"If you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill!"

That year you were mine completely,
You gave your votes so sweetly,
That year the light of love was at the polls,
But will you vote for me next year?

Was this a lasting alliance,
Or just a short dalliance,
Can I believe you'll vote no matter what,
Will you still vote for me next year?

I've got a bill important,
That looks for jobs by spending lots of cash,
But will my heart be broken,
When Congress laughs (when Congress laughs) and Congress kicks (and Congress kicks) my ass?

I'd like to know that your love,
Means a vote I can be sure of,
So tell me now and I won't ask again,
Will you vote for me next year?

Alyssa Rosenberg writes for Think Progress and The Atlantic. Today she was mad. Why? Because Brooke Shields is going to be in a movie about a famous abuse of eminent domain.

That abuse was at the heart of the case Kelo v. New London, in which SCOTUS famously and disgustingly ruled that the state can take your property and give it to another private party if it can come up with some theory about how that transfer will benefit the public. In New London, the issue is whether the city could force homeowners to sell their homes and turn land over to private developers in order to remove "blight" and promote "development." That concept made SCOTUS positively giddy:

Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the City is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

Well, back in 2009 I wrote about how that turned out by quoting a WSJ story:

Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo’s land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.’s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.

The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other “desirable” elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.

But in all fairness, I have to point out that there has been an important update since 2009, when I suggested that the city and the state had wasted $78 million and forced citizens out of their homes to facilitate a phantom development and had not produced any jobs or anything of value. The condemned land has recently started providing value and jobs. I apologize for suggesting that it never would. Specifically, the condemned land is producing jobs and value in the Post-Hurricaine-Vegetation-And-Debris-Disposal-Industry.

Now, we learn from the local newspaper, The Day, that following the hurricane Irene, the city has designated the Fort Trumbull redevelopment site as a place to dump vegetation debris. For a video of locals dumping that stuff on the site, click here.

Anyway, that's the subject of Brooke Shields' new movie, apparently. The prospect of such a movie on the Lifetime Channel irritated Alyssa Rosenberg, who said the movie would be "anti-eminent-domain" and described it thusly:

I’d had the vague sense that Brooke Shields’ career wasn’t in the best place (as Entourage tells me, if she’s involved in a project with Johnny Drama, that’s not a good sign), but I’m sort of depressed, both because of what it means for her talent and what it means for her politics, that she’s starring in an anti-eminent domain movie on Lifetime about the Kelo case. Speaking out about postpartum depression and the idea that seeking treatment for it isn’t shameful is really useful and important. Sparking fears that the government’s going to take your property is a lot less useful.

Challenged on this, she tried to clarify that sure, there are occasional abuses, but that's only because corporations SUCK:

Apparently, this post has given people the impression that I think the Kelo ruling was good. I don’t think it’s good that corporations can manipulate eminent domain for their own benefit. But I don’t think a Lifetime movie is going to differentiate between Kelo and eminent domain as it ought to function. Instead, I think it is likely to take a conservative, totally anti-eminent domain tack that will not further the conversation. I should have made the connection between those two points stronger.

Hence, Alysse Rosenberg's reaction to an impending movie about a grotesque injustice and abuse of government power is to be angry because it might imply conclusions that do not suit her ideological biases. This is roughly the equivalent of Ann Coulter getting in a snit that someone is making a movie about Cameron Todd Willingham because it will just be a way for liberals to make the death penalty look bad.

E.D. Kain reacts by asking, not unreasonably, why aren't progressives upset by Kelo in particular and eminent domain abuse in general?

Progressives should be deeply bothered by a case like this, and should celebrate the fact that at least a television movie is being made about Kelo. Government should not be in the business of cronyism and theft, and liberals should be up in arms when government enriches private corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens.

And I should be 175 pounds with abs of steel and all my hair. But blogger's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for? The truth is that too often we react based not on the merits of a particular story or case, but based on the political and cultural baggage the case carries. That's how a crowd can cheer 234 executions in Texas even when there are Cameron Todd Willinghams. That's how Rosenberg can get upset that someone is telling Kelo's story even though it's so clear that Kelo was wronged.

If we discovered that PeopleEnergyCom had used money and influence to convince elected officials to detain citizens so PeopleEnergyCom could use them as human batteries to provide cheap power, progressives like Rosenberg would be saying "corporations are so awful!," and Rosenberg's conservative equivalents would be saying "government is so awful!" [Libertarians would be saying "PeopleEnergyCom should only be able to do that if they negotiate arms-length revocable contracts at market rate with their human batteries!"]

This will be a brief chapter.

In Chapter One I discussed the fake-invoice mail fraud scheme operated by UST Development, Inc. and its principal David Bell. In Chapter Two we discussed Google search techniques and useful sites like the Better Business Bureau. In Chapter Three we discussed some Google search results suggesting how widespread the fraud is, and the possibility that the same principals had conducted fraud under other names.

This chapter just has a couple of short updates.

First, the Better Business Bureau of Southern California is doing an admirable job: they got so many complaints about UST Development, Inc. / US Telecom, Inc. in a short time that they put up a well-crafted front-page warning about it:

In only the past two weeks, the Better Business Bureau of the Southland has received 18 consumer complaints–more than one every day–against US Telecom. Complainants report that they receive an invoice for $175.00 from the Ontario-based company for what is described as “Telecom Maintenance/Service Call.” No further information other than the company's phone and fax numbers, website, and address is given.

Most complainants say they never requested the service described and that no one from the company ever came to their facility. A recorded message informs those who call to ask about the invoice that their call will be returned within 48 hours, but complainants say that it can be several days before the return call, if, indeed, there is one at all.

US Telecom responds to customer inquiries by explaining that their invoice is for services it “can” provide, that they offer services the customer's telephone company does not, that the invoice was sent in error, that it's for maintenance coverage, that it's an advertisement and not a bill, etc.

Complaints received so far are all from residents of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The invoices US Telecom sends out are a ploy, commonly known as a solicitation in the guise of an invoice, designed to collect payments from businesses that pay, often in the belief that someone within their company requested the service, without checking further.

Nevertheless, the Better Business Bureau cautions, you should realize that federal law requires such solicitations to disclose, on their face and in 30-point or larger, boldface type, that they are solicitations. At the same time, scam artists will probably disregard that requirement, so you should also realize that the absence of the required notice does not necessarily mean the invoice is legitimate.

The BBB expects US Telecom's complaint numbers to climb and advises careful review of such invoices before paying. You can and should get a reliability report from the BBB, also before paying, which will tell you if the company has complaints against it. If you do pay and later realize you shouldn‘t have, you may also complain to the BBB. You can request a reliability report or file a complaint at http://www.la.bbb.org/ or by calling (909) 835-6064.

The BBB's summary tells us a few things about the scope of the scam:

1. David Bell is apparently using US Telecom and UST Development, Inc. interchangeably.
2. Only a tiny, tiny percentage of people who notice a scam report it. If the BBB got 18 complaints in as many days, the scope of the mailings is vast. [Federal defense lawyer joke: someone is going to learn the hard way the distinction between actual and intended loss.]
3. The different excuses/lulling/put-offs told to different victims is classic boiler-room-fraud behavior.
4. The complaints are clustered in a tight time range. This mail fraud scheme is breaking down very quickly.

Second, this series is drawing sizable search engine hits, which indicates that a lot of people are researching UST Development, Inc., US Telecom, and David Bell. A taste of the hits since September 10:

ust development ontario — 12
ust development scam — 3
www.ustdevelopment.com — 13
david bell ust — 3
ustdevelopment.com — 9
david bell ustdevelopment.inc
branden bell ontario ust
ust development fraud
fake invoice from ust development
ust development, inc, preventative maintenance
ust development scam invoices

. . . and many more.

My point? Well, scammers are scum. You knew that. But also, my point is that you can make a difference by writing on the internet. Two and a half years ago we linked to and discussed Kathleen Seidel's awesomely researched investigation of the Autism Spectrum Disorder Foundation, a "charity" nominally raising money to benefit autism research but actually organized for the profit of telemarketers. Even though Kathleen did all the work, since we wrote about it, there have been almost a thousand search hits for "Autism Spectrum Foundation Foundation." It's the fourth most searched term on the site, after popehat (for people who forget our tricky url), Hermon Raju, and Tonya Craft. And hopefully, many of those thousand people followed our link to Kathleen Seidel's investigation and as a result donated their money to a real charity.

I hope that even a handful of people find us and don't send money to David Bell and UST Development — now, or when he rolls out his next scam. And I hope that even a handful of people will look at this and decide that if a big dummy like Ken can do this, they can, and will call out some other fraudsters. Join the good fight.

Edited to add: Welcome visitors from BoingBoing and Metafilter. Hope you enjoy the series. Coming soon: information gleaned from bankruptcy court records, and how and to whom to report scammers.

Edited to add: Chapter Five is up.

Additional update: please read this important note.

It's time for the Road to Popehat, the periodic feature in which we check out the traffic logs, determine what searches brought you here, and wonder whether an airburst-generated EMP pulse would really be such an awful thing.

This time, we're giving the people what they want. Specifically, lots of people come to Popehat looking for love. Why not? It's a place where people with similar interests and values congregate. Who are we to judge, or stand in the way? Let's see if we can offer some sage advice to people based on the search queries they used to get here, and even get some of these lonely seekers together.

nerd problems: I know, right? It's tough out there if you're not mainstream. But don't worry. There's someone out there that shares your interests. What kind of person are you looking for?

man who thinks he's a vampire in Massachusetts: Great! You've got a "type." Now, you want a strategy for your date. What are you guys going to talk about?

vampire political views: Uh, you know, politics can be dicey on a first date — but it's good you're looking for any sensitive subjects or hot-button issues. Are there any topics you feel very strongly abuot that you may want to avoid?

hot dogs kill children: Yeah — I think we'll leave that for the second or third date. Let's keep it light. Now. How do you envision this date ending?

going down on a man who isn't circumcised: Whoah whoah whoah! Slow down there! Let's set reasonable expectations! Take it slow.

brotherly kisses Much better. Look, I think you're ready. Now, you crazy kids go have fun. And be sure to come back and tell us how it went.

how to sue through the internet: Uh-oh.

The problem: 16- and 17-year-olds are shitty drivers.

The legislative solution: dramatically tighten the license requirements and driving restrictions on 16- and 17-year-olds.

The result: At least according to one study (though there is conflicting data) higher fatality rates are shifted from 16- and 17-year-olds to 18- and 19-year-olds.

Now, though, a nationwide analysis of crash data suggests that the restrictions may have backfired: While the number of fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-old drivers has fallen, deadly accidents among 18-to-19-year-olds have risen by an almost equal amount. In effect, experts say, the programs that dole out driving privileges in stages, however well-intentioned, have merely shifted the ranks of inexperienced drivers from younger to older teens.

"The unintended consequences of these laws have not been well-examined," said Mike Males, a senior researcher at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, who was not involved in the study, published in Wednesday's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn. "It's a pretty compelling study."

The people who ran the study hypothesize that teens are simply waiting until they are 18 to get licensed and drive, thus avoiding the more onerous requirements. That's backed by a substantially lower rate of 16- and 17-year-olds getting licenses. (The plural of anecdote is not data, but my wife and I had been grumbling about how many of our baby-sitters seem to put off getting licensed.)

My point is not that all driving regulations are some sort of nanny-state twittery. Arguments for driving regulation are stronger than many other realms of government regulation. My point is that the government frequently doesn't think about what it's doing, doesn't understand what it's doing, and can't predict the probable outcome of what it's doing. High-minded regulations do not necessarily have good effects just because they are meant well. Government should exercise humility; citizens should exercise skepticism.

Welcome back. In Chapter One we introduced the fraudulent pseudo-invoice sent out by UST Development, Inc. of Ontario, California. In Chapter Two we talked about Google technique, building search and issue lists, and what the Better Business Bureau and the California Secretary of State told us about UST Development, Inc. and its principals and affiliates.

Enough preparation. Let's do some Googling. Please note: I'm only hitting the highlights. I'm deliberately excluding many boring and duplicative results. If you see something fun through Google that you think I missed (which is perfectly possible, I'm stupid and lazy) feel free to post it in the comments.

Continue Reading »

How to criticize Obama without being a racist:  a four step guide from the Daily Kos, which is undergoing a series of "purges" due to accusations of racism against members who, three years later, are having second thoughts about Barack Obama.

Short answer: There are ways to criticize Obama without being a racist (as opposed to being called a racist), and there are negative things that one can say about the man that, objectively, are not racist.  We're just not going to tell you what those are.

A sample:

Do keep in mind that positive references based on Obama's race are generally acceptable. We don't have to always talk about Obama in non-racial terms. After all, whenever we speak of the "historic" nature of his Presidency, it's usually an explicit reference to the fact that he is the first black President. Clearly there's nothing wrong with that.

But even that can get dicey, however, because you open the door to a negative race-based criticism. Some have argued that President Obama cannot confront the Republicans the way many of us would like because he can't afford to fall into the "angry black man" trap. Well, OK, but does that mean that those of us who want a "fighter" for our side as President should never consider voting for a black man?

What happens when dissent arises in the midst of a community that, in large part, defines itself by ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with its political views as racist, fascist, and the like?  A community of which a sizeable number are actively hostile to free speech as an ideal?

The results aren't pretty, but they're amusing.

. . . is easily answered by husbands and fathers: no.

So yesterday the kids were playing with friends out in the mean streets, as they usually do, when they and their friends noticed a tiny stray kitten in the friend's garage. Abby, 8, naturally took immediate protective custody of the kitten. By the time I had gotten home, Katrina, the three kids, and the dog had become so firmly attached to the kitten that all hope of exiling it was lost. The kids named the kitten Mittens. I don't think this represents a political endorsement but I can't be sure. Mittens spent a very noisy night in our bathroom — the cat produces an astounding decibel level for its miniscule size. The kids are enraptured — even Evan, who doesn't particularly like animals.

This morning, after a dinner-with-wine-at-Spago worth of veterinary care, we learn that Mittens is about six weeks old, and in good health.

Mittens — about the size of a fist clenched in anger — is staying, I am informed. My wife demonstrated the respect I am due by refraining from any pretense that I had a say.

This concludes today's step towards my plan to make Popehat a cute-kids-and-kittens blog, which will increase traffic tenfold and allow me to retire. Thank you.

EDITED TO ADD:

I have retaliated against Mittens by confining her in the office, which is where I have my closet. Hence Mittens is forced to watch me dress.

Your move, cat.

The return of the NFL is cool. Watching Stanford crush Duke is cool.

But not as cool as watching four-year-old girls, like a a pile of unusually undisciplined puppies, try to move a soccer ball down a field on a warm September day.

This — a perfectly innocent woman being hauled off a flight, handcuffed, jailed, strip-searched, and grilled for hours — because some fucking ninny on the plane thought she and the two dark-skinned people sitting next to her were "suspicious", and because "better safe than sorry" has become a higher value to law enforcement than probable cause or reasonable suspicion or due process or common freaking sense, and because we're too cowed as a people to say anything about it.

Reporting on the issue is meek.

"Due to the anniversary of Sept. 11, all precautions were taken, and any slight inconsistency was taken seriously," Berchtold said. "The public would rather us err on the side of caution than not."

From what I can piece together, this woman got treated like that because she was seated in the same row as two Indian men who wen to the bathroom in succession and took longer than some passenger deemed necessary.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Via.

In Chapter One, I introduced you to UST Development, Inc., explained why I believe that its looks-like-an-invoice-but-isn't mailing constitutes mail fraud, and asserted that anyone with an internet connection, a few bucks, and some time can investigate and expose scammers like this. Today I want to talk about Google search methodology and free resources.

Continue Reading »

The greatest fear I felt on September 11, 2001 was not as a citizen, but as a new father. My fears about that day — and about its legacy — remain centered on my children.

Continue Reading »

I mentioned yesterday that my firm received what I believe to be a fraudulent pseudo-invoice for services not rendered. It appeared to be a variation on the classic toner scam, discussed here.

For some reason, this one seriously pisses me off. Maybe its because the fraud is so blatant. Maybe it's because the weasel-worded disclaimer designed to give them a defense to fraud claims is so perfunctory and lame. Maybe it's because after I sent an email to the scammer's lawyer, the scammer himself called me and tried to run a con on me. Like I'm a fucking rube.

So. I've decided to dedicate some time and money to investigating this scam and the people and companies responsible for it. I've also decided to write about the investigation, and use it as an opportunity to discuss con man culture and how anyone with an internet connection, a few bucks, and some time can investigate an attempted scam — or, preferably, conduct due diligence on a suspected scammer before they can even try to con you.

I'm going to discuss using Google, using PACER (which allows access to federal court records), using state court records, and taking effective action against scammers.

So.

Every story has starting point. This story starts with my firm's office manager sending an email asking if anyone knew of work performed by UST Development, Inc. of Ontario, California. She indicated we had no record of services rendered by them, and our outside IT firm had not heard of them. I asked her to send me the invoice. She complied, sending me a pdf. Here it is:

I was suspicious immediately. It was a while before I noticed the semi-coherent and inconsistent disclaimer: "Thank you for your business. This is not a statement for services rendered but for preventative maintenance." What does that even mean? Does it mean it is not a statement for "services", but is a statement for "maintenance"?

When in doubt, I go to Google. I Googled "UST Development, Inc." — with the quotation marks, which helps exclude useless returns — and hit immediate paydirt: a report on Scam Informer. Though the primary complaint was about wages, the comments included people complaining that UST Development, Inc. had billed them for services not rendered — for $175, the same amount mentioned on our invoice:

I just recieved an invoice for $175.00 with 800-818-9777 and www.ustdevelopment.com on it. I have no idea who this company is and what this invoice is for. I found t his posting and thought I'd share this infomation.

11 days ago by KTM 525

Ditto That, I just received the same Invoice Dated 8/01/2011 $175.00 for "Telecom Maintance/Service call." Bet they are sending this out to every company and hoping the A/P Dept doesn't check with IT to see if it's Legit.
6 days ago by Desk

I received the same invoice with a 30 day past due. I have had no contact with this company whatsoever.
I will call them and if they can't give me an explanation my next call will be to the state attorney's general office.

I noted that the complaints appeared in a short period of time, which is characteristic of fraud schemes — fraudsters tend to spam their victims and then change schemes and disappear within a few months after the complaints pile up.

More about that first report on Scam Informer later: it's where I first encountered the names David Bell and Brandon Bell, which will figure prominently later in this investigation.

At this point I was satisfied that I was dealing with a scam, and told my office manager not to pay the invoice and to keep a watch for anything similar or any communications from the company.

In our next chapters, we'll talk about pursuing UST Development, Inc., and pursuing David Bell and Brandon Bell through records of, for instance, bankruptcy proceedings. The main point: with a few bucks and a few minutes, you can track down an astounding amount of information about people trying to cheat you.

But first, let me anticipate the scammers' defense and the devil's-advocate arguments I may draw: how can it be fraudulent if the invoice says right on it "Thank you for your business. This is not a statement for services rendered but for preventative maintenance"?

Simple: fraud law doesn't work like that.

Whether a communication is fraudulent — for the purposes of criminal law, torts, or consumer protection law — depends upon communications as a whole. Scammers cannot insulate themselves with fine print, hidden disclosures, or contradictory disclaimers when the entire solicitation is intended to defraud and is misleading to a reasonable person. Now I go all lawyery on your ass: See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission v. Cyberspace.com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2006) (apparent "refund check" that, if cashed, signed up recipient for monthly fee was deceptive even if back had disclaimer that would have informed customers if pointed out to them).

Here are the reasons why the UST Development, Inc. "invoice", taken as a whole, is fraudulent:

1. It's made to look exactly like an invoice for services rendered.

2. UST Development will argue that it's only a solicitation for business, but nothing on the invoices advertises or describes the type of services UST Development offers, or why a consumer should choose them, making it appear even more like an invoice rather than a solicitation. (See Cyberspace.com, supra (“[t]he receipt of a check, the perusal of which would reveal no obvious mention of an offer for services, no product information, and no indication that a contract is in the offing, coupled with an invoice that has no advertising or solicitation purpose, creates an overall impression that the check resolves some small, out-standing debt.") What honest and competent advertiser would try to solicit business with a document that describes the services offered only as "preventative maintenance," without offering any indication whatsoever of what type of maintenance is involved or why the recipient should choose this particular business to provide it?

3. Contrary to the argument that the invoice is merely soliciting business, it shows amounts "due" on past dates, an assigns those amounts fictitious invoice numbers. It also refers to the charges as a "balance", and places the total in a box for "1-30 days past due" rather than "current." If it's a solicitation for future business, why are those dates in the past? And why does it break it into two items for two dates? All of this is designed to create the impression that it is an invoice for services rendered in the past, and is intended to create that impression.

4. The cheesy "disclaimer" itself is incoherent and internally inconsistent. If it's a solicitation, why does the disclaimer thank the recipient for business that the recipient hasn't given yet? It says it's not a statement for services rendered, but "for preventative maintenance" — what does that mean? How does it explain that it's only a solicitation?

5. Finally, if this is truly intended only as a solicitation — if the "solicitation" angle is not merely a dishonest dodge, a planned defense to fraud allegations — then there will be proof. Somewhere, some companies have probably fallen for this and sent UST Development, Inc. checks based on these invoices. If UST Development, Inc. is honest — and not engaged in mail fraud — then it's responded to those checks by contacting those companies to schedule the preventative maintenance they've paid for, right? How about it, UST Development, Inc.? If the FBI served a search warrant on your business, would they find evidence of you providing those services, or trying to do so, to companies that sent you checks?

[Edited to add] 6. It doesn't satisfy federal law governing solicitations made to appear like invoices. See, e.g., 39 U.S.C. section 3001:

(d) Matter otherwise legally acceptable in the mails which—
(1) is in the form of, and reasonably could be interpreted or construed as, a bill, invoice, or statement of account due; but
(2) constitutes, in fact, a solicitation for the order by the addressee of goods or services, or both;
is nonmailable matter, shall not be carried or delivered by mail, and shall be disposed of as the Postal Service directs, unless such matter bears on its face, in conspicuous and legible type in contrast by typography, layout, or color with other printing on its face, in accordance with regulations which the Postal Service shall prescribe—
(A) the following notice: “This is a solicitation for the order of goods or services, or both, and not a bill, invoice, or statement of account due. You are under no obligation to make any payments on account of this offer unless you accept this offer.”; or
(B) in lieu thereof, a notice to the same effect in words which the Postal Service may prescribe.

No. It's clearly fraud. It's not a close call. If I were still a fed, I would feel perfectly confident taking this to trial based just on what we know so far — and I would win.

But this isn't all that we know. Oh, no. Not by far.

Tune in for the next chapter, when we use Google, PACER, and other resources available to everybody in order to corroborate our fraud case, and to find out the background of the people involved. It's rare to find a first-time fraudster — and believe me, ladies and gentlemen, we have not here. In further chapters, I'll discuss the alphabet soup of federal, state, local, and private agencies that I'm going to bring to the party.

See you soon. Remember: scammers are scum.

Edit: Chapter Two is up. So is Chapter Three. So is Chapter Four. And now Chapter Five.

Edited to add: Cynthia Bell, wife of David Bell, or a person pretending to be her, sent me an email that contained, in part, the following response about the fraud analysis above:

"This mailing was nothing more than a marketing tool to rebuild a business after a devastating loss. There were no threats of being sent to collection, no run around. If the client calls the office, they get a human being who explains the benefit of purchasing the service agreement and if they decide they do not want it, they are permanently removed from the database. If they paid the invoice, they received a welcome letter outlining the service agreement and what was included with their payment. There is no fraud here. Every single person who pays the invoice will receive the service they are paying for."

I find this completely unconvincing, for the reasons already enumerated above, and for reasons shown in the next chapters of this discussion.

Additional update: please read this important note.

Americans affected by reading yesterday's Associated Press story "Texas Wildfire Victims Wondering Where Perry Is" woke up today to bewilderment, as the story had been replaced with this squib, "BC-US–Perry-Wildfires-Story". The original story, which Americans all over the nation are reprinting in its entirety for the sake of posterity, read as follows:

Texas wildfire victims wondering where Perry is

BASTROP, Texas (AP) — Residents affected by a devastating Central Texas wildfire are growing impatient with state officials and questioning why Gov. Rick Perry hasn't spent more time there.

Some residents yelled at Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst when he visited the command center in Bastrop County Friday, asking where Perry is and why they haven't had any housing help.

Wildfires have destroyed nearly 1,400 homes about 25 miles from Austin.

Perry, running for the Republican nomination for president, interrupted his campaign and returned to Texas for two days before heading to California for a debate Wednesday. He is now fundraising in California.

Perry's office said "everything that needs to be done to respond to these fires is being done."

Dewhurst said the White House hasn't yet replied to a request for federal aid.

Yet this morning, the story read simply:

STORY REMOVED: BC-US–Perry-Wildfires story

BASTROP, Texas — The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Texas residents questioning why Gov. Rick Perry has not spent more time in areas affected by wildfires. The single person who asked about Perry's involvement was not an area resident.

Also missing was the name of the Associated Press reporter who wrote the story.  People all over the nation wondered what happened to the name.  Was it deliberately removed? Or was it edited? Was the story written by Scott Lindlaw, or Tom Hayes?, mused puzzled Americans from coast to coast.

Update: In fact it appears that only one person, rather than "puzzled Americans American from coast to coast" is wondering who wrote the withdrawn Associated Press story. Also, we have learned that only one person woke up today in bewilderment that the story was missing.  That person later clarified that he woke up bewildered because a local woodpecker was making noise against a tree in the yard, rather than for reasons having to do with the missing Associated Press story.

However, Popehat stands by this article, because the one person cited above is in fact an American.  Moreover, we feel that his behavior is indicative of a growing trend among Americans who worry about the accuracy of stories from the Associated Press.

Finally, Popehat now acknowledges that much of the reporting for this story was originally performed by the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

I wrote it to the registered agent for service of process of a company that I believe is engaging in a fake-invoice-for-services-not-rendered scam. I copied the company's various public email addresses.

You know how those set me off.

I wish I could share the whole thing with you. But for various reasons I can't.

But if I had a tail, it would have been wagging when I wrote it.

I'll just share a little.

Do you Google, Mr. —? I Google. Some people say that I Google like a motherfucker, but I prefer not to use language like that. I Googled today, Mr. —-, and I observed multiple reports on sites like ripoffreport.com and scaminformer.com and scamchasers.com suggesting that other businesses had gotten invoices from [Scammer], Inc. for services not actually rendered. I also noted that [Scammer], Inc. has a license that is under suspension for failure to comply with a civil judgment. How unpleasant for them!

I live in hope, Mr. —-. I live in hope that this is all just a misunderstanding. Perhaps [Scammer], Inc. did render “preventative maintenance” to us, and we’ve lost the records and everyone is suffering from amnesia. Perhaps [Scammer], Inc. has pure motives and never intended to send out what appears to be a fraudulent invoice, but just needs some constructive criticism about invoice nomenclature. We’d be happy to meet with the folks from [Scammer], Inc. and brainstorm about this, Mr. —. I don’t know what kind of useful advice that former federal prosecutors and a ———— could offer to a company engaged in what skeptical or judgmental people might term a large-scale mail fraud scheme, but I’m sure we’ll think of something. Perhaps we could invite some friends of ours as well. We have many friends from our former jobs.

If you speak with the good people from [Scammer], Inc., Mr. ——, please give them my best regards. Tell them that I hope they will see us – or, perhaps, our friends – soon. Very soon.

Edited to add:

I've decided to have a go at this scammer, as an object lesson. The trail starts here:

Chapter One.
Chapter Two.