That Time Dave Ramsey Said He Might Possibly Owe My Husband An Apology

And the employee's spouse Dave said he couldn't control

Almost two years ago Dave Ramsey sat down for a deposition in the Amos v. The Lampo Group, LLC, lawsuit. Just this week that deposition has been made public.

Note added 6/28/25: The deposition has now been temporarily sealed by the court. I had already written and published this by that time. So, unfortunately, I can’t link to open court records at this point. However, as a lucky break for you, I had already added screenshots from the deposition to this publication.

Imagine my surprise when I first saw my name and my husband’s name brought up in this deposition.

When I tell folks I have a strange life, this is a perfect illustration.

(If you’re new here, you can hear about our experience with the Ramsey org in a series of podcast episodes I recorded several years ago)

---

I’d love for you to read the entire deposition for yourself. (Again, a late added note that this deposition has now been temporarily sealed. Sorry about that.) I’m not planning to comment on all of the many, many pages of the deposition, but I do want to address a few points I found interesting or intersect with us personally.

Controlling Spouses

Let’s start with the first part of the deposition that jumped out at me because it mentioned a close friend. Pages 68 and 69.

For reference, “Q” refers to the questioner. I believe that’s the plaintiff’s attorney. “A” refers to the person answering, Dave Ramsey.

I believe this line of questioning, is about a situation with my friends, Jon and Heather Fulk. Heather went on the record for an article Bob Smietana published in early 2021 and told about their experience.

What I find especially interesting is that Dave does confirm that the actions of someone’s spouse can cause an employee to be fired. He is clear about that. But when I compare the way Dave represents Heather’s Facebook post to what she actually wrote, it seems clear to me he’s misrepresenting what she said and her intention. I wish the plaintiff’s attorney had pushed back on Dave’s assertion when Dave said about Heather “if you want to destroy the place where your spouse works, we don’t need you on our team.” How would Dave have known her intention?

Here’s what Heather’s Facebook post actually said as reported in Smietana’s article:

You can decide for yourself, but when I read it, I don’t see any indication that Heather wants to destroy the place where her spouse worked. What I read from Dave is an oversensitivity to criticism.

I do love how that part of the questioning ended, though:

Ramsey: “I have no illusion I could control that spouse.”

You have no idea the amount of laughter and joy this statement brings to me (and to Heather).

I’ll give you that one, Dave. You never stood a chance at controlling Heather.

Ramsey Claims Bob Smietana Is Untrustworthy

Moving on to pages 107 and 108. Remember that article I mentioned that was published by the Religion News Service? The journalist was Bob Smietana. Here’s what Dave had to say about Bob in the deposition:

Ramsey: “I’m not sure that anything Bob Smietana writes is truthful. You can tell he’s lying if his mouth’s moving, so I don’t know what true there.”

And in pages 117-119 the plaintiff’s attorney circles back to Dave’s assertion that Smietana is a liar.

I want to zoom in here because it’s important. Dave adamantly declares that “entire articles” are untrue and the plaintiff’s attorney presses in and asks:

Q: “But what articles do you mean that he wrote?” “What facts did he lie about in one of his articles?”

A: “Many, many, many.”

Q: “But as you sit here today, can you give me a specific example of one?”

A: “I don’t think it matters.”

Let’s talk about this because it’s a big deal.

While Dave is under oath he can’t come up with one specific instance of Smietana lying. I would think if this journalist was a liar, Dave would be able to immediately list examples to prove his point. Dave doesn’t appear to have any.

At any time over the past 5 years Ramsey could have come forward with information to refute the reporting that Smietana has done or they could have taken legal action against RNS or anyone who has publicly spoken. That has not happened.

One of the Biggest Mistakes of Dave’s Life

Another noteworthy moment in the deposition on page 120 is when Dave addresses a question about him pulling out a firearm in a staff meeting to use as an object lesson.

Dave says: “It was one of the biggest mistakes I ever made in my life.”

There has been quite a bit of reporting on this alleged incident. This is the first I’ve heard such strong regret from Dave.

Apparently, Dave Doesn’t Know Amy Fritz

On page 178, I see something that grabs my attention- my name being mentioned in a deposition.

The plaintiff’s attorney asked Dave, “Do you know a Ms. Amy Fritz?” Dave answers, “No.”

First of all, that’s a terrible question from the plaintiff’s attorney. Dave and I have never hung out together. We were never friends. He made it very easy for Dave to give this answer.

I’m assuming the attorney was asking if Dave knew who I was. He didn’t ask that. So, I don’t know how Dave would have answered that.

At the time that this deposition was taken, I had already published an article on my website that caused an employee to take action that led to their resignation and the Ramsey org threatening us and the Ramsey CTO interfering with my husband’s new employment by having a Zoom meeting with Nathan’s new employer. Since that time, I’ve gone on the record (with my name) and I’ve published many podcast episodes about our experience with Ramsey.

He may not “know” me. But I’m confident Dave Ramsey knows who I am.

Dave Says He Might Possibly Owe Nathan An Apology

The plaintiff’s attorney goes on to ask about some things I wrote in my article:

Just as a point of reference, we have an audio recording of Dave saying that people who left had no backbone and were believing lies. Dave is likely aware this recording has been made public because the audio recording was published in Smietana’s article (the journalist who Dave says is not credible). Still, he initially says he “doesn’t remember”.

This next portion of the deposition is a masterful example of what appears to be Dave trying to say something without actually saying something.

First, he claims he doesn’t know why Nathan resigned.

Second, he goes on to explain that he knows why Nathan resigned because Armando told him and argues that Nathan resigned based on limited information about a situation and believing Ramsey was being inconsistent.

Third, Dave decides to amend his previous assertion that he doesn’t remember saying Nathan didn’t have a backbone by saying, “If I did say that—and it sounds like something I could say—. . .” (emphasis on “If” mine).

Fourth, he appears to backtrack a bit to argue that maybe Nathan did have a backbone if he quit for the reasons Dave remembers. This section is wild:

“If he did quit for the reasons that I remember, he did have a backbone, because he quit based on principle. He just believed -- he -- he believed lies. He belie- -- he had -- he had incorrect information, incomplete information. I had incomplete information, but I had more information than he had, and it turns out -- as the story has rolled on, he actually ended up being right about that, but what he was right about was quitting based on he thought we were hypocrites,”

What?

Who had incorrect information and incomplete information?

For the record, in all the information that has come out since Nathan’s resignation, none of the things that Nathan believed to be true were shown to be incorrect.

I’m sure there are more noteworthy things in the deposition, and I encourage you to read it for yourself. (when it’s no longer sealed?)

I’ll close with a note to Dave:

Dear Dave,

At Nathan’s exit interview, I told Rick and Armando that I had never been prouder of my husband. Over the 5 (oops, it’s been 6- I didn’t catch that before I published) years since that day my pride in my husband’s integrity has only grown. I’m not surprised to hear you (sort of) back off from the statement you said in 2019 when you claimed Nathan didn’t have a backbone or integrity. You’re right on this one thing- who you marry has huge consequences.

Sincerely,

Amy Fritz

One of those spouses who can’t be controlled.