Home / Be The Change / Flex Your rights / Snopes, the Supposed Arbiter of ‘Fake News’ — Accused of ‘Defrauding Own Site to Pay for Prostitutes’

Snopes, the Supposed Arbiter of ‘Fake News’ — Accused of ‘Defrauding Own Site to Pay for Prostitutes’

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 — a site which, incidentally, is part of Facebook’s new panel to combat “fake news.”

Facebook’s choice to hire Snopes to arbitrate which news items will be allowed to stand and which should receive the Scarlet-Letter label ‘disputed’ already brought outrage — the site is notoriously left-leaning — but an exclusive report from the Daily Mail on alleged shady dealings should turn Mark Zuckerberg’s cheeks a deep shade of red.

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 — and many of the claims don’t exactly give the company an air of professionalism.

Last month, David remarried — his new wife is a former porn actress and escort — and is now one of the site’s fact-checkers. As for the accusations, reports the Daily Mail,

“They are accusing each other of financial impropriety, with Barbara claiming her ex-husband is guilty of ‘embezzlement’ and suggesting he is attempting a ‘boondoggle’ to change tax arrangements, while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.”

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 — “The San Fernando Valley Folklore Society” — which, according to a Webby Awards profile, is “an entity dreamed up to help make the inquiries seem more legit.”

David, now CEO of Snopes — which the former couple created after marrying in 1995 — told the Los Angeles Times in 1997, as cited by the Daily Mail, When I sent letters out to companies, I found I got a much better response with an official-looking organization’s stationery.”

Although they divorced in 2015, the pair remains embroiled in a caustic legal battle — mostly about money — and particularly concerning each other’s use of Snopes’ funds. Legal documents viewed by the Daily Mail — some of which are verifiable, as presented by the outlet, some not — evince a drawn out personal and corporate quarrel, which a lawyer, unidentified by the outlet, described as “contentious.”

3b90629e00000578-4042194-image-a-26_1482343563900 3b90652400000578-4042194-image-a-27_1482345222180

Barbara, in court filings, accuses David of “raiding” Snopes’ bank account “for his personal use and attorney fees” and embezzling “$98,000 from our company over the course of four years, which were monies he expended upon himself and the prostitutes he hired …”

READ MORE:  Time to Wake Up: Princeton Historian Warns World War III is Now a 'Serious Threat'


In a court document from June, she contended, “He’s been depleting the corporate account by spending monies from it on his personal expenses,” such as purchasing his ‘girlfriend’s’ ticket to Buenos Aires and $10,000 for a “personal vacation” to India.

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.

Barbara apparently worried her ex-husband would drain Snopes’ entire account and said he must be prohibited from using the company’s debit card and checks “right away.”

Another acrid disagreement concerned David’s salary, which Barbara was obligated to approve. As the Daily Mail explains, “David wanted his salary raised from $240,000 to $360,000 – arguing that this would still put him below the ‘industry standards’ and that he should be paid up to $720,000 a year.”


In an April email to his ex-spouse, David wrote, “As I said, based on industry standards and our revenues, my salary should be about 2x to 3x what it is now. I’ll settle for $360K with the understanding that it’s to be retroactive to the start of the year.”

She balked, however, describing that request as “not even in the galaxy of reasonable.”

But the greed-tinged financial battle so divided the former ‘fact-checking’ 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.

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.

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.

Each took half of Snopes’ checking account at the end of 2015, with a balance of $240,000, and as the Daily Mail reports, “both 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.” Monthly payments were later increased to $30,000 for both David and Barbara.

But their monetary avarice still didn’t cease, as “court documents show that a decision on David’s 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.”

Since the acrimonious divorce, David hired Elyssa Young — better known as Erin O’Bryn, a longtime escort and porn star, and now his wife — as administrative assistant at Snopes. According to the Daily Mail, Young’s escort profiles on professional sites and social media are still active, though it’s unclear whether she still works in that field.

Staff member: Elyssa Young is also known as Erin O’Bryn and maintains a website adveritising her services as an escort with photographs of her over the years

However, of particular concern about Young — given Snopes will soon wield the almighty censorship hammer for Facebook — 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’s name — on her official campaign website.

READ MORE:  When Cop-Blockers Don’t Understand the Law

Young isn’t the only eyebrow-raising Snopes employee — Kim LaCapria, the company’s lead ‘fact-checker,’ boasts openly of being a dominatrix known as “Vice Vixen,” and wrote on her personal blog she “played scrabble [sic], smoked pot, and posted to Snopes. That’s what I did on my day ‘on’ too.”

David, who is legally prohibited from discussing anything concerning the dispute with Barbara, told the Daily Mail there is no “standardized procedure” in place for Snopes fact-checking “since the nature of this material can vary widely,” but the process “involves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s discretion.”

Rather alarmingly under the circumstances, he added there are no ‘set requirements’ for Snopes fact-checkers given the broadness of the job “would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.

“Accordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don’t.”

Anyone with even a cursory concern about freedom of speech and of the press is likely already distressed that Facebook’s self-appointed mission to slay ‘fake news’ includes only left-leaning organizations like ABC News, Politifact, FactCheck.org, and, of course, Snopes.

But that distress could turn to sheer horror knowing one of these supposed ‘fact-checkers’ can’t agree on a single point, once made up a fake organization just to appear professional — and is ensnared in a war over seemingly every penny.

Snopes will profit from its arrangement with Facebook — but how those profits will be spent appears entirely up in the air — and for the courts to decide.

However, one point incontestably underpinning the personal battle behind the scene at the company demands an urgent question — with money as the seemingly only motivator, can the public ever be assured Snopes’ checked facts are accurate at all?

Perhaps Snopes has finally been Snoped.

  • john smith

    because a couple of people who made a webpage should arbitrate the internet

  • edlorens

    Maybe along the policing Facebook, Snopes should be also put as a head of the Ethics and Morality Committee guiding our youth -I never imagined so much revealing information.

  • doucyet

    I have always believed that Snopes was a joke. The “fact check” site is nothing more than another opinion site driving by personal views and political pressure .

    • George Reichel

      Agreed.Disinfo site.

    • apathic

      I know! Wait – except for their source information annotation. Oh wait, that doesn’t fit in with what you want the ‘facts’ to say, so they must be false too!

      • doucyet

        The “source” generally comes from three cubes down. Have you read some of the sources they use? MSM does not qualify.

        • Apathic

          I’m not sure what you mean by ‘MSM does not qualify.’ Which article and source do you not agree is functionally true?

          • doucyet

            David Mikkelson told the Dailymail.com that Snopes does not have a “standardized procedure” for fact-checking “since the nature of this material can vary widely” and that the process “involves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s discretion.” He also said the company has no set requirements for fact-checkers because the variety of the work “would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards. Accordingly, our editorial staff is drawn from diverse backgrounds; some of them have degrees and/or professional experience in journalism, and some of them don’t.”

            You do know who David Mikkelson is right?

          • Apathic

            Yes, I am aware of who he is. Doesn’t mean anything – even the found of the Weather Channel thinks Climate Change is fiction. But again, please post a link or point me to an example of what you claim is incorrect info as pushed by Snopes. You are making a generalized comment and I’m asking for concrete evidence to support it.

            I certainly do not disagree with your quote, different issues will require different avenues of investigation. That really should be self evident.

            As for backgrounds – so what? My background was English Literature and I now hold a Bachelor’s in Information Technology. There’s certainly nothing wrong with diversity – with the exception of the uneducated, who somehow seem to think they know more than experts, and fall for crap like vaccines causing autism.

          • doucyet

            I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and forth with you about an organization that is as unscrupulous as Snopes. I posted my opinion based on my experience with Snopes, yours is obviously a different opinion.


          • Apathic

            Yeah it isn’t Snopes that needs to better vet their sources. That site has an article implying Michelle Obama is a …………transvestite.

          • doucyet

            If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
            I did not have sex with that woman.
            Iraq has WMDs.

            We all need to do a little better vetting of the “information” handed us.

          • Apathic

            “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” – This was absolutely true, unless the Dr dropped the patient, as is their right to do. The ACA governs what Insurance companies can and can’t do. Doesn’t mean I can’t keep seeing my own Dr with my own money if my insurance company changes. The amount of misinformation as to what the ACA is and isn’t is just mindboggling.

            “I did not have sex with that woman.” – Wasn’t anyone’s business, but Clinton should not have lied about it. Now we are much worse off with someone that, “takes a tic-tac and grabs ’em by the pussy.”

            “Iraq has WMDs.” They sure did, and they were illegal. Oh wait, that was our armed forces, using illegal depleted uranium shells 🙂 I was in the minority, and am proud of it – for being against the Iraq war from day zero.

          • doucyet

            Ludicrous on the first two accounts. I’m glad common sense played a role with you in the third.

          • ArtfulEric

            More to the point you made, all three examples are quotes from public figures, and reported verbatim. The media is not responsible for what people say, otherwise we wouldn’t be looking at President Trump. You “vet” a President’s statements by ensuring he was quoted correctly; analysis comes later. And Snopes professional output isn’t related to the peccadilloes of its founders. They do overwhelmingly provide credible independent sources, the cornerstone of ethical reporting.

          • MarkPitrone

            But, Mike is a larger and more manly man than Barry.

          • johngwilk

            I’m beginning to think your “experience” with Snopes is as shallow as this headline: “Snopes.com is run by an embezzler, a hooker & a dominatrix”.

          • doucyet

            Probably not true. Check it at Snopes!

          • doucyet

            So the headline is incorrect?

          • MarkPitrone

            Brother to the pro golfer?

    • OsamaBinLimbaugh

      Can you identify an article in Snope.com that’s is untrue? Or is it just a matter of sour grapes?

      • doucyet

        Read my prior replies, you’ll find I have answered your question.

  • Money corrupts people no matter what “side” they are on.

    Owned & Operated

  • Snopes is for dopes! They like to debunk a story the day it breaks when relevant facts aren’t known to anyone yet.

  • Michael J. Motta

    ABC News is “left-leaning”? You mean that huge capitalist bonanza behemoth that’s in with Disney? Ha! By “left-leaning” you must mean capitalism plus abortion or something . . .

    • me623

      Have you not heard of the globalist’s agenda, which is supported by the left/Soros?
      THat;s what all of mainstream , including abc, cbs, nbc, are on board with. corporate in collusion with globalists – open borders, free migration of anyone and everyone, anti-Americanism, anti-white/Christian/pro-muslim/islam, etc., – which is why they so oppose President Trump’s pro-America anti-islamic infiltration presidency.

      • Michael J. Motta

        I’ve got news for you — Soros isn’t left. Neoliberal globalization is not a leftist philosophy — rather, it’s a capitalist dream.

  • Quantum Paradox

    I’m going to snub snopes!

  • Jimmy Yost

    I’ve known about Snopes for years. They are part of Israel’s ministry of propaganda. It’s encouraging for me to see that people are starting to figure them out. Thinking about Snopes reminds me of this quote by Cicero:
    “True glory takes root, and even spreads; all false pretenses, like flowers, fall to the ground; nor can any counterfeit last long.”

  • *swissssshhhhhhh* That’s the sound of credibility going down the toilet.

  • Love that you covered it. When I first did- no one believed me! lol. (They had to check Snopes) Thanks TFTP. You’re like a big sister to me XO

  • shots

    seems like the person writing the article is a bit bias

    • me623

      Their bias is to show how biased a “fact-checking” site is towards the left. My own experience with SNOOPS has proven they’re a highly opinionated, leftist leaning sham. And ive several times offered them extensive, documented, verifiable proof of their generalized opinionated “myth-busting” lies they wanted the public to believe were fact-based about obama’s deep connection to muslim brotherhood/CAIR terrorist organizations in America, and it was ignored.

  • Not that Daily Mail shit again … `First, let’s make an assumption that might or might not be correct, let’s assume that each and every word within both the Daily Mail story and also the Forbes story is wholly and completely 100% factual. What then does that tell us about the credibility of the fact-checking on snopes . com? The answer is simple – absolutely nothing at all. It is all an ad hominem` http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/attack-fact-checking-site-snopes-valid/