FDIC: Notice of Bank Failure
Virus:  FDIC notice of bank failure. REAL VIRUS Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] FDIC has officially named your bank a failed bank You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insuredbank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your accountwith as a failed bank, thus, taking control of its assets. You need to visit the official FDIC website and perform the followingsteps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage:  Visit FDIC website: https://www.fdic.gov/  https://www.fdic.gov/  Download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage Origins:  In October 2009, Internet users began receiving e-mails purporting to have come from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the agency that insures deposits in U.S. bank accounts.  These messages claimed that the recipients were holders of FDIC-insured bank accounts in failed banks and instructed them to click on a link to the FDIC web site in order download a file which would allow them to check their "Deposit Insurance Coverage."   However, the link embedded in the e-mail led not to the real FDIC web site, but to a spoof web site.  Attempting to download the proffered file from that site could initiate the installation of malware on the user's computer (presumably to collect sensitive personal information):  The real FDIC  put up an alert to warn consumers about this fraudulent mailing: alert The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has received numerous reports of a fraudulent e-mail that has the appearance of being sent from the FDIC. The subject line of the e-mail states: "check your Bank Deposit Insurance Coverage." The e-mail tells recipients that, "You have received this message because you are a holder of a FDIC-insured bank account. Recently FDIC has officially named the bank you have opened your account with as a failed bank, thus, taking  control of its assets." The e-mail then asks recipients to "visit the official FDIC website and perform the following steps to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage" (a fraudulent link is provided). It then instructs recipients to "download and open your personal FDIC Insurance File to check your Deposit Insurance Coverage." This e-mail and associated Web site are fraudulent. Recipients should consider the intent of this e-mail as an attempt to collect personal or confidential information, some of which may be used to gain unauthorized access to on-line banking services or to conduct identity theft. The FDIC does not issue unsolicited e-mails to consumers. Financial institutions and consumers should NOT follow the link in the fraudulent e-mail. Last updated:  28 October 2009
Claim:  Photograph shows a moose poking its snout into a McDonald's drive-through window in Madawaska, Maine. REAL PHOTOGRAPH;  INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] MEET McMOOSE,  PHOTOGRAPHED OUTSIDE MADAWASKA, (AROOSTOOK COUNTY), MAINE,  ACROSS THE ST. JOHN RIVER FROM EDMUNSTON, NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA  Origins:  The town of Madawaska, Maine, has at least one McDonald's restaurant, and moose are known to inhabit the area, but the critter pictured above poking his snout into a drive-through window actually hails from an area  Madawaska several thousand miles away. This photograph appeared in the 2004 pictorial wildlife book Moose Views, where it was credited to Steve Kaufman and said to capture a curious moose at a McDonald's in the city of Homer, Alaska, not Madawaska, Maine. Moose Views Homer Coincidentally, Homer, Alaska, was the setting for a series of McDonald's commercials aired in conjunction with the 1990 Super Bowl, based on the conceit that folks so far away from the rest of us couldn't care less who won a match-up between football teams from San Francisco and Denver.  Unless, of course, McDonald's piqued their interest by offering different low-priced specials depending upon who won the game:   Last updated:  9 May 2015 Moose Views On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an Oakland, California, initiative named Oakland Resilient Families "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income." reported Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not tax-payer funded, however. All of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of it from a philanthropic non-profit group named Blue Meridian Partners," according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED. coalition funding according Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, and the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time." will be Oakland's Equality Index In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families goals, as the program's website  as well as the mayor  explicitly stated the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families." website the mayor That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets: tabloid headlines angry tweets Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status."  changed Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative  a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program  said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities," but that "it is open to all residents." said Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED that, We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty." told According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households: three times The median income for White households was highest ($110,000) and the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer."  states Because the program is "targeted" toward BIPOC families, but because  at least after some clarification on the part of Oakland Resilient Families  any family meeting the financial requirements can apply, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth. Claim:  Marines surreptitiously failed to observe the proper protocol in saluting President Clinton all throughout his eight years in office.    . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Military courtesy change I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W. leaving HM-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and as he walked away, the marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's back . . . something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency.  The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine orderly to the ship's Captain always faced him, no matter hisdirection of movement, to be ready to receive an order.  Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone? . . . And for eight years, they did. Origins:  According to this Internet-circulated piece, to a man, Marines decided they didn't respect President Clinton the minute he took office, and so for eight years all of them declined to observe proper protocol in his presence.  Moreover, no officer ever objected to this behavior, and not one member of the Presidential entourage ever noticed or reported it. The best way to answer this one would be to ask a Marine.  So we did: If the question is "Did the Marines who greeted the President willfully show disrespect by failing to execute a   "facing" movement after the salute?" the answer is no.  Proper protocol is for the Marine to snap a salute to the President. The President may or may not return the salute at his discretion. If the President returns the salute, the Marine immediately "cuts" or "posts" by bringing his arm sharply down to his side from the salute and remaining at a position of attention. If the President does not return the salute, the Marine will wait until the President passes him, then he will cut and remain at a position of attention. This is the protocol when greeting a senior officer, including the President.  With the new Presidency comes a changing of the Presidential Detail. The new command of the Presidential Detail may have chosen to add a facing movement to the protocol. This is at the complete discretion of the command. A Marine does not have the luxury of choosing whether or not he follows proper protocol. He is given an order and he follows it to the letter. If the order does not include a facing movement, the facing movement will not occur. If the order includes a facing movent, the facing movement occurs. It is that simple. Whether or not this movement becomes a standard part of protocol remains to be seen.  Marines do not act as individuals, we act as a team. Marines follow procedure and protocol. The Marines you saw followed their orders. That is a Marine. This piece was also refuted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Snappy little story. It has only two problems:   "It's absolutely false," says Staff Sgt. Keith Milks of the public affairs office at Marine Corps headquarters.   If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter "are chosen for their professionalism." In a phone interview, Milks said crew members of HM-1 - Marine One, the presidential helicopter - had followed the same protocol with Clinton that they used for all presidents, to wit:  The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the debarking president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away," Milks said. Even if one dislikes the man who is currently President, protocol dictates that he be shown the proper respect in order not to dishonor the office of President of the United States. Marines know that as well as anyone.  Additional information:        Presidential Tradition   (RonaldReagan.com)   Last updated:  27 January 2007    Sources:   Levins, Harry.  "Don't Believe Your E-Mail: The Marines Didn't Show More Respect to Bush Than Clinton."   St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  10 March 2001  (p. 2). A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite there being no fence is frequently shared as an example of "the trap of thinking":   A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... "The Trap of thinking" However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there actually is a fence in the above-displayed image. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012: group of sheep Brenda Station version images   Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: Yes, there is definitely a fence.   Update [July 6, 2022]: Headline reformatting, SEO/social updates. In the aftermath of the 1 October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the American public attempted to come to grips with the scale of gun violence in the United States. One oft-cited statistic posted in social media by "The Other 98%" maintained that 1.3 million Americans had been killed in all the wars in U.S. history, while 1.5 million Americans had been killed by firearms (in non-military use) since 1968 alone: The Other 98%   NBC News reported similar figures: NBC News More Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all of the wars in American history. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, approximately 1.2 million service members have been killed in every war in U.S. history, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and iCasualties.org, a website that maintains an ongoing database of casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. iCasualties.org Different versions of this claim have been prominently offered in recent years by sources such as New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof in 2015, and PBS Newshour contributor and commentator Mark Shields in 2012. All these claims contain casual uses of the qualifier "Americans" in reference to gun deaths, which is somewhat confusing because not everyone who has been killed by firearms in the United States was an American citizen, and official sources for gun death statistics do not offer breakdowns by nationality. Therefore, we assume that "Americans" is used here for rhetorical effect, rather than as a functional statistical category, and deal with the total number of gun deaths occurring in the United States since 1968.  Similarly, according to the historian Don H. Doyle, the U.S. Civil War saw around 543,000 foreign-born (i.e., immigrant) soldiers fighting on the Union side alone, so a significant number of Civil War deaths might have involved non-American citizen combatants, but we'll count them all as "Americans."  (Indeed, non-U.S. citizens have likely served and died fighting for the U.S. side in every American military conflict since the Revolutionary War, but probably in much greater numbers during the Civil War than any other.) Don H. Doyle Support for this claim often uses sources that relate only to combatant deaths in wars and do not include civilian or other non-combatant deaths (the latter being figures which might also include non-U.S. citizens). One could argue that civilian deaths in wars should be included (although estimates of these deaths are much less reliable than for fatalities among military personnel), but we are limiting our analysis to include only combatant deaths in military conflicts. We'll break this analysis into two parts: the total number of deaths in the United States involving firearms since 1968, and the number of deaths in  the U.S. and among American combatants across all wars in American history. Gun deaths The estimated total number of firearms-related deaths from 1968-2016 is 1.58 million. The official number for 1968-2015 is 1.55 million, and we have assumed the number of deaths in 2016 as being the mid-point between the two previous years (2014 and 2015). In most cases, the source of these figures is the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). For figures from 1968 to 1991, we consulted the CDC directly WISQARS Deaths in wars For combatant fatalities, our main source is an April 2017 summary published by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which lists the following figures: summary The Civil War Trust, a non-profit organisation primarily dedicated to preserving American battlefields, estimates that around 6,800 people died in battle during the Revolutionary War, with an additional 17,000 deaths caused by disease, and between 8,000 and 12,000 more deaths occurring among those held as prisoners of war. The upper end of this estimate range, then, would put the total number of deaths associated with the American Revolutionary War at 26,800. estimates Similarly, the Civil War Trust estimates that around 15,000 Americans died during the War of 1812, a significantly higher number than the 2,260 battle deaths estimated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. estimates The Civil War is an interesting case. Based on from the work of two late 19th and early 20th century historians, the widely accepted figure for deaths in this conflict was reckoned as 618,222 for about a century. In 2011, however, J. David Hacker ( then of Binghamton University) published a significant upwards revision of that total, estimating that the likely death toll was between 650,000 and 851,000. Taking the mid-point in this estimate range assumes about 750,000 combatant deaths for the Civil War.  Because of the enhanced statistical sophistication involved in Hacker's research, and what appears to be acceptance and support of his estimate among historians, we are going to use 750,000 as the estimated death toll among combatants in the Civil War. late 19th early 20th century combatant deaths acceptance and support Figures for the Global War on Terror are taken from the Department of Defense's Defense Casualty Analysis System and are valid as of October 2017. Defense Casualty Analysis System Afghanistan war: Iraq war:  If we rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs summary, while accepting J. David Hacker's 750,000 estimate for the Civil War, the total number of deaths among American combatants in all U.S. military conflicts, using high estimates for each, is thus 1,481,862  about 100,000 less than the total number of firearms-related fatalities in the U.S. between 1968 and 2016.   So even using the higher end of available estimates for war deaths throughout American history, the grand total of those deaths is still lower than the total of firearms-related fatalities since 1968, a period of just 49 years. Although this disparity between war deaths and gun deaths is smaller than the gap claimed by the Other 98% (200,000) or NBC News (300,000), the imprecision of casualty estimates (especially for the Civil War era) allows for a considerable margin of error. Bailey, Chelsea.  "More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars  Combined."
  NBC News.  4 October 2017.
 Doyle, Don H.  "The Civil War Was Won by Immigrant Soldiers."
  Time.  29 June 2015. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  "America's Wars."
  April 2017. Fox, William F.  "Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865."
  Hathi Trust, 1898. Livermore, Thomas L.  "Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-1865."
  Retrieved from Archive.org, dated 1900. Hacker, J. David.  "Recounting the Dead."
  The New York Times.  20 September 2011. 
 Gugliotta, Guy.  "New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2012. McPherson, James.  Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era.
  Oxford University Press, 1988.  ISBN 0-195-03863-0. In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. It appears likely that come November Rhode Islanders will decide whether to expand the states two slot parlors into full-fledged casinos. State legislators have already approved holding a referendum on a proposal to allow table games at Twin River, in Lincoln, and are considering doing the same for Newport Grand.On March 6, before the House passed legislation to put the Newport Grand question on the ballot, Rep. Robert Jacquard raised concerns about allowing casinos in Rhode Island.Let's face it: there are a lot of casinos across the country that have gone bankrupt, the Cranston Democrat said. Just because you give them a casino license is not a guarantee that you are going to save all this money for the state and guarantee all this revenue. It is just not true at all. Management is the most important factor.But doesnt the house always win? Have a lot of casinos around the country really gone bankrupt?We called Jacquard, who explained that hes not necessarily opposed to casinos in Rhode Island, but he does want to make sure that if the state opts to go down that route, responsible operators with a lot of experience in the industry are brought in.He told us that hes read about a number of casinos failing around the country, and although he hasnt kept a list, he recalls bankruptcies occurring particularly in the South.I know what I read in the paper, Jacquard said.We couldnt find a central repository of information on casino bankruptcies, but we did come across numerous news reports about casinos and their financial struggles.Donald Trump has filed four corporate bankruptcies -- in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009 -- in connection to his casinos in Atlantic City, N.J. Tropicana Entertainment, which operates casinos in Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, Mississippi and Indiana, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2008 and 2009. Station Casinos, which owns or operates 18 casinos in and around Las Vegas, made a similar filing in 2009.And on a side note, Rhode Islanders will be familiar with the struggles of Twin River, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and emerged under new ownership the following year. Its not technically a casino, but it is a local reminder of the potential pitfalls of the gambling industry.I. Nelson Rose, distinguished senior professor of law at Whittier Law School, in Costa Mesa, Calif., who writes about gambling and legal issues, has kept a partial list of gambling companies that have closed or filed for bankruptcy protection in the last three years as the recession has dragged on. He has counted 18 companies so far.Rose said that other casino operators, including MGM Resorts International, Caesars Entertainment and Foxwoods, may not be facing bankruptcy but have struggled because of mounting debts and falling revenues.David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said gambling revenues in all major U.S. markets have declined since 2007 as discretionary spending has dried up.He also pointed to heightened competition in the gambling industry as another factor thats squeezing casinos. For example, Atlantic City has lost business to newer casinos in Pennsylvania, whose residents can now gamble closer to home instead of making the trip to New Jersey.Its in that sort of competitive market when management can be particularly important. Rose referred to Colorados experience in the early 1990s when 68 casinos opened in two or three years. A third of them eventually went bankrupt, and, said Rose, it turned out that the operators of those failed casinos had no previous experience in the industry.Our rulingGambling is a boom or bust industry. Even when times are good, casinos fail. And when times are bad, even more fail.As Schwartz told us, casinos definitely are not a sure thing. Good management matters  -- a point Jacquard made as well.We rate Jacquards statement True. (Get updates fromPolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Claim:   The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seizing bank accounts from innocent American citizens under civil forfeiture laws. : Civil forfeiture laws enable law enforcement agents and the government to seize the assets of Americans who are neither guilty nor even suspected of any wrongdoing.      Civil forfeiture laws are new or exclusive to the IRS.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Just read a Facebook post.  It was an article regarding the IRS seizing bank accounts of innocent American citizens who have done nothing criminally wrong.  Inspite of the problems this has caused individuals the IRS seems relatively unconcerned except they want to collect money for whatever reasons.  Is this true?  Does the IRS have the right to just take the money of American citizens from their accounts? Are they an acting collections agency for the government now? I found this article a tad disturbing to say the least. Thank you for amy information you might have regarding this article and subject matter. Origins:  On 5 October 2014, the issue of civil forfeiture  and its effects on American citizens entered the spotlight after HBO host John Oliver addressed the matter at length on his show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. During the segment, Oliver and guest Jeff Goldblum focused on seemingly arbitrary, unfair, and corrupt civil forfeiture practices allegedly perpetrated by law enforcement agents in a number of jurisdictions.  Oliver's civil forfeiture segment sparked a number of conversations about the laws surrounding confiscation of assets under related laws. Then, on 25 October 2014, the New York Times profiled an individual who claimed the IRS had seized more than $30,000 in assets from her checking account under laws meant to ensnare drug cartels and organized criminals: For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away  until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000. The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes  in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report. Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up. It seems Hinders' run-in with the IRS was triggered by her practice of keeping deposits under the mandated reporting threshold of $10,000. Deposits that exceed $10,000 must be reported to the government under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, but Hinders told the Times that she believed large deposits created unnecessary paperwork for bank employees: Bank Secrecy Act My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork. I didn't actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.   Former federal prosecutor David Smith, an expert on such seizures, told the paper that the practice of civil forfeiture has shifted to focus on individuals not historically targeted by such laws: They're going after people who are really not criminals. They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.   Richard Weber, Chief of Criminal Investigation at the IRS, described the seizures as "structuring" related, referring to suspicion triggered by a large number of deposits near the $10,000 threshold for reporting under the Bank Secrecy Act. In response to sudden interest in the IRS's policies regarding "structuring cases," Weber issued a statement indicating the IRS will curtail its seizure activities in cases where no crime is suspected: statement After a thorough review of our structuring cases over the last year and in order to provide consistency throughout the country (between our field offices and the U.S. attorney offices) regarding our policies, I.R.S.-C.I. will no longer pursue the seizure and forfeiture of funds associated solely with "legal source" structuring cases unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the seizure and forfeiture and the case has been approved at the director of field operations (D.F.O.) level. While the act of structuring  whether the funds are from a legal or illegal source  is against the law, I.R.S.-C.I. special agents will use this act as an indicator that further illegal activity may be occurring. This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.'s mission and key priorities. The policy involving seizure and forfeiture in "illegal source" structuring cases will remain the same.   The IRS is just one of several agencies engaging in civil forfeiture, and Oliver's segment also addressed its application by local and regional law enforcement:  Prior to Oliver's segment and the Times' profile, civil forfeiture practices had been extensively profiled in the media: In general, you needn't be found guilty to have your assets claimed by law enforcement; in some states, suspicion on a par with "probable cause" is sufficient. Nor must you be charged with a crime, or even be accused of one. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner's guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. "The protections our Constitution usually affords are out the window," Louis Rulli, a clinical law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading forfeiture expert, observes. A piece of property does not share the rights of a person. There's no right to an attorney and, in most states, no presumption of innocence. Owners who wish to contest often find that the cost of hiring a lawyer far exceeds the value of their seized goods. Washington, D.C., charges up to twenty-five hundred dollars simply for the right to challenge a police seizure in court, which can take months or even years to resolve. Although the IRS has pledged to restrict its civil forfeiture activity to mainly "illegal source" cases, the practice is not limited to the tax agency and remains legal. Last updated:  28 October 2014    Stillman, Sarah.  "Taken."   The New Yorker.  12 August 2013. Several times over the last few years social Facebook posts have appeared proposing that users who followed instructions to "like" and "share" them could win myriad prizes in a purported giveaway sponsored by Ellen DeGeneres: Facebook posts  <!-- --> The Ellen DeGeneres Show does run segments involving prize giveaways that may have online components, including ties to official social media accounts, but not ones involving randomly choosing viewers who "like" and "share" posts stemming from counterfeit Facebook accounts such as the one shown above. prize giveaways Any legitimate promotional offer using Facebook should be tied to an account bearing a blue badge indicating the account has been verified by Facebook as authentic:As we have noted on previous pages about similar hoaxes, these counterfeit promotional posts exhibit a number of red flags, primarily that the underlying pages are not endorsed by any official channel associated with Ellen DeGeneres:The first clue that the giveaways following this format are not on the up-and-up is that the pages to which Facebook users are directed are ones created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only are the secondary Facebook pages involved new, they are also not linked with automobile companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure, but no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment is discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims.The aim of schemes such as the celebrity giveaway hoaxes are typically to rapidly build a large Facebook following in order to sell pages with high "like" counts to third parties. While such hoaxes appear to present little risk to participants, liking and sharing the false information is not entirely safe: in addition to advancing the interests of and encouraging social media scammers, page likes potentially enable user data mining by scammers.  And in some cases, the giveaway hoaxes lure victims into downloading malware-bearing files.  Any legitimate promotional offer using Facebook should be tied to an account bearing a blue badge indicating the account has been verified by Facebook as authentic: blue badge  As we have noted on previous pages about similar hoaxes, these counterfeit promotional posts exhibit a number of red flags, primarily that the underlying pages are not endorsed by any official channel associated with Ellen DeGeneres: hoaxes The first clue that the giveaways following this format are not on the up-and-up is that the pages to which Facebook users are directed are ones created just days before the giveaway posts begin to appear. Not only are the secondary Facebook pages involved new, they are also not linked with automobile companies or other interests one might imagine could reasonably be expected to offer up a car in exchange for social media advertising (such as automobile dealerships, insurance companies, or large retailers). Were a legitimate company to engage in such a high-ticket contest giveaway, the incentive would be exposure, but no corresponding promotional return on advertising investment is discernable in these Facebook giveaway claims. The aim of schemes such as the celebrity giveaway hoaxes are typically to rapidly build a large Facebook following in order to sell pages with high "like" counts to third parties. While such hoaxes appear to present little risk to participants, liking and sharing the false information is not entirely safe: in addition to advancing the interests of and encouraging social media scammers, page likes potentially enable user data mining by scammers.  And in some cases, the giveaway hoaxes lure victims into downloading malware-bearing files. In June 2021, a quote ostensibly uttered by famed naturalist David Attenborough about black and red antswas shared around social media.   Attenborough supposedly said: If you collect 100 black ants and 100 fire ants and put them in a glass jar nothing will happen. But if you take the jar, shake it violently and leave it on the table, the ants will start killing each other. Reds believe that black is the enemy, while black believes that red is the enemy, when the real enemy is the person who shook the jar. The same is true in society. Men vs WomenBlack vs WhiteFaith vs ScienceYoungs vs Oldetc... Before we fight each other, we must ask ourselves: Who rocked the jar? While this quote may ring true to some readers, two things need to be considered. First, this quote did not come from Attenborough. And two, we are unaware of any scientific experiment that showed how red and black ants would co-exist in a glass jar until the jar was shaken. Attenborough This viral quote appears to have been inspired by a passage from author Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 novel "Cat's Cradle." "I can't remember what all Frank had fighting in the jar that day, but I can remember other bug fights we staged later on: one stag beetle against a hundred red ants, one centipede against three spiders, red ants against black ants. They won't fight unless you keep shaking the jar. And that's what Frank was doing, shaking, shaking the jar." The earliest iteration that we could find of this viral message comes from an Oct. 3, 2020 Facebook post. That version did not credit Attenborough or provide any links directing to any sort of studies about red and black ants in a jar. Other posts from this time also credited an "unknown" or "anonymous" source. Attenborough's name wasn't attributed to this post until several months later. We have not been able to find any credible sources attributing this quote to Attenborough. And while we have found plenty of videos of Attenborough talking about ants, we have not found anything specifically about red ants and black ants co-existing in a jar until someone shakes it.It is relatively common on social media to see a famous person's name erroneously attached to a quote from a lesser-known or anonymous author. This appears to lend credibility to the writing, which in turn leads to an increase in shares.