We Interrupt this Program to Bring You Breaking News

Ok, it’s not all that new since these emails are old, but we want to respond to them. This is Tracy Coenen’s response to our discussion about her background checking activities, and her cyber-harrassment of Melissa.

First of all, Tracy, you are not an “investigator”. You are not law enforcement. You are a public accountant. Your clients do not hire you to do background checks on their employees – forensic accounting is just following receipts and accounts, looking for discrepencies. Calling yourself an investigator is not going to cover up the fact that you did some pretty unethical things here.

More in Part 2.

From: Pink Truth [mailto:pinktruth@gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 7:54 AM
Subject: OKay, pretend you’re a rational human being

Do these people not understand public records? Do they have no capacity to understand the following:

1. Someone puts up a defamatory website in Oct
2. I am a fraud investigator, therefore I investigate and find out it’s Melissa
3. I do a public records search on Melissa as part of my investigation
4. I later share some of that information with someone else, because it’s public.

I guess I have no barometer for this because what I did is exactly what I do everyday. There’s absolutely nothing underhanded to it. Do other people understand it, or should I be concerned about what they might thinK?

From: Pink Truth [mailto:pinktruth@gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: OKay, pretend you’re a rational human being

I guess I’m thinking that they just don’t understand what’s out there as legitimately public. And if they don’t understand, then I’ll assume that our members don’t understand either. Do “they” really think I’d be so stupid as to do something illegal and then give the results to Julz? Come on. So I guess if you hear any rumblings or questions, can you make sure peope understand it’s no big deal to you, and then also have them ask me. And make sure to say… she investigates fraud for a living… hello…

From: Pink Truth [mailto:pinktruth@gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: OKay, pretend you’re a rational human being

Oh well… okay… well if you hear any chatterings about it, just make sure they know they can ask etc and that lots of stuff is totally public and people dont’ realize it. I don’t want to bring attention to this issue if I don’t have to, but I want to make sure that everyone has the chance to know it’s on the up-and-up. I am so sick of self-scrutinizing my every move.

Tracy Coenen CPA, MBA, CFE: A Private Dick, Part 2

When Tracy Coenen decides to launch one of her “investigations”, she tells everyone that she’s going to do her fraud investigator thing. Which basically means she’s going to make a wild guess, and then she’s going to run a background check on you if she can figure out your real name.

Usually a lot of innocent people get banned when she starts getting paranoid. She’s not actually very good at investigating, because 90% of the time she’s completely wrong about her assertions.

1. She was wrong about PinkPonies identity. (She claimed that PinkPonies was posting elsewhere as “Cloud on My Tongue” – she was dead wrong.)

2. She was wrong about Cray Zee’s identity back in 2006. She insisted that it was Jodi Evan, who lives – where? South Dakota or something? Even though Crazy Zee clearly stated she was in the Southeastern U.S…..Tracy still kept crowing about her mad skills as an investigator. It took PC looking into it herself to discover who Cray Zee really was – and PC wasn’t interested in posting her info on her blog. Tracy tried to post Cray Zee’s address in PC’s comments, and she had to delete it.

3. Tracy Coenen also insisted that “Disillusioned” was Lori. (Posting on the MyPinkTruth site). She was dead wrong about that as well.

4. Tracy thought nobody in her secret board was scared of her — again she was dead wrong, as evidenced here.

5. Most recently she thought she knew who the “mole” was on her NEW private board – and not only was she wrong, but she banned two apparently innocent people over it.

There are many, many examples of Tracy insisting that she knows something, and being completely and totally wrong – and yet she always crows about her skills as a private eye (which for the millionth time, she IS NOT).

Here’s how Tracy describes herself on her business website:

“….With top-notch investigative intuition and exceptional technical expertise,….”

What a joke. Her “intuition” is just her paranoid delusions, which she thinks qualifies as investigative skill. (<—-this being our opinion, of course. ***waving to Tracy’s attorney, if he’s reading LOL*****)

Tracy Coenen is probably the worst investigator on the internet, in our opinion. When you are investigating a situation, common sense tells you that if all the evidence doesn’t add up, you’re missing something. In Tracy’s case – she doesn’t care if the evidence is pointing in a different direction. She appears to base all of her conclusions on her own paranoia.

Real professional.

And the FLETC Trainwreck Continues….

One of our regular visitors here at PTLies works for **deleted** (Imagine that – an ACTUAL investigator who does background checks for a living. Irony? Anyone?)
Anyway, most of her coworkers have federal law enforcement backgrounds, so she asked them what they thought of Tracy’s FLETC training. Here’s her post:

A couple of them wanted to know why I wanted to see the info (they’re curious by nature!). I told them about Tracy, her “crusade” on PT, and the information about her that was coming out. They all agreed that she must have been to FLETC as an intern. Very few states require a probabtion officer go through FLETC as it is very expensive and includes a lot of training PO’s just don’t need. On the off chance that she took the course as a requirement of a job in federal law enforcement (FBI, CIA, Secret Service, ATF, ICE, U.S. Marshal Service, or any other “1811″ job) the certificate would only be for the classroom training. They agreed that if she passed the class, but did not end up in a federal position it would most likely be because she either didn’t pass the physical or psychological exams or was denied a security clearance

There are several reasons her background investigation could have been unfavorably adjudicated. Most people that are denied clearances have:

- something in their background that could make them susceptible to blackmail, coercion, or exploitation (something that could cause them embarrassment or ruin if it were public knowledge)
- have established some sort of pattern of irresponsible behavior (history of repeated drug or alcohol issues, history of repeated financial problems, history of mental health issues, etc.)
- have falsified information on their SF-86 (the standard security clearance application)
- sources interviewed during their investigation have not recommended them or have had unfavorable things to say about them
- have some reason to have their honesty or loyalty to the U.S. questioned

Oh…..they also agreed that it was stupid and dangerous to mention the fact that you had trained at FLETC, much less post a copy of your FLETC certificate, on the internet. They said that anyone who had actually held a clearance would know better than to do something so wreckless.

Tracy Coenen: Sought-After Expert?

Read this article:

http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/jobseeker/tools/ept/contribEditorPost.html?post=24

Apparently in professional networking circles, it is a big faux pas to go around declaring yourself an “expert”. Titles like expert, diva, guru, and the like are terms that other people bestow upon you, if you merit it. Calling yourself an expert when nobody else does is considered gauche.

Interesting.

http://www.sequence-inc.com/company/expert.htm

So Tracy says she’s a “nationally recognized expert on fraud”. This is interesting, since her name doesn’t come up anywhere in connection with fraud investigation — except where she references herself.

Tracy’s Early Years: Part 1

Because Tracy Coenen likes to trumpet her past achievements, and because she purposely exaggerates the importance of her work history, we’d like to present a series on the truth about Tracy’s background.

First we would like to discuss Tracy’s educational background, because it leads us to more interesting revelations.

She majored in Criminology. She did not major in Accounting. This is interesting, because in order to sit for the CPA exam in Wisconsin, you must have a certain number of credit hours in accounting.

http://www.beckercpa.com/wisconsin/index.cfm

So this leads us to the conclusion that she took at least 15 credit hours in accounting (what is that, like 4 classes?) while getting her MBA, which then qualified her to sit for the exam.

This leads us to other questions. Why did she major in Criminology? And why did she go to that criminal investigators’ course at FLETC? Learning FBI tactics in apprehending criminals is HARDLY the work of an accountant.

If you go to Tracy’s website and look at the tiny JPG of her certificate from FLETC, you can see that it’s impossible to view the date and name of the program she was in. This is significant, as we shall see.

Here you can read the registration requirements to attend the training at FLETC:

http://fletc.gov/training/student-registration-information/basic-student-registration.html/

FLETC trains federal law enforcement employees from 80 different agencies. You must be sent to FLETC by your employer. Tracy was never a federal employee, as far as she’s revealed.

She was, however, a criminology student who apparently aspired to a career in law enforcement at one time. Here’s the college intern program at FLETC:

http://fletc.gov/student-information/college-intern-program/

Notice that in order to attend this program, you must declare an intention to seek a career in federal law enforcement: like becoming an FBI agent, for example.

more in Part 2.

Reserve Your Copy Now!

On bookshelves March 2008!

“My goal is if people hear fraud, they’d think of Tracy.”

Oh believe me, Tracy, we do. We do.

Read this article in the Business Journal for yourself.

I’m laughing so hard I can’t type any more.

It’s Okay For Tracy to Call Someone a Liar, but…

Look out. Tracy is calling her lawyer.

Why?

Because she claims a man named Bill Newsome has spread lies about her.

It’s in her post on her business blog today:

The Fraud Files : “Bill Newsome’s Usana Connection

As Tracy Coenen states in the last sentence of her post “His unsubstantiated accusations of fraud are defamatory, and Bill has crossed the line with me.”

Oh really?

Well what about Tracy’s post about Mr. Briggs? You remember him. He’s the man that Tracy says she gave a “significant sum of money”to for a carpentry project. She called Mr. Briggs a thief on her business blog and even published his phone number so people would call and harass him.

Why is THAT not defamatory?

First of all, most people know better than to give someone a “significant sum of money” for a job up front. I would certainly think someone who bills themselves as a fraud examiner would know better.

Second, why are Tracy’s unsubstantiated accusations against Mr. Briggs apparently not considered by her to be defamatory? Why?

Third, why does Tracy need to air her personal financial tribulations on her business blog? Does that look or sound professional to you? Shouldn’t she have other avenues of recourse, given all of her supposed experience?

Fourth, could posting someone’s phone number publicly, in this context, be considered harassment? Bullying?

I guess Tracy doesn’t apply the same rules and standards to herself as she does to people like this Bill Newsome that she’s going after.

My baloney has a first name, it’s H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

Tracy’s USANA “Investigation”

I realize no one on the Mary Kay boards gives a rip about Usana, but still. This is funny.

On Barry Minkow’s site, you can read her “investigative report” into Usana (click on the link that says “Forensic CPA Challenges USANA CEO”)

http://www.frauddiscovery.net/

go ahead – read the last paragraph on page 1.

Okay, did you catch that? The “reference” at the bottom? The only reason you reference something is when you have a document, fact, or data point to back up your statement. All Tracy says in the second reference is the snarky “Assuming one understands basic business concepts blah blah blah”. This whole document, while it might contain valid points on MLM, is a whole lot of blather. She starts this report as if she’s doing an accounting investigation into USANA, and all she did was regurgitate what you can find on any of the anti-MLM websites.

It’s so unserious and unprofessional as to be laughable. My cat could have written this, assuming he could type.

**EDITED TO ADD***

Tracy claims that Barry Minkow paid her for this report. I find this shocking, since she didn’t really investigate anything.

Tracy’s USANA “Investigation”

I realize no one on the Mary Kay boards gives a rip about Usana, but still. This is funny.

On Barry Minkow’s site, you can read her “investigative report” into Usana (click on the link that says “Forensic CPA Challenges USANA CEO”)

http://www.frauddiscovery.net/

go ahead – read the last paragraph on page 1.

Okay, did you catch that? The “reference” at the bottom? The only reason you reference something is when you have a document, fact, or data point to back up your statement. All Tracy says in the second reference is the snarky “Assuming one understands basic business concepts blah blah blah”. This whole document, while it might contain valid points on MLM, is a whole lot of blather. She starts this report as if she’s doing an accounting investigation into USANA, and all she did was regurgitate what you can find on any of the anti-MLM websites.

It’s so unserious and unprofessional as to be laughable. My cat could have written this, assuming he could type.

**EDITED TO ADD***

Tracy claims that Barry Minkow paid her for this report. I find this shocking, since she didn’t really investigate anything.