I can't tell you how many times I've heard USEI say revenues are just around the corner. Been hearing it for five or six years now. That's one hell of a long block!

Quote:

"ENERGY INITIATIVES CORP (USEI.OTC) announced today that the Company has found a logistic solution to supply its Singular 96™ product; and anticipates announcing the initial delivery in the near future." (Emphasis mine)

Actually, they said both.

Q- How will you navigate the various regulations to distribute your product?

A- We've worked it out!

Really? Who buys this garbage as an answer, much less news?

Great news!!! We've figured out how to deliver it (but we can't tell you how), to people in Canada (but we can't tell you where).

Once again, nothing of substance. Nothing verifiable. Sadly, there are those who will swallow it hook, line and sinker!

I smelled it as well. Good thing I was wearing my old shoes!

I could just let it go, and move on... But I don't like the fact that Stanton and his buddies lie through their teeth to fleece people out of their money. Taking profits off a good product is great... Taking profits off deceit is despicable.

I got into it 5 years ago, when USEI was still pumping their dual fuel engines. Averaged down to .04/share before it bottomed. A broker friend told me to hang on to it, as Stanton likes to recycle his business'. Got out at .035.

I've been out since last week. Didn't get everything back, but close enough.

I'm glad it bounced enough to get back some of my losses from the last incarnation of USEI.

Only 107 million shares. Didn't he have 127 million when he filed to stop filing?

No regulations on Indian land??? Guess he's never been to Black Mesa on the Navajo rez! State regs may not apply there, but federal regs go. What a crock!

Nice try brian. Miller said they would ship the feed stocks. As in individual chemicals. Individual chemicals require all information be provided for shipping. Were they to mixed, then an MSDS for the overall product would suffice.

Even coke is required to list their individual components, just not their ratios. But, if as Miller says (and he should know right), they are to mixed on-site, then the buyers will be doing the mixing. Unless of course he's planning to send a employee to mix each and every batch.

"The stations are located in Canada and the feedstock(s) and materials are exported from the U.S."

Anyone else catch this from the other day's PR? When I question Miller a couple days ago, he first said the location of the mfg facilities were "insider information". When pressed, he back tracked and said the would mix it on-site.

If the buyers learn how to mix it themselves, why do they need USEI? All chemicals shipped individually need their own MSDS and content information. Check of the USPTO shows no patents or trademarks registered to USEI.

"potential HUGE, significant expect revenues by year end."


Did he really say that? I thought they were expecting revenues in the next couple of weeks!

A sure sign of a Stanton company, revenues are always "just around the corner". Then get pushed back with no reason given.

"USEI, solution to reduce dependence on foreign oil!"
And yet, not one single news organization has picked up on this! Truly amazing!!

How about asking him how non flex fuel cars can use something as corrosive as methanol?

Nobody guzzzles more gas per capita than the US. Canada is the sixth largest producer of crude oil in the world. Canada's more interested in markets for their crude than alternatives. The US on the other hand, is hungry for alternatives. Makes much more sense to sell it locally. Lower shipping cost, bigger demand (especially in CA.), not import/export fees.

Makes more sense to SAY they are selling in Canada if in fact they are not selling at all. Some much harder to verify!

In so many respects. The important similarity is that neither is in the US!

Same thing they did five years ago. All testing and prospective sales were in Thailand. Makes it harder to verify. This latest PR has John Stanton written all over it!

That's ok. I've got an email in to Dr. George Olah at USC, to see if it's possible. Maybe you've heard of him... 1994 Nobel Prize winning Chemist... Huge supporter of a Methanol based economy... I'll be sure to share his response with everyone.

Feel free to post it right here.

Sure, show us your research. Test track results. Lab reports. Anything?

Now, if we could just get some independent verification of these claims!

Federal and State. It is California!

One thing I found quite telling about my call to Anthony Miller today... He knew exactly what was being said about him, and the company on the message boards. How does a man developing and marketing a revolutionary new product, as well as resurrecting a failed company, find time to read the message boards?

Sure, Ask him where we can buy Singular 96. If he announces at the webinar, it can't possibly be insider info.

What states is he currently licensed to sell fuel in? Not what state he is incorporated in.

Why is your fuel only 6 cents a gallon cheaper than regular, when methanol is half the price of gasoline? And how do you plan to overcome the fact that M85 gets about a third the mileage of regular gas?

That's what I said. He said I don't know how corporate America works. He answers only to the board, of which he and his partner are members of too. I laughed and said good-by.

Seriously! Give him a call. 866-922-1116. I also have his cell if you need it. Probably a TOU violation if I post it though!

Just got off the phone with Anthony Miller. He confirmed that Singular 96 was basically M85, with a few "proprietary" additives. When I asked about the efficiency of Ethanol, he stated "We have done market research, and believe we have a viable product." I mentioned M85 took 1.7 gallons to travel as far as 1 gallon of gas... He said, and what's the price of methanol. It's about half the price of gas. But Singular 96 is only going to cost $.06/gal less than regular.

I asked about production facilities. First he said it would be insider trading to tell me that information. Then said they would mix it on site. At the gas station. At the gas station.

Refused to say where it would be available. Again, "insider trading". Only that he had orders, and it would be out next week. Said telling customers where they could get his product was unimportant.

Finally, he confirmed John Stanton was the Chairman and major stockholder. Then went on to say he doesn't answer to John Stanton.

Conclusion- If you are an investor... Be afraid! Very afraid!! If you are a trader.. Enjoy the ride, but remember the fall is a

Did a little more research in the past few days. Checked with the Santa Clarita Development Board. The woman there was very helpful. Even went so far as to call Anthony Miller. He gave her the canned speech about their business plans. Even admitted he had a string of failed energy endeavors behind him. Which he blamed on "investor issues". Also told her the fuel was going to be manufactured at a plant in the Bay area. When I thanked her, she said my next step should be the CalEPA.

Called CalEPA, and got the number for Bay Area Air Quality Board. They have no record of permits for US Energy Initiatives, AM Oil, or Bulova Technologies. Any other ideas who may making this Singular 96?

Closed to who? Who is the final arbiter?

Didn't post a part of the rule brian. I posted the SEC's answer to a question about the rule. The question was whether or not the rule applied to someone who was no longer associated with the company. The short answer was no. Not my words... The SEC's words.

"...you can sell the securities without regard to the above conditions."


Guess you missed this part of the SEC interpretation. Regardless 10% rule, regardless of the 1% rule, regardless of the above (ie rule 144) conditions.

If, as you claim, Stanton has no affiliation with the company, then his "control shares" (restricted are bought at a non-public offering, control are issued to company officers. I know... same rules apply) he is no longer bound by the rule 144. That is direct from the SEC website.

BTW... Wasn't my statement. Was a statement from the law firms website. That's why I had it in bold.

Sorry brian, but the net is full of news stories of people being prosecuted for violations of Rule 144. Someone must be helping them sell.

Also, there is this from the SEC (pretty sure they understand the rule)


If you are not (and have not been for at least three months) an affiliate of the company issuing the securities and have held the restricted securities for at least one year, you can sell the securities without regard to the above conditions. If the issuer of the securities is subject to the Exchange Act reporting requirements and you have held the securities for at least six months but less than one year, you may sell the securities as long as you satisfy the current public information condition. http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/rule144.htm

How long ago did Stanton dis-associate himself from the company?

Correct me if I'm wrong... But isn't someone closely involved with USEI a disbarred lawyer? Like maybe the current CEO.

So your saying it's not possible?


Beware of Lawyers Bearing Gifts (With Respect to Rule 144 Opinions)

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Investors in private placements of securities are subject to legal constraints on their ability to freely resell those securities, and responsible investors readily abide by those constraints.

These restrictions include a minimum holding period for the securities, which is intended to ensure that the investor is subject to meaningful market risk consistent with the nature of a private placement. Some securities professionals, including attorneys, have created entire lines of business designed to enable investors in private placements to evade the legal restrictions on reselling their restricted securities, and this article will describe some recent examples of this activity, including the efforts of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to combat this activity.

Maybe someone should tell this law firm that!


The stock of many smaller public companies is traded through the “Pink Sheets,” a largely unregulated electronic quotation and trading system in the over-the-counter securities market which does not require issuers to file periodic reports with the SEC, thereby enabling smaller, non-reporting issuers to take advantage of Rule 504.


I hope Stanton doesn't realize the pinks are "largely unregulated"!

Legally he can't. But then again, legally he owes his wife $10 million. Legally he owes the IRS several million. Legally he was supposed to show up at his bankruptcy hearing. He doesn't much care what is legal and what isn't.

I wish I got paid. Lost a sizable chunk of change on this one. Hate to see it happen to anyone else. Everything I've posted is verifiable by a few Google searches. Give it a try.

What do USEI, US Crude Ltd, US Crude Int'l (USCU), and US Crude Int'l (USCI) have in common? Anthony Miller as president! And a whole string of name changes, asset and liability transfers, and SEC Suspensions of trading. Going back to at least 31 December 2000. Fascinating reading.