Were These Sea Creatures Washed Up by a Tsunami?
In the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, just about any unusual or remarkable photographs connected with oceanic phenomena were being attributed to that disaster, and the following collection of pictures was a prime example: Phuket Deep Sea Creatures - Found At Seaside After TSUNAMI As everyone knows, the tsunami in Southeast Asia was devastating both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However now that the clean up is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage.  These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Amazing what lives so far below the surface isn't it? It is ironic how terrible human tragedy and natural disaster can lead to unprecedented expansion of scientific knowledge.  The theory is the tsunami created enough vertical currents to sweep these deep living creatures to the surface quickly. The gases in their blood expanded rapidly causing death (like divers ascending too quickly).     The same set of pictures was dusted off in April 2011 and attributed to the tsunami that hit Japan the previous month: Creatures Found At Seaside After JAPAN TSUNAMI Everyone knows, the tsunami in Japan was devastating, both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However, now that the cleanup is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage. These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Although these pictures are genuine images of some rather strange deep-sea creatures, the photographs had nothing to do with a tsunami in the Indian Ocean or Japan.  They date from mid-2003 and were taken as part of the NORFANZ voyage, a joint Australian-New Zealand research expedition conducted in May-June 2003 to explore deep sea habitats and biodiversity in the Tasman Sea.   These photographs can be viewed on Australia's National Oceans Office web site. NORFANZ National Oceans Office
In June 2021, messages started to circulate on social media claiming that the country of Jamaica had banned K-Pop music.  circulate on social media Jamaica has not banned K-pop. This claim originates with a satirical article that was published in 2018 on the website 8satire.com.   In addition to having "satire" in the website name, 8satire.com (which previously published content as "8shit") also carries a disclaimer labeling its content as fiction: 8Shit is a satire news and humor website. All its content is fiction (except those posts under the serious category) and shouldnt be taken as real. All references, names and marks or institutions in this website are used as contextual elements, like in any novel or science-fiction story. It should also be noted that while Jamaica is most famous for Reggae music, Jamaicans enjoy a variety of different musical genres. The Jamaican Observer reported in 2019 that a K-Pop party hosted by the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Jamaica was well-attended by young Jamaicans: Jamaican Observer reported Despite South Korea being approximately 13,473 km away from Jamaica, the K-pop wave has breached Jamaican shores. Last September the Embassy of the Republic of Korea in Jamaica hosted its annual K-Lovers' Party and Talent Competition and its inaugural Korean Language Speech Competition. The events were well-attended by young Jamaicans who openly expressed their love for Korean culture by singing along to popular K-pop tracks in the Korean language, dancing to the music, and participating in the two competitions. It was surprising to see the display of talent, particularly because there are not many places to learn Hangul, the Korean language, in Jamaica. The events represented the growing interest in Korean culture among the Jamaican youth. On 15 December 2015, the disreuptableAmerican News web site recycledan old article claiming that President Obama had given $195 million to Syria in honor of a Muslim Holiday:  The Facebook post shown above redirected users to an article originally published byAmerican News a year and half earlier, on 6 July 2014: According to recent reports, President Obama has decided to give 195 million taxpayer dollars to Syria to celebrate the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr. Once again it appears Obama is unilaterally deciding what is best for the United States. What do you think? Are there better ways to spend American tax dollars? Although the American News article accurately quoted an official White House press release, its reposting in December 2015 deliberately misled readers into believing the release's contents were current news. In fact President Obama's announcement that the United States would be providing additional humanitarian aid to Syria has been issued over two years earlier, on 7 August 2013: announcement Michelle and I send our warmest greetings to Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr here in the United States and around the world. During the past month, Muslims have honored their faith through prayer and service, fasting and time spent with loved ones. At this years White House Iftar, I was proud to spend time with some of the many American Muslims whose contributions enrich our democracy and strengthen our economy. Many of us have had the opportunity to break fast with our Muslim friends and colleagues  a tradition that reminds us to be grateful for our blessings and to show compassion to the less fortunate among us, including millions of Syrians who spent Ramadan displaced from their homes, their families, and their loved ones. To help the many Syrians in need this Eid al-Fitr, the United States is providing an additional $195 million in food aid and other humanitarian aid, bringing our humanitarian contribution to the Syrian people to over $1 billion since the crisis began. For millions of Americans, Eid is part of a great tapestry of Americas many traditions, and I wish all Muslims a blessed and joyful celebration. It should also be noted that the United States did not give $195 million in cash to Syria simply to allow them to celebrate a Muslim holiday.The $195 million came in the form offood and other humanitarian aid and was intended to provide needed relief to citizens experiencing hardship and suffering in that war-torn country; the announcement was merely timely in that it coincided with the beginning of the important Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that year.  [article-meta] One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017. Since at least 2022, scammers have improperly used the image and likeness of Christian author Joyce Meyer to promote fake reviews for keto weight loss gummies. Meyer, the president of Joyce Meyer Ministries, has never had anything to do with keto gummies, CBD gummies, or any other kinds of gummies that promote weight loss. Joyce Meyer Ministries On a similar note, in 2021, the Joyce Meyer Ministries Facebook page warned followers to not fall victim to another scam that falsely claimed she had endorsed CBD oil. warned followers This scam involving Meyer and keto weight loss gummies reviews was similar to other scams we had researched and written about before, including ones that improperly used the image and likeness of entertainment icon Oprah Winfrey, author and Food Network TV host Ree Drummond ("The Pioneer Woman"), and the cast of "Shark Tank." other scams we had researched and written about before Oprah Winfrey Ree Drummond Shark Tank The scam with Meyer's name and face began with a misleading clickbait ad that claimed, "The Tragedy of Joyce Meyer Is Just Pure Heartbreak. Joyce Meyer Breaks the Silence Today."  However, there was no "tragedy" or breaking of any "silence." Scammers simply included this false claim to entice users to click. The link in the ad redirected through adsoniris.com to dietinsiderguide.com. On dietinsiderguide.com, a scam website, we found an article that was designed by scammers to fool readers into believing they were looking at a news story published by Fox News. However, again, the article was hosted ondietinsiderguide.com, not foxnews.com. article The headline of the article read, "Weight Loss Industry in Outrage Over Joyce Meyer's Latest Business Venture that's Helping Millions of Women Melt Body Fat and Get Ripped in Just Weeks!"  The scammy articlfalsely claimed that Meyer had endorsed several different keto gummies products. Product names that we saw mentioned with Meyer's name on Aug. 11 included Good Keto BHB Gummies, Keto Fusion ACV Gummies, and Keto Bites ACV Gummies. Scammers who promote keto weight loss gummies often rotate brand new product names every day or every few days, so these three products will likely be swapped out for others in the days to come. (Note: "ACV" stands for apple cider vinegar.) Upon clicking on one of the many links in the scam article, we were led to a page where the products could be ordered. That final page asked for personal information and a credit-card number. It also claimed that keto weight loss gummies can help people "melt fat fast" with "no diet or exercise." With these so-called "miracle" products, we offer this advice about online offers: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. If any readers fell victim to this scam, we recommend alerting your credit card company to see if a refund is a possibility and to ask if future charges from the seller can be blocked. These keto weight loss gummies scams and their fake reviews rope customers into pricey monthly subscriptions that, if not stopped, can cost thousands of dollars per year. Finally, know this: According to what readers have repeatedly told Snopes, packages of keto weight loss gummies often feature a return-address label for P.O. boxes in Smyrna, Tennessee, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Tampa, Florida. However, it's unclear if the P.O. box numbers even exist, as we've received reports from readers that the one in Smyrna might not be real. Note:Another scam headlineused by CBD gummies scammers in the past claimed, "Joyce Meyer's Dementia Reversing Solution Sparks Huge Lawsuit Pressure from Big Pharma, She Finally Fights Back On Air." This headline can also be filed under the "too good to be true" advice. Another scam headline "About Us: Board of Directors | Joyce Meyer." Joyce Meyer Ministries, https://joycemeyer.org/about/board-of-directors/joyce-meyer. Liles, Jordan. "Did Oprah Winfrey Suffer a 'Tragedy' and Endorse Keto Weight Loss Gummies?" Snopes, 12 May 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprah-winfrey-tragedy-keto-gummies/. ---. "Is Ree Drummond Leaving Food Network to Sell Keto Gummies?" Snopes, 15 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ree-drummond-leave-food-network-keto-gummies/. ---. "'Shark Tank' Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam." Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/. Virus:  CNN / MSNBC News Alert  Status:  Real virus. Example:   [Collected via e-mail, July 2008]  Origins:  The CNN News Alert" mailings are new lures for an existing virus (rather than a new form of virus), but since they've garnered so much attention, we've created this separate entry for them. The mailings, which began in August 2008, typically arrive with subject lines such as  "CNN.com Daily Top 10" or "My CNN Alert" or "CNN Alerts: Breaking news," offer what appear to be links to news stories from the CNN web site.  However, clicking through on the links takes the user not to the CNN web site, but to a site that will initiate the download of an malicious executable onto the user's PC.  (Variants of these mailings used MSNBC in place of CNN.)  All of this camouflage is cover for propagation of the Storm worm, a virus which has been around for a few years and has been spread via many guises.  Because a recent incarnation of this virus lure invoked the name and symbol of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), that agency has issued a press release to warn the public about the misleading  messages: Storm incarnation press release FBI Warns of Storm Worm Virus The FBI and its partner, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), have received reports of recent spam e-mails spreading the Storm Worm malicious software, known as malware. These e-mails, which contain the phrase "F.B.I. vs. facebook," direct e-mail recipients to click on a link to view an article about the FBI and  Facebook, a popular social networking website. The Storm Worm virus has also been spread in the past in e-mails advertising a holiday e-card link. Clicking on the link downloads malware onto the Internet connected device, causing it to become infected with the virus and part of the Storm Worm botnet.A botnet is a collection of compromised computers under the remote command and control of a criminal "botherder." Most owners of the compromised computers are unsuspecting victims. They have unintentionally allowed unauthorized access and use of their computers as a vehicle to facilitate other crimes, such as identity theft, denial of service attacks, phishing, click fraud, and the mass distribution of spam and spyware. Because of their widely distributed capabilities, botnets are a growing threat to national security, the national information infrastructure, and the economy. "The spammers spreading this virus are preying on Internet users and making their computers an unwitting part of criminal botnet activity. We urge citizens to help prevent the spread of botnets by becoming web-savvy. Following some simple computer security practices will reduce the risk that their computers will be compromised," said Special Agent Richard Kolko, Chief, FBI National Press Office. Everyone should consider the following:  Do not respond to unsolicited (spam) e-mail.  Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as officials soliciting personal information via e-mail.  Do not click on links contained within an unsolicited e-mail.  Be cautious of e-mail claiming to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders.  Validate the legitimacy of the organization by directly accessing the organization's website rather than following an alleged link to the site.  Do not provide personal or financial information to anyone who solicits information.  Last updated:  12 August 2008    Sources:   Colker, David.  "Don't Open 'FBI vs. Facebook' E-Mail, Lest You Loose the Storm Worm."   Los Angeles Times.  3 August 2008.    Durkin, Mike.  "FBI vs Facebook Email Thread Has 'Storm Worm' Virus."    FOXNews.com.  30 July 2008. During a June 6, 2010, appearance on ABC'sThis Week, Sen. John Kerry -- who is sponsoring a comprehensive energy bill -- discussed the nation's energy future against the backdrop of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.During an interview with host Jake Tapper, Kerry said, Here's what's important -- not to be throwing the blame around, but to put America on the course to true energy independence and self-reliance and to begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil. ... The United States is losing a major economic transformational moment. Until we begin to do something -- you know, since 9/11, we now actually import more oil than we did before 9/11. It's insulting to common sense.We decided to check whether Kerry was correct about whether the United States imports more oil today than it did before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.The answer is complicated, because there are at least three possible ways to measure it.The number of barrels of crude oil imported. The U.S. imported 3.32 billion barrels of crude oil in 2000 and 3.40 billion barrels in 2001. Both figures were higher than the number imported in 2009 -- 3.31 billion barrels.By this measure, Kerry is incorrect, although just slightly. Imported crude oil compared to domestic production. We wondered whether imported crude oil was still increasing as a percentage of all oil in the U.S., even as it dropped in absolute amounts. In fact, that's exactly what happened.In 2000, oil imports accounted for 61 percent of the total of imports and domestic production, and in 2001, imports accounted for 62 percent. In 2009, the percentage of imports was 63 percent -- slightly higher than it was in either of those years. The underlying cause was that domestic oil production declined between the start of the decade and the end.By this measure, Kerry is correct, though once again, the difference is modest.Imported crude oil plus imported unfinished oils. William Brown, who analyzes energy data for the federal government's Energy Information Administration, told PolitiFact that in recent years, there's been a rise in imports of unfinished oils, which are partially refined, taking the place of pure crude oil imports. So he sent us data that combined those two sets of imports.In 2000, the combination of crude oil and unfinished oils accounted for 9.54 million barrels per day, and in 2001, they accounted for 9.71 million barrels per day. In 2009, that figure was 9.86 million barrels per day.Adding in unfinished oils to the previous measure of crude oil turns an incorrect statement into a correct one.Bottom line: There are three ways to analyze the question, and with two of them, Kerry is right that imports have grown. Using the other statistic, he's wrong -- imports have declined. So we rate Kerry's statement Mostly True. In April 2015, a rumor started circulating online holding that CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin had said, "Don't hire veterans. They can't be trusted with authority":  In later versions, this rumor was presented as Baldwin's having said, "Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority":  Baldwin, however, never said this. The quote "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority" is a very loose paraphrase of a passage from her 28 April 2015 interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland about the importance of police training:  "We talk about training, we talk about having officers. I was talking to the city councilman last week who was saying, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There's a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of these young people  and I've been talking about them so much. A lot of young people  and I love our nation's veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle." Baldwin's actual comment about how some veterans might not make good police officers because "some of them are coming back from war [and] they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle" was rather far from the claim that she had stated "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority." Still, many viewers (and many who didn't even see the interview) found Baldwin's words to be offensive. Shortly after the interview aired, Baldwin issued an apology via Twitter: apology  Baldwin also clarified her comments and issued an on-air apology the following morning: apology  "I absolutely misspoke. I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I've thought tremendously about this, and to our nation's veterans  to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry." On Aug. 18, 2022, a Twitter user named @cocksources tweeted a picture that appeared to show former NBA superstar Magic Johnson giving blood. The caption in the tweet read, "Earlier today, NBA legend Magic Johnson donated some of his blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19."  tweeted Why would this be news of interest? Johnson announced his retirement from the NBA in 1991 after testing positive for HIV. announced his retirement Despite the tweet, the truth was that @cocksources publishes satire, which meant that the news wasn't real. The Twitter account's bio said that part of its mission was "spreading narratives with misinformation (satire)." bio  Five days later, Johnson addressed the satirical news, tweeting, "Im aware of the false story circling the internet, and to be clear, I have never donated blood." addressed  According to the TinEye reverse image search website, the oldest posting of the picture was in an article from 2013 on 24ur.com. The story said that the photograph had already raised eyebrows on Twitter years before and that it simply showed Johnson "undergoing a medical examination" in the 2012 documentary, "Endgame: AIDS in Black America." TinEye reverse image search website article Twitter Johnson  We previously reported on this photo back in 2015, when a different misleading rumor said it showed Johnson donating blood for leukemia and lymphoma patients. reported In sum, no, Johnson wasn't donating blood to the Red Cross to help underprivileged communities help fight COVID-19, nor did the picture show him donating blood at all. Red Cross Dvignil Prah: HIV Pozitiven Magic Johnson Daroval Kri? 24ur.com, 26 Mar. 2013, https://www.24ur.com/ekskluziv/tuja-scena/dvignil-prah-hiv-pozitiven-magic-johnson-daroval-kri.html. Nadel, John. AP Was There: Magic Announces He Has HIV, Retires from NBA. AP News, 23 Feb. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/los-angeles-lakers-nba-entertainment-sports-health-d51716031d2641c7e58957e9ef9da718. TinEye. https://tineye.com/. The congressional contest between Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton and Republican Rep. Jim Renacci is among the nations most costly and hard-fought races, and has also devolved into one of the nastiest.After Renacci placed ads accusing Sutton of voting to raise taxes on just about everyone, Sutton fired back with an ad that claims Renacci supports tax breaks for millionaires like himself and tried to avoid paying taxes on nearly $14 million that he made.We play by the rules but Renacci thinks hes above them, says a male blue collar worker shown in Suttons ad.On the same day that Sutton unveiled the ad that accuses Renacci of avoiding taxes, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a similar assertion in adifferent ad, which says: Renacci tried to skip out on paying over a million in taxes..The tax avoidance claims in Suttons new ad echo charges that were raised against Renacci in 2010, when he first ran for Congress and defeated Democratic Rep. John Boccieri. They stem from a dispute Renacci had with the Ohio Department of Taxation, which accused him and his wife, Tina, of misreporting their income in 2000 and assessed them nearly $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties.The Renaccis filed state tax returns that claimed they had a loss of $247,336 that year, but auditors determined they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.The quarrel was over Renacci's trust income from an S corporation, which wasnt taxable for several years before Ohio's tax commissioner changed the states policy. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes, and avoid double taxation on corporate income. Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, tax department and court documents say.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, even after a 2006 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S Corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.A 2007 legal brief the state of Ohio filed in Renaccis case observed that nearly all other litigants who created grantor trusts in an attempt to shelter, i.e., exclude their S corporation income from Ohio income taxation gave up their appeals, and that the Renaccis were almost alone in their persistence. Court records show the Renaccis eventually sent the state more than $1.3 million, but they continue to argue that $359,822 that they paid in penalties and interest were improper.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renacci spokesman James Slepian told the Plain Dealer in 2010.When asked about Suttons new ad,  Slepian this month called her a desperate politician who knows shes losing and has no record to run on, and said shes  engaging in the bogus, gutter politics of recycled personal attacks that have defined her sad career in Congress.Indeed, the charges against Renacci are somewhat recycled. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union placeda television adin 2010 that contained a more extreme version of the charges that Sutton is making.That ad said he cheated on his income taxes, that he hid more than $13 million and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. Renacci filed a defamation suit against the union after the ads began to air.Court recordsshow he dropped the case on Feb. 3, 2011, shortly after he took office in Congress.PolitiFact Ohio founda claim in that ad to be Mostly True because Renacci could have disclosed the trust income on his state tax return, as the state warned he should, but he didnt. He also could have paid the taxes and contested the amount, but didnt. And he didnt amend his return, despite an explicit 2002 warning from Ohios tax Department that he could face penalties for fraud and failure to pay if he didnt. But Renacci ultimately worked within the system to resolve the case, paid the full amount that was due, and was not ever charged with tax fraud.The claim in this ad is an easier call. Reams of legal documents show that Renacci battled with the state over trust income from an S corporation, trying to avoid paying taxes on the $13.7 million at issue in the case.On the Truth-O-Meter, Suttons claim rates True. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014.