Interrogation and Deception Expert Dave Zulawski visits Fraud Busting. He’ll tell all about the realities of polygraph testing, the driving force behind fraud and tell us details of some of the fraud investigations he’s done from car dealerships to construction to recycling. He’ll also give details on the most important skill you can develop to spot fraud and scams yourself so you can find the truth.
Traci Brown: Dave, welcome to Fraud Busting. Thank you so much for coming on today.
Dave Zulawski: Glad to be here.
Traci Brown: I was so thrilled because we got to speak at the same conference. We were at – what was it? The Bankers . . .
Dave Zulawski: Security . . .
Traci Brown: Banker’s Hotline. That’s what it was. Banker’s Hotline Security.
Dave Zulawski: Yes.
Traci Brown: I was so thrilled that you were there backing me up on what I was saying. I could just tell the depth of your knowledge. That’s how we ended up here today. Tell us all about you. What do you do now? How did you get to where you are? Let’s start there.
Dave Zulawski: I started off as a special agent with the railroad doing interstate investigations and then went to a suburban Chicago police department where I spent about three years doing patrol and investigations. Then I left there to be a polygraph examiner. I spent about three years doing that. That’s where I met my partner Don Wicklander. In 1982 we opened a company that very inventively we named Wicklander-Zulawski.
Traci Brown: (Laughing).
Dave Zulawski: That was back in 1982 so I think we’re going on our 38th year.
Traci Brown: Oh my goodness. What are ya’ll specializing in today?
Dave Zulawski: We do two parts in the business. One is investigation and we do that for private companies. We assist police departments on preparing for interviews or helping them to do them. The other part of the business is training how we do that. We train most of the major businesses in the country. If you walk through a mall or drive down the street, they send their investigators to us to teach them about the patterns that we use to do an actual interview with somebody. Then we train local state and federal governments and inspector generals. We probably do 450 seminars around the globe each year. It’s two parts. One is what we do and the other is kind of how we do it.
Traci Brown: Those sound like a lot of the same classes that I’ve been through, real similar. You probably know Stan Walters.
Dave Zulawski: Sure.
Traci Brown: I’ve trained with him. Okay, you have a lot here going on. I want to know about it. I know my audience wants to know about it. First thing, let’s talk about the railroad because I didn’t realize until too long ago that railroads have their own police force pretty much. Isn’t that true? Tell us about that.
Dave Zulawski: Basically, it’s like an internal security function. Historically, the railroads had to provide their own protection back before there were police departments, especially as they proceeded west. At one point they hired out to like Pinkerton’s or Wells Fargo to handle that and later brought it inhouse. In Illinois where I’m based, a special agent has powers for investigating any crimes against the railroad both on and off railroad property. Then also the dual responsibility of handling internal investigations from employees that would do anything from drinking or drugs on the job to internal theft or fraud. It is quite a wide-based investigative effort.
Traci Brown: Let’s back up a little bit because I bet you’re going to have some knowledge on this. I was watching this thing on the History Channel not too long ago about the Pinkertons. There was a problem at a steel mill I think where they got into trouble. This is just a little history background, fun stuff, right. Didn’t they shoot a bunch of people on strike, or how did that go? How big was the company at that time?
Dave Zulawski: I know the general details of the incident. Most of the time, especially in the early years when railroads were outsourcing things, there was less investigation and it was a little more strong arm, union-busting kind of stuff they would do for the railroads. There was, frankly, I bet, a lot of brutality involved in that. I wasn’t just Pinkertons. There are a number of early entities that worked for large corporations that were a bit heavy handed.
Traci Brown: I imagine so. Things weren’t quite as PC in days gone by, I think, as now. Anyway, that is interesting. It came up here in Denver because we had a TV reporter who they hired a bodyguard who ended up shooting someone at one of these protests here in the last couple of months, and they said they hired them from Pinkerton. Are they still around? Or is that a knockoff? Do you know?
Dave Zulawski: No, no. It’s the original organization.
Traci Brown: Oh, really.
Dave Zulawski: I don’t know what happened there, but Pinkerton has been around for years. They’re still very much in business and provide guards, provide investigative services. They’re a service operation. They also do international. We’ve trained some of their investigators out of Asia where they have folks out there that are basically doing the same things, they would do international investigations overseas.
Traci Brown: Oh, interesting. That is fascinating because I figured it was some new, knockoff variety of Pinkerton with a sketchy history that they ended up hiring.
Dave Zulawski: If they’re using the name Pinkerton, I would imagine that it’s the original group.
Traci Brown: Oh, wow. Okay. Okay, cool. Here’s what else I want to talk to you about is polygraph. Let’s talk about that. I’ll tell you a funny story. When I showed up to Stan’s class . . . I’m sure they’re a lot like your classes. You’ve got 30 guys and a couple girls in the back of a police station squad room somewhere. I get there and they hand out the class list. It’s the first thing he did, like, who’s there, what do they do. There were five guys that listed their occupation as polygrapher, which I did not know what it was. I was thinking something different. I nudged the girl I was sitting next to and I said, “So, all these guys have five wives?” That was the main thing they put down. She’s like, “No! That’s polygamist. These are the polygraph guys!” I was like, “Oh, right. Got it.” Let’s talk about polygraph. I’m sure you’ve had some pretty unique experiences with those. What are they really measuring? If I’m right, they’re not admissible in court? I’m sure there is some gray area there, but why don’t you tell us a little bit about the background there, how it works, the whole thing, because we can probably talk about this for hours.
Dave Zulawski: First of all, you’re right, it’s generally not admissible in court. There are certain exceptions if lawyers on both sides agree and the judge agrees, then the examiner can testify. Typically, where it’s used, rather than in a courtroom setting, is much of an investigative setting. You’re looking to eliminate truthful people from an investigation and ultimately hopefully focus on the person who is responsible. While it’s called a lie detector, it doesn’t detect lies. What it does is it detects changes in the body’s physiology. Typically, what you’re measuring is respiration patterns, you’re measuring GSR, galvanic skin response, and changes in the blood pressure. Where there is a fear of detection, the theory goes that if you’re afraid your body undergoes some physiological changes which could be changes in the level of breathing, it could be a rise in blood pressure, a change in flow of blood to the tips of the fingers. There are a lot of things that are measured. There are other things that can be measured, but that is what a basic polygraph revolves around. The test itself is generally very upfront. You do a pre-test interview where you talk through the issue that you’re investigating. Then you go over all the questions that you’re going to use on the test so that there are no surprise questions. Then you run a series of three to four tests that last generally 2 to 2 and ½ minutes in length. Then at the conclusion, then there is a numeric value that you score and reach a decision of deception indicator or no deception indicator.
Traci Brown: Here’s a question. Some friends of mine are, in defense, have to get security clearance and things like that, and oftentimes they’ll bring in a polygraph, and they say that the guys running the thing do their best to get them mad and to make people angry during the test. Is that common? Have you heard of that? It seemed unusual to me.
Dave Zulawski: Generally, you’re asking some fairly uncomfortable questions. There are three types of questions that are asked. The first question would be what we would call an irrelevant. Do some people call you Traci? Are you over 18 years of age? Are you at home right now? These are known truths, and they’re not measured for anything related to deception. They’re simply a neutral way to start the test, to do spacing during the test.
Traci Brown: Baseline, yea.
Dave Zulawski: Right. To bring a person, if they cough or something, they use a couple of those to bring the body back to a normal. Then there are the relevant questions which would address the issue. Did you steal the $1,000? Do you know who stole the $1,000? They are very direct, yes or no questions. If the person said, “I suspect Sally.” Okay. Do you know for sure who did it? No, you don’t because you only suspect. We’re going to modify the question because we want you to pass. Then there is a comparison question on those tests which would be what we call a control question. A control question would be, if we were dealing with a theft issue would be, did you ever steal anything in your life? The person might say, “Well, when I was a kid, I took a pair of socks.” Okay. Besides the pair of socks? Or after age 18, did you steal anything else? If you think about this, if you didn’t steal the $1,000 out of the safe, what’s more concerning? Is there anything else in your life that you stole? It’s basically a comparison. It’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the general idea. A larger response to the relevant question, did you steal the $1,000?, deception would be indicated. On the other side, if it was more responsive to the control question, no deception.
Traci Brown: Wow.
Dave Zulawski: But to go back to the point that you made earlier, an examiner wants to be neutral, so you don’t want to get somebody mad. Asking a question about, did you steal anything in your life? A little personal, a bit of a poke, and some people get their back up a little bit, but it’s not done to make anybody angry. That’s the last thing you want. That will change the recordings, the baseline of the person and just makes the evaluation much more difficult.
Traci Brown: I’m glad to hear you say that because I found it very odd when they were talking about that. I wasn’t just one of them. Anyway, who knows how our security clearances are going these days with their accuracy. Now, what’s the craziest polygraph situation you’ve been in? You have any that have been really unique?
Dave Zulawski: Probably the more . . . I wouldn’t say unique, but homicides. I polygraphed a fellow who was suspected of murdering. She was a drug dealer, prostitute, and she ended up being murdered, put in a trunk, and then the trunk set on fire. He was picked up, asleep in a barbershop that was adjacent to where the fire was set. I polygraphed him. He was deceptive. He had said that he was staying overnight and just sleeping there. After several polygraphs and several interrogations, we moved him from “well, okay, I wasn’t asleep. Well, okay, I heard something. Well, okay, I watched the whole thing out the back window.” Now, coincidentally, the barbershop was owned by a sergeant on the police department, and his daughter had been killed, murdered in a bathtub. He actually did both of the murders. What was kind of odd, we had him into the office to do the last polygraph. After we were done, he wanted a hug. He’s currently unavailable for dinner except . . .
Traci Brown: He wanted a hug? Let’s talk about that a little bit because what you want to do is make people so comfortable with you than they’ll tell you the truth. I’ve never heard of someone wanting a hug before. How did you get from picking him up to wanting a hug? How does that unfold?
Dave Zulawski: First of all, it’s a nonconfrontational style. If you’re jut going in and accusing people, the first thing they’re going to say is no. The important part is to keep people talking, and you do that by showing empathy, showing understanding for their lifestyle, the difficulties that they have, and slowly moving through inconsistencies to get closer and closer to the truth. Now with him, the truth only came after the DNA came back for both murders.
Traci Brown: Oh.
Dave Zulawski: That made it a lot simpler, but from a deception standpoint, there was no question that he was involved.
Traci Brown: Right. Now, did it take the polygraph to figure that out or could you see it body language wise?
Dave Zulawski: During the pre-test interview where you go through the case facts, the person’s story, other things, you have an idea that the person’s probably not going to do too well on it. At the end of the day, the evaluation of the charts makes the decision. But you do have an indication based on the person’s answers, sometimes their body language that will help you make a judgment about what the status of the investigation is.
Traci Brown: Got it. Got it. Okay. Let’s talk about some of the other investigations. You said you were working in Chicago, but now you’re working for private companies. Is it more interesting, let’s call it in the public sector, or in the private area with companies? What strikes you as the most unusual?
Dave Zulawski: They’re very different. If you’re doing something with an inspector general’s investigators, they’re very much like the private sector, but the government is their sector. They’re doing an investigation of purchasing or collusion or bribe taking. To me, an inspector general type of a situation is very similar to what an internal investigator would be for a company. If you’re talking about a police function, it’s a very different world because there are people that have guns, having to enter buildings by force, take people into custody, so it’s a very different kind of environment. The older I get, the less I need to have sirens and screaming and yelling. The private sector is a much more civilized place to work than necessarily the streets.
Traci Brown: Got it. Got it. Okay. I ask all my guests this. What’s the craziest fraud story or scam that you’ve investigated? Yea. Let’s leave it there.
Dave Zulawski: There is a lot of real goofy ones. Very often in offices women would wear their gym shoes to get from the train and then have a pair of dress shoes when they get to the office. The dress shoes were being stolen. They were finding them in different places. We narrowed it down and it turned out that there was a security officer who was responsible for guarding the facility after hours and he was stealing the shoes and wearing them during his shift.
Traci Brown: Oh no.
Dave Zulawski: Anytime you start to get into fetishes or sexual types of crimes, they’re a little boggling of the eye. It’s like, I can’t think of the fellow’s name right off the top of my head, but he just got fired for having his pants off during a Zoom call, one of the news people, I think. That type of basic fundamental primitive emotion really can take a person off the rails. It’s a little hard for other people to understand why something like that might happen.
Traci Brown: What’s your thought on why that happens, having probably seen it more than a few times?
Dave Zulawski: You mean . . .
Traci Brown: Like wearing women’s shoes or not wearing pants on purpose. It’s kind of a joke now, not wearing pants on Zoom, but I think that was fine for like March and April, but we’re coming on Thanksgiving here. I think people would smarten up. What’s your thought on that?
Dave Zulawski: I think it’s such a basic driving emotion for people to have to procreate so that the race can continue. Look at any animal. The need to reproduce is fundamental and it causes people to do all sorts of things. Many frauds are directly related to sexual activity. A person has a mistress. He’s only got x amount of money coming in. But he wants to take her out to dinner. He wants to go to a hotel. Where does he get that? Well, let’s do an expense fraud, or let’s take kickbacks, or whatever. The motive at the fundamental level is economic, but there is a driving force behind that which is sexual desire.
Traci Brown: Oh wow. Okay. I never thought about that. Let’s talk about investigations. Someone comes to you and says maybe it’s not so overt as shoes are missing, but maybe it’s been a while and they’re noticing some irregularities in the balance sheet or in expense accounts. What’s your first step? If anyone’s listening that’s having that, what would you advise them to do? How would it differ from what you would do as an investigator coming in?
Dave Zulawski: Probably the first and most important thing is don’t share it with the world. Most of the frauds that come in place are not discovered by an audit. Once in a while you’ll stumble across something. Part of a fraud is knowing exactly where the look, and then it’s pretty easy. The thread starts to come out. You can tease it away. But if you’ve got a vendor fraud, take a major Fortune 500 company, or a big department store, they might have 70,000 vendors. Who do you look at?
Traci Brown: Right.
Dave Zulawski: A lot of times where you’re going to get your person, it’s going to be a tip. Somebody is going to call a hotline. Somebody’s going to go to a senior executive and say, “I don’t know what this means, but here’s what I saw.” Or, somebody’s going to stumble across something. A person takes a vacation, and all of a sudden, an envelope comes in. It’s got an invoice. They look at it. They start to check. All of a sudden, things don’t look right. It’s more likely to be either a tip or a stumble across it, although now with some of the computer analytics you’re able to fairly quickly look at somebody. If you’ve got a cashier who is running, a crazy number, 500% more refunds than anybody else in the company, you ought to go look. It might be that they’re working in place where they would get that or if they’re assigned to it, but if they’re just an average line cashier and all of sudden you’re seeing these refunds, and they’re way out of line with everybody else, what is going on here? Something’s got to be wrong. First thing is that you begin to compile a background on the person. How long have they been around? What’s their life like? Do we have a video camera? If we don’t have a video camera, put a camera up. What can we do in the way of examining documents that might be available? Do we have refunds? Do we have signatures that we can look and compare? The most important thing is loose lips sink ships. If all of a sudden . . . We just had one earlier this week that we did. It was probably worth about a half million dollars.
Traci Brown: Oh wow.
Dave Zulawski: They stumbled across it. It was a dealership. They had an individual who was going out and actually buying used vehicles. He had the ability and there was, again, no control, which is why fraud happens. He had the ability to write the check, make the purchase. He handles the whole transaction. All of a sudden, here you’re getting checks for cash of over $10,000. Is it a legitimate purchase? Well, you start looking at the titles. It doesn’t look right. You start to look at the bill of sale. The signatures don’t look right. Talk to the customer. That’s not what I sold this vehicle for.
Traci Brown: Oh!
Dave Zulawski: Now, you’re seeing, okay, we got the vehicle, so that’s not the problem. The problem is over here that he bought it for $8,000, wrote the check for $10,000 to cash, kept $2,000.
Traci Brown: Oh.
Dave Zulawski: It’s a real simple scheme when you have those kinds of things. It becomes a little more complex if all of a sudden you have somebody involved in a . . . we had a case with an ice machine. He was in charge of constructing convenience stores for his company.
Traci Brown: Okay.
Dave Zulawski: He had the ability to purchase up to $1,000 on his signature. He could authorize that. What was happening was he worked with a carpenter who was supposed to build this store, but he bought nonexistent ice machines for $956.
Traci Brown: Oh.
Dave Zulawski: The carpenter would send up a bill for $956. He would sign off. It’s approved. They would split the $956. It was a real simple little scheme, about $100,000 over a six-month period. It all comes to light when one of the senior executives called and said to the guy, the convenience store owner, “How do you like that new ice machine?” “What ice machine?” So then they started looking and all of a sudden, it unravels.
Traci Brown: Oh, wow.
Dave Zulawski: Then it becomes an issue of how do you close the case? We’ve got two people involved. We’ve got the carpenter and we’ve got the director and construction. Now we’ve got the pieces. How do you close the case?
Traci Brown: Yea. How did you do it?
Dave Zulawski: What we did is we staggered the interviews. We brought the director of construction in first. Brought him in with one of the senior executives to talk about general operational issue. Now about a half hour after I start that interview, one of my partners meets with the construction guy. We’ve got a lag time of about 30 minutes. As I begin to find things, I can then take and pass that off to him if there is any information that will be helpful to him.
Traci Brown: Oh, wow.
Dave Zulawski: We go through the business and start talking about what does this guy do? What does this guy provide for you? What does this guy provide for you? Somewhere in there, mixed in, is what does the carpenter do? He puts up shelves. He does this, he does this. Does he do anything else for you? No, he doesn’t. Okay. Now we’ve got $100,000 worth of ice machines that supposedly came from him. You know he’s got to be lying. Now if he said, “Well, sometimes he provides ice machines”, now that evidence is not as suspect because he actually has the information that he was giving us that, without knowing what we know at this point. The easiest way to detect deception is when you’ve got a piece of evidence and the person lies about it. You know they’re still lying to you until they tell you what it is that you know.
Traci Brown: That goes into prep, like before the interview, right. It’s pretty common to go in and not expect any new information because you already know it, but if you get new information, that’s a bonus in a certain sense, or what’s your take on that?
Dave Zulawski: My sense of large-scale frauds is whatever you know is not everything. It’s not unusual to hear about . . . to me this is . . . a guy wants money, which is why he’s involved in doing this. He opens the spicket and starts to divert money. Here it is money from purchasing of ice machines, but there are hundreds of vendors that he deals with. How many other spickets has he opened?
Traci Brown: Oh, right.
Dave Zulawski: That’s what you’re looking for here is what other problems that you don’t know about? We had a case not too long ago, a senior executive, vice president, a senior member of the team had purchased $6,000 worth of gift cards on his American Express.
Traci Brown: That’s always a red flag, those gift cards. Oh my gosh. Anyway, keep going.
Dave Zulawski: You’re exactly right. They talked to us and we said, “Let’s check.” He claimed he used it for gifts at a golf outing. We can’t find the golf outing. His story to the president of the company can’t be true because where he says that happened and when it says it happened, it didn’t happen. The president decided that this guy was too valuable and just said, “You know what, don’t do that anymore.” I said, “Well, you better watch him.” Well, six months later, he’s working with a vendor to the tune of $60,000 a month. These folks, when they need the money, they want the money, they’re going to get the money if they’ve got the control, and there is no control in place, or nobody is monitoring.
Traci Brown: What was he doing with the vendor at $60,000 a month? How was . . . ?
Dave Zulawski: It was essentially a kickback. He was saying this vendor was providing $100,000 worth of IT consulting. Well, he wasn’t providing anywhere near that. It was closer to $35,000 to $40,000 a month. He was upping it by $60,000. He had control so he could sign off on that invoice. That invoice then gets paid, and the money comes back to him.
Traci Brown: How did that one get revealed?
Dave Zulawski: Initially what he wanted to do and how he was able to conceal it was he wanted control of his own financials of his division. What happened was that all of a sudden the corporate auditors went in and started to look at this big jump in IT consulting. Why do we need that? That’s what we started to look at. Anytime you get collusion and you’ve got somebody . . . people will divert anything, pallets, used cardboard. It just boggles the mind what they’ll do.
Traci Brown: Pallets and cardboard. What do you know about that? That seems like the least valuable thing that people could think about.
Dave Zulawski: You would think so. However, if you recycle cardboard or you recycle pallets, there is a value to them. Stealing the cardboard was costing the company $10,000 a month in recycling.
Traci Brown: Really?
Dave Zulawski: Yea. We see this all the time in metal.
Traci Brown: Yea, metal. I’ve heard of that.
Dave Zulawski: It hasn’t got a SKU on it. It’s really an uncontrolled piece. They begin to divert the money to them. It goes away from the company. There’s a substantial loss.
Traci Brown: Wow. How do you find that? Is it the same audit thing, where all of a sudden the line item goes away, or. . . ?
Dave Zulawski: The last one that we did it was actually a tip from a secretary. She was responsible for sending the check from the recycling to the corporate office. All of a sudden, she noticed that there had been no checks coming but she had seen the recycling come. That started the investigation. It turned out that we ended up taking the head of the union, the head of the location, they were terminated. That led to three other cases of other people doing exactly the same thing because the controls . . . and finally the owner of the company said, “We’re going to stop because I can’t afford to lose any more people. We’ll just tighten up the controls and put a stop to this.”
Traci Brown: Oh, wow. He just didn’t want to dig any deeper.
Dave Zulawski: Well, no. At some point he could not operate his business if we kept taking out his senior people at each location.
Traci Brown: Oh, my gosh.
Dave Zulawski: He had to make an economic decision. Am I going to continue to terminate people or should I cut my losses and put in controls so that we’re now monitoring this and basically shutting that spicket off.
Traci Brown: Oh my. What kind of company was it? Or is it?
Dave Zulawski: They were a large construction repair company. They would take and buy huge . . . anything from a Bobcat to an excavator and they would take them for parts. What they didn’t need anymore would go into the scrap.
Traci Brown: Oh, wow. So they had a lot of metal, it sounds like.
Dave Zulawski: Yea. Just like everything else, when we started to do the backgrounds, all of a sudden, a person has got a home in St. Thomas. His wife is unemployed, but she’s driving a brand-new Mercedes. He’s driving a Mercedes. They just came back from a two-week vacation at a very high-class resort. Clearly, they’ve got way more money than they should have based on his salary alone.
Traci Brown: Wow. Interesting. Oh my gosh. You are just a wealth of knowledge here. I don’t want to keep you. I mean, I could keep you all day, but I don’t want to keep you all day. You got any final tips for people listening who either they have their eyes closed to what’s going on around them, how to open their eyes up easily, or how to protect yourself just a little bit more these days? Because with the economy how it is, the opportunity for fraud, the people with their backs against the wall are increased ten, maybe a hundredfold. What’s your parting tip for people?
Dave Zulawski: The hard part is trust. People you work with, you want to trust them. We may like them a lot. A lot of the people that do this kind of stuff, they can be pretty glib. They can be nice talkers. You want to believe them. When we get there, when we start looking, we go, “Oh my God, this is clear as a bell” but you are looking at it through rose-colored glasses. We’re looking at it in a much different way. We don’t have all of the relationships and the trust that has been built up over the years. Pretty fundamental with any fraud is checks and balances. You can’t have accounts receivable and accounts payable with one person without any controls. A lot of these people, their story will be, I do what’s necessary to get the job done, so I need to cut these checks. If something unusual is happening, take a deep dive on it. That’s probably the most important thing. If you’ve got somebody who has financial problems, to watch them because they have a need for money. If you’ve got somebody who kind of plays loose and runs with other people other than their spouse, you better pay attention to business. Some of them will be the most trusted people in the world. We had a case of expense fraud. The guy flew international. We stumbled across the fact that he is in China, yet he was putting in for a $500 dinner in Chicago.
Traci Brown: Oh boy.
Dave Zulawski: When we start looking and this guy is taking . . . he buys a first-class ticket to China. It might cost $12,000. But then what he does is he puts in that receipt as an expense. But then he takes his airline points and gets a free first-class ticket. Now he’s got $12,000 of the company’s money in his pocket.
Traci Brown: Oh, wow. Okay.
Dave Zulawski: That little dinner was just the beginning of a thread. When you started to tease it out and you started to look, now all of a sudden, the guys got a vineyard in Michigan. He’s got this. He’s got that. A lot of things begin small and you don’t quite know where they are going to go. I guess, watch the controls. Makes sure you’ve got controls in place. When something doesn’t look right, take a deep dive and don’t tell everybody.
Traci Brown: Right. Keep your mouth shut. Yea.
Dave Zulawski: A lot of times there is evidence to be had as long as that person doesn’t know you’re looking. It’s also easier to look at them and talk to them if they have no idea you’re coming.
Traci Brown: Oh. Okay. A little surprise ambush can help.
Dave Zulawski: Yes. Absolutely.
Traci Brown: Wow. Okay. Dave, how can people get a hold of you if they need help or maybe talk about classes? What’s your website? What’s the best way to get in touch with you?
Traci Brown: The depth of your knowledge is really impressive. Thank you for so much for coming on the show today.
Dave Zulawski: I’m glad. I enjoyed it.
Traci Brown: Good deal.