Did Biden Revoke $250M That Trump Pledged to Historically Black Colleges?
In early February 2021, social media users shared a copypasta meme spreading the baseless rumor that U.S. President Joe Biden had revoked millions of dollars in funding from the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), a charitable organization that provides scholarships for Black higher education students and institutions, which former President Donald Trump had pledged to give to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) over the next 10 years. Here is an example of the meme circulating on social media:   We found no evidence of any truth to this claim. It appears to be a case of a rumor spread by way of copypasta  text forwarded via social media platforms by people copying and pasting it from profile to profile. copypasta We reached out to UNCF to ask about the meme. Lodriguez Murray, senior vice president of public policy and government affairs told us that there is no truth to it. Murray pointed out that UNCF is a private, nonprofit organization and as such, receives money from private donors, not the federal government. Instead, UNCF advocates the federal government. He also pointed out that federal funding is the purview of Congress, not the executive branch. purview The copypasta, Murray said, "sounds like a lie and no one should ever use UNCF's good name or HBCUs or populations traditionally held down by systemic racism to make their erroneous case." Murray also pointed out that as part of his campaign, Biden had promised more funding for higher education, which included $70 billion for HBCUs and other institutions that serve minority students. more funding
Social media is often where activists, politicians, non-profit groups, or simply members of the public share their concerns and outrage over what they perceive as miscarriages of justice. Excessive punishments, racial disparities in sentencing, and an apparently permissive attitude towards sexual assault among some judges and prosecutors have all formed the basis of viral Facebook and Twitter memes in recent years. Towards the end of 2018 and in the beginning of 2019, one case in particular caught the attention of social media users: Jacob Walter Anderson, a former student and fraternity president at Baylor University in Texas, was accused of raping a sophomore outside a frat party but ended up receiving what many observers viewed as an outrageously insufficient punishment.  NOTE: The following article includes details and descriptions of an alleged sexual assault, which might be upsetting to some readers. On 13 December 2018, Facebook user Lesley Templeton Keith posted what became a widely shared set of claims about Anderson's case, accompanied by what was presented as a photograph of him: posted Disgusting. Disgrace. His name is Jacob Walter Anderson. 'He nearly choked her to death [forcing his penis down her throat]. He raped her violently. He left her passed out in her own vomit -- the rape exam confirmed rape.' 'If the 24-year-old successfully completes three years of deferred probation and pays a $400 fine, his criminal record will be wiped clean of the charge, and he won't have to register as a sex offender, CNN affiliate KWKT said.' Make him famous. The internet never forgets.   Similarly, @Ness_Qwik tweeted on 11 December: "JACOB WALTER ANDERSON former president of Phi Delta Theta drugged, gagged, & repeatedly raped his victim til she lost consciousness. He got a $400 fine & will not have to register as a sex offender. Twitter please spread his name & face & fucking ruin him!" *Trigger Warning* JACOB WALTER ANDERSON former president of Phi Delta Theta drugged, gagged, & repeatedly raped his victim til she lost consciousness. He got a $400 fine & will not have to register as a sex offender. Twitter please spread his name & face & fucking ruin him! https://t.co/AvVKy76knt https://t.co/AvVKy76knt  Virgin Jones (@Ness_Qwikk) December 11, 2018 December 11, 2018   And on 12 December, @Nicoxw1 tweeted what appeared to be photographs of Anderson and 19th District Court Judge Ralph Strother, along with the following message: "On the left, Jacob Walter Anderson, who raped a virgin and left her unconscious. On the right, Judge Ralph Strother, who thought a $400 fine was appropriate. Remember their names and faces, this must follow them wherever they are for the rest of their lives." On the left, Jacob Walter Anderson, who raped a virgin and left her unconscious.On the right, Judge Ralph Strother, who thought a $400 fine was appropriate.Remember their names and faces, this must follow them wherever they are for the rest of their lives. pic.twitter.com/KTQFIiMti6 pic.twitter.com/KTQFIiMti6  NicoXW (@Nicoxw1) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018   Some of these claims were accurate, while others lacked context or left out relevant information. However, the central and most substantial claim, that Anderson brutally raped the woman and left her unconscious, remains unproven because the case never went to trial and therefore crucial evidence is not publicly available, no examination of witnesses took place, and no jury issued a verdict. Waco police arrested Anderson on 3 March 2016 over an incident that had taken place at a party almost two weeks earlier, as the Waco Tribune-Herald reported at the time: reported The 20-year-old Phi Delta Theta president at Baylor University was arrested on a sexual assault charge for allegedly forcing himself on a woman outside of a fraternity party, Waco police Sgt. W. Patrick Swanton said. Jacob Anderson was charged after a female was taken to Baylor Scott & White Hillcrest Medical Center for a sexual-assault medical exam following a fraternity party at a house in the 2600 block of South Third Street on Feb. 21. Hospital officials notified Waco police of the alleged assault. The female said that she had been at a party at a fraternity in South Waco. She said she was handed a drink of some kind of punch and was told, Here you go. Drink this, Swanton said, citing police reports. She said shortly after that she became very disoriented, was taken outside by our suspect, who is Jacob Walter Anderson, and she said when they got outside, Anderson forcibly sexually assaulted her. According to the arrest affidavit, Anderson took the victim to a secluded part of the grounds behind a tent in order to get some air, however once away from everyone else attending the party he sexually assaulted the woman. Court documents stated that the victim lost consciousness, but awoke alone a short time later in the same outside area before returning to the house and finding a friend, who took her immediately to the hospital. On 11 May, the office of McLennan County District Attorney Abelino Reyna indicted Anderson on four counts of sexual assault, a second-degree felony under Texas law punishable by between two and 20 years in prison. The indictment alleged that Anderson had repeatedly raped the young woman, both vaginally and orally. felony indictment In a victim impact statement submitted to Judge Ralph Strother, the young woman outlined her account of the night in question, using details and descriptions that some readers might find upsetting (Snopes is not identifying the woman in order to protect her privacy, as is standard practice in the news media in sexual assault cases): statement On February 21, 2016 when I was a 19 year old Sophomore at Baylor University, Jacob Walter Anderson took me to a secluded area behind a tent and proceeded to violently and repeatedly rape me. He repeatedly raped me orally and vaginally while choking me, gagging me and physically forcing my body into positions so he could continue to rape me. I had no control over my body and no way to stop him (please see my original written police statement). When I collapsed on the ground he pulled down his pants and shoved his penis in my mouth and down my throat gagging me. When he forcefully picked me up and shoved me into a wall to rape me vaginally from behind he calmly and coldly said Its fine. Youre fine. When I tried to pull up my pants or sit he shoved me to the ground and shoved his penis back down my throat and continued to choke me. When he forced me up again and started to rape me vaginally again I blacked out permanently. When I was completely unconscious he dumped me face down in the dirt and left me there to die. He had taken what he wanted, had proven his power over my body. He then walked home and went to bed without a second thought to the ravaged, half dead woman he had left behind. When I regained consciousness I did not know where I was. I was lying in the grass and dirt and something sticky was on my face. As I continued to throw up I realized I had been vomiting and aspirating while I was unconscious. My friends immediately took me to the hospital and a SANE exam verified the rape. I had trauma and tearing and grass inside my vagina. I was treated for HIV and many STDs and told to take plan B. I had to get labs done two more times over the next year to make sure I do not have HIV or STDs. Everytime is stressful, wondering if I might still die as a result of being raped. The police arrived and took a report. Over the course of two years, defense and prosecution attorneys supboenaed witnesses and examined evidence, and in February 2018 the woman filed a lawsuit against Anderson and 21 other members of the Baylor University Phi Delta Theta fraternity, accusing them of facilitating and contributing to her alleged sexual assault in multiple ways -- including allegedly allowing her drink to be drugged, serving alcohol to minors, and in general, being negligent with respect to the safety of guests at the February 2016 party in question.  accusing In his response to the lawsuit, Anderson denied each of the woman's allegations and demanded a jury trial in civil court. As of 15 February 2019, that civil case was ongoing. response The criminal case against Anderson took a dramatic turn on 23 August 2018, when the Waco Tribune-Herald reported that the District Attorney's office would be agreeing to a plea bargain in the case: reported "A former Baylor University fraternity president who is charged with four counts of sexual assault has reached a plea agreement with the McLennan County District Attorneys Office. Jacob Walter Anderson, 23, of Garland, is set to enter a plea Sept. 4, according to court records, which do not specify the terms of the plea bargain. The records show only that state prosecutors intend to file a superseding charging document, likely to a lesser charge than sexual assault, in exchange for Andersons plea." That decision was made without consulting the woman, and in a later court filing her attorney, Vic Feazell, wrote that she had in fact found out about the impending plea bargain by reading the Tribune-Herald on 23 August. That evening, the woman's mother emailed Feazell, asking: "What is going on? Why are we reading that the D.A. [District Attorney] is offering a plea less than sexual assault? This man raped our daughter four times and left her to die!" filing The same evening, the young woman's father emailed McLennan County Assistant District Attorney Hilary LaBorde, the lead prosecutor against Anderson. According to that same court filing, he wrote: "A plea by this rapist to a lower crime is unacceptable and will not go away quietly. My daughter was brutally raped and left to die. Why is this rapist allowed to walk away from this crime? ... The last time you spoke with my wife you said there would be no plea bargains." We asked the McLennan County District Attorney's office to respond to the claim that LaBorde had assured the victim's family there would be no plea bargain, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. The day after the Tribune-Herald article was published, LaBorde emailed the young woman and her parents, apologizing that they had found out about the plea bargain through the news media, and outlining her reasons for dropping the sexual-assault charges. She referred to a recent case involving Hunter Michael Morgan, also a Baylor University student, accused of sexually assaulting an unconscious female student after a party at his apartment. In that case, LaBorde and her fellow prosecutors had also offered a plea bargain that would have lessened the charges to unlawful restraint, but Morgan rejected the deal and was acquitted of sexual assault at trial. Here are some excerpts from LaBorde's email: that case email I apologize for not telling you both about this agreement before there was a story in our newspaper. I didn't know there would be a story about a plea that hasn't occurred and about which nothing has been made public. I've accepted an offer on Jacob Anderson. It's for probation on the charge of felony unlawful restraint not sexual assault -- therefore, he will not have to register as a sex offender. I realize this is not the outcome we had hoped for or that I had originally offered, but I tried a very similar case to this one last month, and lost. Which was devastating to the family and victim involved. In light of the similarities between the cases, it's my opinion it would be worse to try Anderson and lose and have the entire matter wiped from his criminal history than to accept this plea offer. Not to mention the emotional damage [the woman] would have to deal with if she had to testify and then felt the jury thought she was a liar. ... The victim [in the Hunter Morgan case] had injuries to her genitals and the defendant's DNA in her underwear. I actually thought the Hunter Morgan case was stronger than Jacob Anderson's because Morgan admitted the victim was intoxicated, too intoxicated to consent, and he admitted he wasn't intoxicated at all. One weakness I've always identified with Anderson is that he was drinking also -- and although I think he's exaggerating -- he acts as though he was extremely intoxicated at the time he was at the frat party. ... To speak frankly as to the injuries in [the] Anderson [case], the research suggests that victims with no sexual experience are more likely to be injured because a sexual encounter is their first. So medically speaking, [the woman's] innocence and lack of experience makes the medical evidence less helpful. ... In short, I think this jury [in the Morgan case] was looking for any excuse not to find an innocent-looking young defendant guilty. They engaged in a lot of victim blaming -- and the behavior of that victim and [Anderson's victim] is very similar. ... While I can't imagine the upset that y'all will feel at believing Anderson isn't getting what he deserves, I don't want him to get away with his crime entirely. Part of his probation will be getting sex offender treatment and alcohol treatment. Without these terms, and if he's just found not guilty, there will be no reason to think his conduct will be different the next time he's in a bar and finds a woman who can't defend herself. Given the similarities, I'm surprised the defense attorneys on Anderson are willing to plea him to anything and I don't want to squander the opportunity for there to be some consequence for him that might alter his behavior in the future. Four days later, on 28 August, the woman in the Anderson case emailed her attorney about LaBorde's response in scathing terms, writing, "I truly feel betrayed by the one person who was able to get justice," and adding: emailed "The case she lost [Texas vs. Hunter Michael Morgan] is nothing like my case ... Why is she so worried about [Anderson] getting counseling instead of him being convicted for rape? Put him in jail and he will not be able to rape another person! He can get counseling in jail!" The woman added that she felt "utter shock" at LaBorde's rationale for offering Anderson a plea bargain, summarizing it as being "because she lost a completely different case so she didn't trust a jury to do the right thing." We asked the McLennan County District Attorney's office for a detailed explanation of the decision to offer Anderson a plea bargain, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. In the end, the prosecutors did indeed drop all four charges of sexual assault against Anderson, and on 11 October 2018 indicted him on one charge of "unlawful restraint," an offense defined as "intentionally or knowingly restraining another person." indicted defined Under Texas law, unlawful restraint is typically a misdemeanor crime, but it becomes a third-degree felony if the assailant "recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury." Anderson was indicted on third-degree felony unlawful restraint, a crime punishable in Texas by a prison sentence of between two and 10 years. punishable Under the terms of his plea agreement, Anderson pleaded "nolo contendere" (no contest) to the charge of unlawful restraint, an action that has the same effect as a guilty plea. However, in exchange for this plea, prosecutors agreed with Anderson's lawyers that they would recommend to the judge the following punishment: plea agreement The young woman and her attorney vociferously rejected the plea agreement and appealed to Judge Strother to dismiss it. On 22 November 2018, the woman submitted a lengthy and detailed statement to the court, pleading with the judge not to "set free the man who raped me and ruined my life":  statement "I am writing this letter to hold the D.A. accountable to do their job and seek justice. To hold Jacob Anderson accountable for his crimes. He raped me. He almost killed me. A grand jury indicted him on four counts of sexual assault, not unlawful restraint ... There is no reason why this case should not go to trial. I would like this case to go to trial. The evidence should be heard. Witnesses should be heard. A judge and jury of [Anderson's] peers should decide if he is innocent or guilty and then and only then should he be sentenced and have to register as a sex offender." In the end, however, that jury trial never took place, and on 10 December 2018, Strother carried out the order of deferred adjudication probation for three years with several conditions for Anderson, including: order Significantly, Anderson did not have to register as a sex offender because unlawful restraint was not one of the offenses that required such registration under Texas law. If he completes his three years of probation, he will not have to go to prison for his offense, and no conviction will appear on his criminal record. If he violates any of the terms of his probation, the court could convict him of unlawful restraint and impose a prison sentence of between two and 10 years. required Some of the factual claims in the social media posts highlighted above were accurate, for example the claims that Anderson was ordered to pay a fine of $400 and did not have to register as a sex offender. The photographs included in the memes did indeed show Anderson and Judge Strother. However, the posts gave a limited picture of the penalties imposed upon Anderson. Notwithstanding the fact that many observers found the terms of the plea bargain to be woefully insufficient, Anderson's punishment did extend beyond a mere $400 fine and included probation terms that, among other requirements, restricted his freedom of movement. None of the posts mentioned the fact that if Anderson violated any terms of his probation, he would be convicted of a felony and would face a prison sentence of up to 10 years. We cannot make a determination on the veracity of the central and most substantial claim made in the memes, that Anderson repeatedly raped the woman and left her unconscious. Because no criminal trial took place, important evidence is not publicly available, no witnesses were examined, and no jury had the opportunity to issue a verdict. Anderson was never tried or convicted on any charges of sexual assault. We invited attorneys for Anderson to respond to the many allegations made against him by the young woman, her attorney, and members of the public. We did not receive a response in time for publication, but two of the attorneys who represented Anderson in the criminal case against him, Mark Daniel and Jim Moore, have in the past publicly challenged the allegations of rape made by the woman. Speaking after Judge Strother ordered deferred adjudication probation in December 2018, the attorneys told the Waco Tribune-Herald that the impact statement written by the woman at the center of the case had been "riddled with distortions and misrepresentations": told What seems to have been left out of her representation was some passionate kissing, groping and grinding by this girl and Mr. Anderson that occurred in front of more than 100 people at this party, the attorneys said. Many witnesses saw them kissing passionately several times during the party. The womans claims that she was choked is absolutely contrary to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system. She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital, Daniel said. She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face. The attorneys said there was no genetic evidence tying Anderson to the alleged offense and that the woman gave numerous inconsistent statements to the prosecution. Attorney Vic Feazell called those claims outlandish. Speaking to the Tribune-Herald at the time, he said: "It's easy for them to say all that bullshit after the fact. That's what trials are for ... It is not fair for them to come out with this bullshit without anybody being able to be cross-examined. If they wanted to cross-examine her, we should have had a trial. I don't believe that fraternity bullshit. They are all just sticking together ... If they had such a damn good case, let's go try it." Hoppa, Kristin.  "Baylor Fraternity President Charged with Sexual Assault."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  3 March 2016. Texas Penal Code.  "Title 5, Chapter 22.011 -- Sexual Assault."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Indictment."
  11 May 2016. 414th Judicial District Court, Texas.  "Donna Doe v. Phi Delta Theta et al. -- Plaintiff's First Amended Petition and Request for Disclosure."
  19 February 2018. 414th Judicial District Court, Texas.  "Donna Doe v. Phi Delta Theta et al. -- Defendant Jacob Walter Anderson's Original Answer and Jury Demand."
  3 April 2018. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Former Baylor Frat President Likely to Plead Down Sexual Assault Charges."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  23 August 2018. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Rockwall Man Found Not Guilty in Alleged Sexual Assault of Fellow Baylor Student."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  21 June 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Superceding Information."
  11 October 2018. Texas Penal Code.  "Title 5, Chapter 20.02 -- Unlawful Restraint."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. Office of the Attorney General, Texas.  "Penal Code Offenses By Punishment Range."
  March 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Disclosure of Plea Recommendation."
  15 October 2018. 19th District Court, Texas.  "Texas v. Jacob Walter Anderson -- Order of Deferred Adjudication."
  10 December 2018. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  "Title 1, Chapter 62 -- Sex Offender Registration Program."
  Accessed 15 February 2019. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Anderson Attorneys Hit Back After Criticism of Plea Deal."
  The Waco Tribune-Herald.  11 December 2018. On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: FACT CHECK:  Did President Obama order that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people?  Claim:   President Obama ordered "behavioral experiments" be carried out on the American people.   MOSTLY  WHAT'S :   President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging federal agencies to more frequently use behavioral research insights in the creation and adoption of policy.     WHAT'S :  President Obama ordered that "behavioral experiments" be carried out on American citizens; President Obama specifically directed agencies to implement any form of behavioral insight usage; the word "experiment" appeared anywhere in the Executive Order. Example:    [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] President Barry ORDERS BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ON AMERICAN PUBLIC!! https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3 https://t.co/MNHOSCvpAB #COSProject pic.twitter.com/0aQN33AqQ3  TheFightingIrishDame (@TheIrishDame) September 16, 2015 September 16, 2015   Shock Executive Order: Obama Authorizes Behavioral Experiments On U.S. Citizens: To A ... - https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe https://t.co/pl2RzxZr4q pic.twitter.com/ll7cWaFtqe  State of Globe (@StateofGlobe) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Obama Executive Order Instructs Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens: https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e https://t.co/mCynSnLP0e  Bill Periman (@BillPeriman) September 17, 2015 September 17, 2015   Origins:   On 15 September 2015 the web site Daily Caller published an article titled "President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments on American Public" which claimed that the chief executive had "authorized federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens": President Obama announced a new executive order which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives. The article was aggregated by other news outlets such as DC Clothesline, which similarly claimed the President's executive order had instructed "Federal Agencies to Conduct Mass Behavioral Experiments on U.S. Citizens": Does anyone actually believe "behavioral experiments" on the US citizenry are about "designing government policies to better serve the American people?" Think Pavlov's dog. And, can someone point to the Constitution and show where government has the authority to "experiment" on the citizenry in any shape, form or fashion? It's not there. Government possesses no authority whatsoever to conduct any type of experimentation, behavioral or otherwise, on the citizens of this nation. Both Daily Caller and DC Clothesline used the phrase "behavioral experiments" (conjuring up frightening scenarios of federal gaslighting), and the second article placed the phrase in quotes, suggesting specifically that the Obama administration had "ordered" sinister-sounding "behavioral experiments" be inflicted upon Americans. The 15 September 2015 Executive Order referenced by the articles is available on the White House's web site for open review. Tellingly, the word "experiments" does not appear anywhere within it; only words such as "encourage[d]," "identify," "review," and "improve." The executive order about "Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People" actually decreed: web site decreed To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy. Alongside the Executive Order, the White House issued a document titled "Fact Sheet: President Obama Signs Executive Order; White House Announces New Steps to Improve Federal Programs by Leveraging Research Insights." Aiming to provide details not included on the Executive Order about how "behavioral insights" could apply to the creation and implementation of policy, that document explained: document Behavioral science insights  research insights about how people make decisions  not only identify aspects of programs that can act as barriers to engagement, but also provide policymakers with insight into how those barriers can be removed through commonsense steps, such as simplifying communications and making choices more clear. That same study on financial aid found that streamlining the process of applying  by providing families with assistance and enabling families to automatically fill parts of the application using information from their tax return  increased the rates of both aid applications and college enrollment. When these insights are used to improve government, the returns can be significant. For instance, the Federal Government applied behavioral science insights to simplify the process of applying for Federal student aid and has made college more accessible to millions of American families. Similarly, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which codified the practice of automatically enrolling workers into retirement savings plans, is based on behavioral economics research showing that switching from an opt-in to an opt-out enrollment system dramatically increases participation rates. Since the implementation of this policy, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation have led to billions of dollars in additional savings by Americans. Another germane fact sheet tidbit came in the form of detail pertaining to a new committee formed to facilitate the order's initiatives: The Executive Order also formally establishes the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), a group of experts in applied behavioral science that translates findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences into improvements in Federal policies and programs for the benefit of the American people. The passage excerpted above indicated that behavioral insights data targeted by the initiative stemmed not from government-led "behavioral experiments," but rather "findings and methods from the social and behavioral sciences."  Another passage supported inferences that non-governmental research groups would be tasked with submitting the bulk of relevant findings to the SBST for consideration in the drafting of future policy: The Behavioral Science & Policy Association (BSPA) is launching a Behavioral Science and Policy Series to identify promising avenues for applying behavioral science to public policy at the Federal level in order to improve Americans' lives. Through this series, by September 2016, working groups will deliver white papers that propose particular applications of behavioral science that can be applied, tested, and implemented at the Federal level in the near term. A less harrowing interpretation of the executive order than that fostered by conservative news sites was offered by the Houston Chronicle in a 17 September 2015 article: article Dr. Andrew Harper, a professor of behavioral science at the University of Texas Health Medical School, said behavioral science is an old discipline, used to maximize communication effectiveness, that is only now being applied to government-authored materials. "For example in healthcare there are simple things we want people to do  eat a balanced diet, sleep well," he said. "When just saying 'do it' doesn't work, we look to behavioral science to inform us on strategies that might work better." According to the executive order, research will be used to inform even the basic layout of federal agencies websites and other outreach information. The newly-founded team will consider "how the content, format, timing and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals." In other words, researchers will conduct clinical studies to determine how agencies could more effectively present information in a way that will move people to action. The Executive Order didn't come to pass without some objections, however. The University of Oxford's Practical Ethics in the News Blog featured an editorial that questioned how scientifically rigorous the selection and application of such data might be, implying the initiative's mission was too ambiguous. Author Joshua Shepherd conceded that the proposal was overall "a good thing," but said "the order raises a number of ethical and practical issues": editorial Given recent evidence that many results from experimental and social psychology fail to replicate, there might be reason to worry here. The executive order does not define what counts as an 'insight' from behavioral science. Is it the result of one study? A couple? Deployment of an insight that is nothing more than an experimental artifact could be damaging, or wasteful. Suppose a genuine insight exists. Even so, implementing it is not straightforward. Other experts didn't think that the potential flaws outweighed the benefits. University of Michigan professor Andrew Hoffman outlined the potential practical effects of such initiatives on policy in a Scientific American article, positing that their application to the drafting of policy was "long overdue": article [Hoffman] says that people might react rebelliously to a gas tax imposed by the government. A rise in its cost spurred by market forces, on the other hand, might prompt them to drive less. In that way, federal policies should consider the complicated ways that people filter, interpret and process messages. You can't expect to put a price on something  whether that's gas, plastic bags or emissions  and get an expected result, he said. These are things that sociology, psychology, political science have been focusing on for decades, Hoffman said. So to bring in the notion that humans are not perfectly rational, utility-maximizing beings in the formation of policy is long overdue. It is true that President Obama issued an Executive Order on 15 September 2015 encouraging and facilitating the application of behavioral research insights, with a stated goal of creating more efficient policy and stronger compliance. Moreover, some credible questions were raised about how rigorous standards for inclusion of such data might be. But the order neither referenced nor described "behavioral experimentation" upon the American people, nor did it in any way suggest that the order's details involved using anything other than existing, ongoing research carried out by social and behavioral science experts. Last updated:     17 September 2015 Originally published:   17 September 2015 Scam:  Accounts of check fraud being perpetrated at Walmart stores by employees and customers. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2007]    Origins:  The image displayed above supposedly reproduces a 26 July 2007 memo (circulated as a PDF) from an official with Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) warning employees about a multi-city check theft ring operating out of Walmart stores. According to the memo, Walmart employees had been using cell phones to photograph customer checks, then employing the information obtained from the images to produce fake checks that are used to buy gift cards. PDF As for the question of whether this memo actually was written by a Louisiana official, we note that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) disclaimed the memo's appropriateness without denying that it originated within the DPSC:  LSP On Thursday, July 26, 2007, an unauthorized letter was distributed to employees in the Baton Rouge field office of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles, concerning an alleged multi-city fraud and theft ring operating at Wal-Mart involving Wal-Mart employees. It was alleged in the letter that the employees of the store would obtain a customer's checking account information, and the information would be used to create fraudulent checks. This letter was not official or sanctioned in any way by the Department of Public Safety; unfortunately this letter was made public. The Department will be conducting an internal investigation and, at the conclusion of the investigation, will take the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. Members of the public should not rely on information contained in the letter. As always, consumers are cautioned to take steps to limit disclosure of their personal information and to be aware of their surroundings. As for the content of the memo, we note that instances of check fraud have been tied to a then-new practice (used in some Walmart stores) of processing checks not by the "traditional" method of retaining them and submitting them to banks for deposit, but by using them as authorizations to initiate electronic funds transfers (EFTs) and immediately returning them to customers.   In some cases, dishonest sales clerks have abused this procedure by deliberately failing to return checks to customers, then re-scanning the checks multiple times and using the ill-gotten proceeds to purchase gift cards and other merchandise. For example, TV station KTRK in Houston reported the following check-theft scam by a Walmart employee in December 2006: A former Wal-Mart employee is behind bars for her role in what authorities are calling a check fraud scheme. When you write a check at Wal-Mart, you hand it to a clerk who then runs the check through an electronic scanner and hands it back to you. Unfortunately some Wal-Mart shoppers did not get their checks handed back to them and it cost them thousands of dollars. Pam Davis never thought writing a $37 check at Wal-Mart would cost her thousands of dollars, but that's exactly what happened. She said, "I had gone to Wal Mart and written a check for $37 and did not realize I did not get that check back, which is the custom with electronic transfer. You are supposed toreceive the check back." Davis says  and authorities confirm  a clerk at Wal-Mart never returned Davis' check at the time of purchase, [so] the clerk was able to re-run the check through the electronic reader again and again.  Five times, they changed the amounts each time," Davis claimed. "It was almost $3,000." Authorities believe the clerk gave the checks to other people who then went on shopping sprees inside the store. Capt. Mark Herman with Precinct 4 said, "In some of the cases they were getting $300 Wal-Mart gift cards, clothing, just all kinds of purchases." Constables say the clerk did the same thing with checks written by other Wal-Mart customers. February 2016 also saw the sentencing of a Walmart customer who (along with his wife) defrauded other customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars through the method of peeking over their shoulders to obtain personal information which the couple used to create counterfeit checks: A man who cashed $300,000 worth of counterfeit checks using personal information stolen by peeking over the shoulders of hundreds of Wal-Mart customers was sentenced to prison. Robert MacVittie and his wife lined up behind customers trying to cash payroll checks at "dozens and dozens" of Wal-Mart stores in 20 states and recorded them providing their Social Security numbers, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Melucci said at the hearing where MacVittie received a 34-month sentence. The couple would then use the victims' identities to create counterfeit checks, which they cashed at other Wal-Marts. Melucci called MacVittie, 35, and his wife Jennifer, 32, "the Bonnie and Clyde of counterfeit checks." More than 400 people had their identities used on the successfully cashed counterfeit checks, Melucci said. Although it is possible a similar type of fraud could be effected by clerks' surreptitiously using cell phones to photograph customer checks, we have not been able to verify that this specific form of theft is occurring, much less that is taking place on a multi-city level by organized rings of Walmart employees.  photograph A few tips can be helpful to shoppers to avoid falling victim to this sort of fraud:  Be aware of how the stores you patronize process checks.  If they scan checks to use them as EFT authorizations, be sure your check is returned to you before you leave the checkout counter.  Use your bank's web site to monitor your checking account transactions online and notify your bank immediately if you spot any suspect transactions.  Using credit cards (or debit cards) rather than checks generally makes it easier to challenge fraudulent transactions and limit your liability for illegitimate charges.   Last updated:  7 February 2016  Mandak, Joe.  "'Shoulder Surfing' Husband Gets Prison in Walmart Check Scam Targeting Hundreds."    WTAE [Pittsburg].  4 February 2016. My son Devon Ward never came home from school today. He skipped his last class after lunch, and nobody's heard from him since. Cell phone is going right to voice mail. He is 14, about 5 foot 7, and probably wearing a black jacket. If everyone shares this on their pages, i am sure we will find someone who saw him this afternoon /evening or know his current whereabouts... call 607-358-5055.  According to Binghamton, New York, radio station WHWK: Lisa Davis of Horseheads is searching for her 14 year old son Devon Ward who she says may be on his way to Pennsylvania. According to Lisa, Devon skipped his last class after lunch at  Horseheads High School [on April 17] and hasn't been heard from since. Lisa says her husband checked the local hospital and notified both village police and New York State Troopers of their son's disappearance.  Devon is said to be about 5 foot 7 and most likely wearing a black jacket. When I asked Lisa whether she believed there were a chance that her son had decided to simply run away, she said her son isn't the type of kid to just run away, but that she was told he might be headed to Pennsylvania. I spoke the the Chemung County Sheriff's Office who confirmed that this is an active case. They referred me to Horseheads Police Department where I was told Devon's case is a State Police case.  I spoke with Trooper Lewis at the State Police office who didn't divulge any information but confirmed that Devon has been reported missing and that State Troopers are on the case. If you've seen Devon Ward or know where he is, please contact the New York State Troopers at 607-739-8797. On the evening of 18 April 2013, Devon's mother indicated on her Facebook page  that Devon had been located safe: Facebook We found Devon. He is safe and sound at the police barracks in Horseheads. Thank you to everyone who helped spread the word. We greatly appreciate all the help and support. We have such a wonderful community!! Please share the status, so that people know he's been found. Taylor, Traci.  "14 Year Old Missing from Horseheads, May Be Headed to Pennsylvania."
  WHWK Radio  18 April 2013. The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children:     This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language:   The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C.  1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth.  "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law."
  Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project,  1974  (p. 71) Noah, Timothy.  "Lindsey Graham's Smear."
  Slate.  16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh.  "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12."
  Media Matters.  1 November 2005. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here George Floyd, a 46-year-old Black man, died in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, after a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, pinned him to the ground and kneeled on his neck while Floyd repeatedly said, "I can't breathe." A bystander recorded the confrontation in a video that swiftly spread across social media as a deadly example of what many viewers dubbed racism by American cops. video The footage ultimately sparked an international reckoning over racism, marked by weeks of protests that largely began peaceful during the day and then escalated to chaos at night, with many U.S. cities reporting property damage, fires, and violent clashes between law-enforcement officers and protesters. protests violent clashes At the center of the civil rights movement were four former police officers charged in Floyd's death  particularly Chauvin, 44, whom authorities arrested and charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter. A judge ruled he would stand trial on his own, separate from the other three defendants, beginning March 8, 2021, according to The Associated Press. (No, he did not commit suicide, like some rumors online claim.) The Associated Press some rumors online claim.)  Photo by Ramsey County Sheriff's Office  What follows is everything we know about Chauvin, a 19-year veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), based on court records, news reports, and police documents  evidence that pieces together a policing record that includes complaints against him, as well as several shootings of civilians. We should note at the outset that the office of Chauvin's former attorney, Tom Kelly, did not respond to Snopes' request for comment and his current attorney, Eric Nelson, declined to be interviewed. Additionally, Sgt. John Elder, a spokesman for MPD, declined to answer questions about Chauvin's career with that department (which ended with Chauvin's termination the day after Floyd died), asserting that, "We dont comment on former employees," and "Anything we say" could affect the current investigation into Floyds death. To structure our examination into Chauvin's career with MPD, we measured the validity of each point in the below-displayed flyer titled "Who is Derek M. Chauvin?" that went viral shortly after Floyd's death.    That's a question the jury trial will legally determine. Prosecutors have charged Chauvin with second-degree murder and manslaughter after they say he kept Floyd pinned to the ground and knelt on his neck for almost eight minutes, including for nearly three minutes after Floyd became non-responsive.  almost eight minutes   Prosecutors also charged the three officers who watched the fatal confrontation between Floyd and Chauvin  Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane  with aiding and abetting second-degree murder (maximum prison sentence is 40 years) while committing a felony, and with aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter (maximum prison sentence is 10 years). As of this writing, they were scheduled to be tried together  separate from Chauvin's case  beginning Aug. 23, The Associated Press reported. reported According to the complaints, which will serve as the basis to prosecutors' arguments to try to convince jurors to convict the former police officers, Lane and Kueng responded to a 911 call reporting that someone had used a counterfeit $20 bill at a South Minneapolis convenience store. According to video evidence cited in the court documents, upon arriving at the scene the two officers approached Floyd, who was sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle also occupied by two other persons. As Lane began speaking with Floyd, the officer pulled his gun out and instructed Floyd to show his hands. Floyd complied with the order, whereupon the officer holstered his gun. Lane then ordered Floyd out of the car and "put his hands on Floyd, and pulled him out of the car," handcuffing him, the complaint stated. Minutes later, while the officers tried walking Floyd to their squad car, "Floyd stiffened up and fell to the ground," and told the officers he was claustrophobic, the court documents allege. Chauvin and Thao arrived at the scene at that point. The officers tried again to get Floyd into a squad car but were unsuccessful in doing so, according to the complaints. While the officers tried to force Floyd into the vehicle, he began asserting that he could not breathe. "Floyd did not voluntarily sit in the backseat and the officers physically struggled to try to get him into the vehicle," read the complaint outlining the charges against Chauvin. It continued: The defendant pulled Mr. Floyd out of the passenger side of the squad car at 8:19:38 p.m. and Mr. Floyd went to the ground face down and still handcuffed. ...The defendant placed his left knee in the area of Mr. Floyd's head and neck. Mr. Floyd said, "I can't breathe" multiple times and repeatedly said, "Mama" and "please," as well. At one point, Mr. Floyd said "I'm about to die." The defendant and the other two officers stayed in their positions. Floyd was later pronounced dead at a hospital. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office, which encompasses Minneapolis, ruled Floyd's manner of death a homicide. manner of death It is important to note here: In the county office's preliminary autopsy report, medical investigators said Floyd's underlying health conditions, such as coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease, contributed to his death in similar ways as Chauvin's restraint. But an autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family had different results; it determined he did, in fact, die of asphyxiation. (Read more about those findings here.) preliminary autopsy report similar ways here All of that said, in reference to the first claim in the flyer, attorneys representing Chauvin are likely to argue in the upcoming trial that he did not murder Floyd but rather operated within the law as an officer. Prosecutors and viewers of the viral video have said otherwise. You can read the full charges against Chauvin here; Thao here; Kueng here, and Lane here.  Chauvin here Thao here Kueng here Lane here The second claim in the flyer (that the restraint technique used was not part of MPD training) was false. At the time of Floyd's death, MPD's Policy & Procedure Manual (which governs everything from how officers should dress on the job to what tactics are OK to use during arrests) included the below-displayed section obtained by Snopes.  In other words, department policy permitted officers to use what it considered a "non-deadly force option" by kneeling on a suspect's neck if they had received lessons in how to do so without applying pressure to the suspect's airway. Officers could use "light or moderate pressure" to get someone under "control" or "adequate pressure" to make someone unconscious in situations they deemed appropriate. Policy & Procedure Manual  However, in the aftermath of Floyd's death, MPD agreed to ban officers from using chokeholds and neck restraints at the request of state authorities. As a result of that change, the police manual now reads: agreed request   The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA), which provides legal services to police by drawing from about a dozen attorneys, is providing legal representation for Chauvin. Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association And initially, yes, the association had assigned Tom Kelly to Floyd's case. Kelly was one of the defense attorneys who represented St. Anthony, Minnesota, police officer Jeronimo Yanez, who was acquitted on all charges in connection to the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, a Black man, during a traffic stop in 2017. who represented acquitted Philando Castile But on June 3, 2020, Eric Nelson of the Halberg Criminal Defense firm took over Chauvin's case, Reuters reported. Kelly told that news outlet the association had originally assigned the case to him because he was the on-call attorney at the time of Chauvin's arrest. But he gave up the case for medical-related reasons. Reuters reported In short, Kelly, a lawyer who indeed argued Yanez's case, also represented Chauvin  but only for about nine days. The flyer's claim was outdated. By and large, this assertion is true. Below, we lay out everything we know about the shooting of Leroy Martinez in 2011, which the flyer claimed was "an inappropriate police shooting" involving Chauvin and resulted in MPD placing him on administrative leave. According to news reports, on Aug. 8, 2011, Chauvin and other officers chased down Martinez, 23, in a public housing complex in South Minneapolis after they said they heard gunshots and saw Martinez running with a gun. (The Indian County-Today news outlet confirmed that Martinez is an Alaskan Native.) Indian County-Today One of the officers shot Martinez in the torso, and as he recovered in the hospital, Martinez faced second-degree assault charges in connection with a shooting that had taken place before police arrived on the scene. Here's how The Star Tribune newspaper reported the incident:  According to that newspaper's coverage, a witness who said she watched the shooting from her balcony in the housing complex maintained to journalists that police weren't telling the full story. The witness said Martinez had thrown down his gun and was holding his hands in the air when one of the officers (not Chauvin) shot him, after warning that he would open fire. reported  police All officers involved, including Chauvin, were placed on three-day administrative leave, which is standard procedure in officer-involved shootings, and eventually exonerated of any wrongdoing. Whether the flyer is correct in describing the shooting as "inappropriate" is a subjective issue. The police chief at the time said he believed the officers acted "appropriately and courageously," suggesting they had acted within department policy under the circumstances, The New York Times reported. The New York Times reported This claim in the flyer is largely true. Here's what we know about that incident: incident While responding to a call of domestic violence at a South Minneapolis apartment in May 2008, Chauvin opened fire on a 21-year-old Black man, Ira Latrell Toles. The Associated Press reported at the time: Ira Latrell Toles For a period of time there was an open 911 line into the residence and the 911 operator could hear a woman yelling for someone to stop hitting her, police said. Officers were refused entry when they arrived at the residence but could hear the assault continuing so they forced their way in. Police say Toles tried to run from officers, and when they tried to subdue him he tried to take an officer's gun. They say the officer shot him to prevent that from happening. The two officers on the scene are on paid administrative leave, which is standard in shootings. Police have not released their names. Toles, who survived the shooting and later faced criminal charges, recalled the incident differently. Following Floyd's death, he told The Daily Beast that yes, the mother of his child had called police on him that night, and that he had locked himself in the bathroom with an unlit cigarette after officers broke down the apartment door. Then, Toles alleged, Chauvin busted in the bathroom door and started hitting the 21-year-old without warning. Daily Beast Chauvin later told investigators that, because Toles supposedly failed to comply with officers' commands, he attempted to hit the young man in the head with the butt of his handgun and then opened fire when he thought Toles reached for his gun, The Star Tribune reported. Toles ex-girlfriend reported that Chauvin fired his firearm about two seconds after he entered the bathroom after Toles. The Star Tribune reported In summary, the flyer's point is accurate, with the caveat that only Toles' account suggested that he was unarmed at the time of the confrontation. This claim is true. In 2006, Chauvin and five other officers opened fire on a truck in South Minneapolis while investigating a reported stabbing, killing 42-year-old Wayne Reyes. According to MPD's account of the incident, Reyes pulled out a shotgun when police pulled him over to ask him questions about the reported assault; the officers believed Reyes had stabbed his girlfriend and another friend in a domestic dispute, according to news reports. In total, the six officers fired 42 rounds in four seconds, according to the The Washington Post. Reyes (who the Canadian national news outlet, APTN News, reported was a member of the Leech Lake Ojibwe Band in Minnesota) was struck multiple times and died. However, it was unclear if Chauvin fired any of the fatal shots. The Washington Post reported In the end, a grand jury ruled the officers' actions appropriate, and Chauvin was recommended for a Medal of Valor following the shooting, according to The Star Tribune. The Star Tribune    In reference to the flyer accusing Chauvin and the other officers of striking Reyes with 16 bullets, exactly, no reports corroborated that number. Otherwise, however, the claim about Reyes circulating after Floyd's death was accurate. This accusation is largely unproven based upon the available evidence. Here's what we can confirm: Roughly four years into Chauvin's MPD career, in 2005, he and another officer used a squad car on duty to chase a car that ended up crashing into another vehicle, killing three people, according to news reports. news reports But we have not yet uncovered further details on why the officers were chasing the car, or whether the other drivers (and their conditions) were major factors in the collision. So in reference to the flyer, while it was true Chauvin and another officer were involved in a deadly car chase, no trusted evidence showed the officers' actions indeed caused the three fatalities. Although MPD has not fulfilled requests for records to determine why, or under what circumstances, conduct complaints were filed against Chauvin prior to Floyd's death, this claim was somewhat true.  Snopes obtained Chauvin's Employee Complaint Profile Card, which provided few details other than a tally of 17 complaints against him throughout his MPD career.  Employee Complaint Profile Card, The only allegation that resulted in disciplinary action (two letters of reprimand) was filed in 2007, when Chauvin allegedly pulled over a woman for going 10 mph over the speed limit, frisked her, and put her in his squad car, according to news reports. The woman's baby and dog were reportedly inside the vehicle during the traffic stop. news reports reportedly Another complaint was filed by a 48-year-old man who said officers (one of whom was later identified as Chauvin) banged on his car window with a flashlight and attempted to force him to the pavement during a traffic stop in 2013, The Star Tribune reported. The man, a mental health worker, said he was driving home from working a double shift at Hennepin County Medical Center and believed officers had mistaken him for someone who had been using his name. In other words, it was undetermined based on verifiable evidence whether all the complaints against Chauvin accused him of using excessive use of force, or whether they included allegations that he had violated other aspects of MPD policy. Anyone can file a complaint against a police officer for any reason. Also unclear was whether, or to what extent, the complaints were connected to the incidents described above that resulted in civilian deaths or injuries. After graduating high school in 1994, Chauvin worked restaurant jobs as a prep cook, joined the U.S. Army, and eventually attended St. Paul's Metropolitan State University, The Star Tribune reported. There, his focus shifted to police work -- he eventually earned a degree in law enforcement -- and he joined MPD's ranks in 2001, at age 25.  The Star Tribune reported We also know that Chauvin and Floyd both worked at the same Minneapolis nightclub, El Nuevo Rodeo. Maya Santamaria, who owned the building that housed the club, confirmed with Snopes that both men worked at the business during periods that overlapped (Chauvin worked as an off-duty police officer), but it was unknown whether they ever ran into each other or were introduced. confirmed MPD leaders commended Chauvin's work at various points throughout his career, according to the news archives. For example, they awarded him a Medal of Commendation in 2008 after he apparently disarmed a man during one of his nightclub security shifts. news archives In 2010, Chauvin married his wife, Kellie Chauvin. The two had met at Hennepin County Medical Center, where she worked as a radiologic technician and he brought someone one night for a health check before an arrest, she told The Pioneer Press for a story about her preparation to compete in Mrs. Minnesota America. story Additionally, the couple owned and rented two homes in Woodbury, a suburb east of St. Paul, before they bought a home in Oakdale, Washington County, according to property records compiled by The Star Tribune. In 2011, they also bought a townhouse near Orlando, Florida, where voting records showed Derek Chauvin is registered to vote. Woodbury Just weeks after Floyd's death, Kellie Chauvin filed for divorce and sought to change her last name. As of this writing, the court sealed access to records in the case, citing privacy and safety concerns. Nonetheless, the couple's financial situation emerged in international news headlines in July, when authorities accused them of failing to report income from various jobs. international news headlines Washington County prosecutors charged Derek and Kellie Chauvin with aiding and abetting tax evasion and tax fraud. According to the criminal complaint, they failed to report more than $460,000 in Minnesota income over five years and failed to pay almost $38,000 in taxes owed during that time frame, according news reports. news reports Lastra, Ana and Eric. Rasmussen.  "George Floyd, Fired Officer Overlapped Security Shifts at South Minneapolis Club."   KSTP-TV.  28 May 2020. Richmond, Todd.  "Officer Accused in Floyds Death Opened Fire on 2 People."   The Associated Press.  29 May 2020. Evelyn, Kenya.  "George Floyd Killing: Two Officers Involved Previously Reviewed for Use of Force."   The Guardian.  28 May 2020. Van Berkel, Jessie.  George Floyds Death Returns Spotlight to Sen. Amy Klobuchar Prosecutor Past."   [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  29 May 2020. Bierschbach, Briana.  "Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin in Custody After Death of George Floyd."   [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  29 May 2020. [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  "Buildings Damaged in Minneapolis, St. Paul after Protests."   29 May 2020. Xiong, Chao and Paul Walsh.  "Ex-Police Officer Derek Chauvin Charged with Murder, Manslaughter in George Floyd Death."   [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  29 May 2020. Furber, Matt et. al.  "Minneapolis Police, Long Accused of Racism, Face Wrath of Wounded City.   The New York Times.  27 May 2020. Scher, Isaac.  "The Police Officer Who Knelt on George Floyds Neck Has Been Involved in Shootings and Was the Subject of 10 Complaints."   Business Insider.  28 May 2020. Melendez, Pilar.  "Minneapolis Man: Cop Who Kneeled on George Floyd Tried to Kill Me in 2008."   The Daily Beast.  29 May 2020. Pioneer Press.  "Minneapolis Police Officer Involved in Weekend Shooting ID'd."   26 May 2008. Minneapolismn.gov.  MPD Frequently Requested Public Information.   Accessed 29 May 2020. WCCO-TV.  "Lawyer: Wife of Charged Ex-MPD Officer Derek Chauvin Files for Divorce".   29 May 2020. This report was updated to include information about Chauvin and his jury trial set to begin in spring 2021 that emerged after the initial publication of this report. Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently attacked President Donald Trump over his trade policy, saying it is hurting American workers. The California senator then said as many as 300,000 auto workers were expected to lose their jobs this year, suggesting Trump was to blame. Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came in office, making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers, Harris said in aCNN interviewon Aug. 12. He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year. Trumps trade policy, especially the tariffs hes placed on China, have been blamed by economists forhurting farmers. But are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year as Harris claimed? Two recent fact-checks called that figure into question. Well review the facts and place a rating on the senators claim. Checking the facts After the interview, Harris campaign told CNN the 300,000 number is from aFebruary study by the Center For Automotive Research, CAR. The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts except on Canada, Mexico and South Korea. It estimated that between about 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trumpdelayed for six monthshis decision on whether to impose the tariffs. Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at the research center, or CAR,told FactCheck.orgin an email: 300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting. FactCheck.org added thatDziczekconfirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect. Auto workers produce vehicles at Volkswagen's U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. in 2017. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig) The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry.Dziczektold CNN the (auto) sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see. The only industry specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships.Dziczektold PolitiFact California there would an overall net loss in auto assembly and parts sectors. How big of a loss depends on how willing consumers would be to switch brand preference from imports to vehicles made in the United States, she wrote in an email. FactCheck.org described Harris claim as wrong, while CNN said it was false. Harris campaign did not respond to our request for comment, including whether the senator has corrected, or plans to correct, her statement. Our ruling Sen. Kamala Harris claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers may lose their jobs by the end of this year. She relied on a study that predicted, in a worst-case scenario, that between 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs could be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but in no way all from the auto industry. The losses would take place one year after President Trump imposes a proposed 25 percent tariff on imported cars and auto parts. Trump has delayed his decision on those tariffs until later this year, meaning the one-year later impact would not be felt until well into 2020, and not by the end of this year as Harris said. Harris claim far overestimates potential job losses for the auto industry, the timing of them and ignores the fact that no decision has been made on the tariffs. We rated her claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.