==========================================START OF PAGE 1======

         UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 15104 / October 2, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph P. Medsker, Unified
Financial Services Agency Corp., and Unified Financial Services
Advisory Corp., (United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Case No. C3-96-381)

     The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
September 30, 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission
filed its Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable
Relief in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against Joseph P. Medsker (Medsker), Unified
Financial Services Agency Corp. (Agency), his unregistered
investment adviser, and Unified Financial Services Advisory Corp.
(Advisory), a registered investment adviser.  In its Complaint,
the Commission alleges that from May 1990 through at least
November 1994, Medsker, Agency and Advisory engaged in a scheme
to defraud involving the offer and sale of unregistered
securities, acting as an unregistered investment advisor,
misrepresenting and omitting to state material facts to
investors, including advisory clients, churning and covering up
the scheme. 

     Specifically, the Commission alleged that Medsker, Agency
and later Advisory offered and sold more than $2 million in
unregistered securities in two Ohio partnerships to more than 200
investors by misrepresenting and omitting to state material facts
regarding, among other things, the risks and returns associated
with the investments in the Ohio partnerships.  Unbeknownst to
investors, Medsker invested much of the offering proceeds in his
own speculative, financially troubled golf course syndication,
North Port Golf Associates I, L.P. (North Port), for which he
received substantial commissions.  North Port eventually filed
for bankruptcy.  Medsker also opened a trading account for one of
the partnerships, which he then churned. The defendants covered
up their scheme by sending misleading statements and updates to
investors, misrepresenting the value of the Ohio partnerships'
investments in North Port and the value of a unit investment in
the Ohio partnerships.  As a result of these activities,
investors in the Ohio partnerships lost or stand to lose much or
all of their investment.

     The Commission further alleges that the defendants' actions
violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 203(a), 206(1),
206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The
Commission also seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from the
defendants and the imposition of civil penalties and other
ancillary relief.