Not the Father, But Ordered to Pay $30,000 in Child Support
Claim:  A man was ordered to pay $30,000 in support for a child that DNA testing proved was not his. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] We need justice for Carnell Alexander  just one victim of paternity fraud in MI.   Origins:  In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was  ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.  The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of  aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:  The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.  Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.  An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother. By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance: WXYZ [The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father. "That was the only way I could get assistance," she said. She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child. "Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said. It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help. He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.  Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right. Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his. The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved. "Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander. The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise: The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexanders dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons. "I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander. Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story  he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services: article But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case? Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.  Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance. According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support. The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.  This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That  aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge  not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).    Last updated:  29 January 2015
On 21 August 2018, comedian Kathy Griffin, a frequent critic of U.S. President Donald Trump, dug up a 2015 tweet composed by Trump's long-time former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to mock the latter on the day he pled guilty to multiple counts relating to fraud and campaign finance violations. dug up Although Cohen has since deleted the tweet, a cached version remains available online: deleted cached version   The tweet was cast as ironic in light of the fact that Cohen is now the one facing prison time. On 21 August 2018, he pled guilty to eight counts, including campaign finance violations that involve paying hush money to an adult film actress and Playboy model to buy their silence on alleged affairs with Trump. He is due to be sentenced in December 2018 and faces up to 63 months in prison.  Cohen's tweet stems from the fact that Trump supporters often chanted "lock her up" about Hillary Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election (and continue to do so despite current events), and Trump himself vowed that if elected, he would ensure that Clinton was prosecuted and punished for various alleged crimes. continue Instead, members of Trump's inner circle and campaign have been the ones charged with crimes, as Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate allegations involving Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. investigate Cohen is not the only person in Trump's political realm to have taunted Clinton during the campaign, only to end up slapped with criminal charges himself. Michael Flynn, Trump's former National Security Advisor, famously led chants of "lock her up" at rallies and later pled guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI. guilty On the same day Cohen pled guilty, Trump's former campaign chair Paul Manafort was found guilty by a jury on eight counts including bank fraud, tax fraud, and failure to disclose a foreign bank account. guilty Horton, Alex.  "Michael Cohens Tweet About Hillary Clinton and Prison Came Back to Haunt Him. Now Its Gone."
  The Washington Post.  22 August 2018. Orden, Erica et al.  "Michael Cohen Implicates Trump in Hush Money Scheme."
  CNN.  22 August 2018. LaFraniere, Sharon. "Paul Manafort, Trumps Former Campaign Chairman, Guilty of 8 Counts."
  The New York Times.  21 August 2018. Shear, Michael D. and Adam Goldman.  "Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying to the F.B.I. and Will Cooperate with Russia Inquiry."
  The New York Times.  1 December 2017. 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 Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 In 2014 and 2015, two people associated with an anti-abortion organization called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, posed as fetal researchers for a fake company called Biomax in order to gain entry to National Abortion Federation conventions. The pair's goal was to gather evidence that Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, were selling tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. (Although it is unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it is legal for patients to donate extracted material for medical research, and for providers to receive reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue as part of the donation process.) The CMP subsequently posted videos online which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussion related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures. videos sell fetal tissue A text meme circulated during the 2020 presidential campaign held that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (who by 2020 was a U.S. senator and a Democratic vice presidential candidate) had unfairly prosecuted the CMP "journalists," while taking no action against Planned Parenthood for "selling aborted baby parts":   That meme was both inaccurate and misleading. It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California  for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states  but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. (Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations.) reported On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood, but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification. indict In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others, to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent. lawsuit In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020. added remain current Although then-Attorney General Harris was involved with the initial investigation of Daleiden and Merritt, she had left that office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate two months before charges were first brought against the pair by her successor, Xavier Becerra. Kurtzleben, Danielle.  "Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales."
  NPR.  28 January 2016. The [Davis] Vanguard.  "Criminal Case against Anti-Abortion Activists David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt to Move Forward."
  31 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "Case To Go Forward Against Two Antiabortion Activists Who Recorded Conversations."
  San Francisco Chronicle.  29 July 2020. Egelko, Bob.  "California Files More Charges Against Antiabortion Activists."
  SFGate.  7 July 2017. Fernandez, Manny,  "Last Charges Dropped Against Abortion Foes in Making of Planned Parenthood Video."
  The New York Times.  26 July 2016. Williams, Juliet.  "Planned Parenthood Awarded $2.3 Million for Secret Videos."
  Associated Press.  15 November 2019. The economic struggles of ordinary Americans are getting a good airing this presidential season and a statistical finding from the Federal Reserve provides ammunition for a candidate in either party who wants to make the case that too many people have been left behind. Washington PostreporterHunter Schwarzplugged some Fed data into a little segment called By the numbers, in the newspapers June 8, 2015, edition: 47: The percentage of Americans who cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money, according to the Federal Reserve. The dollar figure caught our eye. It seemed surprisingly low. Other researchers have tried to gauge the financial vulnerability of American households to an economic setback, but typically, the amounts they test are much higher, in the thousands of dollars. We thought wed take a closer look. The Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Board began asking Americans how well theyre doing financially. In May, the Fedreleased the 2014 results. The questions ranged from retirement planning, to how people managed any student debt they might have, to whether they think their overall situation is headed up or down. To measure participants sense of financial vulnerability, the survey asked them to imagine they had an emergency expense that cost $400, and it asked them how they would cover it. The better-off group said they would use cash-on-hand or a credit card that they would pay off in a month. Others said they would use a credit card but take time to pay it off, or they might borrow from a family member or a pay-day loan company, or they might sell something. And some said there was no way they could cover an unexpected $400 expense. Across the more than 5,800 people who completed the online survey, 53 percent said they would be able to pay essentially immediately. That left 47 percent who said they could not. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent), the report said. Interestingly, making over $100,000 a year was no guarantee of security. About a quarter of the more affluent group said that at the very least, they would pay off the $400 over time. As this chart from the report shows, ethnicity and income strongly affected the ability to absorb a $400 outlay. Other studies George Washington University business professor Annamaria Lusardi and two colleagues (Daniel J. Schneider at Princeton University and Peter Tufano at Oxford University) conducteda similar surveyin the depths of the recession in 2009. Their study asked people how they would handle a sudden $2,000 bill that they had to pay in 30 days. About half the respondents said they would probably or certainly be unable to cope with such an emergency out of their own funds. Lusardi said she considers the results comparable. The Federal Reserve had a lower amount, but it had to be paid right away, she told PunditFact. We gave people more time, so I think the percentages are consistent. In fact, even with five years separating the surveys, it is the similarity in the responses that caught her eye. Lusardi said it is a sign of the recessions deep damage to the typical Americans balance sheet. Until recently, the labor market and wages have been stagnant, Lusardi said. In the recession, many families used up their reserves of liquidity. It takes a long time to reestablish a good financial situation. There are other indications that most Americans live with a limited financial cushion. When the government shutdown for two weeks in 2013, aUniversity of Michigan research teamtracked a hefty drop in household spending among government workers. Even though their paychecks were interrupted only a short time, households cut their outlays in half, and many delayed paying their mortgages and credit card bills. Some racked up high cost credit card debt that took them up to nine months to pay back. Lusardis 2009 research included a number of other western nations. For the record, the United States ranked sixth out of eight in residents saying they would certainly or probably be able to manage a sudden $2,000 bill. Rank/Country Percent able to cope Rank/Country Percent able to cope 1. Italy 80.1 5. Portugal 54.1 2. Netherlands 73.2 6. United States 50 3. Canada 71.7 7. Germany 49.4 4. France 62.8 8. United Kingdom 47.8  Our ruling Schwarz said 47 percent of Americans cant pay for an unexpected $400 expense through savings or credit cards, without selling something or borrowing money. The only caveat here, and its a very minor one, is that figure represents the number of people who say they cant make that payment, based on a Federal Reserve Board survey. The Federal Reserve Board results are in line with a similar study and related research. We rate the claim True. A pair of photographs reportedly showing a severely dehydrated homeless veteran named Kent near death on the streets of Los Angeles started making their way around social media in September 2018:   These images were apparently so shocking to some viewers that they suggested the photographs perhaps showed an artwork or a Halloween decoration as opposed to a real human being. Unfortunately, these  pictures are genuine. The photographs were first posted online by Facebook user Nick Spano on 22 September 2018. The original Facebook post contained a lengthy bit of text which was largely concerned with Spano's view on how the homeless (especially homeless veterans) are treated in the United States, along with a few details about the pictured individual, who was said to be a 68-year-old man named Kent. The man told Spano that he was a veteran and that he was "looking for a place to die" when Spano brought him some water before paramedics arrived to take him to the hospital: posted This is America: Kent, a 68 year old veteran dying under a bush outside million dollar properties in LA. The softball size tumor on the side of his face is now a gaping hole. Dried blood covers his hands and face. Flies swarm around his head, not bothering to wait for him to die before laying their eggs in the open wound that is crawling with hundreds of maggots. He tries to speak, but I can no longer understand him. This is fucking America! Im just looking for a place to die, he said. Those were his first words to me when I first discovered Kent about a month a go in shallow bed under the bushes outside my place. Like many people, my initial gut reaction was, not in my backyard! But I know better. Im aware that homelessness is a symptom of our broken and wasteful system, and the basic lack of decency, and compassion towards one another. We treat people like trash. We want to discard the parts of society we dont want, but like plastic, its never going to go away. All we do is make the problem worse, rather than realizing that our own habits are the problem. The way we treat people is the problem. We speak to one another through our own filters, and judgements before we even get to know them. So, instead I brought Kent water, and sat down to talk with him for awhile. He pulled his hoodie aside and showed me the tumor on the side of his face. I did it to myself, he said. Years of smoking was the likely cause. He went to the VA for medical care, but he said that he felt like they were just waiting for him to die so he left. I asked if I could get him some help, but he didnt want it. Im just looking for a place to die, he said. We are all full of shit, guys. Lets be honest with ourselves. Between the look-at-me-now Instagram selfies, the woke AF Facebook posts, and the heated political rants over which party is more American, we have lost our souls. Weve sold out. Weve forgotten that real wealth comes from investing in one another. This isnt the Me Too era, its just the Me era. We are the wealthiest, and most wasteful consumer culture in the history of humankind, and we buy everything they sell us, even their excuses. We cant fix every problem! Its too big! Its too expensive! Get a job! I had to work for it, why shouldnt they?! Bullshit!!! Each bomb we dropped on Syria costs us $100 million, and weve dropped dozens. The Iraq War cost American taxpayers over $2.5 trillion dollars and counting, and it was a lie! We have our own national emergency right here in the City of Dreams, but we dont have enough money to fix it. Could you imagine what would happen if we took funding for just one of those bombs, and dropped it into social services for American communities; into shelters for the homeless; medical care for our vets; clean water for Flint?!?! Dont say we cant fix the problem, because thats bullshit. We can!!! We are just so god damn brainwashed and complacent that we dont think we actually have any power to change it. But change starts when we stop ignoring the problem, and realize that we are the ones to fix it. Even the smallest act makes a big difference. There is no one else to call! Tag! Youre fucking it! The irony of the fact that I took a photo of Kent as he lie dying outside my house while waiting for paramedics to arrive, and posted it here for all to see, isnt lost on me. This might appear hypocritical to some, but that wont change my commitment to people like Kent in my community. I will continue to treat these people with dignity and respect, and be of service anyway I can, and if in the process, this post gets at least one of you, the next time you see someone camped out on the street, to stop and talk to them; to put your hand on their shoulder; to call them brother or sister; and to restore even the slightest sense of dignity in them through a simple act of compassion, then its worth it. Not everyone can help in the same way, and sometimes people dont want help, but we all can be human to one another. As they lifted Kent onto the stretcher, he raised his hand, and gave me a peace sign. I dont know his status at this time, but I will post an update as soon as I can. People over Profits -- Compassion over Comfort  Spano updated his post a few days later but he didn't have much additional information to report: Unfortunately, there isn't much to share at this time. I finally found the hospital where Kent was taken and being treated, but due to patient privacy laws (HIPPA), and the fact that I don't know Kent's full name, they wont not give me any information at this time. I dont know if he has passed, or if he is still in their care. I have made a request to a supervisor to share my information with Kent so that he can grant me access. I've also made it clear that there are many people who want to show their support, so I'm hoping they help us make that happen. Without Kent's last name, it's difficult to verify some of the details in this Facebook post, but it doesn't bear any of the hallmarks that have revealed similar posts to be hoaxes. For instance, we could not find any record of these photographs appearing online prior to Spano's post, which supports  that Spano truly was the person who took them. This post also doesn't include a call to action urging users to share it (which is a common tactic for disingenuous clickbait). We contacted Spano for more information about Kent, and he provided us with security camera footage to verify that his photographs were authentic and noted that Kent had told him during previous interactions he was a veteran. Spano never got Kent's last name, however, and Kent didn't have any ID on him when he was taken away by paramedics. While we can't officially verify whether or not Kent was a veteran, his story is, unfortunately, rather plausible. According to the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, approximately 40,000 veterans in the United States are homeless on any given night. National Coalition for Homeless Veterans National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. &nbsp "FAQ About Homeless Veterans."
  Retrieved 25 September 2018. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture." In November 2018, a scam tempting Facebook users with a free Kohl's department store $150 "Black Friday" coupon began spreading on social media:  This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern. First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the offer). Kohl's current coupon promotions, which are linked from their official Facebook page, are promo codes good for 20% or $10 off purchases of $50 or more. promotions Facebook page The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar gift card/coupon scams: 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. 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. In late August 2020, readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed falsely that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rigged legislation to help her husband benefit financially from selling off property belonging to the U.S. Postal Service.   The meme's text reads: This is Paul Pelosi (aka, Nancys Husband). He owns Financial Leasing Services LLC, a San Francisco based Real Estate and Venture Capitalist Firm. His net worth is 120 million. Why is this important? His wife sits on the House Appropriations committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service ( and others). Why is this important? Easy. She passed a bill to sell off 9 billion dollars ( yes 9 BILLION WITH a [smile emoji] worth of FEDERALLY OWNED POST OFFICE PROPERTY AND AWARDED THE THE CONTRACT TO, none other, Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husbands firm. Why is this important? The commissions rate was set at 9%. That is almost a 1 BILLION dollar contract. If thats not enough, lets look at the new stimulus package. Nancy wants 25 billion in the stimulus package for the postal service where only 1.25 billion goes to making sure voting ballots are legit. The other 23.5 billion is going to upgrading the facilities so they are more attractive to potential buyers for her husbands firm. Corrupt to the core. It's true that Speaker Pelosi's husband Paul Pelosi owns and operates Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment company. Financial disclosures in 2018, the most recent available, show Speaker Pelosi's estimated net worth to be $114 million. owns estimated But Speaker Pelosi doesn't sit on the House Appropriations Committee. Her spokesman Drew Hammill told us by email she hasn't been on the committee since 2002. Furthermore, we found no evidence that a bill to sell off $9 billion-worth of federally-owned U.S. Postal Service property exists. doesn't sit It's true that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would, if signed into law, provide $25 billion to shore up the Postal Service and rectify delays in mail delivery service, but it doesn't allocate $1.25 billion toward "making sure voting ballots are legit." The funding was originally on the table during negotiations over a coronavirus stimulus package, but those negotiations broke down. Whether the stand-alone Postal Service funding bill will be signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely. bill originally unlikely The meme seems to be a rehash of a similar one that dates back to 2013  except in that case the subject of the claim was Richard Blum, the husband of U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who like Pelosi hails from San Francisco. similar one Mikkelson, David.  "Did Dianne Feinstein Get Her Husbands Company a USPS Contract?"   Snopes. 23 April 2013. Rayome, Alison DeNisco.  "What the New USPS Bill Means for the Next Stimulus Package."   CNET.  24 August 2020. Pramuk, Jacob.  "House Passes Bill to Put $25 Billion Into USPS and Reverse Changes Amid Uproar."   CNBC.  22 August 2020. Henney, Megan.  "How Much Money is Nancy Pelosi Worth?"   Yahoo! News.  17 July 2020. Wildermuth, John.  "Pelosi's Husband Prefers a Low Profile."   San Francisco Chronicle.  1 January 2007. In early October 2020, Snopes readers asked about the authenticity of an image of a tweet circulating on social media platforms that was mocked up to look like it had been written by Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris:   The post doesn't appear on Harris's Twitter timeline on Sept. 9, 2020 (the date on the tweet above), nor does it appear on Politiwoops, a database of deleted tweets from politicians run by the non-profit news outlet ProPublica.  timeline Politiwoops Furthermore, one would expect that if the vice presidential candidate on a major political party ticket stated she wanted to focus on "defunding the police rather than supporting them," it would be major news. We found no stories from any reputable news organization reporting it.  The idea of defunding the police came from nationwide racial justice protests in the U.S. in the spring and summer of 2020, sparked by high-profile deaths of Black Americans while in police custody, including George Floyd in Minneapolis, and Breonna Taylor, in Kentucky. Activists advocated for taking money from local government budgets allocated to police departments and investing instead in programs like community services and mental health crisis response teams. programs like In a June 2020 interview with The New York Times, Harris stated that, "We do have to reimagine what public safety looks like," but added she didn't want to "get rid" of police departments: interview It is status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. Thats wrong. Its just wrong. You know what creates more safety? Funding public schools, affordable housing, increased homeownership, job skill development, jobs, access to capital for those who want to start small businesses, or who are running small businesses in communities. But, no, were not going to get rid of the police. We all have to be practical. But lets separate out these discussions Her running mate, Joe Biden, also doesn't support defunding the police, although U.S. President Donald Trump has stated otherwise. Biden has stated, "I dont want to defund police departments. I think they need more help, they need more assistance." doesn't support Lee, Jessica."Does Joe Biden Support Defunding Police?"
Snopes.com.29 September 2020. Karma, Roge."Democrats Are Running on the Most Progressive Police Reform Agenda in Modern American History."
Vox.8 September 2020. Lerer, Lisa."Kamala Harris Is Done Explaining Racism."
 The New York Times. 10 June 2020.