![](\"http:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-yUd2Zqc6Hbg\/WFxq_DewfpI\/AAAAAAAAc_8\/rd4NMGPBy2Yp_THraieSUDPZ6iLzXe-sQCLcB\/s1600\/snopes.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n(Claire Bernish<\/a><\/b>) Fraud, embezzlement, and using company funds to pay for prostitution are just a sampling of the accusations against the CEO of fact-checking website, Snopes \u2014 a site which, incidentally, is part of Facebook\u2019s new panel to combat \u201cfake news.\u201d<\/p>\n Facebook\u2019s choice to hire Snopes to arbitrate which news items will be allowed to stand and which should receive the Scarlet-Letter label \u2018disputed\u2019 already brought outrage \u2014 the site is notoriously left-leaning \u2014 but an exclusive report from the Daily Mail on alleged shady dealings should turn Mark Zuckerberg\u2019s cheeks a deep shade of red.<\/p>\n Source<\/a> – The Free Thought Project<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n by Claire Bernish<\/a>, December 22nd, 2016<\/b><\/p>\n David and Barbara Mikkelson, ex-spouses and founders of Snopes, have been hurling accusations allegations at one another in an ongoing bitter legal dispute following their divorce \u2014 and many of the claims don\u2019t exactly give the company an air of professionalism.<\/p>\n Last month, David remarried \u2014 his new wife is a former porn actress and escort \u2014 and is now one of the site\u2019s fact-checkers. As for the accusations, reports<\/a> the Daily Mail,<\/p>\n \u201cThey are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of \u2018embezzlement\u2019 and suggesting he is attempting a \u2018boondoggle\u2019 to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.\u201d<\/p>\n As the Daily Mail notes, the couple met on an online message board with a folklore theme in the early 1990s, and created a fake organization \u2014 \u201cThe San Fernando Valley Folklore Society\u201d \u2014 which, according to a Webby Awards profile, is \u201can entity dreamed up to help make the inquiries seem more legit.\u201d<\/p>\n David, now CEO of Snopes \u2014 which the former couple created after marrying in 1995 \u2014 told the Los Angeles Times in 1997, as cited by the Daily Mail, \u201cWhen I sent letters out to companies, I found I got a much better response with an official-looking organization\u2019s stationery.\u201d<\/p>\n Although they divorced in 2015, the pair remains embroiled in a caustic legal battle \u2014 mostly about money \u2014 and particularly concerning each other\u2019s use of Snopes\u2019 funds. Legal documents viewed by the Daily Mail \u2014 some of which are verifiable, as presented by the outlet, some not \u2014 evince a drawn out personal and corporate quarrel, which a lawyer, unidentified by the outlet, described as \u201ccontentious.\u201d<\/p>\n In a court document from June, she contended, \u201cHe\u2019s been depleting the corporate account by spending monies from it on his personal expenses,\u201d such as purchasing his \u2018girlfriend\u2019s\u2019 ticket to Buenos Aires and $10,000 for a \u201cpersonal vacation\u201d to India.<\/p>\n David later claimed India to be a business prospecting trip to familiarize himself with the country in order to set up a fact-checking site there, and that the $10,000 only financed 22.5 percent of the total cost of the excursion.<\/p>\n Barbara apparently worried her ex-husband would drain Snopes\u2019 entire account and said he must be prohibited from using the company\u2019s debit card and checks \u201cright away.\u201d<\/p>\n Another acrid disagreement concerned David\u2019s salary, which Barbara was obligated to approve. As the Daily Mail explains, \u201cDavid wanted his salary raised from $240,000 to $360,000 \u2013 arguing that this would still put him below the \u2018industry standards\u2019 and that he should be paid up to $720,000 a year.\u201d<\/p>\n In an April email to his ex-spouse, David wrote, \u201cAs I said, based on industry standards and our revenues, my salary should be about 2x to 3x what it is now. I\u2019ll settle for $360K with the understanding that it\u2019s to be retroactive to the start of the year.\u201d<\/p>\n She balked, however, describing that request as \u201cnot even in the galaxy of reasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n But the greed-tinged financial battle so divided the former \u2018fact-checking\u2019 couple, they even fought over the person assigned to settle disputes as the legal war raged. In fact, court filings show one arbiter subtly suggesting an arbiter step in to arbitrate yet another sub-battle in the ongoing war over money.<\/p>\n In the original settlement, Barbara received $1.5 million in stocks, savings, and other investments, as well as $660,000 upon agreement to give up her claim to their home in Calabasas, California.<\/p>\n David, on the other hand, kept their joint baseball card collection of undisclosed value and two savings accounts with a combined balance of $1.89 million.<\/p>\n Each took half of Snopes\u2019 checking account at the end of 2015, with a balance of $240,000, and as the Daily Mail reports, \u201cboth of the former couple were due to receive $20,000 a month as a draw against profits, as well as a share of any net profit the company made after those payments.\u201d Monthly payments were later increased to $30,000 for both David and Barbara.<\/p>\n But their monetary avarice still didn\u2019t cease, as \u201ccourt documents show that a decision on David\u2019s salary for 2016 became bogged down in legal argument when Barbara referred it to an arbiter, and the appointment of the arbiter became itself a matter of dispute.\u201d<\/p>\n Since the acrimonious divorce, David hired Elyssa Young \u2014 better known as Erin O\u2019Bryn, a longtime escort and porn star, and now his wife \u2014 as administrative assistant at Snopes. According to the Daily Mail, Young\u2019s escort profiles on professional sites and social media are still active, though it\u2019s unclear whether she still works in that field.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Staff member: Elyssa Young is also known as Erin O\u2019Bryn and maintains a website adveritising her services as an escort with photographs of her over the years. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with anybody working in this field, and nothing wrong with anybody looking for escorts here<\/a>, but it must be noted that there is more to Ms. Young than meets the eye.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n However, of particular concern about Young \u2014 given Snopes will soon wield the almighty censorship hammer for Facebook \u2014 is her deeply political past. The maybe-former escort ran an unsuccessful bid on the Libertarian ticket for U.S. Congress in Hawai`i in 2004, and became the subject of legitimate controversy for a snafu in which she misspelled her Republican competitor\u2019s name \u2014 on her official campaign website.<\/p>\n Young isn\u2019t the only eyebrow-raising Snopes employee \u2014 Kim LaCapria, the company\u2019s lead \u2018fact-checker,\u2019 boasts openly of being a dominatrix known as \u201cVice Vixen,\u201d and wrote on her personal blog she \u201cplayed scrabble [sic], smoked pot, and posted to Snopes. That\u2019s what I did on my day \u2018on\u2019 too.\u201d<\/p>\n David, who is legally prohibited from discussing anything concerning the dispute with Barbara, told the Daily Mail there is no \u201cstandardized procedure\u201d in place for Snopes fact-checking \u201csince the nature of this material can vary widely,\u201d but the process \u201cinvolves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person\u2019s discretion.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Rather alarmingly under the circumstances, he added there are no \u2018set requirements\u2019 for Snopes fact-checkers given the broadness of the job \u201cwould be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.<\/p>\n \u201cAccordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and\/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n Anyone with even a cursory concern about freedom of speech and of the press is likely already distressed that Facebook\u2019s self-appointed mission to slay \u2018fake news\u2019 includes<\/a> only left-leaning organizations like ABC News, Politifact, FactCheck.org, and, of course, Snopes.<\/p>\n But that distress could turn to sheer horror knowing one of these supposed \u2018fact-checkers\u2019 can\u2019t agree on a single point, once made up a fake organization just to appear professional \u2014 and is ensnared in a war over seemingly every penny.<\/p>\n Snopes will profit from its arrangement with Facebook \u2014 but how those profits will be spent appears entirely up in the air \u2014 and for the courts to decide.<\/p>\n However, one point incontestably underpinning the personal battle behind the scene at the company demands an urgent question \u2014 with money as the seemingly only motivator, can the public ever be assured Snopes\u2019 checked facts are accurate at all?<\/p>\n Perhaps Snopes has finally been Snoped.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n