'Can You Hear Me?' Scam Warning
In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements.  Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker       A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis.  "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents."   WXYZ.  26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy.  "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam."   CBS News.  26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady.  "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa."   WTSP.  26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania.  "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?"   18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau.  "Scam Tracker."   Accessed 27 January 2017.
In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Claim:  U.S. law specifies that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies in payment.  Origins:  This is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already.  I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were   "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably,  could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender).  As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong.  I can now, though. Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money ...  is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." In other words, U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but merchants do not necessarily have to accept it for all forms of business transactions. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead.  However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified.   So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused. Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all.  The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept.  If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers).  Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount. Additional information:        Designation of legal tender   (United States Code, Title 31)        What is legal tender?   (United States Treasury FAQ)   Last updated:  16 May 2011   Landers, Ann.   "Ann Landers."  29 January 1996   [syndicated column].   Viets, Elaine.  "A Penny Saved Can Be a Lot of Trouble."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  24 April 1994. The general election for one of Wisconsins U.S. Senate seats may still be months away, but Democrats have been gearing up to defeat Ron Johnson for much longer. Johnson, an Oshkosh Republican and Wisconsins senior senator, has held the seat since 2011. Earlier this year, he announced hedbreak with his initial pledge to only serve two termsand run for a third. In a news release, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin honed in on an action Johnson took at the beginning of his second term: He withheld his yes vote on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act unless the bill included a tax break for companies calledpass-throughs those that pass all their income on to the owners or investors. Companies structured this way (often small, family owned businesses) are not subject to corporate income tax. And it worked. Once that tax break was added, Johnson voted yes and the bill passed. But Wisconsin Democrats argue it wasnt those small, family-owned businesses that reaped the bulk of the benefits. Multiple independent studies found that the tax carve out Johnson spearheaded overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses, theApril 29, 2022, releasesaid. Is that correct? Lets break it down. When asked to back up the claim, Philip Shulman, Senate communications advisor for the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, sent a list of analyses of the tax law from news outlets and research organizations. Well start with anApril 2021 studyfrom Treasury economists for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study found that the top 1% of Americans by income have received nearly 60% of the tax savings created by the provision. Most of that amount went to the top 0.1%. Thats because even though there are many American small businesses that also function as pass-throughs, most pass-through profits flow to the wealthy owners of a small group of large companies, according to an Aug. 11, 2021,ProPublica analysisof the tax law. That small group of the ultrawealthy  made up of Republicans like Dick and Liz Uihlein, whose shipping supply company Uline is headquartered in Wisconsin, and Democrats like former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg  received close to $25 billion in total tax savings in 2018 as a result of the pass-through tax break benefits, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research study. The rest of the top 10% of Americans by income received a little over $12 billion in total, and everyone else in the country, about $6 billion. An April 23, 2018,congressional reportforecast the same breakdown. In 2018, the Joint Committee on Taxationestimatedthat roughly 53% of the pass-through deduction benefit, or about $21 billion, would go to a few hundred thousand Americans earning $500,000 or more a year. For comparison, the average salary for an American small business owner is about $61,000 per year,according to the salary comparison company Payscale. By 2024, just under $4 billion of the pass-through deduction benefit would go to Americans making less than $100,000 per year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation Report. More than $31 billion would go to those making over a million dollars a year. To be sure, any broad-based tax cut willmostly benefit the wealthybecause they already pay a large share of income taxes, something Johnson has acknowledged. In an April 28, 2022, interview withCBS 58-TV, Johnson said his efforts were for the many, not the few becausemost businessesfunction as pass-throughs, and that when you start talking about taxation, if you cut taxes for everybody  people who make more money get more dollars cut, but thats our tax system. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that the pass-through tax break Johnson advocated for in 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest, over small businesses. Multiple analyses show Americas millionaires and billionaires are receiving large chunks of those benefits. We rate their claim True. On 13 February 2017, the web site HeadlinenNews.comreportedthat Reginald VelJohnson (best known for his role as Carl Winslow on"Family Matters") had died of a heart attack: reported Reginald Vel Johnson, the actor best known as Family Matters Carl Winslow, has died after suffering a heart attack. He was 64. He was loved by the world and he will be missed profoundly, says Jenkins, 24. Our entire family thanks you for your thoughts and prayers. Rumors claim that Vel Johnson was flying from London to Los Angeles on Sunday, Feb. 12, when he went into cardiac arrest. According to the story, paramedics removed him from the flight and rushed him to a nearby hospital, where he was treated for a heart attack. The rumor was given traction by VelJohnson's appearance in a meme mocking the non-existent "Bowling Green Massacre": meme Bowling Green Massacre   VelJohnson personally debunked the claims on Twitter: Twitter literally trying to kill me! ??? https://t.co/OdRTRJVi7f https://t.co/OdRTRJVi7f  Reginald VelJohnson (@rveljohnson) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Even when I finally pass you can still contact me thru this clock. Photo credit: some weirdo lol pic.twitter.com/ktLhkH83VF pic.twitter.com/ktLhkH83VF  Reginald VelJohnson (@rveljohnson) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017  Although VelJohnson's Twitter account isnot verified, it was registered in 2009 and was not likely to be operating as a separate hoax. Even if it were a hoax Twitter account, however, the difficult-to-find "About" page on HeadlinenNews.com has the following disclaimer: About Headlinen News is a satire site. We use real people to make real funny stories. Chill folks, its all for fun. On April 1, 2021, a rumor circulated online that billionaire rapper Kanye West bought Spotify, a popular music streaming platform with 155 million subscribers globally. The claim appeared to have originated with an article published by Thissongissick (TSIS), an online blog dedicated to music news. Thissongissick Its official: As of today, the fashion and music mogul has just acquired the ever-popular audio streaming platform, Spotify, wrote the website. Something big like this isnt unpredictable for West, but people are curious about his intentions for buying out Spotify.  Screengrab/Thissongissick  Thissongissick The article also claimed that the billionaire rapper was going to delete all songs but his own  a claim that sparked concern among some of the platforms 345 million active monthly users. Snopes contacted TSIS and Spotify for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication. Even so, we should note that the article was published on April Fools' Day, and news of the buyout did not appear in any other reputable news publications. And a look through the Spotify news releases through April 2 did not reveal an announcement that marked the alleged buyout. April Fools' Day news releases As such, we rate this claim False. According to a statement released by Spotify on March 18, founder Daniel Ek was still the platforms CEO and had been overseeing the audio-streaming subscription service since it was launched in 2006. Spotify is headquartered and legally domiciled in Sweden, and because it is a foreign company, it is not required to disclose the same information as U.S. firms concerning share ownership, reported the financial website Investopedia on Jan. 7. The site noted that the top institutional shareholders of Spotify include Ek, as well as Sven Hans Martin Lorentzon, Baillie Gifford & Co., Morgan Stanley, Tencent Holdings Ltd., and T. Rowe Price Associates Inc. Still, no sign of West. Investopedia And though the Grammy-award-winning musician is indeed a billionaire (though not the richest Black man in American history), his personal fortune caps in around $1.8 billion. As of April 1, Spotify had a market cap valuation of over $52 billion, reported the investment company YCharts. richest Black man in American history YCharts Snopes staff also checked their own Spotify accounts, and found that the usual subscriptions, followers, and playlists were exactly as they should be. Claim:  Bill Cosby bought up the rights to The Little Rascals (or Our Gang) comedies in order to keep them off television because they depict racial stereotypes.   . Origins:  Spanky. Alfalfa. Buckwheat. Darla.  Just a few of the easily recognizable names that were a fond part of the childhoods of generations of kids: beloved characters from the 221 Our Gang comedy   shorts that Hal Roach produced between 1922 and 1944.  Roach's approach was to make films featuring kids being kids, full of fun and spontaneity, not films full of precocious children acting like adults. With the advent of television, the Our Gang shorts (shown under the name The Little Rascals became standard after-school viewing fare for generation after generation of youngsters. The depiction of black characters in these films was generally standard for its time.  Buckwheat, in particular, spoke and acted in a manner considered stereotypical of blacks, and in time the Our Gang comedies joined a long list of film works considered "racist" by some for containing such portrayals.  When CBS brought the long-running and immensely popular radio program Amos 'N' Andy to television in 1951, the series lasted only two seasons, due in part to pressure from groups (primarily the NAACP) who objected to its portrayals of blacks.  Nonetheless, old episodes of Amos 'N' Andy continued to run successfully in syndication for many years until another round of protests during the height of the civil rights movement in the 1960s finally prompted CBS to permanently withdraw it from syndication (and attempt to destroy the negatives) in 1966. Around 1989, the rumor began circulating that entertainer Bill Cosby had bought up the rights to  The Little Rascals episodes for the express purpose of keeping them off of television because of their demeaning portrayal of blacks.  This rumor has nothing to it, of course:  King World Productions has owned and licensed the rights to The Little Rascals for over thirty years.  The series has been syndicated to television many times and the video rights to some episodes were licensed to Cabin Fever Entertainment in 1997, but Bill Cosby has never owned any part of the rights to The Little Rascals.  This rumor is similar to another claim that circulated in the mid-1990s: that Ted Turner had bought up the rights to the TV show The Dukes of Hazzard to keep it off of television because of its demeaning portrayal of Southerners.  (The series is currently syndicated on TNN.)  Neither rumor seems to have been based on anything more than a story concocted to explain the long absence of a favorite series from the TV screen, and perhaps a desire to poke a little fun at the "political correctness" movement.  The connections are obvious: Bill Cosby is black, Ted Turner is from Atlanta; hence their alleged interest in protecting the reputations of the groups these programs supposedly besmirch.  In Bill Cosby's case, the connection is a little stronger: Cosby was one of prominent names who campaigned to pressure CBS into withdrawing Amos 'N' Andy from syndication back in the 1960s. Last updated:  8 August 2007    Sources:  Anderson, John.  "Little Rascals in '90s World"  Newsday.  5 August 1994  (p. B2).    Brooks, Tim and Earle Marsh.  The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows.   New York: Ballantine Books, 1999.  ISBN 0-345-42923-0  (pp. 43-44). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows   Feran, Tom.  "'Rascals' Were Beloved in Their Time."  The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  13 December 1992  (p. H9).   Parham, Betty and Gerrie Ferris.  "Q & A on the News"  The Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  18 August 1994  (p. B2).   St. Petersburg Times.  "Ask Monika."   12 March 1989  (TV; p. 45). On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions: posted When the bill finally returned I noted it it was $33.76 total. Right above where you fill in the tip and total was the tipping guide which prefigures your percentage based on your total bill. I personally am a fan of this feature as I don't like figuring percentages on and odd amount so I normally just go with what they put for 20%. So I began to write in $14.71 as it stated was 20 percent of my bill.  My wife then asked how much was the bill and I replied almost $50 with the tip. She then said that's pretty expensive for two iced teas and two apps. I looked at the bill again and saw $33.76 which was correct but then I realized that 20 percent of that should be $6.75 and not $14.71 (more than double) that was printed on my bill.   The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post. interview A spokesperson for the Cheesecake Factory told us that the discrepancy was caused by an error resulting from a staff member's mistakenly processing the Abreus' order along with someone else's, yielding a larger total that was then used as the basis for the tip suggestions presented in each check: The receipt does not accurately reflect the transaction. The suggested gratuity calculation resulted from inadvertently combining two unrelated parties checks. We deeply apologize for the mistake. It would appear that the staff member corrected the error in the itemized receipt, leaving accurate tip suggestions there, but processed the credit card payment as if it were part of the erroneous "split bill," creating the inaccurate tip suggestions there. (If the combined cost of the two bills were $73.55, for example, then $14.71 would have been an accurate suggested amount for a 20% tip.) The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks: sued The Cheesecake Factory ... [when a table] uses two or more credit or debit cards to pay for the charges, the combined bill is divided between the credit/debit cards and Defendant presents each diner/consumer with a separate sales draft for a portion of the bill (a split bill). On each of the sales drafts, Defendant includes suggested gratuity amounts to facilitate customers in calculating and leaving a gratuity for service. Defendant represents the suggested gratuity to be 15%, 18%, 20% or 22% of the check amount reflected on the sales draft, but, in reality, it calculates the suggested gratuity on the combined bill and the suggested gratuity amounts are actually 30%, 36%, 40%, or 44% of the amounts shown on the separate sales drafts. When customers use credit or debit cards to settle their dining bill, Defendant provides them with sales drafts that contain suggested gratuity amounts, and when Defendant divides the total bill between two or more credit/debit cards, the sales drafts contain suggested gratuity amounts which do not accurately represent the total of each sales draft. Plaintiff estimates that over 80% of restaurant charges are paid by credit or debit cards and that approximately 10% or more of those charges (which represents many thousands of consumers) are divided between two or more credit/debit cards and are affected by The Cheesecake Factorys wrongful suggested gratuity practices. The case has the potential to become a class action lawsuit. An initial status conference is scheduled for 18 October 2017.  KCAL-TV [Los Angeles].  "'Borderline Theft': Tipping Suggestions on Man's Cheesecake Factory Receipt Don't Add Up."
  18 September 2017. Kieler, Ashlee.  "Cheesecake Factory Customers Say They Were Duped Into Leaving Big Tips."
  Consumerist.  11 August 2017. Goldman, Marcel.  "Class Action Complaint  Marcel Goldman vs the Cheesecake Factory Incorporated."
  Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.  12 July 2017. In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook taking aim at Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has actually been used by various "funny pictures" web sites for several years. funny pictures The "two wives" claim appears to play off of reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect. reports ruling According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that helps both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process. helps The agency told us: Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and therefore multiple marriages are not recognized under Canadas immigration laws. This means that a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can only immigrate with one spouse after having dissolved other marriages to convert their polygamous marriage to a monogamous one. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the [United Nations Refugee Agency] that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. As well, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canadas immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practising polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada. United Nations Refugee Agency The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency said: program, The government does not own apartments or townhouses which are then given to resettled refugees. Immigration officials also provided examples of regional average payments for refugees and their families distributed through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which can be seen below:   The agency said: Resettlement support normally includes a one-time start-up payment to assist the refugees in establishing a household in Canada, as well as monthly income support to help them get through their first year in Canada. Monthly support is provided to cover the costs of food and incidentals, shelter and transportation. This amount varies depending on the family size and is guided by the prevailing provincial social assistance rates in the province where the refugee(s) reside. Income support for most resettled refugees is provided for their first year in Canada by the federal government, private sponsors or a mix of both. When income support ends, it is normal for some refugees in need to transition to provincial or territorial social assistance support. The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces who can help them acclimate themselves after emigrating. According to the agency: provides Among other things, these service provider organizations help newcomers to find and retain employment, including referrals to assess foreign credentials. They also offer free language assessment and training to help newcomers contribute to the economy. Support Services, including child care, transportation assistance, translation, interpretation, crisis counselling and provisions for disabilities, are offered across the Settlement program to enable access to direct settlement services. The reference to immigrants' being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government. IFHP public Immigration officials noted that as of 1 April 2016, IFHP beneficiaries are also eligible for urgent dental care (meaning "conditions involving pain, infection or trauma"), and limited vision care. As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying foods, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute, or CMWI. We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview: CMWI interview When [refugees] come here, yes, they are given help by the government, but they have to start afresh. They are given some basic furniture, but they have to buy every single thing to equip themselves in a home, from a broom to pots and pans to sheets to every single thing, so the money doesn't stretch very far. With the kids going to school and needing clothing and ... school supplies, the extra food that they can get through Winnipeg Harvest is a good help to free up some money so they can actually access other necessities, pay other bills and get other things that they need. The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech: laws Under section 318, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. The term genocide is defined to mean killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on an identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about the groups physical destruction. Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. No prosecution under this provision can be undertaken without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) defines communicating to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means. Public place is defined to include any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. Statements include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs or other visible representations. IRCC also provided the following statement: The ongoing conflict in Syria has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it the most by providing refuge to the worlds most vulnerable people and has welcomed generations of newcomers who have helped us build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. Immigration from all streams provides significant benefits to Canada and to the immigrants who have come here to build their new lives. When we come together to welcome and integrate newcomers, it strengthens our communities and contributes to our countrys successit helps build our society, culture and economy in long lasting and enduring ways. The agency also noted that  according to preliminary findings  53 percent of privately-sponsored adult refugees living outside of Quebec by 1 March 2016 had already found employment. IRCC said the employment rate for adult refugees taking part in government assistance programs outside of the same province was around 10 percent, which it attributed to "substantially lower language skills." Javed, Noor. "GTA's secret world of polygamy." The Toronto Star. 24 May 2008. CBC News. "Canada's polygamy laws upheld by B.C. Supreme Court." cbc.ca. 23 November 2011. Lee, Donna. "New food bank helps Syrian refugees as they settle in Winnipeg." CBC News. 19 September 2016. A tax on feminine hygiene products (also known as a "tampon tax")was notnew by the time social media interest in the topic appeared inMay 2016, but ascreenshot published by the page "Women's Rights News" contributed the buzz: screenshot    The image originated with a 15 January 2016 interview between YouTube personality Ingrid Nilsen and President Barack Obama. The "I don't know anyone who has a period who thinks it's a luxury" comment was made by Nilsen, not the President: interview   The topic was already steadily popular.NYMag.compublished an article on 29 April 2016thatexplored social media interest in the tampon tax: article Pads and tampons have made political headlines in every single month of this year. In January, lawmakers in California, Utah, Virginia, and Michigan introduced anti-tampon-tax bills. They were mostly sponsored by women (shout out to Delegate Mark Keam in Virginia, though!). Notably, in each of those states, except California, the mostly Democratic sponsors are vastly outnumbered in their Republican-heavy legislatures. Also in January, the tampon tax made headlines when Obama learned about it while the camera was rolling, and declared he thought the tax was unfair. Then, in February, similar bills were introduced in Illinois, Wisconsin, and New York. In March, the city of Chicago dropped its tampon tax, and a class-action lawsuit brought by women in Ohio and New York state added pressure to stop taxing periods. In April, the New York Senate unanimously passed the tampon tax bill. This is an astounding amount of national legislative momentum for an issue that was long considered to be womens private, shameful burden. Its no coincidence that efforts to end the tampon tax have cropped up alongside viral art projects, new businesses, and digital campaigns to destigmatize menstruation. The tampon tax is the perfect of-the-moment issue for lawmakers who want to signal their support for women  and take a stance on inequality. Ending the tax, which promises practical benefits for low-income women, is low-hanging fruit for legislators in liberal states. A widely circulated June 2015 map created byFusion illustrated the tampon tax with color coding. Most statestaxed feminine hygiene products, excepta few that had either specific exemptions orno sales tax at all: map   Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland specifically did not tax[PDF] feminine hygiene products. Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, and Delaware do not have sales tax on any items (including tampons). The rest ofthe states maintained atax on such products.One outlier was the state of New York, which moved in April 2016 to abolish the tax: tax moved The Republican-led Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill exempting feminine hygiene products from sales tax, two months after the debate over the so-called tampon tax reached Albany. The bill, sponsored by freshman Sen. Sue Serino, a Republican from Hyde Park, passed with 58 votes. The vote on the Senate floor took about one minute, just enough time for at least one period joke. It is a way of providing some tax relief to women everywhere, young girls in particular, Sen. Diane Savino said, thanking the bill sponsor. But on behalf of women of a certain age everywhere, I would love to offer a friendly amendment and ask for a rebate program, Senator Serino. But I know it would probably bankrupt the state.   Lawmakers in Michigan expressed interest in advancing a similar initiative, and the city of Chicago (but not the state of Illinois) axed the tax. On 12 April 2016, MarketWatch reported somemomentum both in and outside the U.S. to end the additional charges: Michigan Chicago reported The issue has made it onto the agenda in about 10 states, seven of which introduced the legislation, including New York (though Utahs never made it out of committee) and three, South Carolina, Tennessee and Illinois, that recently debated it. It has also gone international, with France cutting the sales tax in late 2015 and the European Union taking a stance on the issue this year. In May 2016, the majority of the 40 states with a tampon tax retained it (although New York was on its way to tax-free status for feminine hygiene products). By and large, social media tampon tax claims were accurate. To be clear, tampons weren't taxed at a special or higher rate than other taxable items  they simply were subject to sales tax in general.  Coughlin, Sarah.  "Chicago Removes Its Tampon Tax & The State Of New York Is On Its Way To Doing The Same."
Refinery29.  13 April 2016. Court, Emma.  "New York Is The Latest State To Scrap Tampon Tax."
MarketWatch.  12 April 2016. Friedman, Ann.  "How Ending The Tampon Tax Became Viral Legislation."
NYMag The Cut.  29 April 2016. Hillin, Taryn.  "These Are The U.S. States That Tax Women For Having Periods."
Fusion.  3 June 2015. Larimer, Sarah.  "The 'Tampon tax,' Explained."
Washington Post.  8 January 2016. Miller, Faith.  "Why Two Senators Want To Get Rid Of Michigan's 'Tampon Tax.'"
WILX.  14 April 2016. Velasquez, Josefa.  "Senate Unanimously Passes Bill Eliminating 'Tampon Tax.'"
Politico New York.  11 April 2016. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012