Might the ongoing Supreme Court case lead to a more powerful presidential pardon?
This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after   While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute.  Double Jeopardy."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice.  9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")."
  Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States.  United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377."
  11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)."
  16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J.  "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem."
  Yale Law Journal.  November 2014. Hsin, S.  "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?"
  Congressional Research Service.  16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power  And What It Could Mean for Mueller."
  Vox.  11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan.  "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall."
  CNN.  22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha.  "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates."
  The Atlantic.  25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States.  Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)."
  11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case.
FACT CHECK: Do crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into slavery?     Claim: Crown tattoos secretly signal that a woman is or once was sold into sexual slavery.   MOSTLY  Example: [Collected via Twitter, September 2015] Crown Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning https://t.co/u0fabfCANc https://t.co/u0fabfCANc  Phillip Hernandez (@Flipy602) September 8, 2015 September 8, 2015  Origins: On 8 September 2015, the web site IJ Review published an article with the misleading headline "'Crown' Tattoos Being Forced on Women Across the US. If You See One, Heres the Disturbing Meaning": article For thousands of women across the United States their tattoos are a constant reminder of the men who enslaved them for profit. Sex trafficking in the United States affects countless women, and many are left with the scars and marks of their former pimps. A CNN interview with a victim and survivor of sexual slavery and addiction named Jennifer Kempton helped shed light on these tattoos. The article (and several subsequent republications of it) attributed its claims to a 2 September 2015 CNN piece titled "Sex-trafficking survivors use new ink to reclaim their lives." That report profiled Survivor's Ink, a group devoted to assisting victims of sex trafficking to remove or cover tattooed brands acquired in the course of their victimization: piece [Founder Jennifer] Kempton said the new ink changed the way she looked at herself, but she still had three other brandings. There was one on her neck, one on her back and one right above her groin that said "Property of Salem," a trafficker who played a major role in bringing Kempton into the life she had now left behind. She told a human trafficking advocate about the "property of" tattoo. The advocate contacted a family member who agreed to pay for her to have the rest of her brandings covered. This was the beginning of Survivor's Ink. Kempton wanted other survivors to experience the freedom she had found, so she started a nonprofit organization that pays for trafficking survivors to have their branding tattoos covered by new tattoos of their choosing. Both CNN and IJ Review linked to Survivor's Ink's Facebook page, which contained photo albums illustrating before and after tattoos. Notably, only a single crown was featured among the tattoos depicted, casting the "here's what it means" headline into doubt.  photo albums It's likely that some pimps chose a crown as the brand forcibly inked upon their victims. But nothing in the CNN report suggested that crowns are universal (or even common) among tattoos forced on unwilling sex workers. Moreover, crown tattoos are a popular choice among the inked. We found no evidence that crown tattoos were linked to sex trafficking before 7 September 2015; however, we located a number of proudly-displayed, intentionally-chosen crown tattoo examples: crown tattoos #Blue Crown #Tattoo By Iuri Chmel #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP #Blue #Tattoo #Ink #Tattoos https://t.co/CyEDUYWFGJ pic.twitter.com/RTLEVcFWuP  Tattoo Ideas (@tattooideas__) August 24, 2015 August 24, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black-And-Grey Crown and Scepter pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/1rHc7pdmdR #Black pic.twitter.com/iZxtLdp9Vg  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) August 20, 2015 August 20, 2015  Upper back tattoo of a crown by Murat Bilek. Tattoo artist: Murat Bilek#littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w #littletattoos #t https://t.co/clx2Dxo6iT pic.twitter.com/Edrj0vqg5w  Little Tattoos (@little_tattoos) August 12, 2015 August 12, 2015  #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown One Love pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3 #tattoo #tattoos https://t.co/pfsfDphHef #Arm #Couple #Crown pic.twitter.com/2hWSEfs6r3  Linda Severino (@redsomcom) July 14, 2015 July 14, 2015  Even if a small fraction of the crown tattoos (shared across the internet in body modification galleries) were coerced, the vast majority of folks with a crown tattoo were not victims of sex trafficking; the presence of one is definitely not "disturbing" proof its owner was once enslaved.  Last updated: 8 September 2015 Originally published:  8 September 2015 Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens  On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians  they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States  with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True. Claim:  A man was ordered to pay $30,000 in support for a child that DNA testing proved was not his. Examples:  [Collected via Twitter, January 2015] We need justice for Carnell Alexander  just one victim of paternity fraud in MI.   Origins:  In January 2015, what appeared to be a child support-related horror story began to circulate on the Internet. According to several news articles (mainly of the "[news channel] on your side" variety), Detroit resident Carnell Alexander was  ordered by a court to pay more than $30,000 in support for a child that was provably not his. Moreover, the articles claimed, Alexander's DNA test results had been acknowledged by the court but disregarded in what was clearly a miscarriage of justice.  The claim was substantiated on a few levels: Alexander provided his DNA testing results proving that he did not father the child in question, and many articles offered visual evidence showing the amount ($30,000) owed by the Michigan resident to the state. Alexander's situation has been held up as an example of "paternity fraud," but a number of  aspects have been elided from the retellings of his story, aspects that provide context necessary to understanding how what looks to be a clear-cut case of injustice could have come to pass:  The vast majority of articles about the Carnell Alexander case all stem from one local Detroit news report about the issue, creating the false impression that a number of media outlets have verified the facts of the case rather than simply recycling single-source information.  Significant advances in DNA testing have been developed since Alexander was named the father of the now-adult child in 1987. Due to the relative ease of modern DNA testing, a case such as this one would be extremely unlikely to occur today.  An oft-repeated aspect of the case involves the mention of "paternity fraud," leading many readers to believe that the debt owed by Alexander is to the mother of the child and should therefore be forgiven because DNA test results have proved he was not the father. However, the unusual outcome of the case stemmed not from monies owed to the child's (unnamed) mother, but to monies owed to the state as compensation for welfare benefits obtained by the mother. By all accounts (which link back to an October 2014 news segment and article from Detroit station WXYZ), the child's mother intentionally and wrongly named Alexander as the father of her child in order to obtain state assistance: WXYZ [The mother] was struggling to care for the child. When she applied for state assistance, the case worker told her she had to name the father. "That was the only way I could get assistance," she said. She said she didn't realize the state would go after the father to pay the support given to the child. "Everything is my fault, that I put him through," she said. It was not easy [for him] to get a DNA test. Alexander didn't know where the woman was that had claimed he fathered a child. He only had an 8th-grade education, off-and-on employment at the time, and no money to hire help. He asked the court for help, but the court couldn't help him in the way he was asking. Friend of the Court employees are not allowed to give legal advice.  Alexander explained to the judge and court again and again his situation. He says in hindsight, he didn't understand the formal legal steps necessary to make things right. Eventually he, by chance, ran into someone he knew would know where the woman was, and got a DNA test. It proved what he had been saying all along: the child he had never met was not his. The mother had realized that, and the real father was in the child's life. Alexander took this information to court. The judge was unmoved. "Case closed. I gotta pay for the baby," said Alexander. The case also involved an omission on the part of a process server who claimed to have served Alexander with notice of a pending paternity claim against him early on in the child's life. State records proved that Alexander was incarcerated at the time he was purportedly served notice, and that the individual responsible for serving him mistakenly or intentionally claimed otherwise: The court focused on a summons tied to the paternity case in the late 1980's. The state sent a process server to Alexanders dad's house in Highland Park to let him know about the paternity case. The process server turned a document into the court saying Alexander was delivered the summons, but he refused to sign the summons. "I wasn't there. I couldn't refuse to sign," said Alexander. Michigan Department of Corrections ... records confirm Alexander's story  he did not receive that order at a home in Highland Park. He was in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. However, one article about the case referenced a circumstance unmentioned by other reports, that Alexander had initially agreed to "admit" paternity in order to facilitate the mother's approval for welfare services: article But how did Alexander get entangled in a paternity case? Alexander's ex had a baby and didn't know who was the child's father. She reportedly needed state assistance, so the case worker demanded that she name a father for the child.  Alexander, who only went up to the eighth grade education-wise, decided to help his ex so that she could receive state assistance. According to the unnamed woman, she did not realize that the state would go after the child's father for monetary support. The state of Michigan unfortunately does not have paternity fraud laws that protect men.  This last point, if true, could be the crux of the issue: If Alexander in any way agreed to falsely allow the mother to name him as the father on the child's birth certificate, or was aware that she had done so and did not dispute it, it's likely that Michigan viewed him as legally responsible for half the expenses whether his DNA was a match or not. (That  aspect of the case cannot be verified because family court proceedings are not a matter of public record.) Ultimately, the case could hinge  not on whether Alexander was indeed the biological father of the child, but whether he claimed the child as his own as part of an attempt to facilitate his former partner's receipt of welfare (and thus prevented the state from recouping those funds from the child's true biological father).    Last updated:  29 January 2015 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 December 2021, a number of social media users expressed confusion and skepticism over a series of books that had been published on Amazon about the new COVID-19 omicron variant. How was it possible, these people wondered, for someone to research, write, and publish a book about a strain of COVID-19 that had been discovered just days or weeks earlier.  social media users expressed confusion   Other social media users commented: How can there be so many books knowing all about the #Omicron variant when we only found out about it 2 weeks ago? Amazing how there are 30 books available on Amazon on the Omicron variant when it was just named Nov 26,this one in particular was published on that date..almost like it was planned Go to Amazon and search "Understanding Omicron Variant" How can scientists do any kind of reputable work, write a book, have it peer reviewed, have it proofed, published AND printed in a couple WEEKS? Can you say scam? There are truly a number of books on Amazon about the omicron variant that were published within days of the announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the new strain had been identified. This isn't proof that the pandemic was "planned," or that it is a "scam." Rather, it's proof of just how quick and easy it is to self-publish a book on Amazon.  Self-publishing authors can submit their books to Amazon in as little as 5 minutes and can see their books up for sale the following day.  Amazon in as little as 5 minutes The social media users quoted above all expressed skepticism that a book about something as complicated as the omicron variant could be researched, written, and edited in a span of just a few days. This skepticism is rightfully placed. The omicron variant books on Amazon that were published in December 2021 likely did not go through rigorous research, writing, or editing phases. Unlike a scholarly journal where material has to go though peer review, anybody can self-publish just about anything on Amazon. The material can contain an infinite amount of typos (no editing), the content doesn't have to be factual (no research), and in some cases the text can be artificially generated or plagiarized (no writing). In other words, just because a book exists on Amazon doesn't mean its content is worth reading.  In March 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon was flooded with self-published books about the illness. These books were shoddily put together and often contained plagiarized content. The Guardian reported: Guardian reported As the coronavirus spreads around the world, it is not only health professionals and politicians who are being kept busy. Amazon has been flooded with badly put together, often plagiarised guides to combatting the virus. The retailing giant has already been removing tens of thousands of listings from bad actors attempting to artificially raise prices on items such as face masks and hand sanitiser. Now it is fighting a losing battle against the writers rushing out self-published books to profit from coronavirus fears. Generally shorter than 100 pages, dozens have been published in the last few weeks, promising worried readers ways to prevent or avoid the virus. On Amazon.co.uk on Thursday morning, the top results returned for books about coronavirus included Corbi Yangs Coronavirus, which promised to answer how this virus was identified and what measures have been taken up till now. Running to 44 pages, much of the writing was lifted directly from web pages. While social media users were skeptical of the rash of books published on Amazon about the omicron variant, there was one title that drew special attention. According to social media posts, a book by "Dr. Teresa Bishop" titled "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: All You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed" was copyrighted in 2020, nearly a year before the omicron variant emerged.    How was this possible? How was a book about the omicron variant copyrighted before the emergence of the omicron variant? We reached out to Amazon for some specifics about this title and we will update this article if more information becomes available. For the moment, here's what we know: announced by WHO nonsensical sentences International Standard Book Number database Copyright Public Records Portal   This title is no longer available on Amazon. A few days after this book was removed, Bishop published a similarly titled book "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: Everything You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed Kindle Edition." That book claims a copyright date of 2021.  As Coronavirus Spreads, Hastily Produced Books Capitalize on Fear. Undark Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/. Flood, Alison. Amazon Flooded with Self-Published Coronavirus Books. The Guardian, 12 Mar. 2020. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/12/amazon-flooded-with-self-published-coronavirus-books. Matsakis, Louise. Amazon Quietly Removes Some Dubious Coronavirus Books. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-quietly-removes-coronavirus-books/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Self-Published Book on Omicron Was Not Copyrighted before Variant Was Discovered. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/20/facebook-posts/self-published-book-omicron-was-not-copyrighted-va/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Update on Omicron. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Claim: Three suspicious Middle Eastern men (later found to be likely ISIS operatives)attemptedto purchase vehicles in Virginia. [dot-mfalse]PROBABLY [/dot-mfalse] Example: [Collected via e-mail and Facebook, November2015]Friend posted this. Seems fake. Just passing it along to be checked.   Beware sellers, 3 muslims tried to buy car from frederick dealer and one of them was identified as know ISIS member per FBI. They did not want to show any ID or do paper work for the car so please screen the people wanting to by your vehicles.   Origins: A series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015 understandably intensified extant concerns about the risk posed by ISIS; on 22November 2015, a Twitter user published an unsourced rumor pertaining to suspicious Middle Eastern men in the area of Frederick:HOLD UP pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw   $B$ (@brookelyles_) November 23, 2015 The tweet contained a screenshot of a (presumably already circulating) text message. Its sender was identified only as "Gianella," and the text described a purported interaction at a car dealership. The rumor lacked a large number of key details such as the date of the incident, the city in which it occurred, and the name of the dealership in question. (The original tweet appeared to occur on 20 November 2015, and was subsequently deleted after screenshots circulated.) Absentbasic information about the claims aside, the rumor didn't make very much logical sense. According to the individual who sent the text, the three men oddly asserted that they wished to buy a vehicle "whether it passed inspection or not" (apparently unaware of the higher likelihood of such a transaction being private party). Without ostensible reason, the men then informed the dealership they planned only to use the vehicle for twodays  a tidbit of information that served only to raise possible red flags obstructing the purchase should the dealer opt not to engage in a sketchy, possibly illegallow-profit transaction. The unnamed dealership's manager then purportedly dialed 911 in earshot of the suspicious men (rather than surreptitiously), alerting them to the imminent arrival of police and causing them to flee. At this point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrived and dusted for prints, the results of which appeared to be immediately available, with information disclosed to low-level car dealership employees for unclear reasons. Finally, the FBI opted to inform the car salespeople that the men were in fact likely on a small list of suspected ISIS operatives, despite there being no good reason for federal agents to do so (as it served only to compromise any investigation). The amount of time elapsed between the (still undated) visit and the FBI's disclosure of this information was also not included in the screenshot. Details in the text message weren't the only urban legend hallmarks attached to the tale. Just before the 22 November 2015 tweet went locally viral, the claim popped up at separate dealerships in the vicinity of Frederick and Gaithersburg, Virginia (tweets in the conversation cited the "friend of a friend" involved with the original rumor):@A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel I had these guys as my customers too. I was at one of the dealerships they went to.  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg.   MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 HOLD UP pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw pic.twitter.com/ISlJQ9jYVw    $B$ (@brookelyles_) November 23, 2015 November 23, 2015  The tweet contained a screenshot of a (presumably already circulating) text message. Its sender was identified only as "Gianella," and the text described a purported interaction at a car dealership. The rumor lacked a large number of key details such as the date of the incident, the city in which it occurred, and the name of the dealership in question. (The original tweet appeared to occur on 20 November 2015, and was subsequently deleted after screenshots circulated.) Absentbasic information about the claims aside, the rumor didn't make very much logical sense. According to the individual who sent the text, the three men oddly asserted that they wished to buy a vehicle "whether it passed inspection or not" (apparently unaware of the higher likelihood of such a transaction being private party). Without ostensible reason, the men then informed the dealership they planned only to use the vehicle for twodays  a tidbit of information that served only to raise possible red flags obstructing the purchase should the dealer opt not to engage in a sketchy, possibly illegallow-profit transaction. The unnamed dealership's manager then purportedly dialed 911 in earshot of the suspicious men (rather than surreptitiously), alerting them to the imminent arrival of police and causing them to flee. At this point, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrived and dusted for prints, the results of which appeared to be immediately available, with information disclosed to low-level car dealership employees for unclear reasons. Finally, the FBI opted to inform the car salespeople that the men were in fact likely on a small list of suspected ISIS operatives, despite there being no good reason for federal agents to do so (as it served only to compromise any investigation). The amount of time elapsed between the (still undated) visit and the FBI's disclosure of this information was also not included in the screenshot. Details in the text message weren't the only urban legend hallmarks attached to the tale. Just before the 22 November 2015 tweet went locally viral, the claim popped up at separate dealerships in the vicinity of Frederick and Gaithersburg, Virginia (tweets in the conversation cited the "friend of a friend" involved with the original rumor): @A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel I had these guys as my customers too. I was at one of the dealerships they went to.  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy @ForeverrMel November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg.   MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015@mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn wait, your friend works in Frederick? This happened to me in Gaithersburg. @A_Roshayy @ListenToMyEyes @Errrunnn    MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy wow that's unusual. I had spoken to the police about it. I made a copy of one of their drivers licenses. It was issued 2 wks ago  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy and didn't match their description at all....  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy I know ???? but this is actually scary. I didn't understand why they were looking for something so cheap. But they didn't look  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015   @A_Roshayy related at all and seemed like they were on a hunt for a specifically cheap car, and it didn't really hit me til the police came  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy me neither... I don't know what to do or what to say. How are we supposed to protect ourselves at this point?  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy I don't think they've been found yet. I called the FBI but they said they couldn't tell me what's happening right now  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @A_Roshayy November 21, 2015 @ListenToMyEyes the same thing that happened in the screenshot she just posted. I didn't even know they went all they way up to frederick  MG (@mg11thirty) November 21, 2015 @ListenToMyEyes November 21, 2015 @mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around..   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed):@__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @mg11thirty he's my friend's friend but yeah she said he works in Fredrick! I guess they're traveling around.. @mg11thirty    Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 21, 2015 November 21, 2015  That conversation included screenshots of subsequent texts from "Gianella," who claimed that the men were spotted at a Subaru dealership in Frederick (she believed): @__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @__CoachDave pic.twitter.com/qEofJ06bPI November 24, 2015  The individual who sent the 20 November 2015 tweet later lamented a lack of action on the part of law enforcement before backpedaling to indicate she was unsure of the rumor's veracity; the user never explained why she deleted the original warning:@Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet?   Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015@Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.Last updated: 30November 2015Originally published: 30November 2015 @Marshy_Lillypad dude that's what I'm saying.. Like how come it hasn't been on the news why haven't they been arrested yet? @Marshy_Lillypad    Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 November 24, 2015 @MindOfAPSYCHO_ from what I know it's true and a girl mentioned me saying it happened at her dealership in Gaithersburg, so it's happening????  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @MindOfAPSYCHO_ November 24, 2015 @Meregod oh well I doubt someone would lie about it cause that's messed up but they're apparently not being cautious at all  Alex Roch (@A_Roshayy) November 24, 2015 @Meregod November 24, 2015   The rumors appeared to stem from social media-driven panics in the wake of the Paris attacks and were spread largely by Twitter users (not party to additional information) in Gaithersburg and Frederick. No one from any of the purportedly affected dealerships officially stepped forward to clarify the claims, nor did any of the rumors make logisticalsense from the perspective of a prospective terrorist. Surely, if the plot were rattled at the car dealership level, ISIS operatives would shift to a less-risky private transaction rather than continue flirting with capture. Moreover, there was no reason to suspect that if the FBI believed the men were truly wanted ISIS operatives they wouldn't take the threat seriously. Similarly, there's no reason that information about any related information would be released to the public unless an arrest had been made and a plot thwarted.   Last updated: 30November 2015 Originally published: 30November 2015 In September and October 2023, various purported celebrity news YouTube channels published videos that claimed podcaster Joe Rogan had apparently confronted entertainment icon Oprah Winfrey and actor Dwayne Johnson, better known as The Rock, about supposed nefarious activities surrounding the August 2023 Maui wildfires. August 2023 Maui wildfires Their connection to Hawaii: Winfrey owns property on Maui, while Realtor.com reports that Johnson had a vacation rental on Oahu and had spent time in Hawaii when he was a child. Realtor.com According to the thumbnail images for these videos, in face-to-face interviews on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast, Rogan had accused Winfrey and The Rock of attempting to profit from the wildfires. Rogan Winfrey The Rock For example, one clip from the Drama Bay YouTube channel had the title, "5 MINUTES AGO: Joe Rogan CONFRONTS Oprah for Scamming Maui people!!!?" The video (archived) was viewed more than 228,000 times on YouTube. video archived Rogan never said this to Winfrey, nor had she ever appeared on his podcast. Then, on Oct. 8, the same YouTube channel posted a similar video (archived) about The Rock. The video title read, "Joe Rogan SLAMS The Rock And Elites For Scamming Maui People!!!?" video archived Again, Rogan never said this, nor had The Rock ever been a guest on his podcast. These and several other videos on other similar-looking YouTube channels all promoted similar rumors. One of those other videos came from the Celebrity Glance YouTube channel and had more than 621,000 views. The title of the video (archived) read, "Joe Rogan & Elon Musk Expose Oprah's Plan To STEAL From The People Of Maui." video archived Here's the kicker: All of these videos featured narration, scripting, sequencing and thumbnail images that appeared to have been a product of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The Drama Bay YouTube channel's video about Rogan and Winfrey began as follows: AI-GENERATED NARRATOR VOICE: In the most recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, our candid podcast host, Joe Rogan, made some headlines by dropping a surprising bombshell. He suggested that media mogul Oprah Winfrey might be involved in shady land deals. Specifically, she's been eyeing properties owned by individuals caught up in various controversies. The Maui fires have left a community in turmoil, with many children affected by the tragedy and nowhere to be found, and the connection to the ongoing concerns surrounding Oprah Winfrey is undoubtedly cause for concern. Joe Rogan and several other commendable celebrities have tried to warn us time and time again about how these Hollywood elites would do anything to keep filling their well of riches. And once again, Oprah is suspected of being involved in this terrible incident. Could she be profiting from these disasters or even possibly be behind them? The other videos about Rogan, Winfrey, The Rock, Musk and Maui all followed a similar script. Musk Despite all of the claims made in these AI-generated videos, the truth of the matter was that neither Winfrey nor The Rock have ever been guests on Rogan's podcast. Further, no evidence was presented that would show Rogan had confronted Winfrey or The Rock for having orchestrated the wildfires or for scheming to profit from the disaster. Unfortunately, the comments under all of these videos were filled with many thousands of users who apparently believed the false rumors. In fact, most of the commenters didn't mention AI at all, perhaps because they didn't realize they were watching AI-driven videos. For more on the background of a relief fund set up by Winfrey and The Rock for Maui wildfire survivors  and misinformation that surrounded the launch of the fund  we encourage readers to visit our past detailed reporting. detailed reporting Liles, Jordan. Dolly Parton Didnt Ask for Fire Victims Donations, in Contrast with Oprah and The Rock for Maui? Snopes, 5 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dolly-parton-fire-donations/. ---. Dolly Partons Charitable Work Was Twisted on TikTok To Diss Other Celebs. Snopes, 11 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/09/11/dolly-parton-tiktok-maui/. Zap, Claudine. "Take a Look Inside Dwayne 'The Rock Johnson's Hawaiian Vacation Rental."Realtor.com, 7 Apr. 2022, https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/inside-dwayne-the-rock-johnson-hawaii-vacation-rental/. This typical female revenge legend, describing a woman's effective (but non-violent) way of striking back at her (former) partner, has been around since at least 1981. Legends such as these (see The $50 Porsche, for example) often feature a clever method of causing financial loss without the destruction of property: The $50 Porsche Examples: [Smith, 1986] A young couple living in the Bristol area had been having marital problems. Most of it was caused by the husband's bad temper and the fighting and constant arguing that had been going on for several months. Things finally came to a head one morning when the husband, just before he left on a three week business trip, told his wife they were finished and she had better get out of his house for good before he returned. When he arrived home his wife had gone, leaving the house in an awful mess. While he was clearing up he noticed that the telephone was off the hook. He replaced it and thought no more about it. Several weeks later the quarterly telephone bill arrived. It was astronomical  running into several thousands of pounds. He immediately queried it, only to be told that the phone had been connected to the speaking weather report in Australia for a three week period.  [Marsano, 1987] In Hollywood a man dumped his live-in girlfriend by telling her that he was off on a business trip and expected her to have cleared out of the house by the time he returned. Pretty cold, guy. The woman left, but when the man returned, he learned that she had found what Paul Simon might call the fifty-first way to leave your lover. The house was in good order, and the only thing was that the phone was off the hook. When he picked it up, he heard incomprehensible babbling, so he hung up. When his next phone bill arrived, it explained a couple of things. The strange language he had heard was Japanese, and it was giving the correct time. It had been giving the correct time enough to run up a bill of $80,000. Variations: Sightings:  An episode of the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses ("The Second Time Around," original air date 29 September 1981) features the evicted woman leaving a note announcing she's dialed the speaking clock in America.   Eskapa, Roy.  Bizarre Sex.  London: Quartet Books, 1987  ISBN 0-7043-2518-7  (pp. 82).   Fiery, Ann.  The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends  Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001.  ISBN 0-7624-107404  (pp. 81-86). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends   Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (p. 97). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 183). The Big Book of Urban Legends Barreca, Regina.  Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even.
  New York: Harmony Books, 1995.  ISBN 0-517-59757-8  (p. 45). Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even Brunvand, Jan Harold. 
Curses! Broiled Again!
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.  ISBN 0-393-30711-5; (pp. 216-217). Curses! Broiled Again! Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be True.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.  ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 79-80). Too Good To Be True Hardy, David.  What a Mistake!
  Secaucus, NJ: Octopus Books, 1983  ISBN 1-55521-164-X  (p. 78). Marsano, William.  Man Suffocated By Potatoes.
  New York: Signet, 1987.  (pp. 149-150). Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nastier Legends.
  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.  ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 &nbsp. (p. 85). The Book of Nastier Legends August 2016 saw the circulation of rumors holding that the Ford Motor Company had donated a large sum of money (typically between one and 100 million dollars) directly to the Black Lives Matter movement: rumors TIME FOR BOYCOTT! Ford Just Gave $100 MILLION To THIS Radical Hate Group Ford used to be one of the most highly-respected and longest-running companies in the United States. Now, the automaker is not only shipping a huge portion of its jobs overseas, it is giving away an enormous sum of money to a separatist and racist hate group. Ford just donated $100 million dollars to Black Lives Matter. A (since removed) blog post published by Allen B. West's blog on 11 August 2016 called for a boycott of the automaker over the issue: boycott Ford is investing in the Black-Led Movement Fund in partnership with Borealis Philanthropy Movement Strategy Center, and Benedict Consulting. Well, if you were ever looking for a reason not to buy a Ford vehicle or to trade one in you already have, this seems to be just as good as any. Looks like another American icon just caved to the liberal agenda. We see how well that worked out for Target Hopefully enough people will express displeasure over this to prompt Ford to stop playing politics and get back to making cars. <!--However, the claim was resurrected by the unreliable American News on 24 September 2016 (during then-current high-profile Black Lives Matter protests), prompting a new wave of consumers threatening to boycott Ford over Black Lives Matter on Ford Motor Company's Facebook page: claim then-current Black Lives Matter page The claims appeared to stem from an 11 August 2016 article in Fortune, which was admittedly ambiguous in its reporting with respect to the Ford Foundation versus the Ford Motor Company: article More than 50 organizations have already registered their support [for the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL)], but one, in particular, stands out. The Ford Foundation added their voice to the growing chorus of supporters, in the strongest possible terms. But the [Ford Foundation] is also planning on studying and underwriting what it calls a new and dynamic form of social justice leadership and infrastructure, by investing in the Black-Led Movement Fund, (BLMF) a pooled donor fund designed to support the work of the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), and led by Borealis Philanthropy. In the first paragraph above, Fortune erroneously linked the word "Ford" in "Ford Foundation" to the web site of the Ford Motor Company:   The origins of the rumor lay with a 19 July 2016 announcement from the Ford Foundation titled "Why black lives matter to philanthropy" explaining why that foundation had "made six-year investments in the organizations and networks that compose the Movement for Black Lives": announcement We are living in anxious, often frightening times. Earlier this month, the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling sparked a new round of public protest against the toxic blend of racism, hypermasculinity, and state violence that has taken the lives of too many black men and women and people of color in the US. At one protest in Dallas, a lone gunman killed five police officersLorne Ahrens, Michael Krol, Michael J. Smith, Brent Thompson, and Patrick Zamarripa. Weve seen reductive attempts to frame the murders in Dallas as a confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, but that obscures the larger democratic principles at play: The officers died while protecting the right to freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and are inexorably linked to Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. These events  added to so many others, including the fatal shootings of three police officers in Baton Rouge on Sunday morning  have the potential to either deepen empathy and understanding among Americans or divide us even more sharply along lines of race, ethnicity, and gender. Thats why now is the time to stand by and amplify movements rooted in love, compassion, and dignity for all people. Now is the time to call for an end to state violence directed at communities of color. And now is the time to advocate for investment in public services  including but not limited to police reform  together with education, health, and employment in communities and for people that have historically had less opportunity and access to all those things.These are the reasons we support the Movement for Black Lives. However, the flaw in claiming that the Ford Motor Company donated millions of dollars to the Black Lives Matter movement is two-fold. First, although the philanthropic Ford Foundation is so named because it was created and originally funded by automobile icon Henry Ford (along with his son Edsel) and because the foundation was a large holder of Ford stock, those associations ended many years ago. No member of the Ford family or Ford Motor Company management sits on the Ford Foundation Board of Trustees, and the Ford Foundation began selling off its Ford Motor Company stock in the mid-1950's (a process that was completed in 1974). The completely separate Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services is the current philanthropic arm of the Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services Second, although they may have common goals, the Black Lives Matter movement and the Movement for Black Lives are not the same thing. The latter is not a single group or movement, but rather "a coalition of over 50 black-led organizations": Movement for Black Lives latter Black humanity and dignity requires black political will and power. In response to the sustained and increasingly visible violence against Black communities in the U.S. and globally, a collective of more than 50 organizations representing thousands of Black people from across the country have come together with renewed energy and purpose to articulate a common vision and agenda. We are a collective that centers and is rooted in Black communities, but we recognize we have a shared struggle with all oppressed people; collective liberation will be a product of all of our work. Some of the blog posts responsible for the spread of the rumor that the Ford Motor Company had given millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter were later edited to note that the Ford Foundation and Ford Motor Company had long since parted ways, but by then the claim had already been loosed into the wilds of social media, and the important distinction between the two entities was lost as the rumor traveled from blog to blog.    McGirt, Ellen.  "Who Is Funding Black Lives Matter."
  Fortune.  8 August 2016. Yasui, Luna and Brook Kelly-Green.  "Why Black Lives Matter to Philanthropy."
  Ford Foundation Equals Change Blog.  19 July 2016. Ford Foundation.  "A Legacy of Social Justice."
  (Undated.) Ford Foundation.  "History."
  (Undated.) Ford Motor Company.  "The Ford Motor Company Fund and Community Services."
  (Undated.) Funding Universe.  "The Ford Foundation History."
  (Undated.) Borealis Philanthropy.  "Black-Led Movement Fund."
  (Undated.) Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats: posted   This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is a doctored image that was created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo on it and 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo.  Ice Cube shared the original photograph to his Twitter page in July 2020 along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent:  Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: caption LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson attend the BIG3 three on three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images) Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Twitter Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." work with said 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year: Instagram WHAT THE FUCK! (VOTE For TRUMP) IM OUT. FUCK NEW YORK The KNICKS never win anyway. I dont care Trump doesnt like Black people 62% are you out of ya fucking mind."   This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan: aired explained  Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, said he didn't care that "Trump doesnt like Black" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. Asmelash, Leah.  "From N.W.A. to MAGA: Ice Cube Takes Some Heat For Working With the Trump Administration."
  CNN.  16 October 2020. Reilly, Nick.  "50 Cent Endorses Donald Trump for President Even Though He 'Doesnt Like Black People."
  NME.  20 October 2020. CNBC.  "Bidens Tax Plan Could Lead to Combined Rate of 62% For High Earners."
  15 October 2020. Frank, Robert.  "Biden Tax Plan Gives $620 Tax Cut to Middle Class, New Study Says."
  CNBC.  15 October 2020. In April 2022, researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage, spurred on in part by Russia's ongoing attacks on Ukraine. While there are currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States, nor widespread disruptions in the supply chain, the potential of such shortages caused many people to feel that their food security was suddenly uncertain.  researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States In the wake of this uncertainty, unfounded rumors began to spread that attempted to lay the blame for any coming food shortages on nefarious forces. One such rumor claimed that there had been an unusual number of fires at food processing facilities in 2022. The explanation offered by conspiracy theorists for this untrue claim was that these fires were being intentionally set in order to create a food crisis. In reality, the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal.  the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal As unfounded rumors related to the cause of a yet-to-happen food crisis circulated online, many people started to point fingers at a favorite target of conspiracy theorists, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.  One of the most prevalent claims related to Gates and the potential for food shortages is that the billionaire owns a suspicious amount of farmland in the United States. On social media, we found people claiming, for example, that Gates owns the "majority" of U.S. farmland -- 80%, they claimed -- and that Gates is trying to buy up "all" of the farmland.   These claims are not true. Gates does not own anywhere close to the majority of America's farmland.  Gates does own a lot of farmland. In fact, he reportedly owns more farmland than any other individual in America. According to 2021 article from the Land Report, a magazine about land ownership, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland. While this is certainly a lot of acreage, it represents less than 1% of all the farmland in the United States.  reportedly owns more farmland According to a 2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service, there are 895,300,000 acres of farmland in the United States. Gates' 242,000 acres amounts to about 0.03% of the total.  2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service To put that into perspective, if you put all of the land that Gates owns into one place (his holdings are spread throughout the country), you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island.  you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island While viral conspiracy theories baselessly conjecture that Gates is buying up farmland in order to starve Americans for some unknown reason, there's likely a simpler explanation: Gates makes money off this land.  Gates started purchasing farmland circa 2013 through his investment group, Cascade Investments. Agfundernews.com, a website about agricultural investments, reported in 2021 that Gates' investments were part of a broader trend that started after the financial crisis of 2008, as investors looked for reliable returns.  Agfundernews.com For many years, farmland was not a common asset class among financial investors ... The tide began to shift in the early 2000s, when institutional investors began to give farmland a closer look. Momentum accelerated during the 2008-2009 Great Financial Crisis, when investors grew desperate for alternatives to traditional safe haven investments like bonds and gold. In this short period of time, there was a proliferation in funds that were specifically focused on farmland investing. In 2020, there were 166 such funds globally, nearly a 9x increase from only 19 in 2005. [...] Bill Gates investments in farmland can be seen as part of this trend. The Gates have been quietly acquiring farmland through their investment manager, Cascade Investment, for over 10 years. While many have also speculated that Gates' land purchases were in some way related to his efforts to curb climate change, Gates has said that the two are unrelated. Gates said during a Reddit AMA: Reddit AMA  My investment group chose to do this. It is not connected to climate. The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions. During times of uncertainty, people often look for someone to blame, and peddlers of misinformation are quick to tell others at whom they should be pointing their fingers. Oftentimes, those fingers get pointed at Gates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine-hesitant Americans were inundated with false rumors claiming that Gates was putting microchips into vaccines, that he was working on a mind-altering vaccine, that Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines, and that he once called for vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet. These rumors, like the present rumor about Gates buying up the majority of farmland in the United States for nefarious purposes, are all false.  Gates was putting microchips into vaccines working on a mind-altering vaccine Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet Sources: Bill Gates: Americas Top Farmland Owner | The Land Report. 11 Jan. 2021, https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as an Investment Outlet Buying up Potato, Carrot and Onion Farms. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mcdonald-s-french-fries-carrots-onions-all-foods-come-bill-n1270033. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as Investment Vehicle, Owning 269,000 Acres of Land. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/bill-gates-is-nation-s-largest-farmland-owner-114566213692. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Estes, Nick. Bill Gates Is the Biggest Private Owner of Farmland in the United States. Why? The Guardian, 5 Apr. 2021. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-gates-climate-crisis-farmland. If Not for Climate, Then Why Is Bill Gates Buying so Much Farmland? AFN, 27 Aug. 2021, https://agfundernews.com/gates-if-not-for-climate-then-why-is-bill-buying-up-so-much-farmland.