Snopes in Danger of Shutting Down–Begs for $$$

Fact checking website is one of the most popular sites on the Internet. Recently, it’s become embroiled in scandal relating to sex and the misuse of funds, are reported on saboteur365 last December 22.

There are legal claims that were asserted this year that there’s more scamming going on in relation to Snopes. The response by Snopes has been to start a fund raising campaign. The Gofundme appeal has already raised $281,000 toward a half million dollar goal.

First, the Snopes fund raising appeal, then the story about the lawsuit relating to ownership and control of Snopes and misuse of funds by the Jewish owner.

Go Fund Me


Dear Readers,, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet’s oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. So, for the first time in our history, we are turning to you, our readership, for help.

Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we’ve had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income.

We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site’s hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or — most crucially — place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us.

Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.

As misinformation has increasingly threatened democracies around the world (including our own), has stood in the forefront of fighting for truth and dispelling misinformation online. It is vital that these efforts continue, so we are asking the community to donate what they can. (Our suggested donation is $10, but if you can give more please consider doing so — every little bit helps.)

We need our community now more than ever, as it is only through your support that can remain the community and resource we all know and love.

Sincerely yours,

Team Snopes.

Excerpt from Courthouse News

A lawsuit filed in California last week claims the fact-check news site has been caught up in its own concealment scheme, in an ownership spat that has left the site’s personnel matters in limbo.

Internet media management company Proper Media sued Bardav Inc. and its owner David Mikkelson over the “unlawful jockeying for ownership and control of the fact-checking website,” which gained a national profile during the presidential election last year and “recently entered into a high-profile agreement with Facebook to integrate fact-checking services into its social media platform,” according to the 16-page lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court on May 4.

Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara founded Bardav – which owns the Snopes website – in 2003, and each owned a 50 percent shared in the company. When the two divorced, Barbara Mikkelson sold her share to Proper Media last July.

While Proper Media was already managing a significant amount of the operation of Snopes including all content and advertising accounts prior to acquiring shares in the company, the company says in its complaint that when its individual shareholders, including Vincent Green, gained a stake in Snopes a scam was launched to take over the website – one of the 1,000 most popular in the United States.

But Proper Media says in its complaint that Mikkelson “was unhappy that Barbara maintained ownership of half of what he always considered to be his company after the divorce.”

Thus, Proper Media says, Green and Mikkelson conspired to gain majority control of Bardav and Mikkelson and Green blocked its access to “personnel, accounts, tools and data necessary to manage Snopes,” according to the lawsuit.

“Mikkelson, in conjunction with Green, intentionally did block Proper Media’s access to personnel, accounts, tools and data to take over Snopes and to prevent Proper Media from performing under the general services agreement,” Proper Media says in its lawsuit.

The company also accuses Mikkelson of misusing Bardav funds and says he was improperly reimbursed for legal fees related to his divorce and travel expenses from when he went on a honeymoon to Asia late last year with his new bride – Snopes employee Elyssa Young.


Meanwhile, Green removed $10,000 worth of computer equipment used by three Proper Media employees before sending his resignation to Proper Media from a Snopes email account, according to Proper Media’s lawsuit. The company also accuses him of blocking its founders – plaintiffs Christopher Richmond and Drew Schoentrup – from accessing Snopes’ content-management system.

Additionally, Proper Media says Green removed Snopes-related data from its online communication tools including Slack and Asana. The company says Green admitted he did not complete work for Proper Media from the start of the alleged conspiracy in January up until his resignation April 3, even though the company paid him and contributed to his health insurance premiums, according to the lawsuit.

Proper Media is still responsible for operating the content-management system for Snopes, though access to the system remains blocked for Proper Media employees, the lawsuit says.

Shut it down. It’s fake news.

12 thoughts on “Snopes in Danger of Shutting Down–Begs for $$$

  1. “Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara founded Bardav – which owns the Snopes website – in 2003, and each owned a 50 percent shared in the company. When the two divorced, Barbara Mikkelson sold her share to Proper Media last July.”

    The joy of divorce. This guy was a chump to split the ownership 50/50. He should have given his wife less than 50% when setting up the company and retained control. Even 51/49 would have worked. Why not keep 100% and pay her a salary, unless she equally was the brains of the company? We can be sure he will not split what he has left 50/50 in his name and his new wifes name.

    I knew a wiser man years ago who owned his company and paid himself about $300,000 per year. His wife also worked there. He paid her $38,000 per year.

    • Laws vary by state, but “community property” is an accepted legal concept in many states, including where I’m at. If a man has a house and bank account and those go up in value after he’s married, at the time of divorce, the increase in value is split 50-50.

      Legally, Mikkelson’s wife was entitled to half the company, even if she did no direct work on building it. As far as I know, there’s no way around “community property” laws, not even with a pre-nup.

      Laws do vary by state. There is no alimony law in Texas. However, ex-husbands are hit hard for child support when there’s a kid involved.

      • In states with no-fault, this wife would get 50% of the business, but he thought he was given more.

        I know of someone who walked out on his wife of 16 years, took much of the furniture, other things, and one dog, without her knowing. He sneaked home during the day while she was at work, took what he wanted, then left. One hour after she arrived home, a delivery boy handed her an envelope…divorce papers!

        He was legally responsible for paying half of the property and school taxes, mortgage, furniture, and car payments for which he also signed the loans. Instead he went into hiding so his wife couldn’t find him. Told all his friends and relatives not to talk to her if she called. His wife made all the payments…that is until the lawyers got hold of him. Since his wife made the payments for about a year, they ordered him to take them over for a year or until the divorce was settled. If the divorce was settled before the year was up, he’d have to repay her for what she paid, so that it amounted to both paying half.

        Since he took things that belonged to her as well, the lawyers told him he could be charged with stealing, but she said he could have what he had taken except the dog. She got the dog back.

        BTW, this guy was such a coward and good actor, the wife said she didn’t know there was a problem because he never complained or said anything she was doing bothered him. His behavior never changed. I knew him and he was like that.

        Later, she learned he had walked out of a 2 year relationship with a girlfriend before he met his wife. She was perplexed because he stopped calling her, hung up when she called, didn’t answer the door when she went to the house. She had no idea what was going on, except he wasn’t man enough to tell her to her face he wanted to break up and call the marriage off they were planning.

        By the way, the wife’s family loved this guy until he did this. Never suspected there was a problem. She said she never suspected a problem. Always polite, made very good money and appeared happy with his job and domestic affairs, but noticed he didn’t talk much, keeping everything to himself.

        I know quite a few divorce stories equally as awful as this.

      • Women seem to have all the stories about dirty dealing husbands. Men, on the other hand, share stories about dirty dealing wives. We’ll have to let the National Enquirer settle which sex plays the divorce game the dirtiest. LOL.

        Did you follow the Alex Jones trial where he and the ex-wife were fighting over child custody? I had a post or two on it.

  2. Project Veritas is facing an expensive lawsuit by the Clintonista operators that they exposed during the 2016 campaign. Donating to Project Veritas would be a much better thing to do.

  3. Nice catch Saboteur! I came across this sham of a site while I researched for an article on Islamination of the west. It was clear to see on the first view of the site that it was surely a liberal dis-info site for the un-knowing public so that they could ridicule truth and put their own spin on it. ‘Snopes’ is dedicated to disarming truth! I absolutely agree, SHUT IT DOWN! Love and Respect, O.T.P x

  4. Paladin,

    “Women seem to have all the stories about dirty dealing husbands.”

    I did follow Alex Jones.

    The only reason I shared the divorce incident was because it was because you and/or someone mentioned no-fault divorce. In the example I used it happened to be the husband. It could have been the wife just as easily.

    In the Snopes divorce, lawyers gave her 50%, but her husband thought he was given more. In my example, he took more than half of his share of possessions taking what he wanted without asking her. She owned half of everything. She was a professional making very good money. She couldn’t have children and worked all 16 years of their marriage, contributed equally, so there can’t be snide remarks as to he was ‘giving’ her everything or she was taking everything.

    We could just as easily reverse the genders. A wife doing this to her husband. I hate seeing men or women doing this ratty stuff to their spouses and I don’t think, “that’s a man for you”, or “that’s a woman for you” like I hear on the internet.

    I don’t care if they are male or female. I never looked at it the way commenters do here, picking sides such as men are always worse than women and vice-versa and I don’t want to start doing that. Why must we always address them as genders rather than human beings? I’m not thinking of transgenders, asexual beings…needed to clarify that.

    There, I got that off my chest! Lol! I’m going to go give my dog a hug.

    • Common sense. I don’t like this all men are this way or all women are this way stuff. I don’t even like the “all Jews are ______________” type of belief. There are central tendencies for the races and sexes that should be acknowledged, but then within the framework of central tendencies we have to acknowledge that there is a distribution of differences.

      Two of the women I know through the local dog scene are divorced. One is bitter and brags “I took everything he had.” The other says she just wanted her fair share, but she didn’t get it because he was powerfully connected in the community.

      There’s so much injustice and bad behavior in the world. It’s always struck me that intimate partners should act civilized when going their separate ways.

      Who gets the dog should be determined by the dog!!!

      • Lol! Yes, the dog should. That’s something I didn’t mention since I was getting too wordy. A few years into the marriage, she wanted a dog. He was noncommittal. So she bought one. The dog favored her probably because she took care of her every need, trained and loved her. Her husband got along with it, but never fed or played with her.

        There was another dog she bought about 5 years later or so. Both dogs were pals. The dog her husband took was old at that time. To take her away from her home and her pal was cruel in my opinion. Since both worked, neither dog was alone. Her husband traveled every month leaving this old dog with strangers.

        An unfamiliar vet called the wife to tell her the dog her husband took was dying of kidney failure. Not surprising since the poor thing probably gave up devastated she was taken from the wife, her pal, and familiar surroundings. She went to the vet to get the dog. When the dog saw her, she whimpered as best she could, so glad to see her owner again. She died that night.

        I guess I became emotionally involved with the dogs since this couple was a neighbor living directly across the street.

        So sad, couples use their dogs against the other. I’ve seen too much of it coming from both sides.

  5. Women initiate most divorces and women get the big bucks which the men have earned. The woman gets child support from the Govt and from the ex husband as well. The story about one bad man does not change the truth that women do very well out of divorce in the West, and in general men do very badly.

    Women are not equal to men in the eyes of the law – they are more than equal. They get equal pay and then must be compensated because they are “victims” of marriage. No wonder the birth rates of whites is collapsing – for ever, with these one sided divorce laws. To “protect children’ which means less white children are going to be born. To be replaced by blacks, browns, yellows and muds.

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s