fort myers mugshots adam young Robert Wiggins and Tiffany Wiggins.Rapeesh Souza Class action is being prepared for filing this month in Florida cloak of anonymity of mugshots to be stripped soon. Fort myers, Florida

Michael J Robertson owns Mugshots.com
Michael Robertson owns Mugshots.com
Mike Robertson owns Mugshots.com


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - 


Processing payments for organizations that are involved in questionable activity exposes companies like PayPal to serious legal problems, not to mention chargebacks.


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - Criminal infringes name and likeness copyright for purposes of commercial advantage and private financial gain, 18 USC 2319 & 17 USC 506.


BOISE The Ada County sheriff says its own website is being used to extort money from people who have been arrested. Since 2003, the Ada County Sheriffs Office has been posting daily mugshots of those arrested on their website.  But, Sheriff Gary Raney says recently third party websites have been "scraping" the mugshot and names of those on their website and then placing the information on their own website. Scraping websites, like Boisemugshots.com, has thousands of mugshots of those arrested since early 2011.  The photos on Ada Countys website are deleted after five days. Boisemugshots.com provides a link to another site that removes the information from the Internet for $99. It's really a form of extortion, said Raney. This is something that really goes against the fundamentals of what I sense we should be putting that mugshot out there for. Raney says he is now considering taking down the website to protect those who have been arrested. There's really an injustice that happens to people, said Raney. Raney is also looking into increasing the security on the site to prevent other sites from taking information.


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - 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; 


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - (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


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - 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.


Who owns mugshots.com? Michael Robertson owns mugshots.com - 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.\


http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaeljrobertson


Michael Robertson Linkedin profile: 


Michael Robertson Founder & CEO, Mugshots.com
Miami, Florida (Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area) Information Technology and Services
Current job: Founder & CEO at Mugshots.com / Mugshots.com CEO
July 2011 Present (1 year 4 months)


"Within 18 months we were able to put together a team, buy a domain without a website, and turn it into a world's top 1,000 website destination.


To make contact visit Mugshots.com and contact via the website. For all Unpublishing inquiries contact UnpublishArrest.com or call 800-276-2540."


Michael Robertson's Skills & Expertise


TECHNICAL SKILLS:
OBJECT ORIENTED PERL
MICROSOFT SQL SERVER
SQL EMBEDDED SQL
DATABASES
DATA ANALYSIS
DATABASE DESIGN
DATA MINING

     In Indiana I brought numerous class actions including class action against the liquor industry for price fixing. The attorney that represented the liquor industry among other controversial cases Sheldon Breskow was made the head of the grievance committee and falsified claims that I drove my bicycle past his house and intimidated him.  I was appointed by the Ct. Legislature as head of an investigation of the liquor industry there for the very reason that I was successful in bringing the liquor industry to its knees and revealed the pending frivolous  grievances held open for years without action in Indiana.  I was told to file lawsuits to resolve the matter.  I was disciplined for suing Buchanan and Breskow the architects of these frivolous grievances.  All the grievances were deemed frivolous but I was disciplined for suing these officials.

      In Connecticut I revealed the whole history in Indiana and was admitted after state and federal probes cleared me.  I started by working undercover with the FBI on Probate fraud by judge Kinsella who got booted out of office in disgrace.  He was involved in a scheme with homosexual lawyers to steal from probate estates.  One gay lawyer Reynauld Cantin, who represented numerous cops, had a cop in his office in Hartford, track me down and beat me numerous times with a billy club.  I was charged with assaulting an officer, ultimately acquitted by a jury of my peers and I successfully sued the Hartford police department.  I then became a criminal defense lawyer and won numerous jury trials. 

      Four blacks, all from foreign countries, filed frivolous grievances manipulated by jealous and corrupt attorneys.  Everyone got their moneys worth.  The dissent was right. I'd be glad to elaborate to "Mo whatever from the U.S.A" who is also Martin from Alaska. Mark Daniel Friedland.

Mugshots was the first company and is still the most notorious company for going through court records and jail records to find mugshots and place them online. They are allowed to get away with this because technically all court and jail information is Public Information and is already in the public domain. However, what Mugshots and so many other websites like them do is take it a step further to humiliate people Online.

There is no need for mugshots to be online. This will stigmatize people, sometimes for life. Then from what I have heard Mugshots charges people money to remove these mugshots and another company can come right back behind Mugshots and put the same picture right back online. I wouldn't be suprised if Mugshots has many different companies that do the same thing so when one gets paid to remove the photo the other one will put the photo right back up.

All of these businesses engage in what I call "Legal Extortion" and this is cruel to do that. This is the way of America now. So many companies engage in deception. I think America will fall because of this. Look at how much money this rich guys are making and you have so many people in America not being able to afford the basics. Something isn't right. 

There are also other companies out there that go through court records and find everything embarrassing about a person, whether it contains embarrassing details about a divorce or bankruptcy and they also put this infomation online. It goes to show how despicable companies and people can be for profit. They will do anything for profit.

Time to pick up the books again, look up SANCTIONS, RULE 11, I'm sure you know all about it. For one who was disbarred and cheated clients previously (as judges previously indicated!) I'm sure you know all about it already.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

MATTER OF FRIEDLAND

137 N.J. 105 (1994)
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
July 8, 1994.

 It is ORDERED that M. DANIEL FRIEDLAND be disbarred and his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State;

and it is furtherORDERED that M. DANIEL FRIEDLAND be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law;

and it is furtherORDERED that M. DANIEL FRIEDLAND continue to comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended or disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that M. DANIEL FRIEDLAND reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

Ex-lawyer's Disbarment Upheld  
May 19, 1992

The state Supreme Court Monday UPHELD THE DISBARMENT of a former Hartford lawyer who has battled for more than 10 years to retain his Connecticut license.

Four of the five justices rejected M. Daniel Friedland's claims that Hartford Superior Court Judge Samuel Fried erred in disciplining him. Justice Robert D. Glass, writing for the majority, said Fried used CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF MISCONDUCT in justifying Friedland's disbarment.

Justice Robert I. Berdon dissented, saying Fried ABUSED HIS DISCRETION in not allowing Friedland a continuance of his trial. Friedland had asked for the delay because he said he lacked sufficient money to come to Connecticut from Florida, because his wife was hospitalized shortly before the trial and because he had to care for his 5-year-old son.

FRIEDLAND WAS DISCIPLINED FOR FAILING TO REPRESENT PROPERLY FOUR SEPARATE CLIENTS, ALL OF WHOM PAID HIM FEES HE NEVER RETURNED, ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

When he came to Connecticut in the late 1970s, FRIEDLAND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DISBARRED IN INDIANA. The Indiana Supreme Court removed his license to practice law there in 1981.

IN 1977, FRIEDLAND WAS FIRED AS THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S CHIEF COUNSEL FOR A LIQUOR INDUSTRY PRICE-FIXING INVESTIGATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT TELL LEGISLATORS HE WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS BY THE INDIANA BAR.

FRIEDLAND WAS ABLE TO STAY IN BUSINESS HERE DESPITE BEING CHARGED BY OFFICIALS WITH PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE IN 1982.

Two years later, a Hartford judge CHARGED HIM WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT BECAUSE HE CALLED A PROSECUTOR AN ANIMAL DURING A TRIAL