Americans spend 6.1 billion hours a year on tax preparation.
Tax day has come around again, and with it a startling claim about the amount of time Americans spend doing their taxes each year. According to U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., it takes United States taxpayers a total of 6.1 billion hours to file their taxes. That adds up to more than 695,000 years. 6.1 Billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take, she said ina post on Twitter. We had to check to see if this number could possibly be accurate. According to Foxxs office, the number comes from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which tackled the issue of the complexity of the U.S. tax code. In 2012, the National Taxpayer Advocate has designated the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers, the report reads. The existing code, by our count, has reached nearly four million words and imposes unconscionable burden on taxpayers. Our analysis of IRS data indicates that individuals and businesses spend about 6.1 billion hours a year complying with tax-filing requirements. Its important to note that the report comes to the number by calculating the estimated combined time businesses and individuals spend filing taxes, not just that of private citizens. The Taxpayer Advocate Service is an independent group within the Internal Revenue Service that is tasked with helping taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS and recommend changes that will prevent the problems. The number was calculated by multiplying the number of times each type of tax form was filed in 2010 by the amount of time the IRS estimates it takes to complete each form, according to Ken Drexler, a media relations officer at the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires federal agencies to estimate the amount of time it takes to fill out a given piece of paperwork. Its the best number you can come up with, but its not necessarily a number you would take to the bank, Drexler said, noting it would take longer for someone unfamiliar with a form to complete it than someone who has done so many times before. Accountants and tax professionals, for example, could fill out the forms faster than an average filer. In other words, the estimate might have flaws, but it is the best guess as to the time it takes for businesses and individuals to fill out tax paperwork. In a2011 report, the Laffer Center for Supply Side Economics further broke down the 6.1 billion hour figure, finding that individuals spend 3.16 billion of those hours filling out tax forms, while businesses clock in at 2.94 billion hours. The estimate has remained the same since 2010. In 2009, the Taxpayer Advocate Service concluded Americans spent a whopping 7.6 billion hours completing the forms. Our ruling Foxx said, 6.1 billion hours a year, just to figure out how much money the government is going to take. The number came from the Taxpayer Advocate Services 2013 report to Congress, which stated that  individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours preparing their taxes. Its important to note that the figure is an estimate. It comes from taking the number of tax forms filed in the last year and multiplying it by the IRSs estimate of the time it takes to prepare the forms. Foxxs larger point, that it takes a very long time for Americans to comply with filing their federal taxes, is accurate. The number is an estimate, but its from a credible, independent report. We rate this statement True.
In March 2021, a Pepsi.com Facebook page  no affiliation with the official Pepsi Facebook page  posted a message claiming that the company was giving away mini fridges in honor of its 100th anniversary:   This is not a genuine giveaway from Pepsi.  For one, this picture comes from the "Pepsi.com" Facebook page. This page, which was was created in March 2021, is not affiliated with PepsiCo. The company's real Facebook page can be found here. When this scam was brought to Pepsi's attention, a representative wrote on Facebook: "Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is not a legitimate promotion." March 2021 here wrote It should also be noted that PepsiCo was founded in 1965. In other words, this "100th anniversary" giveaway is about 45 years early. (If we count from the invention of the soft drink Pepsi-Cola, which has been around since 1898, this anniversary scam is 20 years late.) 1965 The above-displayed image represents a common Facebook scam. While users are promised a free gift (such as a vacation, a grocery coupon, or, in the case above, a mini fridge), they often have to provide personal information in order to "claim" the prize. There is, however, no prize to claim.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers Claim:  John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Status:  True. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that IN PRINT to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins:  On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren.  During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). Presidential Candidates Forum To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?"  Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: Look, the  here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody is making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roles, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation. Then we've got to pay for these things, they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance, and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on, is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republic candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point  give me a number, give me a specific number  where do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?"  Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich  I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or re-distribution of the wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as  quote  "rich," my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's have  keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can  I don't think seriously that  the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously  and I'm sure that comment will be distorted  but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.)  Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one: video here Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think thank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5-million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual  income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it 100,000 [dollars], is it 50, 200?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This is including people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated:  13 September 2008    Sources:   Miller, Greg.  "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very different Definitions."   Los Angeles Times.  18 August 2008.    Montopoli, Brian.  "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment."   CBSNews.com.  19 August 2008.    Reuters.  "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition."   18 August 2008. Claim:  Some children's vinyl lunch boxes contain unsafe levels of lead.   Multiple: Tests have found some children's soft vinyl lunch boxes contain lead: .  Children's lunch boxes contain levels of lead unsafe with ordinary exposure:  Undetermined.Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] A Back to School Warning: Children's Vinyl Lunch Boxes Can Contain Dangerous Levels of Lead Oakland, CA - The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) announced it is filing lawsuits today against makers and retailers of soft vinyl lunch boxes that can expose children to harmful levels of lead. The Center has also notified several other companies of violations under California's toxics law Proposition 65 (Prop 65) for lunch boxes with high lead levels. The lawsuits and violation notices against companies including Toys "R" Us, Warner Brothers, DC Comics, Time Warner, Walgreens, and others involve many lunch boxes featuring beloved  children's characters including Superman, Tweety Bird, Powerpuff Girls, and Hamtaro. The level of lead in one lunch box, an Angela Anaconda box made by Targus International, tested at 56,400 parts per million (ppm) of lead, more than 90 times the 600 ppm legal limit for lead in paint in children's products. "Lead exposure should not be on the lunch menu when kids' go back to school this fall," said Michael Green, CEH Executive Director. "There is no reason to expose children to any lead from lunch boxes. We are calling on these companies to recall these products and take action to eliminate lead from their products in the future." Initial independent laboratory testing commissioned by CEH has already found seventeen lunch boxes with high lead levels, and the group's investigation is ongoing. In addition to the testing on the Angela Anaconda lunch box, tests on other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food. Lead is known to be harmful to children even in minute amounts, as it can impair brain development and cause other behavioral anddevelopmental problems. Children may be exposed to lead from lunch boxes when they eat food that has been stored in them. Handling the lunchboxes just before eating could also be an exposure risk. It is not possible to tell by appearance whether a vinyl lunch box may contain lead, so CEH is advising parents to avoid vinyl lunch boxes altogether. "Parents may need to seek out alternatives, since many mass produced lunch boxes are vinyl or vinyl-lined," said Green. "A reusable cloth bag would be a good alternative." Parents can find information on how to test for lead in their children's lunch boxes at home at www.cehca.org/lunchboxes. The CEH lawsuits were filed today against lunch box producers Igloo and InGear, and against retailers Toys "R" Us, Walgreens, Big Lots, and Ross Stores. Earlier this year, CEH sent notices of Prop 65 violations to Targus International, DC Comics, Time Warner, Warner Brothers, Binney & Smith (a division of Hallmark and the makers of Crayola-brand lunch boxes), Fast Forward LLC, and Holiday Fair Incorporated. Under Prop 65, companies have sixty days to respond to violation notices, after which lawsuits can be filed. CEH expects to file more notifications of lunch boxes that violate Prop 65 in the near future. Photos of the lunch boxes can be found at www.cehca.org/lunchboxes.htm.   Test Your Child's Lunch Box Because it is not possible to tell by appearance whether a vinyl lunch box may contain lead, CEH is advising parents to avoid buying vinyl lunch boxes altogether as we cannot guarantee they are lead free. You can test vinyl lunch boxes you already own using a hand-held lead testing kit, often available at hardware stores. Two reliable and easy-to-use brands are PACE's Lead Alert and LeadCheck (also available online at www.leadcheck.com) If your child's lunch box tests positive, or you need assistance obtaining a testing kit please call CEH at (510) 594-9864. We can help you interpret  the results and can use your product as evidence in our ongoing work get the lead out of our children's lunch boxes. Commonly Asked QuestionsWhat products did CEH test?CEH has only tested soft plastic lunch boxes. We don't know whether lead may be present in hard plastic or metal boxes at this time. In most cases the lead is in the plastic lining of the box, although some also have lead in the exterior plastic. At this time we have not found any lunch boxes by Disney, Thermos, LL Bean, Hello Kitty or California Innovations that have lead - however, we have by no means tested all lunch boxes by any of these makers. How dangerous are the lunch boxes with lead?The levels CEH found in the lunch boxes are not high enough to cause acute lead poisoning during normal use. However, if your child is exposed to lead from other sources, a leaded lunch box would add to their health risk. Because lead has been shown to cause developmental problem in young children at very low levels, CEH believes it is important to eliminate all controllable sources of lead exposure, including lunch boxes. Does my lunch box have lead?The majority of lunch boxes that CEH tested do not contain lead, so there is a good chance that your lunch box may be safe. However, because it is impossible to tell by looking, at this point the only way to know for sure is to test the lunch box yourself. How do I test my lunch box?You can test vinyl lunch boxes using a hand-held lead testing kit, available at most hardware stores. Two reliable and easy-to-use brands are PACE's Lead Alert and LeadCheck (also available online at www.leadcheck.com). They cost less than $5 a piece, and come with instructions. Both of these brands will turn a bright pink color when they are rubbed on a surface containing lead. A clear or orange swab means there is not lead. What do I do if my lunch box has lead?If your child's lunch box tests positive, we recommend that you do not use it any longer. Please send CEH your positive lunch box so that we can add it to our investigation and notify other parents. What alternatives are there to vinyl lunch boxes?CEH does not have enough information at this time to recommend any brand of soft plastic lunch boxes. Because it is not possible to tell by appearance whether a box may contain lead, CEH is advising parents to avoid buying vinyl lunch boxes altogether, and to test their lunch box if they are concerned it may contain lead. A reusable cloth bag or paper bag is a good alternative. Where is the lead from?CEH believes that the lead is intentionally added to the vinyl (PVC) plastic as either a stabilizing agent or pigment.  Should my child be tested?Normal use of positive lunchboxes CEH has tested would not cause acute lead poisoning. However, if your child is also exposed to other environmental exposures to lead such as lead paint, the cumulative effect could be toxic. A blood test is the only definitive way to test for lead poisoning. A child with lead poisoning may not look sick, but may experience stomachache, poor appetite, hyperactivity and headaches. Low level chronic exposure to lead can cause hearing problems, brain and nerve damage, stunted growth, digestive problems and reproductive problems (in adults). Origins:  On 31 August 2005, the Center for Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental group that specializes in identifying hazardous  Center for Environmental Health  sources of lead in the environment, announced that testing it had performed revealed the presence of that element in a variety of soft vinyl lunchboxes marketed to children. Subsequent to that discovery, this private non-profit group filed lawsuits against some of the producers and retailersinvolved. announced The CEHCA says the 27 lunchboxes that produced lead-positive results when examined with at-home lead detection kits contained anywhere from double to 90 times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. It packed off those 27 containers to an independent laboratory for more rigorous testing; that study found 17 of the lunchboxes contained lead in excess of federal safety standards.  Lara Cushing, research director for the CEHCA, said the study revealed the lead was not contained within the vinyl material itself but rather was present on the surface of the lunchboxes. "It's not bound up in the plastic," she said. "It's sloughing off. It can come off on your hand. It can rub off on your food." A reporter in Sacramento ran her own test on eight vinyl lunchboxes she collected; her examination with at-home lead testing kits showed two of the lunchboxes contained lead. How much lead was not noted. Officials for the Consumer Product Safety Commission said it was investigating the CEHCA's findings on lead in lunchboxes. In October 2005, it published a statement on the likelihood of lead found in such containers presenting a danger to children: published Q: Recent news reports have indicated that there are dangerous levels of lead in kids lunch boxes, is this correct? A: CPSC staff has tested samples of children's lunch boxes for accessible lead and found no instances of hazardous levels. The staff tested the inside and outside of each lunch box and the preliminary results were consistently below one microgram (one millionth of a gram) of lead. This is an extremely low level of lead and would not present a health hazard to children.  Q: How can you be sure that children are not being exposed to hazardous levels of lead in their lunch boxes? A: One way that children can be exposed to lead is from handling objects with accessible lead and then placing their hands in their mouths. Based on the low levels of lead found in our tests, in most cases, children would have to rub their lunch box and then lick their hands upwards of 100 times a day, for about 15-30 days, in order for the lunch box to present a health hazard.  Q: What is CPSC doing to prevent issues like this from coming up in the future? A: CPSC staff encourages companies to use alternatives to lead in products intended for children. CPSC staff also recommends that manufacturers and importers of vinyl lunch boxes test their products for accessible lead using the CPSC staff's laboratory test procedure. Finding and preventing lead hazards in children's products is an important part of our mission and CPSC has a proven record of working with companies to recall products that pose a lead hazard to children. While exposure to lead presents a hazard to all and poses an especial danger to children, the amounts of the element being uncovered in vinyl lunchboxes are not sufficient to cause acute lead poisoning. However, because long-term low-level lead exposure can result in serious harm to those subjected to it, lead is to be avoided whenever and wherever possible.  Lead poisoning can reportedly lower intelligence, cause mental retardation, memory problems, depression, fatigue, hyperactivity, aggression, hearing loss, liver or kidney damage, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and anemia. Very high levels can damage the nervous system, kidneys and major organs and even result in seizures or death. It can also lead to infertility in men and cause spontaneous abortion in women. In the final stages of lead poisoning, the victim experiences convulsions, paralysis, blindness, delusions, and then coma. People can and have died of lead  poisoning. In times long past, lead was to be found in numerous everyday items, including cisterns and aquaducts, pottery, pans, hair dyes, cosmetics, and medical nostrums. Toy soldiers were cast in it. Port wine was protected by it. Church roofs were covered with it. The presence of lead in everyday life has since been considerably reduced and our bodies are far less riddled with this deadly substance than were those of our ancestors, but this element will likely always be part of our surroundings and of us. The two major sources of lead poisoning in the United States have been lead-based paint, which was restricted in 1978, and leaded gasoline, which was phased out in the early 1990s. However, lead is still found in paint manufactured before 1978, in soil and dust (particularly next to busy roads or factories), in some imported or handmade pottery and tableware, and in imported home remedies and cosmetics. Yet most of the lead we take in comes from our diet. "The average daily diet probably contains more than 200 micrograms of lead, of which about 10 micrograms gets into the blood, where it is joined by about 5 micrograms of lead from our lungs (depending upon where we live), so that our daily intake probably comes to about 15 micrograms and the body can easily rid itself of such an amount," says John Emsley. Lead finds its way into the food chain because all plants contain some lead, although not very much. Because lead is a naturally-occurring element found in the soil, it does manage to get into things. Care therefore has to be taken by manufacturers to detect its presence in goods destined for consumer use. Various lead-laden gewgaws and foodstuffs do arrive on the market, however, especially among goods produced in other parts of the world and imported to the U.S. In 2004, California's attorney general sued dozens of companies that make or sell imported candies containing lead, and in 2005 the California Department of Health Services urged consumers to stay away from candy produced in Mexico that contained tamarind or chili powder after tests found possible lead contamination in those edibles. In 1994 an outbreak of lead poisoning in Hungary was traced to the use of that element by an unscrupulous or unknowing manufacturer as a colorant in paprika.  Barbara "get the lead out" Mikkelson Update:  In September 2007, families were advised by the California Department of Public Health to rid themselves of CDPH lunchboxes because three of the ones it tested produced positive results for lead. The canvas lunch boxes that showed elevated levels of the element were green with a logo reading "Eat fruits & vegetables and be active." Approximately 56,000 of these lunch boxes have been distributed throughout California at health fairs and other events.    CDPH lunchboxes Additional information:         Lead   (Centers for Disease Control)         Make Your Home a Lead-Safe Zone   (Virginia Commonwealth University)         Lead Poisoning  (Dr. Joseph F. Smith Medical Library)  Last updated:  22 September 2007    Sources:   Emsley, John.  The Elements of Murder.   New York; Oxford University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-19-280599-1  (pp. 261-283). The Elements of Murder    Griffith, Dorsey.  "State Warns of Lead in Candy."    Sacramento Bee.  7 July 2005  (p. A5).    Lundstrom, Marjie.  "Toxic Metal Found in Lunchboxes."    Sacramento Bee.  17 September 2005  (p. A3).    Roan, Shari.  "An Unsavory Addition to Kids' Lunchboxes: Lead."    Los Angeles Times.  12 September 2005  (p. F3).    KABC-TV [Los Angeles].  "People Urged to Dispose of CDPH Lunch Boxes."    20 September 2007.    The [Raleigh] News & Observer.  "Toxic Lead Finds a New Avenue."    15 September 2005  (p. B2).    United Press International.  "Lead Reportedly Found in Lunchboxes."    20 September 2005. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign sent supporters fundraising emails saying poll workers were thrown out of rooms where elections officials were counting ballots in the presidential election. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Large numbers of poll watchers were thrown out of vote counting rooms in many key battleground states," claimed a Nov. 17 email obtained by Snopes.   Separately, the Trump campaign sent supporters another fundraising email that claimed Republican poll watchers were not "thrown out" but prohibited from entering ballot-processing rooms altogether, suggesting that the alleged lack of surveillance benefited President-elect Joe Biden. Joe Biden The best description of this situation is widespread, nationwide voter fraud, of which this is a part," Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, said of the alleged conspiracy by Democrats, without citing any evidence. Rudy Giulian Together, the emails and Giuliani's statement claimed that some unidentified person, or a group of people, ordered Republican poll workers to leave ballot-counting rooms, or to not enter them in the first place  essentially breaking laws that allow for poll observers to monitor the elections process on behalf of a political party or candidate. Before we unpack those allegations, let us explain about whom we're talking. whom Every state allows some form of "poll watching" or "election observing," by means of which political parties or candidates appoint volunteers to monitor polling sites for fairness on Election Day. Additionally, states train and certify nonpartisan poll watchers to keep an eye out for any voting issues. Rules governing both types of poll watching, especially to combat any voter harassment or intimidation, vary state by state, and apply to poll watchers regardless of their political affiliation. intimidation "State rules vary on who can be a poll watcher, how many are allowed at polling places or local elections offices, and how they must conduct themselves inside the office or precinct," according to The Associated Press. The Associated Press The Trump campaign alleged poll watchers were blocked from doing their jobs "in many key battleground states," though it did not, in its emails, pinpoint one or more locations where this supposedly occurred. Giuliani, however, claimed Democrats in cities including Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix were behind the alleged conspiracy to undermine Trump's reelection. No poll watchers with the Democratic party raised issues with the 2020 election. For more details about the Trump campaign's allegations, we referred to the campaign's lawsuits challenging various aspects of the presidential election to determine where, exactly, the campaign believed citizen monitors were wrongfully kicked out of ballot-processing rooms. lawsuits At least two legal complaints in Pennsylvania and Michigan involved Republican poll watchers. However, on Nov. 17, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled distancing regulations at polling sites were "reasonable" in that they allowed poll monitors to see what was happening, as prescribed by state law. (You can read that decision here.) The high court's ruling countered an earlier decision by a lower court that sided with the Trump campaign. here   Days before that decision, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond asked a Trump campaign lawyer during a court hearing if poll watchers were allowed in the room where election workers were processing mail-in ballots in Philadelphia. Theres a nonzero number of people in the room, campaign lawyer Jerome Marcus replied, acknowledging that Trump representatives were indeed present despite the campaign's messaging. Additionally, Republican poll watchers in Michigan's Wayne County filed a lawsuit alleging fraud during absentee ballot counting at a Detroit convention center. That litigation sought to halt the state's vote certification process. But two judges found no evidence to support the accusations and allowed the process of certifying votes to proceed, finalizing the state's voter tallies. finalizing the state's voter tallies Of separate lawsuits, The Associated Press reported: reported "Other lawsuits claimed poll watchers were temporarily denied access in some locations, but there has been no evidence to back it up. Nor was there evidence of votes being miscounted out of political bias. And most of the litigation alleging this has been dismissed." In other words, there was no evidence of any person or entity blocking poll watchers' access to polling sites on Election Day, no matter their presidential candidate of choice. Additionally, there were no reports of someone, or a group of people, "throwing out" poll observers from rooms to which election laws guarantee them the right, as of this report. Those conclusions do not eliminate the possibility that poll watchers at some (or many) sites across the country were asked to follow distancing guidelines to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and avoid distracting voters. However, there's no proof of such requests being part of a nefarious scheme to help Trump or Biden, or any political cause. COVID-19 We should note here: The emails about poll observers from Trump's campaign asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. Rather, people were giving their money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are divided between Trump's committees and the Republican National Committee.  Brendan Fischer Republican National Committee "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, no evidence showed poll watchers were removed or prohibited from rooms were ballots were being counted in the Biden-Trump race, even though physical distancing rules may have affected the monitoring. In fact, one Republican lawyer representing Trump provided evidence to the contrary and acknowledged Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia were indeed allowed in ballot counting rooms. For those reasons, we rate this claim Actor Keanu Reeves has a reputation for being one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, and, as a result, many statements considered to be thoughtful or kind articulations of profound emotions often get attributed to him. Not all of those attributions are correct, as weve covered in the past.  nicest guys covered However, one very popular quote lapping the internet was indeed pulled from an old interview with the actor. Spreading on Reddit and numerous blogs, he reportedly said, Grief changes shape, but it never ends. [...] People have a misconception that you can deal with it and say, 'It's gone, and I'm better.' They're wrong. Reddit numerous blogs   Reeves did indeed say this in a 2006 interview with Parade magazine, speaking with author and playwright Dotson Rader. For that reason, we rated this fact check "Correct Attribution." say 2006 interview In the interview, Reeves was talking largely about grief in his own life. He had experienced the deaths of his former girlfriend Jennifer Syme in a car crash and friend River Phoenix due to a drug overdose, among other challenges. We found an archived copy of the interview on newspapers.com: car crash River Phoenix newspapers.com 'Grief changes shape, but it never ends,' [Reaves] told me. 'People have a misconception that you can deal with it and say, 'It's gone, and I'm better.' They're wrong.' 'When the people you love are gone, youre alone,' he added quietly. 'I miss being a part of their life, and them being a part of mine. I wonder what the present would be like if they were herewhat we might have done together. I miss all the great things that will never be.' 'Damn it! Its not fair! Its absurd,' he said angrily. 'All you can do is hope that grief will be transformed and, instead of feeling pain and confusion, you will be together again in memory, that there will be solace and pleasure there, not just loss.' I asked if loss had changed him.  'Much of my appreciation of life has come through loss,' he said. 'Life is precious. It's worthwhile.' Here's a screenshot of the Parade article via newspapers.com, showing the relevant quote: newspapers.com  Articles by Dotson Rader. Parade: Entertainment, Recipes, Health, Life, Holidays, https://parade.com/author/dotsonrader. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Did Keanu Reeves Say No One Has the Right To Judge You? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keanu-reeves-judge-quote/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Fry, Naomi. Keanu Reeves Is Too Good for This World. The New Yorker, 3 June 2019. www.newyorker.com, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/keanu-reeves-is-too-good-for-this-world. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Inside Keanu Reeves Private World: Love, Motorcycles and Epic Movie Stardom After Tragedy. E! Online, 2 Sept. 2022, https://www.eonline.com/news/1042084/inside-keanu-reeves-inscrutable-private-world-tragedy-motorcycles-and-epic-movie-stardom. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. Keanu Reeves: I Want to Get Married. Peoplemag, https://people.com/celebrity/keanu-reeves-i-want-to-get-married/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. The Modesto Bee 11 Jun 2006, Page 100. Newspapers.Com, https://www.newspapers.com/image/698247275/. Accessed 3 Oct. 2022. In February 2021, social media users enthusiastically shared a tweet that outlined a program purportedly run by the ride-hailing company Lyft that allows users to avail themselves of a free ride to a job interview, should they need it. The tweet, attributed to Twitter user @ThaOriginalKaee, read as follows: So Lyft has a new program that will pick you up and take you to a job interview for free, and if you get hired they will give you up to three weeks of free rides until you get paid. There have been times in my life this would have been a game changer. If you need help here's help.   That Twitter account has since been suspended, but the tweet was authentic, based on several screenshots showing various "retweet" and "like" counts. The tweet was also originally published in October 2019. For reasons that are not clear, it enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in January and February 2021, as illustrated by the following screenshot, which shows just a selection of Facebook posts from the first two months of the year: suspended several screenshots showing various Facebook posts   The post was largely accurate. Lyft does indeed run an initiative called the "Jobs Access Program" that gives some users the opportunity to get free rides to job interviews and training and, if they become employed, free transportation to and from their new job for the first three weeks. However, the service is not available to everyone. Lyft runs the jobs access program in just 20 cities across the United States and Canada, and it is primarily targeted at individuals who have historically experienced difficulties in gaining employment, such as veterans and persons with disabilities. In February 2021, many social media users shared @ThaOriginalKaee's viral tweet, which described the initiative as "new." However, most screenshots of that tweet had the date cut off, meaning many readers will have mistakenly understood Lyft's initiative to be a new one. While that was true at the time the tweet was originally published in October 2019, it wasn't "new" in 2021.   Lyft launched the jobs access program in October 2019, announcing it had partnered with non-profit groups including United Way, Goodwill, the National Down Syndrome Society, and the USO (United Service Organizations). The news release associated with the launch explained the initiative, as follows: news release ... Were excited to announce Lyfts Jobs Access Program, a new initiative that aims to close short-term transportation gaps related to employment access and job training. For the unemployed, reliable transportation to a job interview or to the first few weeks of work can mean the difference between successful, long-term employment and lost opportunities. So weve partnered with several leading national and local organizations dedicated to workforce development in order to deliver free or discounted rides to people making their way through the employment pipeline. Lyfts Jobs Access Program will focus on three key interventions in the employment pipeline that are critical to individual success, and where transportation can play a major role:  We are focused on communities that stand to benefit most from short-term transportation support, ranging from veterans to individuals with disabilities.  At the time the initiative was launched, Lyft stated that it was available in 35 cities. However, the company's website now lists only 20 cities and states in which the jobs access program is operational. As of February 2021, they are: Atlanta; Austin; Baltimore; Boston; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New Jersey; New York; Oakland; Philadelphia; San Diego; San Francisco; Seattle; Tacoma; Toronto; Ottowa; Washington, D.C. now lists In December 2020, Lyft stated that in the 14 months since it was launched the jobs access program had facilitated more than 30,000 free rides for individuals.  stated While it wasn't immediately clear what exact criteria and restrictions applied to the way in which United Way, Goodwill, and other charities distribute free ride credits to applicants, the program is clearly designed to prioritize individuals with the most acute need of assistance in accessing transportation in order to enter, or re-enter, the workforce. There is also an application process, whereby would-be users submit their name, contact details, and some basic information about themselves and, according to Lyft's website, can expect to receive a response within a week. website So a program does exist whereby Lyft, in partnership with several non-profit organizations, provides free rides to and from job interviews, training, and for the first three weeks of a beneficiary's new employment. However, the initiative has several limitations, namely: It's restricted to 20 cities in the United States and Canada; targeted to communities and individuals who have historically experienced difficulty in finding employment; and involves a relatively slow application process, meaning a user can't simply open up the Lyft app on their phone and spontaneously demand a free ride to a job interview on an ad hoc basis. Taking these facts into consideration, we are issuing a rating of "true" One of the lessons of the personal computer revolution that began in the 1970s was that tremendous business success was no longer entirely the province of staid, conservatively-dressed, mature adult males with expensive business school educations.  As Microsoft, Apple Computer, and hundreds of other technology-driven companies demonstrated, plenty of young, sartorially-questionable, self-taught young people of both sexes could achieve business success on a par with some of the world's oldest and biggest corporations.   A photograph of Microsoft staff members in 1978 has been circulated online for many years bearing titles such as "Would you have invested?"  It reflects the notion that, back in 1978, not many people might have predicted that a small group of casually-dressed, long-haired youngsters was creating a corporation that would, four decades later, reach an estimated market value of $330 billion, themselves  becoming millionaires (and a few even billionaires) in the process. market value In December 1978, Microsoft had just completed its first million-dollar sales year, and the decision was made to decamp from the company's Albuquerque, New Mexico, headquarters and relocate to bigger and better digs in the Pacific Northwest state of Washington.  The formal studio photograph displayed above was taken on 7 December 1978, shortly before that move, and captured all but a couple of the current Microsoft staff: To suitably immortalize the Albuquerque years, Bob Greenberg cut a deal with a photo studio for a group portrait on December 7. Pearl Harbor Day in Albuquerque featured a snowstorm, but only Miriam Lubow, who was stranded at home with her kids, and Ric Weiland [Microsoft's second employee], out of town on business, failed to make the sitting.  All eleven of the employees in the Albuquerque picture, along with Weiland, were about to make the trip to Seattle.  Only Miriam Lubow would stay behind  reluctantly.  Gates offered to pay for her and her family's move to Seattle, but Miriam's husband demurred: "He said, 'Why are we going to follow this kid to Seattle? It always rains in Seattle.'" On a Concorde flight to Europe, Gates wrote her a thank-you note for her service to Microsoft. As it turned out, she was merely postponing the inevitable. Three years later Miriam would move to the Seattle area and work again for Microsoft, this time focusing more narrowly on a skill she had developed in Albuquerque: getting customers to pay up. (Technically, Microsoft wasn't yet "Microsoft Corporation" at the time this photograph was taken  the company was founded as a partnership and officially became a  Washington State corporation on 1 July 1981.) As for the identities of the persons pictured, and their lives after Microsoft:  Bill Gates (front row, left):  William Gates III, the Harvard drop-out who at 18 co-founded (and later served as CEO and Chairman of the Board of) Microsoft, the world's largest software company, hardly needs any introduction.   He is regularly ranked as the one of the richest individuals in the world (with an estimated net worth in 2015 of $78 billion); in 2008 he  withdrew from Microsoft's day-to-day operations to focus his attention on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which combats diseases such as polio, malaria, and AIDS. richest withdrew Foundation  Andrea Lewis (front row, second from left):  Andrea Lewis was a former MITS technical writer and Computer Notes editor hired in 1978 to produce documentation for Microsoft products as the company's first technical writer.  She left her day-to-day job at Microsoft in 1983, has since worked as a freelance journalist and fiction writer, and helped create the Richard Hugo House, a literary center in Seattle.  She now lives in Seattle with her husband and two children. MITS Richard Hugo House  Marla Wood (front row, second from right):  Marla Wood (wife of Steve Wood, also pictured above) worked as a bookkeeper and administrative assistant at Microsoft until 1980, when she and her husband left the company (becoming the first of the eleven staff members in the photograph to depart Microsoft), in large part due to a dispute regarding payment of overtime wages: Bill's letter confirming [a $50,000 offer to Steve Ballmer to become his assistant] became a personnel disaster when some disgruntled soul copied it and tacked it on the office bulletin board. Along with his salary, high for Microsoft, Ballmer was to get a 5 to 10 percent cut of the company based on a formula involving the year's revenue growth.  It sorely rankled loyalists who had been slaving for the company since the Albuquerque days without so much as a profit-sharing plan to show for it. When it came to clerical help, Gates had been tightfisted beyond the bounds of the law. Overtime had always been paid on a straight-time basis, and though the rules affecting programmers might be debatable, the rules affecting clerical workers were not. Marla Wood and other office staffers had checked into the labor regulations and discovered that they deserved time and a half for overtime  currently and retroactively. When Steve Wood approached Gates about it, he agreed to start paying time and a half but insisted that back pay was out of the question. If the secretaries wanted to file a complaint, well, let 'em. They did. When the state notified Gates that the back pay was due, it wasn't long before Marla Wood got the news:  Bill comes storming into my office saying he just had a phone call from these people, just livid. This was the one time I was really on the receiving end of one of his rages  I mean, just screaming about this and how it was going to ruin his reputation ... This would be on his reports forever and ever ... I was saved by an overseas phone call which he proceeded to take at my desk, whereupon I ran out, went down to Steve's office and said, "I'm quitting. I can't stand it here any more." And he said, "That's all right; I'm seeing a headhunter tomorrow anyway." But before she and her husband departed Microsoft, Marla saw to it that the issue was settled. Although it amounted to only $100 or so for her and as little as $20 for the others, "It was just a matter of principle."  Paul Allen (front row, right):  Paul Allen, a childhood friend of Bill Gates, co-founded Microsoft with Gates in 1975 and resigned his day-to-day position in 1983 after he was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease (for which he was successfully treated), although he remained on Microsoft's board of directors until 2000.  A variety of post-Microsoft investments, in technology companies and other areas of business (including ownership of the Seattle Seahawks football team and the Portland Trail Blazers basketball team) have helped bring him an estimated net worth of $17 billion. Like Bill Gates, he engages in philanthropic efforts through his chairmanship of the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. net worth Foundation  Bob O'Rear (second row, left):  In 1978 programmer Bob O'Rear was, at age 35, the oldest of the Microsoft staff members pictured above, and, as a native Texan, one of only two staffers who did not come from the Pacific Northwest area.  He was also one of the best-educated employees, a NASA engineer who held degrees in mathematics and physics.  He left the company in 1993 and now runs a cattle ranch in Texas in addition to serving on the boards of a variety of high-tech firms.  Bob Greenberg  (second row, second from left):  Bob Greenberg, who arranged the deal for the studio photograph displayed above, was a programmer Bill Gates knew from his Harvard days, hired in 1977 to help Microsoft create a new version of the BASIC programming language for a new Texas Instruments computer.  Greenberg proved invaluable for more than just his technical expertise, lending the fledgling company $7,000 during a financial crunch in mid-1977; although he left Microsoft in 1981, he went from one business juggernaut to another, helping the family business, Coleco, launch the Cabbage Patch Kids marketing craze of the 1980s. He now reportedly develops software for golf courses. Coleco  Marc McDonald (second row, second from right):  Marc McDonald is generally identified as Microsoft's (then "Micro-Soft") first employee, hired in 1976 to adapt BASIC for the new NCR 7200 machine.  (Although a couple of other people had worked for Microsoft on a contract basis, McDonald was the first hiree to draw a regular salary.)  Marc left Microsoft in 1984, reportedly disenchanted with the changes wrought by the company's burgeoning growth, and went to work for fellow ex-Microsoft staffer Paul Allen's new company, Asymetrix.  In an amusing coincidence, McDonald eventually ended up back at Microsoft when it acquired Design Intelligence, the Seattle-based software company for which he was then working. NCR 7200 acquired  Gordon Letwin (second row, right):  The initial 1978 meeting between Gordon Letwin and his future employer, Bill Gates, was somewhat contentious, according to the biography Gates: Befitting its role as a haven for soldering-iron types, Heath[kit] was now marketing its own computers, including a Z-80 machine with a homegrown edition of BASIC instead of the Microsoft version. As Bill Gates was attempting to correct this egregious error, he was introduced to a black-haired gnome by the name of Gordon Letwin, who proceeded to chew him out in front of a group of about fifteen people. Letwin, the author of Heath's BASIC, felt his turf was being violated  and by the purveyor of an inferior product to boot. Bill Gates nonetheless prevailed, selling Heath his BASIC and FORTRAN for H-DOS, a proprietary operating system Letwin had developed for Heath. But Letwin had instinctively understood how to win the favor of William Henry Gates: Stand up to the guy. By the end of the year Gordon Letwin would come to work for Microsoft and begin work on a BASIC compiler. Among other projects, Gordon served as Microsoft's chief architect for the development of the infamous OS/2 operating system and stayed with the company longer than any of the other staffers pictured above (with the exception of Bill Gates himself), finally leaving in 1993 to escape the day-to-day tech bustle and enjoy life.  He has reportedly contributed a substantial portion of the money he acquired during his tenure at Microsoft to various environmental causes.  Steve Wood (top row, left): Steve Wood was Microsoft's first married employee, a Stanford graduate with a master's degree who was hired in 1976 to help create a Microsoft version of FORTRAN.  Later, when Steve was serving as Microsoft's office manager, his wife Marla joined the company as a clerical worker, eventually taking over all of Microsoft's bookkeeping chores after Miriam Lubow stayed behind when the firm relocated from New Mexico to Washington.  Steve and Marla both left Microsoft in 1980 (as detailed above); in 1996, Steve Wood founded Wireless Services Corp. (now SinglePoint), a mobile messaging company. SinglePoint  Bob Wallace (top row, center):  Bob Wallace joined Microsoft in 1978 after responding to a photocopied ad that Paul Allen had left in the Seattle computer store where he worked.  He served as a production manager and software designer until 1983, when he became (like Marc McDonald would the following year) disenchanted with the changes in the company's culture brought about by Microsoft's success and growth: [Paul] Allen's illness and departure coalesced uneasiness within the ranks of the remaining Albuquerquians  the core group that had helped establish Microsoft early, had followed their leader to Bellevue, had stuck with the company through some tumultuous years, and now found themselves being middle-managed into oblivion. In March 1983 Bob Wallace, in the best Microsoft tradition, got into a heated dispute with his supervisor over a technical point. The supervisor told him, "there's nothing you can do about it, and you can't talk to Bill about it ... I'm the only one who can talk to Bill." For Wallace, being barred from talking with Bill was not just a shock but an insult. He told his supervisor as much, half expecting Gates to intercede. When it didn't happen, he resigned. In 1983 Bob Wallace started his own company, Quicksoft, which marketed the text-processing program PC-Write, generally touted as being the first (widely-used) shareware program.  He sold Quicksoft in 1991, moved to northern California a few years later, and  long interested in psychedelic drugs  started Mind Books (a bookstore offering literature about psychoactive plants and compounds) and the Promind Foundation (an organization dedicated to supporting scientific research and public education about psychedelics).   In 2002, Bob Wallace became the first (and so far the only) one of the eleven Microsoft staffers pictured above to pass away, succumbing to pneumonia at age 53.  Jim Lane (top row, right):  Jim Lane, who got his start with microcomputers at the Denver-based Digital Group, was hired by Microsoft in late 1978 (shortly before this picture was taken).  As a Microsoft project manager, he was a key figure in forging the partnership between Microsoft software and Intel's microprocessors (a relationship symbolized by the development of the term "Wintel").  He left Microsoft in 1985 (reportedly stating that the company had "beat the enthusiasm out of me") to run his own software/consultancy business. Digital Group Wintel Nearly thirty years later, just before Bill Gates stepped down from being involved in the day-to-day operations of Microsoft, the eleven staffers pictured above reunited for another photograph, with office manager Miriam Lubow (who missed the original sitting) taking the place of Bob Wallace (who died in 2002): Phishing bait:  E-mail solicits recipients to create CDC Vaccination Profiles. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] CDC [vaccination@cdcdelivery.gov] You have received this e-mail because of the launching of State Vaccination H1N1 Program. You need to create your personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The Vaccination is not obligatory, but every person that has reached the age of 18 has to have his personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. This profile has to be created both for the vaccinated people and the not-vaccinated ones. This profile is used for the registering system of vaccinated and not-vaccinated people. Create your Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile using the link: create personal profile   Origins:  Swine flu is currently a strong concern among many people, especially with the vaccine's being difficult to obtain in many places.  Therefore, an e-mail like the one displayed above (which was spammed to many recipients in December 2009), seemingly originating with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and informing readers that they must go to the CDC's web site to create a "Personal H1N1 Vaccination Profile," was bound to catch people's attention. However, this message is just a phishing lure and did not originate with the CDC: That organization does not send out unsolicited e-mail, there is no requirement that everyone under 18  register a personal vaccination profile with the CDC, and the return address on the messages uses an apparently non-existent domain  (cdcdelivery.gov).  Clicking through on the "create personal profile" link provided takes the user to a phony CDC look-alike site within the .IM (Isle of Man) domain, which offers a page that includes a "Download Archive" link which (if clicked) triggers an executable file:  Activating that file results in the installation of malwarewhich gives scammers access to the user's computer: malware The link provided in the email takes you to a very convincing imitation of a CDC web page where you are given a temporary ID and a link to your "vaccination profile." The link is in fact to an executable file that contains a copy of a Trojan most commonly identified as Zbot. This Trojan once installed on your PC, this Trojan will create a security-free gateway on your system and will proceed to download and install additional malware without your authorization. It also enables a remote hacker to take complete control of your computer. This malware can log your typed keystrokes and send confidential personal and financial data (including banking information, credit card numbers, and website passwords) to a remote hacker. The CDC  has posted a notice on its web site advising that:  notice CDC has received reports of fraudulent emails (phishing) referencing a CDC sponsored State Vaccination Program. The messages request that users must create a personal H1N1 (swine flu) Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov website. The message then states that anyone that has reached the age of 18 has to have his/her personal Vaccination Profile on the cdc.gov site. The CDC has NOT implemented a state vaccination program requiring registration on www.cdc.gov. Users that click on the email are at risk of having malicious code installed on their system. Last updated:  1 December 2009 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. As California dealt with the deadliest wildfire in the state's history in November 2018, a number of social media users encountered an image that supposedly showed a "fawn and bobcat cub found under a desk in office build after California forest fire rolled through": showed   Although this photograph was often presented as if it were taken during the deadly Camp Fire in November 2018, it was actually several years old by that time. Furthermore, the claim that the fawn and bobcat were "found" under a desk during a fire isn't exactly accurate. This photograph was taken in May 2009 at a facility run by the non-profit Animal Rescue Team during the Jesusita wildfire near Santa Barbara, California. Julia Di Sieno, the co-founder and Director of Animal Rescue Team, said that the bobcat and the fawn were rescued at different times and locations. In other words, they were not "found" huddled together under a desk during the fire. Discovery.com reported that while animals of different species are typically kept in separate areas, rescue workers were swamped in the aftermath of the fire and didn't have many options for housing these animals: reported Di Sieno helped rescue the bobcat kitten in the photo a week before, near Arnold Schwarzeneggers Ranch, where it was dehydrated and near death. Di Sieno nurtured it back to health. They rescued the fawn during last week's wildfire. Although wild animals, especially of separate species, are never placed together due to regulations, in this emergency situation, they had no choice. During the mayhem of the fire, they were forced to put animals anywhere they could, since they had run out of crates large enough for the fawn. The kitten ran to the fawn, and it was instant bonding. Most wildlife knows instinctively to flee fires - to fly away, burrow, or run - but some dont make it out in time. Rescue workers walk near the fire line with nets, searching for any injured animals or young separated from their parents. Burn victims go to the local care hospital, says Di Sieno. We rescued bunnies, squirrels, two fawns. Weve rescued I dont know how many geese, chickens ducks, cats, birds, turkeys, and a baby owl and a baby raptor. Discovery.com.  "Jesusita Wildfire Animal Rescue."
  18 May 2009.