Mugshots.com ---Reputation.com getting Rich off of mugshots (both innocent & the guilty)! Internet, Florida

Have no doubt, this site along with the combined focus, research and stories shared by stopstarnine and others helped remove the Mugshot folks, who btw were felons and now facing prison. ! Hey FlynRider, what say you now, blabber-mouth?

Love it when justice previals. USA all the way! ; 4

Sahar Sarid who owns mugshots.com has been arrested by NYPD on multiple charges one of them being resisting arrest.  All the mugshot website owners have criminal records and their own mugshots.

Tyronne Jacques Spencer of ImageMax has a felony warrant for his arrest in Louisiana.

The mugshot owners are getting their own website coming soon that lists there Entire public records home address, phone numbers, photos and that of ALL their family members.

The website will also have weekly contests on funniest email, funniest phone conversation (speaker phone) and funniest photos taken in public of mugshot website owners and mugshot removal perverts.

18 USC 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains
(C) information from any protected computer;


18 USC 641 - Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted


18 USC 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright
17 USC 506 - Criminal offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement.
(1) In general.Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;


18 USC 2261A - Stalking
(2) with the intent
(A) to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 1 of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;


18 USC 873 - Blackmail
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.


18 USC 880 - Receiving the proceeds of extortion
A person who receives, possesses, conceals, or disposes of any money or other property which was obtained from the commission of any offense under this chapter that is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained, shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both.

The operation mugshot sites are likely protected by the First Amendment, since the information contained on the site is public records. Mugshot sites will often charge to unpublish material from their site, and they have the right to do so. While this practice upsets those affected, it is again legal since the sites can make decisions as to which mugshots to include, and which to unpublish. Unpublishing is a major issue in the  publishing world and it doesn't start or end with one site or another (Google "Unpublish" or "Unpublishing"). This is simply the cost of living in the Information Age, when public information is readily available.

Mugshots.com is an LLC registered in the state of Deleware and has a registered agent to recieve service of process:
https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller
This is not exortion in a court of law but they are still liable under state civil laws like "use of personal likeness for commercial gain" or "economic damage  by use of personal likeness. The IRS would probably be interested also. They make thier money by "skiming" new information available under freedom of information laws and generating webtraffic to get money from google for advertising on thier site. They may also be persued for unautherized practice of law since the "venders" offer expungment service for like $3000. The relationship between venders and lawyer may be unautherized "feeder agreements" under bar ethics rules so you might even be able to go after the lawyers who do business with these people trying ever so hard to hide the money trail and identity of the man behind the curtain,
NOTE: The "approved venders" from the website can be sued as well (and should be)but also operate in anonymity be not disclosing any company information other than the name of the website. The transactions through paypal are somewhat anonynous at first but you should be able to subpoena the bank and routing information.
There is an attorney in SW Florida who claims represents the owner of the website in some capacity...hi Marc ; )~  : Marc Gary Epstein. Here is his profile from the florida bar website:
http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/C6C4B9EE28A58C6285256A830073C611?OpenDocument
The domain name is registered to a fake address with a dedicated number that is answered by a woman that claims to sell insurance. Follow up calls will show this is just a ruse.
Prior to reorganizing as Mugshots.com, LLC in Deleware, The website Mugshots.com appears to have been owned owned and operated by Moniker Privacy Services LLC, located 20 SW 27th Avenue, Ste 201, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069.  Phone number 954-984-8444.    Email:  mugshots.com@monikerprivacy.net (This is according to other internet reports)
The manager of Moniker was listed as:  Domain Systems, Inc., which now appears to be desolved or inactive and they may also do business as SolutionsHome.com, Inc, and HitDomain.com, Inc. (Yes, moniker was sued for displaying underage porn...here are the court documents:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2011/04/bieyanka_moore_moniker_privacy_services.php
Hope this helps, go get em. And seriously, the operators of the site probably posted this question themselves. And FYI, they create bogus accounts to post misleading information on the internet. They found a clever way of making money but completely disregard hurting people and try to hide themselves from liability.Public information ceases to be protected when they harm other and use that information for comercial gain.

Tell yourself extortion is legal all the way to prison... Mug Publishers= MEGALOMANIACS 

CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL!

JOIN THE MUGSHOT SHAKEDOWN TAKEDOWN!

You placed before the definition for "distortion" but there's none of that. The person was arrested, no one is claiming guilty or not. Matter of fact, all these sites have disclaimers that an arrest isn't a conviction and by definition that isn't what mugshots are to begin with. So it comes down to this: The truth may hurt that person's reputation, and you people think someone should be liable? Sorry, that won't fly anywhere, and no, legislation will never change that unless.. the legislators go back and rewrite the first amendment (good luck with that!).

Well Mr. Truewrong, please contact bustedmugshots.com so they can borrow your insightful wisdom and share it with reporters. Unlike you they seem to be cautious about saying stupid things

Dallas Morning News  Don't worry I'll keep you posted :)

By the way who are you? Flynrider? Whats up with Tyronne Jacques?  

@seahorse keep vigilante, these posts are helping make mugshot publishers and the "reputation" companies endorsing them look like idoits

Any reasonable person gets it afterward... so there's no need  to entertain you.  It's a consumer affairs issue now... 

Soon-

"Mugshots.com, which is strongly (and suspiciously sponsored by Reputations.com) is distorting reputations by posting mugshots online whether a person is found guilty or innocent. "

More precisely, law enforcement agencies post mugshots online whether a person is found guilty or innocent. And why not? That's what mugshots are, records in time.

grown folks are talking

All these sites do is republish information that is already public. Anything else you think they do is just your own baseless assumptions. And about charging for removal, not only you have no ownership of any of these to begin with (remember, it's public information), no one is forcing you or threatening you to pay for anything. Don't like the product? don't buy.

You "reputation" bozos need to come out and admit that yall are more interested in hurting someone's reputation than bettering it. Does reputation.com openly encourage mugpublishing? If so, please tell me and I'll make sure they can say so in front of the press. On this marketing forum an idiot working for a "reputation" company is soliciting investors for his mugshot scheme then stealing their money. REPATX makes me think ATX= Austin, Texas...

 I won't even bother rephrasing. I'll just copy and paste.

 I asked you to point to a reference to these mysterious regulations that Commerce is working on.  I suspect this is all in your head.  More like wishful thinking than actual proposed regulation.

If anyone can get a hold of this guys address please post it. I'd like to have a cup of coffee and a chat with him.

I will not resign to those who are exploiting public information just because they think they can legally get away with it. @flynrider What am I supposed to do let my mug come up first on google? or, set aside money for the rest of my life so I don't start off on the wrong foot with anyone who googles my name? 

My mugshot will hold me accountable for my arrest. Those who are in the "mugshot business" do not uphold an equivalent amount of accountability because their is NO legitimate contact info on their websites.

The only reason I got my mug off for free was because Prall was trying to cover up Star Nine Ventures involvement with mug publishing. It is more than obvious they are involved and they cowardly hid from the press- I intend to see them go on record for the info they tried to coverup. CEO Signature.

Mug publishers won't reveal themselves because they know reasonable people find their work at best to be sleazy tabloids. I think that, in this case, individual privacy concerns outweigh the publics the "need" for this kind of info. Unless, of course those who commercially publish mugshots are willing to give up a bit of their privacy and tell us who they are so that they may publicly standby the claims of first amendment protection and uninhibited use of public information.

Wow, you truly laid it out, nicely... I appreciate the added insight.

And am working and hoping that things work out in your favor. 

Ashley... 

You said, and I quote:

"Mugshots are all a matter of public record, this website is just making them available more easily than they currently are."

The question is, why??? Much to the surprise of no one, I'm sure it's $$$...  If they were a Not for Profit 501C3 they'd have contact info, mission statement, etc. Things are done in the dark for a reason.  Not to worry, though...sunlight is a wonderful thing. 

Those 2nd amendment examples that I trumped you with --which then compelled your retreat to an irrelevant insult (3rd Grade examples) are factual...

You can have your own opinion, Sonny-Fly, but you can't have your own facts....No need to cite case law to be right... Remember that, son.  

Now, onto the issue at hand...  When these public mugshots are being re-purposed for private profit, while concurrently, causing economic harm (read a post supra as there's a wonderful example of a young person being economically encumbered); is there reasonable grounds to regulate, given 'Unjust Enrichment.'  Is that 3rd grade enough for you?

"  I'll be d**ned if I am going to pay someone who was not only sick enough to realize that there is money to be made from mugshots but scummy enough to actually do it. "

    You shouldn't pay them a dime.    The main reason is that what is in question is public information.   It would be stupid to pay one website to stop publishing that information.   You have no guarantee that another website wouldn't pick it up and do exactly the same thing.   Where would it end?

   I think you have to resign yourself to the fact that the information is public and is not going to go away.   All that a mugshot says is that you were arrested.  If any website inaccurately says that you were convicted of something, you can sue them blind.

It may not be ethical, but it is legal. If an employer wants to see if you have a mugshot, they can contact the police where you live and look through the mugshots there. Mugshots are all a matter of public record, this website is just making them available more easily than they currently are.

- Leaving the ethics out of this, this is totally legal.  There is no way that you are ever going to be able to remove these from the "public".  If there was even a hint that this was going to happen you would have every media outlet fighting against it.

Of course there are other "side effects" of this, and I am sure it may have affected some people from getting a job.  Especially the ones where the applicant enters on the application that they have never been arrested(notice I did not say convicted).  Of course when their mug shot is found they are fired or denied the job not because of the mug shot but because they lied on the application.  The kicker is that even if these web sites did not exist it would take a quick search to find out this same information.

But this "job" excuse is really no different than other things that employers check.  Many employers are now searching social media sites.  If you have a "friend" post an embarrassing video of you totally drunk they have every right to do that because it is their video.   Of course I am sure that if the company you applied for saw that they would no longer want you as a possible employee.  Are you going to sue your friend for posting the video and refusing to remove it?

Not to mention that Credit Reports are becoming very important for certain jobs.  The reason you have bad credit doesn't show on the reports.  It would be up to you to explain why you have bad credit.  Just like it is your responsibility to explain why you have a mug shot.

@ashley thank you for taking the time to be more thoughtful and less rude than the others who disagree.

Employers should absolutely be concerned with a potential employee's criminal history. Background checks are done by third-party companies who are legally required to report accurate information including case dispositions (innocent, guilty etc.) Mugshot websites claim no amount of accuracy or timeliness to the information they report. They disclaim that the info is only as accurate as the law agency that collects it. When I asked Kyle Prall of bustedmugshots who processes the information to try and proactively correct mistakes he said noone. If mug publishers don't want their "businesses" to receive criticism they need to be accountable for the accuracy of the info they publish.

Before my employer did a background check on me I had a couple of interviews which allowed them to get an idea of who I was. Career counselors will tell you how important that first impression is. Mugsites take away one's ability to make a this first impression. While I can't hide the fact that I was arrested, its still not the FIRST thing I tell people when I meet them. Mugpublishers MAKE SURE your mug will come up first in a google search. When my background check showed I had a charge that had been dismissed, my employer was able to make a judgement with this completed information. If mug publishers are going to expose a certain level of my privacy the least they can do is be accountable for the accuracy of this info. 

If the judge on my case would have ruled that my mug should be displayed over the internet and that I had the option to remove this info with a fee- I would have gritted and beared. I'll be damned if I am going to pay someone who was not only sick enough to realize that there is money to be made from mugshots but scummy enough to actually do it. 

Mugshot publishers do not operate their websites to inform the public of "crucial" mugshot information. Think about it, mugpublishers are giving us the option of a payment to "hide" this information unlike ripoffreport.com where everything is permanent. If mugpublishers REALLY have a commitment to provide the public a convenient way to access the mugshot information it can't do without- Why do they let us pay to take them down? They are doing this to get money from US not to inform YOU.

  

  A few things.

1. I am not your son.

2. You have no idea what industry I work in.  Hint : It is not regulated by the Commerce Dept.

3. I asked you to point to a reference to these mysterious regulations that Commerce is working on.  I suspect this is all in your head.  More like wishful thinking than actual proposed regulation.

4. I don't need your 3rd grade examples of constitional law.  If you seriously think a federal agency is going to restrict the publication of public records, you are dreaming.  

It may not be ethical, but it is legal. If an employer wants to see if you have a mugshot, they can contact the police where you live and look through the mugshots there. Mugshots are all a matter of public record, this website is just making them available more easily than they currently are. Either way, its been possible to search mugshots for years you just have to know which police department to check. I really dont see the issue with having a website with mugshots listed. No, it doesn't show if the person was found guilty, but serious employers also run background checks on individuals that will show their convictions.

The charges against me were entirely baseless and dropped yet I can't get the mugshot removed from mugshotsusa.com.. It's the first thing that pops up in a google search right next to my name and I believe this has already cost me numerous job opportunities. I have to feed my family and this is really hurting my chances here, not sure what to do. 

...Because you're tripping all over yourself.  

In my post I said, that Commerce be looking at "Regulation" for your industry.  You cited the First Amendment (which btw, I respect).  

However, if you don't think Amendments can be regulated;

A.) Go take your licensed handgun (or unlicensed) to NYC and showcase it for an officer with a copy of the 2nd Amendment... Then see what happens.  It's called 3 years in prison, mandatory.  That's regulation, sonny.  Or; 

B.) After you finish your sentence, you'll be a Felon.  Now go try to buy a gun, legally (with a copy of the 2nd Amendment and your cash).  Wait, mr. felon -- you can't buy or bear a gun??? Nope.  That's called, regulation... In fact, you'll be thrown back in jail. 

Understand, son?... On the sly they're called 'hiccups' and I've sent along a few suggestions for YOUR industry.  Now, go play w/ your mugshots (for now).



PS... You've got to love Ripoff Reports!

Spamtastic- Quit making words up nancy and go cry elsewhere so we can keep to our point that yall are losers for publishing mugshots

Somebody is about to have a heart attack here looks like these pages here and here and well lo and behold this thread is great JUNK. 

" In fact, you'll be glad to know that the Commerce Department is taking a thorough look at your industry.  Can you say 'Regulation'?  "

  That's interesting.  Can you point to something specific?   I'd be interested to know how the Commerce Dept. is planning get around the constitutional issues regarding the posting of public information.   Can you say "First Amendment"?

" You're not messing with a chump. "

  That remains to be seen.

So don't even try to advertise your services, or defame another company who trades in your suspect wares!... I won't have it.  In fact, you'll be glad to know that the Commerce Department is taking a thorough look at your industry.  Can you say 'Regulation'?  

You're not messing with a chump.

"Ricky Gervais" wants you to think he works for www.reputation.com but the link in his post above takes you to profiledefenders.com. Their webpage is setup to decieve consumers into thinking that they are the more successful counterpart www.reputation.com. No wonder there is a WARNING at the top of this page!Ripoffreport for profiledefenders.com 

"The accused has a substantial personal privacy interest in preventing public dissemination of his or her non-public booking photographs. On the other hand, the public obtains no discernable interest from viewing the booking photographs, except perhaps the negligible value of satisfying voyeuristic curiosities."

The Indiscriminate Release of Public Records to the Public during

the Information Age: How Mug Shots Are in Danger of Having Their Purpose

Permanently Supplanted in the United States and Potentially Everywhere

While mugshot publishing may not seem unethical to those who are trying to make money off of it there are plenty who see things a bit differently. Reputation.com should contact Star Nine Ventures with their advice to "improve your image online by putting forth new content about yourself." Star Nine and other mugpublishers only remove information  (chattanoga pulse too)and avoid oppurtunities to speak to the press.

Nice try, Ricky, using the 'We' without saying who 'we' is; that's the true mark of a COWARD (and cuckold)... If I were you, I'd keep a close watch on things at home. 

Moreover, I find it interesting how you cite Reputation.com as some kind of authority-- a fly by night company; who is suspect of partnering with shady companies like mugshots.com  Want PROOF that mugshots.com is shady? They don't provide contact info or a phone number which is manned.  At the very least they should provide a definition of the statute cited.  Shady cowards.

As has been stated numerous times all over the internet we don't believe that there are issues with whats going on as there are many sites that aggregate data and information for traffic. Mugshots while may not seem ethical to one who is arrested it is not illegal or wrong to someone who wants to know who they are dealing with. Even reputation.com will talk about how you need to improve your image online by putting forth new content about yourself. 

Here:

Bustedmugshots.com, a central Texas slandering news letter, displaying the misfortune and mistakes made by the public must give the option to contest the public posting of pictures.  By signing this petition you are agreeing that this publication violates common law privacy by providing embarrassing content to its readers.

Reputation Management the new digital extortion Are you thinking about hiring a Reputation Management Company or an SEO company to help repair your reputation or hide negative complaints? WARNING! Hiring an SEO company might seem like a good idea, but you might be making a huge mistake victims claim threats, extortion, and much worse. Is there a negative complaint about you on the Internet? Paying Reputation management companies can make a bad problem much worse. Internet, Nationwide

Merriam Webster- Distort

transitive verb

1: to twist out of the true meaning or proportion <distorted the facts>

also...

3: pervert <distort justice>

Yes, factual public information has become distorted because of those who are choosing to advertise mugshots. You don't ever seem to get $hit right, "flynrider"  

Ethical Criticism- Mugshots

If mugshot publishers are so determined to "inform the public" why do they not return phone calls from the press? FW Weekly: "An Ugly Business"

Read the post... There is no time, if you're found innocent, or if it is a simple misdemeanor. It's SHADY business practices... Oh, and nice coordinated corporate response, with the : "That's right..." open.  Btw...this is just phase 1, there's 9 more coming.

We all look foward to seeing your very OWN mugshot, " Flynrider " . One day that " bonus time " expires.

   Mugshots are public records.   Anyone can post them online.   How is that "distorting reputations"?    Are you saying that they're posting fake mugshots?