No, Sean Connery's wealth did not make his family 'cry'.
Known as a famous Hollywood actor and one of the original men to portray the iconic character James Bond, Sean Connery died on Oct. 31, 2020. According to TMZ, he died at 1:30 a.m. "at his home in the Bahamas." TMZ Sean Connery died in his sleep from pneumonia, heart failure and old age ... according to his death certificate. TMZ obtained Connery's death cert and it shows he died from respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia, old age and atrial fibrillation ... an irregular heart rate that can increase the risk of strokes, heart failure and other heart-related complications. Entertainment Tonight made contact with the family, reporting that "Connery's wife, Micheline Roquebrune, and his two sons, Jason and Stephane, told ET that he died peacefully in his sleep, surrounded by family." reporting Following his death, at least one advertiser bought ad space on the social media platform Reddit, or on a mobile app that displays Reddit content. The ad read: "sean connery's Net Worth Left His Family In Tears." Connery's name was lowercase, likely because the "Net Worth Left His Family In Tears" part is a template. It's not true. It's fabricated and completely baseless. Sean Connery's family was not left "in tears" because of his net worth. We previously reported on the "net worth left his family in tears" advertising ploy with "Jeopardy" host Alex Trebek. The late Kenny Rogers also appeared to be a victim of the ploy. previously reported appeared   The advertisement in question appeared to lead to Life Exact, a viral content website. It was first documented by Reddit user JezCon. It's unclear if the advertisement is still active on the website. We were unable to locate the ad, but it likely lead to a slideshow with multiple pages, where the idea was to make more money on the advertisements displayed during the slideshow than it cost to run the original ad alongside Reddit content. This is known as advertising "arbitrage." first documented Business and technology blog Margins is managed by Ranjan Roy and Can Duruk, and Roy defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." He also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us
Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts:  Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain:   The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions John Robitaille, Republican candidate for governor, believes that one reason more Rhode Islanders aren't back at work is that the state pays too much to people who have lost their jobs.During an Oct. 4 appearance on The Helen Glover Show, Robitaille asserted that unemployment compensation and welfare payments can discourage people from accepting jobs that are available, which is why the system needs to be changed to wean them from such programs.One contractor who's a friend of mine told me that he had two people turn him down flat [for a job] because they were making more money on unemployment than wanting to go to work for $15, $17 an hour. That's wrong, he said. Rhode Island has a very generous unemployment compensation rate compared to most other states and, couple that with our very generous welfare programs, and there's not really an incentive for people to go back to work.As of August, 37,298 Rhode Islanders who had lost a full-time or part-time job were receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Whether those payments discourage people from accepting jobs is a matter of opinion. We were interested in the question ofwhether the unemployment benefits are truly generous compared to other states.According to the latest numbers from the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (RIDLT),duringthe first quarter of 2010, the average unemployment insurance payment was $390.53 per week, the fifth highest in the nation. Only Hawaii ($419.27), Washington state ($401.95), Massachusetts ($400.57) and New Jersey ($400.55) paid out more per person.Another way to look at the question is the maximum benefit you can receive. In July 2010, thecapfor a single Rhode Islander was $551 per week. Five other states had a higher ceiling. Massachusetts was tops at $629 weekly.When dependents are factored in, Rhode Island ranks second, at $688 per week. (Massachusetts was the highest, at $943.) But that ranking is misleading because, according to RIDLT spokeswoman Laura Hart, different states have different limits on how many dependents you can claim. In Rhode Island, the limit is five.And that's not the whole story.Living expenses vary from state to state, and New England is noted for having a higher cost of living than many other regions.It's an important consideration, but not an easy one to gauge. The federal government puts outacost of living index for different regions, but not on a state-by-state basis.Instead, RIDLT compared the average weekly benefits in each state with the average weekly wage in those states, using data from the U.S. Department of Labor.By the latest measurement, during the first quarter of 2010 Rhode Island ranked second in the nation. The state paid the typical recipient 47.8 percent of the average weekly wage of $816.71. (Hawaii topped the list, at 54.8 percent. Massachusetts, by that measure, was at 37.3 percent, ranking it 29th. )Put another way, the average hourly wage in Rhode Island during the first quarter of 2010 was $20.42. The average person receiving unemployment insurance got the equivalent of $9.76 per hour. The benefit could be as much as $13.76 an hour for an individual or $17.20 per hour for someone with five or more dependents.By all these measures, Rhode Islanders receiving unemployment benefits are doing better than out-of-work people in most other states, so we rank Robitaille's statement True. Facebook giveaways that promise $750 or other large cash prizes in the Cash App finance app are just about always going to be scams. We found at least three such Cash App scam giveaways in early June 2022 that claimed multiple $750 prizes were being given away by former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, rapper Snoop Dogg, and celebrity chef Paula Deen. Facebook Cash App scams Cash App Nikki Haley Snoop Dogg Paula Deen The pages for Haley, Snoop Dogg, and Deen all used both their image and likeness without their permission, and appeared like this: Haley Snoop Dogg Deen All of the pages that promised $750 in Cash App also used specific wording that we'd seen before with other scams that appeared to involve scammers from outside the U.S. We removed the scammers' website link from the example text below: we'd seen before CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winnersStep 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Coments "DONE"Step 3 = Register here (link removed) receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless youGood Luck The links in these Facebook giveaways all led to survey scam websites. The Facebook posts appeared to be created by people acting as affiliate marketers who were trying to earn money by driving traffic to survey scam websites. We found affiliate ID numbers in the full website addresses that resulted from the Facebook posts. It might be possible to take part in a large number of surveys on these scam websites and end up receiving something in return. However, such survey websites often require that users jump through various hoops in order to do so, all of which are usually spelled out in the fine print on terms and conditions pages. For the number of hours and the concentration that would be needed to obtain any sort of reward, we recommend that our readers don't waste their time. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) both published pages with advice on how to avoid survey scams and what to look out for. Basically, proceed with caution before taking a survey on an unfamiliar website. Some of these websites will ask users to sign up for free trials of various products that, in reality, will charge them a recurring fee in the future. Also, bear in mind that if the reward sounds too good to be true (like $750 in Cash App), it probably is. American Association of Retired Persons U.S. Better Business Bureau In sum, no, Haley, Snoop Dogg, and Deen were not giving away $750, or any other amount of prizes, in Facebook giveaways in Cash App, nor were any other noteworthy figures from the world of entertainment or politics. If readers see any other Facebook giveaway scams like these, please contact us with details. If possible, include a link to the post or the Facebook page. contact us BBB Tip: How to Identify a Fake Website. International Association of Better Business Bureaus, https://www.bbb.org/all/spot-a-scam/signs-of-a-fake-survey. Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information. AARP, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 In early 2017 several news outlets reported on a story that owners of Amazon's Alexa digital assistant device owners were "left out of pocket" after a 6-year-old girl named Brooke Neitzel inadvertently triggered one into placing an order for an expensive dollhouse, and a news report on the incident triggered a plague of automated, unwanted dollhouse ordering: reported [In January 2017] it was reported that an Amazon Echo in Dallas, Texas, had ordered a $170 dollhouse after six-year-old Brooke Neitzel asked: 'Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?' Although the little girl apparently meant it as a rhetorical question the device saw it as a command and ordered a KidKraft Sparkle mansion dollhouse, as well as four pounds of sugar cookies. But to make matters worse many Amazon Echoes apparently picked up on TV anchor Jim Patton's words in the report: 'I love the little girl saying "Alexa ordered me a dollhouse".' Viewers at home were then left stunned when their own Amazon Echoes picked up the voice requests in the report and ordered dolls houses too. As voice-command purchasing is enabled as a default on the Alexa devices, viewers found it had mistaken the show for their command and bought the toy. According to that report, a Texas kindergartner's request for Alexa to "play dollhouse" with her and "get [her] a dollhouse" resulted in her family's being charged for an order for a top-dollar toy. And when the family's tale was reported by a San Diego news station, "stunned" viewers also became the recipients of unwanted dollhouses simply because an anchor repeated the same phrase, which their own Amazon Echo/Alexa devices picked up on and transformed into orders.   In one interview, Neitzel's mother Megan provided the Alexa log showing that her daughter had asked the device "Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" But the embedded video of the log suggested that instead of confirming a dollhouse order, Alexa had responded, "Sorry, I couldn't find the answer to your question": interview  We attempted to replicate the circumstances of the purported inadvertent order and were unable to do so. When asked "can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" our, Alexa responded with "now shuffling songs by Bauhaus." Asking "Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse?" returned "hmm ... Im not sure what you meant by that question." "Alexa, can you play dollhouse with me? returned  ... heres a sample of 'Dollhouse Sounds' by Dollhouse Incorporated. Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse? was answered by I wasnt able to understand the question I heard." No permutation of "[c]an you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" we tried resulted in a prompt to confirm a dollhouse order in any of our experiments conducted with two separate Alexa-enabled devices. The only potential purchase-triggering word appeared to be "order," after which it was necessary to confirm or decline the transaction (which we did at least three times and did not accidentally order any dollhouses). An Amazon spokesperson told us in response to our inquiry that ordering items through Alexa is a multi-step process that requires confirmation: You must ask Alexa to order a product and then confirm the purchase with a yes response to purchase via voice. If you asked Alexa to order something on accident, simply say no when asked to confirm. You can also manage your shopping settings in the Alexa app, such as turning off voice purchasing or requiring a confirmation code before every order. Additionally, orders you place for physical products are eligible for free returns. This conforms to our own experience: we couldn't induce Alexa into ordering anything without its first showing us the item, displaying a price, and asking us for verbal confirmation.  We also couldn't get Alexa to order two items at once, as supposedly happened with the dollhouse and cookies  Alexa always processed multiple items separately no matter how we tried to join them, displaying a price and requiring a verbal confirmation for each item. We also could find no confirmation (outside of anecdotal repetition) that a spate of unwanted dollhouse orders followed in the wake of San Diego newscaster Jim Patton's report on the story.  Perhaps the television audio of that newscast might have woken up some viewers' Alexas, but those viewers would still have had to confirm any potential dollhouse purchases by responding 'yes' to Alexa's request for purchase confirmation. We have yet to locate any of the "viewers at home left stunned" as their Alexa devices foisted undesired $165 toys upon them. CBS News.  "6-Year-Old Orders $160 Dollhouse, 4 Pounds of Cookies with Amazon's Echo Dot."
  5 January 2017. 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-December 2020, a copy-pasted ("copypasta") meme spread on social media platforms warning "patriots" that U.S. President Donald Trump was about to "tactically" implement elements of an executive order on election security signed in 2018, telling them to have weapons "at the ready":   copypasta The incendiary meme appears to reference an executive order signed by Trump on Sept. 12, 2018, ahead of the midterm elections. The meme claimed that Trump was to implement parts of the order at some point between Dec. 18 and Dec. 24, 2020. executive order Here is a portion of the text: This will freeze the money and assets of people and entities to include Facebook, Twitter, the Fake News Corp, AND Chinese U.S. financial accounts. Be prepared to assist the National Guard and the military commands in defense of Our nation. Make sure that you have your weapons at the ready. But DO NOT interfere with the operations of the military. During this time, local law enforcement will have no authority. So, assemble small Patriot teams to patrol and secure your own and surrounding neighbors Trump's 2018 executive order has nothing to do with military or National Guard deployment domestically, nor does it mention the broad suspension of financial assets of social media platforms and "Chinese U.S. financial accounts." The meme appears to actually be referencing extreme calls by some of Trump's supporters, echoing his false claims that the November 2020 election was beset by mass-scale fraud and advocating that Trump impose martial law in response. extreme calls The 2018 executive order  signed less than a month before the 2018 midterm elections  was meant as a deterrent against foreign election interference. The order stated that the Trump administration was ready to implement sanctions against any foreign entity that interfered in the election process. stated It's noteworthy that the order was signed ahead of the first national election since 2016, during which the Russian government interfered in an effort to sow chaos in the U.S. and help Trump's electoral efforts. Trump was under political pressure at that time to stem similar interference in 2018. effort pressure Notably, Facebook and Twitter are American companies, not foreign entities. It's unclear to us what exactly "Fake News Corp" refers to, but unsurprisingly, no such company exists. Sanctions can't be imposed on a fictional entity. The 2018 executive order relies on various department heads to make determinations about foreign election interference and potential sanctions  in other words, it doesn't give Trump unilateral authority to take action. For example, it gives the director of national intelligence 45 days to determine whether foreign interference in an election had occurred, at which point the assessment must be delivered to "the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security." After further consultation between these department heads, the executive order then leaves the secretary of treasury, who is currently Steve Mnuchin, to lead in the implementation of economic sanctions. The departments of Treasury and State would then assess whether additional sanctions were necessary and present their findings to the White House. The copypasta meme appears to be inflammatory fear mongering that plays on a disinformation campaign carried out by Trump and his supporters that the election was stolen by way of a massive-fraud conspiracy. Trump's own U.S. Department of Homeland Security debunked this conspiracy theory by stating that the November 2020 election was in fact "the most secure in American history." stating When the governmentsjobs reportfor May offered a bleak picture of the economy, with employers adding just 69,000 jobs in May, U.S. Rep. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, and other lawmakers expressed their frustrations, often in very partisan terms.The report said the unemployment rate edged up slightly to 8.2 percent, from 8.1 percent in April, and Black issued a press release that among other things said the prospects for unemployed or underemployed Americans finding full-time work are not very good after 40 straight months of unemployment at 8 percent or higher.We know the unemployment has remained stubbornly high, but has it really been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months?For the purposes of this ruling, we're only going to look closely at the statistics Black cited and stay out of the political blame game. Suffice to say, its not hard to find Republicans blaming Democratic policies and Democrats blaming Republican obstruction for the inability to move the economy closer to full employment.We called Blacks office and asked them to back up the claim. Her spokeswoman, Allison Huff, pointed us to achartcompiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is the gold standard for unemployment statistics.According to the bureau, the last time unemployment was below 8 percent was in January 2009, when it was 7.8 percent -- it then spiked quickly to 8.3 percent in February of 2009 and to 9.4 percent by May before topping out at 10.0 percent in October of 2009. It dropped gradually from there, and the May report listing unemployment at 8.2 percent marked the 40th consecutive month it has been at 8 percent or higher.As dismal as that may be, its not the record.The rate of unemployment in the United States has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, making the past three years the longest stretch of high unemployment in this country since the Great Depression, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in astudyin February 2012.In the Great Depression era, unemployment topped 15 percent annually for six straight years, from 1931 to 1936, and never fell below 8.7 percent over 12 years, according toestimatesadopted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In four consecutive years, unemployment exceeded 20 percent a year.Our colleagues at PolitiFact National cited those figures when they rated asFalsea claim by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who said, We have unemployment that rivals the Great Depression.There is a qualifier, though. The Depression-era unemployment data counted those age 14 and up, not 16 and up (the standard that began in 1948). In addition, monthly unemployment statistics were not kept until 1948 as well. Thus, all statistics during the Great Depression were on an annual basis.Our rulingRep. Black did not go as far as some other Republicans and claim that unemployment is as bad as during the Great Depression. She merely said it has been at 8 percent or higher for 40 straight months. Based upon the governments own data, we rate her statement as True. On 9 March 2018, a woman claiming to be a social worker at Roanoke, Virginia, social services department, tweeted that she had been fired from solely because she had a concealed carry permit. The woman, whose name is Storm Durham, also said that she would sue the city "for every penny":  tweeted I was fired today. From Roanoke City Social Services, serving as a damn good social worker. I was fired for having a concealed carry permit. Not the gun, the permit. I was escorted by 3 city police officers bc I am a "safety risk to the building"  Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Oh suing for every penny  Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Hours later, a meme appeared on the Facebook page "Chuck Callesto": meme appeared    Durham also shared her claim in a post on Facebook, as well as live videos in which she said she wanted to be a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. The claim, predictably, went viral, with people from across the United States posting angry comments on unrelated City of Roanoke Facebook posts. claim Facebook live videos Someone claiming to have knowledge of the incident also commented, claiming that Durham's boyfriend had threatened a coworker. The comment was later deleted:   Although we were unable to substantiate those claims, the City of Roanoke's Office of Communications sent us a statement refuting Durham's claim on 12 March 2018: A former employee of the City of Roanoke recently posted via social media assertions regarding the basis of her dismissal from City employment. Her posting has also been reported in other media. The City does not publicly comment on specific personnel matters. In light of these assertions, however, it is important to note that the City of Roanoke respects the Constitutional rights of its citizens and that the dismissal in question was not based upon anyones exercise of such rights. In addition, the office told us: The City has no policy or procedure limiting the right of its employees to hold concealed carry permits as authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Durham herself told The Roanoke Times that her termination papers showed different reasons for her firing from the city, where she had worked for less than a year: reasons Four months ago, she said, her trainer taught her a procedure that she followed, but then was reprimanded for it by her supervisor. So she alerted her trainer, who sent her a nasty email calling her sloppy and unprofessional. Durham said she took the matter to her supervisor, who, along with the trainer, threw her under the bus. Later, Durham said, she was given a set of performance expectations that required her to close cases at a faster pace. She acknowledged it took her time to adjust to the caseload in Roanoke after coming from rural Craig County, but said she exceeded all expectations. However, Durham said, she was told that it was actually because of her gun permit: The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. Friday, she was summoned to the office of the assistant director of the department, was told she was being fired and given the document listing the reasons. At the top, she said, was a concern about workplace safety. Durham said she asked about it and was told by the assistant director that her possession of a concealed weapons permit made her a safety risk in the building and for co-workers. Three Roanoke police officers escorted her to her desk, Durham said, where her personal possessions were loaded onto a cart and pushed to her car by one of the officers while the two others escorted her out of the building. We obtained a copy of the official police report in response to our request, which reads in part: Mr. Goss advised that she has a conceal carry permit and believed that she usually has a weapon in her vehicle.... We arrived at 1547 hours. The call was reported on the 3rd floor (Social Services Department). Upon arrival to the 3rd floor we were escorted to one of the offices in the back where we met with Mr. Goss and another employee advising us they wanted us there because they didn't know how Ms. Durham was going to react to the situation. On 13 March 2018, a copy of Storm Durham's termination letter was shared by WSLS.com. In it, "performance concerns, attendance, dress code issues and unprofessional behavior" were cited as the reasons for her dismissal: shared   13 March 2018, 3:46 P.M.: Added excerpts from The Roanoake Times and the official police report. 14 March 2018, 2:43 P.M.: Added letter of termination provided to Durham by the City of Roanoke Department of Social Services. In Gov. Andrew Cuomos 10th State of the State address last week, he claimed that under his administration, We have the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. New Yorks business climate has for years been thesubject of criticismfrom business groups and conservative lawmakers, so we wondered about this claim. We approached Cuomos office, where spokesman Jason Conwall provided us with historical tax data. The Department of Taxation and Finance maintains this data, and atabletitled History of Corporate Tax Rates in New York State, 1917-2009, shows that between 1968 and 1970, the corporate tax rate, also known as the corporation franchise tax, was 7 percent. The rate did not fall below 7 percent in later years, and in the final year, 2009, the rate was 7.1 percent. Since 2009, the rate changed once, when it was lowered to 6.5 percent, Conwall said. The 6.5 percent ratetook effect on Jan. 1, 2016. Historically, New York has had separate rates for banks and insurance companies. The bank tax wasmergedinto the corporate tax system in 2015. We reached out to observers of the states tax policies for context and to check for any conflicting data. The Tax Foundation, a national organization, studies federal and state tax policy and advocated for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act supported by President Trump and congressional Republicans. The Tax Foundation confirmed Cuomos claim. New York saw remarkable improvement in both its corporate rate - bringing it down to 6.5 percent - and structure - cutting four corporate bases down to three - through tax reform in 2014, said policy analyst Janelle Cammenga. The Tax Foundation advocates for simpler tax codes, and Cammenga noted that New Yorks complex individual income tax code affects so-called pass-through businesses, such as partnerships, sole-proprietorships, and limited liability companies. E.J. McMahon, founder and research director at the conservative Empire Center, also confirmed Cuomos claim. McMahon added that in the 12-county region in downstate New York served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a surcharge brings the tax rate to 8.34 percent there. But even with the surcharge, its still the lowest rate since 1970, McMahon said. At the left-leaning Fiscal Policy Institute, executive director Ron Deutsch confirmed Cuomos claim. Dave Friedfel, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization in Albany and New York City, said that readers should be aware that companies in New York pay more than just the corporate franchise tax. In addition to the MTA surcharge,set by the state, New York City imposes a 8.85 percent corporate franchise tax. Overall, its good that New York States corporate franchise tax rates are lower than they were and arecompetitive nationwide, but its just a small part of the taxes paid by businesses in New York, Friedfel said. Cuomo claims that under his administration, New York has the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. Though there are other taxes levied on businesses in New York, experts from the left and the right agree with Cuomo's assertion. We rate Cuomos statement True. On 8 January 2016, the entertainment web site The Reporterz published an article reporting that Delaware had created a new "child support card" that controlled "what mothers can and cannot buy" with their child support funds: This measure was taken to prevent parents from misusing funds that are meant to help with costs associated with raising children, such as school related expenses, food, etc. This card will not be allow the parent to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or pay car payments the card will be used exactly like a food stamp card. We spoke to Tasha Brown who was upset after she couldn't purchase a bottle of Hennessy at her local liquor store. she says "Its' [sic] unfair its [sic] my money I should be able to do what i want with it how will I pay for my new weave?"   The article was ambiguous about whether the card would apply to all funds received for the care of children (such as support monies paid by former spouses) or funds made available through government assistance programs. It didn't matter either way, though, as the story was a complete fabrication that originated with a fake news web site that does not publish factual stories. A disclaimer on The Reporterz states that "every article is based on a true story, only the facts have been changed." In this case, Delaware really does have a card that makes it easier for single parents and guardians to receive funds. The First State Family Card is a pre-paid debit card that does not require bank account: The First State Family Card is a pre-paid VISA card that is credited whenever a payment is posted to any/all of a client's child support case(s). Benefits to the debit VISA card include: While Delaware does have a card that makes it easier for parents to collect child support, the handbook for the First State Family Card (not the "Child Support Card") does not mention any restrictions on how the funds may be utilized. mention