FINRA

Schisler was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging that he made an unsuitable recommendation to two elderly, married customers. The complaint alleges that Schisler persuaded the married customers to invest $300,000 in a promissory note to finance a commercial property. The recommended investment was a security and, by its own terms, was limited to accredited investors, which the married customers were not. Schisler did not perform the diligence necessary to provide him with a reasonable basis to recommend the investment to the customers. The complaint also alleges that Schisler participated in the private securities transaction with the married customers without providing the required written notice to, or receiving the required written approval from, his member firm. Schisler facilitated the married customers' investment in the note by, among other things, recommending the investment to them, arranging and participating in a meeting in his office between them and the issuer, and receiving a $9,500 finder's fee from the issuer in connection with the transaction. The complaint further alleges that Schisler willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to report a civil lawsuit and a FINRA arbitration filed by one of the elderly customers, despite repeated instructions from the firm to do so. Schisler also willfully failed to disclose the resolutions of the lawsuit and arbitration as well as his receipt of a Wells Notice advising him that he was the subject of a FINRA investigation. In addition, the complaint alleges that Schisler executed a settlement agreement with the surviving married customer to resolve both her lawsuit and arbitration. Under the terms of the settlement, Schisler improperly required the surviving married customer to execute a declaration to support his request for expungement, which is a prohibited condition. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Schisler provided false and misleading testimonies to FINRA. During an arbitration hearing on Schisler's request for expungement, he lied about his involvement in the promissory note, falsely testifying that he did not personally introduce the married customers to the issuer and otherwise mischaracterizing the nature of his involvement with the note. In addition, during an on-the-record testimony, Schisler repeatedly and falsely testified that the finder's fee he received in connection with the promissory note was a personal loan and that he was unaware at the time that the married customers made the investment. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Schisler solicited an elderly, retired customer to lend him $50,000 in the form of a promissory note that was secured by mortgaged property on the verge of default. Schisler defaulted on the mortgage a few days after he issued the note to the retired customer and he subsequently lost the property through foreclosure. Schisler failed to disclose both the default and subsequent foreclosure to the retired customer and then failed to repay her the principal amount and the accrued interest for more than six years after the note matured. After years of unjustified delays, and still owing most of the original principal, Schisler finally repaid the retired customer. The complaint alleges that Schisler falsely responded "no" to a question on the firm's questionnaire asking whether he had borrowed money from any current or former customers. In fact, when Schisler joined the firm, he brought the retired customer with him and he had borrowed money from two customers, including the retired customer. The complaint also alleges that Schisler used non-firm email accounts not copied, captured, or supervised by the firm to communicate with customers regarding securities-related business and as a result, caused the firm to fail to preserve required books and records.

Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement

Bar (Permanent)

All capacities

Indefinite

1/31/2022

The settlement includes a finding that Schisler willfully failed to disclose a material fact on a Form U4, and that under Section 3(a)(39)(F) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Article III, Section 4 of the FINRA By-Laws, this omission make him subject to a statutory disqualification with respect to association with a member.

Without admitting or denying the allegations, Schisler consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he made an unsuitable recommendation to two elderly, married customers to invest $300,000 in a promissory note to finance a commercial property. The findings stated that the investment was a substantial portion of the elderly customers' retirement savings, and they were depending upon those funds to pay down considerable debt. Schisler did not perform the diligence necessary to provide him with a reasonable basis to recommend the investment to his customers. The findings also stated that Schisler participated, without the approval of his member firm, in a private securities transaction with the elderly customers. Schisler facilitated the elderly customers' investment in the note by, among other things, recommending the investment to them, arranging and participating in a meeting in his own office between them and the issuer, and receiving a $9,500 finder's fee from the issuer in connection with the transaction. Schisler participated despite repeated and explicit instruction from his firm that he could not do so. The findings also included that when the $300,000 note became due, the issuer defaulted. One of the elderly customers had died a few months earlier, and the other brought a civil lawsuit and a FINRA arbitration against Schisler. Schisler willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to report either the civil lawsuit or the arbitration filed against him by the surviving elder customer. Schisler also willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 to disclose his receipt of a Wells Notice advising him that he was the subject of a FINRA investigation. FINRA found that Schisler entered into a settlement agreement with the elder customer that contained a prohibited condition. Specifically, Schisler improperly required the elder customer to execute a declaration to support his request for expungement. FINRA also found that Schisler lied under oath at the FINRA arbitration panel's hearing on his request for expungement. Schisler lied about his involvement in the promissory note, falsely testifying that he did not personally introduce the customers to the issuer and otherwise mischaracterizing the nature of his involvement with the note. In addition, FINRA determined that Schisler lied to FINRA during on-the-record testimony. Schisler repeatedly and falsely testified that the $9,500 finder's fee he received was a personal loan and that he was unaware at the time that the elder customers had made the investment. Moreover, FINRA found that Schisler engaged in a long pattern of unethical business conduct towards another elderly and retired customer by soliciting her to lend him $50,000 in the form of a promissory note that was secured by mortgaged property on the verge of default. Schisler defaulted on the mortgage a few days, and he subsequently lost the property through foreclosure. Schisler failed to disclose both the default and subsequent foreclosure to the customer and then failed to timely repay her the $50,000 principal and the accrued interest. After years of unjustified delays, and still owing most of the original principal, Schisler finally repaid the customer more than six years after the note matured. Furthermore, FINRA found that Schisler made a false statement regarding whether he had borrowed money from any current or former customers on a firm compliance questionnaire. In fact, Schisler had borrowed money from two customers. The findings stated that Schisler caused his firm to fail to preserve books and records by using outside, unmonitored email accounts to conduct securities business. Schisler used non-firm email accounts not copied, captured, or supervised by his firm to communicate with customers regarding securities-related business.

Eldena Cross

Failure to return Trust Assets, Conversion, Breach of Fiduciary duty, Money had and Received

Clients came to me for medicare supplement questions in early 2013, no action taken. Clients then came to my offices a few months later as they felt they were misled by their former advisor, were spending down their assets, where we repositioned some of their assets and improved their income annually. Clients then filed a complaint at Jackson National Life against me (just as in the case of their former advisor) which was deemed without merit when fully reviewed. Clients then came back to me months later where I again explained in detail the improvements we implemented and we continued our relationship. Clients decided to sell their cherry farm, and in passing at Christmas dinners at my home with other guests, Easter dinners at their home with other guests, they in passing had inquired as to what to do with the funds from the sale of the cherry farm. Apparently the real estate transaction did not perform, where they then filed suit against as many as 12 parties including myself for recovery of trust assets. This case in Nevada County Superior Court was stayed on November 17, 2017 as the attorneys and the court agreed the clients were required to arbitrate through FINRA due to their mention of our securities relationship.

CLIENTS PURCHASED TWO VARIABLE LIFE POLICIES FROM REPRESENTATIVE. THEY ARE ALLEGING THAT REPRESENTATIVE MADE MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT POLICY LOANS AND POLICY FEATURES. THEY ARE SEEKING UNSPECIFIED DAMAGES BASED ON ALLEGED IMPROPER ADVICE.

THE CLIENT'S ALLEGATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED BY AN AFFILIATED 3RD PARTY AND FOUND TO BE WITH OUT MERIT.

$245.00

Civil

UNPAID ACCOUNTING FEE'S OF $245 FOR SERVICES PERFORMED.CALIFORNIA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT ENFORCE JUDGMENT OVER TEN YEARS I CONTACTED MR. WONG FOR TAX PREPARATION. WE AGREED OF A FLAT FEE. UPON COMPLETION, MR. WONG INCREASED ON FEE AGREED EARLIER. I DECLINED TO PAY HIM OR NEGOTIATE BASED ON HIS UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. I have since called him more than 40 times and reached him once this year to resolve this matter at the behest of my broker dealer and he stated on one occasion when he answered he does not have records that old and hung up on my office manger

FELONY: UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON (UPWI), CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DELIVERANCE (DCS II)

FELONY

CONVICTED OF UPWI, DCS II FINAL SENTENCE: 3 YEARS PROBATION, 80 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE, FINED. RELEASED EARLY DUE TO FINE PAID, COMMUNITY SERVICE SATISFIED, GOOD BEHAVIOR.

DUMB KID WHO GOT CAUGHT BETWEEN POLICE ATTEMPTING TO ENTRAP & CONVICT DISTRIBUTOR OF ILLEGAL DRUGS.