The Sorrento Valley headquarters of WFP Securities, the brokerage house under fire for putting clients into high-risk, speculative investments.
  • The Sorrento Valley headquarters of WFP Securities, the brokerage house under fire for putting clients into high-risk, speculative investments.
  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

WFP Securities is a brokerage house headquartered on Cornerstone Court in Sorrento Valley. It is one of an interlocking network of financial companies with offices mainly in Southern California. The brokerage boasts on its website, “Our motto is simple… Always do what is right for the client.”

Uh, sorry. A slew of irate clients don’t feel that way. No fewer than 16 arbitrations and 4 written demands have been registered against the firm and its web of enterprises. Most of the complaints are against WFP. The two primary spiders in the web appear to be Louis Schooler, who owns 50 percent of the brokerage’s parent company and is president of Western Financial Planning, and his brother, John Evan Schooler, president of WFP Securities and Western Financial Advisors.

John Schooler, president of WFP Securities

The major beef is that clients were put in highly speculative investments that were inappropriate for unsophisticated people of modest means. Those allegedly crapshoot investments often paid fat commissions to brokers, many of whom are named in the arbitration cases. For example, the Beverly Hills law firm of Aidikoff, Uhl, and Bakhtiari is handling three arbitrations totaling $7 million in claims. The brokerage house and related individuals “failed to conduct proper due diligence on many securities that turned out to be Ponzi schemes,” says attorney David Harrison. “A firm has an obligation under regulatory rules to conduct due diligence.” WFP sold shoddy products that were not suitable for investors, many of whom were retired, he says.

Here are some of the complaints filed by investors who claim they have been burned by the brokerage and its affiliates: unsuitable recommendations, negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the California Corporations Code, lack of due diligence, putting customers in Ponzi schemes, selling fraudulent investment products, deceit and omission of material facts, selling of illiquid investments, failure to disclose brokers’ compensation, elder abuse, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of New York Stock Exchange and National Association of Securities Dealers rules, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and entrance into unauthorized transactions.

When investors sign agreements with brokerages, both sides pledge to take their disputes to mandatory arbitration. These are handled by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which was created in 2007 in a merger of the National Association of Securities Dealers and the enforcement arm of the New York Stock Exchange. The authority is a private self-regulatory body. During many years of pursuing stockbroker misdeeds, I found that the New York Stock Exchange’s enforcement group was simply a joke; it would have given a clean bill of health to Charles Ponzi. But the National Association of Securities Dealers was at least moderately diligent in cracking down on bandits — small-time ones, anyway. It famously missed one big-time bandit: Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff was once vice-chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers and quite active in association leadership.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority boasts that battles between brokers and their customers are resolved by “impartial persons” who are knowledgeable about the securities industry. But it can take much of a lifetime to understand the byzantine byways of Wall Street: how can such people be impartial? That’s why many maintain that arbitrations are stacked in favor of the brokerage houses.

For this column, I will focus primarily on an arbitration filed by San Diegans Connie Coe and Fraser and Cynthia Cathie. It is being handled by San Diego attorney Ron Marron and his assistant Paul Hall. I asked the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority how many arbitrations had been filed against WFP and related enterprises. It wouldn’t talk. I also asked what defenses the brokerage and its cousins were using against the charges. Again, no talkee.

I submitted questions to the brokerage and its Los Angeles–based law firm. They refused to answer any questions, although the lawyer gave me one quote, which is below. Fortunately, I was able to get summaries of the arbitrations and written complaints from a lawsuit filed by WFP’s insurance company on February 16 in federal court in Los Angeles.

The insurer’s lawsuit appears to reveal the brokerage house’s defense strategy. The brokerage asserts that almost all the complaints revolve around four dubious investment products. Then the complainants tossed in other products that had plunged in value because of market forces, not because of wrongdoing by the brokerage house or its brokers, the company insists, complaining of “cherry picking of failed investments.” If WFP had not sold those four investments to its clients, “no arbitrations would have been brought,” according to the insurance company’s Los Angeles filing.

One of the four smelly investments was Medical Capital. In July of 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged that the company and related operations had misappropriated $18.5 million of investor funds from a sale of notes, while telling untruths to its prospects. Eventually, assets were frozen and a receiver was appointed. According to the claim statement filed by Marron, a WFP broker placed $30,000 of Coe’s money into a Medical Capital fund. She will recover no more than 15 percent of her funds, says the complaint. “Court filings have revealed that [Medical Capital] was a type of Ponzi scheme,” says the filing, and the brokerage house did not do adequate investigation.

The WFP web put the Cathies into Desert Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, another of the four investments that butchered most complainants. These were unregistered securities, misleadingly described as short-term notes, according to the claim filed by attorney Marron. The Cathies fear that for the foreseeable future, there are no buyers of these notes; the couple can’t see how they will get money back.

The third of the four malodorous investments was Provident Royalties. Fraser Cathie was induced to put most of his individual retirement account in an entity controlled by Provident, which went into bankruptcy in 2009. “Thus, $40,000 of Mr. Cathie’s [individual retirement account] vanished, leaving him with a mere $8,309.88 in his retirement account,” says the claim statement.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

Comments

DX April 20, 2011 @ 12:18 p.m.

Yet another example the potential gaming of innocent until proven guity in a court of law.

0

SurfPuppy619 April 20, 2011 @ 2:55 p.m.

Yet another example the potential gaming of innocent until proven guity in a court of law.

============ Except they are not even in court, so they face no civil or criminal consequences at this point, outside of the arbitration.

0

Don Bauder April 21, 2011 @ 6:54 a.m.

That's correct. These are arbitrations. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder April 20, 2011 @ 2:07 p.m.

The charges in the 16 arbitrations and 4 complaint letters are a matter of record, thanks to the legal document filed by WFP's insurer. WFP and related entities were given an opportunity to address the allegations and chose not to do so. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 20, 2011 @ 2:58 p.m.

Fortunately, I was able to get summaries of the arbitrations and written complaints from a lawsuit filed by WFP’s insurance company on February 16 in federal court in Los Angeles.

==================

Did the insurance company sue WPF/the brothers?? for reimbursement? Who did they sue?

0

Don Bauder April 21, 2011 @ 6:57 a.m.

The insurance company in an interpleader filing, named WFP and related entities, and Schooler brothers, and the people who filed the arbitrations. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder May 24, 2011 @ 7:48 p.m.

This was an interpleader action. The insurance company sued WFP, the Schoolers, et al, and also sued the victims. The insurance company wants to reduce its payments. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 20, 2011 @ 2:54 p.m.

The third of the four malodorous investments was Provident Royalties. Fraser Cathie was induced to put most of his individual retirement account in an entity controlled by Provident, which went into bankruptcy in 2009. “Thus, $40,000 of Mr. Cathie’s [individual retirement account] vanished, leaving him with a mere $8,309.88 in his retirement account,” says the claim statement.

====================== That dork of a DA we have here should bring financial elder abuse charges against these dirtbags.

I GUARANTEE you that once these dirtbags got arrested and tossed in the can, and had to make $500K in bail, they would be singing a different tune. But the commissions are small potatoes compared to the principle amount the victims lost.

I don't understand why financial elder abuse charges are never brought in these deals.

If this were my mother or father and they were scammed out of their life savings like this, in their old age and left destitute- I would take these clowns out to the desert and would make sure they never came back.

0

Don Bauder April 21, 2011 @ 6:59 a.m.

One of the arbitrations charges elder abuse. But I am not aware of any action by the elder abuse unit of the San Diego DA. I expect none. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 April 20, 2011 @ 3 p.m.

I would also sue WPF and the brothers for fraud. That would fall outside of the arbitration agreement, since engaging in criminal acts is NOT subject to arbitration.

0

Don Bauder April 21, 2011 @ 7:01 a.m.

I am not aware of any fraud charges outside of the arbitration process. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 24, 2011 @ 10:40 a.m.

A good news development in the MedCap matter. The State of MA just cut a deal with Securities America to pay back 100 cents on the dollar to investors. This counts 63 investors who put in an average of about $80,000 each. State securities law vary, but maybe this will wake up California regulators.

0

ZObserver April 25, 2011 @ 9:19 a.m.

Although some of the posts here seem a bit bleak, I suspect that recoveries are going to be much better than one might expect.

First of all, this matter is going a lot further than just the arbitration process conducted by FINRA. So far, FINRA has made very favorable awards to claimants and also added punitive fines to be paid to the client. This has caused some of the broker dealers to go out of business because of lack of capital. Even if the broker doesn't have enough capital, the errors and omissions insurance policy might kick in.

Secondly, MedCap principals have been charged with fraud for operating a ponzi by the SEC. The SEC now has a receiver who is in process of completing forensic accounting to unravel about 10 billion of transactions. When this forensic accounting job is concluded you can be assured that the receiver will file "clawback" lawsuits against any party that was a "net winner" in doing business with MedCap.

This clawback action probably will include firms with deep pockets such as the banks who as trustees allowed the ponzi to occur. It may also include all broker dealers who were paid commissions and other fees to sell this stuff of investors.

Thirdly, you probably haven't heard the end of it. Once the SEC can get its arms around the extent of the ponzi and who enabled it, they will likely unleash substantial criminal investigations and indictments.

Do you remember the fiasco when Coastal Insurance and FGS Insurance agency were accused of skimming by the Cal Insurance Dept in the late 80's? The same guy, Sid Field, ran MedCap.

0

Don Bauder April 25, 2011 @ 11:43 a.m.

I did my summation of Medical Capital from the SEC website and the filing by Marron. The receiver will have much to say about the matter. Wherever it goes from here, investors certainly have good reason to question whether the WFP spider web did its homework on this one. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver April 25, 2011 @ 4:23 p.m.

Don, first of all, good job of reporting. I haven't read the interplead you refer to, but I am assuming that the e&o insurer is balking at full payment. You may be aware that Caitlin Specialty has already denied expected coverage with a few brokers. One of them is QA3 in Omaha that closed up. They all sold the same trash as WFS.

I think that brokers expected that insurers would only apply the deductible once because multiple clients owned the same ponzi. Insurers were blindsided by many brokers who did sloppy due diligence and argue the deductible applies to each investor. Is that the nature of the dispute here?

0

Don Bauder April 26, 2011 @ 7:35 a.m.

In such an interpleading, the insurance company wants to make sure the claims it pays, if any, aren't inflated. That's the gist of this interpleading, as I read it. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver April 26, 2011 @ 8:54 a.m.

Don,

Thanks for your response.

If the insurer is trying to draw a line in the sand here, that makes some sense and it will probably drag on for some time. I suspect that the insurer already knows it will lose on the MedCap and Provident investments because several other B-Ds have been successfully collecting insurance on those deals. The underlying facts of these two cases are so offensive, that FINRA arbitrators are throwing the book at the selling BD and imposing substantial fines as well. If you do some research, you will find that a number of small BD firms have been driven out of business by MedCap and Provident.

On the two real estate investments, I would guess that the insurer can make a strong case this is a "market related" loss and the BD isn't at fault. If one of the real estate deals was tainted by self-dealing a non-registered piece of empty land, however,there might be some case for a insured loss.

You have to wonder how much of this shaky stuff was sold by WFP and if the insurance proceeds available to all claimants will be limited and if they have enough capital to pay out the remaining claims???

You mentioned earlier that NASD and FINRA haven't necessarily been so effective in helping investors in arbitration. I think the landscape has recently changed and RegD offerings are now high on FINRA's hit list. The abuses have been so bad, the industry is going to have to change and no insurer may want to write E&O insurance coverage on RegD offerings ---so the under-capitalized BD firms may be prevented from selling them in the future.

0

Don Bauder April 26, 2011 @ 10:52 a.m.

I recently had a column about a FINRA arbitration that went the right way -- the victim got compensation. I sure hope you are right. The abuses have been horrendous: that could be forcing change. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver April 26, 2011 @ 3:21 p.m.

Don,

I don't think I am being too optimistic about FINRA here. You are probably looking at the past and only at arbitrations that were non-ponzi.

In those cases, as I understand, the investor only wins 50% of the time with FINRA arbitration. In the cases won, the award averages only about 40% of the amount claimed. Plus, it takes a decent sized claim (perhaps $100,000 lost) to justify the attorneys fees.

Looking at some recent claims flied by investors in Provident, we have a firm in Omaha called QA3 with 400 advisors closed up shop. The legal costs were eating them and even though FINRA apparently hadn't made a final determination. In another case a firm named Workman Securities sold Provident and FINRA whacked them very hard....you can read about it on FINRA's website. Securities America lost big on some FINRA arbitration, which you can find via Google search on the Wayman claim.

I really do believe that Provident and MedCap claims are almost a slam dunk for the investors to recover a decent amount. The biggest seller of MedCap just agreed to a bulk settlement deal with plaintiff attorneys to pay about 40% to MedCap and Provident investors in hoping to avoid the FINRA process.

In the cases you mention about in the article, I don't see how they could come up empty on either MedCap or Provident.

The bigger problem might be limits of insurance coverage. QA3's insurer basically conceded they had a valid claims of about $7.5 million but the insurer would not pay more than $1 million total. Another BD is Next Financial where the insurer is unwilling to pay out more than about $2 million. Do some research, you will find that BD E&O insurance is a not well understood business and most brokers have no idea about their true exposure. It's false comfort.

I still think the big money is going to come from clawback actions of the bankruptcy receiver. Just wait a few months before the time limit runs out. Think of what Picard has done with the Madoff case. I can separately email some other eye-opening receiver success with ponzi's if you wish to see it.

0

Don Bauder April 27, 2011 @ 8:21 a.m.

The limits of insurance coverage is a factor in this case. That's behind the interpleader filing by WFP's insurer. But this brings us back to the main problem: investors, some elderly, were put into schemes that were entirely too speculative. They were unsuitable. It is within FINRA's mandate to rule on that aspect. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver April 27, 2011 @ 9:51 a.m.

Don,

You may find the following FINRA action against Workman Securities to be very relevant. Workman sold both MedCap and Provident. FINRA cited Workman for the suitability issue you mention, but also for supervisory deficiencies and inadequate due diligence.

Each client has different circumstances of course. And FINRA arbitration panels do vary in judgement and, as I understand, the files about these actions are mostly sealed. In the Workman case, FINRA went public---perhaps as a warning to other BD firms.

Read it at the following link:

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@enf/@ad/documents/industry/p123445.pdf

0

Don Bauder April 27, 2011 @ 11:02 a.m.

I won't have a chance to read it today, but it appears from what you say that the Workman case may serve as a precedent in the WFP-related arbitrations. That would be positive for investors. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver April 29, 2011 @ 10:43 a.m.

Don, It is my best guess that both FINRA and the SEC are going to look at these cases on a three prong approach.

First, the due diligence was faulty. All investors were equally harmed. In a case of a ND broker, the SEC found that Provident actually paid the broker firm some $600k as a due diligence fee and the management spent zero. The SEC has taken drastic action against the leadership and FINRA arbitrators cannot ignore this aspect especially when the originators had prior history of skimming or no experience or financial statements lacking credibility.

Secondly, each client was "sold" by a real person on investing in a Reg D offering. Sales material was used and promises or representations were made. Each client heard different pitches, I suppose but we now know that some clients in Colorado (in another case) kept asking if the investment was "safe" Investors say they were told by the selling broker that the investment was "rock-solid"--- several times. I think this is the stuff FINRA will smack both the broker and the leadership for supervisory deficiencies. If a investor was told such info they could be awarded punitive damages by FINRA. (You are probably aware that most of the RegD issuers have aggressive selling operations and employ wholesalers to push product sales--all of which will now get a lot of very close attention.)

Thirdly, Reg D stuff was supposed to be sold to "accredited investors" who had significant wealth, substantial incomes and tolerance for risk. We are now learning that it was also sold to some "non-accredited investors", which is legal, provided that the investor acknowledges they don't meet the wealth and income standards and want to take on the risk anyway. (Madoff was a pro at getting people sucked in on the belief that they were part of an exclusive club and some were, but not all.) FINRA is going to look carefully at "suitability." Your article clearly describes some investors that probably would not be called suitable--in my humble opinion.

As I understand, each arbitration case is going to be based on those 3 elements for sure. FINRA hasn't always come through for investors on the 2nd and 3rd elements, but when the SEC has charged a ponzi scheme existed, I think the due diligence problem is going to results in some amount of awards for almost all investors who go into arbitration.

This isn't a legal opinion, its just common sense.

0

Don Bauder April 29, 2011 @ 5:34 p.m.

It's hard for me to judge what the arbitrators will do. I certainly think that the four cases, including Provident, look very questionable from a due diligence and suitability perspective. But beyond those four that I highlight in the article, the other investments the firms in the web sold look dubious, too. Best, Don Bauder

0

RJMAssociates May 2, 2011 @ 10:14 a.m.

An involuntary chapter 11 petition has been filed by the creditors for the Desert Capital REIT. Current claims in excess of $43mil. It's my understanding that the managing partner is currently under investigation by the SEC as well.

0

Don Bauder May 2, 2011 @ 11:37 a.m.

If the SEC gets into Desert Capital REIT as well, the defense of WFP and related entities would be weakened. Ditto for an involuntary BK. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 May 2, 2011 @ 11:40 a.m.

. It's my understanding that the managing partner is currently under investigation by the SEC as well.

That'll strike the fear of God into him, the SEC! He may even get a slap on the wrist!

0

Don Bauder May 3, 2011 @ 8:49 a.m.

He will not only get a wrist slap from the SEC. The agency will whisper, "Naughty! Naughty!" Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 2, 2011 @ 10:39 a.m.

Unfortunately, the investors who bought into Desert Capital are likely to get close to zero because of this bankruptcy filing unless they had some kind of preference over other creditors.

Investments in Nevada real estate developer loans are probably worthless. Did they have some other assets?

Even if the SEC finds some criminal or civil violation here, I would think it is unlikely that investors could recover anything unless there is some malfeasance by a deep pocketed backer or bank trustee.

The MedCap and Provident ponzi's, on the other hand, had potential enablers with deep pockets. I don't see any signs of that with Desert Capital.

0

Don Bauder May 2, 2011 @ 11:40 a.m.

I would have to study Desert Capital more than I have to pass judgment on an investor recovery. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 4, 2011 @ 9:52 a.m.

One tidbit that might be of interest to folks that invested in Provident. The receivers quarterly report dated April 30 should be available shortly.

Last fall, as you may know, the receiver filed CLAWBACK lawsuits against all of the broker dealers who sold Provident to recover some 30+ million of commmissions. Some of the brokers involved have already gone out of business but the remaining firms will likely have to pay up. The commissions here were relatively high and brokers can show little evidence they did much "real work" in suitability review or due diligence or other monitoring of the investments to justify, for example, an 8.5% commission plus a 1% due diligence fee.

A review of clawback actions taken in other bankruptcies show that the receiver is likely to be on very solid ground in these lawsuits. The bankruptcy law was changed in 2005 and gives a lot of bite to clawback actions. Look at similar action taken in the DBSI, Petters, Stanford, and Madoff ponzi schemes. Receivers are showing no mercy here.

It should also be noted that the Provident receiver has sued the same BD's for some $250 million in damages. How much of it will be awarded is unknown, but I bet the number is a lot larger than zero. (It probably will depend on IF the receiver can prove the BD's "aided and abetted" the continuation of the scheme.) Stay tuned......

0

Don Bauder May 4, 2011 @ 11:59 a.m.

I would be happy to see receivers and BK trustees get tougher. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 6, 2011 @ 7:36 a.m.

MedCap receiver suing Sedgwick law firm for $200 mil. Check out American Bar Assn. Website

0

SurfPuppy619 May 6, 2011 @ 9:08 a.m.

how about posting a link so we don't have to spend hours hunting it down???

0

Don Bauder May 6, 2011 @ 12:24 p.m.

Somebody didn't do his/her homework on MedCap. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 10, 2011 @ 12:48 p.m.

Take note that receiver for MedCap has just pulled out an "elephant gun" and is apparently starting to file clawback lawsuits. The action taken against the Sedgwick law firm is a pretty big deal. How many more lawsuits are in process here?

0

Don Bauder May 10, 2011 @ 4:25 p.m.

I have no idea how many MedCap clawback lawsuits are in progress. It could be interesting. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver May 11, 2011 @ 12:16 p.m.

Thomas Seaman, the MedCap ponzi Receiver says he is "inviting pre-litigation settlement discussions" with trustees. As you may be aware, the trustees involved are Wells Fargo and Bank of NY Mellon-- both of which have considerable resources.

0

Don Bauder May 11, 2011 @ 3:11 p.m.

I was not aware of the banks involved. Best, Don Bauder

0

bankalchemist May 17, 2011 @ 8:31 a.m.

San Diego the stepchild to cons from those under scrutiny in Orange County. This reads like the Lebonaese Flim Flam Man Gassy Hassey a San Diego fixture. bankalchemist.

0

Don Bauder May 17, 2011 @ 10:57 a.m.

Con artist haven is Newport Beach in Orange County. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston May 17, 2011 @ 7:33 p.m.

I think you'll find these days just as many live in Newport Coast as Newport Beach

0

Don Bauder May 17, 2011 @ 9:36 p.m.

So I should keep my wallet pocket buttoned if I ever go there? Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston May 18, 2011 @ 9:23 a.m.

Well, you should pull your wallet out and make a stop at the Shake Shack, the orangecicle is my personal fav, but other than that, I wouldn't worry. you can't even get close to 90+% of the homes there. Most of them are guard gated and they take their privacy VERY seriously. These days, Newport is more entertainment celeb then con man. Including Balboa, it's pretty much the entertainment version of the artist's enclave in Laguna.

0

Don Bauder May 18, 2011 @ 11:53 a.m.

So you think entertainment celebrities aren't con artists? Best, Don Bauder

0

eclower1111 May 30, 2011 @ 11:15 a.m.

According to this article, it appears WFP is being sued by Wells Fargo and BNY Mellon. Imagine having to go up against those companies, especially Wells!

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110526/FREE/110529948

0

Don Bauder June 1, 2011 @ 9:29 p.m.

I have copies of both suits and I could only determine that BNY Mellon is suing WFP. The Wells Fargo suit doesn't name WFP -- unless there has been an updated complaint. Best, Don Bauder

0

ZObserver June 1, 2011 @ 10:29 a.m.

I think that WFP is only being sued here by BNYM and not by Wells. Nevertheless, WFP is going to be challenged by some very top notch litigation talent which will pour over every whit of info in WFP files related to the sales of MedCap. Even if WFP eventually prevails, this discovery process alone might be very costly.

I wonder if the banks are pursuing a legal strategy here to minimize blame on them based on a belief that certain brokers "aided and abetted" continuation of the MedCap ponzi?

0

Don Bauder June 1, 2011 @ 9:30 p.m.

Both Wells and BNYMellon are suing the broker-dealers as a way to minimize the banks' exposure. Best, Don Bauder

0

WhatsNewPussycat June 2, 2011 @ 6:34 p.m.

The Readers I.T. team needs to implement Disqus if they do they'll garner more traffic (a lot more) in the form of crossovers if they don't they'll be like many other daily's/weeklies in that they're ignorant, oblivious, asleep at the wheel a.k.a. small time bush league player; which is typical of print entities, they're notoriously always three steps behind the rest of cyberspace tech-wise

A small sample of Disqus users some that you may or may not have heard of before: http://www.crunchgear.com/ http://www.miamiherald.com/ http://www.engadget.com/ http://www.foxnews.com/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ http://www.wired.com/ http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/ http://www.sfweekly.com/ http://www.ibtimes.com/ http://www.sacbee.com/ http://www.slashgear.com/

0

SurfPuppy619 June 3, 2011 @ 2:07 a.m.

Hey-did you see Tom Jones on the American Idol final???? Dude STILL has it!

0

SurfPuppy619 June 3, 2011 @ 10:40 p.m.

On the way up to our room, my ex stopped by the casinos and subsequently lost his shirt. He was in a bad mood, and when we got to the room, he said, "I want you to know Melinda, you made a fool of yourself tonight. I'll bet you would have slept with that guy if you could have."

I stop what I was doing, turned to look at him, and said, "Now there's a bet you should have placed."

======================= LOL!!!

I will say this, Tom Jones does still have the voice, and I am AMAZED he does, the guy must be at least 75-80 years old.....

I was a BIG fan when I was 7 or 8 and he had a TV show that always opened with his hit tune "It Aint Unusual", one of the all-time best songs of the 60's/70's. He rocked it!

He has been married for decades, so more power to Tom!

0

Dave Stewart June 4, 2011 @ 9:53 a.m.

Tom Jones rocked on the Idol finale a couple of weeks ago. According to my wife, he's "only" 25 yrs older than her, so that would make him 70. As for his decades of marriage, yeah I think he's been married only once. But his apparently his affairs are pretty well known. According to what what written at the time, there were amny of them.I think it was just couple of years ago, he admitted to fathering a child back in the 80's.

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:57 a.m.

A star's spouse will forgive many transgressions if he/she has enough money. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:56 a.m.

How many children will Tom Jones sire when he is in his 80s? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 1:02 a.m.

I guess all men should just surrender to this Tom Jones. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:54 a.m.

In the novel, as I recall, he didn't have to be married to have an active sex life. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:51 a.m.

Tom Jones is still sexy? He's more than 250 years old. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:53 a.m.

In the novel, Tom Jones does some sleeping around. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 5, 2011 @ 12:49 a.m.

Never seen American Idol. The novel about Tom Jones was written in the mid-18th century, as I recall. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder June 4, 2011 @ 10:11 p.m.

I occasionally use some of those sites. Best, Don Bauder

0

SaintMchael Oct. 3, 2012 @ 3 a.m.

Mr. Bauder sir, how do you do. My father will turn 88 this weekend. After ww2 he joined Herb Klein and the gang. Retired out of the LA Times in the Chandler era. I grew up with Klein and Murphy as my idols. I have tentative plans to be in Boston on election eve. However, if not in Boston Ill be at the US Grant bar and grill. (Dobson's early on)

Sir, to the point. my mother Mary Lapthorne died on May 10 2011. Three weeks before she died she told me.....Dont co-mingle the money and buy land. Circa 1990, Ed Mahwheenie robbed my mother and other elder ladies of $120,000. The former retired Air Force officer,Fidelity Investments broker. and Titan Securities, met his demise. He was convicted and went to Federal prison for 3 years. Paid nothing on Restitution.

Im 65 and very well connected. I have few missions in life remaining. I served in the Army and carried a badge in this county. God willing, Elder abuse is and has been on my agenda. I still have an active Private Investigator lic. in California. I wish to applaud your work, and possibly pass off some intense leads. Take care old man and watch your back. God Bless.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 3, 2012 @ 8:39 a.m.

financial elder abuse, should be used in ALL cases like htis. POrison time will cure the cons.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close