I'm Extorting P!phany! (and MommyGyver is going to help me!)
UPDATED 3/25/18 Rachel emailed me today, after months of nothing being said about the conspiracy between herself, and a member of the P!phany home office to have her competitor set up to be removed from the organization. In her email, she apologizes for "everything that went down" and involving me in her mess. Citing that she fell victim to the "MLM drama", and that this issue was ruining her life. She just wants to move on. She attempts to appeal to my humanity. Reminding me that I'm a "good person", a mother, and a businesswoman. Everyone deserves second chances. See, the thing that makes me chuckle here is: I know I'm a good person. I don't need an extortionist to confirm or deny that for me. And the business that she so callously attempted to destroy when I was doing my job and investigating her claims- I built myself. It isn't a direct sales or MLM channel where I just "call it" my business but the brand takes all the risk. *I* take all my risks. I pay for everything I do and say. It's on me to make sure that I publish the truth- even if the truth turns out that the accuser is really the guilty party. And for my effort to uncover the truth of her claims, she threatened me and everything I've worked so hard to build- but then has the gaul to come back to appeal to my humanity after she slandered my name everywhere. I'm sorry, my pity ran out months ago. And what of the woman she attacked? Has she compensated her in any way? Has she apologized and made her wrongs right? What about Spencer, the compliance officer that participated in this nonsense? Clearly he should have known better, but has she attempted to make peace with him? It's a common thing in the MLM world lately for women to attack each other viciously and relentlessly. These people claim that their families' well being depend on these jobs. But it appears that only their own well being is really what matters- as they seemingly rip whatever they can take off of the next woman's table if they feel so inclined. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Rachel, you, with no second thought- attempted to destroy this woman's livelihood. Your actions cost a corporate officer his job. And when you didn't get your way with me, you slandered my name, attacked my integrity, and threatened to destroy what I have built with my bare hands from absolutely nothing. Big risk equals a big reward or a big loss. You are seeing what happens when your risks taken are to target the reward of others' hard work. You reap what you sow. I don't feel sorry for you. Not any more sorry than you did when you plotted and schemed to hurt the woman in this article for no apparent reason other than because you don't like her. I don't feel sorry for you any more than the person who trusted you to conspire with you should- after you broke his trust and sent me the communications that implicated him in your plan. You played, or attempted to play, EVERYONE. You threatened a multi-million dollar business, vowing to not stop until they were "exposed". You're nothing short of lucky that they didn't pursue you legally and that your victim didn't join them. As for me, I'm still here. Still writing. I don't see your public admittance of your participation in this. I don't see you retracting the libel you plastered everywhere about this website and me, personally. But, thankfully- I do have your email where you admit your participation and I'll happily add it here, below. Do I forgive you for threatening me, and for your subsequent attacks on me? Sure. But just as I can't remove what you said about me, I won't remove what you did to everyone involved here. If this action of yours is harming your life, the lesson here is to not take actions such as you did to harm others' lives. There is a reason for the saying we all quote about the personality of Karma. She's a bitch. PS. She loves yogurt too. Also, a final thought:
Don't ever address me like you know me. You don't get to speak my first name to me casually, you don't get to reference my motherhood, and you have no concept of the work I put into my REAL business. Never speak to me like you're anything like me- and don't dare compare our humanity. It is MY humanity and sensitivity to the victims of your actions that prevent me from removing your name. Where is YOUR humanity for them? When you truly understand the harm you caused everyone involved in your manipulation, then you can dare reference my humanity. Chew on that.
UPDATED 12/22/17 A company representative confirmed with me today that Spencer, the compliance officer involved in this transaction, was let go immediately upon hearing of this group of incidents. The representative told MommyGyver that they were unaware of this behavior and "It was grounds for immediate termination".
It is refreshing to know that the issue was addressed immediately. Personally, I feel terrible for the rep that was targeted in this way. IF she was getting any special treatment seems to be overshadowed by the horribly vile way these other parties conducted themselves. Other members of Rachel's downline have stepped forward anonymously to report incidents of bullying from her, as well as accusations of her using fake Facebook profiles to attempt to discuss the target and gain personal information or further insight into her life. One alleges that Nancy* was not the only rep that Rachel was plotting against. It seems like she worked hard to seek anything to target this woman. One party that was involved expressed remorse for her own involvement, stating- "I was simply helping Rachael cause she asked me to." Had she known Rachel intended to share her conversation, she may have thought twice about her own involvement. Members of the target's downline have also come forward in support of her, claiming that they feel she was being targeted because she is very well liked and is successful with the brand. Original article below: You know, I get a lot of really pissed off reps from all kinds of companies contacting me about this or that. Most of it is an issue with policy- Agnes and Dora won't give me my pre-order money back (pre-orders are non refundable, says so right in the contract) and I don't write about it because it's a contract issue, not a fraud. There's a former leader in LuLaRoe that's currently working for another company. She was of course a source of information for MommyGyver at one point- but at first, she was a source of headache. She was absolutely the most Kool-aid soaked team player I had encountered and we spent hours and hours arguing about what my end game was, and how stupid I was for holding LuLaRoe responsible for their actions. That's how she was. Then when the compensation plan changed, she flipped to informant- but a lot of the information she gave me was false or grossly exaggerated. What's she up to now? The same bag of tricks as the old place. Using her platform at the new place to manipulate her downline and consistently bash LuLaRoe for things they didn't actually do to her. Yes, I know. Yes, I offered that to both companies. Why? When I write, I have to fish through a lot of bullshit, if we're being direct here. I have to compare what can be proven to what is only speculation. With LuLaRoe, it's much easier because I was there, I can say yes I personally saw this happen. This allows me to rattle off an article faster. Now, in the earlier days of this blog, I reached out to LuLaRoe quite a bit to get insight into an allegation. That is, before they filed suit against me to reveal my sources. Sources that I still vow to protect... kind of. I have said it time and time again in this blog and all across my social media platform. My position is neutral. I wish to protect the participants in an organization, but I will not participate in defamation or tortious interference, or add the latest to the mix... extortion. A pet peeve of mine from day one was parties wedging me into their disputes. The war of the GOOB groups set one group against another simply because I wrote about one option on my blog and not the other. The payment for that was GOOB group owners getting angry with me, of course, because I didn't have their back over the other. Why do we need to compete? Can't there be more than one group that's successful in helping women exit the business? But man, oh man, there's something about leggings that makes these ladies batshit crazy. My personal Facebook page was targeted by the owner of a group (yes, I have screenshots of her telling her people to report me for pornography). And then my inbox was filled with screen shots of them trying to damage my reputation because I fired back at them and published the communications. The next war was the war of the Pro-Hos. That's professional hostesses that run massive, often pay-to-play groups that get them freebies and money. Oh that was a joy. In this situation, there were actual screenshots of one pro-ho telling another that she was going to sick MommyGyver on her if she didn't get off the internet. What.the.fuck? My phone rang constantly, with one in hysterics and the other telling me she was reporting her competitor to the IRS for tax evasion because she knows she's not filing taxes on the money she brought in from her pro-ho group. Again I say- Leggings, what the fuck?
Enter now, Rachel Jokela. I knew Rachel was coming because the owner of P!phany reached out to me first. She had never done so before, but wanted me to know that this particular woman was threatening to air her dirty laundry all over the internet and mentioned me, not as MommyGyver, but by my legal name like she knew me personally or something. This is where my issue starts. I have never pretended that I would protect a party that was willfully manipulating a company. I never said I protect all my sources. I've publicly declared many a time that if I know the game, I'm going to share it. You don't get to use me to suit your needs. It's me that has to face the consequence of writing that nonsense, and it's me that will get dragged into court for being the tool to cause damage that is unjust. No, thank you anyway. So Dianne called and said something to the tune of- "This lady is coming to you, be warned. She said if she didn't get her way, she was coming to talk to you about her story." Great. Can't wait. These are always so much fun. So Rachel comes, as promised, and she drops screen shot upon screen shot in my personal inbox... which is annoying to begin with because lady, you don't know me. That's why there's a business page. In this barrage of screenshots, she proceeds to tell me not to publish it yet. She wants to see what the company is going to do first. Joy. Nah, I don't see you coming a mile away, lady. Not one bit. In the interim, my personal Facebook page was suspended and I was unable to respond to her messages. "Do you still want this info?" She must have figured out that I was suspended finally because she eventually reached out to my MommyGyver page. I didn't disclose to her that I had already heard what she was up to from multiple sources.
The gist of her complaint seems to have merit. She accuses P!phany of playing favorites, essentially allowing a woman named Nancy* to sell both LuLaRoe and P!phany at the same time- essentially violating the policies and procedures of both companies.
She explains in a letter she sent to P!phany that there is a mounting list of policies that Nancy* has violated including the following allegations: -Nancy* lives in France, not the United States, and therefore can not sell P!phany. -Nancy* mother, Joy*, holds Nancy's* inventory and ships it on behalf of Nancy*. She explains that Joy* is also a P!phany consultant, and if both Rachel and her husband can not sell the brand while living in the same household, why should Nancy's* mother hold and ship product on behalf of Nancy* from the same house she also manages her own inventory? -Nancy* is an active consultant for LuLaRoe, not GOOB and not leaving. Active. -Nancy* is promoting LuLaRoe in her P!phany group, having had a promotion recently giving away a Sarah cardigan to a winner who joins her LuLaRoe group. This was reportedly shared by Nancy* in her P!phany group. -Nancy* is actively recruiting for LuLaRoe- at the time of the letter Rachel sent to home office, she alleges that she had screenshots of Nancy* recruiting for LuLaRoe that same week. -She then explains that one of her friends reached out to Nancy* to feign interest in enrolling for LuLaRoe under Nancy* (presumably to "catch" her) and then sent the conversation to Spencer, the compliance officer at the home office. Unfortunately, once she realized I wasn't going to help her, she blocked me, and prevented me from being able to blow up the images she sent that I hadn't already grabbed. Here's a blurry copy (screenshot of the screenshot) of the email she claims to have sent home office:
She goes on to explain that she wishes that P!phany would uphold their own policies and procedures and she understands that if Nancy* is terminated, she would lose her own rank. But she asks for her termination anyway. All of these concerns are valid, I think. But here's where she loses me. Rachel threatens to leave P!phany if Nancy* is not terminated. But she doesn't stop there. She demands that P!phany keep her in the loop about what they plan to do about Nancy*. She "requests" a report on resolution by the end of day- on the day following when she sent the letter. My inner child stopped for a minute and said- "Who died and made you boss of the world?" So she sends this all to me with the caveat that she doesn't want me to release her name, although, she laughs "They are totally going to know it's me when you publish it". Yeah, they are because you threatened Dianne directly that you'd come to me if she doesn't fire Nancy*. Ouch. (Raises hand) I have additional questions: 1. I totally understand being really upset about the policy violations and I understand reporting it. But I don't understand the importance of you enough to sacrifice your own income if you're so successful simply because someone who is making you money isn't following P+P. This sounds more personal than that, to be honest. (could it be that you secretly enrolled with another company since then? I think perhaps! Pot, meet kettle. I don't know if either company has a non-compete with other DS or MLM or the extent of each contract.) 2. Why does P!phany have any reason to report anything to you? Why do they need to keep you in the loop? Maybe they're doing their own investigation and will get back to you? Oh, that's right- because you threatened to expose them in various LuLaRoe and P!phany chatter groups and to the (((gasp))) feared MommyGyver. You need to know when you can release your 'super secret weapon'. Gotcha. Here it is, and boom goes your dynamite plan! So this continues. I reach out to Dianne to confirm that she has in fact contacted me, and first asked me to hold off publishing, lest P!phany do what she demands. That's right- let's see if they can this chick- if not, you go ahead and publish. Thanks for your permission... I reach out to Nancy*, who is clearly aware of what's going on and refuses to speak to me because she's afraid of getting into trouble with P!phany. She said P!phany... not LuLaRoe. The storyline continues to evolve now. Rachel has resigned, she informed me- because they did not terminate Nancy*. She's a woman of her word too, because she came running right back to MommyGyver to execute the rest of her master plan last night. (cue up evil laugh track) The reason she's in my inbox now? Because P!phany will not give her 100% of her investment back. She elected to quit, P!phany's policy is 85% back- but Rachel wants more and she's going to use me to get it. She tells me about a "super shady" deal that Jack, the new boss at P!iphany, offered her where he said he would personally deliver the balance of the 100% to her. He offered to fly out to her, meet with her, pay her for her time, essentially- to give him feedback about the program and her perspective on what they can do better. This payment would be the remaining 15% of her inventory buyback- bringing her to the 100% she so desperately wanted. Jack, according to my conversation with Dianne, felt that this was a sound way to give her what she sought without breaking the company's policies and procedures and gaining a bit of valuable insight into the thought process of a leader now exiting the organization. Jack confirmed this to me on a call this afternoon. Rachel made a very big mistake here. I mean besides trying to use me to extort P!phany, she sent me the entire conversation with one of her friends where she claims that "Spencer is my guy" and "Jack is not pleased" and then they proceed to conspire to set Nancy* up and "catch her" recruiting.
She then includes the conversation with the plant who went to set up Nancy*. In this conversation, Nancy* says that she's resigned from LuLaRoe and just helping her relative who is still involved. She wants to be rid of LuLaRoe, but feels like she needs to help her. That doesn't sound like a smoking gun to me- and it doesn't sound like Nancy* is an active LLR consultant at all. It so happens that I have the list of all active consultants for LuLaRoe- accurate to October this year. 49,158 consultants on that list and Nancy* isn't on it. It appears through the screenshots Rachel herself sent to me, that those reaching out to her about LuLaRoe are in fact getting recruited. Nancy* says "Us" in her messages. "You don't get much more experienced than "us", but she's not on the active consultant list. Is it possible she is just helping her family member out? Either way, Rachel reported it. Move on, right? Wrong because "I need all answers to all things that are totally not my business." Then Rachel throws her buddy Spencer under the bus by sending me the entire chain of communication about Nancy* that she had with Spencer. The messages cover things from Spencer kissing Rachel's ass, to the two of them speaking very unprofessionally about Nancy*- and not in the capacity that one would think a compliance officer should. They stop for a moment to congratulate Spencer on now being full time with P!phany- I guess he missed the training on "professional communications" because... wow. I'm sure this will be the first time Nancy* sees this- or home office. But here's a few just for fun.
Did you happen to catch the last one where she admits to Spencer that Nancy* only manages people? Totally opposite of what we're pitching fits over here for... but hey... leggings, yo. And in these communications, she says to Spencer that she threatened to publish the whole ordeal in the LuLaRoe Defective Legging group. Spencer's response? He told her he can make that decision. But... he clearly can't because here we are. Because as a compliance officer, you'd think that your job wouldn't make you dead stop that conversation in its tracks and pick up the phone to tell your supervisor that this chick just threatened to out everyone if she didn't get her 100% refund. Yikes. He must have missed the training where you should report a possible issue of this magnitude to someone who can then handle it. Does this guy even show up to work trainings? Surely she's not an ally after all is said and done. No wonder why she wanted me to wait to publish. As long as that check comes, she's happy. It's not about policy- it's about extorting everyone to get her way. And below, the last screenshot- Spencer tell her that the rep has been reprimanded. But that's not enough for her. She wants her gone. Now.
Ah but Spencer... what the hell are you doing, man? "I want her to see that you're better than that French Wench."
Ouchies. Totes pro move bro. Totes. What are you thinking? I mean to be fair, there's a total possibility that this could not be Spencer she's conversing with. But based on the info enclosed here, it's clear whomever this is works at H.O. There's no reason at the moment to believe this isn't who Rachel says it is anyway. So as she's sending this to me for the second time, I'm looking at it again and realizing I have evidence of conspiracy between a P!phany employee (Spencer) and a woman who is clearly extorting the company. They both seem to have it out for Nancy*. After reading all of the texts and messages it was very clear to me what she was up to. Why on Earth would I cover for someone who is trying to extort a company because they won't break their own policy for her? Spencer seems to think they will in these text messages. A compliance officer... breaking the company policy. Nice. There was definitely a story here. If Nancy* is in fact breaking policy and the company is looking the other way, sure. There's a story. But they seem to have already reprimanded her for something. Why press on? No story. But there's also the story of Spencer, the wayward compliance officer (if these messages are actually Spencer) covering up this woman's threats to tarnish the company- not for not terminating Nancy*, but for not paying her off not to tell the world what, exactly? That she's really mad that it appears they allowed this woman to get away with something. But was yet punished somehow. I'm lost. And then the final story of how Rachel is really BIG mad about how MommyGyver is not a tool to use to extort companies, and threatening me because I saw through the plan doesn't really get you very far in story land... Did I contact P!phany? Oh yes. I do not participate in extortion, and if you're dumb enough to tell me multiple times that is what you're up to- and you had someone in home office acting with you in some capacity, yeah... you don't get my protection. You're dumb enough to send me screenshots of you and a home office employee conspiring to have someone terminated and you're mad I didn't blindly publish your nonsense?
I write about fraud, lady. I don't participate in it. You... are... acting very, very shady if not illegally- and you want me to help- all while you're boasting in my inbox about it? And while if Nancy* is really guilty here is one topic all of its own, (and in the screenshots with Spencer, compliance commando, he tells Rachel that Nancy* has been reprimanded) the real story is that you were big butthurt because you couldn't manipulate everyone to do exactly what you wanted them to- including pay you off. Bigger butthurt that the company saw you were being shady, and still tried to make you happy- but that wasn't enough for you. What's the company's perspective here? I guess that remains to be seen. No one is paying me to keep quiet about these issues, (no matter what Rachel thinks) and I'll wager bet they didn't know what Spencer was up to before I published this. They do now. Who wants to bet Spencer goes bye bye? So let's recap here- * Really pissy rep feels she's more important than another rep she admits she hates and claims reciprocates the feeling. (can't imagine why) * Really pissy rep and pal conspire to set up hated rep to gather information about her super questionable behavior and "catch" her. * Really pissy rep files complaints about rep, company (through Spencer texts) admits that the rep has been punished in some way. * Really pissy rep is unsatisfied and demands to know all things (Is the degree of her punishment really up for discussion with you? I'd think that's a violation of HER privacy. ) immediately, or ELSE. * Really pissy rep threatens owner of P!phany that she's going to tell everyone everything, including MommyGyver if rep isn't fired immediately. Really pissy rep doesn't know MommyGyver already knows the extent of the issue with hated rep, and MommyGyver is now letting her talk herself into trouble.) No extortion to see here, move along. * Really pissy rep reiterates her threat to the company to MommyGyver. In writing. * Really pissy rep leaves P!phany and demands the company break its own policy and give her 100% refund- "Or else"... once again in writing. * Really pissy rep sends all evidence of this to MommyGyver, thinking MommyGyver will now aid in fulfilling her plot to extort company. * Really pissy rep then gets angry because everyone now knows her end game and pissy rep will probably not get her extra money or the scathing article she banked on. * Really pissy rep then threatens MommyGyver citing "confidentiality". When MommyGyver is known for calling out fraud- even if it's a rep committing it. * Really pissy rep doesn't remember that the first time she contacted MommyGyver, she asked not to have her name involved but that- "As soon as you publish it, they will know it's me. Hahaha Just let me get my money first." * Really pissy rep basically just got her buddy Spencer fired, assured herself zero added benefit, made Nancy* out to be a martyr in all of this, and essentially blacklisted herself for any MLM or DS person or company that reads this blog. Peekaboo Beans? They know who I am. November 30th, she was conspiring to catch Nancy* up for breaking policy, so it's safe to say she was still with P!phany at the time, yet on November 13th, she set up a Peekaboo Beans page. * Note to all other really pissy reps that might be thinking they will do the same thing as Raging Rachel here: Don't. I will publish you, and no, you will not be protected. Sorry, not sorry. Buh-bye now. While this story could have been all about a rep getting preferential treatment, possibly, the bigger story aside from Rachel being the worst extortionist in history is what is UP with Spencer? Jesus- isn't a compliance guy supposed to be ethical? He's supposed to be playing neutral ground, not conspiring with another rep and bad mouthing someone he's supposed to be investigating? The second Rachel said she was going to publish the whole ordeal is when Spencey-boy should have put his Little Tykes phone down, walked into his boss's office and said- "Hey Jack, we might have a problem here." Because essentially, a rep bad mouthing another rep isn't per the policy and procedure- and the moment she resigned, her direct plug in to home office should have been disconnected. This issue could raise a litany of red flags to anyone else in the company that may have felt they were mistreated historically. How many other reps is Spencer loyal to? He's certainly not loyal to the brand based on these texts- and he doesn't stop this woman from belittling either of his bosses or anyone else in the company. Sounds like a solid company man over there. So, P!phany, where it sucks deluxe to have to shit can someone right before the holidays, there's so many reasons this dude shouldn't be handling compliance. Nancy*, if you're selling both brands, stop it- you're making really super jelly masterminds of the con world really, really cranky. Fucking leggings guys. Leggings.
Extortion and blackmail: (Source, Wikipedia) Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from an individual or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties; though often, and almost always, the person or organization offering "protection" is the same one willing to cause harm if the money is not paid, and such is implied in the "protection" offer. In blackmail, which always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim or their family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met. Thanks for shopping. Come again.
(I'll keep you updated on any developments that come from this) **Edited to add: I don't redact photos from screenshots used to conspire against people. If you are included here, I'm very sorry your friend chose to share the images knowing they could be published. *The target in this ordeal has asked me to change her name in the article. I am not changing photographs.