., 890 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Manor Nursing, 458 F.2d at 1104 (“The effective enforcement of the federal securities laws requires that the SEC be able to make violations unprofitable.”). Where defendants’ conduct is marked by “pervasive” fraud, the Court may order all profits stemming from the scheme to be disgorged. See CFTC v. British Am. Commodity Options Corp., 788 F.2d 92, 93-94 (2nd Cir. 1986).

24. The law does not require precision in determining the proper amount of disgorgement. This Court “has broad discretion not only in determining whether or not to order disgorgement but also in calculating the amount to be disgorged.” SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1475 (2nd Cir. 1996). The Commission is entitled to disgorgement upon producing a reasonable approximation of a defendant’s ill-gotten gains. SEC v. Calvo, 378 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2004). In determining the appropriate disgorgement amount, all doubts “are to be resolved against the defrauding party.” SEC v. First City Fin. Corp. 688 F. Supp. 705, 727 (D. D.C. 1988) (quoting SEC v. McDonald, 699 F2d 47, 55 (1st Cir. 1983)). “Once the [Commission] has established that the disgorgement figure is a reasonable approximation of unlawful profits, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants, who must ‘demonstrate that the disgorgement figure is not a reasonable approximation.’” SEC v. Hughes Capital Corp., 917 F. Supp. 1080, 1085 (D. N.J. 1996)(quoting First City, 890 F.2d at 1232).

Doc 100 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/xdXlba

[scion]

10. USSE falsely claimed on an ongoing basis, contrary to fact and Rivera’s knowledge, that it could produce “biofuel estimated at $.50/gallon according to exhaustive studies and independent lab confirmation.” The claim appeared in a section titled “About U.S. Sustainable Energy,” which was included in 24 press releases made on the following dates: October 13, 2006, October 16, 2006, October 17, 2006 (two releases), October 20, 2006, October 26, 2006, October 30, 2006, November 1, 2006, November 2, 2006, November 3, 2006, November 6, 2006, November 7, 2006, November 9, 2006, November 13, 2006, November 15, 2006, November 16, 2006, November 21, 2006 (two releases), November 22, 2006, December 5, 2006, December 6, 2006, December 12, 2006 (two releases) and January 5, 2007. See Dkt. 61, Ex. 4-6.

11. USSE also falsely claimed on an ongoing basis, contrary to fact and Rivera’s knowledge, that it “holds patent pending technology.” The claim appeared in a section titled “About U.S. Sustainable Energy,” which was included in 31 press releases. The claim appeared in the 24 press releases listed in the preceding paragraph, as well as seven other press releases dated January 8, 2007, January 9, 2007, January 10, 2007, January 17, 2007, January 22, 2007, January 23, 2007 and January 25, 2007. Id.

Doc 100 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/xdXlba

[scion]

05/21/2012 100 JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants are liable to the Commission for violations as set out herein; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commission is entitled to disgorgement against defendant Rivera's Estate and against relief defendant Price; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Rivera's Estate and Price, jointly and severally, shall disgorge $1,492,687.53 together with prejudgment interest of $225,797.30, totaling $1,718,484.83, to the Commission; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Rivera's Estate shall pay a civil penalty to the Commission in the amount of $130,000.00; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. shall pay a civil penalty to the Commission in the amount of $650,000.00. FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., Rivera's Estate, and Price are to pay all said amounts no later than thirty days after the entry of this Final Judgment. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/21/12 (PKM) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

Doc 100 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/xdXlba

[scion]

Pacer update 21 May 12 SEC v. U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp et al 5:08-cv-00245-DCB-JMR

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl


Date Filed # Docket Text

05/21/2012 100 JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendants are liable to the Commission for violations as set out herein; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commission is entitled to disgorgement against defendant Rivera's Estate and against relief defendant Price; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Rivera's Estate and Price, jointly and severally, shall disgorge $1,492,687.53 together with prejudgment interest of $225,797.30, totaling $1,718,484.83, to the Commission; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Rivera's Estate shall pay a civil penalty to the Commission in the amount of $130,000.00; FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. shall pay a civil penalty to the Commission in the amount of $650,000.00. FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., Rivera's Estate, and Price are to pay all said amounts no later than thirty days after the entry of this Final Judgment. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/21/12 (PKM) (Entered: 05/21/2012)


Defendant U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp

Defendant John H. Rivera

Defendant Alice M. Price

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

[scion]

SEC Office of the Whistleblower posted 11 new Notices of Covered Actions today:

Claim an Award

We post Notices of Covered Action for each Commission action where a final judgment or order, by itself or together with other prior judgments or orders in the same action issued after July 21, 2010, results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million.

The inclusion of a Notice means only that an order was entered with monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. By posting a Notice for a particular case, we are not making any determinations either that (i) a whistleblower tip, complaint or referral led to the Commission opening an investigation or filing an action with respect to the case or (ii) an award to a whistleblower will be paid in connection with the case.

Subject to the Final Rules, individuals who voluntarily provided the Commission with original information after July 21, 2010 that led to the successful enforcement of a covered action listed below are eligible to apply for a whistleblower award.

Once a Notice of Covered Action is posted, individuals have 90 calendar days to apply for an award by submitting a completed Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower by midnight on the claim due date listed for that action. Please send completed forms to the Office of the Whistleblower by mail at 100 F Street NE, Mail Stop 5971, Washington, DC 20549 or by fax at [phone].

[...]

SEC v. U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp., John H. Rivera
Case number: 08-cv-245 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi)
Case filed: July 17, 2008
Qualifying Judgment/Order: May 21, 2012
http://sec.gov/about/offices/owb/owb-awards.shtml

[blackbird]

What's this??? 786 volume and up 1143% ????

[scion]

Zombie litigation! SEC can seek disgorgement from dead defendant

1/30/2012
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=37986&terms=@ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV'

[scion]

01/17/2012 99 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alex Rue (Rue, Alex) (Entered: 01/17/2012)

Doc 99 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/s3acue

[scion]

Pacer update 17 Jan 12 SEC v. U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp et al 5:08-cv-00245-DCB-JMR

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

Date Filed # Docket Text

01/17/2012 99 NOTICE of Change of Address by Alex Rue (Rue, Alex) (Entered: 01/17/2012)



Defendant U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp

Defendant John H. Rivera

Defendant Alice M. Price

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

[king oil]

I disagree.

[scion]

Stock scams often are extremely successful in getting associations with credible people and companies. They often get those associations by offering no-risk deals or providing other incentives in return for lip service or sham agreements which the scam company has no intention of filling. SEC-litigated fraud company US Sustainable Energy, which also claimed to have a secret catalyst which could make pyrolysis wildly profitable, was able to get the president of the Dominican Republic to publicly say positive words about that company. Green Rubber, a company associated with scam company Magnum d'Or, was able to get former President Bill Clinton to talk up Green Rubber. It's unclear whether or not Mr. Clinton ever actually received his $100,000 to $200,000 speaking fee for that engagement. In this case Green Rubber was also able to get actual investment from 'Die Hard' actor Bruce Willis. I'm certain Mr. Willis doesn't know the entire story but by now I'm guessing he at least suspects the nearly one million dollars he had invested won't pan out. JBI's Bordynuik was also able to get lip service from former New York state senator Thompson. My guess is that the $5,000 campaign contribution didn't hurt Bordynuik's chances. I spoke to Mr. Thompson at length about JBI and about Bordynuik but Mr. Thompson didn't want to go on record so I'm respecting his wishes.

My personal assessment is that securities fraud, occurring most often in penny stocks, is absolutely rampant and the SEC is doing what they can to have an impact. The SEC is effective but they can't do everything. Investors need to protect themselves and understand that fraud does exist. Investors shouldn't give some person free rein with their hard-earned money just because that person purchased controlling interest in a publicly-traded shell stock for a few tens of thousands of dollars. Investors should understand that if they run across a penny stock promising a too-good-to-be-true revolutionary technology and if they additionally decide to ignore the associated adage, they should at least take a step back from their excitement and try to evaluate their investment objectively. If one act of deception finds its way to the surface, you can bet that the company didn't intend the public to know of the deception and that probably means the act of deception is only the very tip of the iceberg. If unexplained or inadequately explained delays start happening, it's time to pay attention. These types of stories play out over and over in penny stocks and the stock message boards are filled with investors who firmly believe that their particular scam company is the 'real deal.' The operators of these scams try to keep shareholders chasing a carrot around the calendar while selling shares as long as they can. 'Caveat Emptor' should always be the mantra when investing, but should be especially when dealing with penny stocks.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/319080-john-bordynuik-revolutionary-company-or-can-of-worms

[scion]

30. First, USSE’s actions were egregious. The size of the harm produced by USSE’s misstatements is egregious: thousands of investors purchased millions of shares of USSE securities in this “pump and dump” scheme. See DeWitt Dep., Ex. B. The nature of the misstatements was egregious: For instance, at a time when Dr. David Crow had not even heard of USSE, USSE informed the public that this respected scientist had made glowing endorsements of USSE and that he had accepted a seat on USSE’s board of directors. Finally, the repetition and volume of misstatements was egregious.

31. Second, USSE’s violations of the securities laws were recurrent. This circumstance both reflects the egregiousness of USSE’s actions and is an independent factor which tends to show a likelihood of future misconduct.

32. Third, USSE acted with a high degree of scienter here. In each of the misstatements found here, Rivera caused USSE to release information to the public which he knew to be false.

33. With respect to the fourth and fifth factors, USSE has never acknowledged the wrongfulness of its conduct, nor has it made assurances against future violations. The sixth factor is not relevant to a corporate defendant.

34. Weighing these factors together, the Commission has established that USSE is reasonably likely to repeat its misconduct in the future. Thus the Commission is entitled to a permanent injunction against USSE to prevent future violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Extract -
Doc 98 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/pbaPdg

[scion]

42. The Commission has established reasonable approximations of the ill-gotten gains which flowed to Rivera and Price as a result of the “pump and dump” scheme and the benefit which inured to Rivera and Price from their long-term access to the proceeds from the scheme. Thus the Court will order Rivera’s estate and Price to disgorge $1,492,687.53 and to pay prejudgment interest of $143,852.59, totaling $1,636,540.12.

C. Civil Penalties against USSE and Rivera’s Estate

43. A civil penalty is determined “in light of the facts and circumstances” of a particular case. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B)(i). “First tier” penalties for violations occurring after February 14, 2005, but on or before March 3, 2009, may be imposed up to the greater of $6,500 or the amount of ill-gotten gain to the defendant as a result of the violation. See 17 C.F.R. § 201.1003. When the violation involves fraud, “second tier penalties” may be imposed up to the greater of $65,000 or the amount of ill-gotten gain to the defendant as a result of the violation. A “third tier” civil penalty of up to the larger of $130,000 or the amount of pecuniary gain to the defendant as a result of the violation may be imposed if the violation involved fraud or deceit and the violation resulted in substantial losses or created a significant risk of substantial losses to other persons. Id. The decision to impose a penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, is a matter within the discretion of the Court. In determining whether to award civil penalties, courts consider numerous factors, including the egregiousness of the violation, the isolated or repeated nature of the violations, the degree of scienter involved, whether the defendant concealed his trading, and the deterrent effect given the defendant’s financial worth. SEC v. Sargent, 329 F.3d 34, 42 (1st Cir. 2003).

44. Rivera’s death is not a bar to an award of civil penalties. The court in Fielding further held that the cause of action under Rule 10b-5, rooted in equity, may survive even if punitive damages are requested, and that punitive damages may be awarded if the cause of action is otherwise one that survives. 316 F.Supp. at 85. Because the civil penalties here presuppose disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, the action survives Rivera’s death and civil penalties may be assessed against Rivera’s estate.

45. For all of the reasons which justify a permanent injunction here, USSE’s and Rivera’s conduct falls under the “third tier.” The Court may assess a penalty against each of them in an amount it deems appropriate for each violation.

Dated: November 10, 2011 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Alex Rue
Alex Rue
Senior Trial Counsel
Georgia Bar No. 618950
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
Securities and Exchange Commission
3475 Lenox Road, N.E. Ste. 1000
Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1232
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Extract -
Doc 98 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/pbaPdg

[scion]

11/10/2011 98 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re Evidentiary Hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (Rue, Alex) (Entered: 11/10/2011)

Doc 98 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/pbaPdg

[scion]

Pacer update 10 Nov 11 SEC v. U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp et al 5:08-cv-00245-DCB-JMR

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

Date Filed # Docket Text

11/10/2011 98 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re Evidentiary Hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by Securities and Exchange Commission (Rue, Alex) (Entered: 11/10/2011)


Defendant U. S. Sustainable Energy Corp

Defendant John H. Rivera

Defendant Alice M. Price

https://ecf.mssd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl

[eelfland]

This "maximus" guy definitely deserves some jailtime, too. Or some hospital time, at least. Lying scumbag.

[eelfland]

I was just going through a bunch of old stuff, and I came upon this site again. Yeah, JR was a con artist, and a relatively primitive one, compared to some of the scams that are out there today.

The good news is that he's no longer out there actively lying to people and ripping them off. The bad news is that there are many other active rip-offs that need to be taken down.

Let's warn them and show them the facts, but if they get all belligerent and non-receptive, then they almost deserve to get ripped off. To hell with those who MUST believe, despite the facts.

Eddie

[scion]

09/08/2011 97 NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Death of John Hector Rivera by Securities and Exchange Commission (Rue, Alex) (Entered: 09/08/2011)

Doc 97 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/ay0Ci

09/01/2011 96 Exhibit List to Hearing held 8/9/2011. (dtj) (Entered: 09/01/2011)

Doc 96 PDF file
https://viewer.zoho.com/docs/wyTabj