The Suze Orman Scamvenger Hunt 1

SCAMMED!

Unmasking Suze Orman and Her Crooked Cabal

From Fraudulent FICO Fables to Corporate Cons, How Suze Orman and Her Crooked Cabal Manipulated the Media, Plundered the Poor, Stole from the Middle Class, and Damaged the United States Economy

An exposé about much more than just Suze Orman

S.K. Janis

Based on the documentary film:

How Suze Orman SCAMMED The World

A Tragedy, Comedy, And IQ Test, all in One

Watch the film and access the multimedia links, Such as (Link 1-3) at:

http://www.amodernquest.com/suzebook1.html

This is a review/gift copy. The physical bookand Kindle e-book, are available on Amazon

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Suze Orman SCAMvenger Hunt 1

1: From Waitress to “Financial Expert”: Orman’s History of Shams and Shenanigans 19

2: Seducing Corporations, Banks and Billionaires 41

3: Trumping Up Her Bank Account With a Gold “Pump and Dump” Scheme 87

4: Distortions of the “Queen Of Crisis”: Damaging the Economy for Personal Gain 121

5: The “Approved” Card Scam And Media Wide Fraud 145

6: Capitalizing On The Financial Illiteracy Of The Poor, Minorities, and the “Occupy” Movement 187

7: The Scam-Ridden Card’s Cover-Up and Demise 225

8: Sociopathology and a Twitter Meltdown 257

9: And The Scams Go On… 347

Introduction: The Suze Orman SCAMvenger Hunt

How many con artists are allowed to blast through the media landscape, telling blatantly false lies and getting some of the top journalists, politicians and media figures in the United States to knowingly or unknowingly lie to the public on their behalf? Harry Markopolos, the whistle-blower who uncovered Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme ten years before the rest of the world learned of the biggest financial crime in history, published his account in the 2010 book, No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller. As you will see from the evidence in this book and the companion documentary film, con artist Suze Orman’s schemes rival Madoff’s in breadth, if not depth. Markopolos explained that he had to step forward about what he could clearly see was an illegal scheme, because no one else, including the Securities Exchange Commission, had shown any interest, even after he alerted them with evidence of what was going on. I know the feeling. One cannot just stand by silently when a shyster is stealing, lying, scamming the public, and causing damage to the United States’ economy. That’s why a nice spiritual author like me has had to take time and energy from more positive projects to alert and educate the world about the “Suze Orman problem.” While Madoff’s scheme stole mostly from the wealthy, Orman’s victims have been poor and middle class citizens who were simply trying to be responsible and learn from a widely proclaimed financial “guru,” “expert,” and “wizard,” who is actually a con artist and actress supported by ghostwriters, behind-the-scenes experts, and some of the most powerful publicists, political lobbyists, damage control specialists, banks, corporations, and media figures of our time, including Oprah Winfrey, who has pushed Suze Orman on the world for nearly twenty years.

Talk about stacking the decks against people who either couldn’t afford a real financial advisor, or who were convinced by Orman to avoid those “crooked advisors” altogether and “look in the mirror” to find their best financial advisor—using her books, kits, and corporate-sponsored deceptive headlines as guides, of course. This book and film offer a stunning study of the kind of dishonest media and political webs that have corrupted our society, fooled the public, rigged the system, and damaged our world. It is truly a lesson for humanity. College courses are welcome to use this material for class studies, including topics involving psychology, media manipulation, and criminal justice. Anyone who wants to read positive takes on Suze Orman can turn to the many articles and press releases crafted by her publicists, echoed by their shills, and repeated by journalists who didn’t undertake enough due diligence to see the obvious and well-documented damage Orman was causing to individuals, our economy, and the fabric of society. Thankfully, much of what bears Suze Orman’s name is produced by behind-the-scenes experts and ghostwriters, so her books and kits do at least offer some useful information and services along with whatever paid endorsements and tainted advice Orman adds into each book and product, depending on who has “paid the piper” that year. I’m sure many would say that watching Suze Orman’s shows and reading her books has helped them to organize their finances. Some may have enjoyed getting their financial advice mixed with a touch of sociopathy, and the entertainment of Orman’s over-the-top shaming, emoting, fear mongering, and overly confident commands.

Can you imagine the state of mind of someone who makes a face like this while advising a fan about whether to buy a laptop computer? 2

Although “financial expert Suze Orman” never took a single finance- related college course and has no current credentials, she’s been in the game long enough have learned about topics such as Roth IRAs and long- term care insurance, mixed with some common sense advice about spending less than you earn, topped off with a few meaningless platitudes she herself doesn’t follow, and a whole lot of scamming. In our book and film, you will see Suze Orman pushing corporate- sponsored infomercials disguised as trustworthy advice, pitching mediocre and downright predatory products with evangelical fervor, selling FICO kit customers’ private information to creditors (based on a successful lawsuit), and running a gold “pump and dump” that decimated the savings of anyone who listened to her passionate advice, while Orman had bought a ton of gold stock before her mediawide “pump,” that she sold on the very day it hit the top.

In our book and film, you will see “financial guru” Suze Orman drumming up scary headlines to create fear and increase her public influence rating, and blasting her snake oil throughout today’s media landscape, with blatantly fraudulent misinformation campaigns, including her “Approved” prepaid debit card scam that that fooled poor and middle class citizens into believing that moving their hard-earned money from banks and credit unions onto Orman’s fee-laden, shoddily run prepaid debit card was going to improve their FICO scores. A financial fraud like Orman’s “Approved” card would have certainly landed any other scammer in prison. Many have been convicted for far less. Therefore, I’ve included abundant examples from that especially ubiquitous, elaborate, and fraudulent campaign in this book and film.

Orman’s endless obfuscations are also a well-documented study of con artistry by a master of the arts. It is my hope that readers and viewers of this book and film will learn to be more savvy in the face of con artists like Suze Orman and other past, current, and future scammers and schemers who cause tremendous damage to many lives and to our world. I invite readers to have your own “Suze Orman SCAMvenger hunt” as you read through her latticeworks of predatory pitches and publicity cover-ups. Once you understand how she works, Suze Orman’s scams, shams, and shenanigans are easy to find in nearly every appearance and headline she generates. In 2014, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo bravely called out Orman and the predatory political lobbyist, media broker, damage control expert, publicity strategist gang that supports her, when Cuomo challenged his colleague John King to stop shilling for the “Orman Cabal.”

To view a video clip of Cuomo’s “Orman Cabal” comment in a bizarre and interesting context that will be explored further in upcoming chapters, go to http://www.amodernquest.com/suzebook1.html, where you can access a list of all links from this book, and click on: Link Intro-1. As much as this book is about problems with Suze Orman herself, it is equally about the problems with a media and political landscape that can turn a narcissistic sociopath’s overconfidence and penchant for lying into extreme public influence and an expert status for which she has neither the personal nor professional credentials, and certainly not the integrity. It would be one thing if Orman was just selling kits on QVC and telling people how to get a Roth IRA, but this financial advisor—who claims to not be a financial advisor when it is convenient—has the ear of top journalists, politicians, and government agencies, including the same Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that should be protecting the public from her scams. Orman has received massive image support from former FDIC chair Sheila Bair and former General Electric CEO Jack Welch and his wife Suzy, who nominated Orman to be named to Time magazine’s list of the one hundred most influential people in the world. Orman has recently been playing kitchee koo with Secretary of Labor Perez, who specifically added a disclaimer into his 2016 financial ruling, stating that Suze Orman is—by name—exempt from his new regulations requiring financial advisors to give advice that is in the best interest of their clients. Orman’s scams have been eagerly hosted by top-notch journalists on nearly every television station, and as you’ll see in our film, she and Senator Elizabeth Warren “like each other, giggle, giggle.” Watching Orman’s shenanigans with Warren was especially disappointing for me and many who have viewed our film. Most of the information I present comes from research on media and social media. I have done my best to only present as fact what is supported with documentation, and welcome notification of any inaccurate information that may have slipped through, so we can make corrections as needed.

Who this book and film are for

This book and film are for all the people who have been defrauded into thinking that Suze Orman was a trustworthy financial expert, including those who were convinced by Oprah and far too many journalists to give Orman their trust, and often their money.

This book and film are also intended for the many who could easily see that Suze Orman was a scammer and had enough sense to turn the channel whenever she came on. When these perceptive folks turned away from Orman’s bad energy and dishonest demeanor, they didn’t see how much public influence this obvious scammer had amassed, and how much damage her schemes were causing to others who were not savvy enough to avoid getting caught in her widely endorsed net of scams. I would also like to ask for some explanation from those entrusted journalists and politicians who have enthusiastically hosted and pushed Orman’s con games for all these years. We may not be able to unravel and stop all the corruption in today’s world, but this logjam could be stopped as easily as not giving Orman and her cabal any more exposure or power. I’m speaking to you, dear Senator, Secretary, and perhaps President Clinton: Should the same “mean girls” lobbyist strategists who helped Suze Orman steal from the poor and middle class of this country be guiding your campaign? Making your main platform that a President Donald Trump would be far worse isn’t good enough, and could lead to that very outcome. You’re better than that. Our country deserves better. As a citizen of this country, I ask you to get rid of the “mean girls” cabal, including Hilary Rosen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Go for integrity. For those who have followed and believed in Suze Orman over the years, I encourage you to read this book and watch the film with an open mind. It’s difficult to find out terrible information about someone you feel has been a friend and guide, and no fun to discover you’ve been conned. I too was charmed and conned by Orman’s well-rehearsed manipulation techniques and false promises into spending two years helping her onto the public stage at a time when she was unpublished, unknown, and deeply in debt. The Suze Orman I knew in the early 1990s was every bit as devious, deceptive, and damaging as she is today, though with a smaller circle of victims on whom to prey. Though I felt foolish for being duped by a con artist, Orman went on to con many other assumedly intelligent and savvy people, including Oprah Winfrey, Arianna Huffington, Tavis Smiley, Michael Moore, Juju Chang, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and far too many others who you will see in our film and this book, knowing or unknowing co-conspirators in Suze Orman’s scams. It has been laziness and forgetfulness of Orman’s previous shams and false headlines that have allowed her to jump from scam to scam with sociopathic glee and almost no scrutiny from journalists or government agencies. Fortunately, today’s media landscape allows a simple author and filmmaker to gather and present this evidence to inform the public and hopefully finally stop these damaging scams. 6

This book explores many facets of the Orman problem, including her lack of education and credentials, and her significant personality aberrations that have resulted in greed-based and often heartless social memes. You will see examples of Orman’s corrupt use of harrowing headlines, deceptive declarations, sales pitches disguised as trustworthy financial advice, and her intentionally and unintentionally bad advice that ruined people’s financial lives and contributed to damaging the economy, while bringing an endless stream of corporate sponsored offers to Orman’s door. That bad advice has included Orman doing big media blasts to confidently and passionately tell people to buy homes just before the bubble burst, to buy stocks just before the stock market crashed, and to buy gold just before gold crashed. Orman’s bad advice came entangled with her “pump and dumps,” corporate kickbacks, FICO fables, and a whole lot of deceptive schemes that have filled Orman’s pockets and the coffers of her wealthy corporate and bank sponsors with millions from the pockets of the poor and middle class for over fifteen years. Orman has made tens, more likely hundreds of millions of dollars from putting her face and corporate-sponsored pitches on a wide assortment of products and books, most of which were primarily created by others. One example is the Money Navigator Newsletter that Orman claimed to be personally writing, before admitting to only putting her face and name on the product after critical press from the Wall Street Journal and an investigation and fine by the SEC brought misfortune to her partner, while teflon Suze Orman once again got of scot free. Orman then lied and said she had nothing to do with the newsletter, even though she had pitched “her” newsletter throughout the media landscape, was still giving it away for free in the new edition of her book, and continued to directly receive all the money that came in from subscribers. More on that Suze saga in Chapter Three. For years, Orman has propagated the incorrectly low official estimate that she is worth thirty-five million dollars. However, you’ll hear Orman in our film boasting about how she paid cash for her five homes, showing off her yacht and luxurious life, and bragging to a classroom of unimpressed low-income, at-risk teenagers that, “Everybody thinks I’m worth fifty million dollars, and they’re way short. I am a seriously, seriously, wealthy woman.” (Link Intro-1a)

Suze Orman’s intentionally and unintentionally bad financial advice has sopped up untold millions from: — Those who followed Orman’s strongly delivered advice to buy stocks just before the stock market crashed. Orman later bragged that she had not made the mistake of following her own advice to buy stocks, and instead had kept her mega-millions in safe municipal bonds. — Homeowners who followed Orman’s emphatic advice to quickly buy a house and lock in a 7% rate, just before the bubble burst and rates fell below 4%. After that, Orman’s advice changed to dictating that people walk away from underwater mortgages and be renters for the rest of their lives (you will hear her say these things in the documentary film). This is one of many ways Orman’s bad advice played a significant role in the severe economic downturn and the devastation of the middle class. (Watch the documentary section about Orman’s role in the housing crisis: Link Intro-1b.)

— Families who moved their retirement savings into gold during Orman’s media-fueled “pump and dump” scheme that she bragged about making a mint on when she withdrew her fortune exactly at the top of the roller coaster she contributed to creating, before the artificially pumped price of gold plummeted, taking with it the retirement accounts of many victims, who were intelligent enough to have earned and saved the money, but not financially savvy enough to know that pseudo-expert Suze Orman’s overly enthusiastic promises that gold was going to soar by November 2012 were not to be trusted. Watch the documentary film section about Orman’s Gold Rush “Pump and Dump” here: Link Intro-2

Obviously, there are bound to be some issues with following any “one size fits all” financial advice. That is especially true when the information is often corporate sponsored advertisements, espoused and disguised as a financial expert’s trustworthy proclamations and commands. Orman also delivered her corrupted advice as though it could be expected to suit everyone’s circumstances, whether a callers’ wishes, hopes, or dreams got “Approved,” or whether almighty Suze decided to shout, “Denied!” (For those who haven’t heard Orman shouting “Denied,” here you go: Link Intro-3.)

More trustworthy financial advice would likely come from the personal financial advisors Orman has regularly decimated as “crooks” and “sheep”—advisors who unlike Orman are credentialed and have taken at least one finance-related college course, and can look at someone’s unique personal circumstances and individual goals, and suggest specialized and specifically geared steps to achieve them.

Media complicity Orman and her handlers have given her various glorified titles, including “personal finance expert of the world” and “financial guru,” which I’m sure Orman herself coined, since she and I have studied with the same spiritual guru. I would like to suggest that a “guru” is intended to designate someone who gathers and presents the most important and essential information about what a student wants to learn, whether spiritual, musical, artistic, scientific, or financial. A corrupt guru is one whose motives are to use their position of trust as a façade to control and plunder rather than to empower and uplift. Orman and her publicists pitched her as a “finance guru” in so many press releases that journalists started to use the term in their headlines. Although most of Orman’s schemes are obvious with the slightest research and effort of observation, only a few in the media have been willing or able to speak up about this Empress's lack of knowledge or integrity. Instead, we’ve seen major journalists knowingly or unknowingly hosting and espousing completely false information on Orman’s behalf, supporting the “Orman cabal” scams like ignorant puppets. One clear example of this troubling alliance that you will see in our documentary film took place on ABC News in 2012. Journalist Juju Chang, while giggling at Orman’s audacious lies about how using her prepaid card might be expected to give users a good FICO score, acted as a veritable snake oil host for Orman’s predatory, deceptively pitched “Approved” prepaid debit card that had 20 fees from $1 to $30, and a whole lot of undisclosed shenanigans that stole money from card users left and right, including lost accounts, improper fee charges, and a $2 fee for every customer service call to Orman’s intentionally incompetent call center in the Philippines by frantic card users trying to access their lost accounts. Nevertheless, Juju Chang falsely pitched Orman’s card to ABC News viewers as a product that would only cost users $3 per month, “with no hidden fees.”

Did Chang not do an ounce of research for her story? Did she not read nearly one hundred articles that had already sprouted to warn readers about Orman’s “Approved” card, with titles such as, “Stay Away from Suze Orman's Approved Prepaid Debit Card,” “Beware of Suze Orman Card!” “Suze Orman’s Prepaid Cards are Part of Immoral Money Scam,” and, “Pre- paid Debit Card: Is Orman's Evil?” Did Chang know she was helping to perpetrate a scam that was going to defraud the poor and middle class?

Orman claims to be neither a financial advisor nor journalist Orman has primarily used her undeserved position of extreme public influence—not to improve people's lives or have a positive effect on the economy or the world—but to fill her coffers with tens of millions of dollars in well paid pseudo advice, covered up by some generally useful, basic financial information. Orman has intentionally generated fear, shame, and anxiety with her angry demeanor and dire predictions, to convince people to give their hard-earned money to her and her corporate sponsors.

One might wonder how someone who plays the role of a financial advisor or journalist could get away with violating the rules of ethics of both those professions as Suze Orman has done time and time again. In a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, “Ad puts adviser's advice in question,” Orman answered that question by claiming to be neither a financial advisor nor a journalist, with therefore no requirement to follow any of the ethics rules of either vocation. What is she then, you might ask? (Link Intro-3a): “I have now become a celebrity,” she said. “Whether the reporters who have bashed me for years want to believe it, Suze Orman has become... somebody that America has embraced.” And, as such, she says she should be held to the same standard as other celebrities who endorse products. Eric Tyson, author of many finance-related “For Dummies” books, is one of the few who spoke up early and often to warn his readers not to fall for this charlatan. In Personal Finance For Dummies, Tyson wrote about Orman under the heading, “Recognizing Fake Financial Gurus.”

On his blog article, “Suze Orman’s Financial Advice and Career,” Tyson offered some helpful insights into her past (Link Intro-3b): I have had a bird's eye view of Suze Orman's “career” as a supposed personal finance “guru” because I was based where she was in the San Francisco Bay Area during most of the 1990s. At that time, I worked as a financial advisor who strictly provided advice on an hourly basis. Orman doesn't make claims to being a rocket scientist and her own website biography states that she was “surprised” to be admitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign “...even though I didn't score well on my SATs,” she says. She actually says in her biography that it took her seven years to complete her degree because she dropped out of school unable to successfully complete the school's language requirement. According to the University of Illinois, she graduated in August of 1977 (at the age of 26) with a bachelor's degree in social welfare… As far back as 1998, Forbes' columnist William Barrett did a review of Orman's background compared with her claims. Barrett found and documented major misrepresentations and falsehoods about her background. At the time of his column, he exposed the fact that while Orman claimed 18 years of work in the financial services industry, she had in fact only 7 years of experience. Orman claims to have been operating a small financial planning practice in the San Francisco Bay Area. Actually, she was selling commission-based products and Barrett actually exposed the fact that her own license to sell such products was expired so she wasn't even doing that legally! Barrett told me in an interview she was selling single premium deferred annuities to laid off workers. So in addition to grossly misrepresenting her credentials and a thin educational and work background in the financial field, she sold inappropriate products (retirement account money is already tax sheltered) to laid off workers so that she could earn hefty commissions. The fear mongering and economic damage done by Orman’s corporate-sponsored histrionics (along with other factors) fed the beast, contributed to crashing the economy, and filled Orman’s voracious pockets and those of her sponsors, as every economic downturn increased her public influence and corporate shilling price. The worse our economy got, the higher price Orman could get for her corporate and bank sponsored “price for advice” shenanigans, with some mostly ghostwritten financial books and products sprinkled on top to bolster the façade and distract from the scams she was running.

As Orman herself often likes to say about how she got the idea to go into the financial business, “I thought, ‘I know, I can be a broker, because they just make you broker.’” What do you think that means, all you journalists and media outlets that have hosted this statement, and the millions who have heard Orman say it once, twenty, or a hundred times? She decided to become a broker to make people broker, and that’s what she did, first selling inappropriate products to a few clients, and eventually to millions; making a whole lot of people broker with her intentionally and unintentionally bad advice. Orman and her political lobbyist PR team frequently blasted out fear- mongering headlines and memes that kept her in the news, such as her widely proclaimed mantra, “The American Dream is Dead!”

For years, Suze Orman was unavoidable in television and print media, to the point where many complained about her extreme overexposure. Articles called her “the ubiquitous Suze Orman,” and journalists marveled at all the schemes she was able to run at the same time. Yet, no matter how questionable the shams Orman and her partners were pushing, the public heard barely a peep of warning from journalists who were apparently too afraid of stepping on the toes of Oprah Winfrey and Orman’s other powerful protectors to speak up about troubling issues that must have been obvious to many journalists. One disappointing example of journalistic complicity came when Tavis Smiley pushed Orman’s predatory prepaid debit card right in the middle of a poverty conference and at the prestigious National Press Club, where Smiley declared his undying support for Orman’s shenanigans, saying, “I am here now, as I have always been and always will be, by Suze’s side and behind Suze to support her in all of her endeavors.” Really, Tavis? How many of Orman’s other “endeavors” have you supported, because most of Orman’s endeavors are predatory scams and shams. Watch a shocking clip from Tavis Smiley’s “Approved” prepaid debit card infomercial at the National Press Club here: Link Intro-4

Such unabashed loyalty toward Orman has been especially intriguing to see when nearly all of the people I've spoken with about this matter over the years could see that something was seriously wrong with Suze Orman. Most have used the exact same words, saying they “change the channel whenever she comes on.” These responses showed me that many others could see the problem, but because they were turning channels to avoid her deceptive mannerisms, abrasive voice, and bad energy, these people missed the scams she was running that they could have warned others to avoid. Most had no idea that Suze Orman had any significant influence in the world— they certainly didn’t know that Time magazine had named Orman as one of the 100 most influential people in the world (Link Intro-5), or that Forbes had declared Suze Orman as the ninth most influential celebrity in the world. (Link Intro-6) Most of the people I’ve discussed Orman with had no idea that millions of fellow Americans not only watch this shyster to learn some basic financial information while being entertained by Orman’s emotive expressions, but that millions of poor and middle class citizens were making some of their most important family and life decisions, and investing their hard-earned money, based on Orman’s profit-motivated infomercials that she disguised as insightful financial expert wisdom. You can see another interesting example in this next clip, where George Stephanopoulos doesn't seem too thrilled to be playing host to Orman spreading her prepaid debit card scam on Good Morning America. Stephanopoulos seems almost fearful about asking proper questions, letting Orman’s histrionics and obvious deceptions go on without properly calling her out. (Link Intro-6a) Beyond wanting this book to be interesting and educational, I hope it will inspire second thoughts for the many news and other media figures who have knowingly or unknowingly given Orman pass after pass for her shenanigans while pushing her onto the public stage as a bonafide financial “expert,” “wizard,” and “guru,” in spite of the fact that her only college education was a B.A. in Social work that she took many extra years to get. In fact, Orman loves to brag that she never got even one grade above a “C” in any of her classes while pursuing that bachelor’s degree in social work. She wears her lack of credentials as a badge of honor to show what an amazing con artist she must be to scam her way into a completely undeserved position of respect, power, and public trust. Watch a clip of Orman bragging about her lack of credentials: Link Intro-7 14

Obviously, Orman has enough intelligence to have learned basic financial information over the years, and much more “scamtelligence” to arrange all the webs of deception she has run on the American public for the past fifteen-plus years. As for the question of who has been writing Orman's books, you can find one clue in this article from Woman’s Wear Daily about how thrilled Orman’s agent was, in the mid 1990s, to find an easily manipulated “author” figurehead with hypnotic eyes who knew she couldn’t write: (Link Intro-8) One day, at a friend’s suggestion, Orman went to see Binky Urban, ICM’s legendary book agent. “I didn’t want to see her and she didn’t want to see me,” says Orman. “She didn’t need a financial author and I didn’t see why I needed a [new] book agent. Especially with a name like Binky. So I go into Binky’s office in jeans because I didn’t care about it. She had her back turned and was talking to somebody on the phone and she said, ‘Well, you can just go tell that person to go f–k themselves.’ And I thought, ‘That is a great woman.’ Then she turned around, looked at me, and said, ‘Kid, those eyes of yours will make us millions of dollars but you’ve gotta lose 30 pounds.’ And I said, ‘OK. Done.’” “She looks fantastic now,” says Urban, who had no trouble auctioning Orman’s second book. “The bidding was going up and up and up,” says Orman, “I said, ‘Stop the bidding, Binky. I can’t take it anymore. Somebody’s going to pay me $800,000 to write a book. I can’t write. I’m a finance person.’” She continues: “I told Chip Gibson [then the head of Crown Publishing], ‘Sir, before I sign this contract I have two things to tell you. Number one: I don’t know how to write. So I don’t want you giving me $800,000 to write. And number two: Are you aware that I’m a lesbian?” As it happens, neither turned out to be roadblocks. For one, Orman was a personal finance expert, not a movie star. And for another, Gibson says, “We weren’t hiring Suze to win the Nobel Prize in literature.” Urban seconds that. “I just thought, ‘Great. Finally an author who knows she can’t write.’” “Finally an author who knows she can’t write” is quite a clue into how the wider Orman façade of ghostwriters and behind-the-scenes experts began. The same article also describes Orman’s fear and shame-based platform:

Suze Orman is in a television studio chewing out America. In three hours of satellite appearances, she has scolded the residents of nearly every major city in the United States about what they’re doing wrong — in her estimation, more or less everything. She has castigated the people of Hartford for eating out too much: “You have got to cut back like you have never cut back before.” She has told folks in San Antonio that unemployment is going up, up, up, and that credit card debt is going to bring them down, down, down: “You can’t say the word hope and 2009 in the same sentence.” And as for the population of Phoenix, they might as well start stockpiling the food, because, “The economy is beyond help.” Each time she does an interview, her sentences become increasingly staccato, her warnings more ominous. “If. You. Don’t. Face. Your. Debt. In. The. Mirror. You. Are. Going. To. Be. In. So. Much. Trouble.” Mommy still loves us, but we have been bad little kiddies and She. Has. Got. To. Tell. Us. You’d think all this doom and gloom might not go down so well at a time when there is more than enough doom and gloom to go around. But make no mistake about it — the global economic meltdown has been fantastic for television’s ubiquitous money lady and her brand of perpetual disapproval.

One of Orman’s business partners told me she would call him to ask what she should say the next day on an interview or in social media. This actual expert described how incredulous he would be to hear Orman confidently espousing his advice as though it were her own. Eric Tyson, author of books including, Personal Finance For Dummies, Investing For Dummies, Mutual Funds For Dummies, and Real Estate Investing For Dummies, pointed out another correlation between Orman and Madoff: As with Bernie Madoff, for many years, there have been major concerns raised about Suze Orman's representations and stated background which have largely been ignored and kept underground.” The information presented in this book and film should at minimum give pause to the millions who have simply trusted that today's popular media figures who have pitched Orman as a trustworthy advisor have done so after undertaking proper background and other checks regarding the supposed expert they have presented as being credentialed and trustworthy.

It is time for victims of Orman's “Approved” card scam, gold rush “pump and dump,” and other schemes to receive restitution, and for government agencies entrusted with protecting the public good to bring justice, stop the damage, and properly investigate the mechanisms that allowed Orman and her cabal to use our media landscape to distort the economy and funnel money to corporations, banks, and the one percent, from the pockets of poor and middle class citizens. Not only should the victims of Orman's “Approved” card, “gold rush,” and other scams be reimbursed for their losses, but every United States citizen deserves to be part of a class action against Suze Orman and those who have pumped up her undeserved extreme influence such that Time and Forbes magazines have honored Orman as one of the top one hundred most influential people, and the ninth most influential celebrity in the world, respectively. Some who have enjoyed my more positive works might wonder how a nice spiritual author and filmmaker like me became obliged to produce a book and film like this. The answer is that I couldn’t sit back without at least trying to stop the serious damage I saw Orman perpetrating upon the public, year after year. The price we have all paid for allowing a con artist to be elevated into a position of extreme public influence should become clear as you read through the webs of deceptive shenanigans I’ve gathered in this book and the adjacent film. If one Suze scam doesn’t convince you, just turn the page to find plenty more. One of Orman’s recent business partners told me that all the information I’ve gathered is still the tip of the iceberg of her troubling nature and actions, and I’m sure that is the case. This partner said he was planning to write his own Suze Orman book that would include some emails from her that would shock the public and prove her fraud. He told me Orman’s lawyer had been calling him practically every day at one point, trying to pay him off to sign one of Orman’s ironclad confidentiality agreements that have kept many others from telling what they know. Hopefully my book and film will open the door for more information to come forth, for justice and restitution to take place, for the media and government agencies entrusted with protecting the public good to be more honest, fair and vigilant, and for the public to become educated so they won’t be as easily swept away by the emotings and pretenses of every predatory con artist who comes down the pike. I look forward to a day when Suze Orman and the cabal that supports her are gone from the public consciousness, so our country and world can move forward with a more conscious, more honest, and less abrasive approach to finances, politics, and life choices—one that includes intelligence, kindness, and respect for each other and for ourselves. 17

Chapter One From Waitress to “Financial Expert” Orman’s History of Shams and Shenanigans

“I thought, I know, I can be a broker. They just make you broker.” —Suze Orman (in many talks and interviews)

Studying Suze Orman's path to extreme fame and fortune as an example of success might be inspiring for someone who is looking to climb to the top at any cost, even if it would mean ruining the lives of many people and damaging the United States economy. For those who are not interested in being con artists in training, there are still important lessons to be gleaned from Orman’s back-story. For the sake of the well being of society, it is educational and beneficial to look at how someone with neither education nor ethics managed to con her way into being declared a “trusted financial advisor” by some of the biggest names in today’s news and media. This con artist actually has the clout to direct and distort large streams of income, and has used that power to move money from the poor and middle class into her own pockets and those of the many corporations and banks with whom she has forged often-predatory partnerships. Orman’s thieving nature didn’t just suddenly appear when she stole from millions who were not financially savvy enough to see through her twisted labyrinths of words enough to avoid entering her prepaid card’s minefield of fees and a long list of other schemes that could at minimum be called shady and low integrity, but in reality were closer to corrupt, fraudulent, and criminal. Just as Orman used her prepaid card scam to steal money directly from the pocketbooks of United States citizens, so young Suze Orman stole money on a regular basis from her struggling father’s wallet, beginning at age eight. Orman described her youthful thievery on Hay House’s webpage: (Link 1-1) Orman: When I was about eight years old, I asked my mother for a dollar to go to the swimming pool with friends. My mother said, “Suze, I’m sorry. We don’t have a dollar to give you right now, but don’t tell your friends because if they find out they’re not going to like you any more.”

That very night I began to take money from my father’s wallet—$1 or $2 or $5. I took the money, and rather than spend it on myself, I would buy my friends gifts—a comic book, candy, a taffy apple. I did it because I wanted them to like me. And I continued to do that until I was 20 or 30 years old—not stealing money from my father but stealing from myself— taking friends out to lunch or dinner and charging it on my credit card even though I didn’t have the money to pay for it. Buying birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, and Hanukah gifts for them even though I didn’t have the money.

While Orman tried to paint her thievery as having an altruistic goal of giving to others, her future behavior of holding on to her millions so tight as to not want to even hire or pay people for serving her bottom line, and her history of indulging in extravagant luxuries even while borrowing money from friends and refusing to pay that money back according to their agreed-upon schedule, casts doubt on that altruistic claim.

A Business Journal article points out whom it was that young Suze Orman was stealing from: (Link 1-2) Orman grew up in Chicago with a father who ran a poultry shop and a mother who was a secretary. “Daddy was a failed man,” she says. “He had a curse on his head. He succeeded as a businessman, then his [shop] burned down.” What effect did being poor have on her? “I learned that money was the key to happiness. That's what I learned.”

Orman’s big revelation that the main thing she learned was, “Money is the key to happiness,” is the kind of distorted thinking that would make her regularly compromise her integrity to get more of that all-important money. Her obsession was also behind Orman’s “Courage to be Rich at any cost” meme that has distorted society’s views about money and created a more greed and miserly-based world.

Here are some additional details about Orman’s early years from the New York Times: (Link 1-3) Ms. Orman grew up on the South Side of Chicago. Her father had a store where he killed, plucked and sold chickens. And Ms. Orman, along with two older brothers, helped out. She remembers riding to school in his truck. “He would put his foot on the brake and the blood of the dead chickens would slosh forward and he would tell me to pick up my feet,” she said. “He had this smell about him because he worked with the chickens. And I would have to jump down from this truck and go to school.”

This photo was taken during the years when Orman first indulged her thief archetype by regularly stealing money from the wallet of her father, a poor deli owner on the South Side of Chicago. Orman’s relationship with her father seems to be the one in which she learned to say, “Yes Sir,” and be overly obedient to those in power who might want to use her charms to pluck and kill some chickens, or to be a good foot soldier for CEOs of corporations and banks who might like to use Orman’s Oprah-bestowed clout to scam and pluck some retirement accounts and life dreams. Many times, I saw pre-famous Suze Orman behave in this overly obedient way to people she perceived as powerful. She even did it to me when she was still conning me to help her onto the public stage.

One of Orman’s favorite things was when I’d correct her about some spiritual or philosophical idea or fact she’d put forth, saying, “It’s not like that.” Orman would squeal with glee, repeating, “It’s not like that; I love that,” in the baby talk voice she would use almost exclusively while speaking with some of her friends. Pre-famous Suze Orman and her lawyer friend would literally speak as though they were toddlers, which gives some insight into her approach to power and fame as a child’s and “mean girls” game. I hadn’t heard this kind of baby talk communication style before, and wondered if it might have some therapeutic effect, based on my earlier studies of psychological approaches that regress patients back into early childhood behaviors to help them re-access and learn stage-specific developments they may have missed. We’ll get more into Orman’s behavioral issues in Chapter Eight, but one sign of a sociopath is that, “The sociopath usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet ‘gets by’ by conning others.” Regarding academic difficulties, Orman has detailed some of her history of academic failings in her biography: In grammar school on the South Side of Chicago, I had to take reading exams, and would always score among the lowest in the class. One year a teacher decided that he would seat us according to our reading scores. There were my three best friends in the first three seats of the first row, while I was banished to the last seat in the sixth row. If I always secretly felt dumb, it was now officially confirmed for everyone to see. Talk about feeling ashamed. This feeling that I couldn’t make it scholastically continued to haunt me throughout high school and on into college. I knew I would never amount to anything, so why even bother to try? Nevertheless, in my family and in the families of my friends, it was a given that we’d all go to college. In my case, I knew that I would have to pay for college myself, because my parents were having a hard time with money. The only options for me were community college or a state school. I applied to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and to my amazement, even though I did not score well on my SATs, I was accepted. When I arrived, I met with a guidance counselor who asked me what I wanted to study. I told him that I wanted to become a brain surgeon. He looked at my grades and said, “I don’t think so. You don’t have what it takes. Why not try something easier?” I did a little investigation and found out that the easiest major was social work, so I signed up for that. Why not take the easy way out? Why try harder?

…I was supposed to graduate in 1973, but my degree was withheld because I hadn’t fulfilled the language requirement. Once again, it was the shame of my grade-school years holding me back. If I had trouble with English, what made me think I could learn a foreign language? I decided to leave school without my degree. I wanted to see America. I wanted to see what a hill looked like… a mountain … the Grand Canyon! I borrowed $1,500 from my brother to buy a Ford Econoline van and, with the help of my friend Mary Corlin (a great friend to this day), converted the van into a place I could sleep during the drive across country. I convinced three friends—Laurie, Sherry, and Vicky—to come with me; I was way too scared to try this on my own. With $300 and a converted van to my name, we set out to see America. For years, Orman has turned those two months of youthful camping fun in a van with friends into a Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story by claiming she was once “homeless and living out of a van.” In our documentary film, you’ll also see pre-famous Suze Orman lying to a group of retirees, telling them she has a master’s degree in social work and geriatrics, and has worked with older people for most of her life. (Watch the clip in our documentary film: Link 1-4) After moving to San Francisco, Orman worked at the Buttercup Bakery, where she claims to have never received a single raise in seven years, earning only four hundred dollars a month, which works out to less than two dollars and fifty cents an hour. With Orman’s history of lying about the facts of her life, this sounds doubtful. Even if her claim is true, you can be sure she was raking in big bucks by using her charm to get tips and implementing Orman-style con artist schemes like the one this Buttercup Bakery customer recounts in a comment on our YouTube film:

Note how the con game Blanca describes resembles some elements of Orman’s later ploys, such as the “Approved” card scam that also sold people something they didn’t need for a lot more money than they expected to pay. Orman worked as a waitress for many years, before “inspiring,” or more likely conning her Buttercup Bakery customers into loaning her fifty thousand dollars with no interest or due date, just as she has conned many (including moi) into giving and loaning her resources, using her palette of well-honed manipulative tactics, including extreme flattery, extravagant promises, and woeful begging. In this case, it was woeful begging. Orman says that she had phoned her parents to ask if they would loan her twenty thousand dollars to open her own restaurant, even though she knew they didn’t have anywhere near that kind of money. Then she went back to the Buttercup Bakery, where customers were used to her chipper charming smiles, and started to noticeably mope around, looking sad and depressed. From Orman’s bio: The next day at work, a man I had been waiting on for six years, Fred Hasbrook, noticed that I wasn’t my usual cheerful self. “What’s wrong, sunshine? You don’t look happy,” he said. I told Fred about having asked my parents for a $20,000 loan. Fred ate his breakfast and then talked to some of the other customers I’d been waiting on all those years. Before he left the restaurant, he came up to the counter and handed me a personal check for $2,000, a bunch of other checks and commitments from the other customers that totaled $50,000. Con artist gold! After convincing her restaurant customers to give her a loan with no interest or due date, Orman’s Merrill Lynch broker lost much of the fifty thousand dollars, after she probably begged him to generate as much as he could from it. Knowing Suze Orman, she most likely pushed him to put her money into risky investments against his better judgment, because Suze Orman thinks she has magical powers— and based on her ability to scam the world, maybe she does. Although Orman’s story gets fuzzy in places, it appears that she threatened to sue Merrill Lynch for losing her money, but then ended up negotiating a deal where Merrill Lynch would instead give her some free financial training and a six-month position that would bring her a 400% raise in income from her waitress job. It’s at this point in the narrative that Orman likes to use her oft- repeated line, “I thought, I know! I can be a broker, ‘cause they just make you broker.”

Orman has shared this same story and quote in most talks and interviews for the past fifteen years, but I’ve yet to hear anyone question what it even means, and why making people broker would be her motivation to go into the financial services industry. Orman has explained that Merrill Lynch only hired her because they had to fill the new women’s quotas laws at that time, which were causing Merrill Lynch a lot of headaches, given an almost total lack of female stockbrokers at that time. That’s why when this woman with zero financial education or experience showed up at their door, the receptionist ushered this waitress into the manager’s office. The manager told Orman he was going to hire her for only six months to fulfill their quota, and after that, she would be fired. Orman agreed to those terms, but of course found a way to scam them too.

During her stint at Merrill Lynch as a barely trained stockbroker, Orman used her deception skills to fake it, and became known for choosing stocks for clients using a crystal pendulum. (Click here to see Orman laugh about giving advice to clients without having any idea what she was doing: Link 1-5) Due to her well-proven skills of boldness and persuasiveness, Orman surprised Merrill Lynch by bringing in many people she’d meet around town as new clients. These were often lower income workers who had not previously considered investing in stocks, and perhaps some who should not have been doing so, but that mattered not to Orman, who was going to prove herself at all costs. Just before her six-month employment was about to end, Orman sneakily sued Merrill Lynch, creating a situation where they couldn't legally fire her, as the case sat for the next two years. You can hear Orman gleefully share this story and brag about scamming Merrill Lynch in this clip from a talk at the National Council of La Raza convention. (Link 1-6 ) “So I did the only thing I knew what to do back at that time, and I sued Merrill Lynch while I was working for them…’cause I sued them, they couldn’t fire me.” Eventually, another manager came to the branch and apparently realized it was worth it for them to pay Orman her the original $50,000 investment plus 18% interest to get rid of her.

After Merrill Lynch, Orman was hired by Prudential-Bache—she has said it was again because they had those new woman’s quotas to fill, with almost no women in the field to fill them. Orman had at least managed to get a simple broker’s license while working at Merrill Lynch, and because Prudential was so desperate to fill their quota, she talked them into giving her a title of “vice president.” What else could they do? Then came more shenanigans that Orman doesn't include in her oft- told narrative, including conning various financial and political expert devotees of our mutual spiritual path, and convincing me with extravagant false promises to use my Hollywood colleagues to get Orman booked on her first two television shows and to produce, film, and edit the deceptive video that helped Suze Orman get a first book deal after her book proposal had already been turned down by over thirty publishers. Mea culpa. From the beginning and throughout our two-year association, red flags about Orman’s troubling behaviors were waving all over the place, with alarms blaring, but I was too naïve and “nice” to deal with them properly. I had just moved to Los Angeles after nearly a decade of monastic ashram life, where I had produced and edited hundreds of videos about spiritual wisdom and practices for a worldwide spiritual community. In fact, it was the ashram foundation that had phoned to ask me to produce a video for their worldwide retreat, specifically requesting that I work with a woman devotee in Oakland California who had no filmmaking experience, but would be able to help arrange the logistics. By the time Suze Orman and I met, I was two years out of the ashram, with a bright, Hollywood career already in bloom, having worked at Disney, Paramount, FOX, and CBS. I’d helped Charlie Rose come up with the idea for his PBS show, edited one of the last “Candid Camera” specials with Alan Funt in his house, and was about to win many local, national, and international awards for my television news editing. Orman saw that I had media contacts, award-winning video skills, access to studio equipment, and spiritual-based counseling and coaching abilities that gave me an opportunity to help many famous and non- famous people achieve greater success. She knew I could help her get what she wanted, and used all her well-polished manipulation skills to sink her claws in, knowing I had no choice but to keep things friendly enough to work together on what was a wonderful and positive video project to do for our mutual spiritual community. Orman was already proficient in taking advantage of the trusting ashram devotees and, unbeknownst to me, had a reputation around the local community as a cheat. Orman later told me that she had previously

been asked by the ashram head to leave the women devotees alone, due to numerous complaints they had received about her predatory behaviors. In the next link, you can watch Suze Orman tell Anderson Cooper about her ruthless climb, explaining: “I didn't care what other people thought, because I knew what I wanted and I was going to go after it at all costs, I got what I wanted.” (Link 1-7) She certainly did get what she wanted, and the costs of Orman’s ruthless ambition for many individuals and the world have been severe. At the time, I thought I was assisting Orman to publish a book that was going to help people, titled, You’ve Earned It, Don’t Lose It. Little did I know that the title really should have been, You’ve Earned It, Now Lose It to Me, by Suze Orman. Orman also used another of her common tactics of manipulation by lavishing praise on me. She would tell me over and over that I was the most brilliant woman she had ever known. I wasn’t one to be easily swept away by praise, but the high esteem Orman showed gave me some confidence in her frequent reminders that the first money that came in from the book would be used to repay me with a one hundred and fifty thousand dollar video editing system, and her oft-repeated promise that, “If this book takes off, I’ll take care of you for the rest of your life.” Based on her deplorable subsequent actions, she must have meant “take care of you” in a mafiaesque way. On the very week that her book was completed and at the printer being published, Orman ran one of her scams on me that began with her behaving more abusively than usual and ended with her taking an actual, official vow to never speak to me again, because I had commented on her abusive behavior. How convenient! That was Orman’s way of escaping from keeping her word and paying her debt, so she could move on to con her next victims. She never even bothered to send me a copy of the published book. From Wikipedia: A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence game, confidence scheme, scam and stratagem) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, used in the classical sense of trust. Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed.

Although it was disappointing to have Orman callously steal from me after two years of helping to start her writing and public speaking career, I wasn’t going to let her theft distract me from moving on with my life. Some have asked why I didn’t take legal action against Orman to get what had been promised, but that was not my way. Orman specifically targets people who won’t fight back for one reason or another, and who don’t know to get all promised repayments in writing. At least one person I know of whom Orman used to expand her career did receive compensation through a legal arbitration that surely included signing one of Orman’s ironclad confidentiality agreements. When this woman and I met several years later, we joked that we should have at least gotten “I survived Suze Orman” t-shirts. Even though I had paid all production expenses for the promotional video I produced, filmed, scripted, and edited that helped Orman get that first book deal, including taking a day off from my job plus airplane fare to fly up north for a day to film her presentation, I wasn’t even going to go after Orman for reimbursement. It was a bitter lesson, but I really just wanted this sociopath out of my life. It was well worth the six-figure loss to be free of Suze Orman’s clutches. Another reason I didn’t worry too much about going after Orman for the promised pay was because I was still fresh out of nearly a decade of monastic life, where I’d offered my work as service. The freedom from greed in that lifestyle made it easier for me to let go of the stolen money and stay focused on my television career, which by that time involved editing and producing many more shows, including X-Men and The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers. Nevertheless, Suze Orman couldn’t just steal from someone without giving some extra kicks at the end. After taking a vow to never speak to me again, Orman spent years using her cronies to destroy my reputation in our worldwide mutual spiritual community, just as I was told she had done to another devotee of the path, Cynthia Oti, the main person who helped to spark Orman’s financial career before I came into the picture. Oti was a successful stockbroker and host of a popular San Francisco radio show called “Financial Fitness.” From what Orman told me at the time, Oti had helped to educate her about finances, and helped to build Orman’s initial financial platform. Oti also gave Orman her first experiences of being on radio, just as I got Orman booked on her first two television shows. We both also helped with various aspects of Orman’s first book.

After thanking Cynthia Oti in the short list of acknowledgments of her first book, Orman caused serious damage to Cynthia's life, just as she would subsequently do to the lives of many others after using them to spark and expand her career. One of Oti’s friends, a respected church minister and government agency head, told me about some of the troubles Orman had caused for his friend Cynthia Oti, adding regarding Orman, “She has damaged so many lives.” This mutual minister friend told me that one of the ways Orman caused harm to the woman who had seriously helped to begin her career was to start a false rumor campaign about Oti in our mutual spiritual community, just as she did to me. Years later, after Cynthia Oti died in the plane crash of Alaska Airlines Flight 261, Orman got one last kick in by denigrating her memory on CNBC.

On that despicable episode of “The Suze Orman Show” on CNBC, Orman was pressuring a guest whose ex-fiancé had committed suicide, encouraging her to say that she felt relieved he was gone. Orman then described her experience of Cynthia's death, saying, “I didn't feel bad about it, and everybody was saying to me, 'Suze Orman, what is the matter with you?' And I was like, ‘What do you want me to do? I didn't like the person! The person screwed me over! Why should I like this person — I don't care, that's their problem.’” See it for yourself, with the worst part at the end of this clip: Link 1-8 That is how Orman spoke about a woman who seriously helped create her success. I saw this CNBC clip at a time when I would occasionally record Orman's shows out of curiosity, because she would so often use the forum to publicly insult and trash her ex-lovers and ex- friends (here is one more example: Link 1-9). In a sense, this presentation, though primarily intended to help protect individuals, the economy, and society from more damage, is also an offering on behalf of Cynthia Oti's memory.

At the time Orman and I met in the early 1990s, Oti was still helping her, and Orman was borrowing massive amounts of money from friends and ex-girlfriends. Soon after we met, I was present as Orman argued on a phone call with a wealthy ex-girlfriend who had loaned her fifty thousand dollars. Orman was arguing that she was not able to pay the money back according to their agreed-upon schedule. Yet, at the same time that she was claiming to be unable to repay the borrowed money from this friend and others, Orman was spending huge sums of that borrowed money on a long list of ongoing extravagant and unnecessary luxuries, including leasing a BMW, getting weekly maid service at $70 a pop, going for frequent visits to salons for hair frostings, manicures, pedicures, massages, and waxings, purchasing expensive clothes and jewelry, and eating out in expensive restaurants, sometimes several times a day. Suze Orman has never followed the advice she gives, and like most narcissistic sociopaths, thinks she is better and inherently deserves more than other people. The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) describes that characterizing symptom of narcissistic personality disorder in this way: “Has a grandiose feeling of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements, talents, overestimates abilities, expects to be treated as special and recognized as superior)…Believes that he or she is “special,” different & unique and can not be understood by “regular” people…Has a sense of entitlement, unreasonable expectations, expects others to comply with his/her expectations and becomes furious and puzzled if it doesn’t happen, always expects special treatment…Shows arrogant, patronizing attitudes, overconfident & everknowing behaviors...expects others to bend their backs to help him/her achieve their goals; manipulates and takes advantage, is very likely to enter relationships for the sole purpose of achieving his/her goals or fulfilling their personal selfish needs.” The only reason Orman got out of her extreme debt in the early 1990s was because PG&E paid her huge sums of money to give some retirement seminars and meetings to encourage their older employees to go through an early retirement process, which I’m guessing was not necessarily something that was going to be beneficial to all those early retirees, based on the extremely high amount of money they were paying barely credentialed Suze Orman to convince their employees to do what the corporation wanted them to do. Orman got that job in part through my efforts of getting her on her first two television shows, which gave her the prestige of a false but impressive media presence. (Watch an unedited clip of Orman’s first interview in the newsroom of one of the news stations where I was working at the time: Link 1-10)

Orman spoke about her PG&E windfall in this interview with the New York Times Magazine – (Link 1-11): “As soon as I started to tell the truth, and everyone knew what the situation was”(that she was $250,000 in debt) “the phone rings and it’s Pacific Gas and Electric having another early retirement.” The company hired Orman to advise its employees, and “in one month I got a check for $250,000 and went, ‘Oh, my God,’ and paid off all my debt. I started getting checks like that again, and my whole life turned around.” I can assure you from personal experience that even though Orman claims in this quote that she had “started to tell the truth,” it was like Jodi Arias saying she had finally started to tell the truth about how her boyfriend was really murdered by two ninjas. At the time she claims to have started telling the truth, Orman was weaving her usual webs of lies, including having me continue to pay for all the expenses to create her video, even though she’d received this secret $250,000 windfall that she never told me about, while using my much smaller resources to produce the video that got Orman her first book deal. This is another frequent pattern I’ve heard about from other Orman associates and victims, getting them to spend a lot of money, skills, time and resources to create products that are really meant to benefit Orman, with grand promises of repayment and extravagant benefits that would supposedly be coming to the person she was conning. Eventually Orman would start invoking Oprah Winfrey’s name to promise false repayments, including lying about having the power to get her partners’ products on the coveted list of “Oprah’s Favorite Things.” From what I’ve heard and read,Orman’s usual deal is for her business partners to pay all the money and create the products. In exchange for them being able to use her name and face and have Orman’s extreme influence pitching their products, Orman would get fifty percent of the gross proceeds. Assuming Orman had a similar deal in her subsequent association with Fair Isaac Corporation, that would translate into tens of millions of dollars or more going to Suze Orman just for telling people over and over again that their FICO scores were the most important things in their financial lives. Click here to watch Orman’s self-described, “FICO frenzy”: Link 1-12. More on Orman’s deal with Fair Isaac in Chapter two. I’m sure one of the most difficult things for Suze Orman is to not brag too much publicly about how much money she has really made by conning the world, although she has enjoyed sharing many videos of herself laughing while yachting around the Cayman Islands that are known for offshore accounts.

In fact, Orman’s main publicity strategist is known for helping corporations move their accounts to the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

In our film, you’ll see Orman brag about having way more than fifty million dollars, but as much as she would love to brag about the real amount, she usually gives the relatively low figure of thirty-five million, to not draw attention that might bring about justice. Perhaps this book and film will make Orman proud in a narcissistic sociopathic way, as millions who were fooled by her cons wake up and realize they’ve been outsmarted by someone who loves to brag that she never got above a grade of “C” in any college course, and who would barely be able to write even a proper essay on her own, much less many bestselling books. I wouldn’t be surprised if Orman would prefer to go down in history as a gangster who fooled many of the most trusted journalist, media, and political figures in today’s world, than to be remembered as a sometimes- useful financial advisor. “Scarface Orman”

In the early 1990s, Orman and I had discussed her desire to write a book during our many hours of conversation. She found a ghostwriter who was also an agent, Linda Mead, who agreed to write Orman’s first book, with some input and stories from Orman and Mead’s own financial knowledge and writing experience. Soon after, Orman needed something bigger from me. More than thirty publishers had already turned down their book proposal, and there was one top-notch publisher they hadn’t yet approached, Newmarket Press, a small but prestigious publisher who specialized in marketing their authors. Newmarket Press would only consider authors who already had a strong media presence, but Orman had none. That’s when she asked me to help with my Hollywood contacts and award-winning skills, conning me with all those promises of extravagant repayments. Even though I would rarely request such favors even to further my own career, with Orman’s prodding, I asked favors from television producer colleagues in different Hollywood studios to get Orman booked on her first two television appearances. I ended up producing, filming, scripting and editing a professional video presentation of Suze Orman that projected a deceptive image of her financial knowledge and media experience. I can’t claim to have had no idea that we were fudging things a bit, but Suze Orman is an absolute expert in getting good people to push the boundaries of their usual borders of honesty and integrity to help her get what she wants. I have certainly paid a serious price for that lapse of judgment. Once Newmarket gave Orman her first book deal, I continued to give more assistance toward Orman’s quest to be a published author and speaker, including copyediting, coaching, and requesting endorsements from prominent friends. During our production of the video that got Orman her first book deal, I flew up to San Francisco for the day to film Orman's PG&E presentation—on my dime, since Orman had hidden from me how much money she was making, and claimed to still be in debt. Since she was promising lavish amounts of her money from the published book, I ended up being one of now millions of people who have lost a lot by investing in Orman’s worthless promises and supporting her deceptive schemes. Orman’s job was to give the retirees a presentation of whatever information PG&E wanted her to give, and to also give personalized consultations to those who were going to take the early retirement package.

It was an early version of Orman's “price for advice” schemes that would eventually draw a long list of corporations to make use of her willingness to shill and deceive, with passion. As I recall, part of Orman's deal with PG&E was that she couldn't bill the retirees for their personal consultations, because those consultations were meant to be covered by all those big checks PG&E was sending her way. PG&E had allowed that if retirees wanted to give Orman a tip on top, that would be allowed, as long as she didn't bill them. So, during the presentation, Orman told these PG&E early retirees that she wouldn't charge them a specific fee for the consultations, without telling them that PG&E was already paying her for them. With pure con artistry, Orman told these retires, who were already going through enough with this major life change and many decisions to make, that they could decide how much they wanted to pay her for the consultation, but that she wasn’t going to give a specific invoice or charge. Since these early retirees had no idea that Orman had already been paid $250,000 from PG&E for giving the presentation meetings and consultations, they expected to pay for their consultation, especially with the way Orman minced words to make it clear that they didn’t have to pay her, but if they didn’t, they were basically choosing to rip her off. Since I was filming that presentation, it appears to be the first Suze Orman con game caught on film. Orman told the retirees that they could pay her as much or as little as they wanted to pay, and that if they didn't want to pay her anything for the two-hour consultation, they could just stiff her, and I guess feel guilty about it, not knowing that Orman had already been paid for their consultation. Depending on the investments she recommended, she would also receive additional money in commissions, which you can be sure Orman—who was mainly selling insurance at the time—took full advantage of for her pocketbook. Orman was being paid all the way around with deception all around, a pattern she would repeat time and time again on her way up the ladder of public influence and deceptive corporate deals. At this next link, you can watch the earliest known recording of con artist Suze Orman in action at the PG&E retirement meeting. You will see her lying about several facts regarding her career history and being confronted by one savvy fellow who could smell the scam and was bold enough to speak up, in spite of being put down by another retiree who had fallen for Orman’s snake oil. Play the video here: Link 1-14

Two minutes into the clip, that retiree could clearly tell that Orman was a shyster—it’s not like her shenanigans are that difficult to spot, but that she uses charm, praise, fear-mongering, and other manipulative techniques to bypass people’s usual discernment faculties. Since Orman was the person PG&E had officially set up for them to consult with, the man was trying to be polite as he persistently asked Orman to tell him how much he should pay her, what range would be appropriate, or how much others have paid her, also asking where does the money go? (Hint: into Orman’s personal checking account) This “financial advisor” tells the man that she never even knows how much any client pays, because her secretary deposits all the checks anonymously into her checking account, and that she has no idea how much has ever been deposited or any range of what people have paid. It's a bunch of Suze Shenanigans, and that fellow smelled the stinky scam. In a not surprising additional point, Orman also lied to her Newmarket Press publisher about the fact that her book had already been turned down by over thirty publishers: (From the New York Times, 2006: Link 1-15) “Suze never told me the book had already been turned down by 30 publishers,” Ms. Margolis recalled. I also remember, during our well over one hundred hours of conversation, Orman asking me for information about neuro-linguistic programming and the subconscious mind. I’d been brought up by psychology teachers and was reading Freud and learning about hypnosis by age seven, before studying neuroscience and film in college. Even all those years later, I had some knowledge about neuro- linguistic techniques, although it was never my nature to use them to manipulate others, a sentiment strengthened by years of monastic life, where an understanding of the universal nature of humanity and life had inspired me to give, share, serve, and certainly strive to never scam anyone. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Each man takes care that his neighbor shall not cheat him. But a day comes when he begins to care that he does not cheat his neighbor. Then all goes well — he has changed his market-cart into a chariot of the sun.” Along with regretting my role in producing the deceptive promo video and other assistance that contributed to Suze Orman’s first book getting published, I carry the burden of knowing I gave her psychological and metaphysical information that may have helped her to perfect her manipulative tactics. 36

One other sign of Orman’s approach to life came in 1992, when I won a Los Angeles Emmy award for my news editing work. With four nominations that year, I had been hoping to win at least one. Orman flew down to join two other friends and me at the Emmy awards ceremony. At the after party, Disney’s photographer came around to take official photos of the winners with their Emmy awards. Orman and another friend were standing with me, so I invited them to join in the photo. As the photographer prepared his camera, Orman took my Emmy award from my hands, saying, “I want to win an Emmy!” Then she held it up for the photographer, looking proud as can be with crazy eyes, taking credit for my win with the same ease as she has taken credit for the work of so many others since, including the ghostwriters and behind-the-scenes experts who have maintained her “financial expert” façade. The photographer only took one photo of each winner, so this is my Emmy award photo:

Crazy eyes much?

Orman's subsequent extreme influence, which twice earned her a seriously concerning spot on Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world, is mainly due to the “Oprah factor.” Oprah Winfrey enthusiastically pushed Suze Orman upon her millions of trusting fans— on her shows, in her magazine, and in other Oprah friendly media venues. Winfrey had Orman on her show fourteen times to publicize her second book, Nine Steps to Financial Freedom. In 1998, Forbes ran an article, Sizzling Suze, that called Orman out for outright lying in her biographical descriptions in that book. (Link 1-16) Orman’s bio in 9 Steps says she “heads her own financial planning firm,” Suze Orman Financial Group of Emeryville, Calif. But neither she nor the firm has done any paid financial planning work in years. Besides books and other royalties, Orman’s earned income has come mainly from selling insurance—which gets much more attention in her book than do stocks or bonds. Also in the bio, she claims a current Commodity Trading Advisor license that actually lapsed in 1990. The jacket of her video says she has “18 years of experience at major Wall Street institutions.” In fact, she has 7. The “nearly 1,000 new clients each year” touted on her publisher’s Web site are simply fans making inquiries by mail. Little did the Forbes journalist know that even these glaring lies were just tips of a much more troubling and exponentially growing iceberg of deceit.

Nearly every major talk and news-based show joined the Oprah- blessed Suze Orman bandwagon, with millions more viewers believing Orman must have the proper credentials to be giving all that advice, assuming she wrote those best selling books herself, and trusting the many top journalists on various networks who have called Orman all kinds of laudatory terms pushed by Orman and her publicists, such as “expert,” “guru,” and “wizard,” in spite of her serious lack of credentials and almost no official financial education. I would love to know if Oprah received any percentage cut from the profits of her protégé. Millions of United States citizens who fell for Orman’s snake oil lost a lot after making important financial and life decisions based on Orman's advice and decrees that mixed basic financial information with her harmful views, personality aberrations, corporate sponsored schemes, PR orchestrated headline blasts, and irresponsible predictions and decrees. This set Suze Orman up to be a darling of corporations. Like Orman’s agent, who said, “Great. Finally an author who knows she can’t write,” corporations and banks were thrilled to find an influential public figure who was not only easy to buy, but voraciously peddling her Oprah- bestowed influence for big bucks.

Chapter two Seducing Corporations, Banks and Billionaires

After Oprah lifted Orman onto a pedestal of untouchability, Orman hung out the “pseudo-pitches disguised as financial advice for sale” sign, and began to court corporations, banks, and companies of all kinds to plaster her hypnotic eyes and crazed grin on their products. “You too can buy a piece of Oprah’s influence for pennies on the dollar.” Orman made millions upon millions from these shady corporate deals, bragging to a classroom of low income at risk youth in 2013 (in between trips to the Cayman Islands) that, “Everybody thinks I’m worth fifty million dollars, and they’re way short. I am a seriously, seriously, wealthy woman.” (Watch the unimpressed teens in this clip: Link 2-1)

A 2004 Chicago Tribune article clearly showed the kind of word and identity changing games Orman plays while trying to cover up her corporate sponsored unethical actions, and how she gets powerful media figures to play along with her lies. The article is one of several outcries from the media in response to this “Lock and Roll” commercial Orman did for GM, advising people to buy a new Cadillac.

(Watch Orman’s “Lock and Roll” commercial: Link 2-2)

From the Chicago Tribune, 2004: (Link 2-2a) “Ad puts adviser's advice in question”

In addition to her usual outlets--the eight-hour run of “The Suze Orman Show” on CNBC each weekend, her occasional appearances on QVC, her pledge-drive specials for PBS--an estimated 180 million people saw the financial guru pitching General Motors' “Lock 'n Roll” financing plan in an ad campaign that ran for 20 days in November and December, according to GM. Besides being inescapable, the ads, for which Orman was paid an undisclosed sum to endorse the carmaker's zero percent interest rate offer, raised questions about how Orman could claim to give unvarnished advice to CNBC viewers while taking money from GM. “Her entire persona revolves around giving fair and wise advice to people who rely on her,” said David Bernknopf, a media consultant and visiting professor at the University of Colorado's School of Journalism and Mass Communication. “And if she's taking money from someone whose business touches on the advice she gives, how can that not raise questions about her fairness and honesty and independence? “ Ronald Duska, an ethics professor at The American College, a school for financial professionals, agreed. “Just because you're getting paid to say something doesn't mean you shouldn't say it,” he said. “But in a sense, she's using her financial credentials to help a company sell a product. That creates problems if she's supposed to be able to stand back and evaluate financial options.” Indeed, those credentials are precisely what made her attractive to GM: “We approached her because she is a widely recognized and respected financial adviser,” said GM spokeswoman Deborah Silverman. Orman bridles at the contention that the ads compromised her integrity. They were, she says, just another way to provide people with financial advice. Besides, she's not journalist. “I have now become a celebrity,” she said. “Whether the reporters who have bashed me for years want to believe it, Suze Orman has become ... somebody that America has embraced.” And, as such, she says she should be held to the same standard as other celebrities who endorse products.

In 2009, Woman’s Wear Daily offered these insights into the machine behind Orman’s continuing corporate shenanigans: (Orman shares five homes) with her partner, Kathy “K.T.” Travis, 56. The two met eight years ago when Travis, a former advertising executive at Ogilvy & Mather, moved back to the Bay Area from Hong Kong. “We had mutual friends,” Travis says. “They said, ‘She writes about money.’ I said, ‘That sounds boring.’ I’d been in China. We didn’t have CNBC. I didn’t watch Oprah. But Suze is electric. Within a week, she made me throw out all my credit cards and things I didn’t need.” Travis now runs Orman’s company, a burgeoning media empire that includes books, tapes, the Saturday night CNBC show, a column for O, the Oprah Magazine, and a partnership with credit reporting agency Fair Isaacs Corp. Fair Isaacs’ credit model, known as a FICO score, is the most widely used in the United States and the arrangement between them and Orman has been a source of controversy in the financial press, since Orman promotes the importance of a good FICO score in her books at the same time she is earning money from the very company that sends that score to potential lenders. Another source of controversy is Orman’s relationship with TD Ameritrade, with whom she has a business partnership. To convince viewers of her show to begin saving, Orman has suggested going to Saveyourself.com (a Web site she set up) and opening an account with that firm. If you deposit $50 a month in each of the first 12 months, the bank will match you — up to $100. “It’s a savings rate of 15 percent,” Orman has said repeatedly. The trouble is, after the first $600, the interest rate drops to an ordinary one, making the offer more of a marketing ploy for the bank than anything else.

Also in 2009, the New York Times featured Orman’s wife and brand manager, Kathy Travis explaining, assumedly with a straight face, that Suze’s interest “is not to gain wealth or money—her interest is in helping people.” (It is worth reading this article for many other signs of Orman’s behavioral and other problems: Link 2-2b) Travis also negotiated a deal for Orman with the developers of FICO, the credit-score formula, for whom Orman now produces an instructional kit that she sells on QVC. And Travis has taken over the management of Orman’s brand. She occasionally lays it on a little thick. Explaining that Orman herself rarely seeks out new business opportunities, Travis says, “Oh, no, Suze doesn’t do that, because her interest is not to gain wealth or money — her interest is in helping people.”

Contrast that with what Orman said to The Chicago Tribune a few years back, when she was criticized for shilling a zero-percent-interest campaign for General Motors in a television ad that ran for a few weeks. Critics charged that she was compromising her objectivity (and that she hurt her credibility by implicitly endorsing the purchase of new cars, which she, like most financial planners, characterizes as a money-losing proposition). “You think they don’t know I was paid to do the G.M. commercial?” Orman said of her viewers. “I’m not in this for charity. This is a business, and anybody who thinks that it’s not a business is an idiot.” It’s a more candid take on her motives than Travis’s, but in its no- nonsense way, it’s pitch-perfect Suze. Get that, anyone who thought Suze Orman might have a particle of kindness or generosity? “I’m not in this for charity. This is a business, and anybody who thinks that it’s not a business is an idiot.” The same Chicago Tribune article quoted by the New York Times is also filled with Suze SCAMvenger hunt clues that help to paint the picture of Orman’s shenanigans in the early 2000s, including how she got people like CNBC’s top brass to violate their own intelligence and integrity to play along with her shams: …CNBC is usually scrupulous when it comes to ethical guidelines. Every financial professional who appears on the cable network's daytime shows is required to disclose interests in any company they may discuss, including holdings by family members. Employees are under stricter guidelines--reporters and correspondents are barred from holding individual securities, lest the prospect of personal enrichment influence their coverage. “It raised a lot of eyebrows around here when we first saw the GM commercials,” said one CNBC staffer. “Clearly it's not something that in general we would be able to do.” The guidelines do not apply to Orman, explained CNBC spokeswoman Amy Zelvin, because Orman owns her show, and CNBC pays her a license fee to air it. “Suze Orman appears on CNBC as an expert commentator,” Zelvin said. “She is not an employee of CNBC and she is not a journalist. As such, she is able and permitted to pursue outside business ventures.” But CNBC's Web site suggests otherwise: Orman is listed as the network's “personal finance editor,” a title that suggests both employment and journalistic decision-making.

“I recently resigned from that position,” Orman explained. “When all this started with the GM thing, I called up [CNBC Enterprises general manager] Bob Meyers. I said `Bob, this is ridiculous.' I don't do anything as personal finance editor. It was an empty title really. Why even have it?” Orman said she retired the title sometime in late November, and that she had been personal finance editor for about three years. Zelvin, who expressed surprise when informed of the title, said: “We should have been clearer that she's a commentator and not a journalist.” (At press time, CNBC's Web site still identified Orman as personal finance editor on the site's “Anchors and Reporters” page.) Then came an example of one of Orman’s favorite ways of dealing with valid criticism: Barbara Lippert, the advertising critic for Adweek, a trade magazine, said Orman is a “hypocrite. “Suze Orman claims to give uncorrupted advice, yet she's being paid by one of America's largest corporations to flog its brands,” she said. “It's a complete conflict of interest.” Orman dismisses such criticism as sour grapes. “They hate Suze Orman and love to bash me because they're so jealous of my success,” she said. “They just cannot understand how it is that I've sold millions of copies of books, I won an Emmy Award this year, my show on CNBC is the highest-rated show on weekends. How is any of that possible? They hate me because I tell people the truth.” As a certified financial planner, Orman is required by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, a private industry regulatory body, to disclose her sources of income to clients. That rule applies to one- on-one paid consultations, but not TV shows. Asked why she doesn't offer a similar disclosure to her viewers, Orman said: “I'll tell you the sources of my income—everything I do is a source of income to me.”

There it is: “I'll tell you the sources of my income—everything I do is a source of income to me.” You can’t say Orman didn’t warn everyone that everything she does is a source of income to her. Although the Chicago Tribune described Orman as having a CFP certification, she had let any credentials lapse before their 2004 article, and apparently hasn’t had a single financial credential for over a decade.

Suze Orman doesn’t have to follow ethical rules required from accredited financial advisors, because she has no current credentials, and is nothing more than a celebrity. That was said while nearly every major television news and talk show personality was touting Suze Orman as a financial expert, wizard, and guru, including Senator Elizabeth Warren.

This appearance on the topic of student debt had a big kerfuffle when one of the reporters asked Orman about being paid to lobby and record videos for the most predatory for-profit school out there. That exchange generated a Huffington Post article, “With Senator Warren Watching, Suze Orman Denies, Admits, Rationalizes Teaching at University of Phoenix.” (Link 2-2c)

Suze Orman not only was hired by the University of Phoenix to teach an online personal finance course, but also last year she appeared at a Capitol Hill event where she promoted the school. It’s difficult to understand how a person who proclaims herself “undeniably America’s most recognized expert on personal finance” could accept such a role when, for many people, enrolling at a for-profit college can be the worst financial decision they make in their entire lives. 46

More on Orman’s affiliation with the University of Phoenix coming up in this chapter. You’ll also find more on the Warren-Orman Politico sham in Chapter Seven, including video of what happened to bring this look:

More from the Chicago Tribune article: Three years ago, Orman briefly sold long-term care policies on QVC and her site. The fact that Orman earned a commission off sales and that the policies were underwritten by a division of General Electric, which owns CNBC, caused a squall of press criticism that led her to abandon the project. Orman said such criticism is unfair. Why, she asked, does nobody question the motives of Meredith Vieira of “The View”—a show that Orman frequents when selling her books—for appearing in ads for Bayer aspirin? Or put another way, how much integrity does a celebrity need?

Not much, apparently. December 2012 brought the end of a full year of Suze Scams that included over one hundred articles from financial journalists top to bottom who finally spoke up to warn readers about Orman’s “Approved” prepaid debit card scam.

One might think someone caught with their hand in the cookie jar of poor and middle class Americans might hang low for a while, but not Suze Orman when there is a buck to be made. In December 2012, Orman capped a long year of using the media to defraud United States citizens to make one more greedy cash grab for the holiday season. This financial advisor, who has often told people not to buy even a cup of coffee, was paid big bucks to star in a campaign and urge consumers to consider buying a new Acura luxury car as a reasonable and smart investment for their financial lives, just as she had done years earlier in her widely criticized “Lock and Roll” campaign for GM, when she called buying a new Cadillac, “the smart money.” Click here to watch Orman’s “Season of Reason” commercial, where she drives a car like a maniac while advising people to buy a new Acura: Link 2-3.

Note how Orman drives the Acura car just as recklessly as she has driven the US economy and individual lives for the past fifteen years. From “Suze Orman Thinks You Should Consider an Acura,” by Pound Foolish author Helaine Olen in Forbes: (Link 2-4) In the spot, which began airing earlier this month, Orman, driving a brand new Acura TL, pulls up to a shopper eying a striking pink evening gown in a store window. “Hey girlfriend, get in,” the first lady of finance says, before taking her fan on a careening ride, all the while lecturing her to avoid an “emotional money mistake” like the dress and instead be “reasonable” and “spend smart.”

And what might qualify as “smart” spending? Well, if you guessed a $40,000 2013 Acura TL, you guessed right. When the commercial ends, we hear actor James Spader proclaim in a voiceover, “This holiday, listen to the voice of reason. Acura’s Season of Reason sales event.” How a dress—which simply cannot cost more than several hundred dollar —is an “emotional money mistake” but purchasing a car costing tens of thousands of dollars is a smart and savvy financial move is never addressed.

Of course, buying a new car goes against the advice of most financial advisors, including Suze Orman, but if the company pays enough, Suze Orman's pseudo advice can be bought. Disappointedly, this Acura “Season of Reason” ad even played during The Daily Show, which should have been exposing Suze Orman's plundering shenanigans to protect the public, rather than taking money and allowing Suze Orman to fill her pockets while advising Daily Show viewers that buying a new Acura is a good financial decision. With Suze Orman's price for advice” schemes, if a corporation puts enough money into Orman's pockets, she will use her undeserved extreme clout as someone on the “most influential” lists of Time and Forbes magazines to say whatever the company wants her to say, fooling those who have been convinced by media supported shams to consider “financial expert” Suze Orman's advice as honest and trustworthy. Another one of Orman’s predatory shenanigans was to sell her name and public trust to the University of Phoenix, a controversial for profit school with many complaints and a high default rate that is nearly double that of a public four-year school. From David Halperin on the Huffington Post: “Suze Orman Teaching Personal Finance Class—At the University of Phoenix” (Link 2-5) If you were teaching a course on how to manage personal finances, one of the best pieces of advice you could give is to avoid attending a for-profit college. A series of government and media investigations have exposed that signing up with a for-profit college could well be one of the worst financial decisions a person could make in his or her entire life. Many of these schools offer a toxic mix of ultra-expensive tuition, low-quality classes, high dropout rates, and poor job placement. As a result, they often leave students -- single parents, veterans, immigrants, and others struggling to earn a living -- without jobs and deep in debt from the loans they've taken out.

For-profit colleges have 13 percent of U.S. college students, but an astonishing 47 percent of student loan defaults. So why is Suze Orman -- who calls herself “undeniably America's most recognized expert on personal finance” -- teaching an online personal finance course at the University of Phoenix, the biggest of these controversial for-profit colleges?

Around the same time, came announcements that the University of Phoenix was being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission in an example of government agencies going after Orman’s partners and sponsors, apparently deeming her to be untouchable because she has no credentials that would require her to be honest or act in the best interest of her clients. From CNN Money, “University of Phoenix is the latest college under investigation” (Link 2-6) The struggling school is now facing a probe from the Federal Trade Commission. The agency is looking into whether the school engaged in deceptive marketing tactics, its parent company, Apollo Education Group (APOL), said Wednesday. Ten years earlier, University of Phoenix was fined by the U.S. Department of Education for violating the rule banning pay incentives for recruiters in an effort to boost enrollment.

Wikipedia states that, “University of Phoenix students owe more than $35,000,000,000 in student loan debt, the most of any US college,” and notes that, “In 2016, stockholders of Apollo Education Group filed a class-action lawsuit against the corporation, arguing that the company withheld information that led to significant losses in stock prices. Several of the allegations are related to University of Phoenix's recruiting of military personnel and veterans.” This wasn’t the first time Suze Orman used the military as part of her scams, nor would it be the last. This next quote from another article by Halperin shows one example of how Orman’s political lobbyist publicity strategist uses politicians and other government agencies and officials to help Orman run her scams on the American public, in this case, getting Orman appearances with congress members on Capital Hill to lobby for this predatory for-profit school: Suze Orman not only was hired by the University of Phoenix to teach an online personal finance course, but also last year she appeared at a Capitol Hill event where she promoted the school. It's difficult to understand how a person who proclaims herself “undeniably America's most recognized expert on personal finance” could accept such a role when, for many people, enrolling at a for-profit college can be the worst financial decision they make in their entire lives.

Orman running her University of Phoenix shenanigans on Capital Hill

The University of Phoenix has received loads of complaints from students who ended up with huge student debts that cannot be discharged even through bankruptcy, with nothing to show for all their time and money. U of P has nearly all one-star reviews on the Consumer Affairs website.

Two reviews right off the top of the page include this description by a University of Phoenix professor: My experiences at the university as a professor and as a student have both been horrible. The university accepts students who cannot be successful, takes their money because this is only a business and not an institution of higher learning and pressures professors to pass students who cannot do the work. I quit teaching for that reason. As a student, the university did everything possible to make my experience horrible and to keep me taking class after class to complete a dissertation proposal. When I complained about the external reviewer, they assigned a new one who complained about everything approved by the previous reviewer. Do not go to this fake school or you will be sorry. They will take your money, you will waste your time, and you will get nothing out of it.

And this from a student: My experience with this school has been a complete nightmare. They will tell you ANYTHING to get you enrolled into classes. I was lied to in so many ways. Being greatly deceived, I decided not to return to class after taking a Leave of Absence. This must have gotten under someone's skin because they Administratively Withdrew me then sent an email a week later demanding payment for Resource Fees. This was my second attempt to complete their MBA program so I honestly tried to give them a chance. This school is only concerned about making money and could care less about your success. Attending U of P was a waste of my time! More reviews about this nightmare school here: Link 2-6a

As she often does, Orman set the stage for this corporate paid sham by praising the scandal ridden University of Phoenix in this obviously ghostwritten article titled, “Suze Orman: Redefine your child's 'dream school,’” that ran in USA Today in December, 2011: (Link 2-7)

Suze Orman: Redefine your child's 'dream school' By Suze Orman Between the Greek debt crisis, the collapse of the congressional “supercommittee” and a ballooning budget deficit, it's hard to remember sometimes how much the average family is suffering. Perhaps the best example of that is a silent crisis that is taking place in America: the student debt crisis… It's such a rampant problem that the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working with the Department of Education to come up with a standardized one-page document that clearly spells out to every student and parent what it will cost to attend college. Fortunately, a few universities are realizing their duty to step up to the plate by themselves. The University of Phoenix, for example, makes all its students go through a free and mandatory three-week orientation course to make sure they understand the full costs of college before they sign on the dotted line. This is an example of Orman’s common tactic of appearing to be protecting the public from exactly what she is doing to rip them off, just as she warned people about fee-laden prepaid debit cards as part of her fraudulent pitches for her even more predatory card. The USA Today article came out soon before Orman announced the commencement of her new “class” at the University of Phoenix, and most likely around the time when she signed the deal and started putting out her “advice for a price” on their behalf. Note that Orman’s class consisted of videos of her reading words off a teleprompter, as she does in this enthusiastic pitch for the University of Phoenix: Link 2-7a Gangster Suze's got it down to a formula, and the companies who use her shenanigans, as well as media outlets that served it up to the public, should all look at the damage they have contributed to creating for their audiences, for the economy, and for the world.

With all her pseudo care for the educational system, note that in her 2009 interview with the New York Times, Orman—who likes to brag that she never got above a “C” in a single college class and took many extra years to get a bachelor's degree in social work—showed her disrespect for doctors, universities, students, and teachers in one fell swoop: (Link 2-8) Orman has strong opinions in general. She won’t speak before many doctors’ groups, because they get on her nerves (doctors always think they know better, she says). Until recently, she didn't like to speak at universities, because they generally don’t charge students to attend her lectures, and she says that people don’t value things they haven’t paid for. She has been reluctant to work on school curricula on personal finance, because she says students can’t learn empowerment from people who aren't empowered, and teachers, she says, are too underpaid ever to have any real self-worth. She told me: “When you are somebody scared to death of your own life, how can you teach kids to be powerful? It’s not something in a book—it ain’t going to happen that way.” She once delivered pretty much the same message at an anniversary celebration of a private school—she seems to recall calling the school a “travesty”—and was all but escorted to the door when she was done.

Orman hasn't ever hid her almost complete lack of credentials—in fact, she gloats about conning the world into thinking she is an expert in something she barely studied. In nearly every talk for more than fifteen years, Orman told tells the same “inspiring” story about how she barely made it through school to get a B.A. in social work after many years, never received above a “C” in ANY class, grew up in the South Side Chicago hood, lived in her van, and was working as a waitress for $400/month. (Watch Orman gloat about her lack of credentials: Link 2-9) Of course, it is intriguing and in a sense for some inspiring to see how someone with no credentials has made her dreams come true, until you realize that her impressive con artist skills placed her in a position where she had enough power over the economy and society to be named one of Time magazine's 100 most powerful people in the world in 2009 and 2010, thanks to her mega-supportive team of right wing corporate CEO Jack Welch and his wife Suzy, who wrote this ridiculous essay about why Orman deserved to have so much extreme influence. (Link 2-10) Let me tell you what it's like to be named Suzy, no matter how you spell it. People expect you to be perky. “Suzy Sunshine” they call you, as if you might like it, or worse, “Suzy Cream Cheese.” People expect you to be frivolous, frothy and not particularly smart. They expect you to be, well, ordinary. Suze Orman, 57, is none of those things. 54

Take ordinary. Oh, please! Here is a woman who sleeps four hours a night because she thinks the world is too exciting to turn off. Here is a woman whose idea of relaxation is watching the surf in front of her Florida home while listening to stock-market reports. Frivolous? Frothy? Again, no. Suze Orman can't let a stranger walk by — and I have seen this firsthand — without asking, “Do you have credit- card debt?” She needs to know so she can help. So she can change a life. And not later or a little bit. But now, profoundly. And as for not particularly smart — look, you do not become the personal financial adviser to the world by giving stupid advice. Which leaves perky, and all right, maybe Suze Orman is perky. But she's perky with an edge. Her optimism comes from a belief that all of us have the power within us to improve how we save and spend our money and thus the power to forge lives that are better, fuller and richer in every way. So call Suze Orman Suze if you must. Just know that her name hardly does her justice at all. Welch is the author of 10-10-10, a guide to managing life decisions

Here is Orman with her friend and supporter Jack Welch, previous chairman and CEO of General Electric, who you’ll see in our film claiming that, “Corporations are people.” Welch’s wife, Suzy, is the one who nominated Suze Orman to be named one of the one hundred most influential people in the world by Time magazine.

Corporate CEO and republican candidate Steve Forbes has also shown quite a protective penchant for Suze Orman, including posting this photo of their meeting when Forbes’ daughter was trying to rehabilitate Orman’s reputation after she had been eviscerated by the press for running a fraudulent prepaid debit card scam on the American people.

Forbes magazine has published many shill pieces on Orman, including her headline blast that, “The American Dream is Dead.” They also hosted one of the only positive articles about Orman’s predatory “Approved” card, titled, “You Suze Don’t Lose: Approval for the Approved Card.” Just a year after more than one hundred journalists had warned their readers about Orman's prepaid debit card scam, with many assuming her career was over, Forbes declared Suze Orman the ninth most influential celebrity in the world for 2013. I don’t know about their behind-the- scenes liaisons, but it certainly looked like a corporation trying to rehabilitate that busted con artist’s reputation.

As a side note, in our film, you can watch Barbara Walters hosting Orman’s prepaid debit card scam on The View, with a truly bizarre snake oil conversation that even a first year reporter could have seen as the fraud it was, much less a seasoned journalist such as Barbara Walters. Moira Forbes’ interview took place in 2012, after Orman had already been called out and eviscerated by the entire financial journalist community for running an obvious prepaid card scam on the American public. The whole interview is worth watching for it’s many narcissistic and deceptive moments. Orman wants a new credit scoring system that she doesn’t detail beyond counting her prepaid card, and she wants it to be called the “S.O. score” in her honor. She calls the “Approved” prepaid debit card the most important thing she’s ever done, a line Orman uses for nearly all of her products and schemes.

Orman also tells Forbes that this prepaid debit card is her “last stand” (though certainly not her “last scam”) before her planned retirement from the financial business in 2015, which would come to bring a whole lot more scams and shams. Watch the interview: Link 2-11. Note the extreme deference paid to Orman by Forbes, daughter of Orman supporter Steve Forbes. Why would right wing corporate heads take such care to put left wing con artist Suze Orman on a pedestal of extreme influence and continually protect her from justice and public revelations about her financial crimes? Orman’s FICO Shenanigans

FICO (Fair Isaac Corporation) has had its finger in the Suze Orman pie for two decades, with many examples of Orman’s usual high-school level games of, “You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.”

In a sense, Orman put Fair Isaac on the public consciousness map by exuberantly pushing FICO scores as the most important issue for everyone’s financial lives. Orman has pushed FICO products for the past two decades, aside from the time she took some revenge pot shots at them for not being complicit enough in covering up her “Approved” card scam.

FICO is clearly indebted to Orman for using her Oprah-bestowed, undeserved clout to put them on the map, which may be why they let her fool and steal from the public by deceptively using their name to pitch her “Approved” prepaid debit card scam—something FICO would surely have sued anyone else for doing. In a 2005 press release, FICO proudly announced that Orman's pitches had taken them “from a one-product experiment in consumer education,” to selling tens of millions of FICO scores in four years. I don’t have documentation for this, but have heard that Orman got her usual deal percentage of 50% from FICO for each fifty-dollar kit. If so, that would add up to tens of millions of dollars into Orman’s pockets in just those four years. (Link 2-12)

MINNEAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 4, 2005 Fair Isaac Corporation (NYSE:FIC), pioneer of the FICO(R) credit score used by most lenders to evaluate consumer credit risk, today announced that its myFICO(R) consumer division and its partners have sold the 10 millionth FICO score to U.S. consumers. The milestone coincides with the fourth anniversary of www.myFICO.com. “In four short years, myFICO.com has grown from a one-product experiment in consumer education to become the most trusted source in the country for people wanting to learn their real credit rating and the kinds of actions they can take to improve it over time,” said Cheri St. John, vice president of Global Scoring and Consumer Solutions for Fair Isaac. “As a consumer destination, myFICO.com is unmatched in the industry for the product innovation, educational tools and information it provides.”

As an example, St. John cited Suze Orman's FICO(R) Kit, the industry's first collaboration with a celebrity financial expert to provide consumers with personalized information to help them understand what they can do to improve their credit standing and potential over time. “That little three digit number -- your FICO score -- is the most important number you have when it comes to your financial future,” said Suze Orman, Emmy award-winning talk show host and author of The New York Times best-seller, The Money Book for the Young, Fabulous & Broke. “Just about every financial move you make for the rest of your life will be somehow linked to your FICO score. Knowing and improving your FICO score is the most important way to make more out of your money.”

Orman’s coffers got a huge windfall from her deal with FICO, including their obvious reluctance years later to call Orman out on her blatantly fraudulent claims in 2012 that buying her crummy, fee-laden Approved prepaid card could be expected to improve users’ FICO scores. (Watch video of Orman perpetrating her fraud on college students, specifically lying and saying that FICO was on board with her scheme— Link 2-13) In the Twitter messages at this link, you can see examples of poor and middle class citizens who were fooled by Orman’s prepaid card fraud and conned into scamming their friends and family with false FICO claims on her behalf: Link 2-14. 2012 put FICO in a pickle, with their golden girl spreading lies about them having interest in using her “Approved” card to improve users’ FICO scores, and hundreds of articles warning people about Orman's prepaid card scam. Journalists wanted to know what Fair Isaac had to say. FICO clarified the truth as gently as they could without getting their queen scammer upset. They gave this single response to only one journalist of the many who were questioning Orman's obviously deceptive pitches. Why FICO is not interested, from the Baltimore Sun:

Link 2-15

FICO, which produces a widely used credit score, also questions the value of the information. Spokesman Anthony A. Sprauve wrote in an email that FICO considers only credit history information on reports from the major bureaus—and spending on prepaid cards isn't part of that.

“In our experience, spending is not actually a great indicator of the thing that the FICO score tries to measure, which is the likelihood you're going to default on a credit bill,” he said.

When FICO didn't back up Orman’s prepaid debit card scam by staying completely silent or playing along like TransUnion did, Orman went into her “Mean Girls” modus operandi of trying to destroy them. When FICO didn't fully get on board to fully support Orman's fraudulent pitch throughout the media landscape that fooled people into thinking that her “Approved” card would improve their FICO scores, Orman turned against the company that has paid her tens of millions of dollars thus far. Seriously, they could hardly have done less to save victims of her fraud than they did by issuing one fairly mild statement to only one journalist. I guess she wanted them to outright lie for her. During the Money2020 conference in October 2013, Orman used attendees as pawns to spread her revenge against FICO. It is just one documented example of Orman’s spiteful nature.

This Money2020 conference event took place while Orman was still pushing her “Approved” card scam, in spite of mountains of bad press. At the same event, Orman used her usual tactic of sounding as though she is altruistically against exactly what she herself was doing:

At this link, you can watch an interview titled, “Suze Orman's Snake Oil Schemes” with journalist David Shuster and Helaine Olen, two of very who have spoken up about Orman’s snake oil schemes: Link 2-16

Once political lobbyist Hilary Rosen and SKDK started representing Orman, her scams hit new levels. I had never heard of Hilary Rosen previously. You may have seen her on CNN during the 2016 election cycle as a democratic strategist for Hillary Clinton and the DNC, whose controversial head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Rosen calls, “a friend.” Wasserman-Schultz has paid Rosen and SKDK hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many of the dirty tactics the DNC used to push Bernie Sanders out of the race had Rosen’s fingerprints all over them. When I saw those dirty tricks—including deceptive headlines intended to paint Sanders as anti-woman and portray his supporters as violent, insisting on holding only a few debates at times when the fewest people would be watching, and voters who would be likely to vote for Sanders being disenfranchised—it all rang very familiar after these years of watching the scams, shams, and shenanigans of Suze Orman and her “Cabal.” 62

Even Senator Warren’s insulting Twitter retorts to Donald Trump sounded very much like the style of communications I’ve seen come from Rosen toward government officials and others who didn’t agree with her politics or go along with her wishes. Rosen brings big advertising dollars to CNN from her clients, and CNN repays her in various ways, including giving Rosen’s clients free reign to scam CNN viewers, as they did while hosting Suze Orman’s blatantly fraudulent pitches for her ridiculous prepaid card on many of their most popular news shows, as though Orman’s predatory low end financial product that is on the level of those payday loans that Wasserman- Schultz has been criticized for supporting would be a worthy news story. CNN also used deceptive headlines to pitch Orman’s scam, including the blatantly false headline: “Prepaid debit card to help credit score.”

As someone who generally aligns with democratic principles and who donated my time and skills to co-produce, script, and edit a documentary video titled, “Real People, Real Healthcare Needs,” with President Obama’s Organizing For America in 2009 to support his healthcare initiatives, I am far more concerned about the corruption this exploration has revealed in the democratic party than in the significant issues taking place on the “other side.” One reason I have rushed this book through is with the intention of inspiring the democratic party and media field to clean up the Rosen-related corruption now, rather than later.

Nobody who helped Suze Orman scam the poor and middle class with a misinformation campaign of blatant fraud that you’ll see detailed in Chapter Five could possibly have the best interests of our country and the American people in mind. It was a good sign in June 2016 to see candidate Hillary Clinton somewhat replace the DNC chairperson with someone who looks a whole lot cleaner, but the rats’ nest is still there. Let’s take that start and keep going to clean out the “rats in the attic” from both the democratic and republican parties. Clinton and Warren would be better off speaking about their vision with integrity, rather than allowing Rosen and others to turn the United States presidential campaign into a barroom brawl. Numerous articles have criticized Rosen for being paid big bucks by BP Oil as a crisis management consultant to make the public all but forget about BP’s gulf oil spill, and to lobby politicians so they would easy on BP and not create new regulations that might cost BP Oil some of their massive profits while helping to preserve our planet earth. This effort included a big ad campaign painting BP in a favorable light for all the good they were doing in the community they had devastated—ads that were often hosted by Rosen’s pals at CNN. Here are some interesting points about this Orman cabal partner and democratic strategist in an article titled, “The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal,” published by The Nation: (Link 2-17)

From the article: We've compiled a partial list of SKDKnickerbocker’s clients. Since the firm refuses to register as an ordinary lobbying firm, we don’t know their full roster of clients:

— SKDKnickerbocker was hired by Kaplan Education to block Obama’s reforms on for-profit college companies, an industry plagued by low quality education, false promises to students, and fraudulent business practices. (Note the connection between this SKDK client and Orman’s troubling association with the University of Phoenix.) — SKDKnickerbocker was hired to push for billions in tax breaks for already profitable corporations. As Bloomberg reported, SKDKnickerbocker manages a lobbying campaign called “Win America,” an effort by companies like Google and Pfizer to receive hundreds of billions in tax breaks on profits made overseas. — SKDKnickerbocker was hired by a coalition of food manufacturers to fight the Obama administration’s proposals on food nutrition standards. As the Washington Post reported, the firms paying Dunn (SKDK) include General Mills and PepsiCo.

None of those questionable associations apparently bothered Rosen pal Arianna Huffington, who has also hosted many of Orman’s scams and shenanigans on Huffington Post, including a long personal interview where con artist Suze Orman exuded snake oil from every pore about her “Approved” card, while Arianna Huffington nodded foolishly. This video clip from that interview shows Huffington looking on with a blank stare as Orman calls her predatory prepaid deal with MasterCard a “grassroots project” that will make America great again: Link 2-17a

Huffington did, however, suspend Hilary Rosen from her usual access to Huffington Post for a time, when Rosen crossed the line and was being paid millions to cover up BP’s oil spill in the press, to lobby to protect BP Oil from repercussions and regulations, and to remove the gulf oil spill from the public consciousness. From “HuffPost cuts ties with BP consultant Rosen” from Politico: (Link 2-17b) The liberal news site Huffington Post has cut ties with its former Washington Editor at Large, Hilary Rosen, because of Rosen's new role as a consultant for the embattled oil company British Petroleum. Rosen, a Washington figure and former chief music industry lobbyist, now heads the Washington office of the Brunswick Group, which is part of a phalanx of lobbying and communications firms retained by BP to battle Congressional and Administrative retribution and new regulation for its massive Gulf oil spill. “Hilary is no longer our Washington Editor at Large, a mutual decision we recently reached given her involvement with BP,” wrote Arianna Huffington in an email today, responding to a query from POLITICO. “However, we still have a great personal relationship. And, of course, Hilary’s work with BP has had zero effect on our coverage of the company or the disaster in the gulf. Comprehensive and hard-hitting, our coverage speaks for itself.”

Don’t worry about BP Oil though, they had plenty of money to pay Rosen, while using prison labor instead of displaced workers who needed jobs to clean the spill, according to this article in US Uncut, titled, “These 7 Household Names Make a Killing Off of the Prison-Industrial Complex”: (Link 2-17c) When BP spilled 4.2 million barrels of oil into the Gulf coast, the company sent a workforce of almost exclusively African-American inmates to clean up the toxic spill, while community members, many of whom were out-of-work fishermen, struggled to make ends meet. BP’s decision to use prisoners instead of hiring displaced workers outraged the Gulf community, but the oil company did nothing to reconcile the situation.

If you didn’t previously hear about this disgusting greed in the face of BP Oil’s own disaster, you have Hilary Rosen and her crew to thank for covering it up with many commercials, including ones that played on Rosen’s often-complicit channel, CNN, celebrating how beneficial and helpful BP Oil was to the local people.

Rob Copeland from the Wall Street Journal laughed about Rosen saying her help in moving controversial company Herbalife to the Cayman Islands was not related to the fact that the move would allow the U.S. company to avoid paying taxes:

Gay publication QUEERTY outed one of their own when they published the article: “Power Lez Hilary Rosen Is Helping BP Confuse the Public About Oil Devastation”: Link 2-17d

From the article: Just who is BP looking toward to help spin its way out of the Gulf oil spill crisis? None other than former HRC and RIAA head Hilary Rosen, one-half the lesbian power couple with Randi Weingarten. BP has spent some $625 million in the past six years lobbying D.C. to keep oil regulation lax. And it’s found room in its budget to send some cash into gay pockets, relays WSJ. After the spill, the company brought on crisis communicator Hilary Rosen, former Democratic congressional staffer, former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, and a current editor-at- large for HuffingtonPost.com. Ms. Rosen heads the Washington-based office of U.K. communications firm the Brunswick Group. Public records are not yet available on the new Brunswick contract. Ms. Rosen declined to be interviewed on the record. It’s unclear what Rosen’s role with BP is, but undoubtedly it’s to use whatever pull she has in Washington (and that’s up for debate), working in tandem with BP’s lobbyists, to keep lawmakers from tightening offshore drilling rules. That, and seed stories to the media that highlight any single positive thing BP is doing to control the spill.

More of Rosen’s background from Wikipedia: (Hilary Rosen) presided over the RIAA during the period of when the rise of the Internet notably conflicted with the established recording industry interests. She was paid to lobby the US legislature and was a regular presence on behalf of her employers in the recording industry at a time against proponents of file sharing and new Internet technologies. During her tenure the RIAA filed lawsuits against early peer-to-peer file-sharing communities including Napster, Audiogalaxy, and Grokster. The organization lobbied the US Congress to pass controversial legislation supporting Recording Industry interests, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Record Rental Act, and numerous trade treaties (see Societal views on intellectual property)… In 2002, Rosen began to argue that the recording industry should begin even more aggressive tactics aimed at individual citizens engaged in file sharing. The content industry, already facing an anti-copyright backlash, opted against Rosen's approach… Next comes an important admission from this democratic party’s “Koch sister” fundraiser and donor of massive contributions:

In 2010, Rosen gave an interview and spoke candidly on her career: “When I gave $1,000 or $2,000 to a lawmaker, I wanted him to listen to my business proposition. And when I helped organize an event that raised $50,000 or $100,000, you bet I expected their vote. Why else do it?”

Why else do it? Maybe to serve our country and help the best person to win? You can bet Rosen had many motives for making sure Bernie Sanders never came anywhere close to getting the 2016 democratic nomination. Regarding Rosen’s activities as a political lobbyist, Wikipedia adds: White House visitor logs list 35 instances where a “Hilary Rosen” visited the White House. In 2009, the AP reported that Rosen was present at a White House meeting between health care industry lobbyists and senior White House strategists. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rosen was consulting with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Rosen attended the March 2012 White House state dinner with her client John Kelly of Microsoft. Rosen supported the Stop Online Piracy Act. In April 2012, The Nation's journalist Lee Fang penned an article entitled “The Real Hilary Rosen Scandal” in which Rosen's firm is described as “an unregistered lobbying firm that has become one of the biggest names in the influence business by using its ties to President Obama and leaders in Congress.” An unnamed senior Democrat was quoted as saying: “It’s an open secret in the Dem consultant community that [Rosen's firm] has been signing up clients based on ‘perceived White House access’ tied to prior relationships and employment.”

Of course, Rosen got Orman into the White House:

I’m sure when President Obama entertained Rosen’s request to take a photo with con artist Suze Orman, he never imagined they would use the photo to insinuate that Orman is one of his financial advisors while setting up other countries to run her prepaid card scam, but that’s what they did.

Listen up Australia, America’s darling of family finances is in the country with a very clear money message Suze Orman went from being a broke 30-something waitress to an expert on household budgets with the ear of everyone from blue collar Americans to the President.

This is the same Hilary Rosen who received a large wave of criticism from republicans and democrats alike in 2012, after stating a presidential candidate’s wife had never worked a day in her life, even though she had brought up five sons while stricken with muscular dystrophy. These “mean girls” with far too much power are not a compassionate lot—this Orman/Rosen cabal, who set up a gold pump and dump that plundered retirement accounts, and a prepaid debit card scam that stole from the poor middle class. Rosen’s fracas with Ann Romney was a rare time when journalists paid attention to what Rosen, the democratic party’s “Koch sister,” was doing, and what she had previously done. DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz has poured money into Hilary Rosen's coffers for years, including a six-figure payment during just one cycle in 2012.

From the Daily Mail in 2012: (Link 2-17e)

Oh and then there was a person called Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who just happens to be chair of the Democratic National Committee. And as chance would have it was advised by, er, Hilary Rosen. Rosen does not represent the Obama campaign, a Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom and former First Lady Barbara Bush have claimed. But she has visited the White House at least 35 times since Barack Obama became president and her firm SKDKnickerbocker (what a comically Washington name) has been paid $120,864 by the DNC this cycle alone. Among the people she met in the White House have been President Obama, Michelle Obama, and inner circle aides David Axelrod (now chief campaign strategist) and Valerie Jarrett. The DNC says that the contract with SKDKnickerbocker was exclusively for the services of Anita Dunn, former Obama communications chief in the White House (and who also advised David Cameron during the 2010 UK election). Well, we haven't seen the contract and the Rosen's work for Wasserman Schultz means this hardly passes the smell test. I couldn’t help but wonder how much the DNC may have paid Rosen in 2016 to strategize against Bernie Sanders and coronate Hillary 71

Clinton, with tactics that included announcing that Clinton won the race with big headlines the day before big primaries, including California. It appears the DNC’s strategists decided it would be worth losing some Clinton voters who might respond by staying home, because nothing would hurt the Bernie Sanders campaign more than a low voter turnout. From Politico, “Democrats turn on Debbie Wasserman Schultz”: Public relations firm SKDKnickerbocker also has a large contract with the DNC through which consultant Hilary Rosen works directly with Wasserman Schultz, though Rosen says she does so only as “a friend.” This interesting tidbit shows Rosen’s buddy Wasserman-Schultz in convoluted, Suze Ormanesque entitlements and shenanigans:

In 2012, Wasserman Schultz attempted to get the DNC to pay for her clothing at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, multiple sources say, but was blocked by staff in the committee’s Capitol Hill headquarters and at President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign headquarters in Chicago. She asked again around Obama’s inauguration in 2013, pushing so hard that Obama senior adviser — and one-time Wasserman Schultz booster — Valerie Jarrett had to call her directly to get her to stop. (Jarrett said she does not recall that conversation.) One more time, according to independent sources with direct knowledge of the conversations, she tried again, asking for the DNC to buy clothing for the 2013 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Wasserman Schultz denies that she ever tried to get the DNC to pick up her clothing tab. “I think that would be a totally inappropriate use of DNC funds,” she said in a statement. “I never asked someone to do that for me, I would hope that no one would seek that on my behalf, and I’m not aware that anyone did.” Tracie Pough, Wasserman Schultz’s chief of staff at the DNC and her congressional office, was also involved in making inquiries about buying the clothing, according to sources. Pough denies making, directing or being aware of any inquiries. But sources with knowledge of the discussions say Wasserman Schultz’s efforts couldn’t have been clearer. “She felt firmly that it should happen,” said a then-DNC staffer of the clothing request. “Even after it was explained that it couldn’t, she remained indignant.”

The New York Daily News offered other observations of the DNC and SKDK’s dirty strategies in, “Hillary Clinton’s dream debate is one nobody watches”: Link 2-17f

Busy Saturday night? Probably, what with the NCAA bowl games, the Jets’ must-win battle in Dallas and opening weekend for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” So you’ll skip the Democratic presidential debate — just as Hillary Clinton hoped. Long, long ago, Clinton set out to ensure she wouldn’t be robbed of the nomination by some interloper, the way she lost to Barack Obama in 2008. The party’s power-brokers played along, handing the Democratic National Committee to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a co-chair of Clinton’s ’08 campaign. Fix, in. And so the DNC did its best to see nobody would watch the debates, lest voters dare think for themselves. Tomorrow’s is the second in a row on a Saturday night — easily the worst evening for TV viewership. Over on the Republican side, they’ve delivered the three largest audiences ever for prez-primary debates. And seven more Republican debates are ahead; the Democrats have just three after Saturday. The saddest thing about this “shield Hillary” approach is that it robs Democrats of a fair primary fight. Yes, it’s hard to see how socialist dinosaur Bernie Sanders or lightweight prettyboy Martin O’Malley is going to beat her — but they could at least push her to stand up for the party’s principles. (Assuming it still has some.) Worst of all is the message this sends about the front-runner: Namely, that the last thing her supporters want is for the American public to hear what she has to say. Some political commentators have suggested that the “cabal” made sure other candidates, including Joe Biden, didn’t even run for president. I don’t know if that was the case, but Rosen has certainly shown a history of threatening and bullying those who don’t do exactly what she wants them to do. In the next Twitter posts, the recipient of Rosen’s threat was New York City mayor Bill deBlasio, who hadn’t endorsed Rosen's client quickly enough for her and became a target of Rosen’s bullying, with Rosen threatening, “Bill deBlasio’s self aggrandizing on Meet the Press at Hillary Clinton’s expense won’t go unnoticed.” DeBlasio soon after got on board and saved himself from whatever dire fate Rosen was threatening.

At this link, Rosen threatens a congressmen who was not going to vote the way she wanted him to, saying, “You have lost your credibility before you even cast a vote. I think your career is over”: Link 2-18 Isn’t this a little too much power for someone who has demonstrated low integrity? The congressman changed his vote to suit Rosen’s wishes.

Rosen even threatened Caitlyn Jenner in the “Orman/Rosen cabal’s” high-school “mean girls” style, for not bowing down to her client! What a bully, with way too much power in our country, the world, and the democratic party.

Once Rosen and SKDK began representing Suze Orman, their job was to protect her from justice for her scams, to help her create big headlines that would increase her public influence, to sell that influence to corporations, and to get Orman deals with and effusive praise by government agencies and lawmakers from the head of the FDIC to Senator Elizabeth Warren, to the Secretary of the Army.

Rosen’s strategies of making the government complicit in the Suze Orman juggernaut has thus far kept Orman free from proper investigation and justice for her fraudulent crimes. In 2008, Orman’s political lobbyist PR firm got her booked as the face of the FDIC on billboards and in commercials—talk about a serious conflict of interest to use this scammer as a representation of trust, and to use the government to give false faith in a con artist.

A year after Rosen got Orman this gig as the face of the FDIC is when Suze Orman was first named as one of Time magazine’s one hundred most influential people in the world, along with another receiver of Rosen’s political lobbyist and media broker clout, Elizabeth Warren, who at the time was still a law professor. Rosen sure knows how to work the system to trade her real commodities: public influence, political power, and corporate money. One commenter on Bloomberg shared this:

I n 2016, the Department of Labor finally made a big conflict of interest ruling on retirement investment advice, insisting that financial advisors must give advice that is in the best interest of their clients.

I was so happy to hear this ruling was coming. Finally, a government agency was going to put in place a ruling that would keep predators like Suze Orman from defrauding people and giving advice that would harm her clients, while filling her pockets. 77

Imagine my surprise to see that Secretary of Labor Tom Perez literally added to that major legal government document a paragraph that specifically, by name, excused Suze Orman from being bound by any of their rules! According to Perez, Orman’s business was not financial advice, but part of the “entertainment industry,” and is therefore exempt from any rules and regulations. This, while Orman was still selling her trust and will kits and giving all kinds of good, bad, and corrupted financial advice to millions, far beyond just speaking on a television show as part of the entertainment industry or even meeting one-on-one with clients. If the purpose of the ruling was to protect the public, they really missed the ball. The paragraph that was actually inserted into the United States law specifically declared that Suze Orman was not a financial advisor after all. One can imagine it may have taken some high-level work from Orman’s political lobbyist strategist to wrangle this one. This, from a legal decree of the United States Department of Labor: (Link 2-19) “Commenters specifically raised the issue of whether on-air personalities like Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer, or Suze Orman would be treated as fiduciary investment advisers based on their broadcast communications. The concern is unfounded. With respect to media personalities, the rule is focused on ensuring that paid investment professionals make recommendations that are in the best interest of retirement investors, not on regulating journalism or the entertainment industry.” Someone needs to tell those millions who have lost their money from following financial “expert,” “guru,” “wizard” Suze Orman’s widely-touted, tainted, corporate sponsored advice that they must have missed the disclaimers that said, “For Entertainment Purposes Only.” 78

Orman praised the Secretary of Labor, thrilled that they left her out of their ethics rules, and Labor Secretary Tom Perez gave con artist Orman, who had already plundered the poor and middle class with many, some seriously undeserved props. Check out Orman’s chutzpah and the Labor Secretary’s complicity:

In June 2016, Perez was (repaid?) with the honor of being named fourth on a list of possible vice presidential running mates for Hilary Rosen’s and her friend Wasserman-Schultz’s client, Hillary Clinton: (Link 2-19a)

No worries about being unknown, Thomas Perez, Hilary Rosen and SKDK specialize in getting people to hear of you and increasing your public and political influence. Just ask Senator Warren and others who have improperly supported Suze Orman, while their influence ratings were seriously pumped up by Hilary Rosen and the “Orman Cabal.” This story about you being one of President Clinton’s vice president picks looks like perhaps a first step in repaying you for excluding Suze Orman from the Department of Labor’s ruling, so she can scam on unencumbered by pesky rules and regulations. I certainly agree with Credit Union expert Ondine Irving:

An article from the Financial Planning Association of Minnesota explains why Suze Orman absolutely should not have been exempted from the DOL ruling. It must be terribly upsetting to be teaching financial professionals strict codes of ethics, such as integrity, objectivity, competence, fairness, confidentiality, and professionalism, and to have business from those trained, educated, and certified professionals be diverted to an uneducated, unprofessional, incompetent, unobjective, non-diligent, and unfair con artist like Suze Orman. (Link 2-19b)

For years now, I – like many others - have listened to the likes of Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer, etc. And like many of you I suspect, I have gasped at some of the advice I’ve heard dispensed thinking, “They can’t say that! They don’t know anything about the client!”. So when the Fiduciary Rule was in its infancy and there was discussion of restrictions on radio and TV personalities, I thought – good, about time. Not so fast… The DOL has concluded that Suze (Jim, Dave, etc.) is not a fiduciary, hence not held to fiduciary standards. However, in closing my thought is - If you don’t want to be a fiduciary and you don’t want to be responsible for your investment advice, don’t give investment advice…

Under the Regulation, you are providing investment advice if you: provide to an IRA owner a recommendation regarding: (among other things) the management of securities or other investment property, including:- investment policies or strategies;- portfolio composition; How many times have I heard (Orman) discuss portfolio strategy and allocation…? "A communication that, based on its content, context, and presentation would reasonably be viewed as a suggestion that the advice recipient engage in or refrain from taking a particular course of action." Or one that, “appears that a recommendation is one that would reasonably be an encouragement to act.” During the same time that the United States Department of Labor specifically declared Suze Orman to be free from any regulations, since she’s not really a financial advisor, Orman callously used the death of musician Prince to drum up more business for her financial advice kits.

Based on the low level grammar and punctuation in that tasteless post, I would guess Orman wrote it herself. One financial journalist reposted Orman’s “Prince’s death” sales pitch and pointed out that Orman’s will and trust kit goes even beyond violating protocol or financial ethics, and is, in fact, an example of practicing law without a license.

Not only does Suze Orman not have a law license; she doesn’t even have a single current accreditation as a financial advisor. But does most of the public know that? Nope. They’ve been told again and again by influential journalists that Suze Orman is a financial guru, expert, and wizard, instead of the truth that she’s an expert wizard scammer, with a few bits of often ghostwritten general finance information on top. When Orman’s prepaid debit card finally showed her true colors to finance journalists top to bottom, PR protector Hilary Rosen went into high gear. Rosen is also a gay rights activist whose ex-partner was the president of the Human Rights Campaign, an organization pushing for LGBT rights. She has been known to threaten the careers of those who don’t vote or act according to her wishes. Rosen used that connection to create another publicity strategy that would use the Supreme Court’s expected overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act to deflect attention from Orman being caught trying to defraud the public, and rebrand Suze as, not so much a financial advisor, but a gay rights activist. I could see their set-ups enough to guess the ending. Here is Hilary Rosen's tweet, giving Orman credit immediately after the Supreme Court overturned DOMA, just as I expected she would:

Two days after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, a pre- conducted “gay activist Suze Orman” interview appeared on Huffington Post, titled, “Suze Orman Talks Gay Pride, Giving Advice to Gay Teens, and Her Love for Ellen.” Do you remember your first Pride event? Obviously in San Francisco, back in the early ‘70s, the dykes on bikes and thinking, Wow! This is the greatest thing I’ve ever been to, and looking forward to that June 25th date or whatever it was every year and just loving it. Clearly the idea of Orman’s PR team was to connect Orman with a beloved gay woman such as Ellen DeGeneres, although I've heard that Ellen is not much of a Suze Orman fan, after having her on the Ellen Show once when Orman was rude and condescending to DeGeneres’s audience. After the first edition of my film, “How Suze Orman SCAMMED the World” started raking up views and supportive articles in financial journals, some of Orman’s previous enablers seemed to fall away: CNBC removed Orman from their line-up, QVC sent her on her way, and her column disappeared from O Magazine. Nevertheless the Hilary Rosen campaign to push Orman into greater public influence continued, including bringing her to big political events, such as the 2016 White House Correspondent’s dinner, of course seated at the CNN table.

A year earlier, CNN had hosted Orman’s blasting of another Rosen/SKDK headline that could have had several possible intended purposes for their political and media manipulations. John King came on to CNN’s morning show with the breaking news that “Suze Orman wants Elizabeth Warren as President, Not Hillary Clinton!” Note that two years before that, King had hosted a disturbing segment about Orman’s “Approved” card scam with the blatantly false headline: “Prepaid debit card to help credit score.” Now, he was back to serve up the gang’s latest headline.

If we were to play, “guess the scam,” this new headline that “financial guru” Suze Orman didn’t want Hillary Clinton to be president was perhaps meant to increase Senator Warren’s influence, right around the same time Warren’s book, A Fighting Chance, was coming out, perhaps being publicized by Rosen and SKDK. At the same time, Rosen was one of the main people behind the “Run Warren Run” movement that certainly pumped up Warren’s standing and influence at the same time her CFPB should have been prosecuting Orman for prepaid card fraud.

Or perhaps this headline was meant to encourage Hillary Clinton to give Rosen some benefit, such as hiring her as the strategist for her campaign. Watch the CNN clip where Orman doesn’t give a single reason why she supports Senator Warren, beyond liking her: Link 2-20 As you’ll see in the clip, Chris Cuomo had too much integrity and intelligence to play along, and said, “Then we’ll have better people than Suze Orman to use as our basis for political discussion.” John King replied, “Ouch!” Cuomo continued, “Come on, since when is she a kingmaker? Suze Orman? She’s going to tell us who the candidate is?” John King: “I’m taking a pass on that one.” Finally, Chris Cuomo said it as it is, “Come on. You don’t want to take on the Orman cabal, huh? Good for you John, safe move, safe move.”

Go Chris Cuomo! In the next clip from our film, you’ll see how Orman and Warren really really “like each other,” in a very strange opening to their appearance together on Politico’s stage to discuss the topic of student debt, while Orman was being paid big bucks by the most predatory for profit school out there: Link 2-21. Unfortunately, many who know more about Orman’s scams and shams signed her ironclad confidentiality agreements. Perhaps one day a legal investigation of Orman’s scams will open the door for many Orman associates to finally add their pieces of the puzzle and help stop the damage. Maybe government agencies could start by interviewing these two:

Chapter Three Trumping Up Her Bank Account with a Gold “Pump and Dump” Scheme

In 2011 and 2012, Orman ran a strange “gold rush” scam that made little sense, but was extremely passionate, as Orman’s scams tend to be.

Orman posted over and over on Twitter insinuating that she had some kind of inside information that by November of 2012, gold was going to shoot up to 2100. In television shows and other appearances, Orman told everyone to put their retirement savings into gold.

Those who were paying attention would have seen Orman boast about buying and selling her own gold stocks to ride the roller coaster her extreme influence, and perhaps other unknown co-conspirator elements helped to create. Knowing she was protected from scrutiny or prosecution, Orman even bragged about how she sold her gold on the very day gold hit its top, claiming to have made a fortune, which I’m sure she did. Even after sold her gold, she kept telling everyone else to buy it, making buying gold her #1 prediction on CNBC for 2012.

Click here to watch the documentary video section about Orman's personal gold rush: Link 3-1 In 2011 and 2012, middle class citizens who were financially uneducated enough to follow Orman's big media wide push for people to buy gold lost big, while Orman cleaned up to the tune of millions by quickly buying and selling her own gold stocks, timed with the market ups and down that her efforts played a role in creating. Some may say, well how could Suze Orman be influential enough to affect and time the ups and downs of the gold market? First, this pump and dump would likely have been an “Orman cabal” special, with additional factors from other cabal co-conspirators. Also, remember that this was not long after Oprah’s protégé Suze Orman had been named as one of the most influential people in the world by Time magazine, and one year before Forbes declared Orman as the ninth most influential celebrity. By this time, Orman was also being pushed and protected by political lobbyist and damage control firm SKDK, with extreme webs of corporate and political influence. Therefore, it is not surprising that a widely publicized media blitz of emphatic promises of big returns on gold by a pumped up “personal finance advisor” certainly could have had enough influence to convince a whole lot of people, and their friends and family whom they shared Orman’s hot tip with, to quickly move their savings into gold. Here’s a wide view chart of Orman’s pump and dump, using the chart tracking the price of gold:

Click here to view or download a large image of this chart: Link 3-2

A closer view:

Those who saw Orman’s tweets and television appearances with her confident predictions about gold going way up spread the bad advice to their friends and family, telling them to quickly move 15-20 percent of their retirement portfolio into gold.

After Orman made her mega-millions jackpot by betting on gold while pumping it, this happened to most people who followed her advice, without a single message from Orman telling her “clients” to sell, or a single question from any journalist about her disastrous advice:

Here are a few tweets from Orman’s barrage:

In the middle of Orman’s Twitter “Gold Rush” she posted one barely noticed tweet saying, “I sold my GOLD today only because I had a tremendous gain & had way too much money in GOLD. I do plan to buy some back - I will wait and see...I made a lot of money on it - I am not greedy (HA! - ed.) - hey if I am wrong I will buy back in - I do think it will get to $2100... I am happy with how it turned out.”

In these tweets, Orman is rubbing her hands in glee while wiping out the retirement accounts of millions of fellow human beings and essentially moving their money into her own bank accounts, some of which likely have other countries as their addresses, based on circumstantial if not concrete evidence. Note how Orman gloats twice with the hint about how she’ll be buying back in (assumedly between her media “pumps”). It certainly looks like she is telling on herself, bragging about how she’s planning to buy and sell as she pumps and dumps the stock to coincide with her publicity strategist fueled headline blasts to “Buy Gold!!!” I’ve noticed that Orman has a certain need to let people know she was smart enough to con them, as a final stab to finish the scams off. I wouldn’t be surprised if she is narcissistically happy that someone has been obliged to take time from other more positive projects to research and reveal at least some of her elaborate shenanigans in a book and film. Suze Orman may not be an educated financial advisor or even a decent person, but she should go down in history next to Bernie Madoff as a very successful con artist. In this next clip, you can watch Orman blasting her gold pump and dump to viewers of The View. She enthusiastically delivered this terrible advice, months after bragging that she had sold her own gold stock after making a massive profit: Link 3-3.

From the gold chart, one can imagine that Orman sold, then bought back in, then sold, then bought back in, all timed with her big roller coaster media blasts (and who knows what other factors) that at least in part used her public influence to convince many to move their money from other investments into gold, artificially pumping the price just in time for her to make a killing. Is this the kind of advice a financial advisor should be telling people to do with their retirement savings?

As is common with Orman’s decrees, those who heard her tout gold certainly also told their friends and family about this great insider tip, which actually was an insider tip that would plunder their savings and fill up Orman’s already bloated accounts.

A “Special Report” on CNBC's website in December 2011 (Link 3-4), offered “important” economic predictions for 2012 from this person who never took a single financial college course while taking many extra years to get her bachelor's degree in social work. What Orman does have a lot of are personal profit motivations behind her advice, in this case, her gold “pump and dump.”

Yeah, not so much of a solid base, but don’t worry. Suze Orman, and probably some of her cabal friends, made millions. Some have suggested that Orman can’t necessarily be faulted for people losing so much of their savings, because nobody can predict price fluctuations of gold. To them, I say, watch the clips, look at the tweets, and watch Orman give the impression with extreme passion and conviction that a huge increase in their gold investments can be absolutely expected within one year. Who wouldn’t want to move some money into that scenario? Even if Orman’s emphatic media wide pumping had no effect whatsoever on the price of gold, Orman portrayed herself as having special insider information that the price was going to go way up. What Suze Orman did was even worse than insider trading; she was deceiving and scamming the public. Those who don’t have much knowledge about finances are exactly Suze Orman’s prime con artist marks, the best victims for her scams. And if they’ve listened to her advice not to have a personal advisor beyond Orman’s products, so much the better for keeping them as easily, repeatedly fleeced sheep. 94

Once you see enough Suze Orman scams, it’s easier to notice her affectations when lying, her poker game “tells,” from flipping her hair with each lie to that kind of over the top passion she showed with her gold pump—behaviors you’ll see abundantly in the documentary film, especially during Orman’s media wide prepaid debit card scam. Here's a clue as to who may have been paying Orman to pitch gold with such a fever: (Hint, they spend a lot of money advertising gold on FOX and other venues for a reason.) Link 3-5

Watch a video clip of Goldfellow CEO’s appearance on Orman’s OWN show: Link 3-6 Yes, right in the middle of her gold rush, Orman hosted the CEO of Goldfellow, who pays big bucks for commercial time on FOX and other stations, to appear on her Oprah Winfrey Network show that was also filled with many other scams and shenanigans. We’ll take a few pages to look into Orman’s “Money Class” shenanigans as an offshoot of the deceitful gold “pump and dump,” newsletter and prepaid card scams she was running, all at the same time. In fact, Orman did a big infomercial pitch for her “Approved” card on that OWN Money Class show—it was tasteless and predatory, featuring an obvious shill playing a role and nervously playing along with the scam. (Link 3-6a) Orman’s Money Class show also came with a very well publicized fifty thousand dollar contest to bribe viewers to watch OWN. Orman pitched the contest on many shows, including at the end of this interview with George Stephanopoulos, after pitching her prepaid scam on Good Morning America: Link 3-6b. Stephanopoulos’s response: “Boy, you’ve got a lot going on.” No kidding, George.

For this contest, Orman had corrupted Oprah Winfrey into fooling her millions of Twitter followers by sending out a tweet asking, “Anybody need more money?”

From the Hollywood Reporter article (Read the article: Link 3-7):

The billionaire OWN head raised a lot of eyebrows Monday morning when she asked her followers if they needed any money. Does Oprah Winfrey have enough money to share? By most standards -- a $2.7 billion net worth according to Forbes -- the answer to that question would be “yes.” And it probably gave the media mogul's nearly 9 million Twitter followers reason to get excited when she asked them the following question on Monday morning: “Anybody need more money?” The former talk show host kept the Internet waiting a breathless 8 minutes before following up with the anticlimactic details. “Thought I'd get your attention with that last tweet,” she wrote. “I'm not giving it away but @SuzeOrman is tonight 9/8 central on Money Class on OWN.” Responses ranged from the obligatory “LOL,” to a testy “That was low, ladies.” 97

Think about the thought process that would lead a multi-billionaire to use a question like that as a ploy to advertise a stupid television show that itself was little more than a series of infomercials in disguise. It was cruel and disrespectful. Imagine how Oprah’s loyal fans felt, many desperately needing more money to pay for emergencies or basic necessities, as Oprah sat back for eight minutes, watching the begging stream in, after asking, “Anybody need more money?” When Oprah finally added, “Thought I'd get your attention with that last tweet. I'm not giving it away but @SuzeOrman is tonight 9/8 central on Money Class on OWN,” that wasn’t true either. It was a long-term contest with significant questions about whether the prizes were ever actually given to real-life winners. Orman would use a similar tactic in 2016 on the Home Shopping Network to con people into buying her $54 will and trust kit for the chance to be entered to win a $25,000 sweepstakes prize. This “financial expert” touted buying her fifty-four dollar product to enter a sweepstakes as good financial advice. The HSN sweepstakes would also have loopholes in the terms that would allow Orman to easily avoid ever paying the prize, and no winner was announced on the promised announcement day, or ever (as of this book’s printing). You can read more about Orman’s 2016 sweepstakes scam in chapter nine, but here’s a quick preview:

Oprah’s deceptive plug is one more example of how Suze Orman is “bad company,” even for those with integrity and good character. Throughout her media appearances, Orman pitched watching the OWN show as a way viewers could win money by taking a quiz at the end. Part of the contest was for viewers to submit an essay on what they like most about Suze Orman, also giving Orman and Co. the right to do anything she wants with their laudatory, deceptively gathered essays of praise. Here are some of the legal terms for Orman’s OWN network contest. Note that several words in the contest’s legal document were misspelled—Orman couldn’t even bear to part with enough money to pay someone to proofread her narcissistic contest terms. “Entrants, upon submission of their Essay Submission to the Contest, hereby irrevocably grant to Sponsor, and each of its licensees, successors and assigns, the non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, no-cost license and right to use and otherwise exploit the Essay Submission, and all images, text and materials depicted therein, in whole or in part, in any manner or medium now or hereafter known or devised (including, without limitation, CDs, streaming media, film, television, videocassettes, print, interactive devices, mobile media, Internet and on-line systems), throughout the universe and in any and all languages, including, without limitation, the right to display, reproduce, record, perform, exhibit, distribute, copy, edit, change, modify, add to, subtract from, re-title and adapt the same, to combine it with other material and oteherwise use and exploit it without having to give any complensation or attribution to entrants…Each entrant, by participating in the Contest, except where legally prohibited, grants permission for Sponsor and its designees to use his/her name, address (city and state or province), photograph, voice and/or other likeness and prize information for advertising, trade and promotional purposes without further compensation, in all media now known or hereafter discovered, worldwide, in perpetuity, withoutn otice or review or approval.” But was this widely touted $50,000 prize or the five promised $5,000 prizes ever paid? And if so, were they paid to random viewers? This contest certainly seemed to have a questionable outcome when Orman rattled off a few first names who she said were the winners, with an obviously deceptive Scammin’ Suze demeanor: Link 3-9. With that in mind, let’s have another look at the long legal contest rules, with a whole lot of loopholes for Orman to get out of ever paying anything to anyone. Orman added some interesting additions to the extensive legal contest rules, probably assuming that nobody would actually read them all, certainly not whatever government agencies should be looking into such scams. 99

First, Orman and her cabal made sure nobody could sue her for not actually giving any of the prizes, with this: (Link 3-8 )

“All disputes will be resolved solely by binding arbitration and entrants are waiving the ability to bring claims in a class action format.” Orman also put this gobbledygook into the legal contest agreement: “Subject to applicable laws, each potential winner will be required to submit to a background check before being deemed eligible to receive their prize and Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any individual whose background check reveals information that is inconsistent with the positive images and/or goodwill to which Sponsor wishes to associate with the Contest (which may be determined by Sponsor, at its sole discretion.)” Each potential winner for the Contest may (in Sponsor’s sole discretion) be required to execute an affidavit of eligibility/release of liability/prize acceptance agreement (the “Prize Acceptance Release”) and return the Prize Acceptance Release before being eligible to receive his or her prize. If any potential winner fails or refuses to sign and return such Prize Acceptance Release within seven (7) days of the first (1st) notification attempt or if the prize notification is returned as rejected, faulty, unclaimed, or returned as undeliverable to such potential winner, such potential winner (in Sponsor’s sole discretion) may be disqualified, their potential prize forfeited, and an alternate may (in Sponsor’s sole discretion) be selected (such alternate to be the individual with the next highest score as determined in accordance with Section 7 above). If any potential winner is found to be ineligible, or if he or she has not complied with these Official Rules, he or she may be disqualified, in Sponsor’s sole discretion, and an alternate potential prize winner may then, in Sponsor’s sole discretion, be selected by the Judges. The Prize Acceptance Release is subject to verification by Sponsor. Sponsor is not responsible for and shall not be liable for late, lost, damaged, intercepted misdirected, or unsuccessful efforts to notify the potential winners. When a potential winner is contacted, he/she will have a stated period of time within which to respond to the notification, or he/she will be disqualified and his/her prize forfeited, and an alternate potential winner may be selected. If a potential winner changes his/her e- mail address or other contact information after he/she registers, it is his/her sole responsibility to update his/her registration information notifying the Sponsor. Failure to update such registration information may affect a potential winner’s ability to receive a prize.

100

That was just one section for Orman’s contest rules—repetitions, typos, and all. What do you think the chances are this contest prize was ever given? In her “Goldfellow episode” on the OWN Money Class show, Orman had audience members sell jewelry items to the CEO of Goldfellow, who I’m sure made a bundle when Orman’s pumping resulted in a massive bump in the price of gold. At the same time that she was having people sell their gold on the OWN show, Orman was running her gold rush “pump and dump,” pushing people to buy gold. It's the Suze Orman specialty of getting paid from all directions for the same scam. Uh oh - Look what happened next! All those people who listened to Orman practically begging them to buy gold, but who didn't happen to notice the couple tiny tweets that quickly came and went where she said she had sold hers and made huge profits, lost a whole lot of money, while Suze Orman made off like the bandit she is.

101

New York Times, April 2013: “Gold, Long a Secure Investment, Loses its Luster”: Gold, pride of Croesus and store of wealth since time immemorial, has turned out to be a very bad investment of late. A mere two years after its price raced to a nominal high, gold is sinking — fast. Its price has fallen 17 percent since late 2011. Wednesday was another bad day for gold: the price of bullion dropped $28 to $1,558 an ounce… “Gold was destroyed as a safe haven, proved to be unsafe,” Mr. Soros said in an interview last week with The South China Morning Post of Hong Kong. “Because of the disappointment, most people are reducing their holdings of gold.” …Mr. Norstog, in Pocatello… put his money in a gold fund that was focused on mining company stocks. “If I had to do it all over again, I would have just bought the gold,” Mr. Norstog said. “At least that way I could have run my fingers through the glittering coins.” And what happened to all those who followed Orman's emphatic, media-blasted advice to buy gold, which she all but guaranteed would go up to $2100 by late 2012?

For Suze Orman, it’s all a con-artist game, but for her victims, it meant losing their homes, their savings, their peace of mind, and more. Orman and her partners don’t just run one scam at a time—they paint webs of deceit that work together to move money from the poor and middle class into her pockets and those of her corporate and bank partners. In her gold “pump and dump,” Orman didn’t just soak up millions from timing the market with her media blasts. She also tied that scam into another sham that became a scandal, “Suze Orman’s Money Navigator Newsletter.” 102

“The Money Navigator is determined (by “financial expert of the world” Suze Orman herself, of course) to be the ONLY financial guide that you will EVER need!” How good does that poppycock advertisement sound to those who have no idea they’re pawns in the games of a scammer? While pumping gold, Orman referred people to the newsletter to find out where they could buy the gold ETFs Orman was recommending, along with other dependable market advice. She gave the newsletter free for a year before charging $63 in subsequent years, but the few journalists who noticed said that even the free newsletter was too expensive.

103

Note the mention of Orman’s newsletter in this ridiculously self- laudatory bio Orman posted at the end of the same CNBC article where she was pushing gold as her number one recommendation for 2012: Suze Orman is a two-time Emmy Award-winning television host, New York Times mega bestselling author, magazine and online columnist, writer/producer, and one of the top motivational speakers in the world today. Orman is undeniably America’s most recognized expert on personal finance. You can subscribe to her newsletter, The Money Navigator, at http://www.suzeorman.com/moneynavigator/ Orman's Money Navigator Newsletter would eventually end with a costly SEC settlement for Orman's partner, but not the slightest legal ramifications for “Teflon” Orman. In 2011, Orman was all over the media, as usual, now giving away free subscriptions to her new Money Navigator Newsletter, which subsequently cost subscribers $63 a year. Although Orman made some coin on her fifty percent of the subscription fees, she was mainly using this sham to increase her credibility as a brilliant financial wizard who never took a single finance-related college course, yet was so magically smart and such a genius that everyone should listen to her newsletter.

104

Here you can see how Orman integrated her newsletter pitches with the gold “pump and dump” scheme:

105

Since Orman’s schemes have many prongs, thanks to her devious but brilliant political lobbyists and media strategists, she was also using the newsletter as a means to get people to buy her new book, which came with a free subscription, and to watch her show on OWN that came with free subscriptions. In fact, Orman had partnered with an actual finance expert who was already running very successful newsletters, and offered him big Suze Orman style promises. My understanding, based on conversations with Grimaldi, is that Orman convinced him to put tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into creating the Money Navigator newsletter and website. Orman’s part would be to put her face on the newsletter, and to use her clout to convince people to sign up for free one-year subscriptions, which would then turn into paid subscriptions. This next excerpt is from an article by Felix Salmon of Reuters. Once he saw Orman’s prepaid card fraud and newsletter shenanigans, Salmon became a recovered Suze Orman supporter, and interviewed her for an article he ended up titling, “Suze Orman's conflicts.” The interview took place in January 2012, in the middle of Orman's gold pump and dump, newsletter push, and prepaid debit card scam. In the Reuters interview, Orman bragged about the newsletter’s ETF for gold going up 5% in a week and a half. Gee, I wonder how that happened! This was when Orman was practically begging people on TV shows and Twitter to put 15-20% of their savings into gold ETFs right away, with her prediction of great wealth in their futures. In interview responses, Orman practically admits she is running a scam. (Link 3-15) Reuters journalist Felix Salmon explains: Of course, I have my own opinions on financial matters as well. And some things are just completely laughable. Like, for instance, the idea that anybody, ever, should spend $63 per year for an investment newsletter with buy and sell portfolio recommendations which are designed to beat the market. But, that’s exactly what Orman is selling.

106

And, she told me, “that newsletter is fabulous”, adding that it “has been beating the market by a lot”, and that it was “rated number one” by someone or other, and — I have to admit this is where she rendered me utterly speechless — “we issued a buy for an ETF for gold, we are up 5% in that ETF in a week and a half. So you have to look at the returns and judge it on the returns.” Remember, this is a newsletter giving investment advice for people’s retirement accounts. And here’s Suze, bragging about the 10-day return on a gold ETF? “If you want to dispense information that you just buy and hold,” Orman told me, “I wouldn’t want to see your track record.” Well, I’ll happily ignore Orman’s advice on this front, as well as the advice in her Money Navigator newsletter, and I’m going to stick to my buy-and-hold strategy instead, even though Orman’s telling me that “index funds are no longer going to be the way to do things, you need to buy ETFs with high dividend yields.”

Grimaldi told me during a conversation that Orman said that if he put another $30,000 into the website, Oprah was planning to put the newsletter on her coveted holiday show's list of “Favorite Things.” For those who understand Orman’s use of false extravagant promises to elicit greed and convince people to put their skills and resources into the Orman cesspool, it is clear just from hearing this that this “Oprah’s Favorite Things” outcome was never even a remote possibility. But Grimaldi believed her, as I once also believed her extravagant promises that were 100% lies. Along with Orman using free gifts of the newsletter to sell her other products and give her a sheen of expertise, she also made sure all the money received from the newsletter first went directly to herself. Anyone who re-subscribed after their one-year gift subscription ran out would pay the money directly to Orman's company, which would then cut a check to the actual expert doing all the work for 50%, minus “service fees.”

107

A year after pitching “her” newsletter, Orman herself would admit, while trying to distance herself from the newsletter after milking it for all it was worth, that she had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual content of this newsletter. That is not surprising, given how much Orman brags that she never got above a grade “C” and never took a single finance-related college course while getting her B.A. in Social Work, a field in which she never worked. As with most Suze scam scenarios, her partner's good reputation ended up being all but destroyed. Even while all the money being paid to the newsletter was still going directly into her personal account, Orman posted Twitter messages claiming that she had nothing whatsoever to do with the newsletter and that Grimaldi was violating the law by using her name without permission, which was an outright lie intended to harm his reputation and livelihood—a Suze specialty.

108

Here are some articles about the Money Navigator newsletter, which for nearly two years, Orman touted as “her” newsletter.

From US News: Why Suze Orman's Free Newsletter is Too Overpriced.” (Link 3-10) Grimaldi is the poster child for running a fund with high fees. According to one report, he charges a management fee of 1.63 percent for his Sector Rotation Fund, which invests in exchange-traded funds. In stark contrast, the average expense ratios (which reflect management fees charged by the fund) for exchange-traded funds managed by Vanguard are only 0.17 percent. It’s bad enough that Orman is endorsing a newsletter with questionable data. It’s worse that her endorsement may encourage investors to believe that newsletters have any predictive value. Orman has given away more than 50,000 copies of Grimaldi’s newsletter, which costs $63 a year. She is quoted as saying she is “proud to be able to provide our newsletter to people who are looking for solid financial advice.” Giving away this newsletter is no defense for Orman. It’s still too expensive.

“Suze Orman's Bad Investment Newsletter,” from Reuters: (Link 3-11) Ms. Orman declined to address specific questions about the newsletter or Mr. Grimaldi’s background. “Mark Grimaldi is my trusted partner in The Money Navigator,” she said in an emailed statement. “He is ethical, honest and achieves stellar results that consistently outperform the market. I’m proud to be able to provide our newsletter to people who are looking for solid financial advice.”

109

Lying about being ranked by Hulbert Financial Digest is, needless to say, neither ethical nor honest. Which means, on an unsympathetic reading of Suze Orman, that she’s lying too. When I spoke to Orman last week, she made it very clear that her relationship with Grimaldi’s newsletter was no different than her relationship with the Approved Card — she’s an owner of both of them, thinks that both of them are very good products, and is proud of them both. (The same goes for her FICO package, too.) Orman also told me twice that the newsletter was rated number one — she was adamant about that. And now it turns out that it isn’t. I spoke to Orman on Tuesday; maybe Zweig hadn’t contacted her with his questions yet at that point. But at best Orman is extremely incurious about the “fabulous” newsletter that she is so keen to hawk and defend. And at worst she’s happy lying about it being ranked highly by Hulbert.

Orman made the same kinds of incorrect claims about the newsletter that got Grimaldi in hot water, but without a single consequence.

After all, Suze Orman has no credentials and is listed by name as being exempt from the Department of Labor’s rule that financial advisors must act in the best interest of their clients. But Orman’s partner did have credentials, and the same government agencies who have given Orman’s scams a complete pass went after her credentialed newsletter partner with a vengeance. From the Wall Street Journal: Should Suze Orman’s Newsletter Partner Be Pumping His Ratings? (Link 3-12) This weekend’s Intelligent Investor column looked at The Money Navigator, an investing newsletter jointly owned by personal-finance guru Suze Orman and money manager Mark Grimaldi of Wappingers Falls, N.Y. It raised questions about the accuracy of some of the information on Grimaldi’s investment performance. In a statement to the Journal, Orman called Grimaldi “my trusted partner in The Money Navigator” and said he is “ethical, honest and achieves stellar results that consistently outperform the market.”

110

This Covester article brings up other ways Orman and Grimaldi were making money from questionable advice in the newsletter. “The Suze Orman Retirement hedge fund”: (Link 3-13) It seems that Orman partnered with an existing newsletter provider, whose author/portfolio builder Mark Grimaldi also happens to be the lead manager of the Sector Rotation mutual fund (NAVFX). The monthly newsletter offers a number of model portfolios that subscribers are encouraged to follow in their own brokerage accounts...(an) investment newsletter that encourages her rank-and-file American young woman to put 35% of her retirement savings into junk bonds and a sector rotation fund - run by her newsletter partner—that's heavily invested in leveraged ETFs?” Et tu, Suze?”

Along with the newsletter came Orman's pitches for everyone to buy gold. She specifically recommended that people buy ETFs, and that they use the information in “her” newsletter to guide their decisions.

111

Click here to watch video of Orman pitching gold with her confident prediction that gold would hit $2100 by November 2012. (Link 3-14) Orman’s overly enthusiastic affect in that video clip is a sure sign of her deceptive manipulations in progress. Then came more problems regarding the “Suze Orman Money Navigator Newsletter,” from US News:

Perhaps most troubling is an article in The Wall Street Journal by respected financial journalist Jason Zweig. Zweig discussed glaring problems with a newsletter issued by Mark Grimaldi, an investment manager. Orman is a 50 percent owner of the newsletter, which costs $63 a year. She has given away more than 50,000 trial subscriptions. Issues of the newsletter contained a number of errors, which included providing returns for a fund managed by Grimaldi prior to the time the fund was in existence, and understating the performance of the S&P 500 in nine of the 10 years cited. The accurate returns of the S&P 500 meant that Grimaldi’s portfolio trailed—rather than beat—he performance of the index in 2009. Here’s a Wall Street Journal video interview you can watch about some of the newsletter issues, “Suze Orman's Newsletter Raises Eyebrows”: (Link 3-16) WSJ 'Intelligent Investor' Jason Zweig profiles personal finance expert Suze Orman and her business partner in producing a lucrative monthly newsletter.

I tend to give Grimaldi some benefit of the doubt, especially since he had partnered with someone who easily convinces others to “fudge the truth” to benefit her pocketbook. At the time, Orman was committing blatant fraud all over the place, while running her “Approved” card scam on shows from Good Morning America to The View, to ABC News and local news stations across the country, pitching her prepaid debit card as a reasonably priced vehicle through which card users could expect to get a better FICO score. What are a few minor bookkeeping errors in the face of that shameful level of media wide fraud? Orman’s newsletter drama took place right at the same time more than one hundred financial journalists, top to bottom, were writing articles to warn the public about Orman’s prepaid card. It was the first time some of these journalists soberly realized that they had been recommending a scammer for all those years.

112

All that negative media attention on Orman’s “Approved” card scam also brought scrutiny upon the newsletter she was pitching at the same time. For Grimaldi, it was a matter of bad timing on the Suze Orman scam timeline. With Orman’s prepaid card fraud taking place at the exact same time, this would have been the ideal opportunity for government agencies to finally stop her scams and bring justice to victims of her frauds. However, because of what CNN’s Chris Cuomo rightfully labeled the “Orman Cabal,” no government or other official agency would touch her. But Orman’s newsletter partner was a different story. He had credentials, and was expected to follow rules of ethics. Once Zweig and other journalists noticed that some of his numbers were off, Grimaldi in a sense became Orman’s scapegoat, taking the fall, while the real criminal went off once again to the next set of scams. And wait for it … one, two, three …

From “Suze Orman Parts Ways with Newsletter” in the Wall Street Journal: (Link 3-17) Today on Twitter, Orman distanced herself from the publication. Grimaldi “should own it outright given that it was all him. Also I wanted to give it all away for the first year for free to test it,” she tweeted in reply to @mrrainey619.

113

“I stopped working with TMN because all the ideas concepts recommendations were Marks so he should simply own it outright,” she also tweeted. “Just that simple.” Yet the ideas, concepts and recommendations in the newsletter were always Grimaldi’s, before and after Orman invested in the publication, according to interviews Grimaldi gave to the Journal in January. Orman had given away more than 50,000 copies of the newsletter, according to earlier interviews with Grimaldi and her spokeswoman. Orman had formerly stood behind Grimaldi, even as he retracted some of his claims after inquiries from the Journal…Orman referred to the publication as “my Money Navigator newsletter” in an interview with TV host Piers Morgan in February. Grimaldi didn’t respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Orman referred a request for comment to Kathy Travis, Orman’s business partner, who didn’t respond.

Then came this:

Law360, New York (January 30, 2014) – A New York-based money manager who co-founded an investing newsletter with CNBC personality Suze Orman on Thursday settled a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission action over the newsletter’s allegedly false claims. Mark A. Grimaldi, who owns Navigator Money Management Inc., agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty to settle an SEC administrative case, the commission said Thursday. The commission targeted Grimaldi for allegedly distributing misleading statements through Twitter and his newsletters, including one called “The Money Navigator,” which he co- founded with CNBC’s Orman.

114

Again, Grimaldi’s error was not even a grain of sand next to the mountain of scams and shenanigans Orman has perpetrated throughout her career, including the widespread financial fraud she was committing at the very same time. At this point, it became more beneficial for Scamming Suze to admit that she had done nothing more than put her face and name on the work done by Grimaldi and his team. Orman had little more use for the newsletter now that she used those free subscriptions to bolster sales of her Money Class book, which continued to offer the free subscription in a new edition published after she claimed to have parted ways with the newsletter. Orman had also used giving away (Grimaldi’s work on) the newsletter to claim altruism while fooling people into buying her “Approved” prepaid card, as she did in this very telling, scamalicious interview on Piers Morgan’s CNN show: Link 3-18. Then came more lies on top from Orman:

115

Suze Orman can’t just let those she cons leave with serious damage— she also has to cast false aspersions and ruin their reputations personally, as she did by announcing the blatant lie that Grimaldi was using her name on the newsletter without permission, even while their contract was still intact and Orman was still receiving 100% of all money paid for the newsletter, from which she sent Grimaldi 50%, minus “service fees.”

116

Orman’s newsletter partner was none too pleased:

Since Orman was claiming to have no part in the newsletter, Grimaldi posted the check he had just received from Orman as proof that all the money that came into the newsletter still went directly into Suze Orman’s bank account, from which she would send him 50%, minus whatever service fees she deemed reasonable, considering, as she admitted when faced with legal questions, Grimaldi and his team did all the work:

117

118

It’s no fun to get scammed by Suze Orman.

Several months later, came a new newsletter message to Orman’s well- fleeced flock:

119

120

Chapter Four Distortions of the “Queen Of Crisis”: Damaging the Economy for Personal Gain

In the late 1990s, just as our culture was about to get swept into a higher level of generous spiritual holistic mentality, Suze Orman—who had only recently been $250,000 in debt, and spending tens of thousands of dollars of that borrowed money on extreme extravagances—came along wagging her finger and shouting that wealth is good, greed is good, money is spirituality, and you must have the “Courage to be Rich!” Aside from buying Orman's products, her advice said to, be afraid, be ashamed, and hold off on enjoying life. Don't pursue your dreams. Don't take that vacation, don’t get that cup of coffee, don't change your career to something you would love to do if it might disrupt your finances, don't marry anyone who doesn’t have a good FICO score, and don't help your friends, family, or anyone else but yourself. As Orman would occasionally explain, when she repeated her altruistic sounding statement, “People first, then money, then things,” what she meant was to put yourself first, in terms of always getting more money for yourself. Orman's edicts, messages, actions, and behaviors have contributed to removing heart from our world. She sometimes advised people to act in dishonest and unscrupulous ways, such as telling a woman on her CNBC show not to tell her husband that she wanted a divorce, because if she stayed with him for one more year, She’d reach ten years of marriage and possibly get an increased portion of his social security payments one day. Orman also advised the woman to steal and hide away money from her unaware, soon-to-be ex-husband, so when she’d leave a year later, she would have some savings. Living a lie to make a few more bucks is nothing for Suze Orman, so why not advise others to live in deception and steal from loved ones as well. Here is an article with links to other articles about certain specific problems with Orman's financial advice that suggest her liaisons with banks and creditors. It is from the Bankruptcy Law Network, so obviously the criticisms come from that point of view, but clearly the elderly woman in this example was given troubling and inconsistent advice by Orman, instead of advice based on her circumstances as an 81 year-old woman who lives on $600 of Social Security income a month: From Bankruptcy Law Network: “Suze Orman Bankrupts a Reader Without the Benefits.” (Link 4-2)

121

Bankruptcy is a last resort of course. But it is an option. Paying back debt when you barely have enough money to survive is usually a horrible alternative. Unless you are Suze Orman. Ms. Orman styles herself as a financial adviser to every day folks. And Oprah Winfrey has given her a column on the O website. But Ms. Orman sounds more and more like she works for the credit industry, not you. In her March 2012 on-line column, she posted a Q&A response which makes consumer advocates — and anyone who actually cares about their elderly family — scream. The question was asked how to help an 81-year old woman with $8,000 of credit card debt and only $600/mo of Social Security income get out of debt. I can think of a few ways to deal with it. First, the lady could probably file bankruptcy. If she has no non-exempt assets, that would be a very simple case. But, second, she may not need to consider even that. If she has no assets and no other income, she is judgment-proof and would not need to file bankruptcy to avoid the debt. The creditors could not seize her Social Security for payment, for example. And I suspect there are other options available to her. The one answer I would not suggest for someone with that much debt compared to their income — $8,000 for a person earning only $600/mon is like Orman facing an $8 million debt — would be to try to pay it off. But that’s what Suze said. As she pointed out, “It’s fruitless to try to talk your way out of this; the card issuer has every right to expect repayment”… For someone like Orman who ought to know that Social Security is protected from creditor collection action — so the creditor may have a “right to expect payment” but the consumer has the right to refuse to pay from those funds too — it shows she’s not even trying to help. She just doles out credit industry-approved guidance. Whether it would help, do more harm than good or is even feasible in the real world doesn’t seem to matter sometimes. Indeed, Orman not only suggested that the elderly woman divert her pittance to repaying debt, she suggested she use more debt to get out of debt. She recommended they track down a low or no-interest card she could open and transfer the balances to. Without saying it, the next step is likely to need to open another account, rinse, and repeat. That’s a gamble and it puts keeping a good credit score over paying for the basics of life. But she never hints at any other option but repayment.

122

In fact, Orman simply used the elderly woman’s circumstance as a way of pitching the concept of “card kiting” as viable repayment tool for anyone in debt (and to lecture us — but not the industry — about the evils of cash advance financing). This is an easy scenario to address if you have the consumer’s interests at heart — We already know the credit industry lost that money. It’s gone. Sometimes the only way to make them admit it is to file bankruptcy. But one way or the other, only the most ruthless creditor- oriented adviser would tell an elderly woman in such straits to find a way to repay that debt and never mention non-payment or, heaven forbid!, bankruptcy. So what does that say about Suze Orman? Who does she really work for? And what does it say about Oprah’s O Magazine, that it would feature this advice as “Suze’s Best Advice on Getting Out of Debt.”

Orman not only reached millions of people on Oprah’s magazine and show, but due to her Oprah connection, Orman was also invited to give information that was often misinformation on many shows throughout the media landscape, resulting in a public influence extreme enough for con artist Suze Orman to be named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world for two years in a row. Once Orman hooked in with the political lobbyist media broker damage control “cabal” some years later, she would move on to bigger and better scams. Before that, she was still giving what ended up being disastrous advice, over and again. Whether some or all of Orman’s bad advice was intentional is, perhaps, up for debate. Here is an example of Orman contributing to the housing crisis and economic decline by encouraging people to quickly buy a home at the very top of the bubble, telling them specifically not to worry about buying into a bubble, and to buy a house right away to lock in a seven percent rate, advising: “Try to apply for a mortgage sooner rather than later.” As usual, those who followed Orman’s tainted advice lost a great deal when interest rates soon after plummeted below four percent, leaving those who locked in those seven percent rates unable to even refinance their loans. This is either an example of misinformation from an overly-confident, uneducated, pseudo “financial expert,” or something more devious that was intended to deplete the middle class, which would support Orman’s frequent declarations that she repeated like mantras for years while running her scams that, “The middle class is gone,” and, “The American Dream is dead.” 123

Here is Suze Orman giving her bad housing advice in O Magazine, in 2003 and again in 2007, to the same Oprah fans she has used and conned for too many years:

Once rates fell below four percent, this “financial expert” with no credentials or education announced with great fanfare and the usual headline blast that she had changed her advice.

124

While those who had followed Orman’s previous advice and rushed to buy into a bubble were now finding themselves in underwater homes, she then went on the talk show circuit with a new headline.

Orman was now telling people they should walk away from their underwater mortgages, which meant losing all the money they’d already paid to the banks, including their down payments. Now the banks had their money and owned their homes. From the Paying For Protection blog: One vocal proponent of “walking away” is financial guru Suze Orman who has been quoted in numerous articles stating that those who are “underwater” in their mortgages should walk off and let the houses get foreclosed on. This past Monday, Ms. Orman appeared on “The View” with what has become her new rallying cry, “If you are upside down in your mortgage and the bank will not work with you, walk away from the house.” 125

In Orman's book The Money Class, she advises borrowers, “Do the calculations everybody. How much is it costing you to actually stay in that house? How many years will it take for you to pay more for that house than it is worth? If it's 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, are you kidding me? That's a house you really need to say bye bye. It's not worth the money.” Orman advises people who are upside down in their home mortgages to try to get the bank to modify the loan. Failing that, she says that homeowners should seek out a short sale or a deed in lieu of foreclosure. “If they won't do that, then walk away. It's just how it is.” The fact that a respected money expert is telling American borrowers that they can and should default on their loan obligations when they have the ability to repay is really a sign of just how far we have fallen as a nation. It is deplorable to think that we have come to a place as a society where defaulting on our obligations is considered some kind of a moral high road.

Orman’s new advice was that her “clients” should walk away from their mortgages and lose all their equity and their homes, because “It’s okay to be a renter for the rest of your life.” You’ll see these clips in our documentary film section on Suze Orman’s role in the housing crisis: Link 4-1. In the film, you’ll also hear Orman bragging about owning five homes that she bought with cash. This article comment shares one example of many who lost a lot due to following Suze Orman's bad advice:

Chitownmatt I partially blame Suze Orman for the housing bubble. I know that sounds ridiculous, but for years she was on Oprah and in her books telling everyone, “buy a house, buy a house, buy a house, it’s the best financial decision you can ever make. Buy a house…” My old roommate bought a condo in 2007 after reading one of her books and getting pressure from his mom and sister who had also read one of her books…Needless to say, he paid 170k for a condo in a building that now has 5 or 6 empty units out of about 40 by foreclosure. It’s impossible to really tell what his one bedroom condo is worth today because no one in their right mind would be willing to buy it, but I would guess maybe around 70. Did Suze ever apologize to my friend for such horrible advice? Did Suze ever go on Oprah and admit that her, “buy a house, buy a house, buy a

house” advice turned out to be flawed. No!

126

Who might have benefited from that housing collapse while millions lost their homes? I’ll let Donald Trump give a hint about who benefited from these abandoned and foreclosed homes, from an interview two years before the housing collapse: “I sort of hope that happens, because then people like me would go in and buy. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you can make a lot of money.”

And, look who was speaking together at the same time the housing market collapsed:

127

This photo was taken just as the homes of hundreds of thousands of Orman's customers who had followed her advice to quickly buy a house and lock in a 7% mortgage rates before interest rates plummeted below 4%, were going into foreclosure and losing their homes. Orman never leaves too much time to pass between her bad advice and new plundering schemes. While fans who followed her advice were still reeling from losing their equities and homes, Orman was already on to more nefarious ways to scare the public into funneling money from the poor and middle class into her pockets.

Breaking News: Suze Orman proclaims that the American Dream is Dead!

128

129

Yes, that is over 50,000 results—a big PR blast of a negative mantra that filled the public with fear and filled Orman’s pockets with more corporate and bank money for her price-for-advice disguised infomercials and other scams to come. Suze Orman benefited every time the United States’ economy took another hit.

After the housing crisis came Orman’s Gold Rush of 2011, where Orman practically begged people to invest in Gold ETFs. Those fooled by Orman’s “Gold rush” blast lost a lot of money, as documented in Chapter Three. Orman’s gold blast caused further destruction to the United States’ economy, while shifting considerable money from mostly middle class citizens up to Suze Orman and her one-percent supporters and enablers. Due to the Oprah-given platform that brought Time magazine to name Suze Orman as one of the “100 most influential people in the world,” Orman's whims have distorted national and international streams of commerce in numerous ways, including Orman shouting out rigid rules that were often based on her behind-the-scene deals.

130

Orman took up most of the “financial expert” air in the public financial advice marketplace, displacing actual educated experts who could and would have given honest, helpful, balanced information and respectfully empowered and guided individuals with the information needed to follow their own intelligence, integrity, generosity, and destiny. Orman has readily admitted that she benefits whenever the economy gets worse, and based on the Suze Orman I knew all too well, she would be more than happy to ruin lives and harm the economy, as long as it increased her fortune and fame. An article in Time magazine, titled, “Suze Orman: Queen of the Crisis,” begins with: (Link 4-3) “'I'm very, very sorry to say that my business is skyrocketing,' the personal-finance guru Suze Orman said one late January afternoon. The Dow was down almost 200 points, and Orman was lounging on the terrace of her San Francisco town house, wearing a leopard-print tunic and cowboy boots. She looked up and popped a grape into her mouth.” Oh, she sounded sooo very, very sorry, like a cartoon villain, popping another grape in her mouth while gloating over the suffering masses.

It is ultimately greed that is destroying our social fabric, economy, environment, and much more. Although Orman has tossed in a few often- plagiarized quotes about how we can be rich without money (you can almost always find quotes where Orman says the exact opposite of things she’s said in other quotes) her real message has always been that material wealth is more important than anything else in life. A large part of Orman’s CNBC show involved shouting at people that they must deny themselves everything and anything in life unless it fits into her little Suze Orman box of rules that she never followed in the slightest while she was deeply in debt and finding her way to worldly success. I do have some other speculations about roles Orman is playing in shifting the wealth in this country, including her corporate connections, deals and partnerships with many large corporations and heads of large corporations, billionaires, and who knows who else.

131

Suze Orman has gained access to the most private personal and financial data from millions of people who have signed up for her various wares, including software programs and newsletters she has given away for free, but not necessarily without motive. As an example, Orman’s FICO kit was the subject of a successful lawsuit that accused Orman and Fair Isaac Corporation of not only giving bad information to their customers, but of using the personal information people submitted when purchasing their scores for the purpose of helping creditors get money from them. Quite a scam!

Baker (one of the litigants of the successful lawsuit) can’t understand how multi-millionaire Suze Orman sleeps at night, her advice appears to be out of a 20 year old credit repair manual and she has certainly destroyed many consumers’ lives with her horrible recommendations. The CRAs and Fair Isaac are in business to assist creditors and collectors with the collection of debts. Is it legal to request that consumers submit personal information so that current and future creditors can use it to aide their debt collection efforts? Fair Isaac FAILS TO DISCLOSE that the purpose of this “service” is debt collection.

132

Collectors have to disclose to debtors that the information provided will be used to collect debts, as per the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Baker is not sure whether Fair Isaac would be considered a debt collector subject to the FDCPA, but to disguise these debt collection efforts by Suze Orman as advice is misleading, deceptive and extremely damaging to consumers. Orman’s rampant PR blitzes of big headlines, to sell products and increase her influence, have led to huge numbers of people walking away from their mortgages, not spending the stimulus checks that were meant to jumpstart the economy in 2008, canceling their newspaper subscriptions, taking vows not to eat in restaurants when the recession left many businesses on the brink of closing, encouraging students to forgo higher education (unless it’s the predatory Orman partner University of Phoenix), with Orman telling people not to help friends or relatives, and parents not to help their children with college or by giving allowances. Orman considered those things as “wants.” So what might she consider as a “need”?

As Orman says in this next QVC clip with slick oil salesman panache, if she can make it to success, fame, and fortune while never getting a single grade above a “C,” you can (…wait for it…) reach into your pocket and buy her latest silver box kit, which is apparently better than the blue or green boxes the QVC audience may have previously purchased. (Watch the clip: Link 4-4)

133

Here is one of many Twitter messages Orman posted while feverishly pitching her prepaid debit card:

You can see how Orman’s biggest dream come true would have been for the banking system to collapse enough to push millions of people’s life savings onto her fee-laden, shoddily run, predatory prepaid debit card that was deceptively poised to catch it. In our film, you’ll see Orman describing her card to Time magazine, as being “like a little bank that you can keep in your pocket.” Yet, nobody even mentioned that her card being like a little bank that you can keep in your pocket is no different from any credit, debit, or prepaid card in the world, except that hers lost accounts left and right and charged loads of fees!

Orman’s restaurant and newspaper blowout As the economy fell in late 2008 and early 2009, Orman's “rescue remedy” was to ask society, through Oprah's massive stage and other venues, to cut their spending in half, specifically telling them to cancel their newspaper subscriptions. From an article titled, “Dear Oprah, why do you want to kill newspapers?” (Link 4-12)

You let financial guru Suze Orman come on your show and tell your audience to cancel their newspaper subscriptions to save money. Let me remind you of your audience: They do what you say. I know. I have a wife, a mother and at least one sister-in-law who all follow your every move. My mom has a bookshelf in her house that should be labeled “Oprah’s Bookshelf.” You wave it; she reads it. After the Dow and Wal-Mart, you are the No. 3 economic force in America. You so influence the lives of these women that I’ve been dying for an episode entitled “Mrs. Franko, it’s time for you to go back into the workforce” because my chats with my wife are certainly not working.

134

What will you do if your fans go out today and cancel their newspaper? Here’s an irony: Had this show aired in October, and your audience listened to you, you might not have had a Chicago Sun-Times in November to wave on TV to proclaim “the best paper in the world.”

Around the same time, Orman asked Oprah viewers to take an official pledge to stop eating in restaurants for one month. In that time of economic downturn, restaurants and newspapers were two areas of society that were barely hanging on, and Orman’s lopsided commandments to withdraw large streams of income from those two sectors all at once with a headline grabber she and her cabal came up with to generate some headlines for her new book, were surely felt by people in both industries, as explained by this restaurant chef in US News: (Link 4-13) At the core of (Orman’s) Action Plan is what she calls her Action Pledge that she wants everyone to take within one month of reading her book. Her pledge says: “Do not spend money for one day. Do not use your credit card for one week. Do not eat out at a restaurant for one month.” As a professional restaurant chef, I was floored when I heard that quoted on the radio. The restaurant industry blogs and websites have been in a panic. In the name of financial responsibility, Orman is singling out one industry as her “fall guy.” Why restaurants? And why for an entire month? Does she want our entire food system to collapse as the shock waves of her very public proposals ripple through the economy? Restaurants, and the many people and businesses that supply them with their food, are already under tremendous pressure. Restaurants are closing right and left, even without Orman's help. Suppliers are sending out half-empty trucks as people order less food, and this is affecting the farmers, ranchers, and producers farther down the chain. Hundreds of thousands of people in the food industry are struggling already - and will be even worse off if people listen to Orman and Oprah. This extreme single-mindedness is not the way to financial freedom.

These are just two examples of how Orman’s distorted advice, pushed by Oprah Winfrey’s extreme influence, caused troubling distortions in the economy and in whatever specific businesses Orman chose to target. You can be sure business who paid her price were spared from Orman’s wrath.

135

Note that “financial expert Suze Orman” didn’t advise Oprah’s viewers to look at all their expenses and see what they could trim, “For example, you might want to stop going to restaurants or to cancel your newspapers.” She asked every one of Oprah’s millions of viewers to take a pledge, all at the same time! Of course it is general good advice to curtail extravagant spending when funds are low, however, it is a problem to ask people to take a pledge, not only through Oprah's platform, but Orman's other media appearances, where she targeted specific business sectors that were already on the brink of failing in a time of extreme economic instability. Orman would often pass off her whims as trustworthy advice, asking people to cut spending in sometimes absurd and petty ways, without exception or individual discernment. The big exception to her stingy advice was when it came to buying wares that would put more money into Orman's bulging pockets. These included her own products that she begged, cajoled and scared people into buying on QVC and other venues, and whatever products she has been paid to promote. Those, she likes to classify as a “need,” not a “want.” (Link 4-14) This kind of reckless cookie-cutter advice had the potential to ruin many businesses and ultimately caused harm to the U.S. economy. At the same time Orman was making people pledge to cut their spending in half—cutting even the most minor purchases from their lives—financial experts were warning about the importance of consumer spending in staving off a worse recession or depression for our country and the world.

How Suze Orman contributed to derailing the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act Here is one example of Orman’s widely publicized, reckless advice regarding the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 that may have significantly contributed to the economic recession. In February 2008, President Bush, with bipartisan support from Congress, passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Its goal was to boost the economy and avoid the impending economic crash by sending a stimulus check from $300 to $600 to every taxpayer. These checks were sent to wealthy and poor taxpayers alike, with the request that people from all these different walks of life spend those checks into the economy from their different angles and levels of interest and need. This stimulus plan was the opposite of Orman’s push for people to withhold spending from specific Orman-chosen business sectors. Like bombarding all the cells of a body with healthy nourishment to overcome disease, the Stimulus Act was expected to nourish and heal the overall economy.

136

The rationale of this plan as explained on Wikipedia: As 2008 began, economic indicators suggested an increased risk of recession. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress that quick action was needed to stimulate the economy through targeted government spending and tax incentives. Congress moved rapidly to pass such legislation. The legislation was designed to stimulate spending by businesses and consumers during 2008. The hope was that the targeted individual tax rebates would boost consumer spending and that targeted tax incentives would boost business spending. Along came “financial guru” Suze Orman on all the shows, commanding that people not do what they’d been asked to do, which was to spend those checks into the economy. Below is a transcript of Orman literally begging people not to spend their stimulus checks on Larry King Live on January 27, 2008, the same week that congress was ratifying the Economic Stimulus Act. Clearly, Orman’s appearance was specifically timed to make a big headline grabbing announcement that nobody—wealthy or poor, with a lot of savings or a pile of bills—nobody should spend any of those stimulus checks that were specifically being sent for people to spend. (Link 4-5) LARRY KING: All right, $300 going out, if they approve this, to everybody. What do you make of that? ORMAN: Well, here is what I really hope. Regardless of what they settle on, I hope when all of you -- when all of you get that check, I hope that you take that check and you save it. I hope you don't do what they're hoping you're going to do, which is go out and spend money on things that you don't even need. I hope that you really look at this as a gift they're giving to you, but that you keep it in case something goes wrong -- in case you can't make a car payment, in case you can't make a mortgage payment. Can you just all hold onto this money or pay off debt with it? But don't go out and spend it. That's what I hope they don't do. Of course, everybody else is hoping they do. KING: Why do they want you to spend it? ORMAN: Because they are hoping that if they give you this money, you're going to go out and spend it. If you go out and spend it, you will stimulate the economy. If you stimulate the economy by giving all the retailers and restaurants and all these people your money, that will help save the economy. As I've always said on your show, Larry, I don't really care about what's happening out there.

137

Note that statement by Orman that she doesn’t really care about what’s happening out there. Does she actually think that what’s happening “out there” isn’t affecting each person’s life? Although for Orman, the worse the economy got, the more money and power she got. Orman continued: I care about what's happening with your life. And the truth of the matter is we don't need any more stuff. We don't need anymore junk. What you do need is money in the bank account. You need to get out of credit card debt. So I am hoping and I'm wishing and praying that when you get these rebate checks, EVERYBODY, that you really do what you should do with it -- and that's save it or pay off your debt. Anything else you shouldn't be doing. After watching this interview and others with concern that Orman's proclamations were going to derail the whole stimulus program, I waited for intelligent journalists and politicians to respond and explain why it was indeed good for people who have enough money to give themselves a special treat and spend those stimulus funds in the marketplace to do so. That was the purpose of those stimulus checks—they was not being sent to millions of people to be stashed away in long term accounts. Some would have done better personally by using their stimulus checks to pay old debts or to stash away a bit of savings for upcoming needs. But Orman wasn’t giving any clarifications or personalizations for this instruction. Her decree was that nobody who heard the sound of her voice should dare spend that check—viewers surely spread this “important advice from Suze” to their friends and family as well. Some might suggest that it was better for people to save the checks, because the stimulus check plan might not have worked to help the economy anyway. Obviously, the experts who advised congress to spend billions of dollars on this stimulus check program thought it had at least a reasonable shot of helping to stop, slow, or minimize the recession. And it would be a chance for people in an economic recession to have a bit of extra cash to enjoy and spend into the economy. What Orman did was akin to telling townsfolk in a village that is being threatened by a big flood, who have been given sandbags to place along the coastline, “I don’t want you to place those bags at the coastline. I want you, everyone, to use them around your own house, or to store them in the garage in case you ever need a sandbag in the future, but do not go and place the sandbag you were given by the coast, where it was meant to be placed. Even if your garage is already full of sandbags, do not put your stimulus sandbag by the shore.”

138

Then came the big flood in the form of a serious economic downturn that caused harm to many of those who had hoarded their checks, wiping away their savings and homes. Would the economy have fared better if more people had placed the sandbags they were given on the shoreline? We’ll never know, because the stimulus check program failed after two- thirds of the public failed to spend their checks.

ComScore said its research reveals that fully two thirds of consumers said they had not planned to spend their stimulus checks and rather intended to use the cash to pay off debt or put the money into savings.

A year after Orman’s Larry King Live appearance, the economy was in much worse shape, and Orman was being touted as the “Queen of the Crisis,” while shoveling more money into her bulging coffers. On April 14, 2009, as the stimulus program failed, President Obama explained why commanding everyone to cut back extremely on their spending all at once had been harming the economic recovery: Link 4-10 “You see, when this recession began, many families sat around the kitchen table and tried to figure out where they could cut back. So have many businesses. And this is a completely reasonable and understandable reaction. But if everybody - if everybody, if every family in America, if every business in America cuts back all at once, then no one is spending any money, which means there are no customers, which means there are more layoffs, which means that the economy gets even worse.” It is difficult to imagine that someone would intentionally contribute to an economic collapse even if it would give themselves more money and power, but having known Orman personally, I believe she has a sociopathic and greedy makeup. Having witnessed her intentionally causing harm to others almost a sport, I certainly would not put it past the Suze Orman I knew to harm the economy just to enrich herself, probably without even a moment’s hesitation. It is difficult for decent people to understand the mechanics of sociopaths, but in some cases it is greatly beneficial to know and stop the damage.

139

From the U.S. News article, June 23, 2009: Do you think you and other financial experts could have done a better job of anticipating the crisis? I'm a personal finance expert. My expertise is not as an economist, not as a stock market guru, not as a precious metal predictor, or in interest-rate foreshadowing. My job is to look at what happened in the economy and what is going on in the world of finance and to tell people, based on fact, this is what's happening now; this is what you need to do with your personal money. To that end, I think I was really far and above anybody else, and I got attacked for it.

In the same Larry King interview where she insisted that nobody should spend their stimulus checks, Orman was given her usual CNN infomercial space to pitch FICO scores, without disclosing that she was making tens of millions of dollars from sales of the Suze Orman FICO kit. Knowing Orman’s tactics, I would guess that “Stuart from Dana Point's” real name just might be “Suze Orman from one of her five homes,” or one of Orman’s publicists for this Larry King Live infomercial moment that topped off Orman's irresponsible advice: LARRY KING: An e-mail from Stuart, Dana Point California: “What's the best, most trustworthy place online to get all my credit reports and scores?” ORMAN: Well, the only ones that really matter, if you ask me, is at myFICO.com. There are credit scores and then there are FICO scores. Approximately 80 percent of all the lenders out there only look at what's called a FICO score. Fico stands for Fair Isaac Corporation, the company that essentially created all this many, many years ago.

140

So, look at your FICO score. And the way that you do it is you go to myFICO.com. And with your fico score comes your credit report. Guess whose face was waiting to greet “Stuart” and all of Larry King's other viewers when they arrived at FICO.com?

Orman’s own portfolio

Everything Orman recommends that others should do is pretty much the opposite of what she herself does, including investing. In the next 2007 New York Times article, Orman says a number of troubling things, including responses regarding keeping her personal investments mostly out of the stock market, at the same time she was advising her followers to invest in stocks just before the stock market crashed.

141

“She's So Money,” A New York Times interview by Deborah Soloman: (Link 4-11)

How much are you worth these days? One journalist estimated my liquid net worth at $25 million. That’s pretty close. (editor’s note: not close at all) My houses are worth another $7 million. What are your qualifications for giving financial advice, which you do in your books, your column in Oprah’s magazine and your CNBC television show? For seven years after college, I was a waitress at the Buttercup Bakery in Berkeley, and from there I got a job at Merrill Lynch as an account executive, from where I went to vice president of investments for Prudential-Bache Securities. I started my own firm in 1987. Do you enjoy spending money? Oh, yes. My greatest pleasure is still flying private. I spend between $300,000 to $500,000, depending on my year, on flying private. What do you do with the rest of your money? Save it and build it in municipal bonds. I buy zero-coupon municipal bonds, and all the bonds I buy are triple-A-rated and insured so that even if the city goes under, I get my money. I take a little lower interest rate to make sure my bonds are 100 percent safe and sound. Do you play the stock market at all? I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don’t personally care.

Even though Orman claims to be all too happy to lose a million dollars, those who followed her advice to put substantial amounts of their money into stocks before the market crashed, houses before the housing bubble burst, Orman’s gold “pump and dump” before gold plummeted, and other Suze schemes probably did care about the money they lost toward their retirements and other necessities of life.

Orman’s distorted personal advice Many people may feel that Orman's financial information has been useful in improving their spending habits and finances. The problem is that this useful guidance is wrapped in all those scams and shams, as well as Orman's problematic world views and ways of relating to people. Of course, it is common sense and generally good advice to be frugal and to only spend within your means. It is also true that helping people in the wrong way, at the wrong time, or for the wrong person can increase

142

their feelings of dependence and keep them from achieving the strength to make it on their own, or leave your own accounts depleted. However, Suze Orman turned not helping others into a virtual commandment, directing parents to not help their children with college, nor to help friends or family in need. Here is one example of a self-proclaimed Suze Orman fan who regrets having trusted Orman's advice without knowing more facts about her personal life, from a comment on Tammy Bruce's blog after Orman stopped hiding her sexual orientation in 2007:

I have been a fan of Suze Orman for many, many years. In fact, I credit her with helping me achieve financial freedom. I never gave her sexual preferences a second thought. She always flirted with the male callers and created a sexual tension between she and her email co-host Jeff, on her CNBC shows. I did however, used to find it odd that whenever a woman called in to discuss her male partner's flagrant credit stories, Suze ALWAYS recommended dumping the guy, divorcing the guy or just plain getting rid of him. Suze never once suggested the two work it out and solve the financial problem together. I also used to find it odd that she would advice women to think of themselves first and forget their children. For example: forget the college tuition and worry about socking money away for your own retirement. Now, since Suze outed herself, it all makes perfect sense. If I had known this information beforehand, I would have handled her advice a bit differently. I had my own children endure painful and costly student loans all in the sake of my own retirement. Suze doesn't have children so how could she understand a mother's enduring love? Suze has different problems in her partnership than a husband and wife does. I wish her much luck in the future. I just wish she could have been more honest 10 years ago when I started following her advice. I may not have cast off a relationship so easily.

143

144

Chapter five The “Approved” Card Scam and Media Wide Fraud

If anybody can't feel the negative energy coming from this photo, it may be time for an intuition tune-up.

Previous to 2012, I had created an online blog to warn people about Suze Orman’s scams, shams, and shenanigans, using whatever examples I’d notice from Orman’s ubiquitous and unavoidable media presence, which I would save into a computer folder named, “Lucy.”

145

I already knew Orman was a crook and a sham, but proving that to people who have been convinced to look up to her as an extremely knowledgeable expert with integrity was a different matter altogether. Then came Orman's “Approved” prepaid debit card scam fiasco, which gave a clear and extensively well-documented view into Orman's scamming ways.

Some shysters who successfully plunder the public time and time again simply can’t stop and enjoy the tens of millions they’ve already got. They feel the need to flaunt their liberties with more deceptions and keep pushing the envelope and pushing their scams too far to be ignored, as it seemed Orman did with her obviously fraudulent media appearances for the “Approved” card, beginning in January 2012.

With her prepaid debit card scam, Orman took advantage of the very same financially strapped people she was claiming to help. The card was laden with fees at every turn—including two dollars for each call to customer service, which card users had to do over and over when Orman’s incompetent employees (intentionally) charged inappropriate fees, locked people’s access to their own money, and completely lost many users’ accounts. When’s the last time you had to pay two dollars to call a bank when they charged improper fees or lost your account? With Orman’s “Approved” card, it happened all the time. The card came with Orman’s most audaciously deceptive misinformation campaign yet. The snake-oil pitches you will see her spew throughout the media landscape in our film included several completely false claims that she repeated endlessly, including the lie that using her fee-infested “Approved” prepaid debit card was likely to improve card users’ FICO scores, and her confident promise that the card would never cost them more than three dollars a month, notwithstanding the card’s twenty fees, from one dollar to thirty dollars a pop.

146

Even with such an obvious ploy that anyone educated in finance would know was illogical at best, Orman nearly shouted the same deceptive and blatantly false phrases throughout the media and political landscape. Her passionate, evangelical flavored lies were hosted by some of the top journalists of our time. “This card will never cost you more than three dollars a month, if you use it like how I tell you to.” “This is the first prepaid card IN HISTORY that will be sharing information with one of the three credit bureaus, TransUnion.” “You can get a FICO score! You’ve got to join me on this people!”

Orman called her scam a “Financial Revolution,” and introduced it at the prestigious National Press Club, compliments of Hilary Rosen, the PR tycoon, political lobbyist, publicity strategist, CNN commentator, media broker, and corporate damage control expert who represented and used her abundant contacts to push Orman and her prepaid card scam. Orman’s repeated media-fueled emotings about the card were clearly intended to fool and exploit especially middle class and low income people who weren’t financially savvy. She used a truly absurd latticework of obfuscations to fool her soon-to-be financial fraud victims into thinking that moving their money onto her prepaid debit card was going to improve their FICO scores. Financially savvy folks would know that a debit card cannot and indeed should not be used to determine credit trustworthiness, since prepaid card use tells creditors nothing that would have any relevance for calculating someone’s credit risk for a mortgage or loan. Actual experts in the industry have been looking for alternative credit risk data avenues for some time. What they’re leaning toward, and what makes much more sense, is to take into account how a person pays their utility, cable, phone, and other bills, which is closer to a credit lending situation than being foolish enough to move your money onto Suze Orman’s fee infested card. In fact, using a prepaid card when there are so many far better, usually free alternatives, would more appropriately be a strike against someone’s credit score. It either shows how uneducated the person is about the financial services world, or that they’ve destroyed their credit so much, or have legal judgments against them that cause them to want to hide their money on a fee-laden, bottom of the barrel predatory financial product like Suze Orman’s prepaid card.

147

Repeating her well-rehearsed repertoire, Orman incessantly rattled off the list of things that having a bad FICO score would effect in one’s life, with the promise that her card was the answer to those problems. With her scare tactics drama turned all the way up, Orman rightly said that FICO scores may affect whether a landlord will rent to someone, or could determine car loan or mortgage rates. However, she often repeated that employers were using FICO scores to decide who to hire, in spite of journalists pointing out that her assertion was false. From “Credit Scores and Employment Screening: Dispelling the Credit Myth of the Decade” on the CreditSesame blog: In January 2012 Suze Orman introduced her prepaid debit card, The Approved Card, and went to the airways to sell the plastic. Unfortunately included in the marketing pitch was a ubiquitous suggestion that if you don’t have a FICO score it can cost you a job.

The three main credit bureaus gave their positions on Orman’s frequent scare tactic: — Equifax: “Credit scores are not sold for employment screening purposes.” — Experian: “Credit scores are never used for employment purposes.” — TransUnion: “TransUnion does not provide credit scores for employment purposes.”

With FICO selling the Suze Orman FICO kit, and her incessant pitching of the importance of FICO scores, at times with false, Orman had FICO by the same greed-based avocados that have kept many others, including the United States’ government, from protecting the public from her deceptive schemes. Remember how in Chapter Two we saw that Orman actually helped to put Fair Isaac’s “experiment” of the FICO score on the map, which garnered her serious corporate sponsored cred? Orman really put the FICO folks in a bind with this prepaid card scam. She had already pushed the limit several years earlier, by offering a “FICO 4 You” kit on QVC that she touted as offering the full FICO scores one would get in her kit with Fair Isaac, but which only gave TransUnion’s scores (yes, TransUnion helped her with another scam!) Orman’s “FICO 4 You” kit garnered many complaints and one–star reviews on QVC, until the product was eventually pulled.

148

Here’s one of many QVC customers who were fooled by Orman and TransUnion into putting more money into their accounts.

With that and many more shams behind her, con artist Suze Orman was back to milk her partnerships with TransUnion and FICO for a much bigger, bolder, and more devious deception, her “Approved” card scam that, if successful, would result in millions of Americans moving their money from banks into her pockets and the coffers of Orman’s partners, Bancorp and MasterCard. Here’s how finance journalist Tim Chen described prepaid cards in his Forbes article, “Suze Orman And Lil' Wayne: A Match Made In Heaven” (Link 5-1) With the Kim Kardashian debit card long dead, we can all have a good laugh at the memory of that prepaid monstrosity. But don’t think the terror is at an end. Rising from the smoldering crater of the Kim card are two new celebrity abominations: the Approved Card by Suze Orman and the Young Money Card by Lil' Wayne.

149

Celebrity prepaid debit cards are both hilarious and horrifying. Hilarious because they are an excruciatingly obvious ploy to feed the greed of money-bloated fame-mongers. Horrifying because they prey on the poor and financially illiterate… In reality, prepaid debit is nothing short of extortionate chicanery. You might as well send your life savings to a stranded Nigerian prince who chanced upon your e-mail address and relayed a desperate plea for financial support. Prepaid debit will eat your money, lick its lips and ask for more. These were the official fees for Orman’s “Approved” card:

150

That list does not include the fees people had to pay to load money onto the card, which cost from $3.95 to $4.95 for each deposit, or all the lost accounts and improper charges from Orman’s super-shoddy “Approved” card customer service center in the Philippines. In gangster brilliance, the card was set up so that every little technical glitch in the card brought another windfall of fees into Orman's pockets.

Even journalists who had stayed silent when they should have exposed Orman's previous shenanigans finally spoke up, en masse. Well over one hundred articles by financial journalists top to bottom, warned consumers about this card, with flavors that ranged from gentle political correctness to blunt criticisms calling out Suze Orman's “Approved card scam.”

151

In spite of all the bad press for Orman’s most deceptive and predatory scheme to date, nearly the entire mainstream media hosted her fraud, acting as though they believed it was a valid movement to help the middle class and poor. The “Approved” card scam was pushed by many television shows, print and online articles, radio interviews, and in a poverty conference, where Michael Moore praised Orman’s prepaid card as “revolutionary,” and said she was putting her life at risk to undertake this great effort. Orman was given full reign to con attendees at the NCLR Latino Conference, on many CNN news shows, and at the National Press Club, where Tavis Smiley read Orman’s script and pledged his undying support to any and all of Orman’s “endeavors,” past, present, and future. Watching all this, I could only wonder if these journalists, celebrities, and activists were really too foolish and lazy to even look at the card’s website or notice the over one hundred articles published just in the first few months of 2012, warning people about Orman’s prepaid card scam. Were these hosts ignorant, lazy, foolish, or complicit? What other option could there be? Perhaps some were bribed or blackmailed into giving up their integrity? Interviews with Orman about her prepaid card were featured on National Public Radio and by satellite linkup by local news stations across the country. The card was enthusiastically recommended by Wendy Williams, advertised by Anderson Cooper with incorrect information on his show and website, and endured by Barbara Walters, who was obviously uncomfortable while allowing Orman to fool the audience of The View. Orman ran her obvious scam in an awkward but revealing Huffington Post interview about the card with Arianna Huffington, who just nodded through the con as though in a trance, and with George Stephanopoulos as he tried to make sense of her snake oil tomfoolery on Good Morning America. Orman somehow managed to get Juju Chang to laugh at her flagrant con game and blatantly lie to viewers of ABC News on Orman’s behalf. You’ll see clips of all these examples in our documentary film, “How Suze Orman SCAMMED the World.” Orman was on a cocaine-style overdrive frenzy, emphatically speaking with wild gestures and over the top inflections and slogans to give the impression that this low-end, predatory financial product that should be someone’s last recourse was the financial messiah itself. “We can change America, everybody, you’ve got to join me in this!” “This card will NEVER cost you more than three dollars a month.” “You can get a FICO score!” “I want to change your life!” And compliments of the Jerry Macguire’s screenwriter, “Can you just help me help you?” 152

It was during this part of my research into Orman’s shenanigans that I saw a much more troubling view of the behind-the-scenes media and political corruption and complicity that has supported and protected the likes of con artist Suze Orman and others who look to make a profit from plundering the well being of the public, the economy, and our world. Watching political lobbyist Hilary Rosen push the “Approved” card scam as Orman’s publicity strategist, political lobbyist, and damage control expert was all I needed to know about any of Rosen’s other associations, and that includes Hillary Clinton, who Rosen helped run dirty tricks on Bernie Sanders during the 2016 democratic primary, and Senator Elizabeth Warren, who you will see in our film watching like a schoolgirl in love as Orman lies, then admits lying, and then tries to excuse her association with a for-profit school that paid Orman big bucks to lobby congress and fool the public into thinking their predatory school was a good investment. Watch the Warren-Orman love fest here: Link 5-2 Many viewers who watched Senator Warren’s actions in our film have been just as shocked as I was, including this YouTube commenter:

Maybe those beholden to Rosen and the Orman cabal know that she’s dirty, but would rather have her on their side. As the Eagles band members once said about their ruthless manager, “He’s Satan, but he’s our Satan.” The cabal webs go on and on, but let’s get back to looking at Orman’s “Approved” card scam. In our film, you’ll see Suze Orman committing blatant fraud throughout the media landscape as she emphatically spewed completely false claims that her prepaid card would raise poor and middle class users' FICO scores and would only cost $3 per month. Orman repeated these same false talking points in appearance after appearance and interview after interview, along with the same confusing distraction of bragging about the incredibly brilliant design of her card, which was just a basic purple card. Orman tossed out the same mumbo jumbo to Barbara Walters and Nate Berkus, explaining that this purple color represented a merging of democrats and republicans, red and blue, because “money should be there for everybody to enjoy and better their lives.”

153

— Watch Orman pull her ridiculous purple card shenanigans with legendary journalist Barbara Walters on The View: Link 5-2b

— Watch Orman’s purple card snake oil silliness on the Nate Berkus Show: Link 5-2a

154

Berkus: So Suze, you just launched a new prepaid card, this is a debit card. I’ve seen you do some interviews where you were a little bit defensive about people saying, “Oh, why is Suze Orman launching a credit card? Does she need more money? What’s this all about? What’s the real story with this? Orman: Well, before I tell you the real story with it, I have to ask you what you think of the design of it? Burkus: I think it’s great. Orman: ‘Cause KT designed it. (Orman’s partner and wife) Burkus: KT? I love this!...So I love the design, I think it’s great, I love that it has your name on it, it’s the Approved card. Orman: Do you know why it’s purple? Burkus: No, why is it purple? Orman: Ready for this, everybody? When you mix red with blue, you get purple! So, do you get it, politically? The red party, the blue party. Burkus: Oh! It’s like we’ve just gone on a tangent that I’m not following, and it’s my show. Orman: If the world simply didn’t care about politics, they cared about merging politics so that all of us could be taken care of, and that our needs were put in front of their re-election needs, we would all be purple!!!

Orman also gave this telling vision of the poor and middle class having nothing to do with material possessions, while she’d obviously keep filling her life with more luxuries:

Orman: I want the new American dream to have absolutely nothing to do with material possessions. I want it to be that you have self worth, and because you have self worth, you have net worth. (cue the applause sign) Burkus: Good advice, that’s good advice.

155

Too egotistical to hide the spoils of her scams, Orman bragged on Good Morning America, ABC News, and other outlets that, because she wasn't just endorsing but had personally created and invested her own money in the card, she expected to “make a fortune” off of it. In our film, you’ll hear her say to George Stepanopoulos, “Do I hope to make money off this? You betcha I do!” Here is Orman’s deceptive Press Release, calling her fee-laden prepaid debit card—the kind of product any good financial advisor would advise staying far away from—a “Financial Revolution.” Orman would also call her card a “grass roots project,” with those old Ma and Pa corner store companies Orman partnered with, Bancorp and MasterCard.

From Orman’s “Approved” card press release:

NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Suze Orman, American personal finance icon, best-selling author and Emmy- award-winning television host, today launched The Approved Prepaid MasterCard®. The Approved Card™ isn't just another financial product or a normal prepaid card. It's the start of a financial revolution to enable Americans to empower themselves. Orman, the longtime financial crusader, is inviting consumers to join her “PEOPLE FIRST” movement with her Approved Card. Suze didn't just endorse this card – SHE CREATED IT from the ground up to change the way people think about and use their cash. Suze Orman said: “For me, The Approved Card is a mission. It's the single most important thing I've done in my whole career. This is my answer for all those who are looking for a better way to bank, use plastic and feel secure knowing that their interests are being put before fees and profit motives. People are tired of not getting fair financial deals.”

156

Regarding Orman’s claims across the media landscape that using her card was going save America and give card users improved FICO scores, the otherwise silent Fair Isaac Corporation gave only one response to one of the journalists who were asking for clarification, Eileen Ambrose for the Baltimore Sun. Ambrose first said that “TransUnion did not return phone calls seeking information about the pilot program,” then went on to quote FICO spokesman Anthony A. Sprauve in the only quote anyone from Fair Isaac gave to any journalist about the card: “In our experience, spending is not actually a great indicator of the thing that the FICO score tries to measure, which is the likelihood you're going to default on a credit bill,” or, in other words, Orman’s big “Financial revolution” to get her card to create and improve users’ FICO scores was complete nonsense, dead in the water, put forth only to improve her bank accounts. While Orman was spewing all kinds of deceptions about TransUnion’s involvement and excitement about using the “Approved” card to get users improved FICO scores, TransUnion issued only a single short and vague response to many questions by many finance journalists who were writing articles to warn their readers about the card and wanted to know where TransUnion stood in the matter. TransUnion’s one official response, given to a journalist who was less critical about Orman's card than others, was emailed to her with these carefully crafted words: “TransUnion is committed to supporting Suze's efforts to understand the impact of pre-paid card use on an individual's credit health. Our goal is to help Suze understand whether including this data in a consumer's credit report would impact access to credit products.”

It doesn't say a word about being interested in the research themselves or about any interest in this information from FICO. Rather, TransUnion is “supporting Suze's efforts,” and

“helping Suze understand.” See the scam? Anderson Cooper jumped aboard the “Suze Orman infomercial train” by hosting her scam on his show and putting this misleading information on his website: “With this new debit card, Suze wants to help build FICO scores for those making the responsible choice to use cash instead of going into debt with credit cards.”

157

Perhaps one could posit that saying, “Suze wants to help build FICO scores,” is accurate, since it didn’t indicate that there’s a chance it might happen, which there wasn’t. Maybe it was like saying someone wants world peace. In this case, there was no indication that Orman even thought there was a remote chance that her proclaimed mission might ever happen, or that she really cared about the welfare of the poor and middle class card users she was pretending to support. Anderson included Orman’s quote, “For me, The Approved Card is a mission. It’s the single most important thing I’ve done in my whole career. This is my answer for all those who are looking for a better way to bank, use plastic, and feel secure knowing that their interests are being put before fees and profit motives.” This hogwash was hosted on supposedly trustworthy and intelligent journalist Anderson Cooper’s show and posted on his blog. Here is a sampling of how widely Orman’s prepaid card misinformation fraud spread through social media by many who were not only fooled by Orman’s fraudulent FICO claims, but deviously conned into spreading the predatory deception to their family and friends:

158

Like lambs to the slaughter…

159

This is simply a PR media-fueled fraud. Orman saying over and over that her “Approved” card will send your personal buying information to TransUnion, a “major credit bureau,” would be like telling someone, “If you pay me a long list of fees to help your writing career, I'll send your writings to top publishers,” and just putting the pages into an envelope and sending them off to be tossed on the slush piles with all the other unsolicited documents. At least in the manuscript analogy, there is a small percentage of chance that one of the slush pile interns might notice their writings in the recycle bin and find them worthy of showing someone at the company, whereas Orman’s “Approved” card sending anonymous information about whether you used your card to buy coffee or dog food was never going to do a thing to help any one’s FICO score.

If Orman were really offering this debit card as a genuine movement to help consumers and change the credit score system as she proclaimed, she wouldn't have been asking some of the poorest people to pay big fees to give their personal information for her so-called “experiment” that considered only information from her flash in the pan card, when there are already many established prepaid cards in use that could have been studied, if Orman’s “People First movement” was anything more than a fraudulent mirage. Someone who really wanted to change the FICO scoring system might lobby for reporting companies to look at a person’s history of paying for rent, utilities, and other bills on time—payments that might show the person's trustworthiness more accurately than having TransUnion look only at where defrauded victims spent their money with their Suze Orman “Approved” prepaid card.

160

Along with FICO and TransUnion, Orman’s spokesperson also gave only one shady response to questions about the card, also only to one finance journalist. With not a shred of accurate information to refute criticisms about Orman’s prepaid card scam, because the whole “Approved” card was nothing more than a case of greed-fueled snake oil smoke-and-mirrors, this is what Orman’s spokesperson, Jill Zuckman, managing director specializing in strategic communications for Hilary Rosen's SKDKnickerbocker, said to Bloomberg: (Link 5-3) Through her spokeswoman, Jill Zuckman, Orman declined to respond to a list of questions. “Suze is very proud of her work to create the Approved Card and she is gratified by the overwhelming response to the card and her effort to overhaul the way credit is scored in this country,” Zuckman wrote in an e-mail statement. “We’re going to let others debate the questions that you raise.” As for what TransUnion might have gotten from this deal, aside from access to a whole lot of free personal spending data, “Mr. Consumer,” Ed Dworsky points out, “If you only read the headlines about the free TransUnion credit score, report and credit monitoring benefit, you may miss the fact that the service is only free for the first year. After that, if you want to keep it, it is $143.40 a year.” Again, this $143.40 per year charge is for credit score information that can easily be accessed for free on sites such as Credit Karma, which also gives access to the other two main bureau scores, along with TransUnion—all 100% free. It didn’t take too many uneducated users of Orman's card trusting her enough to pay this ridiculous, completely unnecessary annual fee of $143.40 for Orman to plunder more big profits from the poor and uneducated for herself and TransUnion. “Mr. Consumer” also noted: Conspicuously missing from their fee list is the cost to deposit money onto your card at an ATM or in person at a store. Apparently you can only add money at locations that support either Moneygram or Western Union payments. The cost, they say, is typically $3.00 – $4.95. Whatta deal. No government agencies to date have taken proper steps to refund victims’ money from Orman’s blatant fraud, or to question TransUnion or FICO about their role in the scam.

161

Financial Journalists Finally Speak Up

If well over one hundred journalists had not spoken up to warn the public about Orman’s prepaid card scam, millions more who have been incorrectly convinced by Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, John King, Barbara Walters, Anderson Cooper, and other major media figures into believing that this woman who has almost zero credentials or education in the field of finance is to be trusted as some kind of financial “genius” “wizard” and “guru,” may have fallen for Orman's misleading, fevered pitches. If Orman had been totally successful with her “People First Financial Revolution Movement,” which was more of a “rip-off poor people and the middle class” fraud campaign, she might have moved perhaps hundreds of millions or billions of dollars from their bank accounts onto that stupid prepaid card. This next video link shows an overview presentation of some of the problems with Orman’s card by finance experts John Ulzheimer and Ryan Mack. Mack used to be an Orman fan until he saw her making this move to swindle the poor and middle class with a fraudulent misinformation campaign. The clip includes a telling Freudian slip by Orman as she pitches her card at the National Press Club, and in a rare slip of honesty says, “The intention behind this card is to give people the least cost-effective way for them to be able to pay online, to be able to have a card to access things, because it's very dangerous today sometimes to carry cash around.” It really would be hard to find a less cost-effective way for people to access their own money than Orman’s card. Link 5-4 In an article on African American Money, Mack gave several reasons why Orman’s illogical claim that her card was going to improve users’ FICO scores was a bunch of baloney: 1. If organizations thought it would be useful to gather data of the use of those who use prepaid debit cards as a referendum of responsibility they could have done so already with information that is currently available from other prepaid debit cards on the market. 2. The data is only being shared with TransUnion which has agreed to collect specific data to determine if it can relate to the Vantage Score. FICO is not involved at all in this research and the primary tool to rate credit by use of lenders is FICO. Therefore, Vantage scoring is essentially useless and does little or no good to the consumer. 3. Prepaid debit cards are the same as cash and therefore will never have any bearing on credit. When you attempt to purchase a home, a lender’s primary question is “how responsible were you in paying back your debt?” 162

The data gathered from a prepaid debit card that shows a consumer has an ability to spend money is pointless; everyone has the ability to spend money but not everybody is responsible in how they repay money.

For many financial journalists who had either trusted Orman or gone along with her previous shams for various possible reasons, this obvious scam was a real challenge. Here was this supposedly trustworthy financial advisor that many of them had recommended to their readers without properly investigating her behavior, advice, and almost complete lack of finance credentials. And now, after all these years of earning tens of millions of dollars, this supposedly trustworthy “finance expert” Suze Orman was doing something that any honest finance expert would know is a complete sham. Fortunately for individuals and the United States economy, financial journalists finally spoke up en masse, with various levels of bluntness, gentleness, and trepidation. Here are just a few of those articles: “Suze Orman and Lil' Wayne: A Match Made in Heaven,” Forbes “In their eagerness to capitalize on a trendy and morally dubious market, Suze Orman and Lil' Wayne will only deepen the financial woes of the unbanked. Spread the word. If enough truth proliferates, these prepaid atrocities will succumb to the same embarrassing fate as the Kardashian catastrophe.” “Beware of Suze Orman Card!” Fox Business “Look, by Suze’s own standards, pre-paid debit cards are a waste of money because of the fees they charge. But, to me, the problems are even bigger than that. I've been highly critical of the nation’s largest banks. But that doesn't mean I want consumers to leave the banking system. “Suze Orman Debit Card Raises Many Doubts, MarketWatch “So when the biggest name in personal finance announced “The Approved Card from Suze Orman,” you can bet that her legion of adoring fans, primed by her massive media reach, were thinking “If Suze approved it, that’s good enough for me.” It isn't “Pre-paid Debit Card: Is Orman's Evil?” CreditSense “The bottom-line to all this noise is Suze Orman sold out what she has preached for years, for the almighty dollar. She sold out to line her pockets.

163

“Suze Orman's Cream of the Crap,” SheBloggs “Suze states that her card will help your credit score because she’s collaborated with one of the credit bureaus and your transactions will be reported to that credit bureau in order to build your credit. I can’t think of anything else more misleading than this.... They benefit from the use of this data not you.” “The Troubling Fine Print of Suze Orman's Prepaid Card,” Reuters “If Orman “hates extra fees,” as she says in the advertising, then why promote a card that's loaded with them?” “Suze's Prepaid Card: Can You Afford It?” AP distributed to USA Today, Seattle Times, CBS, and other newspapers “Don't choose a prepaid card just because it's from Suze Orman.” “Young, Gullible, and Broke: Suze Orman's Debit Card FAIL,” So Over Debt “My thoughts on Suze's fee-riddled card and crappy attitude? DENIED!” “Suze Orman Card: Rip-off or Righteous?” CBS MoneyWatch “Most people could do better - much better - elsewhere... At the same time, she has a loyal following of people who appear willing to take her advice, no matter where it leads. In this case, her advice would lead you to buy a piece of purple plastic that comes with a load of little “gotcha” fees and few unique benefits.” “Suze Orman, Debit Card Dealer,” Bloomberg Businessweek “Orman dismisses the criticisms, saying the card reflects her understanding of people’s financial habits and needs. “I am the personal financial expert of the world,” she says. “I know what I am talking about.” Publicly, Orman lashed out on Twitter against the naysayers, calling them “small thinkers,” “idiots,” and “Suze haters.” “You Don't Need Suze Orman's Prepaid Card,” Personal Dividends “In the middle of the furor surrounding Occupy Wall Support, Suze Orman has been using code like “99%” as part of her marketing blitz to drum up support. The problem that many personal finance blogger types have with the card is that Suze is marketing it as a viable alternative to banking — even for those who are able to get a checking account.”

164

“The Approved Prepaid Debit Card: Suze Orman Falls Short” Nerdwallet "It’s puzzling (and disturbing) that a supposed finance guru would advise her followers to embark on such a foolhardy journey. Orman knows cardholders can easily accumulate over $100 in fees every year. She knows her card won’t help improve anyone’s FICO score. She knows the backlash and criticism incurred by similar celebrity money pits. And yet, she’s pushing through proudly. “I didn't just approve this card. I created it,” she boasts. How long before the condemnations of the financial experts shame the Approved Card into submission? We’re expecting devastating critical repercussions, and if Orman wants to maintain her status as a financial authority, you can bet she'll rethink her profit strategies." “Suze Orman: Advisor or Pitchman?” Consumer World "As she admits in smaller print, debit card purchase information is not part of anyone’s credit report and does not affect your credit score. She merely has a desire to see whether providing card use and purchase behavior to Trans Union will be considered in the future as a predictor of creditworthiness. Put another way, Suze has put a clever spin on the fact that she is sharing your purchase history with an outside company." “Suze Orman’s Prepaid Card Will Not Affect Your Credit Score,” Credit Services Blog "The biggest misunderstanding to which many of our Twitter friends seem to have fallen prey, unfortunately stoked up by Orman herself, seems to be the notion that the Approved Card, as it is called, can help users improve their credit scores. So let’s set the record straight: the Approved Card does not affect your credit score in any way."

Orman’s response?

165

If not for the media backlash against her card, this fraudulent scheme may have been successful, with tens of millions of people who blindly trusted and followed Orman’s advice moving their money out of the banking system and onto her shoddy prepaid card. That could have potentially caused even more collapse to the economy and subsequent damage to individuals than Suze Orman had already caused with her reckless and tainted advice. All these articles criticizing Orman’s card were still detailing much less than the bigger problem. Some even suggested that her three dollar per month charge was better than some other prepaid cards. Yet, not a single journalist properly reported on the fact that Orman’s “Approved” card was sopping up improper funds left and right from clients who had been convinced to put their money on the card and pay all the usual fees in hopes of improving their FICO scores. Not one journalist that I know of reported on how the card was locking out access, losing accounts and charging inappropriate fees, while making a mint by charging two dollars for every call to the card’s completely incompetent customer service center, leaving many card users without any money to pay their rent or feed their children.

Amy’s plight points out another part of Orman’s predatory scheme that took place after the articles had their run on Orman’s card. In 2013, bank transfers stopped working with the “Approved” card, with no notice to card users. Bank-to-card transfer and direct deposit were the only two ways card users could avoid several of Orman's twenty fees. Remember that all this thievery came after Orman lied across the media landscape, promising her card would only cost three dollars a month, “if you use it how I tell you to.” Unfortunately, Orman never told anyone how to use it without pouring their hard-earned money into her offshore bank accounts. With this unannounced change by Orman’s card, any customers who did not have direct deposit set up with their jobs had to start paying $2 to withdraw money even from the designated ATMs, $1 for a balance inquiry, and other fees that were supposed to be waived for card users who deposited money directly from their bank accounts.

166

Of course, using bank-to-card transfers to move money to a prepaid card makes no sense for anyone who already has a bank account to transfer funds from, since they would be able to get a free debit card with their account. Now, Orman’s fraud victims who had previously been using bank transfers had to start paying $3.95 to $4.95 to use a service like Western Union for the privilege of moving their money onto the fee-laden card, and into Suze Orman’s pockets. After the hundred-plus articles by financial bloggers and top journalists criticizing the “Approved” card were published in blogs and major media venues, Orman's PR machine (Hilary Rosen and SKDK, of BP oil spill fame) went into overdrive to find supposedly trustworthy shows and news outlets that would still give Orman almost unquestioning infomercial-style media space to pitch the con. I'd imagine there's quite a behind-the-scenes story to this excessive loyalty shown by some in the media. Hopefully others can uncover more of the mechanics that allowed Orman to be placed in a position of extreme trust despite her extreme untrustworthiness. This one fraud would have landed anyone else in prison:

167

Orman says if she finds people are incurring fees to put cash on the card, only to spend another $2 to get cash at an ATM, she will ask them to turn in their plastic. If you’re going to squander money that way, “just keep it in cash! You don’t need the damn card,” she tells the audience at the book signing. Michael Collins, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin who studies the financial decision-making of low-income families, says people will eventually figure out the costs of any product. “The question is how long will it take” and how much in fees they will have racked up by then, he says. In contrast with their obvious “hands off” policy toward Orman, the Federal Trade Commission went after author and weight loss huckster Kevin Trudeau, who was sentenced to ten years in prison and required to pay millions of dollars in restitution, for “misleading ads about his book.”

Trudeau was jailed for using misleading ads to sell his bestselling book that, like Orman's products, some people found useful. He was accused of “hosting a series of deceptive infomercials designed to look like radio and TV news interviews.” Meanwhile, Suze Orman was committing fraud across the media landscape, on real TV news shows, for her prepaid card and other scams. Yet, there was never a peep by any government agencies, except to lavishly praise that con artist.

168

Many financially savvy folks could see that Suze Orman’s “Approved” card was a scam. Here’s one of the hundreds of critical comments from finance professionals on the articles about Orman's card: The charge to pay to talk to a customer service rep is one of the oldest scams in the credit card industry. This allows the credit card company to screw up your account and then charge you to straighten out their screwup. The other charges are similar. A free paper statement is required by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Orman is a scammer who talked her way through missing every prediction about the housing market. NBC will can her when her contract expires (as they should.) Aside from the fact that CNBC did renew Orman’s contract in spite of all the complaints about her troubling shenanigans (although they finally canned her in 2015), Chris is exactly right about what happened to unsuspecting prey who purchased the card. One blogger tried out the Suze Orman prepaid card herself, since she was writing a free e-book to help homeless people with their finances and thought it might be a good option for them. Even with her own financial savvy, Becky was immediately hit with unexpected fees that give a glimpse into how the card scammed people who had been hooked by Orman’s fraudulent claims: Because the ApprovedCard.com web site is so buggy, I had to request my password and user name several times. Each time I tried to use the names, they were rejected. Finally the site locked my attempts to protect my account security. Fine. Then I called the toll free number to get help with that, and was told that it would cost me $2 to speak with a live person. $2??!! Really? It costs me $2 to talk to someone in customer service about YOUR product, a product that DOESN’T WORK?

169

The main people who might need to have a prepaid debit card would be those who have made so many egregious financial mistakes that not even a Credit Union will give them a bank account. Of course, these are also the most likely to NOT use this fee-laden card as Suze told them to use it, (if she had in fact told them how to use it to avoid the inevitable fees). These lowest income, uneducated folks lost a significant chunk of their few dollars, right into Orman’s pockets. Nerdwallet offered a comparison of different prepaid cards, and identified seven other cards that would be less expensive with general use than Orman's card. Without even taking into account all the shoddy plundering and incompetent extra fees and $2 customer service calls that plagued “Approved” card users, Nerdwallet estimated the card would cost most users $192/year just for the privilege of using their own money, and that's if they didn’t require any extra documentation or other requests that carried fees up to $30 each. Here are some examples of additional fees “Approved” card users encountered:

— If a company you paid didn't cash your check properly or said they didn't receive the check, that would be $30.00 out of your account into Bancorp's and Orman's pockets for you to do a payment inquiry, along with paying $2 for each phone call to the “Approved” card's problematic customer service to straighten the problem out. — If the place you paid by check for a $1 fee changed their address, or if you mistakenly had the check sent to the wrong address, that would be a “postal reject” charge of $25.00 for you. — If you were in a store and wanted to get some cash back instead of driving or walking to get to a 7-11 (where you could use the ATM for free only if you had direct-deposited cash onto the card within the previous 30 days), then that would be $2 in fees just for getting some of your own cash back along with your purchase. — If you didn’t have direct deposit and simply wanted to find out how much of your own money you had left on the “Approved” card, that inquiry cost you a $1 “balance inquiry fee” at the ATM, or $2 to check your balance by calling customer service.

The Approved Card fee page didn’t even explain what any of these twenty fee charges meant—something you might expect to find from a supposedly trustworthy financial educator.

170

Along with all these fees, every purchase made with Orman’s “Approved” card put interchange fees—which for prepaid debit cards can be much higher than with regulated credit card—into Orman's pockets. Quite a racket, Scamming Suze! When some bloggers and journalists respectfully questioned Orman about her questionable new card, she called them “losers and idiots,” and the shell finally broke enough to allow some light to shine on Orman's façade. These bloggers and journalists stood up and spoke up to protect consumers, in spite of all the possible repercussions that could have come from invoking the wrath of Orman and her supporters.

“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” —Albert Einstein Credit Sesame shared their warning about Orman's prepaid debit card in a creative way, by offering a minesweeper game called “The Prepaid Card Mine Field” that compared Orman's “Approved” card to those offered by Lil’ Wayne and Russell Simmons. Here is the game's end screen that represents a cardholder being charged each fee once. With this calculation, Orman's card would cost $145.95, far above Lil' Wayne's card at $29.30, and the Russell Simmon's card at $63.89.

171

CreditSesame added: (Link 5-5)

Suze Orman is a modern-day Horatio Alger story. Once a waitress in the San Francisco bay, she is now one of the most trusted experts in personal finance. Ms. Orman created controversy last week, however, when she debuted her prepaid debit card. Prepaid debit cards are a controversial subject anyway. Loaded with hidden fees, prepaid cards are often mistakenly marketed as a way to build credit. Typically targeted to the unbanked population, prepaid cards allow people who can’t otherwise access credit cards or checking accounts the convenience of paying bills online and making purchases by credit or debit like everyone else. That’s the good side. The bad side is that prepaid cards often come with a bevvy of fees, hidden and not so hidden. The fees are most troubling when it comes to Orman’s product. She often touts herself as a champion of consumers and a proponent of financial responsibility. The card itself is advertised as a way to teach young adults financial responsibility and inadvertently implies that the card will help build credit by being reported to TransUnion, one of the three major credit reporting agencies. Without joining in the pig pile on Ms. Orman, it’s important to understand that prepaid cards won’t help establish or build credit. In this case, it feels as though the marketing folks behind Ms. Orman’s prepaid card pushed their creative marketing skills to their proverbial limit. While the card will report spending habits to TransUnion as a sort of pilot testing program, it will not help establish or build credit.

None of the journalists really got into the bigger problem with Orman’s card than its many fees and her deceptive pitches, which is that the card stole from users left and right. This fellow got stung trying to help support Orman’s “People First” movement:

172

This woman had to pay for several two-dollar calls to customer service just to activate her card, and then was charged $150 in late fees and had her credit harmed, due to the “Approved” card’s incompetent bill pay system, which required more two-dollar calls to Orman’s customer service center in the Philippines. Melissa even tried to alert Oprah Winfrey, but as you can see in our film, Oprah doesn’t care.

Orman never mentioned that “Approved” card users would not be able to use her card to “pay at the pump” when they’d buy gas, or to book a hotel or rent a car. The maximum someone could load onto the card was $9000 per month, the maximum they could spend of their own money in any day was $2000, and the maximum bill payment for any month was $5000. “The Approved Card” was a deceptive name really, since it would be like saying you are approved to purchase a store’s gift card with your own money and pay a bunch of fees to do it. Are you approved, or is the card approved, and by whom? It was more Suze Orman make-believe nonsense. Orman’s scams are like the movie “Groundhog Day,” when Bill Murray’s character knew he couldn’t die, and tried all kind of life- threatening acts, day after day, only to wake up the next morning without a bruise. Suze Orman knows she is so well protected by “the cabal” that she can run even the most outlandish, blatantly predatory and thieving schemes, only to wake up the next day with no repercussions, ready to scam again.

173

Another small but intriguing point about Orman’s Approved card that most journalists missed was uncovered on Gerri Willis’s FOX Business news show, in a segment titled, “Suze Orman’s Prepaid Debit Card Full of Flaws?” Gerri explained: (Link 5-6) “You know, we looked at getting a card, testing it out and seeing what it was like. We noticed that when you go through that process, what you find out is that you’ve got to have a credit card to get a card. Now, this just confounds me. If I had a credit card, I wouldn’t need a prepaid debit card!” Here’s the screen where card applicants had to give their credit card number to sign up for Orman’s prepaid card.

Gerri Willis was quite a hero in speaking up and exposing this and other flaws with Orman’s card, while news anchors at CNN and other channels were unfortunately helping Orman run her scam. On another Willis show, Smart Credit’s John Ulzheimer explained why prepaid cards are some of the worst financial products around. (Link 5-7) 174

“When we’re talking about financial services products, if I asked you to rank them all from the best to the worst, the prepaid debit card has to be right down there with pawn shops and title loans and payday lending. It is not a good product; it has a horrible reputation, primarily because of the fees that you’re going to pay—by hook or by crook, you’re going to pay these fees, one way or the other—to get access to your own money. That is a huge problem with these products.”

Television Clips of Orman's Prepaid Card Fraud Here are just a few video clips from Orman's extensive, widespread, media misinformation campaign that fooled people into thinking her card would improve their FICO scores. Remember that nearly the entire financial journalist community stepped up to warn people about Orman's fee-laden card, which will absolutely not improve a user's FICO scores one iota now, or almost certainly ever. Yet show after show allowed Orman to tell blatant lies on their shows, including her frequent proclamation that, “This card will never cost you more than three dollars a month!” In this first clip from the Wendy Williams Show, exuberant Suze Orman uses her memorized latticeworks of twisted words to fool viewers into thinking that buying her “Approved” prepaid debit card would improve their FICO scores and improve the whole world. Orman falsely insinuated that FICO was on board, which was not the case, and also tried to scare the audience by suggesting, as she often does, that employers won't hire you based on your FICO score, which is also not true. Watch the amazing deception in action: Link 5-8. More of the same on Good Morning America: Link 5-9 And on The View: Link 5-10 Here Orman gives one of many deceptive spiels to local news shows via a satellite link to stations across the country: (Link 5-11) Here’s an excerpt from a financial blog article titled, “Suze Orman's Pre-Paid Debit Card Scam,” that details the fraudulent pitch Orman used on The View and in close to one hundred appearances: (Link 5-12): During The View, Suze Orman heavily implied that it would help with credit scores, but didn't actually say it. She had a two minute rant about how important FICO scores are in this economy and then introduced her card…This is the kind of marketing that is misleading to consumers. To talk about improving credit for 5-10 minutes and then present a card and talk about the issue as if the card is the solution to building credit. 175

Savvy readers gave further insights in their comments on that article: Steve said: If credit scores change to incorporate this data I will eat my hat. There are just not going to be enough users of this one card to make it worth FICO’s time to even try to figure out how to incorporate it into the score. It’s hypothetically possible that this will be the first of many debit cards to report usage data to credit bureaus, but I’m not holding my breath. Furthermore, it will always be opt-in only (assuming privacy laws prevent reporting of individual transactions to credit bureaus), giving the data a self-selection bias, meaning FICO is unlikely to rely on said data (out of responsibility to their true customers, creditors). The Soap Boxers said: I can’t even begin to fathom how the purchase data could be used in a credit score. Would you be rewarded for spending more money? Less money? Rewarded for “good” purchases (carrots) and penalized for “bad” purchases (donuts), even though that has nothing to do with credit? As you allude to, all this really does is give purchase data to TransUnion, which they can then sell to companies. Suddenly, the whole world will know that I’m a big purchaser of Pepsi and Pringles, and that I wipe my (rear) with Charmin. How does this help me? This smacks of George Costanza’s Human Fund. Money for People. Money for Suze, in this case. Orman appeared on many of CNN's supposedly reputable shows, including a pseudo-news infomercial segment on the John King Show, deceptively titled, “Prepaid debit card to help credit score: Finance expert Suze Orman introduces a new prepaid card that’s designed to help raise your credit score.” (Link 5-13) In her emphatic appearance on the John King Show, Orman suggested that her choice to invest a million dollars of her own money into this card was not for greedy purposes of getting more money for herself in return, but for some vague altruistic reasons, as King coined the obviously scripted though sarcastic term, “Saint Suze.” Here are some complaints from Orman’s Facebook page:

176

177

178

Soon after those and many other complaints, Orman posted this:

Click here to see Orman running her scam using what appears to be an obviously planted questioner on Oprah's OWN network, with more fraudulent claims from Orman: Link 5-14 Why have no government agencies done anything to help Orman’s financial fraud victims, or to punish Orman for her crimes? The CFPB went in hard in 2015, when Russell Simmons’ Rush prepaid debit card unintentionally froze many users’ accounts for a week or so as a result of a glitch in their new computer system.

Simmons paid nineteen million dollars to compensate those card users, and offered endless apologies to his card users, amidst threats and requests for card users to send their complaints to the CFPB. Meanwhile, Suze Orman’s intentionally incompetent “mistakes” that lost many accounts, charged inappropriate fees, and locked “Approved” card users from accessing their money, apparently done as a predatory business practice, were completely ignored by the CFPB, and you can bet I sent them this documentation.

179

In the next link, you can watch the section of our documentary where Orman is targeting her “Approved” card scheme to poverty panels and the NCLR national conference, as well as announcing her card at the prestigious National Press Club, where this predatory card was eagerly shilled by “poverty activist” Tavis Smiley, who you'll see gush about how he would do anything for Suze Orman: Link 5-15 Suze Orman’s deceptions in GOOD magazine included an outright lie that she had met with FICO and that they were interested in her prepaid card plan, a falsehood that FICO themselves dispelled. From GOOD magazine, “Wealth Club: Suze Orman Talks Credit Scores, Occupy Wall Street, and the American Dream”: (Link 5-16)

GOOD: Was it hard to get TransUnion on board with developing a system where these cash transactions would positively affect people’s credit scores? ORMAN: I would say, ‘Yes, it was hard.’ But, no it was not hard because it was Suze Orman. I’m sure people had gone to them before and have asked ‘will you do this?’ and I’m sure they said no because I’m sure the people that probably asked prior to me would use this as a marketing gimmick. When TransUnion heard the idea that what I wanted to experiment with, and I also met with FICO on it, they knew that I would tell the people exactly how it was…the first prepaid debit card in history that would share information with a major credit bureau in the hopes that two years from now, we could evaluate the data and determine if it does in fact predict future behavior. I want everyone to simply get this card and pay their bills on this card. Just do that. Then we will aggregate the information, and possibly we could be part of changing the scoring system to be relevant, rather than irrelevant, which is what I believe it is today. … Remember, none of this will actually be reported on your actual credit report. We’re just sharing the aggregate data with TransUnion, we’re going to evaluate the aggregate data over two years, and if, God-willing, and I hope Experian and Equifax joins us with this, I have a feeling what you’re going to see is that we will have started to … to create a new score that takes into consideration people who don’t want to have a credit card, people who want to pay for things with cash, people who just want to use debit cards. So now we’re reevaluating and recreating the new American Dream all over again.

180

Orman also promised all over the place that at some nebulous time in the future, when the card had earned back her investment, she planed to eliminate at least one of the fees on this card, the monthly fee. Of course, that never happened, even though Orman bragged to the Daily Beast in 2013 that she had already made back all the millions of dollars she personally invested the card. As someone who received a lot of worthless promises of future payments and benefits from Orman, I easily recognized the same tone of voice in her promises of future benefits for “Approved” card victims. “Mr. Consumer” also noted: Conspicuously missing from their fee list is the cost to deposit money onto your card at an ATM or in person at a store. Apparently you can only add money at locations that support either Moneygram or Western Union payments. The cost, they say, is typically $3.00 – $4.95. Whatta deal.

Even after all those articles, the spin machine continued. Oprah’s magazine, which was still pushing Orman on her trusting flock, posted this twitter message January 18th, after most of the above articles exposing and slamming the card had already been published:

The O Magazine article was not presented as an advertisement, but proper advice. Yet Orman responded to a completely unrelated question with one more infomercial for her card. As of the publication date of this book, that article’s page on Oprah’s website is still pitching Orman’s long defunct, predatory card. The O Magazine article titled, “Should You Cosign a Car Loan for Your Children?” begins with what is likely a shill question, and shows Orman’s dangerous mix of scams mixed with useful information, like poison mixed with wine: (Link 5-17) Q: My 30-year-old son just finished graduate school with no loans. He has a new job that pays $60,000 a year. The problem: Because he hasn't established credit, he can't get a credit card or a car loan, even though he has $10,000 in savings and more than enough income to cover his bills each month. If I cosign a car loan, will that help him? I'm at a loss as to how he can start building his credit.

181

A: Mom, I can hear your frustration. It is stupefying that someone with a great income and no debt can't obtain a credit card or a loan. I bet that one factor weighing against his loan application is that he has yet to establish a FICO credit score, so while his income is enough to qualify, lenders won't make a deal. I am never a big fan of cosigning a loan, because it means you are 100 percent liable for making good on the amount borrowed. And even though your son sounds like a very stable guy, I stick by my advice: Do not cosign a loan for him. This is not about your son being a flake or freeloader. What if he is laid off? Or is injured in an accident? But you can still help. If your FICO credit score is at least 740, I would consider adding your son to your credit card as an authorized user. This allows him to piggyback on your score, and it will help him build a solid credit report that will eventually make it possible for him to qualify for a car loan on his own. (Here it is!) I have to tell you, your son's situation is one of the big reasons I've worked hard to bring out my new Approved Prepaid MasterCard debit card. I have become so frustrated hearing from people who can't get credit cards or who are struggling to navigate high fees. Debit cards are a great alternative to credit cards—and a great way to avoid the temptation to run up a high balance. Prepaid debit cards get around the problem of maintaining a hefty checking account balance, but some charge fees that can add up to $15 or more a month, and currently no prepaid debit cards report to one of the three main credit bureaus that lenders rely on for FICO credit scores. That's not much of a solution. This is why I am so proud of the new Approved card, and I honestly think it will be a game changer. For the first time in history, transactions made through a prepaid debit card will be shared with TransUnion, a major credit bureau. That information won't yet affect FICO scores, but the hope is that collecting data and insight on how people use debit cards could eventually impact credit reports. Orman herself had described prepaid cards as a bad deal in the past, but in the month before her card debuted, she changed her tune, and recommended that a woman should get a prepaid card for her husband on the very first episode of her new OWN show. (watch the clip: Link 5-18)

182

Next is a clip from a student-based show that broadcast on February 17th 2012, more than one month after warnings about Orman’s prepaid card had started filling the financial media landscape. Note the subtle and also outright deception in what Orman says and the deceptive copy she and her girlfriend/brand manager gave to the young anchor about her card. This is a case of Suze Orman fooling and stealing from young students by conning them into buying her fee-laden card. You’ll hear Orman’s usual claims that “if you use it how I tell you to,” the fees for this card would only be three dollars a month, and emoting her FICO fables to make all but the most savvy listeners think that her prepaid card would improve their credit scores. In this “scamming the students” clip, Orman also claimed FICO was part of her little experiment, which it was not: Link 5-21 Regarding Orman's unending suggestions and claims that her card was going to improve users’ FICO scores, a look deep into the “Approved” card’s legal disclaimers, reveals this: “The Approved Card is not designed to improve your credit record, history, or rating. Use of The Approved Card will not and cannot improve or fix your credit score or rating.” That is a far cry from what Suze Orman insinuated in around one hundred media appearances and interviews that were specifically geared to sell her card. Apparently Suze and company think putting a disclaimer on a difficult to find page of the “Approved” card website should prevent them from being prosecuted for her blatant fraud or repaying customers who were fooled by her deceptive pitches. More bad terms from the “Approved” card agreement page:

183

Translation: “So just keep putting your good money on the card for no reason and then shut up when you realize you’ve been scammed.” This next video clip shows Orman’s blatantly deceptive response, spoken like a lying child who just got caught with her hand in the cookie jar, as she answers Piers Morgan's softball questions about her prepaid debit card that had already been panned by respected finance journalists from top to bottom. Several journalists had alerted Morgan and his staff to the problems with Orman's card before this interview. Piers asks what sound like tough questions, but then lets Orman slide with little more than pretending to be altruistic and saying, “Trust me.” (click here to play the video: Link 5- 24)

184

It appears Morgan was well rewarded for allowing Orman to run her scam on his show:

Orman’s enthusiastic summation of the fiasco:

185

186

Chapter Six Capitalizing On The Financial Illiteracy of the Poor, Minorities, and the “Occupy” Movement

Although Suze Orman and her crooked cabal have run many strings of scams, shams, and shenanigans for the past fifteen years, I have given her “Approved” prepaid debit card a special importance in this book and the documentary film for several reasons. First, it is so extremely corrupt that even journalists who had previously believed in the Suze Orman façade realized they were either dealing with someone who had either been corrupt from the beginning, or as some articles bemoaned, who must have recently gone bad. Their articles help paint the picture of what was taking place, with some welcome expert confirmation since I, like Suze Orman, have never taken a finance-related college course. The “Approved” card was the most well publicized, and therefore well-documented Suze Orman scam, her boldest attempt to defraud millions of poor and uneducated United States citizens. Orman’s massive media blitz created a vast amount of evidence throughout the media and social media, including Orman telling people to leave their banks and “go off the grid,” by putting their hard-earned money right into her pockets through this shoddy, fee infested card. Orman’s prepaid debit card scam also entangled a long list of very famous celebrities and journalists who should have known better or done the slightest bit of research before knowingly or unknowingly repeating and hosting Orman’s lies about her card. All the documentation of Orman’s appearances on television and radio shows pitching the card depict what any thinking person should be able to see as blatant fraud. I consider this book and film as an archival presentation of evidence to encourage—finally—some action by government agencies and others to stop the scams and bring justice and restitution to “Approved” card victims. 187

Along with securing restitution for Orman’s victims, I also hope to help educate society so we are not scammed again and again, by Suze Orman and many others who are happy to damage lives to fill their own pockets. First Orman went for middle class people who might have been smart enough to accumulate a lot of money and education, but who had not put much energy into learning how the financial system works. That included Orman’s big announcement at the prestigious National Press Club, with enough press coverage to make those who don’t know much about finances think that this card must be really special and important to be announced a such a historic place.

188

Most people would have no idea that Orman’s main protector and publicity strategist for the card was the famous, perhaps infamous, and not nearly noticed enough political lobbyist, Hilary Rosen, who with a point of her finger could easily arrange for the mirage of making Orman’s card look like a real historical event, by creating this a big announcement, bizarrely hosted by Tavis Smiley. Middle class Americans were Orman’s prime con victims, because they had more money to pilfer than the poor. Orman went on television shows, including ABC News, as you’ll see in the film, and literally told people to leave their banks and “go off the grid,” by moving their money from proper, often free banks and Credit Unions onto her incompetently run, fee-ridden prepaid card. The fact that Orman got away with this begs many questions about the integrity and intelligence of today’s news media, especially for the National Press Club, whose credo is, “to foster the ethical standards of the profession.” CNN fed Orman’s scam to their viewers on many news shows, while not so subtly playing Orman’s SelectQuote commercials practically every hour during the same months they let Orman turn many of their news shows into shady infomercials. Watch one of Orman’s SelectQuote commercials, which are troubling in their own right: Link 6-1 Al Veshi, Piers Morgan, John King, and other CNN journalists shamelessly acted as infomercial hosts for Orman’s scam, in the guise of a news story about her card raising FICO scores. Did none of them do even one iota of research? Orman gave super sloppy answers to George Stepanopoulos on Good Morning America, and lied through her teeth in a one-on-one infomercial disguised as news on Huffington Post, with none other than ardent Orman supporter Arianna Huffington. Those venues were mostly focused on middle class American citizens, many of whom were fooled into moving their hard-earned money from proper bank accounts onto a prepaid card, believing that the expensive move was going to improve their FICO scores so they could buy that car, rent that apartment, or get that mortgage. Many middle class victims of Orman’s Approved card posted complaints on social media when the card lost or locked them out of their accounts. Obviously, these public complaints only represented a small percentage of those who either thought they had done something wrong, or who realized that they had been scammed by this “trusted financial expert,” and didn’t know what to do.

189

Unhappy customers had to spend big bucks just to speak with Orman’s incompetent customer service representatives at $2 per call. When’s the last time you heard of a bank or other financial institution charging two dollars to call them when they lose your account? Orman’s call center scammers didn’t even bother refunding those fees once they found out it was due to their incompetence—I would dare say due to their intentional, instructed, planned obsolescence.

Again, Orman’s “opposite-land” name for her effort to scam the middle class and poor was the “People First Movement.”

Another prong of Orman’s “Approved” card scam was to go after the poor, minorities, and those activists who’d had it with Wall Street and big banks and had organized to improve their world with what was called the “Occupy movement.” If only Orman could get all of them to move even their small amounts of money onto her card, she could add mountains of money to her mountains of money.

19 0

Shawn is one of many “Approved” card users whose entire account was locked and lost by Orman’s incompetent employees. Shawn called and called at two dollars a call, and took to Twitter to beg and cajole Orman into finally responding with a most meaningless and telling tweet: “They are going to call you. It usually is a different reason than you thought.”

191

Orman’s use of the word, “usually,” shows more evidence that this rape of card users’ accounts was commonplace. The “different reason” than she thought was that Suze Orman was running a prepaid debit card theft ring.

Orman's misinformation campaign for the “Approved” card fooled a whole lot of poor folks into buying her card and recommending this mediocre, exploitive product to their friends, like spreading a virus of false assertions that using Orman’s prepaid card would “up their FICO scores,” which it absolutely, positively, would not do, could not do, and did not do. Orman made an extensive ploy to fool poor and uneducated people into paying those twenty fees to her card, featuring $2 for each call to Orman’s customer service when the card didn't function correctly, something that happened all the time, based on online complaints. Then there was $20 for a check copy, $25 for a postal reject, $30.00 for a payment inquiry, and all kinds of inappropriate fees charged “by mistake.” To pitch this predatory card to the poor, the “Approved” card publicity strategists decided on enthusiastic Orman supporter Tavis Smiley, who gave an overly laudatory introduction to Orman and her card At the National Press Club. Smiley said, “I would do anything that Suze Orman asked me to do, and that's why I'm here (at the National Press Club) for the first time in my career to stand behind somebody who's put out a product that will help poor people in their effort to get out of the hole that this country in so many ways has helped dig for them.” 192

Smiley added that he will always support Orman in all her endeavors as he has always done—something that should draw some concern from Smiley’s customers, fans, and supporters. Watch video of Tavis “selling his soul to the devil” at this link: Link 6-2

The big announcement took place just before Orman returned the favor by appearing on Tavis's poverty panel, where Tavis gave yet another shameless infomercial for the fee-laden “Approved” prepaid debit card— making the poor think that Orman's ridiculous prepaid card would be a good choice for their banking needs. Smiley’s introduction to Orman’s prepaid debit card at the poverty conference was followed by Orman shouting that people shouldn’t listen to all the bad press that had started coming forth from financial journalists. “Don’t you listen to what they say I’m doing, ‘cause that ‘s not what I’m doing!” Next you can watch a video clip of Tavis Smiley's shocking infomercial for Orman's prepaid debit card scam right in the middle of that poverty panel, titled, “Poverty to Prosperity.” With Smiley pitching Orman’s predatory card, maybe it should have been called, “Poverty to Destitution.” In the clip you can see how uncomfortable Tavis is having to compromise his integrity to pitch this crummy prepaid card that had already been denounced by many financial experts since he announced it to great fanfare that morning at the National Press Club. Through the discomfort, Tavis spoke about the card as if it were actually a tool to help alleviate poverty rather than a tool to plunder the poor and put more of their money into Orman's pockets. Watch the poverty panel clip: Link 6-3

193

Click the next link to watch another surprising video clip from Tavis Smiley's “Poverty to Prosperity” panel. It is none other than activist Michael Moore enthusiastically endorsing Orman's prepaid debit card mission right in the middle of Smiley’s panel: Link 6-4 Moore said, “It still says on that piece of paper, ‘One person, one vote.’ They can buy the politicians, they can run all the ads, they can try to stop Suze from trying to help people get a good credit score—and she’s not understating that. She’s talking something so revolutionary on that level that she has put her life at risk.” What? Here is Michael's response when I asked why he would endorse Orman's ridiculous prepaid card:

Yes, Moore was “just seated next to her,” saying absurd things like, “She’s not understating that; Suze's talking something so revolutionary on that level that she has put her life at risk.” Yet, Moore claimed to have done nothing more than be seated next to her. After this bit of Twitter conversation, I sent Moore a short video clip of his praise of Orman and her card, about which he responded: “I'm generally nice to people, but that doesn't me (sic) I endorse their ideas.” To which I responded, “I'm sure it sounded like an endorsement to poor folks attending who tweeted that the card improved credit scores...this is my 'Roger and Me' - I watched yours, pls read my article.” No further response ever came from Moore, who you would think would at least take a few minutes to look into a possibility that he was unknowingly endorsing something deceptive and harmful to the poor. Speaking of the “Orman cabal,” Moore also seems to be friends with Orman’s main protector, political strategist media broker damage control expert, Hilary Rosen, based on his passion in protecting her from criticism by democrats for her insults toward Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, with Moore even saying that liberals “have no spine” if they dare to criticize Rosen for her poor choice of words.

194

Perhaps because Orman's appearance at the “poverty panel” was arranged by Rosen, Moore felt obliged to support her scheme. This is one more example of how one person with a lack of integrity can get others covered with the same tar. Orman has covered a whole lot of media personalities with her scam-ridden tar, just as she did to Moore in this example. In my opinion and experience, Orman is an example of the kind of bad company who influences people to sell out and compromise their integrity. You can see many examples of her doing just this in the documentary film, and I personally experienced her damaging effects when she convinced me to produce the deceptive video that got Orman her first book deal.

More than a year later, Orman repaid Smiley’s loyalty by being one of the first guests to appear on his new online radio blog show. Of course, Smiley had to pay the piper again by pushing Orman’s crummy prepaid debit card to his listeners, in spite of the huge wave of articles by finance journalists, top to bottom, who had warned their readers about the card. Smiley even allowed Orman to say that using her card prepaid could “literally change your life.” Play the audio here: Link 6-5 Check out the section shortly after three minutes into the audio excerpt, when Smiley’s assistant plays the role of a satisfied “Approved” card customer, who Smiley describes as “giddy” about how great the card has worked for him.

195

Note in the audio clip how Orman remembered this assistant’s name all too well in their scripted scenario. Though I didn’t personally see how this exuberant testimonial was arranged, it seemed quite obvious that it was planned in advance, with Smiley’s assistant as a shill. The assistant actually claimed that his FICO score shot way up after he started using Orman's card, allowing him to even buy a house. Of course, if you are reading this book, you know that Orman’s card didn’t do a thing to improve anyone’s credit, which Tavis must have also known, even though he supported the claim and even pushed his assistant to tell about how he was able to get that house mortgage due to his use of Orman’s prepaid debit card. At first, Orman didn’t correct the fellow’s claim that her card made his FICO score shoot up, but then the second time he made the same claim even more exuberantly, she must have gotten nervous about the blatant fraud. Orman finally spoke up and gave a new spin she and her prepaid card team must have come up with, saying that using her “Approved” card had helped improve the assistant's FICO score enough to get him a house mortgage, because he hadn’t been carrying balances on credit cards for the previous year, while putting his money on Orman’s fee-laden card. Unless Smiley’s listeners were super savvy regarding finances and unraveling twisted words, they were once again fooled into thinking that Orman’s card would improve their FICO scores, and help them get mortgages, as the card had supposedly done for “poverty activist” Tavis Smiley’s assistant. Tavis Smiley’s audience had already been fooled by Orman’s shenanigans a year earlier in his 2012 poverty conference, which resulted in people posting incorrect information to all their friends via social media and in person, telling those they cared about that Orman’s card would increase their FICO scores. Why would she lie about that, after all? How could anyone legally get away with making such a false claim? Now, Orman was back to gobble up more of Tavis Smiley’s flock. Another poverty activist to address Orman’s prepaid card was Ryan Mack, a contributor to CNN and other news shows, and advocate for the poor. Mack is one of the finance experts and journalists who had previously trusted and recommended Orman’s works, before being confronted with a big “uh oh, something is very wrong here” feeling when they saw her come out with this predatory prepaid debit card that she fooled people into thinking was a great tool for their finances.

196

I think a lot of media professionals and finance experts have and will be giving a big, collective, “Oops!” as these shams and shenanigans come to light regarding a person they may have previously put forth as a nearly divinely anointed, trustworthy finance expert and advisor for all aspects of politics and family life. Still, it is better to say “Oops” than to continue to propagate the sham just to save themselves from admitting they had been fooled or had been knowingly or unknowingly complicit. I’m talking to you, Oprah Winfrey! And far too many others. Mack was deeply disappointed by Orman’s prepaid debit card scam, since he'd really believed she was someone whom people could trust, specifically the poor people he served. Mack tried to ask Orman about the card and even had an interview scheduled, but then Orman cancelled in the midst of all the bad press that was swirling around her and the card. Ryan wrote about how Orman’s previous advice had been that prepaid cards were not a viable option, quoting her words on page 96 of the original edition of The Money Class book, where she had specifically stated, “I don't think prepaid cards are a viable option.” Mack then showed how the newly revised Money Class book removed that sentence and contained an ad for the Suze Orman “Approved” prepaid debit card, along with Orman’s new quote: “There are two types of debit cards: There is the debit card that is tied to your bank or credit union checking account, or there is the increasingly popular option of a prepaid debit card that you can load money onto and then pay bills or make purchases up to that amount.” Mack explained: In the new revised and updated version appears the mention of the “increasingly popular” prepaid debit card. In this revised book we see why—on pages 24 and 25 of her revised and updated book there was an advertisement for her brand new Approved Card. I have known her to justify this shift in principle by saying that “millions” of people are using these cards. Yes….and millions of people are using Rent-A-Centers, cash advance “stores” and the services of other financial predators. Most importantly those who fall prey to these predators are those who cannot afford to pay the high fees for their services.

When Mack tried to inform a woman via Twitter that there was an easy way for her to find a free secured card that would actually help her credit score, lyin’ Orman actually threatened legal action:

197

Mack also joked on FOX Business about his new “Awesome Air” cup that would cost users the same $3 per month, as a way of making fun of the uselessness of Orman’s card. (Link 6-6)

198

Even months after all this prepaid debit card backlash, Orman continued to give corrupted advice, including to this woman who had just moved to the U.S. and was simply asking this supposed financial advisor how to get a bank account and establish credit.

199

Scamming the Hispanic Community Orman continued her prepaid card scam at the January 2012 NCLR annual conference. The National Council of La Raza is the largest national Hispanic civic rights and advocacy organization in the United States. The previous year, President Obama was the main speaker, where he described the importance of the NCLR: “For more than four decades, NCLR has fought for opportunities for Latinos from city centers to farm fields. And that fight for opportunity—the opportunity to get a decent education, the opportunity to find a good job, the opportunity to make of our lives what we will—has never been more important than it is today.” That’s where Orman showed up with her prepaid debit card scam, months after it had already been ripped to shreds by financial journalists. NCLR president Janet Murguia welcomed Orman with extravagant praise, positioning her into a perceived position of trust by saying, “NCLR and Suze Orman are working on similar goals. We want the people we work with to be smart, educated consumers.” It boggled the mind to see Murguia stand by while Orman conned her community with a long, obviously deceptive infomercial that included scare tactics and false promises: “Now listen to me closely. Because you may not have a FICO score or a credit score, either one, you may not be able to rent an apartment; good luck getting a loan from a bank or a credit union to buy a car or a home, and if you do get a loan, you are going to pay incredibly high interest rates. If you have a low FICO score or none at all, do you know that you pay more in car insurance premiums and your insurance premiums across the board are higher?

This is the same scam set up Orman used throughout the media landscape to preface her fraudulent claims that using her “Approved” card was going to solve all these scary problems by giving card users a good FICO score. Orman’s NCLR con continued: “I want to change the credit scoring system in the United States of America, and I need your help to do so. I want it to be inclusive of you, not exclusive. I want you to be rewarded for paying for things on a debit card, not penalized for doing it…To that end, I created something, and I am asking you to help me with this… Orman then claimed her one million dollar investment in the card had grown to nearly two million, an indication of why she needed to exploit every opportunity for the card to generate income from all those official and unofficial fees.

200

Don’t worry about Suze Orman’s massive stash of cash; a year later she would claim to the Daily Beast that she had made all her money back, but at the NCLR, she was actually trying to get middle class and low income Hispanics to feel sorry for her: “I’ve already put in almost two million dollars of my own money. It is costing me tens of thousands of dollars a month to keep it going, but I am going to keep it going until it works, cause you deserve to have a vehicle like my Approved card. If I could be doing that for you, can you just help

me help you.” Yes, Orman ended her sales pitch with, “If I could be doing that for you, can you just help me help you?” Orman sighed this out with just as much over-the-top passion as when Tom Cruise’s character said the same line in Jerry Maguire. Watch the video of Orman blatantly scamming the Hispanic community with her prepaid card at the NCLR: (Link 6-7) Note that in the NCLR clip, Orman said the decision of whether her card will produce a FICO score would be made in six months to a year, instead of the eighteen months to two years she was declaring a few months earlier. What matter numbers when the whole thing is a sham? Of course, it was all fudged. Even FICO had already said they were not interested, remember? (Why FICO is not interested, excerpt from the Baltimore Sun: Link 6-8) Nevertheless, the NCLR’s National Latino Family Expo welcomed Orman to turn their stage into a prepaid debit card scamathon as one of their main speakers. Interestingly, another main speaker at the same event was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Richard Cordray, who should have been investigating and probably arresting Orman for what she was doing in the next room. Orman must feel awfully protected by her protectors to run such a shameless scam right at the same conference where Cordray was also speaking. Apparently, Cordray and the CFPB never even questioned Orman about her prepaid card scam, and you can bet I and others sent them the information needed to begin an investigation. The CFPB did soon after began an investigation into troubling aspects of prepaid debit cards in general that included fee disclosure issues and misleading marketing that suggests users will get an improved credit scores by using a prepaid card (guess who had been doing that?)

201

Even so, “hands off” Orman had no worries while she was protected by her cabal, including the same political lobbyist publicists who have represented and pushed up the influence rating of Senator Elizabeth Warren, who created and supported the CFPB. Unfortunately, that super powerful political lobbyist PR team are also the same democratic strategists who raised money for and advised Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The “cabal’s” hold on the Obama administration was also evident, including President Obama’s communications director Anita Dunn, who subsequently became a senior partner of Hilary Rosen’s SKDK. Records show that Rosen and her clients got into President Obama’s White House at least thirty-five times, so with Hillary Clinton in their claws, we may be in for four more years of Suze Orman’s scams being completely ignored by government agencies. After their NCLR appearances, CFPB head Richard Cordray and Suze Orman also appeared on the same day’s broadcast of Marketplace from American Public Media, the premier business news show on National Public Radio. Again, Cordray should have been paying attention as Orman read out her well-rehearsed latticework of convoluted words in response to Tess Vigeland's questions. You can hear Orman reading the obviously pre-composed responses in this audio of their radio interview: Link 5-22

Vigeland: I wanna talk about your new pre-paid debit card that was announced this week. Why did you decide you wanted to get into this business? Orman: As you know, there's an entire group of people -- the unbanked and the underbanked -- that are growing, there are 70 million of them right now, that are literally using these prepaid debit cards. The fact of the matter is, if you look at the majority of the prepaid cards that are out there, they absolutely charge exorbitant fees. So I decided number one, that was absolutely ludicrous. That people should not have to pay large sums of money just to be able to have the privilege of using a card. Next, I wanted to change the scoring mechanism system. I wanted to make it so people who use debit cards eventually got credit toward their credit scores. And that's what we're doing . This is the first prepaid card in history that is sharing information with TransUnion, a major credit bureau. It'll be 18 to 24 months before TransUnion -- and hopefully other credit bureaus will join us on this -- that they will be able to determine if debit card behavior can predict future credit card use.

202

Vigeland: CardHub.com did an analysis of your card versus the Green Dot card as well as the Amex card. And the one knock it did have is that there are so many different fees on your card—twenty versus eight for the Green Dot and only one fee for the Amex card. Orman: Oh please, girl friend. Don't tell me that you are that naive. There is no way Amex has just one fee. There is no way Green Dot has just four or five fees. The person that did that article doesn't even know how to evaluate cards, let alone be good enough to give a determination on it. The reason that they were able to see all the fees that we could potentially charge, if you don't use the card the way that we tell you, is because by law, you have to have them. And the only difference is we're showing everybody the fees, we're being transparent! All those other cards, you do your homework. You try to find their fees, you try to find out how much it's really gonna cost you, you're not gonna be able to, because they are hidden deep deep into

the site. Are you kidding me? He was an idiot! Vigeland: Are you concerned at all that your audience might question you having a card like this, perhaps making money off of them -- however little -- while at the same time counseling them on their money

management? Orman: I don't think so. Because the people who have been listening now for almost 30 years they know that I have earned their trust. (Editor’s note—30 years before this interview, Orman was staying with a mutual acquaintance, while selling multi-level marketing water filters) They know that I have never put my needs in front of theirs. So I don't personally care what other people say, because I know what I'm doing and the people who follow me know what I'm doing as well. And we will just see who has the last laugh when it comes to the Approved card. You see, it’s all a game for Orman, who always has gotten the last laugh, because every disaster she causes just shovels more money into her accounts, while her PR wizards cover up bad press and get all kinds of glowing political and government accolades to prop up Orman’s public influence and keep her from facing justice for her blatant frauds that would have landed anyone else in prison. Orman's deceptive behavior during the Marketplace Money interview even drew criticism from one of her previous supporters, Felix Salmon of Reuters, who had been known to valiantly defend Orman from criticism by other finance journalists over the years. Finally, even Felix saw the light enough to write an article titled, “Suze Orman's Conflicts”: (Link 5-23)

203

I had a memorable conversation on Monday with Suze Orman and Kim Bishop, the face and president respectively of the new Approved Card prepaid debit card. I had quite a few questions for them, and they did answer them, even if at times I did feel as though we were speaking at cross-purposes. I started off by asking Orman about an exchange she had last week with Marketplace Money’s Tess Vigeland. Vigeland: CardHub.com did an analysis of your card versus the Green Dot card as well as the Amex card. And the one knock it did have is that there are so many different fees on your card — 20 versus eight for the Green Dot and only one fee for the Amex card. Orman: Oh please, girl friend. Don’t tell me that you are that naive. There is no way Amex has just one fee. There is no way Green Dot has just four or five fees. The person that did that article doesn’t even know how to evaluate cards, let alone be good enough to give a determination on it. The reason that they were able to see all the fees that we could potentially charge, if you don’t use the card the way that we tell you, is because by law, you have to have them. And the only difference is we’re showing everybody the fees, we’re being transparent! All those other cards, you do your homework. You try to find their fees, you try to find out how much it’s really gonna cost you, you’re not gonna be able to, because they are hidden deep deep into the site. Are you kidding me? He was an idiot!

It’s worth listening to that answer, rather than just reading it: she spits it out. There is. No. Way. Amex. Has. Just. One. Fee. Except, there is a way that Amex has just one fee. See for yourself. It’s a reasonably big fee: $2 per ATM withdrawal, with no free ATMs. But it really is the only fee that Amex has — you can delve as deep into the terms and conditions as you like, and you’re not going to find another one.

Taking advantage of the “Occupy” Movement:

Orman also tried to take advantage of the “Occupy” movement, painting her mediocre, fee-laden prepaid debit card as a great altruistic movement, even going so far as to call it her “People First Movement” to make it sound like the Occupy movement.

204

Next is an example of Orman praising the Occupy movement while deceptively pitching her card to them, from a January 2012 interview with Good Business:

205

Wow, Orman’s card would be just like having a little bank in your pocket with you—like every other debit and credit card out there, except this one was going to take a big slice off the top of your hard-earned money. All of Orman’s altruistic baloney about joining her in this “People First Movement” was about a crummy, fee-laden prepaid debit card for which Orman had partnered with those “non-corporate businesses,” Mastercard and Bancorp.

Now we get to Orman’s Occupy movement scam set-up, as one of many examples of how anything Suze Orman praises can nearly always be traced to some benefit to her pocketbook, as part of one scam or another. Once you see how she does it, you can have your own Suze Orman “SCAMvenger hunt,” whenever you see her doing anything, because Scamming Suze is always scamming.

206

Just a few months before announcing and releasing her “Approved” prepaid debit card, Orman “coincidently” wrote a big article for her friend Arianna's Huffington Post, praising the Occupy movement with a title that said, “Occupy Wall Street: Approved!” Those who were concerned about the growing chasm between the rich and the poor were so happy to see Suze Orman supporting their efforts, fueled by Hilary Rosen and SKDK’s vast network of media and social media reposters, that Orman’s article was forwarded tens of thousands of times, like a free pre-ad for her upcoming “Approved” card. Readers of Huffington Post would soon be receiving further infomercials about Orman’s card, hosted by Arianna Huffington herself. The set-up of Orman “approving” the Occupy movement in order to scam them a few month's later with her “Approved” card is quite clear in Orman’s quote from the Good Business interview quoted above, stating that she created the “Approved” card specifically for the 99% Occupy movement, adding: If you want to keep your money in big banks, if you want to continue to get fees, if you want to continue to get all those things, you leave it right where it is. If you want to make a difference in your own life, how you use money, the accounting of money, everything about it, I am telling you, put your money on me.

Of course, Orman created the card for the Occupy movement and anyone else she could trick into moving their money out of the banking system and onto her fee-laden card, which is run by…a big bank! Sounds like, at minimum, false advertising.

207

As an aside, the Credit Union industry was quite miffed to see Orman pushing people toward such a crummy financial product when most US citizens would be able to get a free account and debit card at their local Credit Union. Just two years before Orman’s prepaid debit card blitz, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions had paid $1.6 million dollars to put Orman as the face of Credit Unions, many of which plastered her face in their literature and physical banks. With that extensively publicized campaign, Credit Unions across America were putting Suze Orman forth as a paragon and face of trustworthiness and protection for consumers, just as the FDIC had done previously. Both campaigns probably did more to benefit Orman’s image than the NCUA, and certainly did more for her pocketbook.

From the Credit Union Times:

208

When one “price for advice” contract is over for Suze Orman, her advice is once again up for grabs by whomever and whatever will pay. Just months after telling people to leave their banks for credit unions, Orman was now using her undeserved clout to tell people to leave their banks and credit unions and to put their money onto a card that she pretended wasn't owned by a big bank, a card that would pour untold amounts of wealth from monthly fees, merchant interchange fees for every transaction, and a minefield of other improperly charged fees, directly into Orman’s greedy hands. Here’s the heading of Orman’s setup on the Huffington Post for her upcoming “plunder the occupy movement” “Approved” card scam.

Notice anything interesting about the headline?

209

As a side note, the information in the Huffington Post article, as with many of Orman’s books and articles, sounds nothing like Orman’s speaking style or her nearly illiterate Twitter postings or personal email messages. It reads like one more ghostwritten piece with Suze Orman’s name on it—this time with the predatory foreshadowing of an “Approved!” headline. (Link 6-9) In the space of less than a month, the Occupy Wall Street movement has gained national notoriety. A new poll out Monday shows that more than half of Americans are aware of the grass-roots campaign pushing back at the outsize profits, bailouts, and influence of the financial sector. That quick rise has plenty of special interests so worried they have resorted to a pathetic yet popular tact: When you feel threatened, work overtime to marginalize the threat before it establishes traction. Me? I want to publicly say thank you to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Thank you for not accepting the status quo. Thank you for not assuming there is nothing to be done. Thank you for rattling the cages. Much coverage of Occupy Wall Street has cast this as the beginning of something new. That’s only partly true. What I find so encouraging is that Occupy Wall Street’s more important message is that this marks an end point. An end to just shrugging and putting up with the inequity. An end to patiently waiting for government to get its act together and take steps to reduce the pain felt by millions of Americans who are unemployed, the millions more who are underemployed, and the millions more again who worry that if we indeed slip into a double dip recession they will soon become unemployed. An end to letting Washington just continue further down its dysfunctional dark hole without being called out. This Huffington Post article was not an article written by someone who brags that she never received better than a “C” in a single college course, whose own bio says, “In grammar school on the South Side of Chicago, I had to take reading exams, and would always score among the lowest in the class,” and who admitted to her first agent that she didn't know how to write, to which Binky Urban said, “Great. Finally an author who knows she can't write.” (Link 6-10) What do you think Urban meant?

People involved with the Occupy movement were so happy to see someone with Orman’s influence supporting their efforts that they posted, tweeted, and forwarded the article with a positive implicit endorsement of Suze Orman herself. That was the plan, after all. The PR publicist for this card was none other than famed political lobbyist, BP Oil spill protector, media broker Hilary Rosen, who from what I’ve seen, is quite proficient with planting stories and spreading them through the media and social media.

210

Yes, that’s forty-four thousand results.

211

With a knack for seeing Orman’s scammy scenarios, having experienced them up close and personal, when I saw the Huffington Post article, I could tell that Orman’s “Occupy movement” article in October 2011 was certainly one more setup for something that would benefit Orman’s pocketbook, likely to the detriment of others. When Orman admitted, “Everything I do is a source of income to me,” she meant everything. Just because you’re not a sociopath who would ever do such things doesn’t mean good people should remain ignorant and complacent about those who would and do cause harm to benefit themselves. The Huffington Post piece came out just three months before Orman was going to announce her “Approved” prepaid debit card, so I wasn't sure exactly how Orman’s headline saying that she “Approved!” the Occupy movement was going to fit into her next price-for-advice scheme or product offering, but I knew it would. It would be educational for journalists and researchers to go through the archives of these news flurry headlines by and about Suze Orman over the past fifteen years, and look into the correlations of those headlines with her webs of deceptions. Supporters of the Occupy movement were flooding the news media with tens of thousands of positively framed reposts of Orman’s “Approved” headline, unaware that their good intentions were being used for nefarious reasons, making them unwitting co-conspirators and subliminal social meme implanters, as they promoted the false impression that Suze Orman supported the poor and middle class. All of Orman's big “People First” revolution was just an advertisement for another usual, crummy, fee-laden prepaid debit card, the kind of product most experts agree would be admissible to only a very few whose credit is so terrible they are unable to get even a secured credit card or a free checking account with a credit union, or for monitoring uses such as a parent giving their child a prepaid debit card to keep track of where the money is being spent. It was an interesting dynamic to see that while one limb of CNN News was hosting Orman’s prepaid card scam, another was trying to stop the damage. CNN Money ran an article in May 2012 titled, “Prepaid cards: Don't be misled,” with the byline, “watch out for cards that are loaded with fees or that claim to help you improve your credit score.” The CNN Money article even mentioned Orman’s card by name: (Link 6-10a)

212

Suze Orman's Approved Card, issued by Bancorp Bank (TBBK), says prominently on its website that it is “the first prepaid card in history to share information with TransUnion, a major credit bureau.” It also discloses that the information is anonymous and won't show up on a customer's credit report, meaning it won't be considered in a FICO score. But some consumers still think the prepaid card will help their credit—something that is evident from numerous messages posted on online forums and credit card comparison websites. “FICO will do an evaluation to determine if they can give you a score ... throughout the time you have the card your information is shared with the 3 credit score companies. Cheers!” wrote one consumer on CardHub.com. Because of comments like these, CardHub responded: “Unfortunately, the marketing promotion around the Approved Card has all of us confused ... the truth is that this prepaid card will do nothing for your FICO score.”

…TransUnion said “it is too soon to offer up any insights” about its review of the Approved Card's anonymous data… The Approved Card didn't respond to requests for comment.

What this and most other articles didn’t expose is how Orman’s card held poor people’s checks hostage while parasitic fees eroded their accounts, how card holders who paid two dollars for each call to Orman’s customer service in the Philippines found incompetent representatives who offered little assistance and set up hoops that required them to make more of those two dollar calls while customers languished, unable to access their own money. These articles also didn’t mention how, even after canceling the card, users’ accounts would continue to be charged fees that would diminish their remaining balance as they waited to have access to whatever amount of their own money was left after being scammed by Suze Orman.

213

Orman's Failed Attempt to Plunder the Philippines

Now I’ll share some indications of Suze Orman’s plans to use the banking and journalist systems of the Philippines to fool and plunder Filipinos. Orman’s tainted advice was, as usual, mixed with common sense advice, headline slogans, and questionable advice to muddy the view. In 2012, with Orman’s card being criticized throughout the United States, Orman set the stage for her big con in the Philippines. At the time, I could see that Orman’s media blitz in the Philippines was a ploy in preparation for bringing her fee-laden prepaid debit card and other exploitative schemes to the Philippines, disguised as “altruistic” visits to help the country, using the same kind of manipulative techniques she’d used stateside. Suze Orman wanted to be the prepaid card Queen of the world, and even though the media outcry about her “Approved” card in the United States was bigger than she’d expected, Orman was going to go through with her previously planned plot to move money from the Philippines into her accounts. Orman's troubling visit began with spreading her money obsession and heartless doctrine of not helping even family members, with the main article's troubling headline: “Suze Orman to Filipinos: Money means almost everything.” (Link 6-11)

214

MANILA, Philippines - Suze Orman was hard to miss. The frosted blonde in a zebra-print frock and nearly peso-sized earrings easily caught the attention of the over 1,000 Filipinos who flocked to Taguig's NBC Tent on Saturday, February 25. Her magnetic personality pulled their focus and held it on the sometimes bland topic of personal finance. This personal finance guru is Oprah Winfrey's go-to gal for money, a New York Times best-selling author 9 times over, and one of Forbes 100 most powerful women in the world in 2010. “Money means almost everything,” she said, not mincing words.

I assumed she was setting the stage to bring her predatory, “Bank of Suze Orman” card to the Philippines. This headline gave some confirmation of my theory:

“American personal finance guru Suze Orman says Filipinos can learn from the mistakes of Americans and remain financially successful. All they need to avoid is falling into the trap of credit card debt” How simple is that? Just avoid credit card debt and everything will be great. That’s “all” the country of the Philippines needs to do. If only there was a fee-laden prepaid debit card available to help Filipinos avoid that credit card

“trap”! Watch the news video: “Suze Orman advises Filipinos on avoiding Americans' mistakes”: Link 6-12

215

Four months later, my “Suze Scamdar” was proven correct:

It looks as though Orman got so emboldened by the U.S. government letting all of her plundering shenanigans go on for years with nary a peep that she wanted to move her scam to other countries. Orman’s trips to the Philippines were hosted by the Bank of the Philippine Islands. She painted herself as practically a saint for coming to help these poor Filipinos get their money together by offering free programs and gave the same basic talk she has given nearly every time she speaks for the past 15 years, with additional “brilliant” advice that Filipinos should stop buying lattes, stop buying cosmetics and toys, stop helping family, and - what's that? During her visit in May, Orman brought a new focus to the Philippines, that Filipinos should invest their money in stocks, especially via ETFs. ETFs didn’t even exist in the Philippines at the time, although she was at the same time pushing gold ETFs through “her” Money Navigator Newsletter. See how the webs of Suze Scams get intertwined? One reporter, who Orman has primed with flattery and many public compliments to keep him loyal, said in his interview that Orman, “urged Filipinos to invest in exchange-traded funds once they are available locally.” (Link 6-13) Who might have paid for Orman to give this advice to avoid investing in the United States in an article titled, “Drowning in credit card debt? Here's Suze Orman's advice”: (Link 6-14)

“At this point, I would be saving in pesos. If they save in dollars, and the peso continues to go up, they will lose money in the long run. You have to believe in your country. You have to invest in yourself. If you don't believe in PH, in your own peso here, what does that say? I would be investing right here in this country. Forget the US,” she said. 216

With Orman’s splurges into the Philippines hosted by the Bank of the Philippine Islands, one must wonder if and how they also paid Orman to bring more dollars to their coffers with her schemes? Another May 2013 article, titled, “Invest in Stocks - Suze Orman,” says: (Link 6-15)

MANILA, Philippines - Amid low interest rates regime, investing in stocks and so-called exchange trade funds (ETFs) would be a wise choice, according to financial guru Suze Orman. “I still believe that the place to be is in stocks, or exchange trade funds which you don’t have yet here that pay high dividends because interest rates are so low,” Orman said, in a press briefing. We've seen ETFs elsewhere in this book, when Orman was pitching gold ETFs in the Suze Orman Gold Rush of 2011 and 2012. That’s when she advised people throughout the media landscape to buy gold ETFs through her Money Navigator Newsletter that she later claimed to have nothing at all to do with, after making a bundle on her gold rush and the newsletter. Once you understand that Orman is a deceiving gangster, it becomes easier to see the scams as she set up her marks—which in this case were all Filipinos—and prepared to con them and make a whole lot of money in the process, while her enablers continued to laud her as a great financial savior. It's worked so well for her in the United States; why not plunder the Philippines and other countries as well? In 2013, I spoke with a financial investment expert whom Orman partnered with and accessed for financial information to make it appear that she knew what she is talking about financially. This expert, one of few Orman associates who did not sign one of her confidentiality agreements, told me that in 2011, Orman was seeking to start a mutual fund with him. Orman does not have the credentials to even give investment advice, much less start a fund, but she knows how to get around the rules, and knew that government agencies and the United States media had given her a total pass on all of her prior schemes. Therefore, Orman was planning to start a mutual fund using this expert’s credentials. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission at least noticed this one Suze scam and apparently shut it down, so she wasn't able to create the mutual fund in the US. Not being a financial stock market expert, I hope those who are experts can further research and explore this part of Orman’s deceitful webs to help stop the continuing damage.

217

It is possible that Orman’s prepaid card and other scams got shut down in the Philippines, in part, by the many Filipinos who came to my website and read information about her scams, along with the warning: “Dear Philippines, please don't be fooled by Orman buttering you and your country up with flattery and shaming you with chastisements. Don't be fooled like the United States has been fooled. Beware of Suze Orman!” A year later, Orman actually claimed that she deserved to receive a Nobel Prize for her “pro bono” work in the Philippines, telling a reporter from the Daily Beast: “I’ve garnered every award that somebody like me would garner. Obviously I’ve never won an Academy Award or a Grammy but, then, I wouldn’t. But I’ve garnered every award, every acknowledgment, whether it’s Time magazine, Forbes—all of it. More New York Times bestsellers? I’ve done it all. The only thing I haven’t done yet is a Nobel Prize. But I wouldn’t be surprised if that comes my way one day, because I am working pro bono with the Philippines, all right?” (Orman and Travis are working with the Philippines government and BPI, its third-largest bank, to produce public-service announcements—”little TV shows,” she calls them—encouraging the nation’s working class to save more money.)

TransUnion scam phase two kicks in Another predatory phase of Orman’s prepaid debit card rip-off scheme came in early 2013, when everyone who’d had the card for a year found that the free access to their TransUnion reports that Orman had touted as a benefit of her card were no longer available to them for free. In truth, that benefit was all but worthless, because TransUnion scores plus Experian and Equifax scores are easily available at Credit Karma and other places for free. But many of those who were financially uneducated enough to believe that Orman’s card was going to improve their FICO scores also didn’t know that this TransUnion benefit was basically worthless. For them, Orman and TransUnion had set a special trap. After the first year, Orman’s “Approved” card customers were charged $143/year for this unnecessary “benefit,” money that Orman and TransUnion happily slopped up from the pockets of mostly poor and financially uneducated people who were fooled into trusting “financial advisor” Suze Orman.

218

A Suze Sham for Mothers Day

In early 2013, Orman’s “Approved” card scam continued full steam ahead, as Orman tried to milk every penny she could from anyone she could still fool into putting their money on her thieving card, in spite of the huge wave of articles that had warned consumers about the card throughout the previous year. Orman’s publicity strategist democratic lobbyist team likes to claim they’re protecting women—after all, they represent Planned Parenthood and other women’s organizations—but it seems their quest to soak money from anyone and everyone through Orman’s predatory card scam necessarily included women, and with Mothers Day 2013 approaching, that meant getting mothers to like and trust Orman enough to blindly follow her advice to buy her card. Here I will point out one small but significant example of Orman’s publicity set-ups that make up her webs of media-fueled schemes. Just a few weeks before Mother's Day in 2013, Orman made a surprising announcement on her CNBC show, stating that hiring a doula for childbirth is a need, not a want. Usually the main things Orman had previously said were “needs” rather than “wants” were telling people to buy her own products. Here’s a tip for your own Suze Scam Scavenger Hunts: Whenever you hear Orman give props to something she knows little about personally and has never supported previously, you can assume there must be a scam in the air and payment of some form taking place. CNBC featured the doula recommendation on their site, certainly by request of Orman's PR planners. Thus far, the video is still available to watch here: Link 6-16 It’s almost certain the caller in that clip was a planted shill of the kind Orman has used in other disguised infomercials, such as this shill on Oprah Winfrey’s network asking a planted question that opened the door to Orman’s fraudulent prepaid card pitch to scam Oprah fans: Link 6-17 Mothers were so happy to see Orman's endorsement of doulas just as their big day of honor was coming up. Some mixture of real and fake Twitter users blasted social media with positive posts and links to celebrate the fact that Suze Orman said doulas are a NEED not a want. Of course, this set off my “Suze Scamdar” alarm, as it was clearly a set-up in progress for Orman to plunder mothers as a special Mothers Day “gift.”

219

220

Not even one week later, the pay-off showed up in the form of Orman's Mothers Day articles pitching her “Approved” card, including one on Elizabeth Street, titled, “Suze Orman's Money Tips for Mothers.”

221

Even though her Approved card had been torn to shreds by financial journalists for nearly a year and a half by then, Orman had to make her investment money back, plus a profit. Not because she couldn’t afford to lose a couple million dollars, but because to Suze Orman, it is all a game to see how far she can go and come out ahead, regardless of how many people are damaged along the way. Orman wasn’t recommending doulas as a need because she has any interest in childbearing, but to hook mothers into doing her publicity work for her as she prepared to con them into putting their money onto a proven scam. In Orman’s warped mind, and unfortunately in the eyes of many who worship fortune and fame, she came out “winning,” because she made a profit.

The Elizabeth Street article featured Orman's widely debunked “Approved” prepaid debit card as being a good deal for mothers. The interviewer asked Orman’s shill question, “What is the Approved Card and how can it benefit mothers?” Orman’s response was that the Approved Card doesn’t require any credit checks and can be used by those who have bounced a few checks and are unable to open a bank account. It was another convoluted Suze Orman pitch with technical terms that probably left some mothers thinking, “Well, if Suze likes doulas and recommends this card, it must be good.”

222

Note that by this time, Orman had stopped pretending her card was going to do anything to help anyone’s FICO score. She didn’t in any way let card users know that no FICO score benefit was coming, but moved on to the next set of pseudo facts in Orman’s usual tactic of subtly changing the text of her scripts and pretending that nothing she’d previously said had ever been said. I found all the scam indicators in this book and film with just some searches in media and social media. There are many remaining Suze Scams to be unmasked. By May 2013, Orman had heard whispers from the CFPB about looking into prepaid card problems and creating new laws that seemed to be in response to Orman’s “Approved” card shenanigans. Maybe this was the CFPB’s way of letting Suze Orman get away with committing various kinds of fraud with impunity, while making sure others didn’t follow her example. The snake oil salesman knew it was soon going to be time to get out of Dodge, so she did this Mothers Day pitch to milk whatever more she could from the disappointing prepaid debit card scheme (disappointing in terms of not bringing in the hundreds of millions she’d expected). Here is part of the CFPB’s legal filing about prepaid cards, which reiterates the fact that even if Orman’s card ever did affect credit scores, that scoring would likely result in negative effects on most low income card users’ scores:

8. The Bureau Should Be Vigilant Against Deceptive Claims About Building Credit

We support the Bureau’s inquiry into the efficacy of credit building features on prepaid cards and urge the Bureau to consider rules to prevent deceptive credit building claims. Credit building features often do not deliver in the manner that the consumer expects, whether because the data is reported to a little-used agency, the data does not impact credit scores, or the data has a negative rather than a positive impact…we fear that, in the current environment, credit building claims are more often deceptive than accurate.

The last line again from the CFPB, who is supposed to apply justice to scammers and get restitution to their victims: “We fear that, in the current environment, credit building claims are more often deceptive than accurate.” Ya think?

223

224

Chapter Seven The Scam-Ridden Card’s Demise and Cover-up

With the CFPB’s new ruling and other factors, Orman surely knew the card was going to go under by mid-2013, and should have been begging forgiveness and promising to stop the scams in the face of possible justice. But Orman knew that her behind-the-scenes protectors would make sure she would never face justice for any scams, ever, no matter how much damage they caused or how much money she stole from poor and middle class United States citizens. There is evidence suggesting that Orman may have actually planned this “Approved” card as one last big con to fill her offshore bank accounts before laughing her way into a very luxurious retirement. It could very well be that Orman intended all along for this prepaid card to be a short term, but very lucrative scam. First, Orman had announced in November 2011, just two months before releasing the prepaid card as her “People First Movement,” that she was going to retire from the financial advisor business in three years to travel on her yacht and enjoy the grand fortune she had acquired. That would be around November 2014, just months before the card would close. Orman told several media outlets, including the Daily News, that come 2015, she was going to retire and close up shop, and that the only thing you would see on her web page would be a sign that said, “Gone fishing.” (Link 7-1) “Financial wizard Suze Orman already has her retirement plans laid out. She told us at the recent Friars Club testimonial dinner for Larry King that she plans to end “The Suze Orman Show” in three years and sail around the world: ‘Unless something wacky happens, I’m 60 now, and I always had a date of 63 that that would be that.’

225

Orman said that on her last day of work, her Web site’s home page will simply say, “Gone Fishing.”

Just before retiring would be a strange time to start a huge new venture such as the “Approved” card, a business that would require resources and commitments of all kinds for years to come. But nothing ever has to make any sense whatsoever in Scamming Suze’s topsy-turvy land of deceptive webs, where journalists have been too fearful, ignorant, or corrupt to ask the needed questions. Another indication of when Orman thought the card scam might end is how, throughout 2012, Orman promised in show after show that the results of her little fake experiment with TransUnion would be made public in eighteen to twenty-four months. “In eighteen to twenty-four months, we’ll know if a debit card can create a FICO score!!!” Orman also mentioned several times that if the card didn’t make money, she would close it. At the time, my Suze Scamdar said that she was probably doing that with the expectation of closing the card after the experiment deadline was up. Here’s another tip for Suze SCAMvengers: Orman often gives clues of what she is doing, such as when she bragged about making massive amounts of money from her gold pump and dump and suggested that she was planning to buy and sell her way up and down the roller coaster being created, in part, by all her media blasts to BUY GOLD!!!

On the same day Orman’s Mothers Day, “buy my prepaid debit card” article was published in Elizabeth Street, came other articles by Orman with pitches for mothers to use her crummy “Approved” card. This Hay House article from the same time includes Orman's assurance that: “You know I will do everything in my power to tell you everything you need to know. You can always bank on me because I have your best interest at heart. Learn more about The Approved Card here.”

226

Don't bank on Suze! She does not have your best interest at heart! This Hay House article appeared to be pieced together from bits and pieces of PR materials Orman had previously used to pitch the card. As of June 2016, it is still online: (Link 7-2)

Now many parents have come to me and said, “Why are my kids in debt? Why aren’t they living the way I want them to live?” “How can I teach them to handle their money without making the mistakes that I made?” Well, you spoke. I heard. And what you said mattered to me. So I decided to do something about it. I want to help you teach your teens about money. I want to help you feel good about your finances. I want to give you a place to bring your money home to—a place that really values you and puts people first. So I decided to create my own prepaid card. It’s The Approved Prepaid MasterCard®. The Approved Card is simply a prepaid card that you load money onto — you prepay the amount of money that you use. It’s that easy. It’s not a debit card that’s attached to a checking or credit union account. It stands all on its own. No credit check. No background check. No checking account.

For the first year-plus, Orman was pushing the completely fraudulent idea that using her fee-laden prepaid card would improve users’ FICO scores, which was clearly shown to be false lies by the documentation earlier in this book.

227

During her snake oil pitches, Orman continually claimed that within 18—24 months, TransUnion would have their answer on whether her card could create a FICO score. But what was Orman going to do when the jig was up and this obviously deceptive ploy ran out the clock? The 24-month deadline was up in January 2014, so in November 2013, the jig was almost up. That is when the only journalist to ask Orman about the outcome of her big media blasted experiment with TransUnion asked the big question, timed so she could give a scammy answer before the card actually closed.

From The Daily Beast, November 2013: (Link 7-3) …She can’t help but claim victory already. The card, she says, is “thriving,” and broke even for the first time this summer. “TransUnion made a deal with me,” Orman says, “so that for two years they would look at behavior on this card—in an aggregate, anonymous way—and see if it determines future behavior.” I point out that it’s been just about two years. Any word? “They are finding out that it does,” she says, with a smile. A representative from TransUnion confirmed the broad outlines of its partnership with Orman, but wouldn’t corroborate her statement about the two-year timeline. Nor would the representative make any statements about what kind of conclusions, if any, TransUnion has drawn from its analysis, stating only that the process is “ongoing.” Orman declined to give any further details, as well. Maybe she’s wrong, letting her passion get in the way of the facts. Or maybe she’s right, and a groundbreaking TransUnion deal will soon materialize. Maybe I’ve witnessed a Suze witching moment.

Note that when Orman said she broke even in mid-2013, that means she personally received a return of at least the two million dollars she claimed at the NCLR to have invested in the card from her own bulging coffers. She also assumedly had to get at least the financial investments back to the other partners whom she surely must have promised big returns for their complicity in her scheme that plundered their reimbursed money off the backs of the middle class and poor. It was time to set up a distracting silver object to cover up the card’s demise and cover her tracks.

228

Orman’s Fake Petition Cover-Up Campaign

In January 2014, the 24-month experiment deadline for Orman’s “Approved” card’s “experiment” with TransUnion was up. Orman had finally stopped pushing to sell her card, but she added another web to distract and cover up her scam, as she prepared to close down the card. Orman and her political lobbyist publicity strategist damage control experts created a ridiculous, poorly executed Change.org petition, and addressed it to Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tim Johnson, and Mark Warner.

Here is the text of Orman’s petition:

229

In this prepaid card petition sham, Orman was feigning to ask these politicians to mandate that the credit bureaus include debit card holder's information on credit reports, something that is not in the hands of legislatures, nor anything that would make sense to do, as explained in the Approved card scam chapter. Elizabeth Warren, who started the CFPB, was one of the government officials who should have easily sniffed the scam and directed an investigation of Orman’s prepaid card fraud. Instead, Warren and other Orman cabal enablers played along.

There are many ways the credit scoring system of FICO could be improved, however most finance experts agree that using a prepaid card to determine credit worthiness is not and should not be one of them. But helping poor people get a better FICO score had nothing to do with what Orman’s Change.org petition was really about. For Suze Orman, all of her fans, followers, and friends are nothing more than pawns for her to use in her con games. When she knows the jig is about to be up for one of her scams, she creates a diversionary headline to distract people, usually one that makes her look altruistic in some way. In this case, Orman needed a cover-up to make her look like a great credit score debit card activist, in hopes of covering up and making everyone forget about the prepaid debit card scam she had just run on the American public.

230

This ruse didn’t require much work. All Orman had to do for this fake cover-up of her fraudulent “Approved” card scheme was to put up a petition with the lowest resolution video clip I’ve seen in decades, and send out a bunch of tweets to get others to do the publicity work for her. This petition was intended to give Orman ammunition to defend criticism of her nearly defunct Approved card scam and the millions she made from it. She could use this petition to suggest that she was vigorously lobbying senators to change the score all along but, oh well, it just didn't happen. Orman pushed her Change.org cover-up ploy to many celebrities, including Justin Bieber, Cory Booker, Lady Gaga, Kathy Griffin, and Perrez Hilton, asking them to re-tweet the link to their millions of followers, many of whom would sign the petition without even knowing or understanding what they were signing.

Read more of Orman’s petition pushing tweets here: (Link 7-4)

231

Particularly intriguing was Scammin’ Suze asking Senator Cory Booker to “Show people you really care and help me circulate my help (sic.)” Booker shows how much he cares in his service-based approach every day, but he’s almost fallen for Orman’s schemes before, so she hoped he would re-tweet her petition and give it a sheen of merit. Also note Orman’s typo in her tweet to Booker that showed how lazily she was frantically rushing to tweet famous celebrities she hoped might make the mistake of re-tweeting her link to their millions of followers. Clearly, Orman’s goal was to drive up the numbers on that petition so it might look valid in the eyes of government agencies and others who might question her card but weren’t really paying attention. She pursued the tactic with full enthusiasm. Orman even added a threat to make sure it looked like she was really passionate about this cause. I can assure you she was laughing her head off with her partner in crime about how easily they could con the world, again and again.

With all the millions Orman has bilked from the public and received from banks, billionaires, and corporation, she didn't even have the interest to use even an iPhone quality camera to film her “important” plea—this video had the lowest quality resolution I’ve seen in a very long time: (play the clip here: Link 7-5)

Orman knows that even with minimal effort on her part, her protectors will keep her from scrutiny or justice, and that makes her laugh her evil laugh all the more.

232

Yahoo Finance tried to warn their readers that the petition was ridiculous in an article titled, “Why credit bureaus will never care about your debit card history”: (Link 7-6) Orman launched a Change.org petition in January asking Congress (specifically Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is a longtime consumer finance advocate) to make banks turn over non-credit banking history to credit bureaus… Even if lawmakers back a plan to include debit transactions in credit reporting, credit reporting agencies aren’t going to simply roll over and play ball until debit history can be proven to indicate credit worthiness. That, after all, is what a credit score is supposed to indicate in the first place. In the meantime, there are many proven ways you can improve your score without having to picket on Capitol Hill. Start by making on-time payments, tackling high-interest credit card debt above all others, and keeping your card balances under 10%.

In the Yahoo article, Senator Warren's spokesperson gave Yahoo Finance the same kind of cagey answer that is typical of those complicit in Orman's devious schemes: “Senator Warren believes it’s important for families to have various ways to build their credit and enhance their access to affordable financial products and services.” What does that mean, Senator Warren? Seriously, letting Orman use you to run her scam. And it wouldn’t be the last time Warren would shockingly support Orman’s deceptions. At the same time Warren gave this non-response to Orman’s petition sham, the “Approved” prepaid card scam was still bleeding the poor and middle class dry through exorbitant fees and the completely incompetent card management that lost many card users' accounts and money and charged inappropriate fees, requiring a whole lot of those $2 phone calls to the “Approved” card's customer service in the Philippines (click here to read complaints of the card stealing from customers: Link 7-7). Note that during the previous two years, while Orman was soaking up millions of dollars in fees from all the poor and uneducated who had believed her latticeworks of lies, she didn’t do anything beyond pitching her predatory card to advance the “cause.” Now that the jig was about to be up, Orman needed a good alibi for all the questions that should have already descended about the upcoming demise of her “Approved” card, but never did.

233

Up until the publishing date of this book, no journalists have ever pushed Orman for any information about her card closing or her big experiment with TransUnion, aside from that one question by the Daily Beast six months before the card abruptly closed, when Orman extolled how great the card was doing and bragged that she and her investors had won the game and made back all the money they’d invested in her prepaid card scheme. Because nothing would be worse for a con artist than to publicly lose money from a con. Orman’s petition scam also helped to cover up the January 2014 announcement that her newsletter partner had been fined by the SEC right around the same time: (Link 7-8)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission levied a $100,000 fine against adviser Mark Grimaldi and his firm last week for misleading investors in two tweets about his investing strategy's performance. The tweets claiming he “DOUBLED the S&P 500 the last 10 years” took liberties with the performance claims to boost his portfolio's allure, the SEC said.

Orman knows you've got to cover up any bad press with confusing press! And where would Orman's scams be without Piers Morgan and his producer looking to raise their viewer numbers (while his show was still on the air)? Orman bragged to Morgan’s producer about how she had generated 100,000 signatures for her petition just by scamming others into publicizing this sham to cover her prepaid debit card scam.

234

Of course, Orman's publicist and co-conspirator Hilary Rosen also tweeted the petition ploy out to her fifty thousand mostly democratic followers that included many of the most powerful people in politics and the media.

Change.org re-tweeted the link many times, while obviously enjoying the publicity Orman likes to promise when she involves people and corporations in her scams. Most people who saw Orman’s petition crusade hadn’t read the documentation in this book or film, and still thought of Suze Orman is someone they could trust, someone who was acting on behalf of the poor, who she had just plundered for millions of dollars in her prepaid debit card scam.

235

See more Change.org tweets about Orman’s petition sham here: Link 7-9

Next is the email Change.org sent out to their huge mailing list on behalf of Orman's petition scam. Note that anyone unfamiliar with the facts wouldn’t know that congress can’t tell credit scoring companies what to count toward their scores, or that prepaid card use gives absolutely no information relevant to credit worthiness, or that many in the financial services industry were already looking at non-traditional credit line ways to determine credit worthiness, such as how consumers pay their utility and other bills, or that if by chance debit card use ever were to be counted toward users’ FICO scores, they would be more likely to lower a person’s score than to improve it. Nevertheless, Orman’s publicist used many buzzwords to convince people that this highly recommended “financial expert” must be pitching something that will help the poor and middle class, whom she had just ripped off for two years with her scammy “Approved” prepaid debit card.

236

Here is the unsolicited letter that was sent to Change.org’s entire email list and other mailing lists:

(Name of recipient) –

As a world-renowned financial advisor, I know that building good credit is one of the most important things you can do to secure your financial future. But did you know that none of the purchases you make with your debit card count toward building your credit? This puts debit card users at a serious disadvantage when it comes to making big purchases like a car or a home, or even applying for jobs and rental agreements. No credit = bad credit, and because the credit bureaus don’t track debit card transctions (sp.), debit card users get no reward for being financially responsible. This is a deeply unfair system, especially for lower income people, and I am determined to see it change. That’s why I started a petition on Change.org calling on the Senate Banking Committee to mandate that the major credit bureaus track debit card transactions as well as credit cards. Please click here to sign. This change could make a big difference for a lot of people, from young people applying for student loans, to new families who want to own their own homes, to people who’ve fallen on hard times and need to refinance their mortgages. You could be the most loan-worthy person in the world, but simply because you choose to use a debit card rather than a credit card, you run a high risk that your credit score will be negatively impacted—and you might not be able to get the loan you need. The good news is that the Senate Banking Committee is led by folks like Senatory (sp.) Elizabeth Warren who want to promote financial fairness. I know that by using a petition to draw attention to this important issue, we can give the Senate Banking Committee the leverage it needs to help make the credit ranking process more fair to everyone. Please sign my petition calling on the Senate Banking Committee to help debit card users to build strong credit history. Thank you, Suze Orman

237

Some of the people who received this unsolicited email were confused and bemused, including one fellow who tweeted, “Dear Suze Orman: Please do not start your unsolicited emails with the words 'As a world- renowned...' It sounds assholish.”

After all the other blatant scams she's gotten away with, Orman knew that most of the people she fools don't read Yahoo! Finance, so even with comments from bemused finance experts piling up on the Yahoo article and others, Orman posted a photo of herself and her partner in crime, giddy with con artist glee.

238

I don’t think the storm Orman was laughing about had anything to do with the weather. Then came more of this:

It’s all a joke, all a game, and the losers are the American public and the world. With her Petition blitz, Orman once again showed is how dangerous it is for a corrupt person to have way too much public influence, including the ability to get hundreds of thousands of people (assuming many or any of them were real) to vote for something that would be harmful to almost everyone. The only person intended to benefit from that petition was Suze Orman, who used it to distract public attention from the TransUnion “experiment” deadline of her prepaid debit card scam, which neither Orman nor TransUnion ever mentioned again. Poof!

239

During the twenty-four months that her card was raking in fees from the poor, Orman didn't do a thing to address this “cause” of getting debit cards to count toward FICO scores aside from pitching her card. Suddenly, she was pushing this grand goal fervently, which for Suze Orman involved doing nothing more than having her publicists create a ridiculous petition and sending out a few tweets. Orman knew she could easily play the public for a fool again and create this diversionary tactic that would entice the same people who were fooled by her fraudulent claims into pouring money into her accounts through her “Approved” card scam to think, oh well, Suze is working so hard to make this change, and she’s connected with important people like Senator Elizabeth Warren. I shouldn’t say anything about the fact that her card took so much of my money. Those complaints should have resulted in a big class action lawsuit against Orman and her “Approved” card, since government agencies were obviously not interested in protecting the public from Suze Orman’s scams. Orman also intended the petition to protect her from scrutiny over the card’s upcoming dirty demise that, in many cases, would lock people out of their accounts while still charging fees, with of course, many more of those never-ending two dollar phone calls to customer service. The only “change” Orman was interested in was moving bucket loads of “change” from the pockets of the middle class and poor into her own. As an seasoned scammer, Orman also knew she had to also distract enough to run out the statute of limitation time for any of her prepaid card victims to file class action or personal lawsuits regarding her consumer financial fraud. Remember that long before this petition cover-up, FICO had already said they were not interested in what Orman’s petition was claiming to want. And you can’t have congress telling a corporation like Fair Isaac that they have to include completely irrelevant data in their calculations, just because Suze Orman says she wants them to do it while running these scams. In fact, giving corporations more access to debit card use, what Orman was asking everyone to sign her petition to do, would probably be harmful to most debit card users. The only possibly relevant information would be if they messed up and somehow overdrew their cards, which would ding their scores. Using Orman’s prepaid card would also show that they either have such bad financial histories that they couldn't get a free debit card from even a credit union, or that they’re so financially uneducated that Suze Orman talked them into moving money from a bank to her fee-laden card.

240

Some people use debit cards specifically to hide their financial transactions, and even they would lose if this petition were successful, which it never would or could be. Giving corporations access to someone’s prepaid card use might be good for ex-wives looking for some child support, but it would likely harm those debit card users as well. Also, if you gave credit scoring points for using a debit card, then you'd have to also give points for using cash or checks, and then the whole credit scoring system becomes moot. As you’ll see at the end of our film, Orman proclaimed that she wanted the credit scoring industry to change to an entirely new scoring system, “And I hope they call it the ‘S.O.’ score!” While some changes might be needed in this and other areas of the economy, Orman’s petition was nothing more than one more scam. There are plenty of ways she could have spoken up through her years of public influence to really help people, but that's not what motivates con artists like Suze Orman. Once you see that everything Orman says and does is either to put more money into her pockets or to cover her previous shenanigans, the patterns start to unmask, and her actions start to make more sense. Of course, Suze Orman idolizer Kathy Griffin re-tweeted the petition request to her nearly 2 million followers, asking them to sign Orman's petition without even knowing what it was about, just to generate more numbers that didn’t represent support for the convoluted idea of the petition, but actually represented the ignorance of people blindly following and trusting someone who should not be trusted.

At the same time Orman was using this petition sham to cover up her fraudulent FICO score claims in preparation for the card’s demise, she appeared in an article for E! Online about how to budget and save in 2014.

241

What was “financial expert” Suze Orman’s number one tip just a few months before her card would close, stealing more money from users on the way out? To buy her fee-laden “Approved” debit card, of course. From the E! Online article in January 2014, “How to Budget and Save in 2014, Plus Tips and Tricks from Financial Guru Suze Orman”: (Link 7-9a) Famed financial guru Suze Orman, who is a New York Times bestselling author, a two-time Emmy Award-winning television host, and a renowned motivational speaker, is known for her ‘keep it real' approach to finances, particularly when it comes to budgeting and saving. The Suze Orman Show host gave us her five tips and tricks for a “Money Perfect NEW Year,” which Orman promises will increase your financial security in 2014: 1. Pay as you go. “Using cash or a debit card (without overdraft protection) means you will limit yourself to spending money you actually have,” Orman said. “That's smarter than using a credit card and charging more than you can afford to pay off in full at the end of the month.” Using a pre-paid debit card is also a great way to limit your spending and debt. Check out Suze Orman's new prepaid debit card—the “Approved Card” here!

As a reminder, here is Orman’s January 2012 snake oil pitch on Good Morning America about her card and the 24 month debit card “experiment” that ended in January 2014, which was the same time she launched her B.S. cover up petition: Link 7-10 Click here to view more video Clips of Orman’s Prepaid Debit Card Fraud in Action throughout the mainstream media, with her frequent repetitions of the two year “experiment” deadline: Link 7-11

The silent, destructive death of Orman’s Approved card

242

The Suze Orman “Approved” card closed all accounts as of July 1, 2014, with the only notice being one convoluted letter from Bancorp, leaving many who fell for Orman’s debit card fraud unable to access their own money.

Rev. Pagan never received any response from Orman, and sent me the only communication he’d received, a confusing mess of a letter from Bancorp that was the only notification Approved card users ever received that the card holding their hard-earned money was closing: Link 7-12 The US Bancorp letter, dated May 1st, began: “Our records indicate that you hold The Approved Prepaid MasterCard issued by The Bancorp Bank. This is a prepaid card and thereby not reported to any credit reporting agency (this is Bancorp finally correcting the misinformation that was the main reason most card members got the card after being fooled by Orman's fraudulent media-wide scam)

243

This letter is to notify you that The Bancorp Bank will discontinue all services in connection with these Cards, effective July 1, 2014...Use remaining balances before July 1, 2014...we encourage you to bring your available balance to $0.00 prior to your expiration date. If you have any balances in your Goal Funds you will need to transfer the balances to your

primary account...” How many people didn’t understand or even open that one letter from Bancorp—the only notification they ever received about the card closing? It probably looked like junk mail to most “Approved” card users who had no idea that Orman’s card had partnered with Bancorp. How many “Approved” card victims found themselves suddenly unable to access any of their money, including whatever they had moved into the card's sections for long-term savings as had been recommended by Orman herself? From Orman’s “Approved” card web page:

Those who were already victimized by Orman's high fee card got fleeced even more on the way out, with a lot more of those two dollar customer service call fees on top. Note from those terms that the only way card users could get access to their “Goal Funds” would have been to go through a poorly administered request section on the Approved Card website. Since the website was not functioning properly, users had to jump through hoops and make more calls to get their long-term savings back. How scary it must have been for these poor and middle class workers to lose access to their own money, unable to pay rent or buy food, medicine, gas, and other necessities.

244

Meanwhile, Bancorp refused to give journalists any information about why the card was closing, just as TransUnion had refused to give any details about their little pseudo “experiment,” and FICO had only given one line addressing Orman’s fraudulent claims, and Senator Warren had sloughed off questions about Orman’s Warren-addressed petition sham. From Consumer Reports: (Link 7-13) Have a Suze Orman 'Approved Card'? What to do now. The prepaid card is being discontinued, potentially leaving some holders in the lurch Published: June 18, 2014 04:15 PM (Just eleven days before card users would be locked out of their accounts!) Launched to great fanfare not too long ago, Suze Orman's prepaid Approved Card is closing up shop, according to a report in The New York Times. While the personal finance guru has been silent about this development, cardholders report receiving letters that say that the Approved Card will no longer work after July 1, 2014. You may be wondering, “Can a prepaid card just stop like that?” The answer in this case—and in many others—is yes. That’s because most financial services contracts, usually called the terms and conditions, include a clause that says something like this from the Approved Card website: “We may amend or change the terms and conditions of this Agreement at any time. We may cancel or suspend your Card or this Agreement at any time.” So what is an Approved cardholder to do? Stop loading, start spending If you have an Approved Card, it’s a good idea to stop loading funds onto the card (more on that below for those who have direct deposit) and to spend it down to zero as soon as you can. These already defrauded consumers also had to go through the stress of wondering if they would ever see the money they saved on the card again. From Go Banking Rates: “Why Suze Orman’s Approved Card Will Soon Be Denied”: (Link 7-14) Suze Orman announced her prepaid debit card, the Approved card, in early 2012 to much fanfare and criticism. Now Orman is quietly canceling the Approved card, which was marketed to consumers who were

245

trying to build credit or rein in spending habits, according to The New York Times. Approved cardholders started receiving letters this month from Bancorp Bank, Orman’s partner in offering the product, stating that their cards would be deactivated and wouldn’t work as of July 1. In the letters, cardholders were encouraged to spend or transfer the remaining balances on the prepaid cards, and informed that any remaining balances would be returned to them via a check from Bancorp, per the New York Times. Despite this news, the website for Orman’s Approved card is still up, with no updates or changes that would indicate that the product has been discontinued.

Card users who had set up direct deposit from their employers, as Orman had encouraged users to do so they could avoid a few of the card’s many fees, also found that the “Approved” card was keeping additional paychecks sent to them after they abruptly closed users' accounts too quickly for people to change their deposit choices at work. This fiasco put even more money into Orman’s pockets, and more of those two dollar phone calls to the “Approved” card’s customer service center. This next woman's plight is just one example of the damage Orman’s messy and heartless card closing caused to many lives of those who had already been victimized by the overall high fees and shoddy management of Orman's “Approved” card that they thought was going to improve their FICO scores:

246

In stark contrast to Orman's wild headline blast while pitching her card throughout the mainstream media, this card closure was done so quietly that there was not even a peep in any press about the closure, until I forwarded a Twitter message to New York Times finance journalist Ron Lieber, who wrote the first article about it. (Link 7-15)

247

This disabled vet couldn’t access his money after being conned by Orman’s “Approved” card scam, and asked Senator Warren for help:

Unfortunately for this disabled vet who asked Senator Warren for help in getting his stolen money back from Orman's card, Warren was entangled in what Chris Cuomo called “The Orman Cabal.” (Link 7-16) In what is the most shocking element of our documentary film for many viewers, at the very same time Orman’s card was continuing to steal more money from its financial fraud victims as her card closed, Senator Elizabeth Warren—champion of the poor and middle class and creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—yes, that very Senator Warren was giggling on Politico’s stage with the scammer like schoolgirls in love about how they met at a Time 100 event as two of the “most influential people in the world,” and how they liked each other, tee hee.

Then, sitting together on stage, Warren looked on with a goofy smile as if in a trance, as Orman lied, then admitted lying, then justified her lie with another lie right to Warren’s face. Watch it for yourself: Link 7-17

248

Huffington Post: “With Senator Warren Watching, Suze Orman Denies, Admits, Rationalizes Teaching at University of Phoenix” (Link 7-18) At an event in Washington DC this morning, speaking alongside Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), financial guru Suze Orman at first seemed to deny what is a documented fact: that she teaches a personal finance course at the nation’s biggest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix. Then Orman admitted it, but offered a wholly unconvincing explanation. The event, hosted by Politico and sponsored by Starbucks, addressed the issue of educational opportunity and student debt, issues on which Senator Warren has been a leader. Having read a tweet I sent yesterday, Politico reporter Allie Grasgreen asked Orman a highly relevant question: Q: Suze, are you teaching classes at the University of Phoenix? Orman: No, I’m not. Q: Did you? Orman: Did I? No, I never did. (Orman pauses with a grimace) Orman: Now wait, let me just say something about that. I did a personal finance course for the University of Phoenix, the first credited one — under the guise that if you take that course and you look at the beginning of it, it says you cannot take out student loans if you cannot afford it. If you cannot afford to go to this college, I want you to drop out right now. Just so you know

249

It’s hard to square Orman’s initial denial with the admission that immediately followed. Perhaps it was a lawyerish parsing — “it depends on what the meaning of ‘at’ is.” But perhaps Orman just wasn’t comfortable admitting that she has been paid to lend her expertise and credibility to a business with a record of leaving many students with overwhelming debt. Suze Orman not only was hired by the University of Phoenix to teach an online personal finance course, but also last year she appeared at a Capitol Hill event where she promoted the school. It’s difficult to understand how a person who proclaims herself “undeniably America’s most recognized expert on personal finance” could accept such a role when, for many people, enrolling at a for-profit college can be the worst financial decision they make in their entire lives.

Guess who arranged this troubling appearance that basically threw Senator Warren under the Suze Orman scamming bus to give Orman a false sheen of trustworthiness even after so many scams had been revealed, and with customers of her card still trying to get their stolen money back?

See why people who care about the good of our country and world should have concerns about Rosen being a major strategist for Hillary Clinton? In another “Orman cabal” strand, just before this Politico event, Orman was used by the same protector—political lobbyist, media broker, publicity strategist Hilary Rosen—to push Senator Warren as a presidential candidate. Rosen was behind the “Run Warren Run” campaign, and obviously asked Orman to jump on board. Whether this was due to their actual fondness for Warren, or perhaps because Warren was paying Rosen and SKDK to publicize her new book or increase her public influence, or whether it was done as a threat to convince Hillary Clinton to sign on with Rosen and SKDK for the 2016 election is anyone’s guess.

250

Is that a Suze/Hilary Rosen shill I smell, Sam Stein?

Like Michael Moore, Stein voiced support for Rosen when she made some disrespectful comments about Mitt Romney’s wife, that were criticized by democrats as well as republicans, because Rosen’s “mean girl” games are not the kind of discourse this country needed in the 2012 election, or the 2016, or any other election or government work.

251

Stein appears to also be a supporter of Rosen’s pal Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

Orman’s big proclamation that she wanted Warren as president and not Clinton had all the substance-free overly-excited passion of Orman’s usual deceptions. Here is John King announcing the big headline on CNN: (Link 7-19)

JOHN KING: Suze Orman picking a president? Guess what? She’s not a Hillary Clinton fan; she prefers Elizabeth Warren, listen. SUZE ORMAN: I tell you, and I’ll go on record saying this. If she would run for president against anybody, including Hillary Clinton, I would vote for her hands down. She’s the real deal; I think that woman, I couldn’t have enough good things to say about Elizabeth Warren.

252

See? Not a single substantive reason for this enthusiastic endorsement. Along with ignoring Orman’s other deceptions, Warren and the CFPB did absolutely nothing to help victims of Orman’s prepaid card’s financial fraud get one penny of restitution. Nor did Warren have any response on that politico stage upon learning that her panel partner for a discussion of student debt happened to be in the pocket of the most predatory for-profit school out there. Did Senator Warren know about this association ahead of time? Does she really think Suze Orman is a trustworthy financial expert? If so, then Warren is ignorant of facts and intuitive signs right before her eyes. If she knew about University of Phoenix, the prepaid card, and other Suze Orman scams, then she is a corrupt enabler of a financial predator. With this event in mind, it was intriguing to see Warren go after Donald Trump two years later for his predatory “University.”

In the same way, you feel so much for people with college debt, dear Elizabeth Warren, as well as the poor and middle class. Why would you support someone who has scammed them? As someone aligned with democratic principles, this Facebook post by Senator Warren about after the event with “financial expert Suze Orman” was especially disappointing:

253

Be careful whose back you’re scratching dear Senator, or you may end up with fleas like this credit union expert did after working with Orman:

Around the same time, the Senate’s Consumer Protection panel was busy questioning another Oprah protégé, Dr. Oz, about his overly enthusiastic recommendations for some questionable weight loss products. Focused on whether green coffee extract can help with weight loss, the Senate’s Consumer Protection panel had no interest whatsoever in that other Oprah protégé who was causing much more serious damage while running actual cons on the public.

Watch Scammin’ Suze in action while pitching the card, promising to always keep card users informed about everything they need to know: (Link 7-20) “You know I will do everything in my power to tell you everything you need to know. You can always bank on me because I have your best interest at heart.

254

That’s Orman’s sociopathic sense of humor. It’s likely she knew that her strategy would be to let the card fizzle out after taking a ton of money from card users, after which she was going to go completely silent about closing the card, certainly not doing “everything (or anything) in her power” to tell her fraud victims what they needed to know. In fact, Orman never said a single word about the card closing at the time or since. As the New York Times put it: “Suze Orman’s Approved Prepaid Debit Cards Are Quietly Discontinued.” As Approved card victims were frantically trying to get their stolen money back from the closed accounts, Orman posted gleeful, taunting photos of herself and her partner in crime enjoying those fees and improper charges they took from the poor and middle class, on a luxury yacht vacation that intriguingly took place in the Cayman Islands, where Orman’s protector Rosen has helped Corporations such as Herbalife move their accounts, to avoid paying taxes in the United States. At the same time “Approved” card victims were unable to access their own money for basic necessities, Orman also shared this video of herself and her partner in crime laughing all the way to the bank: Link 7-21 Orman posted these photos of herself at the same time card users were unable to access their money after the card closed. “Ha ha, fooled ya again!”

255

Huffington Post ran an article about the card’s demise, with the same kind of deference Arianna had previously shown in the video interview that allowed Orman to fool and scam Huffington Post readers with her “Approved” card fraud. (You'll see clips of Arianna’s interview with Orman in the documentary, or you can view longer clips here: Link 7-22) The title of the new Huffington Post article was: “Suze Orman Nixes Her Prepaid Debit Card; It Appears Her Dream of Helping Millions to Establish and Build Credit Is Dead.” Seriously, here it is: (Link 7-23)

A more accurate subtitle would have been, “Although Orman earned back all of her investment and more from the fees plundered and outright stolen from 'Approved' card users, it appears her dream of breaking the banking system and fooling millions more into moving their money to her fee-laden card is dead.” That Huffington Post article is an example of how PR spin can cover up a fraudulent money grab that stole from the poor and middle class and should have landed the perpetrator in prison—painting Orman’s scam as an altruistic quest for the betterment of humanity. Orman-friendly Upstart Business Journal joined the obfuscation spin with an article titled, “Suze Orman prepaid debit card too good a deal?” beginning with, “You can’t fault Suze Orman for trying to help people…”

That shill article title was republished and re-tweeted by many real and fake social media accounts and news outlets. And the “Orman cabal” juggernaut continued on.

256

Chapter Eight Sociopathology and a Twitter Meltdown

As a disclaimer for this chapter, I don’t have the credentials to make an official diagnosis of Suze Orman as a narcissistic sociopath, although I was brought up by two psychology teachers, and started reading Freud and other psychology books at age seven, before studying neuroscience at the University of Michigan. Therefore, I have more higher education in the psychology field than Suze Orman has in finance, since she’s never taken a single finance-related college course. With that disclaimer in place, there are few if any other people I've met or known personally who I would describe as true sociopaths. That includes working with hundreds of directors, producers, studio executives, actors, crew and journalists during my years in Hollywood, and many idiosyncratic spiritual folks who I worked, worshipped, and roomed with while living and serving for many years in an international yoga and meditation ashram that attracted just about every kind of person you could imagine. Those guests included occasional predators like Suze Orman, who quickly realized the ashram devotees were innocent, trusting, and easy to con, use, and abuse. Of course, we all have flaws, but Suze Orman is by far the most problematic person I've personally known, for many reasons. From what I’ve experienced, observed, and heard from others, Orman has always gone through life trying to charm people into doing what would take her to the next level, while leaving significant damage in her wake. Orman would find accomplished people who could either be fooled by her altruistic charades or bribed with frequent promises of lavish repayments—in my case, both. She would con good people into violating their integrity to support her schemes before leaving them compromised and damaged, usually giving a few more kicks after the con. Hopefully this book and film will open a gate for others to contribute their knowledge and experiences, so we can all learn lessons for better discernment in life, and for the protection, education, and intelligence of our society. That’s one reason I say this book and film are about much more than just Suze Orman. The entire list of “qualities of sociopath” on Wikihow could have a photo of Suze Orman as a prime example. Here are the more relevant descriptions: (Link 8-1):

257

— Sociopaths are usually extremely charming and charismatic. Their personalities are described as magnetic, and as such, they generate a lot of attention and praise from others.

— Sociopaths oftentimes feel overly entitled to certain positions, people, and things. They believe that their own beliefs and opinions are the absolute authority, and disregard the opinions of others.

— Sociopaths are rarely shy, insecure, or at a loss for words. They have trouble suppressing emotional responses like anger, impatience, or annoyance, and constantly lash out at others and respond hastily to these emotions.

— Sociopaths can be criminals. Because of their tendency to disregard the law and social norms, sociopaths may have a criminal record. They may be con artists, kleptomaniacs, or even murderers.

— Sociopaths are professional liars. They fabricate stories and make outlandish, untruthful statements, but are able to make these lies sound convincing with their confidence and assertiveness.

— Sociopaths have a low tolerance for boredom. They get bored easily and require constant stimulation.

— Sociopaths are incapable of experiencing guilt or shame for their actions. It is common for sociopaths to lack remorse when they have done something that hurts others. They may appear indifferent or rationalize their actions.

— Sociopaths are manipulative. They may try to influence and dominate the people around them and tend to seek positions of leadership.

— Sociopaths lack empathy and may be incapable of love. While some sociopaths will have an individual or a small group of people that they seem to care about, they have a hard time feeling emotions and it is likely that they have not had healthy romantic relationships in the past.

— Sociopaths have a hard time dealing with criticism. They often desire approval from others and may even feel like they are entitled to it.

258

Throughout this book, multimedia links, and our documentary film, you’ll find clear examples of Suze Orman behaving in ways that fit strongly into each of those descriptions. You will also find examples that illustrate the official DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) description of a narcissistic sociopath. (Link 8-2) People suffering from Sociopathic disorders tend to be superficially charming. They also tend to display behavior which include manipulation of people around them, desire to be in control of everything and everyone around them that usually leads to grave consequences and shallow emotions…Displays heightened levels of deceitfulness in dealings with others, which involves lying, conning others without remorse, or even using aliases. Research has revealed that since a sociopath never conforms to the rules of the society, he or she is not bothered about the consequences of his or her actions. Such people at times are also able to inspire like-minded people. Some of the other traits that are common in antisocial people are that they are usually intelligent and have a superficial charm and they are able to attain success using unscrupulous methods. Thus they can also never learn from their own mistakes and they do not hesitate to indulge in certain activities that are considered immoral and taboo by the society.

It’s unfortunate that Orman’s sociopathic confidence and charm paved the way for her to assume an almost completely uncredentialed position as a financial, family, career, and lifestyle advisor to millions. Some who might have otherwise spoken up to stop the damage after her prepaid card scam likely fell for Orman’s frequent suggestions that she was going to retire soon, which I assumed she planted in the press specifically for the purpose of making people think it would not be worth their trouble to expose her when her damaging shenanigans were supposedly coming to an end. Why speak up and draw the ire of Orman’s powerful supporters if she’s no longer going to be causing harm? But they, and I, were wrong. The damaging and deceptive actions of Orman and her massively powerful political lobbyist and strategist publicists have continued on, and as of the writing of this book, continue to cause damage to the world, with troubling tendrils into the United States military, New Age publishers, presidential politics, and more. In this next clip, you can watch Orman’s personality aberrations in action on the show Talk Stoop.

259

Orman is explaining that she and her brand manager wife approached General Mills and asked them to put her face on their Total cereal box. She appears to be a little inebriated in the clip, so the video of that conversation is as good a clip as any to inaugurate this exploration into Orman’s behavioral problems. Watch Orman parade her neuroses on Talk Stoop: Link 8-3 Here’s a documented example of Orman's dishonest nature that also illumines some of her troubling relationship with her father and traces some origins of her view that money is “the most important thing in life.” Note Orman's unapologetic ease with dishonesty as she tosses off the fact that she had just been caught blatantly lying in a book about her father committing suicide on Fathers Day. From the New York Times article, “Suze Orman is Having a Moment,” in May 2009: (Link 8-4) Anyone looking for insight into the genesis of Orman’s obsession with money, her deeply personal, all-consuming preoccupation with it, need look no farther than the first chapter of “The Nine Steps to Financial Freedom.” Just a few pages in, she tells the story of a fire that destroyed her father’s chicken shack when she was about 13. Her father, who was there when the fire started, escaped without harm — only to rush back in, his daughter watching in disbelief, after he realized that every cent the family had was in the cash register. Unable to open the register, he “literally picked back up the scalding metal box and carried it outside,” Orman writes. “When he threw the register on the ground, the skin on his arms and chest came with it. He had escaped the fire safely once, untouched. Then he voluntarily risked his life and was severely injured. The money was that important. That was when I learned that money is obviously more important than life itself.” Orman goes on to talk about her quest to gain some perspective on that life lesson, and toward the end of the book, in a chapter called “Understanding the Ebb and Flow of the Money Cycle,” she returns to her father’s story. Her father experienced a series of business reversals, she writes, but eventually he had two delis up and running successfully, and he stopped worrying: “For the first time ever, there was enough money — more than enough. My dad knew, too, that my mom would be taken care of after he was gone, and he was happy her brother would take over the family business.” Not long after that, she wrote, “My father died — in his eyes a lucky man.” The point of the story: Sometimes the worst misfortune paves the way for a better opportunity.

260

Back in March, a few minutes before Orman was about to go live on “Morning Joe,” I mentioned to her that I had been struck by the story of her father’s perseverance. Did his entrepreneurialism, I asked, inspire her? “My father killed himself,” she said by way of an answer. “On Father’s Day.” I was startled by the apparent discrepancy with her more sanguine account of her father’s death in “The Nine Steps to Financial Freedom” but let her continue. That day, she went on, when she was 30, her father insisted on getting out of his wheelchair and walking and walking even though he had a serious heart condition and the doctors had warned him against it. “He wouldn’t open the presents. He knew what he was doing,” she said. “He died a defeated man. He didn’t know who would take care of me and my mom.” A few weeks later, I asked Orman about the seeming contradiction in facts, and she passed it off blithely, even likeably. “Oh, who knows what I said in the book,” she replied. She added that she probably gave the story a happier ending in print to please her mother. On the morning she first told me that she believed her father killed himself, I thought I might somehow have been misremembering the story in the book — and wasn’t sure what to say. I remarked awkwardly that she had had an unusually intense life. Her response suggested that she managed to find an equally compelling, inspirational narrative from the sadder, presumably true, version of her father’s history: “Thank God,” she said. “It’s made me the person I am.”

Knowing about some personal issues regarding Orman and her father, including accusations she made toward him that she later recanted after a psychic told her they didn’t happen, I wondered if he chose Fathers Day to make a statement. If so, Mr. Orman was not the only person to be driven to despair by his daughter’s sociopathic shenanigans. Since we’re in somewhat of a “dishy” chapter, next is an article comment written by someone who had once been hired as one of Orman’s behind-the-scenes experts. The article uses a fake headline to demonstrate the power of dramatic headlines, so I’m not claiming Suze Orman actually eats puppies, although pre-famous Orman did once confide in me about doing something nasty to her friend’s dog that was so gross, I still remember exactly where I was standing during that conversation.

261

Here’s the fake headline, used as an example for an article about headlines:

I had to include that fake headline to give a context for this very real comment by an insider who may have been anonymously violating her confidentiality agreement with Orman:

262

Even though Orman didn’t really eat a puppy on live TV, this anonymous insider comment (that probably violates the person’s confidentiality agreement with Orman) gives a glimpse of the real experts behind Suze Orman’s “financial expert” façade, and also highlights Orman’s behavioral problems and sexual predator nature. A University psychology professor who also knows Orman described to me what he saw as Orman finding ways to dig her psychic hooks into people, such as she did with Oprah and many others. One of the stranger examples of this dynamic is comedian Kathy Griffin, who usually calls other shysters out on their B.S., but practically worships Suze Orman. Some years ago, Kathy Griffin's assistant, Jessica, contacted me to say thanks after reading and enjoying one of my spiritual happiness books. In our subsequent communications, Jessica shared her concerns about how Orman's effect on Kathy was like a cult. In the clip below you’ll see Orman on Griffin’s “D-List” show, emasculating one of Griffin’s assistants and trying to humiliate Jessica on national television by calling her “stupid, just stupid” because she was leasing a reasonable car. (Link 8-5) Note that even though Orman tells Jessica in this clip that leasing a car is the stupidest thing she'll ever do in her life, when I knew Orman in the early 1990s, she was leasing a top of the line BMW, along with loads of other extravagant indulgences, and that was at a time when Orman was, according to her own biography, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in debt, not including all her promised repayments to me and others that she had apparently had always intended to blow off. At the time of this episode, Jessica had a great job as a celebrity assistant on the cast of a reality show, so she—unlike Orman when she leased that BMW in the 1990s—could actually afford the price, and had reasons for preferring to go that route. Soon after the Orman episode aired, after many years working as Griffin’s assistant, Griffin fired Jessica, perhaps on Orman's advice, since heartless Suze Orman loves to tell people to fire their employees and managers, and not to help friends or family in need. In an email conversation, Jessica expressed her concerns to me about Orman's condescending and brusque behavior and Kathy's cult like obsession with her. “Kathy even got a little ruffled with me when I said I probably would continue to lease cars. As if it offended her and Suze...such bizarre cultlike behavior.” In the years since that episode aired in 2008, up to and including in 2016, Griffin has barely seemed able to get through a comedy set or interview appearance without referencing Orman in positive terms.

263

Kathy Griffin’s Orman accolades have included repeating an absurd number of times on many interview shows and comedy performances that Suze Orman should be the president of the United States, sometimes explaining that the White House “needs a dirty lesbian.” (Article and video of that at this link: Link 8-6) Griffin even named a CD track after this oft-repeated pitch—play the CD track here: Link 8-8:

Griffin’s repetition of the same “joke” continued year after year, increasingly sounding more serious than joking, such as in this Huffington Post article that was published in both 2013 and 2016: “Kathy Griffin Wants a Lesbian President, Nominates Suze Orman.” (Link 8-7)

“You know I’ve been saying President Orman for quite awhile. I love my Barack Obama, but I’m saying President Suze Orman would be a very good move,” said Griffin, who added that a lesbian in the White House would “be a dream.” Griffin’s enthusiastic pitching of Suze Orman was so obviously deliberate and ongoing that I wondered if Kathy might have an arrangement where Orman pays for each mention, although that's just a guess. Maybe Griffin really does have a crush on this scammer. Griffin has actually said she would like to be “Mrs. Orman,” and in this clip, explains how Suze Orman is like Jesus: Link 8-9

264

Orman has also insinuated that she would make a good president of the United States. Perhaps she figures that if she could con her way into her current unqualified position, why not play the same game to the top. After all, Orman’s main protector, Hilary Rosen, is considered a king maker for democratic politicians, often using seriously concerning tactics, such as those she seems to have used while strategizing for Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign against Bernie Sanders. As a note, I’m as democratic as they come, but have no interest in standing by silently while watching the democratic party be hijacked and corrupted by a “Koch sister” who wants to use those politicians to give scammers like Suze Orman immunity from their crimes. Orman probably figures that if she could get behind the scenes experts to help her fake being a “financial wizard,” why not do the same for a presidency, like Kevin Kline’s fake president in the movie “Dave,” who reminded me of Orman’s façade as a “financial expert.” Both did pick up some information along the way, but were nevertheless living a lie.

Orman's 2012 Twitter Meltdown The Suze Orman problem reached a new crescendo of public visibility in January 2012, when Orman’s “Approved” card scam went too far and finally caught the attention of financial journalists across the land. Any expert worth his or her salt could see that she was lying to the public and pushing a misinformation campaign to fool and rip off the poorest, most financially uneducated people in our country.

265

Smart Credit blog ran the article, “Reaction to Suze Orman’s Prepaid Debit Card Overwhelmingly Negative” (Link 8-10) In what might win the award for most boneheaded public relations move of 2012, on Monday January 9th the world woke up to the announcement that Suze Orman, host of the popular Suze Orman Show on CNBC, had partnered with The Bancorp Bank to introduce and endorse The Approved Card, a pre-paid debit MasterCard. Pre-paid debit cards have very poor reputations and are generally believed to be among the worst financial services products.

Several other personal finance bloggers asked Orman a few relatively gentle questions about her card, barely even mentioning her widely repeated false insinuations that it would improve users’ FICO scores. Their relatively gentle questions brought forth noticeably immature and deceptive responses from Orman, who proceeded to show just a tiny glimpse of her actual personality, at which point the handful of personal finance bloggers became more honest and blunt with their assessments. Here’s a sampling from Orman’s Twitter meltdown:

266

This was one of the first times any journalists had questioned Suze Orman with anything less than deference. I was heartened to see that someone was finally paying proper attention to at least one of Orman’s scams. I shared with some of the bloggers the online article that was a precursor of this book and film, so they would understand that this “Approved” card scam was not just one speck in an otherwise pristine career, but that all the times they had recommended or quoted Suze Orman in their blogs, they were mistakenly recommending a fraud.

267

I thank and congratulate the personal finance bloggers who stepped in and did what was right, in spite of Orman’s protectors and revengeful nature. They protected many poor and middle class people who would otherwise have been fooled into pouring their hard-earned money into Suze Orman’s “Approved” card scheme. These bloggers may have even helped save our economy from the scourge Orman and her cabal had planned with their “Approved” card scam.

268

269

Soon, Audrey stepped in—Audrey is a retired nurse in Canada who seems to be a nice lady. She became a Suze Orman super fan who, with Orman’s encouragement, posted over fourteen thousand tweets publicizing Orman’s various activities.

270

Orman’s Twitter responses became a news story in themselves, because they gave a glimpse into Orman behind the ghostwriters and behind-the-scenes experts. This was the Suze Orman that I and many others who helped her along the way came to know—a petty, disappointing, mean, heartless, greedy, lying con artist. When Orman is called out for her shenanigans, as in the Twitter meltdown above, she often calls her critics “Suze haters” to fool the public into ignoring valid concerns brought forth by competent journalists.

Those bloggers made enough of a noise to finally get the attention of other financial journalists, who took a look at Orman’s card and snake oil pitches and saw something that could never qualify as good financial advice or behavior.

271

That’s when over one hundred articles were published across the media landscape from journalists top to bottom who had remained silent during so many previous Suze Orman shams. Now, finally, they published articles to warn the public about Orman’s card, many of which you can find in Chapter Five of this book. Some of the blogger responses were especially clever, and true. Here,

Drake is quoting Orman’s retort to another blogger:

Thanks again to these bloggers, who helped open the door for journalists up the ladder to notice that a supposedly trusted financial advisor was running an obviously dirty scam. Some bloggers speculated that this “Approved” card scam and Twitter meltdown would likely be the end of Suze Orman’s career. Reporters at Reuters even held a vote on who could be Orman’s replacement as universally trusted financial expert. What they didn’t realize was the extreme power of Orman’s protectors and publicity strategists, who at the time were also helping BP Oil make the public forget that a gulf oil spill ever happened.

272

Here’s a description with commentary on Orman’s Twitter drama from the DollarVersity article: The name calling The first sign that things were going to get a little hairy was when she started referring to those who were questioning her new product as being idiots, ignorant, haters, saying they think they know everything yet know nothing, and telling a Twitter follower that they should be pitied. Rather than stooping to such juvenile, name-calling tactics, Ms. Orman would have been better suited responding with facts and real- world data supporting her claims while disputing the claims of others. It seemed like this wasn’t even happening, and some even questioned whether or not this was actually Ms. Orman doing the tweeting or someone else doing so on her behalf. Ignoring the “little people” At every turn, the bloggers were being shot down and belittled. Ms. Orman at one point made a reference to “legit reporters” who are most likely her buddies writing glowing reviews as opposed to the bloggers who are the “haters.” At one point they were even reporting that they were being blocked by her Twitter account operator. It may seem like the easy way to handle the criticism, since many of the people doing the bashing weren’t nationally (and internationally) known personalities. Unfortunately, when that happens, people tend to find other ways to get their thoughts out to the world, and when it comes to personal financial bloggers, they are able to reach a surprisingly large number of people. That is when all of the blog posts repeating the Twitter comments, and really dissecting the Approved Card popped up. Just because individually the bloggers didn’t measure up (statistically) to Ms. Orman as far as Twitter followers or Facebook fans go, they shouldn’t be dismissed, since when taken as a collective, their reach extends much farther. Plus, all it takes is one person to catch wind of a small movement on the internet and it can blow up to a phenomenon.

273

The backtracking At one point, famed New York Times author Ron Lieber confronted her on the issue of the insults, to both the bloggers and himself. To that, Ms. Orman claimed to never insult him. Of course, he called her bluff, and was able to provide a direct insult coming from her Twitter account. (Note: Orman’s insult toward Lieber was actually from an interview with Arianna Huffington) Then came Phil Villarreal to challenge her apology to Mr. Lieber (twice in fact) while ignoring all the others she insulted. From there it was a bunch of blanket apologies to “anyone I called an idiot” and so on until she was called out on not apologizing to Mr. Phil Taylor (to whom her “idiot” remark was directed) because he wasn’t a writer for the Times (like Mr. Lieber). Finally, she made a directed apology to Mr. Taylor… Qualifying every comment Unfortunately the most important of the apologies, directed at Mr. Taylor, was a bit half-hearted and prefaced by her saying “Even you PT…”. She also stated among her apologies that she has a hard time “defending my self against things that are not true”. This is where so many apologies go wrong. You cannot be taken as being genuine if you slip in snide remarks that detract from an otherwise stand-up gesture. Telling someone that even they are deserving of an apology after kissing the ass of a big shot is not cool. Taking shots at the people you are supposed to be apologizing to by continuing to inject your “but they are still wrong” defense isn’t cool either. She did earn some credit by admitting to not taking the high-road, and taking responsibility for her comments, but it still didn’t make up for the slights she tried to inject into the apologies. Along with Orman's tirade above, where she called respected financial bloggers “idiots” who know nothing, came her tangled web of praise and insults with New York Times Finance Journalist Ron Lieber.

274

Orman’s publicists had selected Lieber to write the first article about Orman’s card, apparently trusting that his portrayal would be favorable. Lieber’s fairly gentle article about Orman’s prepaid card did nevertheless point out the card’s flawed logic, including calling her B.S. deal with TransUnion, “vaporware.” He also offered some knowledgeable guesses at what may have been taking place behind the scenes in Orman’s deal that had convinced TransUnion to compromise their integrity and partner on such a fraudulent scheme. From Lieber’s New York Times article, “TV Advisor on Money Offers Card,” (Link 8-13) The real question is whether any debit card can help a cardholder become more creditworthy. The three major credit bureaus — TransUnion, Equifax and Experian — generally do not use debit card spending data to determine whether someone is qualified for loans. “There is something radically wrong here,” Ms. Orman said. “We are rewarding people for having credit and punishing people who pay in cash. I want to change that paradigm.” So she has persuaded TransUnion to collect spending data from Approved card customers. Perhaps it will look at other companies’ data too. And in a few years, it will see whether there is any proof that prepaid debit users deserve recognition for good behavior. Until then, this is mere vaporware. The data may prove meaningless, and even if there are patterns, TransUnion probably would not give people more than a handful of points’ worth of credit on their scores. As for the free credit reports and such, TransUnion could raise the price Ms. Orman pays in 2013. TransUnion may simply be in this temporarily for the gold star it gets from siding with Ms. Orman and her people-first philosophy. I wish I knew for sure. Nobody from TransUnion would talk about any of this, though Ms. Orman laid down the law, just in case. “If they set me up,” she asked, “do you think I wouldn’t do everything in my power to obliterate them? I absolutely would, and they know that. That’s not their intention here.”

That was as mild as an honest article about Orman’s predatory card could be, and it was the first article announcing the card, so I assumed SKDK had contacted the most sympathetic ear they could find in a respected outlet such as the New York Times.

275

With a quick search, I did notice some interesting connections between Lieber’s wife, Jodi Kantor, and SKDK, including a mention of Kantor’s new book on the SKDK website. So perhaps there are some friendships that Orman’s publicists assumed would lead Lieber to write something more lenient than what he wrote.

On Tuesday January 10th, SKDKnickerbocker Managing Director Anita Dunn appeared on MSNBC’s Jansing and Co. where she discussed the state of the Obama Presidency, including: the stepping-down of White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Jodi Kantor’s new book, “The Obamas,” and the accomplishments of Obama’s presidency over the past three years.

Anita Dunn was a White House communications director and senior advisor to President Obama’s presidential campaigns. She is now the managing director of Hilary Rosen’s SKDK. Maybe this connection explains, in part, why even President Obama stood back silently while Suze Orman scammed our country and the world. This was the stage for Orman’s subsequent “battle” with Lieber. She had expected him to write a friendlier first article about the card, and then was so angry that she forgot he was her publicist’s “friend.” Or, who knows who she was getting back at with what. Suze Orman runs a lot of concurrent strings of manipulations and “mean girls” games. Ron Lieber’s integrity required that he give some honest criticisms of Orman’s crummy prepaid card in the article. In the Twitter exchange between Lieber and Orman, you get to see one more example of Orman's ease with lying, as she says she would never insult Ron—even though she had publicly done so the previous day, which led to her turn-around lie. The full interview with Ariana Huffington brought a textbook’s worth of troublesome behaviors by Orman. Her comment about Lieber got it’s own article, titled: “Suze Orman Hits Out At New York Times’ Ron Lieber For Debit Card Column” (Link 8-11)

276

Suze Orman offered a fiery response to New York Times columnist Ron Lieber for his piece on her new debit card on Tuesday. The finance guru introduced a prepaid debit card on Monday. Lieber suggested that it could pose a conflict of interest for CNBC, where Orman is a host. He wrote, “It is worth noting that if I tried to introduce my own card, the ethics editor would laugh me out of the New York Times building.” Orman smacked that suggestion down in an interview with Arianna Huffington at the Huffington Post Media Group offices on Tuesday. Orman reiterated her pledge not to discuss any cards on television, and also distinguished between her role and Lieber’s. “Ron can say what he wants. It would be ridiculous to go in and try to create a debit card on his own when that is his job, to evaluate other things,” she said. She alleged that the real conflict of interest belonged to a website that ran a negative piece about the card, while featuring ads for other cards. She did not name the New York Times, though the page for Lieber’s column does carry ads for financial products. After staunchly defending her card, she also dismissed the criticism of reporters who she said have been wrong over the years. “You can’t see that in others which isn’t true for yourself. If you’re thinking that I’m profit-motivating and I’m this and I’m that, Ron Lieber, I would take a good look in the mirror because something isn’t quite right with you, sir,” she said. Note Orman’s penchant for using ancient wisdom and new age mumbo jumbo to shame anyone who dares question her scams. As the author of Spirituality For Dummies (yes, really), I could write a lovely essay about the higher-level philosophical understanding of how the world is like a mirror, reflecting patterns of the soul in and as Supreme Consciousness manifesting the world. Orman and I both studied these ancient teachings in a spiritual community, where she learned much of the jargon she has distorted and misused to cover her scams and give a false impression of wisdom and integrity. In her interview with Huffington, Orman used this quote about the world as a reflection of our soul to suggest that anyone who sees anyone commit any crime must be committing that crime themselves. Therefore, any journalist who criticized Orman’s prepaid card scam must be crooked, or, “You can’t see that in others which isn’t true for yourself. If you’re thinking that I’m profit-motivating and I’m this and I’m that, Ron Lieber, I would take a good look in the mirror because something isn’t quite right with you, sir.”

277

Such manipulations had kept other critics silent, but not Mr. Lieber.

278

Less than one day after telling Ron Lieber to take a good look in the mirror because something wasn’t quite right with him, Orman denied ever insulting Ron Lieber when he called her out about it. And Lieber continued to prod. In that Twitter conversation, you could see Orman using her usual tactic of sprinkling some Orman praise on top to cover her insult and make the Lieber problem go away. When that failed, Orman admitted that she was lying, because a news headline inescapably announced the truth. At the end of the conversation, Orman used one of her catchphrases, “I admit that I was wrong.” That brought up the memory of pre-famous Orman in the early 1990s, telling me she had learned this phrase along with others as some kind of psychological occult technique to manipulate people and get yourself out of any predicament. I don’t remember all of he phrases because manipulation tactics were not of interest to me, but “I admit that I was wrong,” was one of them. So it was no surprise to see Orman use her magical phrase of, “I admit that I was wrong” to deflect the truth coming at her from New York Times journalist Ron Lieber and others, some of whom also wanted apologies.

Here are a couple more “I admit that I was wrong's” to the bloggers:

279

In spite of her catch phrase apologies, Orman's insults kept coming to attack anyone who questioned her prepaid card scam, including Fox Business Network's Gerri Willis, who interviewed experts on her show and wrote articles to warn people about Orman’s obvious scam, including: “Beware of the Suze Orman Card!” Willis was one of the only journalists to really be honest about the problems with Orman’s card. Soon after, Willis’ show was canceled by FOX Business, but I thank her for speaking up and having the integrity to do what others should have done.

280

In the next link, you can watch a video clip from Willis’ show: “Growing Criticism of Suze Orman’s Prepaid Debit Card”: Link 8-14 This is how Orman responded to the criticism, insulting Willis’ looks in response to a Twitter fan’s compliment about Orman’s looks:

One thing “financial expert” Suze Orman teaches very well is that money doesn't buy class. I've watched and personally experienced some of Orman's methods of using extreme flattery or conversely using insults to make her “marks” feel low self-esteem to be more vulnerable to her manipulations. One of Orman’s tactics to ensure loyalty from those she wants to use is to get people to confide personal information that she will have available to use against them. Some speculate that is what may have happened to engender such fierce loyalty from Oprah, even in the face of opposition from her entire producer team. I've seen Orman offering to be a financial advisor to various celebrities, and have wanted to warn them not to give her any potentially embarrassing information. Orman is the kind of person who will gather any dirt she can on you and then, after using you to benefit herself, use whatever real or fabricated ammunition she has to attack.

281

Using disasters for personal profit

I more or less stopped intentionally watching Orman on TV years ago, but she would ubiquitously appear on many shows I’d record or watch, with barely a time that I haven't heard her say something problematic along with perhaps some useful information. Every now and then, I would tune in with a thin strand of hope that the leopard might change her spots and behave in a positive way that would ease my burden of personal responsibility for having helped her into the public eye, but it never happened. Orman does adjust her behavior based on the media outlet she’s on, so that many of the people who watched her yelling at people not to buy a bowl of soup on Oprah's show or acting like a politician while espousing advice from her behind-the-scenes experts or sponsored “price for advice” from corporations on CNN didn’t also get to see her pure salesman snake oil side on QVC, although her “Approved” card sales pitches pretty much got everyone paying attention caught up on the darker side of Suze Orman. (Link 8-15)

Several times over the years, I've happened upon Orman pitching her wares on QVC, where she liked to use hypothetical and actual disasters of the day to scare people into buying her products. In the next clip from January 2011, Ms. Suze “don't spend money unless it goes to me” Orman uses her mother’s hypothetical death (her mother was still alive at the time), and the host and his wife’s hypothetical deaths to scare QVC viewers into buying her product. That was creepy enough, but then around two-thirds of the way through the clip, you’ll hear Orman actually use the previous week’s real- life national tragedy in which Representative Giffords and others were shot, with six people killed, including a nine-year-old child, as a way to spook QVC viewers into buying her silver box, which is apparently better than the blue box or the green box. Watch the clip: Link 8-16

282

This viewer couldn’t believe Orman was using the recent shooting to sell her silver box kit:

Someone who doesn't have usual human feelings of compassion also doesn't know where to draw the line naturally, such as this example of capitalizing on imagined and actual disasters by using her mother's hypothetical death, her co-host and his wife's hypothetical deaths, and the actual shooting and deaths in Tucson just one week earlier to sell her silver box, all within about fifteen minutes of QVC selling time. Remember that even though she berates people for spending a small amount of money on something they may really want, Orman considers any products that put money into her own pockets to be needs, not wants:

Watch another QVC clip worth seeing: “I'm from the hood and never got above a 'C' in any class, so you should buy my box”: Link 8-17 It would be one thing if Orman was just hawking her wares on QVC and an occasional other show. The problem is that, thanks to her 1% supporters like Jack and Suzy Welch, this huckster has been named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. (Link 8-18) 283

Victim Blaming from a Victimizer

In 2009, as the world was reeling with news of Orman’s fellow fraudster Bernie Madoff being caught and receiving justice for his financial crimes, Orman must have been seriously gloating at her destroyed competition for gangster of the century. For Suze Orman, it’s all a game, and the complete lack of justice or scrutiny for her scams meant, in “Suze Orman land,” that she won the game. In fact, Orman’s ending quote in this 2009 article, “Suze Orman: The Money Lady,” from Women’s Wear Daily was: (Link 8-18a) 284

She pauses, takes a sip of water, and then delivers the parting shot at her critics: “Well, guess who won?” she says. “Guess. Who. Won.”

Most of Madoff's victims were charitable organizations, elderly people, and Jews, many of whom lost all their savings while Madoff lived it up on their billions of dollars. The most famous and tragic Madoff victim was Elie Wiesel, whom the Nobel committee had called a “Messenger to mankind,” with just one of his long list of humanitarian awards for his work helping to raise awareness of the horrors of the Holocaust that he had survived, that they would never happen again. This is what Suze Orman said about Bernie Madoff’s victims in the same Women’s Wear Daily article, which gives a clue of what Orman might say to her victims if she were ever brought to justice for her crimes: Even the victims of Bernie Madoff don’t get off scot-free when Orman gets going. “You walked right into that financial concentration camp, my loves,” she says later in a regrettable metaphor, given that the world’s most famous concentration camp survivor, Elie Wiesel, was among Madoff’s bilked investors. “I mean, you didn’t have to give 100 percent of everything to him.”

That’s Suze Orman’s response to scam victims, including many charitable organizations that lost their entire savings to a fellow scammer? “You walked right into that financial concentration camp, my loves?”

Unlike Orman, Wiesel himself responded to the news that they’d lost all their savings and the savings of his charitable foundation with class, dignity, and heart in Time magazine’s “How Elie Wiesel Responded to Losing His Life Savings to Bernie Madoff”: (Link 8-18b)

“We looked at each other, and our reaction was, ‘We have seen worse,'” said Wiesel, who survived Auschwitz concentration camp, where he was sent when he was 15. “Both she and I have seen worse.” Word soon spread that the foundation had been hit by Madoff’s scheme, and Wiesel described what happened next as “something very beautiful.” “All of a sudden, we began receiving hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of letters and donations, small donations, from all over America, Jews and non-Jews,” Wiesel recalled to Oprah. “The American people are so generous…. We received hundreds of them, and that helped us.”

285

Teaching Hate

The next video clip generated thousands of complaints to The Oprah Show. In it, Orman teaches people that they should treat vulnerable people by being a ruthless, mean, and hateful bully and, in this case, she got Oprah to join in the slaughter. Orman and Oprah ganged up on an emotionally unstable woman who nevertheless had the unfathomable responsibility of trying to financially support and personally care for FOURTEEN young children, including one autistic boy, on her own. Orman beat down Nadya's emotional state by shouting “Everyone hates you!” She made Nadya say louder and louder that she wouldn't have had her children if she had it to do over again. Then Orman gave Nadya the irresponsible and potentially disastrous command to get rid of any and all nannies and assistance, and to take care of all fourteen children by herself, while also trying to raise money for rent and other needs. Neither Orman nor Oprah offered Nadya a drop of help after their sadistic exploitation for ratings that Oprah’s own producers decried as brutal and “bloody.” From this clip, Oprah's viewers and their children around the world learned that people who have emotional and other troubles should be torn down until they say, as Nadya finally did, that she hates herself, while Oprah, smitten by Orman's bad company, applauds Nadya’s expression of self hate. (Watch the cruelty of Oprah and Suze Orman: Link 8-19)

286

Orman shouted at Nadya that “Everyone hates you!!!” and demanded that Nadya again and again, louder and louder, declare that she would have chosen to have never had her children, which may be the case, but it’s not a nice thing to make a mother say, especially with two of Nadya’s children right there in the studio. While slicing and dicing Nadya to shreds, Orman tossed in an almost direct quote from our mutual spiritual teacher about how we shouldn't judge others, which was quite a bizarre thing to say in the middle of Orman’s word slaughter. It’s the kind of muddled mess of mismatched words and actions Orman has thrown at the American public for years. Imagine the chutzpah of telling people we shouldn’t judge each other while she is tearing this unstable woman to shreds! Orman’s cruelty clearly didn't end up helping Nadya, based on her continued and increased struggles after the show. Since Orman insisted that Nadya sell her children’s’ toys for pennies on the dollar to make a few bucks, the lives of her fourteen children went from bad to worse. 287

Oprah received thousands of complaints from viewers, but she ignored those complaints and replayed that nasty show many more times on her syndicated broadcast and then on her OWN network, where she continued to push Orman into the public consciousness and give her forums for pitching her products and running her scams.

Oprah also swept aside the concerns of her entire producer staff about Orman's troubling behavior being too “bloody” and “brutal” to broadcast. Watch this very telling “Behind the Scenes” clip, where Oprah's producers try to tell her that Orman's behavior was too unacceptable to even broadcast, with some seriously troubling responses from Oprah. Watch this amazing clip: Link 8-20. Along with this display of cruelty came a misleading cover-up article that was obviously submitted through Orman's usual publicity blast channels and distributed to tens of thousands of media outlets through the Associated Press and other avenues. This article gave a skewed impression that the show had been fairly tame and helpful to Nadya, without even mentioning the bloodbath that had brought thousands of complaints. A few examples from a Google search:

288

Here’s an excerpt from the article, “Octomom concedes she was baby addict on ‘Oprah,” at the Washington Times that explains how Orman’s only solution for Nadya was for her to do a reality show that exploited her children or pornography, which she did end up doing. (Link 8-22)

Orman urged Suleman to get an agent and look into doing more television and other media with her children as she did in the months after they were born, something Suleman said she would no longer do for fears that she would be perceived as crazy or was exploiting her children. “They already think you’re crazy,” Orman said. Steven Hirsch, co-founder of adult film company Vivid Entertainment, has offered to pay her February mortgage while he considers buying the La Habra home. Suleman has not commented on the offer. The only part of the article that almost barely touched the real story, was a very tame sounding mention that Orman had, “heatedly urged Suleman to give up private school and excessive gifts for her children, and a personal trainer and manicures for herself.” If you watch the clip, you’ll see that things went way beyond, “heated.”

289

Oprah and others have given Suze Orman a platform through which her warped and deceptive ideas and behaviors mixed with useful and bad financial advice have become “Suze says we should…” memes that have impacted our society and economy negatively and removed individuality and heart from the world, even if some individuals have found her general financial advice and products helpful in their personal finances. Obviously Orman is not responsible for all the ponzi schemes, mortgage misdeeds, mismanaged funds, and corrupt CEO bonuses that have practically destroyed the U.S. economy, but she certainly set the stage for what has taken place, touting the all-important “courage to be rich,” while teaching fear, shame, miserliness, and a focus on money as being the most important thing in life in America, and around the world.

It’s difficult for nonsociopathic people to understand how sociopaths think—we tend to give the benefit of the doubt when possible. It took me far too long to see the extent of Orman’s problem, considering all the signs of her seriously troubling behavior from the day we met. I saw in the early 1990s that Orman looked at people in her social circles as little more than pawns in her games. Now, she plays the same games with the masses, looking at each downturn, disaster, and other social issue solely in terms of how she can milk it to benefit her bottom line and snare more people with scare tactics, shaming, and other unscrupulous methods. Below is a clip from January 2014 on The View, where the hosts are discussing the greatness of having forgiven their exes. Orman jumps in to publicly spew her wrath and vindictiveness toward the very people who helped to begin her career and achieve her dreams. (Link 8-21) I know some of the women Orman is referring to in her rage, all decent people who were conned by Orman into helping to further her career. Even though my relationship with Orman wasn’t romantic, I suspect she lumped me in with the rest, because she did con and steal from me in the guise of friendship.

290

Note that when Orman claims that these previous girlfriends who did nothing but help her did horrible and unforgivable things to her, it is one more example of sociopathic projection.

From “Beware the techniques of the Sociopath”: “Projection and gaslighting are also on the list of common sociopathic techniques. Sociopaths refuse to be held accountable for their behavior and often assign their own behavior to their victims. For example, a sociopath could accuse a victim of stealing when it is the sociopath himself that steals.” Orman showed another sociopathic trait of assuming jealousy and playing victim in the face of valid criticism in her 2005 response to criticism by the advertising critic for trade magazine Adweek, along with Orman’s usual sense of self-grandiosity: (Link 8-23)

Barbara Lippert, the advertising critic for Adweek, said Orman is a “hypocrite.” “Suze Orman claims to give uncorrupted advice, yet she's being paid by one of America's largest corporations to flog its brands,” she said. “It's a complete conflict of interest.” Orman dismisses such criticism as sour grapes. “They hate Suze Orman and love to bash me because they're so jealous of my success,” she said. “They just cannot understand how it is that I've sold millions of copies of books, I won an Emmy Award this year, my show on CNBC is the highest-rated show on weekends. How is any of that possible? They hate me because I tell people the truth.”

Orman’s prepaid card fiasco and the rise of social media finally gave a better view into her strings of shams and scams, due to the extensive documentation, with journalists and bloggers finally catching on to at least one of her ploys. I've not known anyone with such a deep hole of desires as Suze Orman—not only material desires with her yacht and five houses, but desires to boss people around and be the assumed authority of all things. Orman’s dream come true is to be able to yell at people, “You are approved!” “You are denied!” and expect them to follow her instructions in making some of the most important decisions of their lives.

291

Lies from a habitual liar

Orman’s lies are plenty and frequent, as you can see throughout this book and film. Here are a couple more examples: Orman posted this example of deceit right in the middle of the huge wave of negative articles, with financial journalists warning people to stay away from her “Approved” prepaid debit card scam:

Aside from the fact that this was far from the last post Orman made about her card as she claimed it would be, the complimentary article Orman was linking to and asking people to read in this Facebook posting and others on Twitter was not a legitimate article at all.

292

It was nothing but a carefully crafted press release from Orman’s own publicist, disguised as “news” on the Sacramento Bee webpage. The press release took short snippets from a few Orman shills and carefully edited pseudo-endorsements from a few generally critical articles about the card, including three pseudo-endorsement quotes from the article by New York Times journalist Ron Lieber. Orman’s fake article press release then presented those critical quotes out of context to make it sound like the same journalists who warned people about her card were touting it. One of the complimentary snippets in support of Orman's card said: “And when you compare its fees and terms to controversial cards like the Kardashian Kard… it does look pretty good.” [CNN Money, “Suze Orman launches new prepaid card,” January 9, 2012]

It sounds complimentary until you look up the quote in the actual article to find out what was removed from the quote during the “...” you find this:

It's a big difference when you remove, “which was taken off the market in late 2010 after allegations that its sky-high fees were illegal,” right? This is the same Kardashian Kard that Orman blasted in 2010, less than fourteen months before Orman released her own fee-laden prepaid debit card, which she claimed to have been working on for years. Less than fourteen months before Orman came out with her own fee- laden, mediocre prepaid debit card, she posted this about the Kardashians’ also predatory card:

(The poor grammar is how you know Orman wrote a message herself.)

293

Once again, we see Suze Orman warning the public as though she were protecting them from exactly what she was about to do—it’s part of her scamming tactic that paints Orman as altruistic and also gets rid of the competition.

294

In this audio interview with Tess Vigeland for NPR’s Marketplace Money in January 2012, Orman made the same dubious claims about her new “Approved” card and supposed “People First Movement,” that she was making on all the other shows. (Link 8-24) In the same interview, Orman called the CardHub blogger who wrote an article that asked some mild questions about her card an “idiot,” called the interviewer “naive,” and told this blatant lie:

Vigeland: Are you concerned at all that your audience might question you having a card like this, perhaps making money off of them -- however little -- while at the same time counseling them on their money management? Orman: I don't think so. Because the people who have been listening to me now for almost 30 years, they know that I have earned their trust. They know that I have never put my needs in front of theirs. So I don't personally care what other people say, because I know what I'm doing and the people who follow me know what I'm doing as well. And we will just see who has the last laugh when it comes to the Approved card.

No matter how many times I've heard Orman lie over the years, she always finds ways to outdo herself. Thirty years previous to the date of this 2012 interview was 1982, around the time Orman was staying with a friend of mine, who told me that at the time, Orman was penniless and selling multi-level marketing water filters. Orman was also behaving improperly toward one woman of the couple she was staying with, who told me, “Suze would hardly take no for an answer regardless of how many times I told her I was in relationship and not at all interested in one with her. There was also no way that her interest could be taken personally or as a compliment, since it was widely known even way back then that she was a serial flirt.” Twenty years before the NPR interview was 1992, right after I had the misfortune of meeting Orman while working on a project for our mutual spiritual community. At the time, Orman was completely unknown to the public and $250,000 in debt to a number of people, including at least $50,000 in debt to one of her friends, with whom I would hear Orman arguing about not being able to repay her debt according to their agreed- upon schedule, while she was spending loads of money on a wide array of lavish luxuries.

295

Narcissistic Suze

In October 2013, the United States was going through serious economic challenges, some of which Orman had contributed to creating. But in Suze Land, more important than all that boring economic concern taking place as the economy took another hit was Orman's big new contest to dress up as her for Halloween. Orman’s Halloween contest pitches took up a whole lot more space on her social media space than anything that may have been potentially useful to those living in a country on the brink. Here are just a few from a very long string of posts:

296

Go to this link to read many more similar pleas that Orman posted asking people to dress up like her in the midst of a major financial crisis, with the grand prize of winning one of Orman’s old jackets: Link 8-25

Soon, on her CNBC “financial advice” show, Orman's narcissistic Halloween dream come true.

297

One might think, yes, it does seem narcissistic and out of touch in a time of financial crisis to ask people to dress like you, bribing them with a piece of used clothing as a grand prize, but how can it be a Suze scam? I'll tell you how. Once you understand that everything Orman does is geared to increase her public influence and “price for advice” cost, you can see how Orman is using people as pawns in her shenanigans, getting them to manufacture a public image that might look as though all these people were dressing up like Suze Orman because she is so famous and influential that they thought of dressing up like her from their own inspiration and admiration. Orman and her PR team were probably hoping to create a trend that others would copy, to feed Orman’s narcissistic ego and boost the public impression of her popularity, especially since during the previous year, Suze Orman Inc. had lost considerable credibility, due to her prepaid card and other schemes. Orman would lose nothing but an old jacket. Without knowing there was a request and a contest involved, people who saw these costumes in the media, social media, or in person might think they were an indication of Orman’s extreme high public esteem, including potential Orman scam victims in other countries to whom she pitched herself as being the financial advice darling of the United States. With Suze Orman and her crooked cabal, everything is about getting money and pumping up the façade. This reminds me of what I saw happen soon after Orman joined Twitter. Orman's wife-brand-manager-partner-in-crime Kathy Travis went on Twitter for weeks, literally begging people to get more followers for Orman as a “birthday present,” and to cheer her up. Offers were even made that those who got more people to sign up to Orman’s Twitter feed would receive special gifts, although I'm not sure if those gifts were ever given to the small but enthusiastic group who took this project on as a personal mandate, and sent messages begging hundreds of celebrities and others to re-tweet and ask their followers to also follow Suze Orman on Twitter as a gift for her upcoming birthday. This ploy allowed Orman to brag about her large numbers of Twitter followers, which then generated more followers and gave Orman more clout. That clout allowed Suze Orman, Inc. to portray herself as being more influential and popular than she actually was, thereby raising her price for spouting whatever pitches her sponsoring banks and corporations wanted her to promote in the guise of trustworthy advice.

298

Orman's Occult nature

Back in the early 1990s, Orman was much more into using occultism and manipulative techniques than other people I've known. She was always hopping from one astrologer and psychic to another, and her approach to spirituality seemed to be almost exclusively focused on using spiritual and occult methods to get what she wanted on material levels. I used to claim, maybe a bit smugly, that I didn't believe in “evil,” with some philosophical explanations to back that decision up. However, knowing Suze Orman up close made me sober up and also caused me to lose a certain faith in humanity, to some degree. Obviously, I knew there were problematic people in the world, but I'd never personally met, and have not since met, anyone else who has as devious and unethical a personal nature as Suze Orman.

All that's missing are the horns.

Even a psychic could see Orman’s evil nature, long before her first book was published. In 1993, Orman’s dark occult nature alarmed a well- known Los Angeles psychic. Orman was always going to many psychics and astrologers; in fact, she had enthusiastically pushed me to go to this Los Angeles psychic she’d heard about, who was known for working with the Los Angeles Police Department. It was my first experience of going to a psychic.

299

Orman was hoping for a reading by proxy on my dime, since everything always tended to be about her. She had asked me to show the psychic her photo during my reading, and that photo elicited the psychic's alarmingly accurate warning about pre-famous Suze Orman. For those who are interested in such things, here is a link where you can listen to the psychic's prescient warning about Suze Orman: Link 8- 26 (If it’s not your cup of tea, you can just turn to the next page for plenty more non-psychic related problematic behaviors from Orman.) Here are a few excerpts from the psychic’s impression just from seeing one photo of pre-famous Suze Orman, whom Cheri had never heard of previously:

“The first thing that I saw with Suze is I saw three women walking behind each other, and everything was black. I saw Suze leading the way. She’s a leader; she likes people to follow her. I saw her with a shawl over her head and coming down on the shoulders. And each of the women had one as well.” “Everything was black if you can picture a black and white negative of a photograph. And what it told me right away was the way she was walking it was like she was trying to cover up something. She was trying to hide from what she was doing and what she was trying to be.” “I felt some darkness around her. I didn’t necessarily feel a lot of white light. What it was telling me is that sometimes she has a tendency to delve into thoughts or things that she might not know how to deal with. It’s like she might have a tendency to go back and forth — she wants to deal with the dark and deal with the light, and deal with the dark and deal with the light. It intrigues her. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, or have been aware, or have suspected it, but she kind of floats back and forth. In other words, I don’t feel she’s as dedicated to the white as you are, do you know what I’m saying? I feel that Suze is into the occult or mystical more than she is on achieving perfection. There’s a difference there.” “When a person goes back and forth and they’re not sure, and they’re delving, their interests are more into the occult — and I’m using the word occult — then they flip, they go from the one side to the other.” “Her karma is on the darker side; she’s got a lot of learning left to do. And she’s got a lot to do and learn with people and relationships. So I feel that there’s a very strong self-centered part of her, still. She hasn’t released that; she puts herself first. Suze’s number one. And you don’t need that in your life.”

300

This psychic was more right-on than I understood. Maybe if I had heeded her warning, I would have stopped helping Orman onto the public stage before the deed was done. Orman thought she was like a witch who had magical powers, and often touts herself as being “perfect.” You can see that attitude in her quote to the Daily Beast in November 2013: “I don’t question myself anymore. If I think it, I know it is true, and I don’t care what you say to me. I know my thoughts are true.” I remember pre-famous Orman often bragging that she could talk anyone into anything, which apparently was also truer than I imagined, based on all the trusted media and political figures she has conned since.

How Orman corrupts good people into going along with her schemes

I first realized Suze Orman was a scammer long before anyone in the wider public knew her name. She conned me into spending two years helping to get her first book published with lavish promises of extravagant repayment that were nothing but the same kind of completely empty mirages that Orman would soon use to scam the world. Pre-famous Suze Orman had some good qualities, including an eagerness to learn, along with an ability to charm and entice others. Orman used to often brag that she could talk anyone into anything, and she demonstrated that on many occasions, including getting a helicopter and yacht at extreme discounts for the video we co-produced for our mutual spiritual community. I was working for Disney at the time, and was also able to work a bit of magic to get us a front row press pass to film the Disneyland parade and have a private meeting with Mickey and Minnie. During that meeting, we came up with the idea of having Mickey and Minnie bow to the camera with palms together in a prayer or namaste pose, which back in pre-yoga-boom 1992 was not nearly as common as it is today. In the ashram, it was a common way we would greet our teachers and each other. Namaste is often translated as, “The God in me salutes and honors the God in you,” and folded palms are a spiritual gesture on many devotional paths.

301

Seeing Mickey and Minnie do namaste bows brought the idea of having characters in Disney’s parade also give a namaste pose so we could edit a whole montage of these fun, happy, colorful characters bowing to our worldwide community through this video that was going to be played at the international New Years satellite retreat. With signs around Disneyland announcing the upcoming opening of Euro Disney, the idea came up to deceptively connect the folded hand bow into Japan’s bowing pose. Orman said, “We should have had a sign saying, “Bow for Japan,” however, the parade had already begun by then, and were standing in the special press area Disney had kindly given to me after the newsroom called them on my behalf to request the dispensation. Orman then proceeded to shout “Bow for Japan!” to the entire line of parade characters as they walked, danced, and rode by. At first, I thought it was a funny and audacious thing to do. I even participated here and there by telling the characters to bow toward the camera, but as it went on, I felt uncomfortable being part of such a charade, especially while working for Disney, who had been kind enough to give us a special place to film the parade. At this link, you can hear a very enthusiastic pre-famous Suze Orman convincing the Disney parade characters to, “Bow for Japan!”: Link 8-27

302

Although the scheme was humorous, and even though we were indeed getting great visuals for our “Blessings to the world from California” video, I look back at this moment as one where I compromised my integrity and commitment to honesty. Lying just wasn’t the kind of thing I would usually do, even to get good video footage. Nevertheless, I became complicit in Orman’s ease with dishonesty. I came to understand this as a tactic Orman would use with otherwise decent people—getting them to compromise their integrity in a small “fun” way before moving up into convincing them to make more and bigger compromises to support her shams. This minor ruse of pretending we were filming video for the new Euro Disney in Japan wasn’t too big of a deal. It wouldn’t have any major negative impact on the world, though Orman’s shouting was probably disturbing for fellow parade goers in our vicinity who were trying to enjoy the music and parade, as well as tourists who were filming those beloved characters to remember their precious trip. If you’re one of those tourists whose video memory of your trip to Disneyland is filled with some kooky lady shouting, “Bow for Japan,” now you know. The song lyrics in our video were based on good advice for the world from First Corinthians: “Love is patient, love is kind, slow to anger, knows not mine. Love defends all, love believes all, love hopes all, for all time. Delights in justice, soothes all pain, knows no mischief, loves all the same. Love defends all, love believes all, love hopes all, for all time. Now there’s just one thing to do, always be about the truth. We love you.” This was also good wisdom for me to keep in mind as the “Suze Orman hurricane” hit the coast of my peaceful life, followed by many years of deep regret while watching this scammer con some of my favorite celebrities and cause damage to many lives. For a long time, my spiritual mindset held me back from blasting out a huge, public warning once Orman started seriously scamming the world After all, one quality spiritual people generally aspire to is to not judge others. Obviously I’ve had to grow into understanding that protecting people from harm justifies and sometimes requires pointing out someone’s bad actions. Life tends to give whatever lessons we need to learn on our journeys, and this one was a doozy for me.

303

Orman specifically selects people to scam who wouldn’t want to tell on her, either because they’re too “spiritual” to be publicly critical, or too fearful of repercussions from revengeful Suze Orman and her powerful protectors. Here’s one article that mentioned Orman’s revengeful nature:

The article continued: Here’s another reason (to go easy on Suze Orman): because Orman evidently has a little KGB in her and she’s not afraid to go after you. In a profile in the new issue of Time, Sheelah Kolhatkar asks Orman how she responds to critics like Scurlock. The answer: “Obviously, when I want to, I do investigations into the people to find out, what does their economic situation look like? One person who did this in the past—he has such severe debt, owns a home that was, like, $100,000, fights with his wife all the time, drives a junker of a car, doesn’t have a pot to pee in.

304

It just validated the fact that when people are so vindictive and they’re really trying to slam you, it’s because they’re so desperate—they’re trying to do anything to get noticed.” Man, don’t you just hate those vindictive people?

After years of inner consideration and debate about whether and how to warn the public that they were being scammed, and after waiting for journalists and government agencies entrusted with protecting the public to clean this pretty obvious problem up, I felt obliged to do what I could, beginning with a public blog that turned into a webpage, and sharing relevant information with people like Oprah Winfrey and government agencies like the CFPB. While usually striving to remain free from criticizing others, I also remembered that the greater good “delights in justice,” that the way to overcome falsehood is with truth, and that stopping someone from scamming and stealing is not only kind to the person’s potential victims, but ultimately beneficial to the person themselves. Even if a criminal has to pay a price for their crimes, stopping them from causing more damage to others would perhaps help save the person from creating more “bad karmas” bringing more pain in return, whether in this world or the next. I am sharing this relatively minor event about our little “Bow for Japan” deception at Disney, because it helps to give a glimpse of one element of Suze Orman’s con artist technique. During many years of deep regret for having used my skills and resources to help bring forth a juggernaut of deception and greed that has caused significant damage to individuals and the economy, I’ve had to look back and contemplate how I allowed myself to be coerced into violating my commitment to honesty enough to produce a video that fooled a publisher into having an incorrect view of a potential author. What weaknesses in my integrity allowed Orman to get her claws in to use my good intentions and honed skills for a dishonest scheme? Orman often uses the same techniques on different people—she has honed the skill of manipulating people, something pre-fame Suze often bragged about when she’d frequently claim to be able to talk anyone into anything. What a thing to say. But Orman was filled with bizarre things to say, and once she got her claws in, even Oprah Winfrey wouldn’t, couldn’t, and hasn’t yet been able to escape Orman’s clutches. Oprah did finally remove Orman from O Magazine in 2016, after hosting far too many Orman scams that even brought forth critiques in the New York Times, like this one:

305

306

I have seen a pattern where Orman initiates small compromises of integrity for people who usually wouldn’t do such things, just some little mischief under the guise of having fun or achieving some benefit. Those initial small compromises of integrity end up being an opening for her to sink her claws in and con good people into violating their integrity again to suit her whims. How else to explain the long list of mostly intelligent and trustworthy people Orman has been able to corrupt? Not only was Orman a thief and liar in my personal experience, she was also a rapist who assaulted me sexually under the covers and under my nightgown while I was sleeping. She did it as an act of aggression after we'd had an argument while she was visiting me for the weekend. Some might ask how a woman can rape another woman—in fact, Rosie O’Donnell asked just that after I tried to warn her about Orman running her “Approved” card on Rosie’s show. I had sent Rosie a link to my longer webpage that focused on Orman’s debit card scam, which also included a short mention of this personal violation that apparently piqued Rosie’s curiosity.

I think Rosie probably didn’t think it through when she quickly asked this question, because having someone go under the covers when you are asleep, and go under your nightgown to do unwanted oral sex is rape in my book. It was an especially awful thing to do because I had recently moved to Hollywood after spending my twenties living a completely celibate monastic life in an ashram community, where my focus was on prayer, meditation, and devotional singing and chanting, along with scriptural study and long hours of offering service while editing, scripting, and producing hundreds of videos for the spiritual community that were sent to meditation ashrams and centers around the world. I was a celibate virgin, and hadn’t even thought of having any kind of romantic or sexual relationship while building my new life and an award- winning career in Hollywood.

307

Unfortunately, I was too late to stop Orman from scamming Rosie’s viewers, although I did save Rosie from making the mistake of giving Orman the personal information ammunition Orman was seeking in order to get her claws into Rosie. Watch how the sociopathic manipulator uses Rosie’s deep trauma over her mother’s death to put one of her Orman hooks in with a meaningless correlation that her partner in crime’s mother died on the same date as Rosie’s mother. With that assumed hook into Rosie’s emotions in place, Orman followed up by requesting something that would do nothing good for Rosie, that’s for sure.

Having been in contact with Rosie previously about more pleasant matters, I sent her this warning:

Hello Dear Rosie, I really recommend that you don’t put your personal information into the hands of Suze—I say this as a friend to you more than a detractor of Suze. I’m sure it is difficult for someone like you who can recognize your own flaws and is not a narcissistic sociopath to understand how someone can be 100% self motivated and ready to throw anyone under the bus and use their private information to threaten and embarrass them publicly.”

308

Fortunately, Rosie got the message:

Even though Orman’s sexual violation was not the worst of what she did to me or has done to others and the world, it is something I feel obliged to share, both in terms of revealing Orman’s depravity, and to explain some of my feeling of personal responsibility for stopping such a damaging person from continuing to harm individuals and the public. This effort has not been with malice or revenge, but with service and love for the good of humanity. If anyone else had taken care of this matter, I would have been exceedingly happy to have forgotten this awful person even existed. Orman is not ony a rapist herself, but she apparently gets off on using the term for others, often talking about “financial rape,” which she is also guilty of doing.

When we met, I was nearly a decade younger than Orman, and as naive as a nun who had just left the convent. Orman knew that her sexual violation under the covers would be a nasty first sexual experience for me, which must have made her drool with sociopathic delight. As I've seen in other situations, Orman loves to leave her victims and those whom she’s conned into helping her with maximum psychological, lifestyle, and career damage. The ability to con and seriously harm others makes Suze Orman feel especially smart and powerful.

309

In Orman’s autobiographical narrative, we see some of the people Orman feels a need to prove herself to from her Southside Chicago hometown. The hole in Orman’s soul from being considered the dumb kid in class motivates her to get back at those teachers and fellow students by conning and outsmarting some of the most intelligent people in today’s media and political landscapes, and using them to steal from the world, including the same people who thought little Susie Orman was dumb:

When I was a little girl, I had a speech impediment. I couldn’t pronounce my R’s, S’s, or T’s properly, so words such as “beautiful,” for example, came out as “boobital.” To this day, if you listen closely when I speak, you can still hear it. Words like “fear” and “fair” and “bear” and “beer” sound the same, and a word like “shouldn’t” comes out sounding like “shunt.” Back then, because I couldn’t speak well, I also couldn’t read very well. In grammar school on the South Side of Chicago, I had to take reading exams, and would always score among the lowest in the class. One year a teacher decided that he would seat us according to our reading scores. There were my three best friends in the first three seats of the first row, while I was banished to the last seat in the sixth row. If I always secretly felt dumb, it was now officially confirmed for everyone to see. Talk about feeling ashamed. This feeling that I couldn’t make it scholastically continued to haunt me throughout high school and on into college. I knew I would never amount to anything, so why even bother to try? Nevertheless, in my family and in the families of my friends, it was a given that we’d all go to college. In my case, I knew that I would have to pay for college myself, because my parents were having a hard time with money. The only options for me were community college or a state school. I applied to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and to my amazement, even though I did not score well on my SATs, I was accepted. When I arrived, I met with a guidance counselor who asked me what I wanted to study. I told him that I wanted to become a brain surgeon. He looked at my grades and said, “I don’t think so. You don’t have what it takes. Why not try something easier?”

310

I did a little investigation and found out that the easiest major was social work, so I signed up for that. Why not take the easy way out? Why try harder? Look what a lot of scamming and a team of ghostwriters, behind-the- scenes experts, and publicity strategists can do!

Years after Orman’s violation, it was another slap to read in a 2007 New York Times article that Orman was claiming to be a fifty-five year old virgin, since she had never “been” with a man. It was especially bizarre to read such a claim from a predator who had sexually violated me when I actually was a virgin. (Link 8-27a)

Orman caused serious damage to the lives of many others in those early years, including at least three of the relatively few people mentioned on the acknowledgments page of Orman's first book, and many more whose names were not included, but probably should have been. (Link 8-28)

311

Even with all these violations, I would long ago have all but forgotten that Suze Orman existed or that these events even happened, if not for having to watch my rapist be practically worshipped by Oprah Winfrey and others who usually speak out against such violations—and yes, I did write to let Winfrey and others know. I also had to watch as Suze Orman and her corrupt enablers have raped the pockets of the poor and middle class and the fabric of society, year after year, to this day. I don’t always share this more personal part of my story, because some people like to attack the victims of sexual assault crimes, while others might assume that this film and book are some kind of personal vendetta, which is not the case beyond feeling a personal responsibility to do something to stop the damage. Orman not only stiffed me on every penny of the promised pay for my two years of assistance in helping to start her writing and public speaking career, but as she tends to do to those whom she’s conned, used, and abused, she took terrible steps to ruin my well being and harm my life much further. Orman used her “best friend” bully lawyer, who had a position of trust as a legal representative for our mutual spiritual community, to spread false rumors about me throughout the community. Orman also used her lawyer friend’s position in the spiritual organization to instruct my friends on the path not to speak to me or have anything to do with me. This is the same lawyer Orman touts while pitching her will and trust kits as being the best trust lawyer in the country. Orman claims this lawyer, who continues to bully people on her behalf to this day, will also be the trust lawyer for anyone who buys her kit, saying with her usual third person self-praise, “Don’t you think Suze Orman would have the best trust lawyer in the country? Now MY trust lawyer can be YOUR trust lawyer!” The false rumors went on for years and eventually led to my ceasing to participate outwardly in the spiritual community I had served and loved for two decades. It was sobering, to say the least. I assume some of her motivation for pushing me out of our spiritual community had to do with Orman not wanting me to be in a position to tell fellow friends and community members about how she had ripped me off and sexually assaulted me while I was asleep. Along with wanting to be honest, I include these personal experiences as one more piece of the puzzle about a horrible person many have trusted to guide their most personal family and financial life decisions.

312

Credit Unions, Personal Attacks and Quid Pro Quo's

In February 2012, The National Association of Federal Credit Unions asked the government-based National Credit Union Administration to stop using publicity materials featuring Suze Orman, because of her fee- infested prepaid card that represented the opposite of what high integrity credit unions wanted to project and implement, along with Orman’s recent advice that people should walk away from their underwater mortgages, even if they could afford to pay for their agreed obligations. The association’s request explained: (Link 8-29) Ms. Orman recently launched a prepaid debit card product. Orman has also encouraged consumers who are underwater in their homes to walk-away from their mortgage commitments. Given the foregoing, NAFCU believes it is necessary for the agency to carefully re-examine its use of promotional material featuring Ms. Orman. The letter is only the most visible indication of the stress some credit unions have felt with Orman in the last few months, despite the personal finance celebrity's public stance in favor of credit unions. The agency has said that it paid Orman $1.4 million for her part in a campaign designed to help remind uncertain consumers that federally insured credit unions have deposits as safe as deposits in banks… The campaign has always been controversial with credit unions as some executives questioned whether it represented a good use of agency funds, but Orman's stock with some credit unions took a hit after she announced the launch of her Approved decoupled debit card… The card costs cardholders $3 per month and will charge cardholders $2 per ATM transaction if they use an ATM not affiliated with the AllPoint network or if they do not load at least $20 on the card each month. Additionally, if a cardholder gets cash back when making a purchase at a retail store, it will cost $2 and while the first call each month to a customer service representative will be free, any subsequent call that month will cost $2. In addition, Orman has charged these fees even though the cards will generate interchange income every time a consumer uses them at a point of sale. The NCUA, via chairman Debbie Matz, had paid, based on various reports, $1.4 or $1.75 million dollars to use Suze Orman’s face and false trustworthiness to promote their trustworthiness, and in turn, give their implicit endorsement to her.

313

After the Credit Unions’ outcry, Matz wrote a letter defending keeping Orman on the campaign that was published in the Credit Union

Times, which prompted Orman to repay her:

314

Orman loves Credit Unions when they are paying her over a million dollars to say so, or when the NCUA head is insisting that credit unions continue giving Orman credibility, even while she was pushing a fraudulently pitched prepaid card that was linked to notorious non- Credit Union Bancorp, and which went against the Credit Union mission. From one of the Credit Union presidents pointed out the money credit unions were going to lose with Orman’s advice to walk away from mortgages:

If Orman recommends someone or something to her trusting viewers or readers, it is highly likely that she is getting something in return. Orman's advice is primarily geared to enrich herself, and don't say she hasn't told you: “I'm not in this for charity. This is a business, and anybody who thinks that it’s not a business is an idiot... I'll tell you the sources of my income— everything I do is a source of income to me.” —Suze Orman, from the Chicago Tribune (From 2004, when Orman was still a baby scammer)

This next comment from a Credit Union vice president also brought up the fact that The NCUA had overstepped its authority by using Credit Union members’ money on this advertising campaign in the first place. It is one more example of Suze Orman somehow convincing people to go against their own rules and integrity to put more money in her pockets. (Link 8-30) 315

One of the comments below Chairman Matz's letter in the Credit Union Times reveals some of the usual Suze shenanigans of “you scratch my back and I'll recommend yours.” This president of the InvesTex Credit Union in Texas wrote the only comment in support of keeping Orman's NCUA campaign: It is extremely important to build awareness in the eyes of the “consumer” on a regional, state, and national level, and not just with our legislators regarding the value of credit unions. Ms. Orman is the ONLY national level sustained marketing message the industry has and it must be continued and preferably expanded! Credit Unions do reasonably well with their own local marketing, but we have NO coordinated effort to market to consumers at a sustained and larger level... just Ms. Orman.

316

We do not need to fear the few comments that might not run parallel to our message or be insecure about the additional product in the market that Ms. Orman supports as we can and will compete and continue to benefit from the overriding message that Ms. Orman supports on our behalf. I find it interesting that it was the NCUA who put that in place and not our trade organizations (where so much of our resources are donated). Thank you NCUA for this strong level of foresight and I hope Ms. Orman's contract is renewed in August 2012!! Keith L. Kearney President / CEO InvesTex Credit Union

Oh, and look at the fake sounding endorsement Orman posted about Mr. Kearney's InvestTex Credit Union just two weeks earlier—an example of Orman's “advice” being bought by support for her scams:

317

Soon after the release of her prepaid debit card, I watched Orman launch an attack via Twitter and Facebook, trying to ruin the livelihood of the woman who helped get Orman her million dollar endorsement deal with the National Credit Union Administration, and who also worked as one of Orman’s behind-the-scenes experts. But when Ondine refused to go along with the fraud and endorse Orman's new prepaid debit card with its irresponsible misrepresentation campaign that made some of the poorest people in this country think that using Orman's card would help them to gain a better FICO credit score, Orman went on the attack. Even though Orman had previously recommended Irving’s website, she was now threatening to get her in trouble for using a dot-org ending on her web page, because her Credit Union information page is not officially a not-for-profit organization.

31 8

Orman’s claim about Irving’s website was ridiculous. First, Orman had been recommending Irving’s website since the started working together—in books, and on her website. In fact, at the same time Orman was blasting Irving for using a .org domain, Irving’s website was still listed on Orman’s page. It must be a full-time job to keep up with erasing and creating all the Suze Orman scam materials. While putting together the web pages that preceded this book and film, I found that many articles were pointedly deleted from history. Some were edited to remove anything negative, years after they were published. It’s called, “creating a false legacy.” Although the .org suffix is often used for philanthropic organizations, there are no legal rules about using .org. Even if there were, Irving’s website was service oriented and free for visitors to use. But Orman had to come up with some weapon to attack with, so she went for this empty threat to call the CFPB as a way to cast aspersions on Irving’s integrity, which was especially bizarre since it took place right at the height of Orman’s prepaid card fraud that really should have landed her in prison. Orman then called Irving “crazy,” something she likes to call people who criticize her scams, and tossed in a personal hygiene secret Irving had made the mistake of sharing with Orman in a candid moment, not realizing that Orman saves up anything she can on people to use in her arsenal when she attacks or needs to bribe or threaten them.

“When I fight there is no doubt about it.” With this threatening statement, Orman once again showed what a mafiaesque gangster she is.

319

Orman also sent her lawyer to harass Ondine. This was the same lawyer who, fifteen years earlier, had orchestrated Orman's false rumor campaign against me in our mutual spiritual community.

Irving’s message, “Suze knows I know too much,” seemed to work fairly well in stemming Orman’s attack. How great it would be if a government agency might find a way to do research behind the veil of Orman’s confidentiality agreements. Considering how many people in the financial services industry still thought Orman was a legitimate financial advisor, it was brave of Irving to share some personal experiences outside what would be covered in the confidentiality agreement, also alerting credit unions to what was going on with Orman's Prepaid Debit Card Scam. Of course, Irving also had a right to defend herself after Orman’s slanderous aspersions about her website. Here is Irving’s article about the matter : “A Note to the Credit Union Industry: Re Credit Card Connection.ORG”: Link 8-30a

320

Irving’s article has some interesting tidbits, including many examples of Orman kissing up to Irving by pitching the same .org website she was now threatening to report to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau!

321

Plagiarizing and distorting spiritual teachings: Using other people's words as her own is nothing new to Suze Orman, whose agent was thrilled to find an “author” who knew she couldn’t write and was willing to play along with a big sham that, as Binky Urban predicted, made them millions, with many behind-the-scenes experts and ghostwriters supporting the sham, and a lot of confidentiality agreements.

Suze Orman has been perfectly happy to pretend that she wrote all those books and somehow magically gained this high level knowledge and understanding of the intricacies of financial markets and all other finance- related issues, even though she never took a single finance-related college course, and barely passed the courses she took for a bachelor’s degree in social work. One of Orman's recent experts told me how Orman would call him to ask what she should say in response to current financial market developments in her social media and television interviews, after which he would watch somewhat shocked as “financial expert Suze Orman” would present his words as though they were coming from her own knowledge. In the same way, many of the spiritual flavored quotes attributed to Suze Orman are in fact unattributed quotes that Orman has shared as though they were her own original thoughts and wisdom as a means to support her façade. Over the years, Orman has often tossed out quotes from our mutual guru and spiritual community as if they were her own. One of our teacher’s secretaries told me years ago that Orman had been asked to stop quoting our teacher’s quotes in that way, yet she continued and continues to repeat the wisdom of our teacher, ancient sages and great thinkers, as if their wisdom were her own, to give herself a false sheen of spirituality and wisdom. 322

On one hand, it is good that Orman learned some bona fide spiritual teachings from the path; on the other hand, the spiritual teachings she quotes are usually the opposite of what she is doing, and are often distorted to appear to support Orman's problematic actions, rude behaviors, and personally motivated advice. Years ago, our mutual spiritual teacher's secretary told me that Orman had been asked to stop quoting our teacher’s quotes as if they were her own, but she continued to do so, nonetheless. Since Orman doesn't have enough of her own wisdom, she likes to take credit for quotes composed by others and pretend they are hers, as a cover for her scams. Here’s an example of Orman plagiarizing our mutual guru's teaching on a Facebook post in March 2016, pretending the words are her own:

323

The guru-sourced original quote Orman plagiarized was almost the same, word for word: “The sunrise of supreme bliss shimmers in every particle of the universe...Remember, love and respect must be renewed with each dawn.”

It’s great to share the wisdom we've learned—I do it in my books and other works, and try to give a proper attribution when quoting someone else directly. However, Orman is specifically using these teachings without attribution to give a false sheen of wisdom and altruism that will enable more of her scams, with wisdom she has contradicted and distorted to the extreme. For an example of Orman’s real philosophy, this clip from The View shows the co-hosts talking about the greatness of forgiveness, while Orman continues to spew her usual vindictiveness and hate, in this case declaring she will forever hate the very people who helped her to achieve her greatest dreams, before she gleefully caused serious damage to their lives. (Link 8-31) Again, it is wonderful to share positive teachings that we've learned for the benefit of others. It is also common for devotees and disciples of gurus to incorporate their teachings in our own offerings. However, Orman has plagiarized and appropriated spiritual wisdom as her own direct quotes to give a false impression of her wisdom and trustworthiness, and she has distorted them in ways that ruin or even turn the meaning of those wisdom quotes upside-down.

Elephants and barking dogs

One of Orman’s favorite quotes that she has used frequently when faced with proper criticism for her scams is a line we heard when we were both studying Indian philosophy in the 1990s: “The elephant keeps walking, while the dogs are barking.” This quote about the elephant walking while dogs are barking is a common idiom from India that was originally composed by the highly revered 15th century poet sage Kabir. The quote refers to someone who takes refuge in God above worldly matters, without being distracted by the noise of the marketplace, which includes exactly the kind of greedy scams Orman has run for the past fifteen years.

324

Note the resemblance of Orman’s speaking style to a barking dog.

Here, she uses Kabir’s quote to deflect criticism during her “Approved” card scam:

Ooooh, now Orman knows who not to trust to lie to the public to perpetrate and support her fraudulent schemes.

325

Know that being blocked by Suze Orman is a sign of integrity!

Here was Orman’s telling the same barking dog elephant story in 2015 that she’s told over and over as her number one response to well- deserved criticism.

In May, 2012, Orman went beyond just repeating Kabir’s quote out of context. Jon Friedman interviewed Orman for a Wall Street Journal MarketWatch article he titled, “Suze Orman doesn’t care if you hate her.” As one commenter on the article said, “Maybe more than a touch of sociopathy there.”

326

This time, in response to criticisms about her prepaid debit card scam, Orman actually took credit for composing the elephant quote herself, as a result of an epiphany she “had” in India, while watching an elephant walk by a group of barking dogs. Yes, really. (Link 8-32)

327

In the same article, Orman shared her oft-repeated suggestion that anyone who criticizes anything about her is looking for “their 15 minutes of fame.” As one of those critics, I can assure you that this topic is the last one I would want to become known for out of my many positive works, and I'm sure most others who have spoken up feel the same way. As has been the case in many other articles about Orman, the critical comments by readers of the MarketWatch article were all deleted. Here’s a saved web image of the article, with at least page one of the now-deleted comments: Link 8-33. Here is one of those quickly deleted comments:

Back to Orman’s plagiarizing. Here’s another spiritual sounding message Orman has posted and included in her books:

Orman and I both heard the quote during one of the spiritual courses we attended. “The gatekeepers of speech” has been attributed to Socrates, who probably never guessed it was going to be used for holiday spending. Again, it is wonderful to share and apply the wisdom we’ve learned, but in this next Twitter posting, right in the midst of the big outcry of critical media reports about her prepaid debit card scam, Orman used this ancient wisdom as an attempt to shame and silence her critics:

328

Being kind is certainly not a teaching Orman has practiced herself, while insulting and blasting critics of her card and people in general. The next video clip was recorded two weeks before Orman posted that wise-sounding quote about being kind in February 2012. Orman was speaking with the staff and some television journalists at Oprah's still-new OWN channel. Tony Robbins was scheduled to be Oprah's guest on her “Life Class” show in two weeks, and one of the participants in Orman’s event asked about some of Robbins’ financial advice. Orman got riled up and called motivational speaker Tony Robbins a “stupid asshole,” because his financial advice differed from hers. As one more proof of the power of Orman’s bad company, the OWN staff all laughed at her slur against their upcoming guest. Was it kind? Was it true? Was it necessary? Link 8-34 Years ago, I attended a New Years retreat where our spiritual teacher offered her annual message of guidance for the year. “A Golden Mind, A Golden Life,” was given with an extensive exploration of the Bhagavad Gita verse on which the message was based. “A Golden Mind, a Golden Life,” referred to the noble traits of mind that create a positive life. From Bhagavad Gita verse 17:16: “Peace of mind, gentleness, silence, self-restraint, purity of being; these are called austerity of the mind.” That is what our guru was teaching with her message, “A Golden Mind, A Golden Life.” Although Orman is not known for qualities such as gentleness, silence, self-restraint, peacefulness, or purity of being, she apparently thought it would be a good marketing slogan for selling her wares on QVC. Several hours after hearing this message, I was flipping through television stations to check on some breaking news. As I flipped by QVC, there was Orman selling her products. I watched for a few minutes, and was shocked to hear Orman pitching her product by saying, mere hours after our guru had unveiled her precious spiritual teaching for the year: “As I always like to say, 'A Golden Mind, A Golden Life!'“

329

Orman spoke as though the quote were her own, and suggested that it was specifically referring to money and her QVC products. This is just one more example of how Orman will bastardize anything to give a false façade and put a few more dollars into her pocket. Then we have, “Suze Orman’s Five Laws of Life.” Orman presents these poetic words as “her” five laws of life in the book Courage to Be Rich, and many other places. I was actually in association with Orman when we took a meditation course that included this quote, which in the course was given word for word as Orman has published it in her book and in articles, pretending it is a quote by herself. Here’s the quote directly from Orman’s book:

Because Orman has given the impression that it is her own personal wisdom that she herself wrote, these words of wisdom have been re- quoted as “Suze Orman's Five Laws of Life” in various blogs and other writings over the years, and may go down in history as coming from the wisdom of Suze Orman.

330

“Orman's Five Laws” were actually composed by Lebanese author and poet Mikha'il Na'ima's, who wrote in his “Book of Mirdad”: This is the way to freedom from care and pain: So think as if your every thought were to be etched in fire upon the sky for all and everything to see. For so, in truth, it is. So speak as if the world entire were but a single ear intent on hearing what you say. And so, in truth, it is. So do as if your every deed were to recoil upon your heads. And so, in truth, it is. So wish as if you were the wish. And so, in truth, you are. So live as if your God Himself had need of you His life to live. And so, in truth, He does.”

I'd imagine that with her entire financial career being built on one sham after another, Orman figured nobody would notice if she plagiarized a few wise beings she heard about while causing trouble to quite a few people at the ashram. At the time, Orman and I discussed the meaning of this quote during some of our hundreds of hours of conversation. Who would have guessed that one day Suze Orman would take credit for this bit of wisdom as if it were her own, and use it to fool people into thinking she is wise, or that she has followed the teaching herself. Because if Orman's deeds were to recoil upon her head as the quote states, I would feel very sorry for her indeed. Next is an example of what Orman's actual wisdom sounds like. Orman quoteth herself:

“The only action you will regret is the one you did not take,” a gangster's ode. I have to say that the one action I most regret in life was using my skills, resources and contacts in the early 1990s to help Suze Orman onto the public stage when she was unpublished, unknown, and deeply in debt. That is an action I regret having taken. 331

Of course, narcissistic sociopaths don’t have the burden of feeling regret over all the harmful actions they take, such as the damage Orman has caused to many lives for her own enrichment and glorification. I'd expect that most people do have at least some regrets in life for something they said or did, which is the basis for decent human discourse. In this article in the Daily Beast (Link 8-35), Orman gives another “gem,” explaining, “I don’t question myself anymore. If I think it, I know it is true, and I don’t care what you say to me. I know my thoughts are true.” Here’s one more example of Orman's spiritual potions in action (faces blurred to protect the innocent).

During May of 2013, I watched some of the “Jodi Arias Trial” being covered by my old Disney co-worker, Jane Velez Mitchell on CNN's HLN. Quickly, I saw how Arias and Orman shared quite a few traits, such as being able to lie with absolute ease and creating webs of fabrication, as Orman did with her prepaid debit card and other scams and shenanigans. Both also used spiritual teachings to cover up their misdeeds and paint a picture of being more altruistic than they are. It is difficult for people who are not sociopaths to understand their mentality, which is why so many of us get fooled and harmed by unfortunate associations with narcissistic sociopaths.

332

Hay House takes on Suze Orman’s scams

This brings us to Orman’s disappointing association with spiritual publisher Hay House. At some point around 2015, “new age” publisher Hay House assumed bigger responsibility for “Suze Orman Media.” The address and phone number to “contact Suze” was now Hay House’s main mailing address and phone number. Louise Hay and other Hay House authors started posting endorsements for Orman, including Louise promising, “You will never find a person who cares more about you and your success around money than Suze Orman.” Hay House became the new official publisher for many of Orman’s previously released products.

I don’t know what the specifics of their deal is, but Hay House must be making a lot of money to justify the terrible disservice this corrupt liaison has done to their wide roster of authors, many of whom are spiritual and self-help teachers who have integrity, practice dharma (righteous living), and were honored to publish their books with a publisher that previously had a clean reputation. In my view, Hay House sold all those authors out by turning Hay House into Suze Orman Scams central. As a spiritual author, I am relieved that I never published any of my books with them. Around the same time that Hay House shifted leadership, other complaints started coming forth claiming unscrupulous “Ormanesque” practices in Hay House’s self-publishing wing, so it looks like an example of a company with new leadership who is taking the ship down, at least in terms of integrity, if not dollars in their bank accounts. The first thing Hay House did was to raise the price on Orman’s main product, which literally went from $69.75 to $144.00, overnight. One day, this was the price for Orman’s kit, around the same price it had been for years—$69.75—with further discounts when she pitched it on QVC :

333

While doing research for this presentation, I happened to see that from one day to the next, Hay House’s price for the exact same kit had more than doubled to $144, with an added template for giving percentage savings. That would allow Hay House to offer fake discounts that would still be double the price for the same product that had been sold for years on QVC and the Hay House website. It is one more example of “bad company” Suze Orman corrupting even spiritual publishers:

334

Orman often pitches this kit as being usable on all computers, being a complete replacement for lawyers, and coming with access to be able to personally contact Orman or her trust lawyer or one of their assistants with any questions. With delightful con artistry, Orman would punctuate the idea that for $69, you just might be able to have a personal conversation about your finances with none other than Suze Orman herself. Below are some costly complaints about those issues from people who purchased the kit. The QVC website received many one-star reviews, including that Orman’s kit didn’t work on all computer systems as she’d claimed, requiring MAC and other customers to pay more money for a “Protection Port,” with no help or response from Orman or her assistants as she had vehemently promised.

This woman claims to have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars due to using Orman’s kit:

That’s what happens when someone is allowed to basically practice law without a license or any ethical rules or responsibilities that would be incumbent on any other financial advisors.

335

That’s also what happens when government agencies such as the Department of Labor specifically exclude Suze Orman, by name, from their 2016 ruling that financial advisors must act in the best interest of their clients. The DOL ruling claimed that Suze Orman was not a financial advisor at all, but an entertainer. I’m sure Marilynn and others who lost a little or a lot of money would’ve liked to have known that before trusting Orman’s Will and Trust Kit for her family’s inheritance. Even though Orman frequently demonstrated how waterproof her kit was on QVC with a video clip of her throwing the case into the ocean in front of her Pompano Beach condo, thousands received boxes with broken latches, with no interest or care from Orman about their defective products.

Here are several more complaints about Orman’s kit that also give insight into the kind of shenanigans that were going on after Hay House Media became the main representative for Suze Orman and her products, more than doubling the price of her kit overnight.

336

Two years earlier, Hay House had also sold Orman’s Money Navigator Newsletter, whose disastrous saga that generated terrible press and ended with a Securities Exchange Commission fine is documented in Chapter Three. Hay House sold a one-year subscription to the newsletter— something Orman had been giving away for free all year—for $63. Way to not take care of your customers, Hay House! Surely many Hay House customers who hadn’t been keeping track of Orman’s latest shenanigans assumed a publisher like Hay House with so many integrity-based authors wouldn’t be selling them a worthless scam.

337

In 2015, Hay House started creating and posting hundreds of spiritual-sounding “Ormanisms” on Orman's Twitter account and Facebook page, using Hay House style graphics and phrases that were apparently extracted from Orman's mostly ghostwritten books. Overnight, Orman’s Facebook page became a graveyard for rehashed (sometimes outdated) advice from her old books, and often ghostwritten quotes, some with dubious meaning or value in the face of her greedy, predatory actions, such as: “When you are able to give purely and from the heart, then you are free.”

338

More Hay House “Ormanisms”:

Orman has shown no qualms about claiming false credentials or attributions from the beginning of her deception-ridden career, so why not let Hay House pretend-post rehashes from ghostwritten books on her behalf? It’s like a “Weekend at Bernie’s” story, or perhaps in this case, more of a “Weekend at Bernie Madoff’s.”

339

Some of the quotes Hay House posted might have value if they had been created and delivered by someone who has shown even a modicum of integrity, or who was posting the messages with consideration of current trends or circumstances, but as pseudo posts out of context from representatives of a con artist, they are potentially harmful.

340

People who followed Orman on Twitter and Facebook were suddenly flooded several times a day with these rehashed, fluffy posts, along with ads for Orman’s next appearances to sell her wares, and occasional posts between Orman and her famous enablers. Followers assumed Suze Orman was writing all these posts, and would comment on them, thinking she was paying attention to all or any of their questions and comments.

Now those who have already been fooled by Suze Orman time and time again, plus new Hay House customers, are being fooled into thinking that it is Orman who wrote and is posting these financial edicts, as they post their responses and questions on the Facebook page of what is now a facade of a facade. Hay House also started posting links to just about every video and article and quote they could find, without even paying attention to whether it was actual advice or a useless promo for Orman's old defunct CNBC show. That started to make her Facebook con victims suspicious, although many others reposted the nothing link for their friends as if it had actual content.

341

Hay House also posted this quote from one of Orman’s books without even bothering to remove the phrase, “one of the goals of this book.”

342

How did Suze Orman con or bribe spiritual New Age publisher Hay House into continuing her shams, even after Orman's well-documented record of committing fraudulent scams throughout the media landscape? I am confident Hay House saw my film and other documentation, based on conversations with one of Louise Hay’s friends. That means they just didn’t care. Along with Senator Warren’s complicity in Orman’s deceptions, Louise Hay’s was especially disappointing.

343

How much money did it take to convince Hay House to jeopardize the integrity of their brand and possibly smear the books by hundreds of spiritual and personal growth authors who expect their publisher, Hay House, to act with intelligence and integrity?

“People first”? One might say that Orman's main message is very altruistic sounding: “People first, then money, then things.” It certainly isn't how Orman's lived her life based on my experience and observation, but it does sound good. Yes, put the needs of people first; it almost sounds like a Christian-based teaching. However, several times, Orman has clarified that when she says, “people first,” what she means is to put yourself first, which does sound much more in line with how Orman lives her own life. Here we have an altruistic sounding disguised slogan for those who don't research further, and who assume Orman's message is humanitarian in nature, reminding us to take care of loved ones and others in this world, first. Most people have assumed that Orman’s message, “people first,” is kindhearted at the core, when the real core of Suze Orman's messages and examples is actually selfish, disrespectful, shaming, fear-based, and a greedy intention to put yourself first, without regard for the well being of others. Even beyond guiding her followers to put themselves first, for Suze Orman, “people first, then money, then things,” means to put herself first, and to use people to get their money to buy more things for her luxurious lifestyle. It’s like the man in a famous 1962 Twilight Zone episode, who was happily boarding an alien vessel after learning that the title of the book the aliens carried was the altruistic sounding, To Serve Man. As he stepped up to the spaceship, his staffer ran up, shouting, “IT’S A COOKBOOK!” In the same way as To Serve Man, one might ask upon seeing Orman’s book titles, such as, The Courage to be Rich, who is it who has the courage to be rich, and at whose expense? Also, when Orman says put yourself first, she clearly means to put your money first, based on her frequent practice of denying people their life dreams and insisting that her followers let go of personal preferences, even telling people to get rid of a beloved pet that would possibly end up euthanized, perhaps killing their "best friend," unless they have enough financial savings to get Orman's approval. Suze Orman is not only a scammer, but a heartless one.

344

At this link (Link 8-36), you can read some heartfelt feedback from one person whose book launch plans got “Denied!” by the same shyster who has always spared no expense for her every whim and desire, even when she was poor and borrowing large sums of money from friends, before upping the luxury big-time when she became wealthy, with yachts, planes, and luxury homes.

“It’s a cookbook for how to make herself rich from your money!

345

346

Chapter Nine And The Scams Go On…

In 2015, Orman was released from her contract with CNBC. Maybe it had to do with around two hundred articles by financial journalists during the previous few years, criticizing her prepaid card and other scams. Maybe CNBC found some integrity after way too many years, including when they jumped on Orman’s deception wagon in a 2004 Chicago Tribune article when asked why it was fine for Suze Orman to violate all kinds of ethics rules that none of their other hosts, journalists, or advisors could. CNBC’s answer, which you can read in Chapter Two of this book, was that Suze Orman is not a journalist nor a financial expert. She is nothing more than a celebrity entertainer. Their assertion was confirmed by the Department of Labor’s 2016 ruling that specifically excluded Suze Orman, by name, from having to follow their new guidelines requiring financial advisors to give advice that is in the best interest of their clients. Surprise to all you millions of people who took Suze Orman’s financial advice regarding some of the most important personal, business, and family decisions of your lives, thinking she was an actual financial advisor with trustworthy advice. You must have missed seeing the “for entertainment only” disclaimers next to all those publicist-crafted headlines calling Suze Orman, “The World’s Leading Personal Finance Expert”!

347

Maybe Orman’s quick departure from CNBC had something to do with an early edit of my documentary film that was published to YouTube just a few months before Orman announced that she was going to be leaving CNBC. Several financial journalists had written articles supporting my efforts and agreeing with the conclusions in that initial documentary. These included a review published in an offshoot of the Financial Times, called Financial Advisor IQ, that offered an excellent summary of the important points in our film. The article was recommended with a link from the Wall Street Journal. (Link 9-1)

Here are some excerpts from Joan Warner’s article, “Suze Orman Won’t Stop Bashing Advisors,” that offered a review of some of the information in our film:

Personal-finance celebrity Suze Orman concluded the final installment of her long-running TV show on Saturday night by telling her audience, “If you want to find the best financial advisor of all, just look in the mirror.” Orman has been blasting traditional financial services since the 1990s, when she began publishing self-help books. (One oft-repeated joke is that “a broker makes you broker.”) Don’t expect her to stop — another television program is in the works. And despite practices that many have found questionable, Orman enjoys the support of what CNN reporter Chris Cuomo last year called “the Orman cabal.” She worked for Merrill Lynch and Prudential Bache, selling mostly insurance, before starting her own firm in 1987; at some point she got her CFP designation. But her real calling is entertainment of the Jerry Springer variety. The Suze Orman Show, which ran for 13 years, was noisy, self-congratulatory and heavily reliant on public shaming of call-in viewers who, say, coveted a $130,000 car even though they’d saved only $65,000 toward retirement. You can’t fault Orman’s central message — that people should live within their means. And you can’t really fault her in-your-face style. After all, some clients respond well to tough love. But you can fault the many apparent conflicts of interest that have cropped up over the years. While excoriating advisors who accept commissions and even suggesting that only by-the-hour planners can be trusted, Orman has not only worked as a paid spokesman for assorted financial products but created and sold products of her own.

348

Most disastrous was a prepaid debit card on the market from 2012 to 2014. Like most such cards, it was positively infested with fees. Worse, Orman promised fans that using it would improve their credit scores — or even generate a FICO score for those who lacked one — as a result of a data-sharing agreement with credit-reporting agency TransUnion. As NerdWallet explained when the card was introduced, there’s just no way consumers’ behavior with a prepaid debit card can predict or affect their creditworthiness. Orman pulled the plug on her card last July. A documentary called The Suze Orman Problem: Scams, Shams and Shenanigans (that was an early title of our film, “How Suze Orman SCAMMED the World”), by a filmmaker who says she helped launch Orman’s career, raises questions about other commercial ventures. For example, although she has spoken before Congress about the student-debt crisis in the U.S., Orman taught a class at the University of Phoenix, the country’s largest for-profit college. According to The Huffington Post, “for-profit colleges have 13% of U.S. college students, but an astonishing 47% of student-loan defaults.” On her website, Orman sells a “FICO kit” debt-management tool ($50 to $60 a year), an “insurance evaluator” ($30), “must-have documents” ($90 for generic will, trust and power-of-attorney forms) and — my favorite — a water-resistant blue plastic suitcase, with some folders inside, called a “protection portfolio” ($144). In television ads, she has sold General Motors’ car-financing programs and term life insurance. CNBC gets around the ethics problems because her program is licensed, not owned. For a time, Orman also sold an investment newsletter, The Money Navigator ($63 a year), which was eviscerated by Reuters in 2012 and which she got rid of shortly afterward. Consumers who followed her bullish calls on housing in 2007 and on gold in 2012 lost their shirts. And according to the Shenanigans film, Orman has successfully been sued for fraud and for sharing her customers’ information with creditors. Why should practicing, professional financial advisors care about all this? Two reasons. One, in our celebrity-besotted culture, even well-heeled clients may be susceptible to the recommendations of a big TV personality. If a client resists your advice because Suze Orman says nobody should ever, under any circumstances, buy whole life insurance, you can gently remind the client Suze Orman makes money by advertising SelectQuote term life policies. Second, Orman has enlisted some powerful people to her cause. I don’t just mean Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Oz, both of whom promote her products and programs.

349

I mean Senator Elizabeth Warren, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Richard Cordray and former FDIC chair Sheila Bair. (The latter group might be what Cuomo was referring to with his “cabal” remark.) Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch — hardly a mouthpiece for the 99% — likes Orman, too. That’s why advisors should keep an eye on her agenda. It’s one thing to warn consumers against hiring an FA who makes house calls. It’s quite another to have Washington’s ear on the future of the industry.

With this kind of press alerting other journalists, Orman and her cabal knew that announcing Orman’s departure from CNBC would be sure to draw more scrutiny. The extra scrutiny would enable more people to find the mountain of critical articles about Orman’s prepaid debit card scam, my film about her scams, and other evidence of Orman’s scams that could lead to persecution and possible prosecution. Orman and her protectors and enablers could surely imagine the possible headlines: “Suze Orman Fired from CNBC Due to Prepaid Debit Card Fraud,” or “CNBC Cans Orman after Whistleblower Film.” They had to find a way to block those headlines with one more make- believe Suze Orman shiny fake headline distraction.

350

Note that Orman’s publicists, who likely either wrote or requested this article, changed Orman’s usual designation from their usual, “financial guru,” or “financial expert of the world,” to “personal finance TV personality.” Perhaps the change was made in preparation for convincing the Department of Labor to designate Suze Orman, by name, as nothing more than an entertainer, thereby leaving her out of their subsequent ruling requiring financial advisors to be ethical. Just for fun, check out the same Orman shill publication’s overly laudatory article about the demise of her prepaid card scam a few months earlier. They couldn’t even bother to change the photo. Maybe they have a “Suze Shill Template.”

Orman’s previous retirement claims I would add here that it is possible Orman’s departure from CNBC was her idea rather than a cancellation by the studio. For several years, Orman had been telling journalists about her plan to retire in 2015, either because that was her plan, or to make whistleblowers assume her reign of damage would soon end on its own, without them having to speak up.

351

Here are some examples of Orman pushing her upcoming retirement: In this 2012 video clip, you’ll hear Orman telling Moira Forbes that the “Approved” card would be her “last stand” because she was going to retire from the financial business in 2015. (Link 9-2) As we saw in an earlier chapter, Orman also told the Daily News she was going to retire in 2015, close her website down, buy a big boat, and “go fishing.” From the Daily News, November 2011: (Link 9-3) Financial wizard Suze Orman already has her retirement plans laid out. She told us at the recent Friars Club testimonial dinner for Larry King that she plans to end “The Suze Orman Show” in three years and sail around the world: “Unless something wacky happens, I’m 60 now, and I always had a date of 63 that that would be that.” Orman said that on her last day of work, her Web site’s home page will simply say, “Gone Fishing.” Orman gave more details about her upcoming retirement to Tess Vigeland on NPR’s Marketplace in 2012, while pitching her “Approved” prepaid debit card scam to NPR listeners. This excerpts also includes Orman’s lie about not taking on speaking engagements, and more: (Link 9-3a):

Vigeland: Well, here's another question from Facebook: You know, lots of folks set financial goals at the start of this new year. They might assume that your finances are in pretty tip-top shape, but did you set any goals for yourself for the year? Orman: You know, I didn't set any goals for myself. I set this year as the year that I launched the Approve card. And that I didn't take any speaking engagements; I have this whole year clear. Because the one thing that I want to see happen before I retire -- and I do plan on retiring in about three years from now -- and when that happens I wanna know that I have left my mark on this world in a way that no other personal finance person ever would have done. And that is I want debit card usage to be able to create a credit score so that when children go to college, they don't have to get a credit card just so they can have a credit score, so that maybe one day credit cards become obsolete and we can return to a cash society, albeit on plastic. But that debit plastic gives people credit for the future. And if I can do that, then that will be a great goal for Ms. Orman to finally say, “Bye bye, I'm goin' fishin'.”

352

Vigeland: Well I've gotta pick up on that. Boy, three years. Tell us what a Suze Orman retirement looks like. Orman: Yeah, I have a goal there in three years, I'll be 63, almost 64. And so at that point in time, I want to go around the world on a boat. I wanna go around the world on a boat that I help captain. So, I don't want to go on a cruise ship. I want to feel what it feels like to live on a boat, go around the world with K.T., who's my life partner. And girl friend, don't bet against me of that goal not coming true.

A QVC host who worked with Orman in 2014 gave another clue about some of her big plans after retiring:

Maybe Orman bought an island, or a new home on the islands, to be closer to the millions she probably has stashed away in the Cayman Islands. Because, even though Orman likes to tell the press she is worth around thirty-five million dollars, she couldn’t help but brag to a classroom of low-income at-risk youth who had dropped out of school that even estimates of her fortune at fifty million are “way short.” I’m sure all the estimates of Orman’s wealth, including that fifty million dollars, are way, way short. One year before announcing her exit from CNBC, Orman told the Daily Beast that she had almost retired in the summer of 2013, after being eviscerated for her prepaid debit card scam. There was talk at the time that CNBC might not renew her contract due to all the documented fraud, but then they did! Adam Auriamma at the Daily Beast was the only journalist to ever ask or get any response from Orman or TransUnion about the results of their supposed prepaid debit card “experiment” that cost a whole lot of poor and middle class people a lot of their hard-earned dollars to fund. Auriamma’s interview took place just months before the card would close without a peep about it ever again from TransUnion or Suze Orman.

353

From The Daily Beast, November 2013: (Link 9-4) A messy brand extension nearly derailed her empire. Now, the loud and proud money guru is hitting back at her critics—and touting her victory over the ‘financial rape’ of the poor. When it comes to people and their money, Suze Orman is never wrong. That’s according to Suze Orman. In fact, around the set of The Suze Orman Show, her long-running CNBC series, Orman and her producers like to joke about what they call “Suze witching moments”— instances in which the host’s psychic intuition turns out to be eerily accurate… After the blast of bad press, Orman went uncharacteristically silent on the matter. She hasn’t talked about the card since. She stopped defending herself. She doesn’t advertise it anywhere, certainly not on her show. “I’m sure most people think that the card is gone,” she says with a mischievous smile. The Suze Orman Show airs new material every week, but the taping schedule isn’t too demanding, so Orman and Travis, who goes by KT, spend much of their time relaxing in Florida or sailing their boat (christened the “Approved,” natch) around the Bahamas. They nearly retired this summer. “It was over,” Orman says. “We were gonna come back and weren’t gonna work anymore. And we were gonna announce, this is it, we’re gonna live the rest of our lives in the Bahamas.” …The card, she says, is “thriving,” and broke even for the first time this summer. “TransUnion made a deal with me,” Orman says, “so that for two years they would look at behavior on this card—in an aggregate, anonymous way—and see if it determines future behavior.” I point out that it’s been just about two years. Any word? “They are finding out that it does,” she says, with a smile. A representative from TransUnion confirmed the broad outlines of its partnership with Orman, but wouldn’t corroborate her statement about the two-year timeline. Nor would the representative make any statements about what kind of conclusions, if any, TransUnion has drawn from its analysis, stating only that the process is “ongoing.” Orman declined to give any further details, as well. The Daily Beast article is also worth reading for examples of Orman's narcissistic sociopathy, including this tidbit: “I don’t question myself anymore. If I think it, I know it is true, and I don’t care what you say to me. I know my thoughts are true,” and, “The only thing I haven’t done yet is a Nobel Prize. But I wouldn’t be surprised if that comes my way one day.”

354

Therefore, it is possible that CNBC did not fire Orman, and that she retired on her own—if so, it would be a rare time Suze Orman actually did something she said she was going to do. Whether fired or retired, there was one problem with Orman’s plans. After her prepaid debit card scam was eviscerated by the entire financial press, and with the cat out of the bag that Suze Orman was unequivocally a fraud, an announcement that she was leaving CNBC would be sure to generate questions such as, “Whatever happened to that prepaid card you said was going to raise everyone’s FICO scores?” and assumptions like, “Did CNBC fire you for getting caught running all those scams?” Remember, from the Wikihow’s description of sociopaths: Sociopaths are professional liars. They fabricate stories and make outlandish, untruthful statements, but are able to make these lies sound convincing with their confidence and assertiveness.

Once you see past the Suze Orman façade even a bit, her abundant lies are much easier to see in nearly every appearance and headline.

Enter Orman’s “Money Wars” sham

What could Orman and her political lobbyist media broker damage control expert strategists do but to pour more lies on top of all the other lies, and trust that whatever fake stories they put out would pass through without notice, and be quickly forgotten as the team replaced the old scams and shams with new ones. Orman and her co-conspirators must have laughed themselves silly about what they came up with to fool the American public once again: she was leaving CNBC to start a new show called “Money Wars.” “Money Wars” was described a daily Judge Judy style show where Suze Orman would mediate between people having arguments about money. And the press picked up and printed this new batch of hogwash as fact, without a single intelligent question, just as Orman and her cabal knew they would. Another article at TV First Look gave more details in an article titled, “Suze Orman Is Going From Saturday’s CNBC Finale To Daytime TV’s Money Wars.” The false information began with a whole lot of praise that certainly sounded like it was written by Orman and her cabal.

355

If you think Saturday’s The Suze Orman Show series finale on CNBC will be the financial guru’s first step toward retirement, you probably haven’t been paying attention to Suze the past couple of decades. She’s a smart, straight shooting, perpetually optimistic financial expert who has been writing books, giving financial advice on radio and TV, hitting the motivational speaker circuit and selling Suze-branded financial products since before people knew what the word “entrepreneur” meant. Next up for Suze is Suze Orman’s Money Wars, a half-hour daytime show from Warner Bros. that’s not dissimilar to Judge Judy. Starting in fall 2016, if all goes to plan, Suze will dish out advice to the show’s guests twice a day, five days a week.

Regarding this pseudo “Money Wars” show that was obviously made up solely for the purpose of making her departure from CNBC look like it had nothing to do with all the Suze scandals that had already come to light, with many more to come, Orman explained:

This will be different for me. It will tape in front of a live studio audience. It will be a half-hour, Monday-to-Friday daytime show. It will probably air back to back like Judge Judy. It’s called Money Wars. We’re calling it a high-conflict-resolution show. It’s not like Jerry Springer. Within a short period of time, we solve a problem right then and there between mothers fighting with daughters over money, husbands arguing with wives, bosses fighting with employees and what have you. They each tell their side of the story. We come up with a solution. Then, there are teaching moments and there is interaction with the studio audience.

Lying through her inhumanly white teeth, as usual. For someone who has said so many times that she was planning to retire to an easier life in 2015, it would be an unlikely step to instead start creating, producing, pitching, selling, and filming a daily show called “Money Wars,” that she claimed would be focused on the unsavory and boring topic of people fighting about money for five days a week. Even Judge Judy would quickly get boring if all her cases revolved around money disputes. Here is Orman’s BS announcement that was picked up by many media outlets: 356

Anyone with their “thinking cap” on (as Judge Judy might say) could tell that Suze Orman was “peeing on their leg and telling them it was raining,” with her fake new “Money Wars” show headline. Variety noted the vague quality of this announcement about Orman's elusive “Money Wars” show that had no producer or syndication deals; a fake headline show that was already destined to fade into nothing and be forgotten by the same media venues who spread this fraudulent headline, just as they did for all the other Suze Orman schemes and headlines you can find throughout this book and film. From Variety: “Suze Orman to Exit CNBC for ‘Money Wars’ Series with Telepictures”: (Link 9-5)

357

It’s not clear yet if the project will be distribbed via first-run syndication or shopped to cable outlets. The series is in the very early stages of development, meaning that it’s too soon to target a fall 2015 debut in syndication should Telepictures go that route. The “Money Wars” concept has Orman helping families, friends and couples tackle the financial and personal issues that are wrapped up in disputes over money. There’s no word yet on a producer, but Orman’s longtime partner Kathy Travis will undoubtedly be involved. You betcha she will!

A modern-day “Bonnie and Clyde”

The con was that Suze Orman was leaving CNBC to begin a new show called “Money Wars,” a show that at the time had no producer, no expected production date, and nothing more than Orman’s word, which is worth less than nothing. A daily show like “Money Wars” would require a lot more time and work than continuing Orman’s weekly CNBC show would have taken, with a fairly low chance of success for all those efforts. The required schedule for a daily show would also give Orman less time to spend and enjoy her luxurious life, paid for by all the tens of millions of dollars (or more) that she’s pilfered from the public. As for whether Telepictures was complicit in the lie or actually thought they were ever going to produce or distribute a show called “Money Wars,” I would venture to guess that in the unlikely possibility

358

that Telepictures had any agreement with Orman in writing, her shyster cabal made sure it was written to give her an easy path to simply stepping away as soon as the big fake press headline had run its course and kept her free from proper scrutiny. As a reluctant but generally accurate Suze scam expert, I immediately, confidently predicted that Orman’s elusive “Money Wars” show was nothing more than a fake “show” ruse to keep the financial press who had already eviscerated Orman for plundering the public with her predatory “Approved” card scam from writing another slew of articles suggesting she was exiting CNBC in disgrace after stealing millions from the poor through scams, including her “Approved” card that had closed down a few months earlier, stealing more money from card users on the way out. Orman didn’t want to open that hornet’s nest, but she either wanted to or had to leave CNBC. If people were paying attention, the fake “Money Wars” headline would never have passed muster, but it slid right through. If she really was going to do a new television program, a more apt show title for con artist Suze Orman would be “Orange is the New Jacket.”

Another proof of why Orman was never planning to do a syndicated show is that she had previously tried to launch a syndicated show in 2005, before the Approved card and other scandals. That 2005 syndicated show attempt failed before it even started, after it wasn’t picked up by any stations.

359

That real or fake 2005 syndicated show attempt took place long before all the terrible press about her prepaid card made Orman an unwelcome guest in at least a few of her old media venues by the time of her “Money Wars” announcement in 2014. Nevertheless, that failed idea for a syndicated show now provided Orman and her damage control experts with the idea of a fake excuse for her departure from CNBC. TransUnion's involvement in Orman's fake “Approved” prepaid debit card experiment gives a glimpse of what her fake deal with Telepictures for the make believe show, “Money Wars,” may have looked like:

360

As you saw in Chapter Five of this book, TransUnion played along with Orman's “Approved” card scam, giving only the flimsiest of responses to one Orman friendly reporter of the many journalists who were clamoring for information. Orman's other debit card partner, Bancorp, never said a word about Orman's prepaid card, until they sent a single woefully incomplete and convoluted letter to card users, letting them know the card was about to close and asking them to quickly spend all the money they'd stored on the card before it closed in one month. What did TransUnion get in exchange for their support of Orman's profiteering hoax? They received a lot of press as Orman spun her webs of false FICO and TransUnion snake oil throughout the media landscape to fool people into moving money from their banks onto her fee-laden card. TransUnion also got free access to a whole lot of people's personal spending data through the “experiment” part of Orman's “Approved” card scheme, that gave TransUnion access to the spending habits of Orman's financial fraud victims who opted in to the experiment, believing that doing so would improve their FICO scores. 361

For those fooled into trusting Suze Orman enough to do any ridiculous thing she suggested, TransUnion and the “Approved” card also charged and received annual fees of $143.40 from card customers to continue having access to their TransUnion report scores after the first year. The same reports, plus reports from Experian and Equifax were easily available for free from Credit Karma and other services, something a decent financial advisor would have told people to do instead of paying nearly one hundred and fifty dollars a year for one-third of what they could get for free. All that bilked money went to TransUnion and Orman directly from the pockets of financially uneducated, mostly lower income victims, in the midst of an economic recession. Therefore, the fact that Telepictures may have said they were planning to produce or distribute Orman's latest sham, doesn't mean their “Money Wars” connection was anything more than a verbal discussion or non-committal agreement to perhaps do a show that would soon evaporate into that land where all Suze Orman scams, shams, and shenanigans go after she gets paid. Here Orman gives a clue of what’s coming:

Yes, time will tell, and we already knew what it was going to end up telling, although Orman would use her usual tactics of following big fraudulent headline blasts with silence, once the sham had run its course. Journalists played along and stayed silent about the show’s disappearance. Now, Orman had to find a way to officially exit from the “Money Wars” sham, in case anyone did ever ask about the supposed new show. The first published clue that there would never be a “Money Wars” came in an October 2015 interview with the Hartford Courant: (Link 9-6) 362

Orman started with this new reason for leaving CNBC, trying to find something besides “Money Wars” to replace one sham with another: Recently, I closed down "The Suze Orman Show," and the reason I did that I was wanted to know if I am still be happy without recognition and standing ovations. Then she moved on to this fake project as another replacement sham: I am starting a new version of an online course, a detailed course, and when that goes on sale there will be a study book that goes along with it. The working title is “Personal Finance 101." I want people to start learning about being smart about finances, no matter how old they are. And finally, the real reason for this interview: Q: You mentioned you pulled the plug on your CNBC show. Does that mean you've given up television for good? A: It depends. Right now we have a show to sell to Warner Brothers called "Money Wars." If it sells, then we will be back on the air in 2016. If not, that will be it for me on television and that's fine with me. I will continue to give talks; speaking can be as lucrative as TV. One more detail on Orman’s real plans that have nothing to do with a show called “Money Wars”: KT and I are building a home in the Bahamas and going to be living there full time, almost. We are known as the "fisher girls" and go fishing every day for five or six hours. We have become very self-sufficient and love it.

363

Even though I had immediately added an online article predicting that Orman’s big “Money Wars” headline was a sham, it didn’t give any pleasure to say, “I told you so,” when I knew that more people had been fooled, distracted, and plundered by her schemes in the meantime. But that one little mention about the ill-fated “Money Wars” show wasn’t going to be enough. People were asking when the show was going to air—I know by the search terms people used to get to my web pages that many were looking for information about Orman’s upcoming “Money Wars” show. Orman and her political lobbyist damage control PR shysters had to come up with a better way to slowly let the public know that there would be no “Money Wars” show after all. Orman and her political lobbyist cabal came up with a seriously concerning plan. They would get the United States armed forces to do Orman’s dirty work for her. She would pretend to be devoting all her time to educating members of the military, so who has time for a Money Wars show. The good news for Orman is that her political lobbyist publicist protector had donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of a congressman who had been appointed as Secretary of the Army, where he served from January 2016 until May 2016. Just before he was to leave his post, Patrick J. Murphy knowingly or unknowingly approved Suze Orman’s next predatory scheme—to use the United States military to cover up her previous cover up sham of this “Money Wars” show that was used to cover up the prepaid debit card and other scams. Orman made a deal to sign a pro bono contract that would last three and a half months, by which time she would have covered up everything with the silliest Suze Orman mirage. It did not give me great faith in the intelligence of our military that they fell for this scam. During those months, members of the military would have access to some of Orman’s already produced products, such as watching the videos Orman gave away for free on a whole other scam that involved the Today Show that was intercut with the Pope’s visit in a Macavelian play of good and evil, darkness and light. Orman’s Today Show giveaway scam was also filled with lies all the way around, but it will have to stay for now on the “cutting room floor of Suze Orman’s scams,” because this book is getting to be long. Orman needed an excuse to get out of that whole “Money Wars” sham. Why not fool and plunder the armed forces to do Orman’s dirty work for her? I’m sure this concoction brought more big laughs for Orman and her con artist publicity strategist friends.

364

365

Yes, Suze Orman was able to use the United States Armed Forces to paint a pseudo altruistic picture of why she was going to change from debuting the fake “Money Wars” television show that was never going to happen, to talking to a few army generals, taking some photos, having her ghostwriters put something together, doing a few meet-and-greets, giving access to some videos she had already created, and that would allow Orman to claim that she is busy serving the United States armed forces PRO-BONO to cover up the growing public awareness that she is a SCAMMER. How impressive! Not. Maybe the army played along because she is famous and surely made the usual kind of Suze Orman false promises that they believed, which they will eventually realize were shams, without admitting they were fooled. That’s the positive choice of interpretation on the military’s behalf. Note that as with most Orman scams, there is zero specific information about this “great work” she's supposedly going to do to “turn all of her knowledge and efforts toward the United States Armed Forces.”

366

Even though Orman’s deal was only regarding the reservists, she posted a big press release that supposedly was coming from “THE PENTAGON.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THE PENTAGON – Lt. Gen. Jeffrey W. Talley, chief of Army Reserve and commanding general, U.S. Army Reserve Command, and Ms. Suze Orman, award-winning personal finance expert, signed a four-year gratuitous services agreement Monday that will strengthen soldiers’ financial readiness through an informational video series, town hall discussions, base visits, and written material. They will address savings goals, investments, creditworthiness, debt elimination, the Dept. of Defense’s newly-developed retirement system, and other questions and concerns facing soldiers and their families throughout different stages of their personal and professional lives.

When I saw that Orman had been brought on to introduce reservists to “the Dept. of Defense’s newly-developed retirement system,” it brought me back to soon after Orman and I met in the 1990s, when PG&E paid her $250,000 to convince their employees to take their new early retirement program that, from what I’ve heard, was in many cases more beneficial to the company than to the employees. It would have been easy for PG&E to find more qualified financial experts to do the job, but Suze Orman would say whatever they wanted her to say, for a price—the modus operandi that would become an earmark of her career. As Orman’s manager Binky Urban said all those years ago, “Great. Finally an author who knows she can’t write.” Seeing Orman being brought on for similar purposes made me concerned about what scams she was going to be running on those reservists, along with giving them access to online videos and whatever bits and pieces of useful information she could throw together without too much effort in-between her continuing money grabs. I also had concerns that the Armed forces apparently didn’t even bother to do a simple search on this person’s name, where they would have easily found many troubling articles and our documentary film, which was the #1 search result for “Suze Orman” on YouTube at the time. Actually, it would be more concerning if the Secretary of the Army and all the lieutenants and other military personnel involved did know about these damning materials, but didn’t care.

367

Then the Secretary of the United States Army sent a Twitter post calling Suze Orman “a Great American!” Check out this public Twitter message to con artist Suze Orman by Patrick J. Murphy:

368

Based on Orman’s tweet, it appears that this big “armed forces” deal was only for three and a half months, just enough time to cover up the whole “Money Wars” and some other recent and earlier scams and shams. This cover wouldn’t inconvenience or require any kind of dedicated effort from Orman, beyond a few celebrity meet-and-greets where she got to enjoy the “celebrity worship,” and giving access to her videos and other information. After those few months, she could walk away, leaving the United States Army with less integrity and worse for the wear—as she’s done to people and companies along her scamming way. Murphy was only an interim Secretary of the Army for a four- month stint that ended just two weeks after he knowingly or unknowingly gave credence to a con artist’s latest sham and helped her cover up her previous scam attacks on our homeland.

369

Yes, that’s the same Patrick J. Murphy, who at the time was the acting Secretary of the U.S. Army. A Google search took two seconds to find that in 2014, Hilary Rosen’s SKDK gave a donation of $3,500 to none other than Patrick J. Murphy: (Link 9-7) I don’t personally know if any kind of political lobbying was at work in Murphy’s extreme praise for Orman and this whole cover up Army sham deal, but Rosen is protective of Suze Orman to a troubling degree, and she is a powerful political lobbyist, whose handiwork you can see in the same kind of fake headlines and dirty manipulations in her association with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which I think would be much more appealing to voters if it were covered with that stench.

And, wait for it... 3, 2, 1...

Yes, of course… If Suze Orman had her way, that one unseen Twitter message would have been the only mention by her to end the Money Wars sham that was made up to keep journalists from reporting the real reason she left CNBC, and soon after, QVC and O Magazine. The same journalists who never bothered to ask what happened with Orman’s bit Approved card “experiment,” were also silent when it came to the disappearance of the fake “Money Wars” show, whose headlines they had knowingly or unknowingly published as real news the previous year.

370

In the Facebook post where Orman confirmed the ending of her “Money Wars” sham with her new “Armed Forces” sham, she had said: I have decided to turn all of my knowledge and efforts toward the United States Armed Forces. To the men and women who have given of themselves so we can remain free. So what was Orman really doing during the next three and a half months, while she was supposedly dedicating her time to educating our Armed Forces, pro bono, of course? A whole lot more scams, shams, and shenanigans! Now brought to you by Hay House Publishers, and featured on the Home Shopping Network. More of Orman’s opportunities were drying up as people started hearing about Suze Orman being a scammer, and finally taking time to look it up and see the evidence for themselves. But there’s always money to be found, so Orman did an appearance at a Real Estate Expo and took on other money making endorsements while supposedly turning “all her efforts” toward the United States Armed Forces, because tens of millions of dollars (or more) just isn’t enough. Here is one example of Suze Orman turning “all her efforts” toward supporting our armed forces:

371

Here Orman is doing her “pro bono military work” in the sun:

Some more selfless work for THE PENTAGON:

372

And a hint of more army work to come:

Orman also obviously signed a deal for some kind of dental plan infomercial disguised as trustworthy advice in May 2016:

373

Bringing the Suze Scams to Home Shopping Network Around the same time CNBC let Orman go, QVC finally got rid of their financial scammer too, after getting a whole lot of one star reviews for her flawed products, and coming to our online presentation numerous times. At that point, Home Shopping Network's president Bill Brand (who I knew as a more intelligent guy than to do something like this when we worked together at KCAL-TV) made the unfortunate decision to bring the Suze Scams to HSN, including her usual sweepstakes/contest shenanigans that have brought questions in the past of whether the promised winnings were ever actually given, and to whom. Orman’s previous questionable giveaways included her probably fake $50,000 Money Class contest on OWN that came with a video where Orman read off a few first names with an overly effusive demeanor that certainly smelled like lying Suze Orman running another deception. Watch the OWN contest announcement and see Orman’s deceptive demeanor for yourself: Link 9-8 Oprah had gotten slammed for using a tricky tweet to fool her followers into thinking she was going to give them more money, before revealing that her cryptic question, “Who wants some money” was just a commercial for Orman’s Money Class show. It is one more example of Orman corrupting people to be dishonest like her.

374

In 2016, Orman brought back the same fake contest scheme as she and HSN bribed viewers to buy her crummy product with widely advertised promises of a $25,000 sweepstakes. Orman used her “financial expert” clout to tell viewers that they “couldn’t afford to miss this.”

Like other Suze Orman schemes, the sweepstakes was sent through her publicist’s media blast machine, with this description: (Link 9-9)

Would being financially free be easier if you had an extra pile of cash? Enter HSN's Suze Orman's First Step to Financial Freedom Sweepstakes and you could win a $25,000 cash prize that you could use to put toward your mortgage, pay off some credit cards, or whatever else you choose. This sweepstakes has expired.

What insightful advice from this self-proclaimed, “financial expert of the world,” to suggest that people should look for financial freedom by spending fifty-four bucks to enter a sweepstakes contest, even if it wasn’t likely to be one more Suze Orman pseudo sweepstakes scam. Before Orman's HSN product even went on sale, her Home Shopping Network product page was filled with five star reviews, each with the revealing disclaimer that, “Person received free product as part of an internal program,” which indicates that they were written by Home Shopping Network employees as part of their job—more Suze Orman deceptions!

375

Note that those and many other similar reviews were posted before Orman even sold her kit at HSN, so they were clearly posted by Home Shopping Network employees or friends, with the same 2 out of 2 helpful votes on each one. Looks like a Suze sham!

376

At this link, you can read a whole lot of one-star reviews from disappointed customers who had actually bought the same basic kit on QVC: Link 9-10

Watch Orman's Home Shopping Network promo, beginning with these narcissistic BS words from the lying SCAMMER herself: “What sets me apart is that I speak in truths, not just words.” (Link 9-11)

Beyond concerns about a financial advisor suggesting that buying a $54 product to enter even a legitimate sweepstakes, a quick look at the legal terms of the contest reveals, as did her previous contest at OWN, easy strategies for Orman and HSN to avoid giving anyone a cent of that sweepstakes money. Here is the full document, a big file that you may have to zoom into: Link 9-11a

377

An excerpt from the HSN sweepstakes agreement:

On or about April 22, 2016, a random drawing from all eligible entries will be conducted to determine the winner. The winner will be required to execute and return an Affidavit of Eligibility and Release and a W-9 Form (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number) within seven (7) days of first attempted notification. Should the winner fail to submit the required documents within the time allotted, an alternate winner may or may not be selected.

Note that if a winner ever was selected, if that winner didn’t jump through those very specific time deadline hoop fast enough, or if Orman and HSN didn’t get the information to the right address in time (oops!) HSN and Orman got to keep the money. “An alternate winner may OR MAY NOT be selected.”

All sweepstakes determinations will be made by HSN and will be final. HSN reserves the right to terminate the promotion and award the prize in a random drawing from all eligible entries received prior to termination in the event that the promotion is compromised in any way. HSN reserves the right to disqualify any individual determined by HSN, in its sole discretion, of tampering with, compromising, manipulating and/or otherwise inappropriately misusing the sweepstakes or sweepstakes entry process, thereby forfeiting any prize, if applicable.

The sweepstakes was set to begin on March 18 and end on April 15th, giving nearly a month for Orman and HSN to blast out their sweepstakes headlines so people would buy more of Orman’s “financial freedom kits” and be entered to win that wonderful $25,000. Spending $54 to enter Orman’s sweepstakes is your, “first step to financial freedom!”

378

Apparently, there was a way for people to sign up for the sweepstakes without spending the $54, which is a legal requirement for these sweepstakes, but Home Shopping Network made it very difficult to find, hiding an improperly labeled button so far into the system that even people looking for the non-purchase entry couldn’t find it.

Even those who paid fifty-four dollars to buy Orman’s kit, expecting the purchase to automatically come with chance to win the big “sweepstakes” had trouble getting in.

379

The HSN hosts said the big announcement of who won the sweepstakes would come on May 20th, during Orman’s next batch of Home Shopping Network appearances. May 20th came and went, but on May 21st, Orman made a big announcement that the big sweepstakes announcement was going to happen at 2 pm.

Yes! Exciting! I recorded the show to see if Orman’s demeanor while naming the winner would look as deceptive as when she tossed out those first names with her lyin’ face on for her equally questionable $50,000 dollar Money Class contest on Oprah Winfrey’s Network. I’ll save you the suspense. No prize was ever announced in any of Orman’s appearances on Home Shopping Network, or ever. Just like all of Orman’s other scams, she tossed this sweepstakes sham in the air, milked it for all it was worth, and then let it dissolve and disappear from the public consciousness, knowing journalists and government agencies would be too afraid of her protectors or unaware of what she was doing to even ask or check to see if those sweepstakes and contest prizes were ever given. No mention was made about the sweepstakes again, up to the publication date of this book. But what about the customers who spent $54 to enter the big sweepstakes? Some of them might want to know who won. Thus came the question of how Orman and HSN could cover up the sweepstakes scam so nobody would even dare to ask whether and who had won. Time for a shiny new Suze distraction scam!

380

All the better if she could make the distraction sham look altruistic, as Orman had done with that Change.org Senator Warren petition sham that helped cover up the ending of her prepaid debit card scam. Orman had a great new scamming tool in her pocket—the United States Military. Orman’s political lobbyist protectors had convinced the Army reserves to sign that agreement for Orman to take selfies with Army brass, do some meet-and-greets, and offer some of her financial advice videos and other information to reserve members. Orman bragged on about how she was doing this pro bono, without making a penny, but you know everything Suze Orman does is meant to cover up her scams or put more money into her pockets. This deal with the Army allowed her to do both at once. What better way for Orman to place herself in a false positive light and make sure nobody would question her sweepstakes prize disappearance than to give a dollar to the military from her $54 will and trust kit, a kit that Orman has also given out for free in the past, with questions about the safety of asking users to upload their most private financial information onto Orman’s servers, especially given that lawsuit about her FICO kit making more money by selling users’ private information to creditors.

381

But of course, making money by telling Home Shopping Network viewers that they NEED to buy her now “charitable” kit is not just about somber giving to our armed services—it’s also lots of ear-pulling fun!

Plundering the public is so much fun! In her HSN appearance at the appointed time for announcing the sweepstakes winner, Orman not only deceptively avoided giving the sweepstakes prize, and not only exaggerated her role with the reservists, but she also put a final nail in the coffin of her Money Wars scam. This is the baloney Orman spewed instead of the promised sweepstakes announcement. (Link 9-12) So, here’s a new part of my life, everybody, that you probably are not aware of, that I’m going to make you aware of now. As you know, a year ago, I shut down my Suze Orman Show, I shut down a whole lot of things, and why did I do that? Because I decided it was time that Suze Orman serves her country, and that I give back to the men and women of the armed forces, who’ve literally given their lives for my freedom, for your freedom. So last week I signed a gratuitous—which means I don’t get paid for it—service contract with the Pentagon, with the national, you know, the army national reserve, to be the official financial educator of the armed forces.

382

Once again, Orman inflated and lied about her credentials, just as she has fudged her credentials from the beginning of her career. An armed forces officer saw the HSN clip of Orman claiming to be, “the official financial educator of the armed forces,” and explained that such a position would require approval from Congress. Even according to the fine print in her own press release, that is not even close to the designation Orman received, but who’s going to notice or say a thing about Orman’s lies now, after all the other lies she’s gotten away with telling? Seriously! Playing our armed forces like fools.

Orman’s giddy, excited, and joyful wish that everyone have a “Happy Memorial Day!” in this video that was posted by Suze Orman and some of the military Facebook pages brought some corrections from fans. Apparently the military folks on hand didn’t want to upset Orman by telling her that Memorial Day was different from the Fourth of July.

383

Orman also started using the Army in interviews to protect her from scrutiny by critics of her scams. In May, Australia’s Women’s Agenda published an interview that Orman actually told the journalist was worth $200,000, since she charges $100,000 for a thirty minute talk—clearly it was Orman who wanted to use the publication to counteract the growing awareness of her scams. (Link 9-13)

384

Such is the appeal of Suze Orman that she’s usually paid $US100,000 for a 30 minute talk, but it wasn’t always that way. So when I got to spend a whole hour with this personal finance guru, I felt instantly richer.

Orman herself brought up her critics in this article, as she often does, saying, “I don’t say much to my critics anymore, because my critics I can all buy with my little finger.” (Does that sound like a normal thing for a trustworthy financial advisor to say, especially knowing how she accumulated all that money?) Orman then launched into the same frequently recited distortion of the Indian wisdom quote mentioned earlier, which is intended to refer to keeping one’s focus on higher spiritual purposes while walking through the yapping of the marketplace. To such a being, Orman is one of the loudest yapping dogs.

In the May 2016 article, Orman explained: “I have always imagined myself as the elephant and I will keep walking and it does not matter who is yapping at my heels and I will, and I have, got to exactly where I wanted to go.”

Orman is priding herself in being like an elephant that keeps walking (or in Orman’s analogy, who keeps scamming) while the dogs (those trying to protect the public from those scams) are barking below, trying to warn people and alert journalists and the authorities. (“woof, woof.”) The article also claims that Oprah Winfrey “regards Suze as her personal finance guru,” which I’d guess is at minimum a serious stretch of the truth. Yes, I’m sure Oprah is trusting her billions of dollars to a financial actress who never took a single finance-related college course in her life? Wouldn’t recommend that, dear Oprah! In the article, Orman brought up and practically admitted her ploy to use the armed services to keep her free from repercussions for her thieving financial frauds or any future regulations of her scams: She recalls a Boston radio show called the “I hate Suze Orman Show” which had ratings through the roof as those for and against debated the worth of Suze. But her advice has never been a problem for regulators. In fact the US Army Reserve has just signed a gratuitous agreement with her to advise its soldiers on money and retirement – a deal that only went ahead on her terms to work for free.

385

In June 2016, another article appeared in various Australian media outlets, with a stupid headline backed up with what is now described as Orman’s credentials as a US government advisor to the military. That’s a lot of mileage for taking a few selfies with Army brass and letting some reservists watch your videos for a few months! From the Herald Sun: (Link 9-13a) When the economy slows down women do better than men, according to Suze Orman Orman has advised millions of people, including American talk show queen Oprah, pre and post the global financial crisis.

Ms Orman, who is currently working with the US government to advise military personnel on their finances after service, said the slow pace of global growth was likely to strengthen a woman’s genetic tendency to nurture and therefore her work ethic outside of the family home. Around the same time, Orman’s publicity strategist political lobbyist media broker Approved card co-conspirator Hilary Rosen got con artist Suze Orman and her partner in crime, Kathy Travis tickets to the 2016

White House Correspondent’s Dinner.

386

Orman should be doing this pose on her way to court to face charges for her prepaid debit card and other frauds, instead of being checked on the way in to such a prestigious gathering!

The “Cabal” in action

387

You can be sure the Orman cabal made sure many news outlets mentioned Orman’s presence at this prestigious event in glowing terms, with a special touch of Orman’s sociopathic projection. NPR put it this way: (Link 9-14)

For personal finance guru Suze Orman, who held court at multiple parties through the night, the entire scene is good — a chance for Washington to be something approaching its truest, kindest self. “I think people play their roles very well on television,” she said, in between snapping selfies with fans. “I think when the TV comes off, everybody likes everybody,” commenting on the fact that at events like these you often see Republicans glad-handing with Democrats. “And I think they're all good people... When it comes down to it, they're nothing but people trying to make a buck.”

Did you catch that? Orman said that when it comes down to it, all of the respected politicians and journalists attending the White House Correspondent’s Dinner are nothing but people trying to make a buck. Talk about sociopathic projection.

388

The cabal even got Bernie Sanders to pose with the scammer, at the same time that Orman’s sponsor, Rosen, was seriously working against the Sanders campaign with a whole lot of dirty tricks during Hillary Clinton’s democratic primary campaign. Hey Bernie, if Suze Orman gave you anything, burn it!

Lest anyone thought Orman was a Sanders fan:

It always seems to depend on who is paying Orman and her protector and pal, political lobbyist and strategist, Hilary Rosen, who has been paid big bucks by Deborah Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC over the years, and was apparently brought on again to keep Bernie Sanders from being named the democratic nominee. They wanted Hillary Clinton, and they wanted Elizabeth Warren. It is amazing and scary how this high school style “mean girls” group can gain enough power to potentially change the outcome of an election!

389

In this photo from June 2015, It almost looks as though the stylists were told to make Clinton and Warren look like Suze Orman clones. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Hilary Rosen is Orman’s main protector and a strategist for Clinton and Warren. Presidential candidate Clinton even wore a Suze Orman style leather jacket in April 2016, when she spoke at an LGBT event for Rosen’s most important cause. Perhaps Clinton may have been alluding to Orman’s jacket fame when she said, “Don’t you love my jacket?”

390

Less than two years earlier, SKDK’s client was apparently Senator Warren, based on Rosen’s “Run Warren Run” campaign and Orman’s headline blast that she wanted Elizabeth Warren as president instead of Hillary Clinton (but don’t worry, Rosen will make sure Clinton keeps her buddy Suze Orman free from proper prosecution for her financial crimes). Warren is obviously still a Rosen client, whether official or unofficial, based on the cabal’s political lobbyist and strategist’s push to increase Warren’s influence status in every way possible, with planted headlines and high prestige rumors. Being familiar with Rosen’s style from watching her involvement in Orman’s scams, I can recognize her dirty prints, or perhaps those of others like her, on everything from the voter disenfranchisements, to calling the election for Clinton on the eve of California’s big vote, to the wordings of Warren’s uncharacteristically childish insults toward Donald Trump, and perhaps in the set-up of Trump to decimate the Republican ticket, leaving the public no choice but to vote for Hillary Clinton. Dear reader, don’t you think it’s time to clean all this Orman/Rosen cabal corruption up? It doesn’t require millions of dollars of investment and detailed documentation and plans or dismantling of huge corporations. Just stop letting Suze Orman and her cabal influence politics and the media. Bring the hand of justice to these unsavory hooligans who have been all too happy to steal from the poor, decimate the middle class, and plunder our country. Even if they bring money, stop taking that money if it means you have to protect wrongdoing such as Suze Orman’s scams. Don’t succumb to playing high school games like sending Rosenesque mean tweets back and forth while shill reporters and planted commenters rejoice in watching politicians like Warren get into the gutter to have a mud fight. Dear Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren, even if their dirty tricks got you what you want, it is a failure to hitch your wagon to these scammers. Take the this great nation’s discourse to a higher level than bully punches and false headlines. Show integrity. And the same goes for everyone else who has supported, enabled, and profited from the scams of Suze Orman and her cabal. I invite journalists and government agencies to use any and all of the research I’ve offered to inform and protect the public and to bring justice. I also welcome the influential celebrities, politicians, and others who have made the mistake of supporting Suze Orman’s scams and shams to help undo the damage that has been done.

391

Best wishes and blessings to our world. S.K. Janis out.

392