began a website to examine and expose Mugshot.com as the extortion operators and scammers that they are. In retaliation, Mugshots.com through a former affiliate of theirs, Kelly Joe Ellis of Joplin Missouri, began posting incorrect and libelous material on every consumer complaint board they knew of, including this one. As Norman Haga clearly shows on his website, the intent of posting that material was to extort Norman Haga into not investigating the online mugshot industry, and to extort Norman Haga into paying fee's for online reputation management.
The actions of Mugshots.com, and their affiliates, and other websites like Salt Lake City Mugshots and Busted Mugshots only stiffened Norman's resolve to do something to end the extortion like activities of the mugshot and negative content industries conduct. [continued below]....
..... To date, through associates, Norman Haga has managed to have legislation introduced in three states limiting the conduct of the mugshot industry and limiting the abilities of the mugshot industry to obtain new booking photographs of men and women with which to continue their extortion like activities. Norman Haga and his website has also played a role in bringing two civil actions in different states suing mugshot agencies for violations of the 'right to publicity.'
Norman Haga has always maintained that Mugshots.com and like sites are engaging in criminal activity and extorting people. In the pursuit of proving this claim, Norman Haga has sought Freedom of Information requests from the Florida Attorney Generals Office, The Federal Trade Commission, and the Internet Crime Commission. While the material is far too voluminous to post here and will have to be posted and viewed on Norman Haga's website
, Norman is including the return Cover letter here, as attachments, to support his claim that Mugshots.com is engaging in criminal conduct and being investigated for that conduct.
Specifically the FTC asserts:
"I am withholding 84 responsive pages which are exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), because they are exempt from disclosure by another statute.
Specifically, Section 21(f) of the FTC Act provides that information obtained by the Commission in a law enforcement investigation, whether through compulsory process, or voluntarily in lieu of such process, is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
15 U.S.C. 57b-2(f)"
The FTC and the Internet Crime Commission are investigating Mugshots.com and other mugshot like websites for criminal activities. These activities, in a brief look into the material provided by the FOIA request, clearly show collusion between mugshots.com, several internet host provider such as Network Solutions, and ThePlanet.com, and at least one bank. The material also shows a chain of attornies and people that may be involved. We know that Marc Gary Epstein, Esq., of Florida is one such attorney that has direct involvement with Mugshots.com, there are several other attornies that are suggested as being involved.
Norman Haga has also made two Youtube videos
that show a walk through of just how Mugshots.com, Kelly Joe Ellis, Kyle Prall of BustedMugshots and others attempted to intimidate and extort Norman Haga.
It is interesting that the investigation of the mugshot industry has revealed that many of the operators of those websites have criminal record for sex crimes. This alone raises questions about the credibility of mugshot websites. However, The FTC cover letter shows that Mugshots.com and other mugshot websites are being investigated for criminal conduct. This investigation shows that mugshots.com and other mugshot websites lack credibility in their operations and slander campaign.
Norman Haga, and the others he works with in investigating the online mugshot industry, encourage all to boycott any company, such as Netflix, that advertises on any mugshot website.
Online mugshots, though they may possess and entertainment value, after resolution of any criminal allegation serve no legitimate public interest according to three Federal Court holdings: Detroit Free Press v. DOJ (6th US Dist.)
, Karantsalis v. DOJ (11th US Dist)
, and Tulsa World Publishing v. DOJ (10th US Dist)
. The United State Supreme court refused to hear Karantsalis when he appealed to them.