This is a case of do as I say and not as I do.

The worest thing is the fraud that true.com is involved with. The customer is being mislead and ripped offed. As for the AG which is a republican and Vest has doanated a lot of money too. He has been notified! There are investigations going on.

As for me. I am an insider. I can not go in to details at this time. Vest is angry and looking for the leak. this guy is paraniad and a pshycopath and I mean this clincially!

Major new media have this story I know that some people mentioned have given interviews as well.

This started with a lawsuit by a woman Vest abused and may very well end with Vest in prison for illegal activities she discloses in her case for SEC, IRS fraud. Now there is business practices the FTC and AG in TX are interested in. Vest may be able to keep the lawsuit against him out of court, but he can’t keep it from being made public. Take pot is about to blow.

The fact that you came back and posted again proves to me at least you weren’t just dumping some long diatribe on a bunch of blogs (this being yet another one), but it would certainly add some credibility to your claims if you signed with your own name and website address, since you are using Mr. Vest’s so liberally, and perhaps some contact information of your own so that you have some skin in the game. Maybe you want to be some sort of Deep Throat?

Both comments honestly sound to me like you have some sort of agenda or axe to grind, whichever it is. If it is to expose some alleged ill dealings at the site in question wouldn’t the attorney general’s office or the BBB be a better place? Then again, I suppose I questioned the whole “married people cannot apply” thing at True in that former post, so I sort of asked to get feedback like this.

Anyway, the only thing removed from your original comment was the home phone number, please don’t post other people’s home phone numbers here. If Mr. Vest wants to post his own home phone number, or you want to post yours here, you’re both welcome to do so.

As for the many allegations you have made and what you’ve linked to, I’ll leave that to each reader to decide the merits and if it makes them go hmm. The true.com site with the anti-married people bent sort of left an odd feeling in my mind without any of your statements.

As to the detail personal information it goes to creditibility and the fact that this person is a hypocrite. More detail information to follow:

BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE = TRUE LIES

Vest once again is trying to get lawmakers to pass his background check disclosure act in Illinois now HB5299. Vest exploits women, doesn’t disclose his own deceptive business practices and is hiding his personal background of abuse and womanizing. I believe Vest should be exposed because he is using our lawmakers to manipulate the industry and continues to exploit women while he lies to the public of his motivates in order to line his own pockets

An online dating site called True.com which touts it’s self as the safer dating service and the owner Herb Vest is behind litigation to require all dating services to disclose if they conduct background checks should be investigated for date bait along with several other questionable business practices.

Vest is being sued in Dallas, Texas by his former fiancee. The details of the woman’s case is very disturbing. Vest who is fighting to require background checks is now fighting to keep the detail affidavit by this woman sealed. Vest sited it would damage his business and personal life.
Some of the details includes Vest with prostitutes, Threesomes with lesbians. Several sexual harassment claims against Vest while at HD Vest, Inc. Cheated on his second wife with a prostitute. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Vest stated: “In addition to screening our own members for criminal backgrounds, TRUE is doing everything it can to make the online dating community at-large a more wholesome environment for courtship – one that is free and clear of predators and criminals”. In another statement “The idea for True.com came from wanting to provide a “safe and wholesome environment for courtship,” Vest said.

True is now turning it’s business to the sex trade. www.askmen.com has a contest to pick the hottest True girl. True.com’s exploitation of women in ads:

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2005editorials/april2005.html

http://www.calacanis.com/2006/01/13/should-we-run-these-ampd-ads-or-not/3#comments

http://www.corante.com/dating/images/trueuglymodel.png

In addition you may want to ask Vest about the following business practices.

bloggers have posted claims they have seen documentation of fraud on the part of True. That is, ex-employees who claim that part of their job description was to pose as real people and keep people as members to motivate them to become paid subscribers.

I think that this issue becomes even more pertinent in light of similar allegations currently against Match.com and Yahoo Personals. It is no secret that some “customer service” people that used to work at True are no longer there — and having left under curious circumstances. Vest/ HDVE could be compelled to release names of such ex-employees so they can be questioned about these allegations of fraud. Vest should also be questioned as to whether they have any knowledge of fake/bait profiles being used by True employees at the direction of Vest and/or any of the executive management to essentially deceive or defraud customers or potential customers.

True.com wants disclosures so why doesn’t true disclose Secrets True.com doesn’t want made public!

1. “Is the endorsement from Psychology Today an academic endorsement or a paid endorsement?”

2. “You state on your site that you have a team of experts behind your testing/psychology services… who are they exactly and how do I get in touch with them in order to ask them what they specifically do for True and examples of recent work.” “Or, perhaps you (True.com) is overstating their roles as a marketing gimmick.”

3. “It seems True has been busy altering the authorship of certain online articles in its online magazine from Dr. James Houran to “Psychology Department” — implying Houran is still a part of the psychology dept. and that True has an active psychology dept.” Why is it making these changes in authorship? Does the online magazine editor (Leah Gentry, formerly a journalist with the LA Times) endorse this practice?”

4. Why has True.com not revealed to its customers that they no longer have the benefit of Dr. James Houran? He was arguably a huge value ad to the business and the welfare of the customers, yet customers are not told he is no longer with the company. True pushes for legislation requiring disclosure and yet they curiously are not disclosing that certain features/ benefits of the site are no longer part of the price of membership.”

FYI: Dr. Jim Houran was fired in October and True is sued him. True hasn’t disclosure that there are no experts on staff. Even the security expert is gone. The gimmicks True promotes it’s self with aren’t True!

Also, Vest and his wife has broken their own rule : NO MARRIED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Screen names (undermoose) and (fite) both go into chat rooms. So True.com no married people can contact members isn’t True either.

VEST OFTEN GOES TO THE CHAT ROOM TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. MARK BROOKS IS ON THE PAYROLL FOR TRUE.COM. VEST USES MARKS BLOG TO PROMOTE HIS COMPANY AND USES A DIFFERENT NAME. BROOK ISN’T INDEPENTENT FROM TRUE.COM

Paul - a front page response from me just means the person’s comments made me think deeper about something and I felt was more deserving of a separate post. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, even if I disagree with the commenter And if it happens twice in a relatively short period of time as it did in your case that’s definitely rare.

If I used a front page response for most of the comments I’ve made here over the years, I’d have another 400+ posts at least. Your situation kind of taught me that maybe I need to watch the timing of things like that and/or tone down the excitement on some of the comments because intentions might be misunderstood.

Sterling - highly offensive comments don’t bother me (aimed toward me or my opinion, but not toward other readers) so much as potentially litigious ones do. I’m no attorney but if a comment strikes me as having a greater than normal possibility of being something involving attorneys and courts I might take a pass. I’m clearly not afraid of being challenged legally and don’t care if somebody says something inflammatory that I know is true because you can’t bag someone for slander over truthful statements. I guess that’s part of my concern here, although I honestly believe the comment doesn’t cross the lines.

Of course now with all my commentary and post now I’ve drawn more attention to this mystery comment than it ever would have had without this, so I’ve kind of made the situation worse. Catch 22. lol

It is your site, if you think a comment crosses the line you should kill it. You are your own editor. The job of editing is hard but it if it doesn’t meet your standards you have to have the courage of your convictions.