8/16/07; CLIENT INDICATES HE HARDLY HEARD FROM THE FA SINCE HE HAS BEEN A CLIENT. CLIENT STATES FA CONTACTED HIM ONE DAY TO RECOMMEND THE PURCHASE OF UNDER ARMOUR (UA) STOCK. CLIENT FURTHER STATES HE DID NOT HAVE CASH AVAILABLE SO FA RECOMMENDED TO SELL A PORTION OF HIS MUTUAL FUNDS TO BUY THE STOCK. CLIENT IS UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS TRANSACTION OCCURRED.

$5,000.00

THE CLIENTS ALLEGED THAT THE HARTFORD LIFE POLICY THAT WAS PURCHASED ON 9/26/00 WAS MISREPRESENTED TO THEM. THE CLIENTS ALLEGED THAT IF THEY CONTINUED TO PAY THEIR PREMIUMS OF $15,747.14 EACH YEAR THAT THE DEATH BENEFIT OF $1,500,000.00 WOULD REMAIN CONSTANT. THE CLIENTS RECEIVED MAILINGS FROM THE HARTFORD THAT HAS LED THEM TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE AND THEY FEEL THAT THEY WERE MISLED WHEN THEY PURCHASED THESE INSURANCE CONTRACTS. THE CLIENTS WANT OUT OF THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE HARTFORD AND WANT TO HAVE THEIR SURRENDER FEES OF APPROXIMATELY $6,000,00 WAIVED.

$6,000.00

THE FA ADVISED THAT HE AND THE HARTFORD REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTED THE HARTFORD STAG VARIABLE LIFE POLICY TO THE CLIENTS IN 2000 AS PART OF AN ESTATE PLANNING PROCESS. MR. BELLER ADVISED THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE WITH THE APPROPRIATE ILLUSTRATIONS AND THE CONTRACT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CLIENTS DATED 9/26/00. THE FA ADVISED THAT THE LIFETIME GUARANTEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE POLICY AS IT IS TODAY. THE FA ADVISED THAT WHEN THE CLIENT FOLLOWED UP IN 2003 AND AGAIN IN 2006, THE FA ARRANGED MEETINGS OR CONFERENCE CALLS WITH THE CLIENTS, THE HARTFORD REPRESENTATIVE AND HIMSELF. THE POLICY WAS AGAIN REVIEWED AND THE CLIENT WAS ASSURED THAT AS LONG AS THERE WAS CASH VALUE IN THE CONTRACT WHEN BOTH PARTIES WERE DECEASED THAT THE HARTFORD WOULD PAY THE 1.5 MILLION DEATH BENEFIT. THE CLIENTS ADVISED THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE CONTRACT AND NEVER CONTACTED OUR FIRM OR THE HARTFORD UNTIL JUST RECENTLY. SINCE I FELT THAT THIS PLAN WAS PRESENTED PROPERLY, I REFUSED TO OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE CLIENTS IN THEIR REQUEST TO THE HARTFORD FOR A WAIVER OF THEIR SURRENDER CHARGES.

THE CUSTOMERS CLAIM MR. BELLER INAPPROPRIATELY RECOMMENDED THEY PURCHASE CERTAIN STOCKS WITH THEIR $2,000.00 ROTH IRA CONTRIBUTIONS IN 1998, 1999, AND 2000. THEY INDICATED MR. BELLER RECOMMENDED THEY BOTH PURCHASE ESPIRE COMMUNICATIONS STOCK WITH THEIR 1998 AND 1999 CONTRIBUTIONS AND GLOBALNET FINANCIAL COM STOCK WITH THEIR YEAR 2000 CONTRIBUTIONS. THEY CLAIM ESPIRE COMMUNICATIONS HAS FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY AND THE GLOBALNET STOCK IS NOW ONLY WORTH $35.36 IN EACH ACCOUNT. THEY REQUESTED THE RETURN OF THE $6,000.00 THEY EACH INVESTED IN THOSE STOCKS.

$6,000.00

E SPIRE TRADES WERE ENTERED ON 5/9/99 WITH THE 1998 AND 1999 CONTRIBUTIONS. BELLER SUGGESTED CLIENTS ENTER A LIMIT ORDER AT $10-12 PER SHARE. HOWEVER, CLIENT ELECTED TO PLACE THE LIMIT ORDERS AT $15 PER SHARE ON 3/24/00, BUT CANCELLED TWO DAYS LATER IN THAT THEY WERE AWAY FROM THE MARKET. IT APPEARS THE SHARES WOULD HAVE BEEN LIQUIDATED HAD THE ORDER BEEN ENTERED AT THE $10-12 PRICE RANGE. THE TRANSACTIONS ALSO REPRESENT A SMALLER PORTION OF THE CLIENT'S STATED NET WORTH AND APPEAR TO BE IN LINE WITH THE STATED INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION. CLIENTS HAVE ALSO INVESTED IN EQUITIES SINCE AT LEAST 1992 AND APPEAR TO BE AWARE OF MKT FLUCTUATION AND RISKS. CLAIM DENIED.

THE CLIENT STATES HE IS DISAPPOINTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ACCOUNT. THE CLIENT STATES TWO YEARS AGO HE STARTED WITH $32,000 IN HIS ACCOUNT AND NOW HAS $8,000. THE CLIENT STATES HE HAS REQUESTED REPEATEDLY TO GO INTO SAFER INVESTMENTS.

$24,000.00

BELLER STATES THE CLIENT'S CONCERNS ABOUT MOVING INTO SAFER INVESTMENTS WERE IN REGARD TO HIS MUTUAL FUNDS. IN RESPONSE TO THESE CONCERNS, THE CLIENT HAS EXCHANGED AGGRESSIVE FUNDS FOR GROWTH FUNDS. IN ADDITION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLIENT'S COMPLAINT, HE HAS PURCHASED ADDITIONAL SHARES OF LEVEL 3, A STOCK THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A LARGE PORTION OF HIS UNREALIZED LOSSES. BELLER STATES HE HAS MADE THE CLIENT AWARE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ALL HIS INVESTMENTS. CLAIM DENIED.

THE CLIENT STATES HE HAS A NET LOSS OVER $10,000 AFTER INVESTING WITH EDWARD JONES. THE CLIENT PURCHASED 1000 SHARES OF GLBN ON 4/20/00 AT $26 PER SHARE. THE STOCK IS CURRENTLY TRADING AT APPROXIMATELY $2 3/4. THE CLIENT IS UNHAPPY WITH THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF HIS ACCOUNTS. IN A SUBSEQUENT LETTER THE CLIENT STATES HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION HE WAS PURCHASING THE STOCK AT $21 THE MORNING OF 4/20 AND THAT BELLER DID NOT ENTER THE TRADE UNTIL THE AFTERNOON OF 4/20 AT $26.

$10,000.00

BELLER STATES HE REVIEWED THE ASPECTS OF THE TRADE WITH THE CLIENT INCLUDING THE PRICE AND NUMBER OF SHARES. BELLER STATES THE CLIENT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO PURCHASE 1000 SHARES AT $26 PER SHARE. ON 4/26/00 THE CLIENT DID DEPOSIT A CHECK FOR $26,464 TO COVER THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE TRADE. THE CLIENT DID RECEIVE A TRADE CONFIRMATION AND MONTHLY CUSTOMER STATEMENTS WHICH REFLECT THIS PURCHASE. CLAIM DENIED.