'Jake from State Farm' Death Hoax
On 25 October 2015 the web site Huzlers published an article reporting that "Jake," the character seen in State Farm Insurance's ubiquitous "State of Unrest" television commercial, had been murdered by his wife in a fit of rage over his infidelity: State of Unrest It is being reported that Jake From State Farm was reportedly found dead in his apartment bedroom Saturday night. According to authorities, Jake was killed by his wife after finding him in bed with another woman. Jake From State Farm was murdered by his own wife for allegedly cheating on her. Very Ironic, considering that the original Jake From State Farm commercial was about being unfaithful. According to State Farm, Jake would be a good neighbor to all of his clients, but when he needed help, nobody was there for him. Jakes wife was arrested a few hours following the murder. A true hero quoted State Farm. Nothing about this story is true, as it originated on Huzlers, a well known fake news site.  Also, real news articles (especially those reporting on deaths) tendto include the real names of actors and not refer to them solely by the names of characters they played on television. Finally, "Jake from State Farm" has dispelled this himself rumor on Twitter: dispelled  (This story might have made more logical [satirical] sense if the putative murder victim were actor Justin Campbell, who played the husband suspected of infidelity by his wife in the popular "State of Unrest" State Farm commercial, and not actual State Farm agent Jake Stone, who filled the role of the innocent insurance agent Jake.)      Justin Campbell Huzlers bills itself as "the most notorious urban satirical entertainment website in the world with the most shocking headlines and articles shared by trillions around the world."
In mid-2018, a meme widely shared on social media decried the passage of legislation by Missouri Republicans that allegedly lowered the minimum wage in St. Louis from $10 to $7.70. The $2.30 reduction in pay, the viral graphic warned, would harm more than 35,000 workers and their families:   Although the subject matter was already a year old by the time the meme was brought to our attention (the legislative change didn't "just" happen), it describes an event that really did occur. What it lacks, obviously, is context. The minimum wage is a perennial topic of debate in American politics. Although public opinion polls indicate general bipartisan support for minimum wage increases perceived as reasonable, partisan disagreement remains not only over what constitutes a reasonable minimum wage level, but over who should set it (local, state, or federal governments), and whether or not it should even exist. polls disagreement Proponents say a minimum wage is necessary to ensure livable earnings for workers with the least bargaining power. A minimum wage that is at least indexed to inflation, they argue, reduces wage inequality, as well as injecting money into the economy and creating jobs by increasing consumer spending. Opponents argue that a too-high minimum wage hurts businesses and increases unemployment by forcing employers to lay off workers they can't afford. It also shuts younger and unskilled workers out of the workforce, they claim, because employers are unwilling to pay them higher wages. As of 2017, the U.S. federal minimum wage stood at $7.25 an hour, an amount that hadn't budged in eight years despite increases in the cost of living. For that reason, at least 29 states (including Missouri) had established state-wide minimum wages above the federal floor. Individual cities and counties took action as well, in many cases adopting local ordinances that raised minimum wages even higher than those set by their states. minimum wage One place this latter action occurred was St. Louis, Missouri, where city officials decided in 2015 that the minimum hourly wage needed to be raised to $10 ($2.30 above than the state-mandated minimum of $7.70), with another increase (to $11) set to go into effect in 2018. The ordinance, which did not apply to small businesses employing fewer than 15 workers or grossing less than $500,000 a year, was intended to raise the standard of living for the lowest wage earners in a city where the poverty rate was twice the national average, according to a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: report The increase in St. Louis will give an immediate raise to an estimated 35,000 workers who will make, on average, $2,400 more each year, said Paul Sonn, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for a higher minimum wage. That is enough to make a real difference for a waitress or a nursing home worker who is trying to get by on less than $18,000 a year. Though its implementation was delayed for two years because of legal challenges by business groups, St. Louis's $10 wage floor finally took effect in May 2017, instantly adding an average of $200 a month to the incomes of tens of thousands of workers.  Missouri governor Eric Greitens, a Republican, had been opposed to the increase all along, arguing that it would "kill jobs" and "take money out of people's pockets." A Republican lawmaker, Jason Chipman, introduced a bill (HB 1194) that would pre-empt local minimum wage laws everywhere in the state. Days after the St. Louis ordinance went into effect, the Republican-dominated Missouri legislature passed the pre-emption bill in a party line vote, effectively overriding the local ordinance. When the bill became law at the end of August, St. Louis's minimum wage reverted to $7.70, the same as the state's. HB 1194 Some disagreement remains over how many workers were actually affected by the changes in St. Louis's minimum wage. The meme cited a number (35,000 workers) taken from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which attributed the estimate to the non-profit National Employment Law Project (NELP). However, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis came up with a different estimate based on a distinction between resident and non-resident minimum-wage workers. Observing that "only one-third of the workers in St. Louis City are city residents, and less than half of the city workers earning less than $10 per hour are residents," the researchers calculated that approximately 20,000 St. Louis residents saw an impact on their earnings. Including non-residents, they estimated that around 32,500 workers were affected, a slightly lower number than that estimated by NELP. estimate different On 1 January 2018, Missouri increased their statewide minimum wage by 15 cents, to $7.85 per hour. In May, a ballot initiative was proposed to raise the minimum wage to $8.60 in 2019 and an additional 85 cents per year thereafter, until it reaches $12 by 2023. increased initiative Achenbach, Erin.  "Missouri Businesses and Workers Submit Signatures for Minimum Wage Ballot Initiative."
  St. Louis Public Radio.  2 May 2018. Barker, Jacob.  "With State Law Set to Preempt St. Louis Minimum Wage, Groups Push for Missouri-wide Hike."
  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  28 August 2017. Bernstein, Jared and John Schmitt.  "The Impact of the Minimum Wage."
  Economic Policy Institute.  1 June 2000. Bernthal, Jeff.   "Minimum Wage Increases Across Missouri."
  KTVI-TV.  1 January 2018. Bott, Celeste.  "St. Louis $10 Minimum Wage Will Revert Back to $7.70 in August, Greitens Announces."
  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  1 July 2017. Elis, Niv.  "Poll: Bipartisan Majority Supports Raising Minimum Wage."
  The Hill.  1 June 2017. Hirsch, Mitchell.  "Missouri Lawmakers to Lowest-Paid Workers in St. Louis: We're Taking Back Your Raises."
  National Employment Law Project.  19 May 2017. McDermott, Kevin.  "After Two Years of Wrangling, St. Louis' New $10 Minimum Wage Could Be in Effect Within Days."
  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  2 May 2017. Noguchi, Yuki.  "As Cities Raise Minimum Wages, Many States Are Rolling Them Back."
  National Public Radio.  18 July 2017. Weller, Chris.  "St. Louis' Minimum Wage Has Dropped After Missouri's Governor Said Increasing It to $10 Would Take 'Money Out of People's Pockets.'"
  Business Insider.  29 August 2017. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  "Whom Would St. Louis' Minimum Wage Hike Have Impacted?"
  20 July 2017. Pew Research Center.  "States with Minimum Wages Higher than the $7.25/Hr Federal Standard."
  3 January 2017. ProCon.org. "Should the Federal Minimum Wage Be Increased?"
  25 April 2018. In August 2014, Facebook users begin seeing posts that featured what looked to be an image from a video of pro wrestler Hulk Hogan bloody and prone, with text indicating that "Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge": Is this true? R.I.P Hulk Hogan died after having a deadly head shot today as revenge  However, no matter how often this hoax is recirculated on social media, Hulk Hogan remains alive, and no such bloody video of him exists to be seen. As of 20 November 2017, Hogan was still well enough to be commenting on that day's destruction of the Georgia Dome: Georgia Dome The first time the Georgia Dome exploded was Hollywood Hogan vs @goldberg. Now they had to implode it. They should have just called me and Bill again brother. HH pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl @goldberg pic.twitter.com/A9n3hr18Jl  Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) November 20, 2017 November 20, 2017  (The bloodied photo of Hulk Hogan actually came from a 2009 promotional 'incident' in Australia when Hogan was 'attacked' by fellow wrestler Ric Flair.)   incident Users who did click through on such links were taken to a faux Facebook page which eventually led them down the trail of the usual survey scam, directing them to "like" or "share" links with their Facebook friends and complete online surveys, all with the goal of getting them to enrich scammers by disclosing sensitive personal information, spreading malware, buying products, and signing up for costly, difficult-to-cancel services. survey scam Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Congress on Dec. 21, 2022, to thank them for their support and to request more aid amidst the ongoing invasion of Russia in Ukraine. Though Zelenskyy received multiple standing ovations and thunderous applause from both parties during his speech, Republicans Rep. Matt Gaetz and Rep. Lauren Boebert did not appear to share in the enthusiasm. addressed One clip from C-SPANeven went viral, in which they appeared to remain seated as others around them stood and clapped: C-SPAN  While this clip is indeed accurate, Gaetz and Boebert did stand at different points in the speech, particularly toward the end, and stood for Zelenskyy's departure. They were seen standing at the very beginning as they waited for Zelenskyy's arrival. Gaetz is in a grey suit, and Boebert is in a white dress. They can be seen standing on the upper half, toward the center of this shot. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) At around 14 minutes, Gaetz and Boebert were seen standing and chatting with other members of the House. As Zelenskyy entered and stood at the podium, the audience stood and clapped to welcome him. Gaetz and Boebert stood along with everyone else, though it was difficult to determine if they were applauding, as well. Gaetz's arms appeared to be by his side as he leaned down to speak to Boebert. 14 minutes stood (Screenshot/C-SPAN) As Zelenskyy began speaking, he received a number of standing ovations in which it was unclear whether Gaetz and Boebert were sitting. At the 32-minute mark they can be seen sitting alongside everyone else, listening to Zelenskyy. At 34 minutes, when almost everyone could be seen giving Zelenskyy a standing ovation, the camera cut to Gaetz and Boebert who were already seated as the people around them took their seats. They both appeared to be looking down at their laps. It is highly likely they never stood for the standing ovation. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) The moment took place right after the 34-minute mark in the video below: 34-minute  Zelenskyy said, "Your money is not charity. It's an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way." At 35:27 another standing ovation occurred after this statement, and as people sat down, through this wide-camera shot Gaetz and Boebert can be seen seated (marked with the red arrow), having not stood up at all in that moment. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) That moment can be seen in the video, from the 35:25 mark:  The crowd got up again as Zelenskyy said, "Russia" and paused, and Boebert and Gaetz remained seated along with some other legislators. They did however join the standing ovation later on in his speech. At around 42:35, Gaetz can be seen standing up, though Boebert is not visible from this angle. At the 46:43 mark, as Zelenskyy leaves while holding the American flag, they can be seen standing along with everyone else: 46:43 mark  In this Getty Image, they can also be seen standing alongside everyone else (the top right of the frame): Getty Image  But in this one, they are seated as everyone around them gives a standing ovation: this one  They are both vocal opponents of sending Ukraine aid. Gaetz posted on Twitter soon after the speech: vocal opponents  Boebert also expressed sympathy for the people of Ukraine but demanded a "full audit" of where U.S. money for Ukraine had already gone before she would support sending more money, and called on Biden to do more "at home" to secure the "southern border."  Given that the pair did sit for significant standing ovations, but joined other standing ovations later in the speech, we rate this claim a "Mixture." Finally, we should add the pair made news for security related to Zelenskyy's visit, as well. security related to Zelenskyy's visit Baker, Sinad. "Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz Stayed Sitting and Looked at Their Phones While Congress Gave Zelenskyy a Standing Ovation." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/video-boebert-gaetz-ignore-zelenskyy-ovation-in-congress-check-phones-2022-12. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Addresses Joint Meeting of Congress." C-SPAN. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfFYvAFlU8. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks to a Joint Session Of..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky-speaks-to-a-joint-news-photo/1245778448. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "US Republican Reperesentative from Colorado Lauren Boebert And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-reperesentative-from-colorado-lauren-boebert-and-news-photo/1245775412. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Zelenskyy Thanks 'every American,' Sees 'Turning Point.'" AP NEWS, 21 Dec. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-biden-68c65b3274e552f36f16853f24fedbb9.Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that New Mexico gained 75,800 jobs from December 2002 to July 2007, which is slightly lower than Richardson's claim. As our friends at FactCheck.org note in thisarticle, Richardson has consistently cited the higher number, even when the actual number was lower. For our ruling, however, we'll rely on the current 75,800 and call it mostly true. It's difficult to calculate how big a role his tax cuts played in getting businesses to create those jobs. James Peach, an economics professor at New Mexico State University, said many factors make a company decide to add jobs and that tax incentives often play only a modest role. Indeed, much of the job growth in the state began before Richardson became governor, Peach said. Still, Peach said Richardson's tax incentives and income tax cuts have created a favorable atmosphere for business that is a stark change from the state's mentality in the mid-1970s, when state officials refused to provide help to a promising young company named Microsoft. The climate here has changed considerably since then, Peach said. Bill Richardson has been a big part of that. He's not the whole story, but he's been a big part of it. Claim:  Alka-Seltzer dramatically increased its sales by instructing consumers to use two tablets instead of one. Origins:  The history of corporate America is replete with examples (both real and apocryphal) of schemes to manipulate consumers into not only purchasing new products, but into buying more of the products they already use.  Nearly everyone has heard the tale of the clever marketing man who doubled his company's sales of its shampoo product by adding the final word to the instructions "Lather. Rinse. Repeat."  Umpteen comedians have mused on the deliberate waste promoted by selling hot dogs in packs of eight, but buns in packages of twelve.  And "artificial obsolescence"  the yearly introduction of superficial stylistic changes in big-ticket items such as automobiles and appliances in order to lure status-conscious consumers into replacing perfectly functional products  dates from the 1920s: In the 1920s the auto industry had been faced with a crisis: by 1926, according to reliable estimates, everyone who could afford a car already had one, and in 1927 production and sales declined for the first time. The answer was not Fordism  the durable, dependable, unchanging Model-T. No, the solution was Sloanism, or the annual style change named for Alfred P. Sloan, president of General Motors. The object of superficial changes in detail on a yearly basis, Sloan said, was "to create demand for new value and, so to speak, create a certain amount of dissatisfaction with past models as compared with the new one." When Sloanism began back in the 20s, the notion that a serviceable product could be rendered obsolete by appearance alone was transferred from the apparel of the upper class to the single most important industrial product in America. With the help of the ad copywriter, status and symbolism became compelling reasons for buying a new car, even though the old, black Ford out in the yard still ran like a top.1 In   the early 1960s, Alka-Seltzer, the venerable fizzy heartburn and acid indigestion pain-relief tablet, was in a fix similar to that of auto makers in the late 1920s.  As exemplified by Speedy, the "cartoon disk with a squeaky voice and pop eyes" who had been  Speedy  introduced in the early days of television and by the 1960s was one of the corniest mascots still in use to sell an adult product, Alka-Seltzer had fallen out of favor with the younger segment of the drug-buying public.  Alka-Seltzer's customers were mostly older folks, and the product was not attracting many new buyers among American youth, for whom it "had become the symbol of people who drank too much and ate too much ... the unforgivable symbol of a slob, a hangover cure."  Nor was the typical advertising of the era likely to appeal to them:  Traditionally, pain-relief products had been advertised in gruesome commercials filled with horrors that would have given you pain if you didn't already have it.  People ran around groaning, clutching their heads and stomachs, men and women crawled into corners and shrieked "Pain! Pain! Pain!" at television viewers who immediately turned off their sets. In one Frankensteinian commercial an ugly Neanderthal man went through a series of tortures, hammers dropped from the skies to pound his head, hoses appeared like snakes to whip him with water, straitjackets tied him up, you wanted to scream at him to "get off my telly!" People did not watch proprietary drug advertising unless they already had a headache or stomach problem and were looking for a quick fix, so most of the time, from the advertiser's point of view, advertising was like throwing money into a black hole.2 The creative minds at the (Jack) Tinker & Partners advertising think tank solved the problem by coming up with different reasons for people to take Alka-Seltzer and fashioning a series of entertaining commercials around those themes: [We] created the kickoff commercial that set the style for all the variety of commercials that followed. It was a truly wonderful, iconic commercial, an ovation to stomachs, a sweet-natured montage of big ones, little ones, slim ones, fat ones, all filmed at stomach level. There was a street digger's jackhammer stomach, a young chick's bare midriff, two men talking, facing each other, one with a flat stomach and one with a big round one, an array of stomachs presented with self-deprecating humor and sweet humanness to a happy, bouncy tune. "No matter what shape your stomach's in" was its opening phrase. Self-deprecating humor was new and popular in the sixties and unheard-of in drug commercials, when it appeared it was news. tune It was followed by 16 completely different commercials, each entertaining and stylish, each giving you a different reason to take Alka-Seltzer.2 One of these 16 commercials was based on an "Alka-Seltzer on the Rocks" theme, for which Tinker & Partners  created "a frothy, luminous commercial composed of nothing but two Alka-Seltzers dropping into a crystal glass of water." The key phrase here was "two Alka-Seltzers"  up until this series of ads, both the Speedy commercials and Alka-Seltzer's packaging had promoted the use of but a single tablet at a time: We met an attractive doctor at Miles [Laboratories], Dorothy Carter, who demonstrated to us that in order for aspirin to break through the pain barrier it often required two aspirins, not one, to do the job. As aspirin is one of the ingredients that make Alka-Seltzer effective, we asked her if two Alka-Seltzers would be better than one. Yes, two would work better than one. But the directions on the package said to take only one. And all the old Speedy commercials demonstrated only one fizzing in water. [We] did a little dance with Dorothy Carter in the laboratory. What a stroke of good fortune that was! We changed the directions on the packages and began showing two Alka-Seltzers dropping into a glass of water in every commercial. Miles created portable foil packs that held two Alka-Seltzers each and sold them in new places, magazine stands, bars, fast-food restaurants, powder rooms  they became ubiquitous  and, naturally, Miles began selling twice as much Alka-Seltzer.2 Alka-Seltzer's sales didn't quite double, and not all of the increase was directly attributable to consumers' using two tablets instead of one, but Alka-Seltzer did experience a dramatic reversal of fortune due to the Tinker & Partners commercials and  their emphasis on two tablets  an emphasis that was later fortified with the catchy and enduring "Plop, plop; fizz fizz" jingle, which drove from the public consciousness any thought that anyone had ever used anything less than two Alka-Seltzers at a time. jingle A common bit of trivia claims that Alka-Seltzer's famous "Plop, plop; fizz, fizz" jingle was written by the father of actress Julianna Margulies (of TV medical drama ER and The Good Wife fame).  Although Julianna's father, Paul Margulies, was an advertising executive who helped create the "Plop-plop, fizz-fizz, oh what a relief it is" campaign for Alka-Seltzer, the jingle was actually composed by musician Tom Dawes, a former member of The Cyrkle, who toured America with the Beatles in 1966 after scoring a #2 hit with a recording of Paul Simon's "Red Rubber Ball." composed The Cyrkle Last updated:  27 October 2013 A Big Life (in Advertising)    Mann, Charles C.  The Aspirin Wars: Money, Medicine, and 100 Years of Rampant Competition.   New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.   ISBN 0-394-57894-5. The Aspirin Wars: Money, Medicine, and 100 Years of Rampant Competition    1.  Marling, Karal Ann.  As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of Everyday Life in the 1950s.   Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.   ISBN 0-674-04882-2  (p. 136). As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of Everyday Life in the 1950s Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post  There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians.  promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000  an all-time high since the pandemic began.  New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways  through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false. On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response     As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . . . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . . . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion  so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients  including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration  a project named the FinCEN files  led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true." Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the "mainstream media" intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed:  It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that "government agencies" participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: claiming At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story  that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene  as "bullshit." Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: investigation It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that "governmental agencies" were party to the conspiracy: verdict THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: report John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, "I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?" And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, "Killing the Dream" made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, "It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it." The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the "U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination." (In the event, the verdict referred only to "governmental agencies" rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: statement There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the "allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible": After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination. Yellin, Emily.  "Memphis Jury Sees Conspiracy in Martin Luther King's Killing"
  The New York Times.  9 December 1999. In the summer of 2020, multiple readers asked Snopes to verify the accuracy of a widely-shared Facebook post that listed several "quiet acts of random kindness" purportedly performed by U.S. President Donald Trump: Facebook post   The post correctly identified Trump's date of birth as June 14, 1946, then presented four incidents as examples of the "quiet acts of random kindness" supposedly performed by the businessman turned president. Supporters of Trump have previously promoted similar anecdotes that portray him as generous, and we have examined several of those in depth. correctly examined Overall, the July 2020 Facebook post contained mostly accurate and verifiable claims, along with one long-debunked urban legend. "In 1995, his car has a flat tire. A black man walking by notices it's owner is wearing a suit. So he steps in and fixes the flat. 'How can I repay you?' asks the gentleman? 'My wife has always wanted some flowers' the man says. A few days later, the black man's wife gets a beautiful bouquet of flowers with a note saying, 'Thanks for helping me. By the way... the mortgage on your house is paid off.'" This is no more than an old urban legend that has appeared and re-appeared in various forms with certain details changed, including the name of the celebrity who supposedly paid off the mortgage, for decades. Snopes first debunked it in 1998, after a version of the story involving Trump had appeared in Forbes magazine two years earlier. debunked Over the years, similar stories have been told about Henry Ford, Nat King Cole, and Bill Gates, demonstrating that the 1995 version about Trump was just a variation of an old yarn. "A USMC Sargent spends 7 months in a Mexican prison for a minor charge. He is beaten. After he is returned to America, The man from Queens sends him a check for $25,000, 'To get you started.'" This anecdote relates to the story of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who was arrested in Mexico in March 2014 and spent seven months in prison there on weapons-trafficking charges after he crossed the border at San Ysidro, California. His car was found to contain three firearms and ammunition, items he legally owned and was permitted to carry in the United States, but not in Mexico. We examined his case and the complexities surrounding it in a previous fact check. Tahmooressi's protracted detention in Mexico, along with his claims of having been beaten and restrained for weeks on end, caught the attention of several high-profile commentators in the United States, including the broadcaster and U.S. Navy veteran Montell Williams, then-Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren, and Trump. fact check Trump Tahmooressi's mother Jill, who was a vocal and persistent advocate for her son's release and return to the United States, confirmed in a phone call with Snopes that Trump had indeed sent Andrew a check for $25,000 after he was released in late 2014. Trump also enclosed a letter, which Tahmooressi reproduced in her memoir. In that letter, dated Nov. 11, 2014, Trump wrote: memoir "It is my great honor to present you with this check for $25,000. You have served our country with fortitude and dignity, and we are fortunate to have someone like you as a brave Marine and protector of our wonderful nation. We are proud of you and I wish you and your family the very best for many years to come."   "A black bus driver saves a suicidal girl from jumping off a bridge. Our man from Queens sends him a check for $10,000." In October 2013, Buffalo, New York, bus driver Darnell Barton made international headlines after he saved the life of a woman contemplating suicide. Barton stopped his bus and comforted the woman, who was standing on the outside of railings along an overpass, before carefully helping her on to the other side of the railings and staying with her while first responders arrived on the scene: saved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyire35WVqMThe Buffalo News reported at the time that Mayor Byron Brown had presented Barton with a $10,000 check from Trump in a ceremony at city hall: reported "Donald J. Trump wasn't there himself. But in the well-appointed office of Mayor Byron W. Brown, a check for $10,000 from the real estate mogul was presented to the hero bus driver who brought a woman on the brink of suicide to safety. 'Although I know to you it was just a warm-hearted first response to a dangerous situation,' Trump wrote to Darnell J. Barton, 'your quick thinking resulted in a life being saved, and for that you should be rewarded.'" "A rabbi's critically ill son needs to get from NYC to California for specialty care. No airlines will fly him. The generous man uses his private jet to fly the child." Another accurate description, which we addressed at greater length in a 2015 fact check. In July 1988, the Ten family needed to travel to New York for urgent medical treatment for their three-year-old son Andrew Ten, who had a rare respiratory condition. Because Andrew required the constant aid of a respirator and life support machine but commercial airlines could not accommodate that equipment, the family could not travel to New York on a conventional flight. fact check The boy's father, Harold Ten, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, contacted Trump to ask for the use of his private jet, and the property magnate agreed without hesitation, according to a contemporaneous report by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: report Asked why he thought Trump made his private jet available, Ten replied, "Because he is a good man. He has three children of his own and he knows what being a parent is all about." Ten said he believes that Trump fulfilled the Talmudic saying that "he who saves one person's life is as if he saved the entire world." Among the relatives at the airport to greet the child and his parents were the paternal grandparents of the sick boy."Donald Trump is a miracle, just a miracle," said grandmother Feigy Ten, who came to the airport with her husband, Phillip Ten. Both grandparents thanked Trump's generosity over and over again. Evon, Dan.  "So You Think You Know the Real Donald Trump?"   Snopes.com.  25 July 2016. Snopes.com.  "Did Donald Trump Pay Off a Good Samaritan's Mortgage?"   3 March 1998. MacGuill, Dan.  "Did Mexican Authorities Arrest and Torture a U.S. Marine for Accidentally Crossing the Border?"   Snopes.com.  5 December 2018. Thompson, Carolyn.  "NY Bus Driver Saves Woman from Jumping Off Bridge."   Associated Press.  30 October 2013. Terreri, Jill.  "Bus Driver Receives Trump Check, Headed for Rachael Ray Show."   The Buffalo News.  7 November 2013. Snopes.com.  "Did Trump's Private Jet Carry a Sick Child From California to New York?"   15 August 2015. Rabi, Yitzhak.  "Orthodox Child with Rare Ailment Is Rescued Aboard Tycoon's Jet."   The Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  20 July 1988. Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005.