- Report: #922179
Report - Rebuttal - Arbitrate
Complaint Review: WWW.MUGSHOTS.COM
WWW.MUGSHOTS.COMwww.mugshots.com Internet United States of America
MUGSHOTS.COM MUGSHOT Websites, AKA whatever marketing agency, entertainment company, people herding, harassing, ponzi scheme,. Deceptive, unfair trade practices, hiding behind the first amendment, Miss use of public records for their own financial gain (removals), Not Law Enforcement related Internet
*Consumer Comment: Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com
*Consumer Comment: Michael Robertson Miami Florida, new ownership Mugshots.com
*Author of original report: mugshots.com is NOT A PONZI ScHEME
*Consumer Comment: Sahar Sarid owner of mugshots.com
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Attorney for Mugshots.com
*Author of original report: 11 th Commandment in Computerland
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
This is information that I came upon when reading Florida "Sunshine Manual". People booked in Florida may want to read this and them start questioning who is www.mugshots.com. this is reprint from the manual to provide information to the general public.
2. What individuals are authorized to inspect and receive copies of public records?
Section 119.01, F.S., provides that [i]t is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. (e.s.) A state citizenship requirement was deleted from the law in 1975. A public employee is a person within the meaning of Ch. 119, F.S. and, as such, possesses the same right of inspection as any other person. AGO 75-175. Likewise, a county is any person who is allowed to seek public records under Ch. 119, F.S. Hillsborough County, Florida v. Buccaneers Stadium Limited Partnership, No. 99-0321 (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. February 5, 1999), affirmed per curiam, 758 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Thus, the law provides any member of the public access to public records, whether he or she be the most outstanding civic citizen or the most heinous criminal. Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc. v. Wood, No. 97-688CI-07 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. February 27, 1997). [A]s long
as the citizens of this state desire and insist upon open government and liberal public records disclosure, as a cost of that freedom public officials have to put up with demanding citizens even when they are obnoxious as long as they violate no laws. State v. Colby, No. MM96-317A-XX (Fla. Highlands Co. Ct. May 23, 1996). Even though a public agency may believe that a person or group are fanatics, harassers or are extremely annoying, the public records are available to
all of the citizens of the State of Florida. Salvadore v. City of Stuart, No. 91-812 CA (Fla. 19th Cir. Ct. December 17, 1991). And see Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (defendants conduct in making over 40 public records requests concerning victim constituted a legitimate purpose, and thus cannot violate the stalking law because the right to obtain the records is established by statute and acknowledged in the state constitution). Cf. James v.
Loxahatchee Groves Water Control District, 820 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), concluding that a trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing before denying a request to require a district to permit inspection at the district offices, rather than at an off-premises location. The agency argued that it would be disruptive to require that the records inspection be conducted at its offices. Id. However, the appeals court ruled that a hearing should have been held to determine
whether the requestor, who was in litigation with the district, should be allowed to view the records at the district offices, and if so, under what conditions. Id.
3. Must an individual show a legitimate interest or noncommercial interest in public records before being allowed to inspect or copy same?
No. The requestor is not required to explain the purpose or reason for a public records request. The motivation of the person seeking the records does not impact the persons right to see them under the Public Records Act. Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See also Timoney v. City of Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 917 So. 2d 885, 886n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (generally, a persons motive in seeking access to public records is irrelevant); Staton v. McMillan, 597 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), review dismissed sub nom., Staton v. Austin, 605 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1992) (petitioners reasons for seeking access to public records are immaterial); Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), review denied, 475 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1985) (legislative objective underlying the creation of Ch. 119 was to insure to the people of Florida the right freely to gain access to governmental records; the purpose
of such inquiry is immaterial); and News-Press Publishing Company, Inc. v. Gadd, 388 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (the newspapers motives [for seeking the documents], as well as the hospitals financial harm and public harm defenses, are irrelevant in an action to compel compliance with the Public Records Act). (Si these sites seem like they have a "right" to do business as they are...BUT>>->
Thus, an agency is not authorized to impose conditions or limit access to public records based on a suspicion that the request may be for an improper purpose. Inf. Op. to Cook, May 27, 2011. However, as noted in that opinion, Florida Statutes impose criminal penalties for the unauthorized use of personal identification information for fraudulent or harassment purposes and for the criminal use of a public record or public records information. See ss. 817.568 and 817.569, F.S.
These sites are harassing, terrorizing and intimidating a whole population of people. The site www.mugshots.com is seeking financial gain by requesting that they be able to use public record as their own and ask that a person who would like to opt/out of their data base pay a third party (not them directly-as they want to keep their identity a secret). for improper use and unauthorized use of personal identification information for fraudulent or harassment purposes and for the criminal use of a public record or public records information. (See ss. 817.568 and 817.569, F.S. (P145)http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/KGRG-8RAQUF/$file/2012-SunshineManual.pdf............
If you have a problem with any "mugshot" website" or www.mugshots.com Call and file your complaints At; FLAGO, 850-242-0140
File a report and request copies of all public records, that FOIA will allow, writ your congressperson and Attorney general's office. Just because you were arrested, doesn't mean you don't have rights..
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/03/2012 05:12 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/WWWMUGSHOTSCOM/internet/MUGSHOTSCOM-MUGSHOT-Websites-AKA-whatever-marketing-agency-entertainment-company-peopl-922179. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
- Keep the name short & simple, and try different variations of the name.
- Do not include ".com", "S", "Inc.", "Corp", or "LLC" at the end of the Company name.
- Use only the first/main part of a name to get best results.
- Only search one name at a time if Company has many AKA's.