Could Kids with COVID-19 Symptoms Be Quarantined Without Parental Consent?
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians.  shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!!   Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19.  shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent.  database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness  like COVID-19  is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace.  "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?"
 Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian."
  Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion."
  9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion."
  14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion."
  24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?"
  Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights."
  December 2016.
On Oct. 11, 2020, Allstate insurance company released a new television advertisement that showed a man going about his day on what turned out to be a tiny island. The aim of the commercial appeared to highlight a new payment option that allowed drivers to only pay for miles driven. This meant smaller bills for drivers who don't drive a lot. released  The ad featured Babe Rainbow's "Morning Song." In the final shot, it was revealed that the man lived on a very small island. We found no shortage of tweets that asked if the island was real: "Morning Song."    The island in the Allstate video is indeed real. It is Ona, located in Norway. RepublicWorld.com reported the news in October. reported  Norway, Ona island lighthouse. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  According to Fjords.com: "Ona is the name of the island community which consists of the two islands Ona and Husya. The two islands are connected with a small bridge." Fjords.com VisitNorway.com published a page with information for what tourists could expect when visiting the island: published Norway's southernmost living fishing village. The island serves as a year-round residence for 11 people and has a beauty that attracts travelers from far and near. Ona Fyr is a 15-meter high landmark built in 1865, located on the island's highest point, Onakalven. It is possible to go inside the lighthouse, and from the top, there is a fantastic view out over the sea and towards the mainland. You will also find the exclusive Ona Chocolate here, a small summer caf, two pottery workshops, a craft shop, a chapel, and a long, white sandy beach. The island is a peaceful place where you can enjoy the silence and tranquility. On the island, there are holiday homes located directly on the dock, and local suppliers offer a wide range of activities on-site, including various forms of fishing. While Ona is a real island, it appeared that the final shot of the Allstate advertisement might have been altered in editing to give the island a bit of a cleaner look. For instance, here is the view of the island from the end opposite the one shown in the Allstate advertisement:  Ona, Norway. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  A number of YouTube videos also showed that small patches of rock surround Ona, which did not appear in the Allstate video. For example, small patches of rock appeared here at 0:23, but not in the advertisement: number of YouTube videos appeared here at 0:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP5X-OxbUFI?t=23 Digitally altered or not, Ona appeared to be a quiet, lovely vacation destination for anyone visiting Norway in the future. Speaking of islands, we previously reported about a photograph of a purported "Violin Island" in Costa Rica. That picture first arrived in our inboxes in 2017. reported On Jan. 16, 2020, Lev Parnas, the American businessman who allegedly worked with U.S. President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani to pressure the Ukraine to investigate the president's political rivals, appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" to tell his version of events that led to the president's impeachment. While Trump would later say "I dont know who this man is," the photographic record appears to tell a different story.  The Rachel Maddow Show I dont know who this man is As Parnas' name moved from obscurity to infamy, photographs showing Parnas with various members of the Trump family, the Trump administration, and the president himself started to circulate on social media. While most of these images are genuine, some social media users attempted to strengthen the connection between Trump and Parnas by sharing a photograph that allegedly showed Parnas and Trump at a family birthday party when their children were young: photographs showing Parnas Trump family Trump administration president himself photograph   The claim that the man in this photograph is Lev Parnas is not based on any credible information. This claim is based solely on the notion that the man in the photograph bears a passing resemblance to Parnas. However, Parnas' name was not attached to this picture until close to three decades after it was taken. And from what we can tell, Parnas is too young to be the man pictured here.  This photograph was not taken at a party for "Lev's kid." It was actually taken in 1990 at a birthday party for Trump's son, Eric, who had just turned 6. The picture first received media attention in 2017 with the release of the book "Raising Trump" by Ivana Trump, the president's first wife.  Raising Trump ABC News published this photograph in an article about the book with the caption: "Ivana Trump shares a family photo from Eric Trump's sixth birthday party at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1990." ABC News Here's the full photograph:   Parnas was born in 1972 and would have been approximately 18 when this photograph was taken. The man in this photograph, however, appears to be much older than a teenager. By comparison, Donald Trump, who was born in 1946, was approximately 44 when this photograph was taken.  born in 1972 Some social media users have pointed to a report in the New Yorker to bolster the claim that Parnas is indeed the man in this photograph. While the The New Yorker reported that Parnas started selling Trump Organization co-ops for Kings Highway Realty when he was 16, there's no indication that Parnas had a familiar relationship with the Trump family at that time. In fact, Parnas said that while he bumped into Trump occasionally at events in New York over the years, he didn't get to know the president until the 2016 presidential campaign (emphasis ours): The New Yorker Parnas soon became a regular at Trumps rallies and other gatherings. I started donating. We started to help raise money, he said. Gradually, Parnas said that he got to know other Trump donors, including Tommy Hicks, Jr., a private-equity investor in Texas who is close to Donald Trump, Jr. (Hicks has since become the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.)We became one big family, Parnas said. You got to understand, he didnt have a real campaign, a traditional campaign. It was make-it-up, you know. Like him or not, you understand what it is. It was more, like, you know, wed bump into each other constantly because it was all the same people, there were not that many of us. Parnas told me that he bumped into Trump plenty of times at events in New York over the years, but that they didnt get to know each other until the 2016 campaign. (Trump recently distanced himself from Parnas and [businessman Igor] Fruman, saying, I dont know those gentlemen. Now, its possible I have a picture with them, because I have a picture with everybody.) In sum, the claim that the above-displayed picture shows Parnas with the Trumps at a family birthday party in the 1990s is not supported by evidence. This claim is based solely on the notion that the pictured man and Parnas bear a passing resemblance to one another. However, Parnas was only 18 at the time this photograph was taken (while the pictured man looks much older), his name wasn't attached to this image until it became a political weapon 30 years later, and Parnas himself said that he didn't get to know Trump until 2015. Ward, Myah.  "Trump Vigorously Denies Knowing Lev Parnas After Explosive Claims."   Politico.  16 January 2020. Raymond, Adam.  "Lev Parnas and His Powerful Republican Friends: A Photo Album."   The Intelligencer.  16 January 2020. Baragona, Justin.  "Don Jr. Admits Meeting Lev Parnas: I Thought He Was Israeli."
  Daily Beast.  19 January 2020. Benen, Steve.  "Why It's So Hard to Believe Trump's Denials About Lev Parnas."   MSNBC.  17 January 2020. Blake, Aaron.  "The Trump Team Keeps Denying it Knows Lev Parnas, Despite Growing Photographic Evidence."
  Washington Post.  16 January 2020. Kindelan, Katie.  "Ivana Trump Says She is 'First Lady.'"
  ABC News.  9 October 2017. Smith, David and Andrew Roth.  "Who is Lev Parnas? Soviet-Born Operator Thrust Into Trump Impeachment Scandal."
  The Guardian.  16 January 2020. Primm, Katie.  "Trump Lawyer Dismisses New Evidence, Including Photos of the President with Lev Parnas.'"
  CBS News.  18 January 2020. Entous, Adam.  "How Lev Parnas Became Part of the Trump Campaign's 'One Big Family.'"
  New Yorker.  15 October 2019. Claim:  Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Your entry last month has Won!!  Goto [URL elided] and enter your Winning Code:  3333 to claim your free $1000 BestBuy GiftCard!  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Your entry last month has Won!  Go to [URL elided]  and enter your winning code 5555 to claim your FREE $1000 Best Buy Gift card within 24 hours.   Origins:  In October 2012, a scam purporting to offer free $1,000 Best Buy gift cards to those who accessed a proffered link then entered a "winning code" spread by cell phone text message. It was a reprise of a March 2012 scam that invoked the name of the same retailer to lure the unwary. Those who attempted to claim the enticing freebie were then led to a web page (which was not operated or sponsored by electronics retailer Best Buy) that asked them to certify they were U.S. residents over the age of 18 and had agreed to the privacy policy and terms and conditions of the site they'd been sent to, the latter being: This Gift Redemption Program is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal US resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old or older; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Silver and Gold reward offer page options and nine reward offers from the Platinum reward offer page options and refer 3 friends to do the same. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. Those still in hot pursuit of the promised $1,000 gift cards were then asked to provide their names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of birth, or were taken directly to web pages that required them to select a number of  "free" offers. As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams: Better Business Bureau If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website. website Most financial institutions, utility, or other business will not communicate with you via text message. If you do not recognize the website or phone number being sent to you, don't visit or call it. Don't e-mail or text personal and financial information. Review your credit card and bank statements to make sure there are no unauthorized charges. Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple  $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] Costco  $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  Pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] JetBlue Last updated:  5 October 2012 Among the many vexing problems with which the world continues to grapple is the issue of child marriage, a matter that predominantly affects girls in less developed countries. As the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) notes, 20 percent of girls worldwide are married before reaching the age of 18, and in some parts of the globe the rate is twice as high: UNFPA Child marriage denies girls the right to choose whom and when to marry -- one of lifes most important decisions. Choosing one's partner is a major decision, one that should be made freely and without fear or coercion. On this, virtually all countries agree. Child marriage is a human rights violation. Despite laws against it, the practice remains widespread: Globally, one in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18. In the least developed countries, that number doubles  40 per cent of girls are married before age 18, and 12 per cent of girls are married before age 15. Child marriage directly threatens girls health and well-being. Marriage is often followed by pregnancy, even if a girl is not yet physically or mentally ready. In developing countries, nine out of 10 births to adolescent girls occur within a marriage or a union. In these countries, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among adolescent girls aged 15 to 19. Girls who are married may also be exposed to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. When girls marry, they are often forced to drop out of school so they can assume household responsibilities. This is a denial of their right to an education. Girls who leave school have worse health and economic outcomes than those who stay in school, and eventually their children fare worse as well. Unfortunately, social media platforms are full of inaccurate postings on the subject from persons who are not seeking to raise awareness of the child marriage issue, but simply to demonize other religions and cultures. The following is one such example of this phenomenon:  To all you misguided, uninformed liberal women demonstrating in favor of embracing Islam, this young lady is being sold into sexual slavery as a child bride. She is a Christian. She watched her father beheaded and her mother raped. Where is her safe place? the meme asks. However, the blonde girl pictured here was not being sold into sexual slavery as a child bride by Muslims (or anyone else), and no credible reports (outside of the inflammatory meme itself) suggested she was a Christian who had seen her "father beheaded and her mother raped." The image used in the meme originated with a (no longer available) video from 2013 that captured a 7-year-old girl participating in a Quran recital competition, as noted in a Morocco World News article: article The picture shows an ISIS member, seemingly in his thirties, with a seven-year-old, crying girl, who had been interpreted as his bride. The photo sparked widespread condemnation on social media before a video on YouTube proved it to be a hoax. The picture generated several theories. The most popular theory [was] that the young girl had been converted to Islam before being forced to marry the ISIS member appearing in the picture .. The website Arabic Canada solved the mystery surrounding the outrageous picture, by sharing a video of what seems to be a Quran recital competition -- from which the picture was taken -- organized by ISIS in Klassa, a neighborhood in Aleppo, in 2013. The video shows the ISIS member, who was misleadingly presented as the young girls groom, having a small chat with her before she recites verses of the Quran. Feeling embarrassed for making several mistakes during her recitation, Ghada, the young girl, starts crying before the man returns. He then clearly tries to comfort her and boost her spirits. The referenced Arabic Canada website (now defunct) wrote of this picture as follows (roughly translated from Arabic): wrote A seven-year-old girl looks very frightened, while the man standing next to her looks smiling and happy. The text accompanying the photograph claims that the man in the picture forced the girl to marry him. Some versions even went so far as to identify the girl as a Christian who had been forced to convert to Islam and read the Quran. Of course, the picture produced a feeling of disgust in everyone who saw it. Some newspapers wrote articles denouncing the phenomenon of child marriage in Islam. One newspaper of course took the opportunity to refer to the marriage of six-year-old Aisha [the third wife of the prophet Muhammad] and claimed that Islam permitted and encouraged child marriage. third wife The photo is actually a screenshot from a video of a children's recitation contest held in Aleppo in September 2013, and although the organizers of the contest certainly belong to ISIS, the video includes no reference to marriage. The dismay on the girl's face was apparently triggered by her having made a mistake in reciting the Quran. Other screenshots from the video captured the girl looking considerably less distraught:    This isn't to say that child marriage isn't a real problem, or that it and other depredations  such as beheadings and rape  haven't been perpetrated by those associated with ISIS, but the image used in this meme isn't representative of any of those issues. Morocco World News.  "Truth Behind Alleged Marriage of ISIS Member with 7-Year-Old Girl."
  18 August 2014. United Nations Population Fund.  "Child Marriage."
  Accessed 18 March 2019. Arabic Canada.  " :       7 ."
  13 August 2014. Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris, a Democratmulling a run for governorin 2014, contends that his private-sector experience would put the state on a better course. Making the media rounds thissummer, the former bank trust officer has gently criticized Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans for what he views as overly exuberant tax cuts and borrowing. Harris, as you might expect, thinks his own record on fiscal issues is more responsible. Ive got the spending down, Ive got the debt down a little bit, Ive got the reserves up, Harristold journalist Mike Goushaon WISN-TVs Upfront show July 21, 2013. Harris was first elected county executive in 2005 and previously served as mayor of Oshkosh and on the Oshkosh City Council and Winnebago County Board. He has worked as a certified public accountant in Michigan and Indiana, was a lawyer in Indiana, and worked as a trust officer and vice president at Associated Trust Company in Oshkosh from 1995 until 2005. With Harris pledging to decide on running by Labor Day, we thought it was the right time to check the books on his claims. Heres what we found: Reserves Average year-end reserves are up considerably in the Harris era, compared with the final four budget years of his predecessor, county financial records show. Under Harris, the county often has kept reserves in excess of its goal of having a cushion totalling one month of the countys annual spending. The average annual reserve is up more than 50% on average, and in 2012 reserves swelled to nearly two months of spending, prompting the county to suspend new borrowing in 2013. The increase in unrestricted reserves has not been a steady march, but the trend is clear. Spending Harris pointed us to numbers showing that the 2013 adopted county budget set operating spending at 1 percent less than the 2005 budget -- the last one adopted before his election. We confirmed those figures, and found a four-year trend of declining or flat expenditures from 2010-13, so Harris has some backup. The countys finance director, Charles Orenstein, told us savings came in part from reining in fringe benefit costs, consolidation and efficiency moves in county facilities, and savings on court and jail costs through technology. But, looking more broadly, the spending trend lines look like a roller-coaster ride. Spending went up in Harris first four years. In fact, only in 2013 could Harris make the claim that spending is lower compared with when he came in. In every other year but this one under Harris, the countys annual spending total was higher than in the last pre-Harris budget. Harris acknowledges that Walkers curbs on collective bargaining saved the county money, but he contends that state aid cuts offset most if not all of the savings, at least in 2012. The countys property tax levy has increased 24 percent in eight years under Harris as aid from other levels of government -- a category including the state -- fell off markedly, county budget records show. The property tax levy has fallen the last two years amid tight property tax caps imposed by Walker. Debt Harris said he got the countys debt down a little. Yes and no. Harris notes that Winnebago Countys outstanding general-obligation debt totalled $59.6 million at year-end 2012, down from $63 million in December 2004, months before he took office in April 2005. In noting that, he uses 2005 as his first year and 2004 as the baseline year. His numbers are correct, and defensible to a point. But, under the countys capital improvement process, many debt-funded capital projects would have received approval before Harris took office. So both the previous county executive and Harris can claim an influence on the outstanding debt level in 2005. Keeping that in mind, if you instead use 2005 as the baseline year, Harris debt claim fails. Debt added up to $57 million in 2005, slightly lower than the mark under Harris in 2012. Harris claim, though, is on target by two other measures, average annual debt per capita, and average annual debt in raw dollars. In general, this is a difficult area to judge because huge projects -- a new nursing home built on Harris watch, for instance -- spike borrowing in certain years. The Credit Game One final issue. Harris credited himself for driving the fiscal trends. But he acknowledged that the County Board deserves some credit as well. And two veteran Winnebago County Board leaders, David Albrecht and Patrick Brennand, told us that former County Executive Jane Van De Hey and others also helped instill a cautious approach to spending. Theres also the effect of the state budget, which helped the county drive down costs while also cutting aid to the county. Our rating Harris said, Ive got the spending down, Ive got the debt down a little bit, Ive got the reserves up. He was referring to his tenure as Winnebago County executive from April 2005 to the present. He makes the best case on reserves, which clearly have risen. Spending is down when viewed narrowly. The debt burden has dropped by some measures but not by all. Harris deserves some credit for the trends, but not all. We rate his claim Mostly True. In mid-October 2018, singer-songwriter Michael Bubl defused speculation generated by a newspaper interview that he would be bringing his career to a close. Bubl took a two-year hiatus from recording in the wake of his firstborn son Noah's October 2016 cancer diagnosis.  During an interview published in the Daily Mail's weekend magazine on 13 October 2018 that touched on the end of that hiatus, Bubl explained his reasons for recording his forthcoming new album in the wake of his son's battle with cancer -- and seemingly announced his retirement from the music world in a story hyperbolically headlined ""Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview": published "One, because I felt a debt of gratitude, deeper than I can explain, to the millions of people all over the world who prayed for us and showed us compassion. That gave me faith in humanity.  "Two, because I love music and feel I can continue the legacy of my idols. And three, because if the world was ending -- not just my own personal hell but watching the political turmoil in America and watching Europe break up -- theres never a better time for music." Then suddenly he stops. "This is my last interview," he says quite solemnly. "I'm retiring from the business. I've made the perfect record and now I can leave at the very top." But a few days later a spokesperson for Bubl told NBC's Today Show that "He is NOT retiring. Definitely not." told Perhaps Bubl's comments about having given his "last interview" and "retiring from the business" were meant to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that was misunderstood or didn't come across in print, as Today suggested: Given Bubl's sense of humor, we detect a little sarcasm in his self-praise and retirement talk. At least that's the theory TODAY's Savannah Guthrie is subscribing to. "You know, he's a pretty funny guy," she said when the topic came up on the show. "Maybe he just saying (his new album) is so good, I retire!" The Canadian singer and songwriter himself also dismissed the Mail's report during a subsequent interview: dismissed After stepping back into the spotlight following a 2-year hiatus, it seemed like a strange time for Bubl to announce his departure. Fortunately, his rep calmed fans' fears, telling E! News in a statement that plans of his retirement are "not true at all." As further reassurance, the 43-year-old father of three put the speculation to rest in a new interview with SiriusXM's Fantasy Sports Radio. "Just consider the source -- that's all I say to people," he told co-hosts Mike Dempsey and Bob Harris. "My buddies wrote me. I said, 'Look at who said it.' C'mon, are you kidding me? I need the money. I'm not going anywhere." Bubl's new album, Love, is scheduled to be released on 16 November 2018.  Storey, Katie.  "Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview."
  Daily Mail.  13 October 2018. Hines, Ree.  "Michael Bubl Is 'Definitely Not' Retiring Following Son's Cancer Battle."
  The Today Show.  15 October 2018. Hautman, Nicholas.  "Michael Buble Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'I Need the Money.'"
  US Magazine.   16 October 2018. Schnurr, Samantha.  "Michael Bubl Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'Consider the Source.'"
  E! News.   16 October 2018. Claim:  An amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires gay residents to wear a sensor for identification.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] it basically says that Indiana is making a law where all gay people haveto wear a sensor to alert storeowners when they enter an establishment.sounds really fake to me, but, people have been re-posting it all oversocial media.   Origins:  On 28 March 2015, the Free Wood Post published an article titled "Indiana Requiring All Gay Residents to Wear Sensor That Will Trigger Alarm Upon Entering a Store". (Interestingly, that article was published prior to a large national debate that occurred after the owners of an Indiana pizza restaurant controversially supported the law during the course of a 31 March 2015 news interview.) article restaurant The  Free Wood Post's article didn't attempt to tread a line of plausibility in its claims: As an amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all LGBT citizens will be required to register with the state so that they can be mailed a sensor to wear on their body at all times. The sensor is so that any business that doesn't want an LGBT individual entering their establishment will be notified immediately of their arrival and an alarm will sound. These sensors will be much like a modern day version of the 'Star of David' Jewish citizens in Germany were required to wear during the time of Hitler's reign. The article included a purported quote from Indian governor Mike Pence about the amendment to the RFRA: It's all about freedom. Freedom for these business owners to know all the money they're receiving didn't come from gay hands. That's the devil's money, really. And who wants to pay payroll or rent or taxes with the devil's money? Although (coincidentally) well-timed, the article was nothing more than a spoof published by a satirical web site. Free Wood Post's disclaimer page states: disclaimer Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience. Previous Free Wood Post articles included a claim that the FCC had labeled Fox News as satire, quoted Ann Romney on the wage gap, and suggested that Mitt Romney had said he could relate to black people because his ancestors owned slaves. Fox News Ann Romney Mitt Romney   Last updated:  16 April 2015 Claim:  Opinion piece by London Daily Telegraph editor criticizes President Obama's handling of foreign policy. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2011] THIS FROM THE " LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH" EDITOR This is a very sobering article.  Our handling of relationships with the Britons over the oil spill won't help either. From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations Quote: "Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people.  I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States .  But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue." One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain, presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963). One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags. The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists. Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified." There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September.  "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes.  Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable," Mr. Hughes said. The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina 's specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina .  When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British  with strong support from President Ronald Reagan  expelled them. "It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain 's friendship really mean so little to him?"   One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him? "I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. " A lot of hemming and hawing ensued."   One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, "Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama." Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense.  Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both  Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse.  Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense.  Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran.  Syria's support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations.  The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea . And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him. For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by itsadversaries.  Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparentlyhave yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will. London Daily Telegraph editor  Alex Singleton Origins:  This item about Barack Obama is actually a combination of two opinion pieces, neither of them written by the London Daily Telegraph's political editor, Alex Singleton, or published in that newspaper.  Both segments were penned by Jack Kelly, a former Marine and Green Beret who was a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration and is now a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade.  The first section (up through the quote "Does Britain'sfriendship really mean so little to him?") comes from Kelly's 15 March 2010 column ("Administration animosity against allies not limited to Israel") and the second portion (from the quote "I recently asked several senior administration officials" onwards) was taken from Kelly's 14 March 2010 column ("Feckless foreign follies"). animosity Feckless Somewhere along the way, in writing about Kelly's columns, someone included an excerpt from an 11 March 2010 opinion piece ("Barack Obama has made me want to boycott America") by London Daily Telegraph contributing editor Alex Singleton.  This excerpt (quoted below) was subsequently placed at the head of the piece and resulted in all of Kelly's writing being credited to Alex Singleton rather than just the single opening quotation: included boycott Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favour of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems  bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue. Last updated:  4 April 2011    Kelly Jack.   "Feckless Foreign Follies."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  14 March 2010  (p. A21).    Singleton, Alex.   "Barack Obama Has Made Me Want to Boycott America."   London Daily Telegraph.  11 March 2010. A photograph is frequently shared on social media that appears to show convicted sex trafficker and former Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell watching as former U.S. President Bill Clinton walked his daughter, Chelsea, down the aisle at her wedding. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her mother, was also in attendance but is out of frame in the picture.  frequently shared Jeffrey Epstein Ghislaine Maxwell Bill Clinton Chelsea Hillary Clinton It's true that this is a real photograph. It's available on the Getty Images licensing website. It has not been doctored and the woman who is circled below in film director Adam McKay's 2019 tweet truly is Maxwell: available tweet Maxwell  The photograph of Maxwell at Clinton's wedding received a wave of new shares in April 2022 following news that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was buying Twitter: Maxwell Clinton news Tesla Elon Musk Twitter    The picture was being reshared in response to other social media users (who presumably dislike Musk) sharing a real photograph of him standing near Maxwell at a public event. The photograph of Musk and Maxwell was captured at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party in 2014. Musk later tweeted that he didn't know her and that she had "photobombed" him.  Musk sharing real photograph Maxwell Musk Maxwell Vanity Fair Oscar Musk According to BBC.com, Chelsea married investment banker Marc Mezvinsky at the Astor Courts estate in New York on July 31, 2010: BBC.com Chelsea A no-fly zone was in place above the Hudson valley and nearby roads were closed as guests arrived in limousines. The television star, Oprah Winfrey, film director Steven Spielberg, Hollywood actor Tom Hanks and singer Barbra Streisand are reportedly among the 500 guests. Oprah Winfrey Steven Spielberg Tom Hanks Barbra Streisand ... Earlier, actors Ted Danson and his wife Mary Steenburgen told reporters in the town of Rhinebeck, where many of those invited are staying, that they were both excited about attending the ceremony. Ted Danson Mary Steenburgen Weeks prior to the wedding, on June 18, 2010, New York Magazine's Intelligencer reported that Chelsea purportedly had a firm policy on who was to be invited. According to the article, "bride-side sources" said that Chelsea "instituted a strict no-strangers policy" and that "she must personally know every invitee." reported Chelsea Chelsea Years later, in 2019, Politico published that "a person familiar with the relationship" said that, prior to the 2010 wedding, Chelsea had become close with Maxwell, something that a spokesperson for Clinton later disputed: published Chelsea Maxwell [Maxwell's] family knew Trump before Epstein arrived on the scene, and she continued to socialize with Chelsea Clinton after Epstein was jailed on sex offenses. Maxwell Trump Epstein Chelsea Clinton Epstein Maxwell first grew close with the Clintons after Bill Clinton left office, vacationing on a yacht with Chelsea Clinton in 2009, attending her wedding in 2010, and participating in the Clinton Global Initiative as recently as 2013, years after her name first emerged in accounts of Epsteins alleged sexual abuse. Maxwell Chelsea Clinton Epstein Ghislaine was the contact between Epstein and Clinton, a person familiar with the relationship said. She ended up being close to the family because she and Chelsea ended up becoming close. Lawyers for Maxwell did not respond to requests for comment, and a spokesperson for Clinton disputed the idea that the two women were ever close. Epstein Chelsea Maxwell The reference to Epstein being "jailed on sex offenses" referred to his previous time behind bars in 2008 and 2009, prior to the 2010 wedding. A secret plea deal that was reached in 2007 required Epstein to serve 18 months in jail, followed by 12 months of house arrest. He ended up leaving jail after around 13 months. At the time, reports said there were "roughly" 40 girls who had been identified as victims. Epstein previous time behind bars secret plea deal reached in 2007 Epstein 13 months reports On Aug. 10, 2019, after Epstein was arrested again on sex trafficking charges, he was later found dead in his jail cell. An autopsy ruled that it was a suicide by hanging. A wave of new conspiracy theories began following his death. Epstein arrested found dead autopsy conspiracy theories We previously published a fact check about a picture of Epstein with former President Clinton. It also was an authentic photograph. The picture had been published in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of Vanity Fair: published Epstein Clinton Vanity Fair  In sum, yes, Maxwell was in attendance at Chelsea Clinton's wedding and was photographed in the background behind the Clinton family. Maxwell Clinton Barnard, Anne. What Charges Did Jeffrey Epstein Face? The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/02/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-charges.html. Chelsea Clinton Marries Marc Mezvinsky In Rhinebeck, New York. Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-handout-image-provided-by-genevieve-de-manio-former-news-photo/103183722. Chelsea Clinton Marries Marc Mezvinsky on Elite Estate. BBC News, 1 Aug. 2010, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-10828516. Coaston, Jane, et al. The Life and Death of Sex Offender Jeffrey Epstein, Explained. Vox, 3 Dec. 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/12/3/18116351/jeffrey-epstein-case-indictment-arrested-trump-clinton. Gramenz, Jack. Elon Musk Defends Photo with Ghislaine Maxwell, Claiming He Was Photobombed. News.com.au, 5 July 2020, https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/elon-musk-defends-photo-with-ghislaine-maxwell-claiming-he-was-photobombed/news-story/e36a769f65b00f4da5ea22763bdc3ae1. Jeffrey Epsteins Secret Deal with Federal Prosecutors. CBS12.com, 18 Sept. 2009, https://cbs12.com/news/jeffrey-4721218-deal-prosecutors.html. Mazzei, Patricia, and William K. Rashbaum. Jeffrey Epstein, Financier Long Accused of Molesting Minors, Is Charged. The New York Times, 7 July 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-arrested-sex-trafficking.html. Sarnoff, Conchita. Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free. The Daily Beast, 20 July 2010, https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/jeffrey-epstein-billionaire-pedophile-goes-free. Schreckinger, Ben, and Daniel Lippman. Meet the Woman Who Ties Jeffrey Epstein to Trump and the Clintons. POLITICO, 21 July 2019, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/21/jeffrey-epstein-trump-clinton-1424120. Shafrir, Doree. Where Will Chelsea Clinton Wed? And Whos Invited? New York Magazine Intelligencer, 18 June 2020, https://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/66792/. Sisak, Michael R., et al. Jeffrey Epstein Struck a Secret Deal in 2008. Heres What It Means for the Current Case. Global News, The Associated Press, 11 July 2019, https://globalnews.ca/news/5484171/jeffrey-epstein-plea-deal-impact/.