The Origins of Policing in the United States
As controversy raged over racially motivated violence and law enforcement policies in the United States, a persistent rumor regarding the origins of 21st-century policing appeared online. It showed up, as such things tend to do, in meme form:   But how accurate is this? And where did the concept of police as de facto executors of justice (rather than peacekeepers) originate? Law enforcement has always existed in one form or another. The first constables (from the Roman comes stabuli, or "head of the stables") with duties very similar to today's sheriffs, were around at least since the 9th century, and traveled to the Americas from Europe to supplant the systems that existed there at the time in the 1600s. The Encyclopedia of Police Science delves into the history of constables in the colonies:  history In the American colonies the constable was the first law enforcement officer. His duties varied from place to place according to the needs of the people he served. Usually, the constable sealed weights and measures, surveyed land, announced marriages, and executed all warrants. Additionally, he meted out physical punishments and kept the peace.  The informal and communal system known as "the Watch" worked (more or less efficiently) on a volunteer basis in the early colonies; there were also private policing systems for hire that functioned on a for-profit basis. As populations grew, so did demands for more functional system of policing towns and cities. Volunteers would often show up to their posts drunk or not at all, and the systems were disorganized or hopelessly corrupt.  posts According to Gary Potter, a crime historian at Eastern Kentucky University, a centralized, bureaucratic police system did not emerge until well into the 1800s, but was quickly adopted by cities around the country: Gary Potter It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place. These "modern police" organizations shared similar characteristics: (1) they were publicly supported and bureaucratic in form; (2) police officers were full-time employees, not community volunteers or case-by-case fee retainers; (3) departments had permanent and fixed rules and procedures, and employment as a police officers was continuous; (4) police departments were accountable to a central governmental authority (Lundman 1980). More than a hundred years earlier, in 1704, the colony of Carolina developed the fledgling United States' first slave patrol. The patrol consisted of roving bands of armed white citizens who would stop, question, and punish slaves caught without a permit to travel. They were civil organizations, controlled and maintained by county courts. The way the patrols were organized and maintained provided a later framework for preventive (rather than reactive) community policing, particularly in the South:  courts Policing had always been a reactive enterprise, occurring only in response to a specific criminal act. Centralized and bureaucratic police departments, focusing on the alleged crime-producing qualities of the "dangerous classes" began to emphasize preventative crime control. The presence of police, authorized to use force, could stop crime before it started by subjecting everyone to surveillance and observation. The concept of the police patrol as a preventative control mechanism routinized the insertion of police into the normal daily events of everyone's life, a previously unknown and highly feared concept in both England and the United States (Parks 1976). Patrols in the northern U.S. also became useful for breaking up labor strikes before they became too destructive (Marxist political historian Eric Hobsbawm referred to the mechanisms of violence and destruction of property to agitate for better working conditions as "collective bargaining by riot") and these services became increasingly utilized as the country became more populated and conditions simultaneously grew more difficult for the United States' restive economic underclasses.  labor strikes Eric Hobsbawm destruction In fact, police duties since the 1800s can be easily traced along the ebb and flow of political pressures as well as social issues:  issues In 1822, for example, Charleston, South Carolina, experienced a slave insurrection panic, caused by a supposed plot of slaves and free blacks to seize the city. In response, the State legislature passed the Negro Seamen's Act, requiring free black seamen to remain on board their vessels while in Carolina harbors. If they dared to leave their ships, the police were instructed to arrest them and sell them into slavery unless they were redeemed by the ship's master.  Similarly, patrols such as the Mounted Guards (forerunners to what eventually became the Border Patrol) were put in place to maintain minority quotas, among other things:  minority quotas Mounted watchmen of the U.S. Immigration Service patrolled the border in an effort to prevent illegal crossings as early as 1904, but their efforts were irregular and undertaken only when resources permitted. The inspectors, usually called Mounted Guards, operated out of El Paso, Texas. Though they never totaled more than seventy-five, they patrolled as far west as California trying to restrict the flow of illegal Chinese immigration. In March 1915, Congress authorized a separate group of Mounted Guards, often referred to as Mounted Inspectors. Most rode on horseback, but a few operated cars and even boats. Although these inspectors had broader arrest authority, they still largely pursued Chinese immigrants trying to avoid the Chinese exclusion laws. Modern law enforcement evolved out of complex brew of a larger population, shifting sociopolitical class boundaries, and other external issues (such as the labor pressures that created an unhappy underclass) and a shift in the way policing was regarded by business owners and the population at large: proactive rather than reactive.  However, it is important to note that "the police" do not consist of a homogenous block of the American population, and while the early days of modern-day police forces are undeniable and under-covered facets of its history, the focus and perspective of policing is a complicated and fraught subject. It would be a mistake to assume that police in 2016 are the same as police in the 1870s, and to conclude that the profile of law enforcement in the United States  and around the world  has not changed throughout its existence. It would also be a mistake to assume that law enforcement cannot or will not be changed again in response to popular pressure, given that its focus has varied dramatically since its inception.  Greene, Jack R. (ed.)
 The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Third Edition.   Routledge: New York. 2007. Harring, Sidney L., and McMullin, Lorraine M.  "TheBuffalo Police18721900: Labor Unrest, Political Power and the Creation of the Police Institution."
 Crime and Social Justice 4: 5-14. 1975. Kelling, George L. and Moore, Mark H.  "The Evolving Strategy of Policing."
 National Institute of Justice.  November 1988.
  Potter, Gary. "The History of Policing in the United States, Parts 1-6."
  Eastern Kentucky University, Police Studies Online.  July 2013. Williams, Hubert and Murphy, Patrick V.  "The Evolving Strategy of Police: A Minority View."  National Institute of Justice. January 1990.
Phishing bait:  Software order confirmation from Intuit. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2012]     Origins:  In October 2012, Internet users were spammed with phony e-mailed confirmation orders from Intuit, a financial and tax preparation software company, bearing subject lines such as "Intuit Order Status," "Intuit GoPayment Order Status update," "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Information," and "Intuit GoPayment Shipment Note." Intuit posted an alert on its web site about the fake e-mail, advising recipients to: alert  Do not click on the link in the email. Send a copy of the email to spoof@intuit.com. Do not forward the email to anyone else. Delete the email. Intuit's alert also advises users that: On the Internet, "phishing" refers to criminal activity that attempts to fraudulently obtain sensitive information. Here's what you can do to protect yourself from a phishing attack:  If you suspect you have received a phishing email from Intuit, please forward it immediately to spoof@intuit.com. We will look into each reported instance. Make sure you subscribe to an anti-virus software and keep it up-to-date. Make sure you have updated your web browser to one that includes anti-phishing security features, such as Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox version 3 or higher. Make sure that you keep up to date on the latest releases and patches for your operating systems and critical programs. These releases are frequently security related. Do not respond to emails asking for account, password, banking, or credit card information. Do not open up an attachment that claims to be a software update. We will not send any software updates via email. Do not respond to text messages or voicemails that ask you to call a number and enter your account number and pin. Make sure you have passwords on your computer and your payroll files. Last updated:  1 October 2012 On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "The Bern Report" shared a document authored by researchers Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan of Stanford University suggesting that "the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination contest [are not] completely legitimate: That social media share described the document as "a fantastic research piece put together by a couple of college students, Rodolfo Cortes Barragan & Axel Geijsel." That document (properly termed a "paper," not a "study," as the latter term implies some form of professional vetting) concluded with the statement that the data examined by its author "suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election" and that "this fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders": document Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. In an appendix, Geijsel and Barragan stated that their research was still in progress and had not yet been subject to peer review, but since the information was highly topical they believed it better to pre-release their findings due to the ongoing primary ballot count in California (among other factors): Statement on peer-review: We note that this article has not been officially peer-reviewed in a scientific journal yet. Doing so will take us several months. As such, given the timeliness of the topic, we decided to publish on the Bern Report after we received preliminary positive feedback from two professors (both experts in the quantitative social sciences). We plan on seeking peer-reviewed publication at a later time. As of now, we know there may be errors in some numbers (one has been identified and sent to us: it was a mislabeling). We encourage anyone to let us know if they find any other error. Our aim here truly is to understand the patterns of results, and to inspire others to engage with the electoral system. The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton: Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be: Are there other variables that could account for our main effect (states without paper trails going overwhelmingly for Clinton)? We conducted a regression model and included the % of Non-Hispanic Whites in a state as of the last Census, the states electoral history from 1992 to 2012 of favoring Democratic or Republican nominees for President (i.e., the blueness of a state), and our variable of interest: paper trail vs. no paper trail. As expected, race/ethnicity and political ideology played a role: The Whiter and more liberal a state, the less it favored Clinton. However, the effect for paper trail remains significant. States with paper trails show significantly less support for Clinton. As such, even beyond the potential for other likely factors to play a role, the potential for fraud is associated with gains for Clinton.  Dependent variable: Percent support for Clinton in the primaries  In the paper's second portion, the researchers examined discrepancies between exit polls and final results by state, a subject of debate (hashtagged #ExitPollGate on social media) that antedated the publication of their paper and was addressed in a Nation article disputing the claim that exit polls revealed fraud. The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States: While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours arent designed, and arent accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. Theyre far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so thats what they pay for. As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including: including o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out. o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected arent representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isnt so helpful in a primary. o Absentee voters arent included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote. As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do." Nonetheless, Geijsel and Barragan contended in their paper that: Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls. The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data). spreadsheet conspiracy theories Geijsel addressed questions about exit poll numbers in a subsequent e-mail to a blogger who was highly skeptical of his research: skeptical In short, exit polling works using a margin of error, you will always expect it to be somewhat off the final result. This is often mentioned as being the margin of error, often put at 95%, it indicates that there's a 95% chance that the final result will lie within this margin. In exit polling this is often calculated as lying around 3%. The bigger the difference, the smaller the chance that the result is legitimate. This is because although those exit polls are not 100% accurate, they're accurate enough to use them as a reference point. In contrast to the idea that probably 1 out of 20 results will differ. Our results showed that (relatively) a huge amount of states differed. This would lead to two possibilities, a) the Sanders supporters are FAR more willing to take the exit polls, or b) there is election fraud at play. Considering the context of these particular elections, we believe it's the latter. Though that's our personal opinion, and others may differ in that, we believe we can successfully argue for that in a private setting considering the weight of our own study, the beliefs of other statisticians who have both looked at our own study (and who have conducted corroborating studies), and the fact that the internet is littered with hard evidence of both voter suppression and election fraud having taken place. That blogger passed the anlysis on to his father ("a retired Professor Emeritus in Mathematics and Applied Statistics at the University of Northern Colorado"), Donald T. Searls, Ph.D., for comment: comment I simply asked him to review it in full and send me his comments as to its methodology and his view as to its validity. For the record, he has been a Republican for as long as I can recall and has no interest in voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be. I received his response via e-mail today. Here is what he wrote: I like the analysis very much up to the point of applying probability theory. I think the data speak for itself (themselves). It is always problematic to apply probability theory to empirical data. Theoretically unknown confounding factors could be present. The raw data is in my mind very powerful and clear on its own. My personal opinion is that the whole process has been rigged against Bernie at every level and that is devastating even though I don't agree with him. I called him after receiving his response to [ask him to] clarify his remarks on the application of probability theory to the data. His comment to me was that he did not believe it was necessary for the authors to take that step. If he had done the study himself, he would not have bothered with doing so. As he said, the data speaks for itself. Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.  Cohn, Nate.  "Exit Polls, And Why The Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders."
  27 June 2016. Geijsel, Axel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan.  "Are We Witnessing a Dishonest Election?"
  7 June 2016. Holland, Joshua.  "Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless."
  The Nation.  7 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "My Dad's View of Election Fraud Study."
  11 June 2016. Booman Tribune.  "Election Fraud Study Authors Respond."
  13 June 2016. An ad in the Georgia U.S. Senate race doesnt mention either incumbent Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock or his Republican challenger, Herschel Walker. But the ad, by the conservative nonprofitCitizens for Sanity, pulls no punches, and levels a charge that Democratic policies are abandoning children. In an election that features two Black candidates, the ad says that President Joe Biden and his liberal friends treat Black Americans like second-class citizens, following up with images of violent street crime and buildings in ruins. The ad also asserts that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. (Screenshots) This is ridiculously wrong. Spending on U.S. children in fiscal year 2021 was seven times larger than federal outlays so far for the war in Ukraine. The ad comes amid plummeting Republican support for supporting Ukraine financially. The percentage of Republicans telling pollsters that the U.S. is doing too much in Ukraine hasskyrocketedfrom 6% in March to 48% today. First, lets set the baseline for how much the United States has spent aiding Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Since the war started in February 2022, Congress has spent $66 billion to help Ukraine,according to calculationsby Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That is what has been appropriated by Congress, though some wont be spent immediately, he said, such as money for orders of weapons that havent been fabricated yet. Most of the votes to approve the funding were significantly bipartisan. By comparison, federal spending on U.S. children during Bidens administration has been far larger. Federal outlays on behalf of children were already significant before the pandemic and grew under Biden, according to statisticscollectedby the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. Under President Donald Trump, existing federal spending on childrens behalf  a combination of tax credits, health care, nutrition, education, child care and housing  amounted to about $7,000 per child. In 2021, during Bidens administration, that number increased by more than 50%, to $10,710. Federal spending on U.S. children in 2021 totaled $482 billion, the Urban Institute found  far more than the $66 billion thats been appropriated to support Ukraine. The increase was largely traceable to Bidens American Rescue Plan, which passed with only Democratic support in Congress just weeks after Bidens 2021 inauguration. One of the bills centerpieces, an effort to aid children and families, came from an expansion of the child tax credit that taxpayers could receive as a monthly cash payment, rather than waiting for a reduction in what they owed at tax time. The change was for one year only; efforts to extend it permanently have stalled. The bill also provided additional funding to states for education and child care, increased nutritional assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and added federal funding for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance plan for low-income Americans. Dozens of other childrens programs and tax credits received smaller increases, the Urban Institute said. The child tax credit expansion alone was larger than the total U.S. outlays in Ukraine. More than 36 million families who have more than 61 million children received more than $92 billion in relief through the child tax credit expansion, according to theTreasury Department. Citizens for Sanity did not respond to an inquiry for this article. A Citizens for Sanity ad said that Biden and Democrats send a fortune to Ukraine but nothing for our children. On a largely bipartisan basis, Congress has approved roughly $66 billion in assistance to Ukraine. By comparison, proposals supported by Biden and that won support of only Democrats in Congress spent $482 billion on behalf of U.S. children in 2021. The child tax credit expansion alone paid out $92 billion to U.S. families with children, or 1.5 times the amount the U.S. has spent so far on the war in Ukraine. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! Shortly after the death of Prince Rogers Nelson (the musician known solely as Prince) in April 2016, an image macroexaggerating the musician's role in the commercial success of NBA superstar Michael Jordan began  circulating online:   album The claim about Prince's bringing Michael Jordan to Nike in 1983 is possible in a temporal sense (Jordan first signed with the company in 1984), but we found no evidence that events actually transpiredinthe manner described by this macro. Contemporaneous news articles from 1984 also failed to mention any connection between Prince, Jordan and Nike. mention An article published by ESPN in February 2013 gave a detailed history about how Michael Jordan landed with Nike, and while ESPN identified several people involved in getting Jordan to meet with Nike (Jordan wore Converse shoes rather than Nikes and was reluctant to switch), Prince was not among them: Nike was a fast-rising star. The company's revenue went from $28.7 million in 1973 to $867 million by the end of 1983. But things had started to turn on them toward the end of the year. In February 1984, the company reported its first quarterly loss ever. The Olympics in Los Angeles that summer provided a nice morale boost  most notably, Carl Lewis won four gold medals in Nikes  but there wasn't an immediate translation in sales. Converse and adidas weren't ready for Jordan, but all of a sudden, Nike needed him. If the company could only get him on the plane. The claim that Prince designed the Air Jordan 1 is also based on fantasy, as the first Air Jordan sneakers werecreated by Peter Moore: created Peter Moore has been involved with just about anything you find coolincluding video games, basketball kicks, and especially designing the sneaker that changed everything. Tinker Hatfield receives all the daps for his work with MJ, but it was Moore who created the first Jordan (and the ball and wings logo) that started a phenomenon. The statements made in the above-displayed macro appear to be an exaggeration of a comment issued by Jordan shortly after Prince's death: comment "Like so many people I am shocked at the news that Prince has died," Jordan said. "In a world of creative performers, Prince was a genius. His impact not just on music, but on culture, truly can't be measured. His songs inspired me throughout my career and remind me of so many moments from my life." Although Michael Jordan praised Prince as having inspired him throughout his career, the musician apparently had no direct impact on Jordan's commercial success with Nike. One online scam that never seems to come to an end is the lie that the cast of the TV show "Shark Tank" endorsed, invested in, or provided reviews for either CBD gummies or keto gummies for weight loss. For years, scammers have used the "Shark Tank" name to push the false idea that the cast of the show invested in CBD gummies and keto gummies, even though no such episode of the show ever aired. No one on the "Shark Tank" show has anything to do with CBD gummies or keto gummies. In this story, we'll spell out everything we know about these scams. We'll also provide ways to fight back. Some readers may have seen scam ads about "Shark Tank" and keto gummies online, perhaps in Google search results or on Facebook or Instagram.Such ads also appeared in email messages, like the one shown below. These ads led to scammy articles branded with the logos of major publishers. However, those articles were written by scammers and hosted on scam websites. Here's how the seemingly legitimate-looking articles were created. Scammers copied the designs of various news websites in order to fool potential victims into thinking they were reading from the publisher's official page. In the past, scammers copied and used article layouts from ABC News, Fox News, Us Weekly, "Today," People magazine, Time magazine, and others. The articles usually claim that various celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Ree Drummond, Kelly Clarkson, Tom Selleck, Kaley Cuoco, Melissa McCarthy, Wayne Gretzky, the cast of "Shark Tank," or others all endorsed either CBD gummies or keto gummies, even though they had no involvement with the products whatsoever. In reality, the image and likeness of each celebrity was being used without permission. Oprah Winfrey Ree Drummond Kelly Clarkson Tom Selleck Aside from the scammy ads, we often see numerous fake CBD and keto gummies reviews that use the "Shark Tank" name. These articles aren't really reviews, however. They're paid-for product pitches that appear as sponsored content. Outlook India, Tribune India, Mid-Day.com, and others all appeared to be accepting money in exchange for sponsored content articles that named "Shark Tank" alongside many different CBD and keto gummies product names. In recent months, our reporters received word from some users who said they received bags (not boxes) of CBD or keto gummies products at their doorstep, despite having no recollection of ordering the products. Some also said there was no charge on their credit card. It's unclear why people who hadn't ordered or been charged for the products were receiving them in the mail. Many of these users said that the return addresson the package was for a nameless "fulfillment center" with a P.O. box in Smyrna, Tennessee, Tampa, Florida, or Las Vegas, Nevada. Typing "fulfillment center" into Google (without quotes) displayed the first search suggestion as "fulfillment center smyrna tn," which perhaps showed just how many people were looking for help after being scammed. Unfortunately, more details about these "fulfillment center" addresses were not yet available at the time this article was published. It's unclear if anyone associated with these mailboxes or locations had any knowledge of or involvement with the scams. In the past, our reporters noticed that brand new CBD gummies and keto gummies product names popped up regularly, with no sign of a parent company or any other branding, as if such details had been omitted on purpose. It's possible that many of these products were the same and had simply been rebranded after previous product names received negative feedback. We also noticed that phone numbers on some product order pages for CBD and keto gummies are often missing or disconnected. Placing a call to any working number goes to a generic, nameless customer service phone line. When calling these lines, the person on the other end of the call declined to say the name of thecompany they worked for, nor would they give any information regarding the name of the apparent call center. One additional aspect of the "Shark Tank" CBD gummies and keto gummies scams, plus the scams that used the image and likeness of other celebrities, was that many users told us they believed they would be charged around $40 for their order, but were ultimately charged close to $200. From what we could tell, this information may have appeared in the fine print of the terms and conditions, but was not mentioned at all on product checkout pages. After having difficulties getting in touch with the phone line for the product they ordered, users consistently told us that they were offered a refund of 50%, something that apparently was a part of the call center's script. In 2022, "Shark Tank" cast member Mark Cuban tweeted about the seemingly never-ending keto gummies scams, where he railed against tech platforms that continue to accept money from scammers to allow ads to run that promote the scams. "Does anyone really think keto pills work?," Cuban asked. "Why would anyone take an ad for them with or without the fake endorsement? Where is the content filtering that we hear so much? If a platform can't detect fake keto or CBD gummy ads, can they really detect anything? Or do they not care that mostly seniors are getting ripped off!"  The official "Shark Tank" website on ABC.com also once published a page about scammers that use the show's name without authorization. page "The internet has become overrun with advertisements featuring products allegedly endorsed by 'Shark Tank' or the Sharks," the page read. "Many merchants are using the names and images of the show and the Sharks in an attempt to sell their products. Unfortunately, with every new episode comes the opportunity for imposters to use false information to exploit the unwary. While many products claim to have been on 'Shark Tank,' that is not always the case." On the subject of gummy scams, this story would not be complete without the inclusion of two past court cases. In 2021, famed film actor and director Clint Eastwood won $6.1 million in a lawsuit after alleging that a Lithuanian company had used his image and likeness without permission to promote CBD products. won In the following year, Eastwood won another lawsuit, also pertaining to a CBD promotion. That time, he won $2 million. Cannabis Law Report said that the lawsuit had been filed against "Los Angeles-based Norok Innovation Inc. and its CEO Eric Popowicz." won Cannabis Law Report If you believe you've been a victim of fraud, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allows users to file a report. file a report Also, if any readers find one of the scammy articles that claims "Shark Tank" or other big-name celebrities endorsed keto gummies, or find a product order page that is believed to be involved in the scam, the domain URL can be reported to its registrar. Simply visit godaddy.com/whois and type in the website address. This form will display domain registration information for the website. Look for the "Registrar Abuse Contact Email" and"Registrar Abuse Contact Phone" in order to report the website to the company that allowed it to be registered. godaddy.com/whois In recent years, we've oftenreported about these scams involving the "Shark Tank" name. We will continue to bring our readers further reporting about this subject in the future. reported about If any readers were scammed, we recommend bookmarking this page or emailing it to yourself so that you can revisit it in the future to view further updates, as we do plan on adding additional information as it becomes available. "Appeared on Shark Tank | Shark Tank." ABC, https://abc.com/shows/shark-tank/news/updates/appeared-on-shark-tank. Dillon, Nancy. "Clint Eastwood Wins $6.1 Million From 'Online Scammers' in CBD Lawsuit." Rolling Stone, 4 Oct. 2021, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/clint-eastwood-cbd-lawsuit-1236437/. "Eastwood Files Third Lawsuit against Los Angeles-Based Norok Innovation Inc. and Its CEO Eric Popowicz." Cannabis Law Report, 18 Jan. 2021, https://cannabislaw.report/eastwood-files-third-lawsuit-against-los-angeles-based-norok-innovation-inc-and-its-ceo-eric-popowicz/. Liles, Jordan. "Don't Bite on 'Shark Tank' Weight Loss Scam Promising '50lbs in 61 Days.'" Snopes, 30 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-weight-loss-scam/. ---. "'Shark Tank' CBD Gummies 'Reviews' on Google Are Fake." Snopes, 19 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-cbd-gummies/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup - Find out Who Owns a Website." GoDaddy.Com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois/. Many Missouri lawmakers are worried about the estimated $456 million budget gap for fiscal year 2018. By law, thegovernment cannot approve an unbalanced budget. Although the state has made some cuts, more work still needs to be done. That has lawmakers looking for answers as to why state revenues have dropped. Rep. Kip Kendrick, D-Columbia, was interviewed by KMIZ's Joey Parker on This Week, on Jan. 20. Kendrick stated why he believes the budget gap is so large. If you look at the budget right now, income tax collection is right where it was projected, the same with sales tax collection, he said. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. We wanted to check out Kendricks claim that corporate entities are paying a lot less in taxes  and if they are, why? Budgeted vs. actual revenues The first half of Kendricks statement is easy to verify. Overall, the state of Missouri collected less corporate income taxes and about the same amount of individual income tax and sales tax when comparing the collected year-to-date revenue from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017. According to the latest monthly general revenue report released Feb. 2from the Office of Administration Division of Budget and Planning, individual income tax and sales tax both grew around 3 percent. However, corporate tax income collections are significantly down compared to last year. In FY 2016, the state collected about $272 million. In FY 2017, it collected only $193 million, which is a 29 percent decrease or about $78 million less. Source: Missouri Office of Administration/Division of Budget & Planning Note that these are collections year-to-date, comparing the collections as of Jan. 31 for FY 2016 to FY 2017. The fiscal year for 2017 runs until June 30, so we wont know the full accounting until then. Corporate tax income from the tax deadline on April 18 could make up the difference. However, evenGov. Greitens proposed FY 2018 budget, which still has to be approved by the Missouri legislature, projected a $97 million decrease in corporate tax income for FY 2017. So what we do know supports Kendricks point: Income tax collection is right where is was projected, the same with sales tax collection. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Missouri business climate The second half of his claim is trickier to pin down: Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. First, is there another explanation as to why the corporate tax collections are low? There could be fewer businesses in the state, or these businesses could have generated less income. The Missouri Department of Economic Development tracks the number of businesses in the state. Because the 2016 data are only available through the third quarter, the department provided data in an email for the third quarters in 2014, 2015 and 2016 to compare. According to the department, the numbers are counts of establishments, or individual locations, which is the same measure on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. This means that instead of counting Wal-mart once, the data reports individual Wal-mart establishment. In 2014 there were 185,634 establishments; in 2015, there were 192,108 establishments; and in 2016, there were 193,695 establishments. So the number of businesses increased, if only slightly. So are businesses in Missouri not doing well? Do they have less taxable income? Both Chuck Pierce, the government relations consultant for the Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants, and Tracy King, the vice president of governmental affairs at the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said that corporate income can vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the economy. Profits can be reduced by a recession. However, Tom Kruckemeyer, the chief economist for the liberal think tank Missouri Budget Project, said the state economy is doing reasonably well. Broadly speaking, the economic indicators for the state of Missouri are actually pretty good, Kruckemeyer said. One economic indicator is the unemployment rate. According to the numbers release Jan. 24 fromU.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Missouris seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 4.4 percent, compared to the national rate of 4.7 percent. And over the past few years, theMissouri and national unemployment rates have dropped. The2016 Missouri Economic Reportproduced by the Missouri Department of Economic Development found that 50,000 jobs were added in Missouri between December 2014 and December 2015. This is the largest year-over-year growth in 10 years. The report also stated that Missouris personal income increased 2 percent in 2015 and has averaged an increase of 1.8 percent from 2010 through 2015. Overall, these numbers show that Missouris economy is doing fine, so corporate entities must be paying less taxes due to tax cuts as Kendrick claims. Taxing corporations In the KMIZ interview, Kendrick said there was a loophole in a bill passed in 2015 that caused corporations to pay less taxes. Kendrick, in an interview with PolitiFact, said thebill he was referring to was Senate Bill 19, which changed the way corporate income tax was allocated for multi-state corporations. The bill expandedHouse Bill 128, passed in 2013. Before SB 19 was passed, King, of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said Missouri taxed 50 percent of any goods produced in the state and sold in another state, so these businesses were double taxed. She said that businesses were moving out of the state and taking jobs because of this tax. Thanks to SB 19, Missouri no longer taxes the production of goods sold out of state. In the fiscal notes for SB 19, theestimated cost of the law was $15.2 million per year. However, Kendrick said the new estimate of the bills effect on the states revenue is a drop of $200 million, which other legislators confirmed. Rep. T.J. Berry, R-Kansas City, said he also heard the bill reduced tax collections by $200 million.And in a Jan. 24 House debate, Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said a corporate allocable tax bill passed two years ago cost the state $200 million. The Department of Revenue has not responded to PolitiFacts inquiries for how much SB 19 affected the revenue collections. A few tax authorities have said this bill has played a part in the decrease of corporate income tax revenues. Kruckemeyer said the combination of HB 128 and SB 19 were the primary causes of the low corporate income tax collections because they were explicit changes in tax law. However, Ray McCarty, president of Associated Industries of Missouri, said SB 19 did lower collections but cautioned that corporate income tax revenue is only a few million dollars out of multi-billion dollar revenue collection. He stressed that there may be other factors at play, including above average tax refunds and other legislation. Our Ruling Kendrick said, Corporate entities are paying less taxes this year. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015. There hasnt been a decrease in businesses, and the Missouri economy is doing well as indicated by various economic data. So corporations must be paying less taxes  though experts can argue about which tax cuts and other factors are behind Missouris lower corporate income tax collections. However, we dont have the complete numbers of corporate tax collections because the fiscal year doesnt end until June 30. With that caveat, we rate this claim as Mostly True. President Barack Obama hailed the return of manufacturing jobs that had been shipped overseas during his State of the Union speech on Jan. 24, 2012. The president discussed companies that have brought back production after labor problems in China, economic issues and higher shipping rates added to costs.Obama said:  We cant bring every job back thats left our shore. But right now, its getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive.He added: A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Locks unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.Master Lock hasnt had this much publicity since it ran those Tough Under FireSuper Bowl adsshowing their product surviving a sharpshooters bullet. Those ads ran for 20 years, starting in the mid-1970s.So whats the latest at the companys huge central city plant?The lock maker, a division of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc., was founded in Milwaukee in 1921.Fifteen years ago, Master Lock had about 1,154 workers at its Milwaukee plant, 2600 N. 32nd Street, a  sprawling facility thats been described as the size of seven football fields. That year, Master Lock announced that it would begin importing locks from China, a move that began a string of large job reductions in Milwaukee.Two years later, the company announced that it would open a lock assembly factory in Nogales, Mexico. Because of the outsourcing and competition from those cheaper locks made elsewhere, employment in the Milwaukee plant fell to about 270 employees in 2003, the company said.The cost advantages of overseas production began to decline in the late 2000s. By the end of 2010, the company said, several dozen jobs were moved back to Milwaukee. Employment grew to 379,news reportssaid.In early 2011, company executives used the full capacity description of production in a Journal Sentinel story about the return of the outsourced jobs. That message returned at a White House meeting in January 2012, and again in the State of the Union address.The White House meeting was a in-sourcing forum. At that event, the presidentsingled outMaster Lock for praise.The company says employment in Milwaukee is now 412. Master Lock still operates factories in China and Mexico.So what does it mean when the company and Obama say that the plant is operating at full capacity? After all, there are nearly 750 fewer people working there than 15 years ago.Without providing specifics or revenue figures, Master Lock said in a written statement that the Milwaukee plant is a far different operation than it was in 1997.The Milwaukee plant is producing parts and components at a much higher volume than in 1997, reflecting our regained market share and Master Lock's overall revenue growth, which is approximately double 1997 revenues, the company said. Moreover, Milwaukee-made production is now being sold directly to Master Lock customers in China, reflecting its new competitiveness.Master Lock said it decided to re-size and convert Milwaukee into a more automated and highly efficient manufacturer of parts and components regardless of final assembly destination.Such lean manufacturing efforts have paid off for many companies, said Nick Hayes, a partner with FiveTwelve Group Ltd., a business research and consulting firm in Milwaukee.Manufacturers can become far more efficient by using automation, high-tech equipment and streamlining the way they move supplies and inventory around a factory, he said.Hayes offered an example of a factory he worked with that adopted lean manufacturing. The company downsized from a 60,000 square foot factory and 100 workers to one that was two-thirds smaller, with half the work force. Production increased 10-fold.The question I would have for Master Lock is how primitive were they before? Hayes said.Consumer demand for the product is another critical factor, he said. And Master Lock indicated that sales had increased.Without providing specifics, Master Lock said it hoped to continue to add jobs in Milwaukee.We plan to invest in the plant this year to add capacity as we in-source more work. We are also investing in training and working with area technical colleges and universities to find and equip skilled workers.Our conclusionObama singled out Master Lock saying the company brought back outsourced jobs and is operating at capacity for the first time in 15 years. Thats the same thing Master Lock executives said more than a year ago, and theyve continued to add jobs and said they would continue to do so. It also tracks with their efforts to attract a more highly skilled work force to run an updated operation.We rate Obamas statement True. As President Donald Trumpstrade warwages on, we decided to check in on the most affected sectors. U.S. Agriculture Department Secretary Sonny Perdue said farmers, who will receive $12 billion in aid, were particularly affected by the dispute. Americas hard-working agricultural producers have been treated unfairly by Chinas illegal trading practices and have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs, Perdue said in a USDApress releaseon July 26. Well leave aside the question of whether the retaliatory tariffs are any more illegal than the initial U.S. tariffs on imports. But we were interested in the second half of his claim: Have agricultural producers taken a disproportionate hit? The Agriculture Department pointed out that 37 percent of U.S. exports facing retaliatory tariffs are agricultural exports. Those are the tariffs as of July 31, 2018 coming from China, the European Union, India, Turkey, Mexico and Canada. Thats disproportionate to the total goods the United State exports: about 10 percent are agricultural goods, according to the USDAs 2017 data. Its hard to measure the exact numbers, though. Thats because tariffs are listed individually by the governments that issue them (in this case, not the United States), and because the United States doesnt keep close tabs on exports. USDA calculated the 37 percent figure using official import customs data from the retaliating partner through a private third party, Global Trade Atlas. Export data is notoriously bad, Laura Baughman, president of the Trade Partnership, told us in July. Its inaccurate because people dont necessarily report it very carefully, since you are not assessing tariffs on exports. However, the agricultural industry is on average much more dependent on world markets than other industries, according to David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Exports comprise 10 percent of total GDP in the United States, whereas they comprise about 20 percent of GDP in the American agricultural sector. That fraction iseven higherfor crops like cotton (76 percent is exported), soybeans (50 percent) and wheat (46 percent), according to USDA. About 16 to 17 percent of exports to China are agricultural goods, so any conflict with China (like the ongoing one) takes a heavy toll on agriculture, Laborde said. He calculated that 86.8 percent of agricultural exports to China are impacted by retaliatory tariffs while 36.9 percent of the non-agricultural exports are covered. Farmers face two additional aggravators: their products are easily replaceable and theyre an easy political target. One ton of U.S. soybeans is a nearly perfect substitute to one ton of Brazilian soybeans, Laborde pointed out. But high-tech medical equipment (another type of products exported to China) is difficult to substitute, so Chinese consumers are more willing to endure the tariff. And from a political economy point of view, Laborde said it made sense for China to maintain pressure on farmers in particular, as a core constituency for the Trump administration. Perdue said, Americas hard-working agricultural producers  have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs. Its difficult to measure the impact of tariffs on the economy and particularly hard to measure the impact of retaliatory tariffs on exports. That said, the economy sets up agricultural producers to bear the brunt of tariffs. Exports are doubly important for the agricultural sectors GDP as for the countrys GDP. USDA calculated that 37 percent of exports facing tariffs are agricultural goods, whereas agricultural goods comprise 10 percent of total exports. We rate this statement Mostly True. In April 2020, a coupon purporting to offer $250 in merchandise from the Kohl's department store circulated in Facebook posts directing viewers to click on a survey question:    This was a scam. Such efforts that trick viewers by offering free goods or money are long-standing. Kohl's is also a frequent target of such scams, but this fraud can target any business, from airlines to beer makers. A good rule of thumb to follow: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. also frequent any airlines beer makers These types of viral "coupon" scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. 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 want 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. Despite the latest coupon scam above, Kohl's was indeed celebrating its 57th year as a department store, as of September 2019. It opened its first store in Brookfield, Wisconsin, according to company literature. In 2016, a variation of the same type of scam circulated, offering viewers $75 off purchases. literature variation The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers WHP.  "Scam Alert: Kohl's $75 Off Coupon Is Too Good to Be True."
  24 May 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Alert: Giveaway Scam Poses as Facebook."
  14 April 2017. Many social media users have expressed disbelief and dismay at a graphic indicating that the United States had been deemed "one of the ten worst countries in the world to be a woman," rounding out a list headed by India, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, and Nigeria:  The basis of the graphic was a 2018 survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the "charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change and resilience." survey This item is therefore superficially "true" in the sense that it reflects the results of a genuine poll, but of course the significance of any particular survey or poll depends upon its methodology. In this case, Thomson Reuters polled 548 experts on women's issues by phone and in person between March 26 and May 4, 2018. The respondents were evenly spread across Europe, Africa, the Americas, South East Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific, and included "aid professionals, academics, healthcare staff, non-government organisation workers, policy-makers, development specialists and social commentators." According to Thomson Reuters, "the survey asked respondents which five of the 193 United Nations member states they thought were most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of healthcare, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking." Still, Americans (and others) were left puzzled by how the United States could rank so highly in such a survey, given that many of the phenomena that contributed to the other countries' being declared dangerous and unhealthy places for women  female infanticide, forced marriages, sex slavery, domestic servitude, death by stoning, civil war, restricted access to health care  have little to no prevalence in the U.S. The explanation offered by Thomson Reuters was that the influence of the #MeToo movement and the Time's Up campaign, which were running concurrently with the poll, influenced the results sufficiently to push the U.S. into the top 10: Time's Up Experts said the surprise addition of the United States in the top 10 most dangerous countries for women came down to the #MeToo and Time's Up campaigns against sexual harassment and violence that have dominated headlines for months. "People want to think income means you're protected from misogyny, and sadly that's not the case," said Cindy Southworth, executive vice president of the Washington-based National Network to End Domestic Violence. "We are going to look back and see this as a very powerful tipping point ... We're blowing the lid off and saying '#Metoo and Time's Up'." Reuters.  "Factbox: Which Are the World's 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women?"
  25 June 2018. Goldsmith, Belinda and Meka Beresford.  "India Most Dangerous Country for Women with Sexual Violence Rife."
  Thomson Reuters Foundation.  26 June 2018.