And, of course, even if Paul's great-grandfather had been the general Patricia would still not have been his great, great, granddaughter anyway as she was not Paul's daughter.

It was also mentioned in the video that Patricia Bragg was named Santa Barbara's "Woman of the Year". I wonder if Santa Barbara ever named Angelo Mozilo "Man of the Year".

SueZ: (Don't want to interrupt these Beelzebub sightings)

If you Google "Remembering Aunt Penny: Out On The Town", you'll see "Cousin Patricia Pendleton Bragg" in attendance at Grandpa Richard's 1958 Birthday Celebration. She's standing behind Henry & Janice. Both brothers Harry (Patricia's father) & Richard show up in the 1880 Federal Census as members of the Henry Clay Pendleton Family of Georgia at ages 6 & 3, respectively.

I once had dinner with Patricia Bragg and I found her to be a very nice woman. We met at an expo and she took a liking to me and invited me out to dinner wherever I wanted to go. I picked a raw vegan restaurant and she asked me to order whatever I wanted. We are from such different generations that most of the dinner was me just listening to her, looking at her uniqueness and not saying that much. She did request that I explain a very significant herbal formula that I make using raw apple cider vinegar. I wrote the formula down for her.

She is gracious and lovely.

KFCA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ: (Don't want to interrupt these Beelzebub
> sightings)
>
> If you Google "Remembering Aunt Penny: Out On The
> Town", you'll see "Cousin Patricia Pendleton
> Bragg" in attendance at Grandpa Richard's 1958
> Birthday Celebration. She's standing behind Henry
> & Janice. Both brothers Harry (Patricia's father)
> & Richard show up in the 1880 Federal Census as
> members of the Henry Clay Pendleton Family of
> Georgia at ages 6 & 3, respectively.

KFCA, looks to me like there is a chance the plot may be a even a bit thicker.

When I went to see the rest of the photos from where that one came I couldn't help but notice little Patrice, who was sitting on the arm of grandma's sofa, and was said to have been 10 in 1961, (one year before Patricia Bragg got married), is such a dead on spitting image of Pat Bragg that I was at first confused and though it was Pat Bragg herself. What do you think?

"Aunt Penny introduced her neices to this cultural experience for March birthdays in 1961. Patrice was ten on the 28th. Marge was ten on the 29th. I was nine on the 29th."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2016 01:27PM by SueZ.

No, Patricia married her first husband, Robert Elton Bragg, son of Paul, in April of 1952 (divorced 1957), and her second husband, James Cameron Gilroy, apparently a Live Food employee, in March of 1976 (divorced about 3 months later). No 1962 marriage that I know of. However, there is still a question of whether she was also married previous to Robert Bragg; their divorce papers raise that possibility, but don't settle it. Never a dull moment...

KFCA, little Patrice was TEN in 1962 which would put her birth on March 28th 1952. That puts what I'm thinking into the realm of possibility!

Notice that two of the (childless) aunt's nieces were born on different days but were both 10 in 1962! Besides the one I already mentioned, the other photo of the young Patrice (where she is playing on the floor with the rest of the children), shows, too, that she looks just like Pat Bragg.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2016 09:56PM by SueZ.

That would put little Patrice's birth in the month before Patricia Bragg may or may not have gotten married to Robert Elton Bragg, right?

How rich and famous was Paul Bragg when Patricia Bragg initially found his son Robert, I wonder?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2016 10:22PM by SueZ.

SueZ: To answer your Paragraph 2 question, I don't know when Patricia Pendleton first met the Bragg contingent or Paul's fame & wealth at the time.

If you Google "mauitime.com/culture/in-the-name-of-the-father-Part-2" (which was part of an interview that the Editor of the Maui-Time(Hawaii) Mag did with Patricia some years back), Paul was there almost from the time Patricia came out of the womb. But that's only of course if you tend to believe Patricia. Do I believe this story? Heck No.

The Bragg-associated people I've corresponded with don't seem to know or remember when & where Robert, and by extension Paul, first hooked up with Patricia.

My copy of the Robert/Patricia Marriage License gives their addresses at the time as Burbank, CA & Piedmont, CA, respectively. They were married at The First Presbyterian Church, Phoenix, AZ on April 19, 1952 by the Rev. Elmer W. Roy, with Ben E. Elder & Shirley R. Esty as witnesses. The interesting thing is that although Patricia's parents were business and/or socially prominent in the SF/Bay Area, there was no reporting locally that I've run across on any engagement or marriage at the time, unlike when her two brothers married, especially since Patricia claims she & Robert were programmed to marry.

I'm unclear why she would have married in Phoenix, AZ. I recently found out that Paul Bragg gave a 7-night series of health lectures in Phoenix, AZ in early January 1952. My thought is that since Paul sometimes took one of his adult children to help him with his lectures, Robert may have accompanied him, and that's where he & Patricia first met. Maybe they were just swept off their feet. But that's just one conjecture.

Like a page-turning soap opera....

KFCA, it's all starting to look so very dismally predictable and familiar as the pieces fall into place.

On a Wikipedia chat site I read that somehow after Patricia and Robert Bragg's divorce Paul Bragg disinherited his entire family, even his grandchildren, in favor of leaving everything to Patricia in his will.


Wasn't pregnancy before marriage kind of a shamefully big deal back then, even in California, especially in socially prominent families? Could explain what was behind a few of the aspects.


The last line in the following link says, "Patricia was married to Paul's son, Robert E., from whom she was divorced in 1956 after Robert accused her of scandal involving his father".

[bragg.org]

SueZ:

Your second paragraph is "almost" correct, in that Paul left almost everything to Patricia via his Will or through joint tenancy. The "almost" involved $2,500 cash bequests to each of his two daughters, which amount they DID receive from his estate at his death. In the event of either or both of the daughters being deceased at Paul's death, their children (Paul's grandchildren)would have inherited this amount. On the other hand, son, Robert (& his children) were totally cut out from ever receiving anything under any circumstances. (Needless to say, to cover all the bases & to keep egg off my face, I have a copy of his Will.)

The specific paragraph of his Will, explaining some of the "Why" of the above, was Paragraph VI, to wit:

"In disposing of my estate by this Will, I have in mind and feel about the matter as follows: each of my children has her and his own life, family, circle of friends and interests and none of them has maintained close relations with me or encouraged me, or sympathized with me, in my work and career; further I have from time provided for them; further my son has caused me grievous mental suffering and humiliation...." (& so on). He signed his Will on Jan. 11, 1958, which Will was professionally prepared by Los Angeles attorneys.

I worked for a probate attorney for a number of years, seen many Wills, but have never seen anything like that before. Sounds like he was both really hurt & angry, though I don't understand why grandchildren were cut out even if he wasn't too crazy about his kids.

KFCA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ:
>
> Your second paragraph is "almost" correct, in that
> Paul left almost everything to Patricia via his
> Will or through joint tenancy. The "almost"
> involved $2,500 cash bequests to each of his two
> daughters, which amount they DID receive from his
> estate at his death. In the event of either or
> both of the daughters being deceased at Paul's
> death, their children (Paul's grandchildren)would
> have inherited this amount. On the other hand,
> son, Robert (& his children) were totally cut out
> from ever receiving anything under any
> circumstances. (Needless to say, to cover all the
> bases & to keep egg off my face, I have a copy of
> his Will.)
>
> The specific paragraph of his Will, explaining
> some of the "Why" of the above, was Paragraph VI,
> to wit:
>
> "In disposing of my estate by this Will, I have in
> mind and feel about the matter as follows: each of
> my children has her and his own life, family,
> circle of friends and interests and none of them
> has maintained close relations with me or
> encouraged me, or sympathized with me, in my work
> and career; further I have from time provided for
> them; further my son has caused me grievous mental
> suffering and humiliation...." (& so on). He
> signed his Will on Jan. 11, 1958, which Will was
> professionally prepared by Los Angeles attorneys.
>
> I worked for a probate attorney for a number of
> years, seen many Wills, but have never seen
> anything like that before. Sounds like he was
> both really hurt & angry, though I don't
> understand why grandchildren were cut out even if
> he wasn't too crazy about his kids.

KFCA, sorry for my imprecision, and thanks for the correction and added info.

I have no experience with the wills business. To me, as just an amateur Nancy Drew, being left 2,500 by a rich and famous parent is for all practical purposes being disinherited - something like a waiter being left a penny for a tip. It says "no I didn't forget to leave you a tip I left this slap in the face on purpose instead just to drive my point home on what I think of your service".

NANCY DREW!!!!
LOLOLOL

More like a dark, evil version of Miss Marple.

KFCA, is it correct that she married her second husband in 1976 and gave her age at that time as 30?

Is it correct that her second husband (Paul Bragg's employee) was born in 1954, making him around 21 at the time of their marriage?


Is it true that in a little over a year from their wedding date they were divorced and her second husband was dead, at 22, under unknown circumstances?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Actually they were married on March 31, 1976 in Los Angeles County by a Jehovah's Witness minister and were divorced about 3 months later. Gilroy died on July 1, 1977 at the University of Southern California/USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, at age 22. His death was investigated by the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, and on 8/17/1977, his death was officially attributed a suicide as the result of a drug overdose, namely "Acute Amitriptyline Intoxication", which drug is/was a pharmaceutical drug used, I believe, for individuals suffering from severe depression.

If you wish to PM me, I can go into this whole weird story further; I'd rather not do it here.

Wow, KFCA, thanks, that is very generous of you!

I was just about to PM you last night but first I did a quick google of Amitriptyline along with stroke and along with heart attack and the results scared me, and since this saga is already giving me nightmares, I decided to wait until now to respond. I had a hard time getting to sleep wondering if Paul Bragg was alone in his rooms on December 7, 1976 and whether he might have been previously reconsidering his will, as so many people do over the years, perhaps out loud in front of anybody.

BTW, I reviewed your posts on this subject in other threads and found out
that you found out Robert Bragg was a chiropractor in Burbank. Not that long of a trip from Piedmont for, say, a determined young lady in need of "adjustment" to undertake.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed my PM space was all filled up. I just emptied it out.

lisa m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lisa m Wrote:
>
> > One has also to take into account the amount of
> > addictive chemicals that are added to processed
> > foods these days - MSG, salt etc. How are we
> to
> > know that we're following the best possible
> course
> > of action for our body, or simply feeding our
> > addictions?
> >
>
>
> After posting this, it just occurred to me - funny
> enough, aren't salt and MSG the chief ingredients
> in Braggs Aminos? And wouldn't it play out
> perfectly to tell people to listen to their
> bodies, and then sell them something that was
> purported to be a 'health' food, which contained
> highly addictive substances?

Yes.

> So after doing a bit of research to find out
> what's exactly in Braggs Aminos, I have come to
> the conclusion that I would personally stay away
> from this company's products at all cost! They
> are so secretive and ambiguous on their website as
> to how Aminos are made, I don't trust them at all.

Good call.


> I also came across a very interesting theory on
> how the product may be made:
> [theashbulletin.blogspot.co.uk]
> r-of-bragg-liquid-aminos.html
>
> "The other topic you asked about in your letter
> was about how Bragg Aminos are made. Once again,
> here's an armchair biologist's answer, meaning
> that I don't know this for sure, but it's the only
> thing that makes scientific sense.
>
> If I were given some vegetable protein and were
> asked to make it into amino acids without spending
> a lot of money on it, I would boil it up with some
> hydrochloric acid. This would break it down to
> amino acids, but of course it would be too acidic
> to be palatable.
>
> So I would then neutralize the acid with baking
> soda, causing the reaction mixture to look like
> this:
>
> 2HCl + Na2CO3 ===> 2NaCl + CO2 + H2O
>
> So the salt gets made by mistake as it were. Now
> someone (I forget who) followed up on this and
> contacted the Bragg company to ask if this was how
> they did it, and they denied it.

THEY don't do it themselves. They have it done for them.

However, they
> didn't disclose how they do actually do it, so in
> the absence of correct information, and with an
> extremely salty taste in their product, I still
> consider the above process to play at least some
> part in their procedure."

You are right.

According to William Shurtleif and Akiko Aoyag in their "History of Modern Soy Protein Ingredients (1911-2016), on page 1231 Braggs Amino Acids are made from powdered HVP. Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein starts out by boiling foods in hydroxide and etc., etc.,etc. before being reconstituted with water.

Aminos made with love and care at (no cameras allowed) Staley Mfg. of Decatur, IL.

"A.E. Staley lockout[edit]

On Sunday, June 27, 1993, A.E Staley officials made a decision to lockout the A.E Staley employees, that were members of Allied Industrial Workers of America Union. [11] The lockout incident was the result of nearly a decade of labor disputes between management and Staley’s unionized workers. The decline in pay and wages began in 1985 when A.E. Staley merged with Continental Foods, forming Staley Continental. During the next three years, the union was forced to make concessions as management was concerned about the plant remaining viable. Base pay was frozen at $10.80 per hour and workers complained of long overtime hours and declining safety conditions. After London based Tate & Lyle bought A.E. Staley in 1988, conditions got worse for the factory workers. In 1989, contract negotiations began for a new three-year contract. While the bargaining committee was hoping to end the salary freeze and improving safety standards, the company was ushering in new practices, such as rotating shifts and deskilling of jobs as well as elimination of many safety procedures. In 1991, the company hired a new labor relations director who was known for promoting union busting practices. Workers with years and decades of experience at the plant were fired and new supervisors forced workers to ignore OSHA regulations. A new attendance policy was also instituted and workers were shocked to find out that anyone with over seven absences per year would be fired and the number of allowed absences would decrease every year. A few months later, company management announced a new set of offences that were grounds for immediate termination. This list included “smoking outside of designated areas; loafing; dishonesty; sleeping on duty; insubordination; refusal to work overtime as directed; unauthorized possession of a camera; and use of abusive or threatening language.” This was a gross violation of the union contract, which states that employers cannot fire employees without having the “just cause” to do so. Due to this new regulation, more workers were fired during the next year than had been fired in the previous twenty years combined.

Considering the climate, it was no surprise that continued contract negotiations were unsuccessful. Under the guidance of Jerry Tucker, the union began to organize an in-plant “work to rule” campaign, where workers pressure management to reach a fair campaign by altering their behavior on the job, as opposed to going on strike. At Staley’s, this meant that the workers collectively decided to do only what they were told to do by their supervisor without their past knowledge and experiences. They performed only their outlined job duties and nothing extra. The goal of the work to rule campaign was to show management that the factory could not be run without the knowledge and skills of the workers. In many ways, Staley’s was the perfect environment for this type of labor tactic, as most unionized workers had acquired skills over the years that boosted overall production and quality of the product. Management and new supervisors simply did not have this knowledge and skills to effectively instruct workers. This was evidenced in the fact that over the next 11 moths during which the work to rule campaign occurred, production fell drastically. A Staley spokesperson estimated that production had fallen by 32%, but union estimates were upwards of 50%. [12]

The New York Times reported that the decision resulting in the lockout Staley union employees were due to Staley officials claiming that workers had been sabotaging plant operations for the weeks prior to the lockout. Representatives from the Allied Industrial Workers of America, claimed that there were no reports of any employees being reprimanded for sabotage, going back nine months since the lockout.[13]

The A.E Staley lockout would result in a two and half-year labor movement that would end in 1996. During that period, union workers fought to win back a fair contract, which would eliminate mandatory 12-hour shifts and mandatory overtime, and address safety concerns.[14] The lockout turned into a national labor movement when union workers from two other Decatur based companies, Caterpillar Inc. and Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, walked out on contract disputes in August 1994 and joined lockout workers from A.E Staley in protests, picketing and public demonstrations.[15] The Staley plants were operated at full capacity by the white collar works and the union ended up giving in to company demands."

[en.wikipedia.org]

KFCA, I have a PM to send you once you have space for it.

I think it's OK now. Sorry.

KFCA, I resent it but was told your PM's space was still full but then it said my message had been sent. If it didn't arrive let me know and I'll send it again. Thanks.

I see that Mary MacVean's Los Angeles Times article of March 6, 2015 on Patricia Bragg has now been added to the Wikipedia citations. And that now PB admits she was adopted by Paul Bragg as an adult after her divorce from Robert Elton Bragg in 1957---as I've been saying for a long time. See "Patricia Bragg, a Living Testament to Healthful Habits". No Bragg blood courses through her veins....

BTW, Adult Adoptions can be strange in the few states that allow them, which includes California. I know of an attorney who arranged for adult adoptions for a wealthy client who wanted to leave his small, but very prosperous company, to his two right-hand men who had been with him for years. He didn't however like the idea of The State taking a very large part of his company in inheritance taxes since these two guys were considered "strangers" to him. So the attorney filed for, & got, adoptions for both, so now his client had two "sons", which would greatly reduce the inheritance tax burden later by spending a few hundred dollars on the adoption proceedings now. Makes sense to me, & perfectly legal.

One frequent question I'm been unable to answer is "Where Is Paul Bragg Buried?" in that none of the news stories reporting his death back in 1976, or even after, noted this info. Recently I came across what sounds like an "interview", give or take, with Patricia Bragg from November 2015 having to do with an upcoming Palm Springs International Health & Fitness Festival.

The take-away from this is the sentence that "Palm Springs was so important to them that Paul Ashes Remain there in the hills that overlook the trails that he loved walking every morning." So I guess no burial plot. I have no idea whether any of Paul's children saw him back in Florida post his death before cremation. Forgot to ask my main informant.

See "Meet & Greet With Dr. Patricia Bragg" on-line for that little back-up I have.

We are still reading this thread KFCA, l enjoy all your posts. Thanks for sharing your research.

www.thesproutarian.com

You're very Welcome. Glad I could help.

Looking again at Paul Bragg's 1958 Last Will, I see he left the following instructions: "I hereby direct my executrix or executor [Patricia was named executrix, Security Bank of Los Angeles was successor executor to her] that I be given a simple, private Christian funeral and burial service, for such members of my family as may want to attend, the details of which I leave to be determined by my said adopted daughter, Patricia Pendleton Bragg,".... etc. etc. etc. Whether any of this actually happened, or whether he informally changed his mind in the following years, is unknown. And that's ALL I know on THAT particular subject.

Paul Bragg said to have died at 95 in some publications and at 81 in others.
That is not bad.
Jack LaLanne lived up to 96.
Both were into fitness and daily exercise.

BTW, the history of Live Food Products, Inc. is interesting & seems to be somewhat different from what is commonly believed. My info comes from records of the Secretary of State of California (Business Entities) & Paul Bragg's probate file, from 1977 to 1983, which is a public record in the County of Riverside, California.

According to the California corporate records, Paul Bragg first filed Articles of Incorporation with them for "Live Food Products Co, a California corporation" on April 6, 1951. He was the sole stockholder. Then, according to his probate file, Paul Bragg gifted a 49% interest in said company to Patricia Bragg in 1960, retaining the majority 51% interest in the company. Gift taxes were paid to the State of California, and a Fed Gift Tax Return was filed with the IRS, Los Angeles, re this ownership change in 1964.

Then on September 29, 1971, a "Certificate of Winding Up And Dissolution of Live Food Products Co., a California corporation", was filed with the California Secretary of State, the assets of said company were divided 51%/49% between Paul & Patricia, and said company was no more.

Then in December, 1972 (sorry I can't read the State's stamp for exact day---illegible), "Articles of Incorporation for Live Food Products, Inc."---a company was a similar name, except "Inc." was substituted for "Co.",---was filed with the CA Secretary of State, with a Board of Directors composed of two Los Angeles attorneys & the third being also an attorney or a person on their staff, signing. Bottom line, between September 1971 & December 1972, Live Food Products Co. did not exist.

Then On April 6, 1973, a "Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Live Food Products, Inc.", was filed with California records, mainly to show a change of address for the corporation, but this document also clearly showed that more than three years before Paul Bragg's death in December 1976, Patricia Bragg was already President of said company, her first cousin, Joan Withers, was Corporate Secretary, and apparently Paul Bragg had been out of
the then-current corporate picture since the 1971 Dissolution papers were filed.

My interest in the above was piqued when I noted that Paul's estate assets at his 1976 death included NO shares in any health food company (which it should have IF the widely promulgated story that Patricia Bragg took over Paul's company upon "Dad's" death worked), but only a 51% interest in a valuable parcel of Burbank, CA real property that seemed to be the main asset of that dissolved health food company that he once totally, then partially, owned. And I wondered WHY?

BTW, you too can check on-line the records of the California Secretary of State site as to both the creation (1951) & dissolution (1971) of Paul Bragg's "original" Live Food Products Co., though other info & documents I obtained on my own.

As to the current company, I have no knowledge---I was mainly interested in its "true" history. However I do know that only several years ago its Board of Directors changed the company name to add "Bragg" to its official name.

Comments/corrections to any of the above happily taken...

Yes, 96 & 81 are pretty long lifetimes, especially the former. I do find it amazing that Jack's brother, Norman, lived to age 97---almost like he was determined to outdo Jack by at least one year. From his on-line obit, apparently he had some form of kidney problems which caused his death.

Paul Bragg added an extra 14 years to his age to make himself look more impressive, so he actually died at 81. If you Google his name you can read about the research someone did through the historical records of the time.