Is the Trump Administration Making Immigrants Pay $800 for DNA Tests to Get Their Children Back?
In mid-July 2018, outraged social media users shared a meme reporting that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump was forcing migrants to pay $800 in out-of-pocket costs to prove familial ties in order to regain custody of children taken from them under the government's "zero tolerance" immigration policy:   The text of the meme was based on a 10 July 2018 story originally reported by the Daily Beast, whose journalists spoke with Ruben Garcia, director of the El Paso immigrant shelter Annunciation House, and an immigration attorney, Iliana Holguin. In telephone interviews with Snopes.com, both of those individuals confirmed their accounting of the details in the Daily Beast's report: four adults (three mothers and one older sister) asserted that government social workers had told them they'd have to fork over $700 to $800 for DNA tests proving their relationship to separated children before they could get their kids back. story DNA tests Shortly after the story broke, however, both Garcia and Holguin reported to us that the government had abruptly changed course, with the former telling us: If you ask me the question, 'Do you know for a fact that any of those parent had to pay the money [for a DNA test]?' I do not. We had about five people who at that point said they were told they would probably have to pay for [the DNA tests]. Since that story came out, the whole scenery has changed because [the government] has now moved aggressively to reunite and release all of these kids. Holguin told us no formal request was ever made for the women to pay for the tests. She described the entirety of "zero tolerance" and its aftermath as "very chaotic" and said that conflicting information had been the norm throughout. "With the DNA test, I think someone at one point said it, someone repeated it  things were changing so quickly that it was just impossible to know at any given at any moment. The left hand didnt know what the right hand was doing." We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency tasked with coordinating the care of unaccompanied immigrant children. An agency representative told us HHS, not immigrant families, pays for DNA testing. The federal government is rushing to meet a deadline set by a federal judge after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) successfully sued for an injunction on family separations under "zero tolerance," a policy initiated by the Trump administration in April 2018. Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California gave federal agencies until 10 July 2018 to reunify children under five years of age with their respective adults, and until 26 July 2018 to reunify kids five through 17 years old. deadline policy According to a status report submitted to the court by HHS on 13 July 2018, not all families with children in the older age cohort will be subjected to DNA tests, as HHS has truncated its process for confirming family relationships to meet the looming deadline for reunification. In a statement, HHS spokesperson Evelyn Stauffer said: The department has been operating in good faith and earnestly trying to comply with court orders, including the rapidly approaching deadline for reunification. Our interpretation of the court's order is that HHS must make a determination of parentage, fitness, and safety before reunifying families, but that HHS need not undertake the fuller process of vetting for children's safety that HHS would ordinarily conduct in its operations. In the interests of transparency and cooperation, the department felt it necessary in our filings on Friday to share with the court our view that meeting the deadline would mean truncating the process we might have otherwise followed. Within the time the court allows, we will strive to implement the most comprehensive procedures possible to ensure child welfare. We look forward to continuing our close work with the court to accomplish the goals we share of safe, expeditious reunification. Under "zero tolerance," all immigrants caught crossing the southern border between ports of entry were charged with crimes  mostly misdemeanors. Adults accompanied by children were separated from them and, initially, the U.S. government appeared to have no plan to reunify families. no plan With court orders and pressure mounted by public outrage over the policy, the Trump administration has more or less reversed course. Garcia told us the federal government would begin reuniting the remainder of separated families at centralized locations in Arizona and Texas in the coming week in order to meet the court's 26 July 2018 deadline. Judge Sabraw also temporarily halted deportations of those families to give them time to decide whether to leave children behind in the United States in hopes they will win their asylum cases, or to be deported together. outrage Glawe, Justin, and Adam Rawnsley.  "Government Told Immigrant Parents to Pay for DNA Tests to Get Kids Back, Advocate Says."
  The Daily Beast.  10 July 2018. Hals, Tom.  "All Migrant Kids Under Five to Be Back With Parents by Thursday: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  11 July 2018. Associated Press.  "Texas Shelter: US Flying Kids for Reunifications."
  16 July 2018. Morrisey, Kate.  "Judge Temporarily Halts Deportations of Reunified Families."
  San Diego Union-Tribune.  16 July 2018.
On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States. SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying: For too long, weve watched as our factories have been closed and our jobs have been sent to other faraway lands. Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization. And youve seen that, youve heard about it -- 70,000. The World Trade Organization -- another one of our disasters. Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs. But how many factories? And were there other factors? Previous claim Trumps claim is nearly the same one he made a month earlier at a rally in Kentucky, when he said: Since China joined  thats another beauty  the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories. PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True. Heres what our colleagues found: The latest-available U.S. Census counts, for 2014, show the number of American factory establishments has dropped to below 300,000. The decrease since China joined the World Trade Organization was nearly 61,000, according to one Census tally, and more than 73,000 according to another. Some of that decline is due to Chinas becoming a bigger player in the world economy by joining the WTO, as our colleagues reported: Around the same time China joined the WTO, the United States gave China permanent normal trade relations status. Both of these actions removed significant barriers to trade and investment with China, basically putting them on an even playing field with the United States other trading partners. In the 16 years since, United States imports from China have quadrupled, in large part because production is so cheap there, making U.S.-based manufacturers less competitive. We found three significant economic studies from the past few years that all conclude increased free trade with China has had a negative impact on American manufacturing and jobs. At the same time, experts said the loss of factories was also brought on by other factors, including U.S. trade deficits with other parts of Asia and Europe; a slow recovery after the Great Recession; and increased manufacturing productivity in the United States. TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO. For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth. Our rating Trump said: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.The latest U.S. Census figures, for 2014, produced two counts: 73,000, which supports Trumps claim, and 61,000. And at least some of the losses can be attributed to increased trade with China. We rate the statement Mostly True. More Trump As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter. In late February 2022, a rumor went viral on TikTok and Twitter that said Russia's largest bank, Sberbank, had imposed a cash withdrawal limit that would be equivalent to $20 in the U.S. The rumor began to spread just after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. TikTok Twitter Russia Russia invasion Ukraine On Feb. 25, the person behind the @bantg Twitter account tweeted: "Sberbank, Russian largest bank, has limited cash withdrawals to $20." tweeted  The tweet cited no sources.  Another tweet posted on Feb. 26 claimed: "JUST IN: Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia, has limited cash withdrawals for its customers to $20 ? #PutinWillFeelThePainSoon." The hashtag referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin. tweet Vladimir Putin  Replies under the tweet asked for a source for the information, but @nick82gh did not respond to them.  While this second tweet didn't receive many engagements, it was shared the same day to TikTok as a screenshot. Within 48 hours of being posted, that TikTok video received 80,000 likes and was viewed more than 1.4 million times. The person speaking in the video said: "The bank run has started. Russia is going bankrupt. This is the end of [the] Russian economy completely." video   Here are the facts: It's true that Sberbank is Russia's largest bank by its amount of assets, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, at the time, we found no reporting or evidence of any kind that backed up the claim that the Sberbank had limited cash withdrawals to $20. We also found no data about anything related to Sberbank causing the entire country of Russia to go bankrupt, as mentioned in the TikTok video. The Wall Street Journal By email, a spokesperson for Sberbank told us: "This information contradicts reality. Sberbank continues to fulfill all of its obligations in full, including the withdrawal of funds from accounts. All funds are available to customers at any time." On Feb. 28, ABC News and The Associated Press reported that Sberbank had been hit with "tough U.S. sanctions," leading to some limits on cash withdrawals: ABC News Associated Press Sberbank and VTB banks are Russias two largest state-run banks and own roughly half of the assets in the Russian banking system. They were targeted last week by tough U.S. sanctions aimed at limiting their businesses internationally and over the weekend barred from the international SWIFT payment system. SWIFT In both Slovenia and Croatia, Sberbank temporarily closed its branches or limited cash withdrawals following a rush by its clients last week. In Croatia, the banks clients will be allowed to withdraw a maximum of about 1,000 euros per day over the next two days. In Slovenia, the branches will be closed for the next two days and then the withdrawals will be limited to 400 euros per day. At the time that this news was published, 1000 euros was equivalent to $1,121, while 400 euros converted to $448. Neither of these figures was anywhere close to a $20 limit. We asked Sberbank for information on cash withdrawal limits for other countries but did not receive a response before this story was published. While we found no evidence regarding Sberbank branches having a $20 cash withdrawal limit, the conflict in Ukraine did lead to fears that the bank could fail, according to a report from Reuters, which cited a warning from the European Central Bank. Ukraine report Also, on a similar subject, The National Bank of Ukraine imposed cash withdrawal limits after the invasion began, according to The Wall Street Journal. However, again, those limits were reported to be nowhere near $20. Instead, the reporting said the limit was "100,000 Ukrainian hryvnia a day, equivalent to about $3,339.13." according to The Wall Street Journal This story will be updated if we receive further information. In the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, just about any unusual or remarkable photographs connected with oceanic phenomena were being attributed to that disaster, and the following collection of pictures was a prime example: Phuket Deep Sea Creatures - Found At Seaside After TSUNAMI As everyone knows, the tsunami in Southeast Asia was devastating both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However now that the clean up is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage.  These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Amazing what lives so far below the surface isn't it? It is ironic how terrible human tragedy and natural disaster can lead to unprecedented expansion of scientific knowledge.  The theory is the tsunami created enough vertical currents to sweep these deep living creatures to the surface quickly. The gases in their blood expanded rapidly causing death (like divers ascending too quickly).     The same set of pictures was dusted off in April 2011 and attributed to the tsunami that hit Japan the previous month: Creatures Found At Seaside After JAPAN TSUNAMI Everyone knows, the tsunami in Japan was devastating, both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However, now that the cleanup is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage. These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Although these pictures are genuine images of some rather strange deep-sea creatures, the photographs had nothing to do with a tsunami in the Indian Ocean or Japan.  They date from mid-2003 and were taken as part of the NORFANZ voyage, a joint Australian-New Zealand research expedition conducted in May-June 2003 to explore deep sea habitats and biodiversity in the Tasman Sea.   These photographs can be viewed on Australia's National Oceans Office web site. NORFANZ National Oceans Office A new internet craze flared up in the summer of 2018, which featured musicians, actors, celebrities and social media users filming themselves dancing to the Drake song "In My Feelings." These videos were often shared with tags such as #InMyFeelingsChallenge, #dotheshiggy (after Instagram comedian Shiggy, who started the challenge) and #kekechallenge (named after the romantic interest in the song). While many of these videos were entertaining (check out Will Smith dancing on top of a bridge), in at least one of them, according to the Internet, a Keke Challenger experienced a tragic and potentially fatal turn as she was struck by an automobile in the act: Instagram dancing  Fortunately, this video does not capture a woman actually being hit by a car while performing the Keke challenge. This video was originally posted to Instagram by user @lofi3D on 21 July 2018. However, many viewers encountered this video on YouTube or other social media platforms, where it was presented without that post's disclaimer stating that the video was "NOT REAL" and that the footage had been edited. posted The woman in the video is Instagram user Kari Miller, who also shared the video to her page along with a disclaimer noting that it had been edited by @lofi3D and reassuring everyone that "I'll be ok": shared   Here's the original version of the "Keke Challenge gone wrong" video:   A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d) on Jul 20, 2018 at 5:09pm PDT A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d)  Mamo, Heran.  "Drake's 'In My Feelings' Challenge Has Spawned More Than 2.3 Million Tweets."
  Billboard.  12 July 2018. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner joined the ranks of Wall Street critics during a recent radio interview, by complaining that investors increasingly are focused on reaping quick profits from companies at the expense of long-term value. The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months, he said during aninterviewon Cats Roundtable, a New York City radio talk show hosted by John Catsimatidis, a billionaire businessman. We wondered whether Warner, D-Va., is right about the plunge in share-holding time. Warners office sent us a variety of articles by academics, investment strategists, newspapers and magazines that contained similar statistics to the ones cited by the senator. The source of thehistoric datais the New York Stock Exchange which, for most of the 20th century, was the dominant U.S. stock-trading venue. Heres the NYSEs average holding period for stocks at the start of each new decade, beginning at Warners mark in 1960: 1960, eight years, four months; 1970, five years, three months; 1980, two years, nine months; 1990, two years, two months; and 2000, one year, two months. But many new trading venues have opened and expanded in recent decades - E*Trade and NASDAQ, for example - and the New York Stock Exchanges dominance has diminished. About 25 percent of all U.S. trading now occurs on the NYSE, which has high financial requirements for the companies it lists and generally deals with large, stable stocks. In 2004, the NYSE changed its formula for calculating average share-holding periods to focus on its own listings. Credit Suisse that year began computing share-holding data that reflect the broader U.S. stock market. Credit Suisse figures show that in 2008 and 2009, when the nation was mired in the Great Recession, shares turned over an average almost five times a year. Thats slowed to about three times a year since 2013 or, as Warner put it, once every four months. The World Bank offers more conservative figures, saying U.S. shares, on average, turned over four times a year during the Great Recession and that slowed to 1.65 times a year in 2015 - or about once every eight months. Stock market analysts and academics note a variety of reasons for the quickening turnover of shares. Many say the days of small ma-and-pa investors have given way to an era of mutual funds and hedge funds that exert strong pressure of companies to produce short-term profits. The growth of e-trading also is cited; so are federal laws passed in 1993 that tied the bonuses of executives to their achievement of measurable performance goals in order for the bonuses to be tax-deductible for their companies. Warner said the consequence of activist investors is that corporations pay less attention to training workers and to research and development. He said Congress should explore offering tax incentives to companies that embrace those long-range goals. Many activist investors, to the contrary, say their actions have been beneficial and note that the stock market has continued to rise over the decades. Our ruling Warner said, The average time someone used to hold a share of stock back in the 60s was eight years. Now, the average time is four months. The gist of Warners statement is undeniable: The average holding period for stocks has eroded greatly during the past 56 years. The specifics of Warners statement, however, need a little elaboration. Estimates by Credit Suisse jibe with Warners claim that shares, on average, now are held for four months. The World Bank estimates the holding period now is about eight months. So we rate Warners statement Mostly True. Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company: Phantom Works researched BWB   Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747s 211 feet,and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come. There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbuss $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380s 570 mph (912 km/h)The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy. This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business. articles A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006: tackled From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand. Glen, from Warrington, Pennsylvania brings up the same subject: Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it? No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. As part of the research, Phantom Works has built a scale model for wind-tunnel testing of the concept's low-speed flying characteristics. There also are plans to flight-test the scale model next year. In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design. image Baseler, Randy.  "Air Mail."
  Randy's Journal.  1 November 2006. Ostrower, Jon.  "World Gets First Peek at Boeing '797.'"
  CNN Money.  20 June 2017. Boeing.  "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept."
 27 October 2006. NewTechSpy.  "Boeing to Take on Airbus with (1,000 Seat) Giant 797 Blended Wing Plane."
  24 April 2006. In February 2023, we looked into a new Target PS5 scam email that claimed recipients had won a brand new Sony PlayStation 5 gaming console. However, this was a scam, and a potentially dangerous one, at that. The subject line in the emails read, "You have won a PlayStation 5." The messages came from an email address with the display name "Target PS5."Target and Sony had no involvement in the scam. Their company names and logos were being used without authorization. [See also:Did Walmart Employees Hide a PS5 Stash for Themselves?] Did Walmart Employees Hide a PS5 Stash for Themselves? The body of the email misleadingly said that all users needed to do was answer some survey questions to "win a brand new PlayStation 5." It will take you only a minute to receive this fantastic prize. PlayStation 5. Target. Answer & Win: A Brand New PlayStation 5. Get Started Now. Congratulations! You have been chosen to participate in our Loyalty Program for FREE! It will take you only a minute to receive this fantastic prize. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe by clicking here. The link in the email led to a 15-question survey on orientgrounds.info, a brand new website that was registered on Feb. 14, according to GoDaddy.com. After those 15 questions, the scam led to win.myluckyprizes.com/ps5/checkout.php. This website, myluckyprizes.com, was also fairly new and had been created in January 2023. Records showed that it was registered on a Vietnamese domain registrar. We had already seen plenty of signs that this Target PS5 email was a scam, and the Vietnamese registration was yet another red flag that none of this was legitimate. On myluckyprizes.com, the website asked for the user's name, mailing address, phone number, and email address. It then asked for a credit card number and claimed the financial information was needed to charge $7.95 to be entered to win the PS5. asked for a credit card number We found no pages for a terms of service or privacy policy on myluckyprizes.com. We also didn't see a parent company name or any other identifying details. Further, attempts to load the homepage of myluckyprizes.com failed with a "403 Forbidden" error. If any readers fell for this scam and gave away a credit card number, we recommend that they immediately contact their credit card company to let them know what happened. The credit card company can best advise on what to do next. A new credit card number may need to be issued through the mail. The reason for this precaution is that scammers sometimes try to use credit card information days, weeks, or even months after they get their hands on it. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy.com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois. We now accept as commonplace the notion that actors in popular television shows are set for life financially, as we read about how cast members in hit shows such as "Friends," "Seinfeld," and "The Big Bang Theory" not only were paid upwards of $1 million per episode during those series' initial runs, but then earned millions of dollars more in residuals and royalties from syndication deals, DVD sales, and video streaming. $1 million earned That wasn't always the case, however. The actors from television shows of decades past  shows whose episodes have been continuously rerun countless thousands of times all over the world and are touchstones of popular culture  did not reap any such bounty. Those cast members were typically paid salaries that ranged from modest to pretty good, and they may have received additional payments for the first few airings of episodes in which they appeared, but that was it  they collected little or no residuals when their shows were sold into syndication, and no royalties from a home video market that didn't yet exist. As Eve Plumb, who portrayed Jan Brady on the 1970s sitcom "The Brady Bunch," revealed in 2011: The biggest misconception is that were all rich from it, but we are not. We have not been paid for reruns of the show for many, many years. We are not making money off of it at all. Eve Plumb The one notable exception to this circumstance, according to legend, is actress Dawn Wells, who played the character of Mary Ann Summers in the 1960s sitcom "Gilligan's Island." Numerous websites such as Mental Floss have offered versions of the following tale about how Wells supposedly parlayed her three seasons on the show into a lifetime of paychecks: versions Wells was married to talent agent Larry Rosen when she was hired for the Gilligan cast, and it was Rosen who noted the clause in her contract (which was standard at the time) that limited her to collecting residuals only the first five times any episode re-ran after its original airing. Rosen told Wells that if the series was a success, this clause could cost her a lot of money. Wells was the only castaway who asked for an amendment to that residual clause in her contract, and the producers granted it, never thinking the series would be on the air 40 years later. As a result, [producer] Sherwood Schwartz and Dawn Wells are the only two folks connected with the show who still receive money from it. This narrative seems quite improbable on its face. Actors are generally represented by a bevy of various unions, guilds, agents, and lawyers, and the idea that only one person in the whole television industry possessed the savvy to recognize that a contractual entitlement to residuals was a potentially lucrative reward worth pursuing strains credulity. Moreover, the goal of most television producers in that era was to keep their shows going long enough (generally three years) to amass a sufficient number of episodes for syndication deals after those series ended their original network runs, as the syndication market provided the bulk of potential profits. While producers may not have expected their shows to still be airing "40 years later," they certainly hoped their series would enjoy long TV afterlives, and they would not be keen on sharing those revenues with actors who had little bargaining power (nor would they want to set a precedent for other actors to follow). A minor actor in a secondary role who dared to press for a contractual guarantee to perpetual royalties likely would have been curtly informed how quickly and easily she could be replaced.  We don't need to speculate on the state of 1960s television to know the answer here, though, because Wells herself has repeatedly stated that this legend is false. In 2014, for example, Wells said during an interview that she was paid a salary roughly equivalent to $50,000 in today's dollars and "never received any residuals": interview Q: They stopped making Gilligans Island 47 years ago. Do you still receive residuals? A: We never received any residuals. Q: How much money did you make for Gilligans Island? A: Nothing. I dont know, maybe I made $700 a week. I understand (the producer) Mr. Schwartz made $90 million on the reruns alone. I think we got paid ... maybe we made $50,000, I dont know. And in a 2016 interview, she answered the question, "Whats one big myth about [Gilligan's Island]?" by asserting that the actors "didn't really get a dime" in residuals: A misconception is that we must be wealthy, rolling in the dough, because we got residuals. We didnt really get a dime. I think my salary -- of course, I was low on the totem pole, Ginger [Tina Louise] and Thurston [Jim Backus] got more -- was $750 a week. Sherwood Schwartz, our producer, reportedly made $90 million on the reruns alone! A 2014 Washington Post obituary of Wells' cast mate Russell Johnson, who played the Professor, also observed that Johnson "resented ... that he and other cast members were left out of the bulk of the syndication profits." obituary For what it's worth, the daughter of "Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz disputed the oft-repeated claim that her father realized as much as $90 million from the series: disputed Schwartzs daughter Hope Juber dismissed that estimate as an urban myth. While he, and my family were certainly comfortable, that kind of wild estimate is ridiculous and surprising, she wrote in an email. She said her father made his own deal with the studio just like the cast members, but not for that kind of money. She added, If there is $90 million, it must be buried in a chest on the island somewhere because weve never seen it. Mackie, John.  "Full Interview With: Mary Ann on Gilligans Island."
  Vancouver Sun.  22 January 2014. Bernstein, Adam.  "Russell Johnson, Actor Who Played the Professor on Gilligans Island, Dies at 89."
  The Washington Post.  16 January 2019. Malito, Alessandra.  "Why We Keep Hearing About Once-Famous TV Actors in Financial Trouble."
  MarketWatch.  10 September 2018. Kovalchik, Kara.  "TV-Holic: Still on Gilligans Island."
  Mental Floss.  8 September 2010. OK!.  "Eve Plumb Not Paid for 'Brady Bunch' Reruns."
  3 February 2011. Goldberg, Lesley.  "Why the 'Big Bang Theory' Stars Took Surprising Pay Cuts."
  The Hollywood Reporter.  29 March 2017. Clash, Jim.  "Interview: Actress Dawn Wells Answers the Big Ginger/Mary Ann Question, More."
  Forbes.  18 March 2016. Claim:  Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS.  Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it!  If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.  [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007"    [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day..  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st  HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED.  THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC.  WHO PAYS IN THE END?  WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.  MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA  SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.  SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask  them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins:  The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999.  All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.  A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices.   The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all.  The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would  The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money.  By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.  Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.)  As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died.  Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.  Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.  In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane.  Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.  A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations.  "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference."  Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet.  Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand.  No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal.  Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message.  In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices?  Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices:      Petition to President Bush      Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists     Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down  Last updated:  11 March 2013    Deibel, Mary.  "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say."   The [Albany] Times Union.  27 April 1999  (p. A2).     De Marcol, Donna.  "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal."   The Washington Times.  1 May 1999  (p. C11).     Heaster, Jerry.  "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty."   The Kansas City Star.  30 April 1999  (p. C1).     Howe, Kenneth.  "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  1 May 1999  (p. A1).     Sands, Aaron.  "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas."   The Ottawa Sun.  1 May 1999  (p. A4).     Simmons, Cindy.  "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump."   Associated Press.  1 May 1999.     Surman, Matt.  "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change."   Los Angeles Times.  1 May 1999  (p. B6).     Associated Press.  "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'"   1 May 1999.     Calgary Herald.  "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott."   1 May 1999  (p. E5).     Indianapolis Business Journal.  "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump."   3 May 1999  (p. B9).     Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps."   1 May 1999  (p. B3).     The Toronto Star.  "Gas Boycott Sputters."   1 May 1999. In December 2022, a FedEx email scam was going around that claimed to be a "package delivery notification" from the company, which said, "Your package is held in our warehouse." The scam was being sent around at the same time that people across the world were ordering and receiving packages for gift-giving holidays. We previously looked at similar scams for UPS, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other package delivery companies. In fact, one of our previous stories about a FedEx package delivery email scam was published a decade ago. Needless to say, scammers have been doing this for a long time. UPS U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published According to a copy of the FedEx email scam that we reviewed, the message came from admin@america-groups.xyz. This was not an official FedEx email address.  The message read as follows: Your package delivery Notification ID#0164278468-735 'Fedex' admin@america-groups.xyz via walisdom.biz Important Message for (name)Your package delivery Notification FedEx  Order 29194773US Your package is held in our warehouse You have (1) package waiting for you in our warehouse, ready for delivery. Use your order number to track and receive your package! TRACK YOUR PACKAGE Order numberOrder 29194773US DeliveryExpected delivery: 1 - 2 days The tracking number was real, but the package associated with it had already been delivered in April 2022. The scammers sent the email in the hope that people might click the link, not look up the tracking number. We investigated the link in the email and found that it was a phishing scam, meaning that the scammers were looking to obtain personal information and financial data. The link in the scam email led to the URL, storage.googleapis.com/pemotion/tixrin.html, which was followed by a long string of additional code that likely was for the scammers' own tracking purposes. Upon clicking on the URL, we were led to mooltay.com, then redirected toponnel.com, a website that displayed an "Express" logo without the word "Federal" in front of it.  On the ponnel.com scam website, we were guided through a series of questions about the supposed package delivery issue. One step falsely claimed that there would be a $1.95 charge to release the nonexistent package from a customs distribution hub.  At the end of the steps, the ponnel.com website redirected to webwinnalists.com, a page that asked for personal information and a credit card number. We strongly advise against giving any of these websites your data. On FedEx.com, one of the scams the company advises that its customers be on the lookout for was, "Unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package, often with a sense of urgency." That's exactly what this FedEx email scam for a "package delivery notification" was all about. FedEx.com By email, FedEx shared the following statement with us: FedEx does not send unsolicited text messages or emails to customers requesting money or package or personal information. Unfortunately, scammers often invoke the names of trusted brands when attempting to take advantage of the public and FedEx is one of many companies whose brand has been abused in this way. Any suspicious text messages or emails should be deleted without being opened and reported toabuse@fedex.com. For more tips on detecting online scams, visit the FedEx Customer Protection Center athttps://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud. abuse@fedex.com https://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud This story will be updated if further details come to light. Source: "Recognize & Report Fraud." FedEx.com, https://www.fedex.com/en-us/trust-center/report-fraud.html. Dec. 14, 2022: This story was updated to add a statement from FedEx.