Does the 'Bar' in 'Bar Exam' Denote a Secret Lawyers' Conspiracy?
One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017.
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2021, a video went viral of a gymnast celebrating after a successful vault landing. While gymnastic celebrations don't often make viral content, this video proved share-worthy as this athlete, Evan Manivong from the University of Illinois, removed a card from beneath his uniform and started waving it around to the crowd:  He later revealed he was showing off his vaccination card and encouraged everyone to "go get vaccinated": encouraged go get vaccinated   Vaccination distribution plans vary by state in the U.S. NBC News reports that more than 80 counties in Illinois have "expanded COVID vaccine eligibility to all state residents 16 years and older." Residents of Illinois can check the Illinois Department of Public Health website for more information on how to get their COVID-19 vaccines. For residents outside of Illinois, the CDC recommends using VaccineFinder.org to find a nearby location that is administering vaccines.  NBC News Illinois Department of Public Health CDC VaccineFinder.org Manivong, who earned the B1G Sportsmanship award, helped the Fighting Illini take fourth place at the 2021 Big Ten Men's Gymnastic Championship with a score of 14.45 in the vault. His teammate Michael Fletcher was crowned the B1G Vault champion with a score of 14.6.  Head Coach Justin Spring said: said "We really struggled on parallel bars, but we never gave up and finished strong. We finished the last two rotations hitting 10/10 routines, and had our best pommel horse of the season, so I'm really proud of how we finished despite having multiple gymnasts out." FACT CHECK: Can Facebook users get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey?      Claim:  Facebook users can get the "newly enabled Dislike button" by clicking a link and completing a survey.    Example:   [Collected via Facebook, September 2015] Origins: In September 2015, in a Q&A session Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg somewhat misleadingly implied to social media users worldwide that the long-awaited Facebook Dislike  button would soon be implemented. Predictably, Facebook scammers seized upon this nugget of partial truth in an attempt to more efficiently spread their (mal)wares and make a quick buck. Dislike Not long after inaccurate news stories informed Facebook users they'd soon be getting access to a Dislike button, a number of links resembling the example reproduced above and touting the Dislike button as an feature available by invitation only, were circulated on Facebook. Owing to the then-recent spate of news articles about Facebook's reportedly forthcoming Dislike button, users were more open to believe the link would indeed activate such a feature in their accounts. But users who clicked through to activate the Dislike button were greeted with a page that mimicked the style of Facebook-based content but was hosted outside that social network (alongside an initial red flag, what appeared to be a ticking deadline clock and apparent limited time to act upon the offer). Whether the user shared the item or not, a second inducement soon appeared promising a large cash sum (and coded to prevent easy reproduction): Neither the original embedded URL nor later clickthroughs led to any content hosted on or published by Facebook (which stands to reason, as the Facebook Dislike button rumor was widely misrepresented, and so no real Dislike button was forthcoming). Each of the links was a version of a typical social media survey/sweepstakes scam, such as those that have used Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart as bait by which scammers aimed to collect personal information and page likes from social media users (never delivering on their initial lofty promises once the desired information was collected from the marks). Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau described common hallmarks of social media survey scams: article Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's 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 Facebook features are always released through Facebook itself, and rarely require users to leap through hoops in order to enable them (Facebook's Celebrate Pride rainbow profile photo filter was a good example of an official feature released by the social network). When and if the feature described by Zuckerberg in September 2015 (not a Dislike button) readies for release, it won't appear in the form of a shady survey. Celebrate Pride Last updated:  21September 2015 Originally published: 21September 2015 Readers love to chortle over lists of "loony laws," or regulations that supposedly make it illegal to perform acts that range from the benign to the ridiculous. Various examples claim laws do, or did, exist that prohibit activities that are highly improbable or downright impossible (e.g., fishing for sharks in a landlocked state), ban actions so mundane that government has no conceivable interest in regulating them (e.g., barbers eating onions on Sundays), establish rules that seemingly defy common sense (e.g., requiring fire engines to stop at red lights), or are laughably anachronistic (e.g., mandating that all taxis be outfitted with spittoons). Nearly all such cited laws fall into one of three categories: Long, obsolete (and since stricken) laws that addressed conditions or concerns which no longer exist, interpretations of laws that posit a unrealistically narrow or far-fetched application of them, and out-and-out fabrications. One very common example of a purported "loony law" holds that it is illegal to peel oranges in hotel rooms in the state of California:  No such law exists, however, and the belief that it does stems from the category of "unrealistically narrow applications." Back in the early 20th century, California had a statute on the books (Act 6236) covering "the sanitation of food producing establishments, places where food is stored, prepared, kept or manufactured and in which food is distributed." Under that act, hotel rooms were deemed insufficiently sanitary premises for the storage and preparation of food, for obvious reasons. Nothing in that law specifically barred peeling oranges in hotel rooms, however. Peeling oranges was just one of the many, many activities that could be considered a form of food preparation or manufacture, along with cutting, slicing, chopping, dicing, peeling, skinning, trimming, or deboning any type of meat or produce or other consumable substance. More important, this statute was primarily a commercial regulation, aimed at preventing the use of hotel rooms as facilities for storing and preparing foodstuffs that would be served, distributed, or sold to others for human consumption. It was not intended to, and certainly would never have been used to, prohibit or punish hotel guests who might simply peel a single orange or banana in the privacy of their room for personal consumption. We don't know for certain how this law gained the current absurdly narrow interpretation that it specifically barred the peeling of oranges in hotel rooms, but that characterization is a very old one, as demonstrated by the following clipping of a newspaper article published in a Santa Cruz, California, newspaper in 1932: newspaper article A meme circulating on social media in late February 2017 attributed a quote about paying taxes to actor Bill Murray, but it was originally shared by a parody Twitter account. The parodyquotestated that "The best way to teach your kids about taxes is by eating 30% of their ice cream":  The twitter account from which it was posted, however, bore this disclaimer: I AM NOT BILL MURRAY. This is a parody account. This account is not in any way affiliated with the actor Bill Murray. Before it was finally suspended by Twitter, the Murray parody account posted mostly benign jokes in the casual tone and pithy humor associated with Murray, such as "Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&Ms with obstacles" and "When one door closes another one opens. Or you could jut re-open the closed door. Because thats how doors work." The fact the Twitter account was not real, as usual, did not prevent its tweets from being widely shared. For example, in November 2015, the disreputable site PoliticalInsider.com shared the above meme as fact, as did TheFederalistPapers.org. shared TheFederalistPapers.org We were unable to find any genuine comments made by the actor Bill Murray about his feelings on taxes. He also does not have an official Twitter account.  Kasperowics, Pete."Actor Bill Murray to CNBC: 'I Think We Ought to Be Personally Responsible.'"
The Hill.10 February 2012. Shoard, Catherine."The Gospel According to Bill Murray: Impending Apocalypse, Seatbelt Safety and His Favourite Saint."
The Guardian.20 November 2014. Read, Max."Bill Murray on the Bill Murray 'No One Will Ever Believe You' Urban Legend."
Gawker.com.20 July 2010. On 10 October 2016, an meme appeared featuring a photograph of Hillary Clinton accompanied by text of a purported quote from her during from the second presidential debate the night before:   The quote was not uttered by Clinton during the any presidential debate. It does not appear in the transcript of the event, nor can Clinton be heard speaking this phrase during the broadcast.  transcript broadcast It seems to have originated with a social media user named Rocky Raczkowski, who (according to his post) was not directly quoting Clinton, but was giving his interpretation of what he thought Clinton had said in response to a question about Supreme Court justices: Rocky Raczkowski   Raczkowski's interpretation was later shared by Mike Hewitt, a politician and radio show host, who posted the message as if it were a direct quote from Clinton, while darkly hinting at a media so corrupt that they refused to cover the what she had really said: message   Of course, the reason that most media sources did not report on this quote is that it is not a quote, but a highly subjective (and inaccurate) interpretation of her words. Here's Clinton's actual response to a question about how she would select a Supreme Court justice, which is nothing like the questionable paraphrase offered by Raczkowski and shared by Hewitt: QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice? RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Well, youre right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesnt agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we dont always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a womans right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesnt always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because youre wealthy and you can give more money to something doesnt mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else. So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, theyve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people. Is workforce participation lower in West Virginia than in any state? Thats what West Virginia University president Gordon Gee wrote in a recentop-ed. Gees Jan. 14 column in the State Journal newspaper was titled, An effective education system is key to West Virginias future. In the column, Gee wrote, As I often point out, our state does not have a job problem. It has a skills problem that leaves many high-paying jobs unfilled. We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. Is this claim accurate? We took a closer look. Economists say the most appropriate statistic in this case is the civilian labor force participation rate, which is calculated on a regular basis by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thestatistictakes the number of people who are employed, adds it to the number of unemployed people who are looking for work, and divides the sum by the total population that is at least 16 years of age, not serving on active duty in the military, and not institutionalized in a facility such as a prison or a long-term-care home. The most recentdataavailable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2018, showed that West Virginia had a civilian labor force participation rate of 53.9 percent. The figure didnt deviate much throughout 2018, ranging from 53.7 percent to 54 percent depending on the month. The past five years also looked similar to 2018. The average workforce participation rate in 2018 was 53.9 percent. In 2017 it was 53.3 percent, in 2016 it was 53.1 percent, in 2015 it was 52.8 percent, and in 2014 it was 53.1 percent. He would have been a little closer using a similar, but distinct, statistic known as the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of employed people and divides it by the same overall population used in the civilian labor force participation rate. In West Virginia, that was 51.2 percent in December 2018, and was close to that during 2018. So for this part of his statement, Gee was close, and he did say around 50 percent, which gives him some wiggle room. West Virginia did indeed have the lowest civilian labor force participation rate in the nation in December 2018. The next-closest state was Mississippi, with 55.8 percent. And the pattern was much the same for the rest of 2018. In fact, West Virginia has remained in the lowest spot since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began reporting the series on a consistent basis in 1976, said Brian Lego, research assistant professor at West Virginia Universitys Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Thenational civilian labor force participation ratewas 63.1 percent in December 2018, after rising from a low of 62.7 percent earlier in the year. So Gee is on target with his statement that the national rate was about 63 percent. Lego said there are a range of factors that explain the states weak performance. The big picture reasons are related to human capital deficiencies such as lack of skills needed for jobs available, he said. He also cited poor health, drug abuse, and a large number of elderly residents in West Virginia. Gee said, We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. He was very close on all three elements of the statement, and he gave himself some breathing room by using the words around and about. We rate his statement True. Who is the woman in a viral photo with former President Bill Clinton? She's a photographer and co-founder of a New York-based modeling agency. But if you pose that question to adherents of a Qanon conspiracy theory, you'll probably get a different answer: She's an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and recruits children to come to the billionaire's island. Qanon conspiracy theory So how did this ordinary citizen get mixed up in the world of Q? It started with a single miscaptioned photograph that supposedly showed her on Epstein's private plane with Clinton:   While this appears to be a genuine, unaltered photograph, the conspiracy theorists spreading it get several things wrong about what it shows. Mainly, the photograph wasn't taken on a plane owned by Epstein, who was charged with new sex crimes related to child-sex-trafficking for prostitution in the summer of 2019.  Before we go any further, we should note that the Q conspiracy theory is built on speculation and wild assumptions. The woman has not been implicated in any legal proceedings related to Epstein, and she has not been charged with any crimes herself (Snopes is not identifying her to protect her privacy). Q conspiracy theory Indeed, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who was fundamental in uncovering Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking crimes, told us that she never come across the woman's name during her investigation into Epstein: "I have never run across her name anywhere  and I checked with two people involved in the case for 12 years and they never heard of her. They suspect its BS internet conspiracy shit."  Julie Brown fundamental We also dug through dozens of Q posts, conspiracy primers, Qanon explainers, and 4chan and 8chan threads attempting to connect her to Clinton and Epstein, but we've yet to see any concrete evidence. Instead, we found invented explanations for out-of-context pictures and illogical leaps of faith being accepted as fact.  The above-displayed picture has been online since 2006. It was originally shared with a caption saying it showed Clinton with a 19-year-old college student aboard billionaire venture capitalist Ron Burkle's private plane. It wasn't until several years later (circa 2017) that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy community picked up this picture and started claiming that it showed a woman with Clinton aboard Epstein's plane (popularly dubbed the "Lolita Express"). The fact that this photograph was circulating for more than a decade before it became attached to claims relating to Epstein should immediately raise red flags.  shared billionaire venture capitalist circa 2017 Pizzagate Furthermore, photographs reportedly showing the inside of Epstein's plane don't appear to match with this viral picture. Here's a comparison of the viral Clinton photograph and a picture of Epstein's plane obtained by Radar Online: inside of Epstein's plane Radar Online   While we may be entering dot-connecting territory here, the design on the wall behind Clinton bears a resemblance to a photograph from Business Insider supposedly showing the interior of Canadian businessman Frank Giustra's plane. Giustra and Clinton, like Burkle and Clinton, were frequent travel partners: Canadian businessman frequent travel   Angel Urena, Clinton's spokesperson, also denied that the viral image was taken aboard Epstein's plane: "This photograph was not taken on Epsteins airplane." In addition to misidentifying the location of this photograph, Qanon believers also frequently share this photograph with the claim that the woman was underage at the time the photograph was taken. Again, this is based on pure speculation: speculation   When Gawker first shared this photograph in 2006, the organization claimed it showed a "19-year-old college student." This appears to be accurate. In 2009, The Cut identified the woman as a "22-year-old" in an article about her photography. This would make her approximately 19 in 2006 when the photograph was allegedly snapped.  Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane a number of times. However, the above-displayed photograph does not document one of these trips. This photograph shows Clinton with a young woman aboard a plane more likely owned by either Burkle or Giustra.  number of times While the question of who she is may send conspiracy theorists down a rabbit hole of assumptions and speculation, the real answer is quite simple: She is a photographer and co-founder of New York-based modeling agency who was needlessly thrown into this world of conspiracy because she once appeared in a photograph on a plane with Clinton.  co-founder Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Rothschild, Mike.  "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way."
  Daily Dot.  21 March 2019. Ellia, Emma.  "Crying 'Pedophile' is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book."
  Wired.  1 August 2018. Neon Revolt.  "D-Room. DINING ROOMS. HRC +++ + +++++ Unlocked? #QAnon #GreatAwakening."
  7 April 2018. NWO Report.  "Footage Of Abused Children Captured On Jeffrey Epsteins Pedo Island."
  15 April 2018. Radar Online.  "Tour for the First Time: Inside Bill Clinton Pal's 'Lolita Express' - The Pedophile Billionaire's Sex Jet He Flew On 11 Times."
  11 July 2016. Alterman, Eric.  "If Jeffrey Epstein Faces Justice, Itll Be Thanks to a Local Newspaper."
  The Nation.  17 July 2019. Brown, Julie.  "How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex abuser the Deal of a Lifetime."
  Miami Herald.  28 November 2018. For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True. On October 9th, 2016, WikiLeaks disclosed thousands of e-mails from the personal account of Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta, also a former counselor to President Barack Obama. Among those files were two e-mails signed by former NASA astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell from the e-mail address terribillionairs@aol.com. The first message, dated 18 January 2015, read: message Subject: email for John Podesta (c/o Eryn) from Edgar Mitchel re meeting ASAP Dear John, As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vaticans awareness of ETI [extraterrestrial intelligence]. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russias extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obamas Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryns assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.  Best regards,Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon The second message, dated 18 August 2015, included a brief introduction and a series of links to articles that primarily discussed the militarization of space. It bore the same signature as the first e-mail: message Subject: email for John Podesta c/o Eryn re Space Treaty (attached) Dear John,  Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk. Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. The following information in italics was shared with me by my colleague Carol Rosin, who worked closely for several years with Wernher von Braun before his death. Carol and I have worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, attached for your convenience. Best regards,Edgar Edgar D. Mitchell, ScDChief Science Officer & Founder, QuantrekApollo 14 astronaut6th man to walk on the Moon Before diving into the content of these two e-mails, we should identify the players involved. Dr. Edgar Mitchell (who passed away in 2016) was a NASA astronaut who traveled to (and walked on) the moon as part of the Apollo 14 mission in 1971. A Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, he once completed a record-breaking nine-hour, 24-minute EVA on the surface of the moon. In addition to his distinguished scientific career with NASA, he was a strong believer in metaphysical phenomena. He claimed, for example, that a Toronto-based healer named Adam Dreamhealer had cured him of kidney cancer remotely while the two men were separated by thousands of miles. He also was a strong believer in the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life and claimed Earth had frequently been visited by aliens. Among the many times he made these assertions was in a 2009 interview with the Guardian: recipient record-breaking Adam Dreamhealer interview "We are being visited," [Mitchell] said. "It is now time to put away this embargo of truth about the alien presence. I call upon our government to open up ... and become a part of this planetary community that is now trying to take our proper role as a spacefaring civilisation." Though Mitchell signed the messages, the e-mail address from which they originated belonged to Terri Mansfield (Mitchells Catholic colleague), who runs a nonprofit that focuses on metaphysical concepts including consciousness, god, extraterrestrial intelligence, and the development of technology that could harness zero point energy (a pseudoscientific concept discussed below). belonged nonprofit Carol Rosin, whom Mitchell mentions as having helped to collect the links listed in the second e-mail, states on her web site that she is the founder of the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space. On the same site, she describes her role as advis[ing] decision makers and others about applications of technology and information services for human needs, environment, new energy, and peace and security, health and prosperity for all on earth and in space. web site Mansfield and Rosin's connection to Mitchell does not necessarily imply influence or authorship of these emails, as the content is consistent with causes he championed. In fact, Rebecca Hardcastle Wright, a former employee of Mitchell's, wrote a post attesting to their authenticity, confirming that a Skype meeting with Podesta had been requested by Mitchell but never ended up taking place. former employee post  As far as the content of the e-mails, there are two (very) loosely connected threads at play. The more straightforward thread (and what ultimately seems to be the primary premise for a Skype meeting, based on the subject lines) is the discussion of adding the United States as a signatory to an amended version of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, an international agreement dating back to the 1960s that prevents governments, essentially, from putting nukes or weapons of mass destruction in orbit or from putting military bases on the moon or on other objects in space. agreement Mitchell and Rosin were arguing for the United States to sign onto an even more restrictive treaty originally proposed  by China and Russia in 2008, which would ban weapons in space outright. The list of links provided by Rosin (primarily news articles and blog posts) all related to international space collaboration and various warnings about countries currently involved in, or planning to be involved in, putting weapons in space. treaty Its the material in the first e-mail that is a bit more convoluted. That missive opens with an urgent request to discuss zero point energy and disclosure. Disclosure refers to the release of any and all information the U.S. government might have on UFOs. This is, in fact, a topic for which John Podesta openly advocated well before any WikiLeaks referenced the subject, as the Washington Post reported in April of 2016: reported "In 2002," [Leslie] Kean and co-author [of UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record] Ralph Blumenthal wrote, "Podesta began publicly supporting what became a landmark Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Freedom of Information, an independent advocacy group. NASA had been stonewalling and refusing to release its records concerning a significant 1965 UFO incident in Kecksburg, PA." Documents were released, but they "did not include one iota of information relating to the Kecksburg case, despite an earnest and thorough effort by NASA staff." It's apparently those documents to which Podesta was referring when, after a brief stint working in the Obama White House, he tweeted that failing to secure the release of UFO files was his "biggest failure of 2014." Zero point energy is a concept in quantum physics that refers to the amount of energy a given quantum system has at its lowest quantum state or ground state. The fact that systems at this zero point actually still possess some energy has lead to myriad science fiction or pseudoscientific claims of being able to tap into that energy to achieve things currently known to be physically impossible. concept Mitchell ran a company, listed in his email signature, called Quantrek, which sought, among other things, to harness this zero point energy, according to Terri Mansfield (the woman from whom the e-mails to Podesta originated): [Mitchell] and his science team researched the application of the quantum hologram as well as zero point energy, the most powerful, cleanest, cheapest, safest, most ubiquitous form of energy for the planet. ZPE will power cars, trains, planes, sea-going vessels, space ships, as well as our homes and buildings. The connection between the zero point energy topic and the space treaty, while not completely articulated in the e-mails, appears to be based on Mansfields (and presumably Mitchells) belief that as a species humans need to show our obedience to God and embrace extraterrestrial beings by abandoning free will and embracing peace, at which point the aliens will allow us to understand and implement zero point energy. Mansfield explains that connection on her web site: connection The ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence) with whom Suzanne and Terri work are peaceful, nonviolent and obedient to God. They are NOT from our universe but from a CONTIGUOUS universe. They are the highest form of intelligence working directly with God. Their purpose is to assist us humans who are eager to bring powerful, safe, clean, cheap, sustainable, ubiquitous, infinite ZERO POINT ENERGY application as THE energy source to our viable Earth. This ZPE energy is centered on the Tau neutrino. When ETI want to make themselves known, they do so with specific colors, sound, touch, scent, taste and manipulation of matter. Examples abound. They frequently turn on lights in our homes when they want our attention. ETI want only what is best for humanity to evolve spiritually, demand obedience given by free will choice, respond with compassion and / or justice, when required. The implication appears to be that extraterrestrials are willing to help us with our zero point energy problems so long as we can demonstrate our peaceful nature. This is presumably what Mitchell is referring to in the second e-mail when he wrote: Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. Though we cannot say for certain, it appears likely that the reference to God and the Vatican stems from Mansfield's belief system revolving around obedience to God and her Catholicism. Ultimately, though, what has emerged from these messages is a picture of a decorated astronaut with a history of eccentric views attempting, unsuccessfully, to set up a meeting with a high ranking and potentially sympathetic government official with either the help of (or influence from) both a metaphysicist and an advocate for a demilitarized space. In Mitchells and Mansfield's view, there is a straight line connection between signing a stronger space treaty and receiving information from aliens about how to create a form of energy that will save our civilization. What does not emerge, however, is any evidence supporting the quasi-scientific claims made by Mitchell or Mansfield, or that the United States Government is privy to any information regarding those claims. In late February 2019, a misleading meme was circulated on Facebook that led viewers to ask whether U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had mysteriously amassed vast wealth in yearly increments to the tune of $2.4 million while in office:   As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that  information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes: salary  Although the meme and the campaign ad upon which it was likely based were set up to make it seem as if McConnell's wealth increase were the result of his role in the Senate and thus involved unethical or illegal activities, most of his net worth actually derives from his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who hails from a wealthy business family and married McConnell in 1993. Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012. chairs gift According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife: 2008   As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007: reported Thats almost a sevenfold increase in 10 years. McConnell has quadrupled his net worth since 2007, when it was $7.8 million. So what happened in 2008? His financial disclosure form tells the storysuddenly there appeared a tax-exempt money market fund, valued at between $5 million and $25 million, listed as a gift from a filers relative. (Look at Line 2 and then Line 3.)   Indeed, a McConnell spokesman confirms that this was an inheritance for McConnells wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, after her mother died in 2007. Chao, who married McConnell in 1993, earns significant income on her own, serving on corporate boards, and has at least $1 million in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund. (Since these shares are in her name, McConnell only needs to report they have a minimum value of $1 million.) The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million. 2015 Kessler, Glenn.  "How Did Mitch McConnells Net Worth Soar?"
  The Washington Post.  22 May 2014. Newmyer, Tory.  "The Secret to Mitch McConnell's Millions."
  Fortune.  20 March 2014.