- Report: #1042047
Complaint Review: Norman Haga and Mugshots.com - Internet Nationwide
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Norman Haga and Mugshots.com
Florida Internet, Nationwide, United States of America
Phone:
800-858-1511
Web:
http://mugshots.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Norman Haga and Mugshots.com Norman Andrew Haga Norman Haga, Mugshots.com, Criminal Investigation, Freedom of Information Act, West Nevis, Florida, Mugshot websites. Internet, Nationwide
Report Attachments
Norman Haga 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. 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.
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. 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.
Report Attachments
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Blogging
New York,INTERPOL
#2Consumer Comment
Thu, July 11, 2013
INTERPOL
http://www.interpol.int/Forms/Contact_INTERPOL
US Code
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;
Criminal Resource Manual 1663 Protection Of Public Records and Documents. The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 641. DOJ. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01663.htm
18 USC § 641 - Public money, property or records
1. Whoever steals or purloins public records.
2. Whoever knowingly converts public records to their use.
3. Without authority sells public records.
3. Without authority conveys public records.
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;
Governmental Prima Facie Evidence of name and likeness copyright:
State Certified Birth Certificate, State Drivers License, Passport and other government documents and records created to identify and validate name and likeness.
18 USC 1028A - Aggravated identity theft
Whoever, knowingly transfers (steals), possesses, or uses (website), without lawful authority, a means of identification (mugshots) of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007
Intentionally obtains (steals/screen scraps), or transmits (internet) to another person information with the intent to defraud (unpublish/repair reputation).
18 USC 875 - Interstate communications
Transmits (internet) communication interstate (world wide web) with the intent to injure reputation to extort (unpublish/repair reputation).
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.
Bizarre Logic and Reasoning
If kidnappers called the ransom amount the returning person fee would it bedazzle the system again? If the kidnappers rationalized their acts with the same logic would the system be mystified by them? Reasoning, they had to go through the hassle of kidnapping someone hence they are entitled to the returning person fee (Ransom Money).
If blackmailers called the extortion amount the unpublish/reputation repair fee would it bedazzle the system? Further, if the blackmailers rationalized their acts with the same logic would the system by mystified be them? Reasoning, they had to go through the hassle of stealing government property, identity theft, stalking people, holding people to involuntary servitude, injuring their reputation and collecting an unlawful debt hence they are entitled to the fee (extortion).
