Government overreach and big tech censorship have made it nearly impossible to remove mugshots from the internet in 2023. There was a time not long ago when anyone could remove their mugshots from the internet by paying removal fees to the sites hosting them. A public outcry followed resulting in many states passing laws against charging fees to remove mugshots and big tech companies began suppressing the visibility of mugshots online. In response, mugshot sites changed their business model to one which big tech does not seem to have a problem with. The end result is a system which only allows innocent people to remove their mugshots. Most criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas (https://ift.tt/9UOh3jv) which leaves the vast majority of people with mugshots online unable to take advantage of new policies which permit people to get their mugshots removed for free if they beat their case or have the disposition updated in the event that they're not convicted on all counts. This author is one such person and while mainstream media coverage of my cases guarantee that my mugshots will remain online no matter what, I would be outraged at the state of things if all I had to worry about were mugshot sites like a normal person. I recall being arrested on an old warrant in 2012 and paying to have my mugshot removed from a site called PDX Mugshots which scraped the Multnomah County Sheriff's website, but unlike the MCSO website they kept the mugshot up unless you paid $100 to take it down. At the time I didn't know it was also on several other sites also charging similar fees. Despite not considering it worth it to pay those other sites I now feel lucky to have had that option. Today sites like Mugshots Zone dominate Google search results for people's names despite Google specifically announcing an algorithm update targeting mugshot sites years ago (https://ift.tt/vgM1EVc). At first I thought maybe Mugshots Zone was too new or just didn't have enough content in the index to have suffered the mugshot penalty but something else seems to be the case because Mugshots Zone has been around for years and has millions of pages in Google. I think the case here is one of a newer mugshot website which has never been caught removing content for a fee. Older sites like Mugshots.com and Busted Newspaper stopped charging removal fees years ago but never recovered their rankings. I have never seen sites previously known for charging removal fees to ever recover their rankings even after ceasing the practice. If you own a site penalized in that way for removal fees your best bet is to start over by re-branding yourself with a new domain name and even that is becoming less effective due to search engines recognizing the content. This is true of mugshot sites as well as sites in other industries targeted by the government, liberal news media, and big tech censors. Those industries, like the mugshot industry, have engaged in a similar pattern of just not removing stuff at all rather than waste time, money, or other resources responding to removal requests. Removal fees are often necessary to make moderation worthwhile. The news media paints a different picture. It seems big tech, especially Google, defer many content management decisions to liberal media outlets like The New York Times. Over the past decade, the Times has succeeded in persuading Google to censor search results simply by profiling people claiming to have been victimized and asking Google for help. If Google had any sort of spine they would have simply responded by telling the Times that censoring search results based on a site's removal policy is a slippery slope not worth going down. When you agree to remove one type of content for one reason you open the door for more criticism whenever people find common traits between that content and other types of content. Revenge porn is another example being used to create a framework for suppressing free speech online. Many states have passed laws which unconstitutionally restrict your ability to share nude images that other people created and sent to you voluntarily by inaccurately classifying the material as involuntary. If you check your phone and see a nasty image someone sent you, you could go to jail for sharing that horrible image with someone else just because you didn't get permission from the source. Some argue that the source holds the copyright to the work, so you need their permission, but what those people don't tell you is that the Fair Use exception to the Copyright Act allows people to share copyrighted works without permission if they're doing it as part of commentary or criticism. Posting a naked picture of your ex with a comment like, "check out this nasty c***" seems like criticism to me. While it is true that many intimate images shared online were not sent to offend the recipient, that is not always the case. I personally abstained from uploading a picture some guy sent me of his hairy nuts because I was worried he might pursue a revenge porn case against me. As a result, it is much safer for disgruntled dudes to assault my eyes than it used to be because I don't feel free to upload their images with their full names as a deterrent. Things started going downhill in 2013 when The New York Times ran a series of stories beginning with "Mugged by a Mugshot" (https://ift.tt/splEczS) followed by many similar pieces targeting revenge porn in the years since, blaming PornHub for child porn in 2020 (https://ift.tt/zfWbP0i), and targeting complaints sites in 2021 (https://ift.tt/yEQisuV). Each series typically begins with a group of people claiming to have been victimized and presents everything from their perspective no matter how inaccurate. Journalists love to put themselves in the shoes of the dumbest people in society because most of their readers are dumb, so if the dumbest 60% of the population could see something happening to them that is how they present it. More competent journalists would ideally present it from the point of view of smarter people preferably those with experience running sites like the one they're criticizing because they're the ones that actually know what is going on. In the mugshot case, they profiled people claiming to have been harmed by mugshots who couldn't afford to pay removal fees. In the PornHub case, they blamed PornHub for "monetizing" child porn based on boilerplate advertising scripts that run site wide as if someone must have viewed the content and then chosen to run ads alongside it. In the complaints sites case, they found an extreme case of a mentally ill woman abusing the sites to smear hundreds of people and decided to blame the sites just because they often would not remove stuff for free. They even went as afar as to post complaints about their own reporters before adding up the fees charged by various complaints sites owned by different people that they used and presented the sum as what it costs to remove content from complaints sites. The end result of each case was basically the same. Google or in the case of PornHub credit card companies, started abusing their market power to censor the sites. When Google does it they make it difficult for content from the sites to rank for anything regardless of its relevance or use to most users electing instead to prioritize only the users Googling themselves. In the case of credit card companies they often stop processing payments which forces the websites to turn to less reliable payment systems like cryptocurrency. None of these efforts to censor the web work. They might result in less negative information in search engines but often the result is one copy of the material in question ranking well with only duplicates being suppressed. That one remaining result is usually from a site which won't remove it because the only way to make removals economically viable would be to charge removal fees. There are exceptions but they are typically limited to sites so large that money is not much of an object for them (Twitter, Facebook, other big tech sites, etc.). Fortunately, the mugshot industry is the only industry which cannot legally charge removal fees. People can still pay to remove content from complaints sites but run the risk of not being able to remove the most problematic content due simply to Google rewarding other sites for not offering that option. For instance, if a scraped copy of an article from this site ends up on a site which charges removal fees and someone pays to have that removed, the original will still be here and should rank because this site does not have a paid removal system. People have offered me money to remove stuff but I turned them all down because I want to take this site in a different direction. Am I a Hypocrite? I recently extended the home address block on this site to all categories in order to protect my users from being censored by big tech. The decision was influence mostly by Google's decision to suppress search results linking to pages containing that information but was also influenced by personal experiences sharing links to such content on social media only to find the links removed and in some cases my accounts temporarily suspended. I'd rather not have to worry about my users suffering similar problems just for sharing links. This address block should be temporary. The Supreme Court could have really messed things up recently but instead implied that Section 230 of the CDA applies to users sharing links manually on social media if the link points to content created by someone else. Hopefully Twitter, Meta, and others will respond by no longer blaming users for the content of pages they link to. Unfortunately, several companies with the exception of Twitter seem to be run by those favoring censorship these days and even Twitter still censors people unnecessarily (ex: my first website's Twitter account remains suspended for auto-sharing user generated content despite neither Twitter nor I being legally responsible for it). As long as I believe that my users will have a much better time getting their message out if it doesn't contain a home address, I don't mind blocking home addresses. The point of this site was not to map peoples homes but to share stories of their deeds. Home addresses are superfluous. They're a nice addition but ultimately not worth it if that addition makes it impossible for people to find your work at all. I feel that by blocking that information I am protecting users from themselves at this point. The important thing is being able to identify people and criticize them for what they've done. If you want to know where they live you can always pay an online background check website for that. The existence of online background check websites which sell home addresses is one reason why I didn't have a problem posting that stuff in the first place. I felt that by including information people normally have to pay for that I was saving them money. I still believe that. I think that if a Googler searches for "Nancy Pelosi home address" that the first result should contain her address so that people like David DePape don't have to pay another website for the same information. Far more people search for Nancy Pelosi and her address than she does, so it does make sense for Google to prioritize how she feels when finding that information over the desires of other users to find it. The math is simple, if two or more people are likely to Google a name then giving them what they want outweighs the desire of the Googled individual not to see that information. Likewise, a payment system available to anyone is far more likely to help people than one only available to the falsely accused. Mugshot Censorship is Un-American The New York Times asked, "If the point of [mugshot sites] is to inform the public, why should the rich and convicted get a pass?" The answer to that question is that giving the rich a pass is a quintessential part of the American dream. The American dream has always been to amass enough wealth that you can do whatever you want without fear of any meaningful consequences. If the best people could hope for from their hard work were simply to be treated just as bad as anyone else they'd stop working for the most part. The traditional mugshot removal system was as American as apple pie. Allowing the government to dictate what content can be on the internet is fundamentally un-American. Content removal is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment and a speaker has the right to charge a speaking fee. The government has no right to tell speakers that they can't charge a fee to speak about certain topics or impose a cap on how high their fee can be. The same is true of mugshot operators who charged speaking fees whenever someone asked them to exercise free speech by removing a mugshot. Conclusion Government overreach and big tech censorship has made it harder to suppress mugshots and other negative content online. If the government were to stop overreaching into the policies of privately owned websites and big tech were to stop censoring the same it would be much easier to remove negative information about yourself from the internet. #mugshots #google #censorship #freespeech #governmentoverreachsource https://copblaster.com/blast/49972/mugshot-removal-nearly-impossible-in-2023-due-to-censorship
Lee County deputies Casey Howell and Enzo Finamore were fired and arrested on Tuesday for torturing inmates with scalding hot water. They now face charges of felony and misdemeanor battery. The Lee County Sheriff's Department says they threw scaling hot water from a hot water tap in one of the housing units on inmates to gain their compliance resulting in serious injuries. Both deputies were promptly fired and publicly denounced by their boss. Correctional officers often use excessive force on inmates that refuse to cooperate. They'll usually try to do things by the book at first but if the punishments available within the rules are not enough to gain compliance, they often look outside the rules to maintain their authority. Few things scare correctional officers more than inmates not being afraid of them. This author found that out the hard way after creating this website and threatening to post home addresses of correctional officers on it if I were taken to the hole in my local county jail (not Lee County). They responded by taking me to a cell out of view of the cameras, breaking my arm, and saying, "[we] run this f*cking jail not you!" Had just one of them told the truth in their incident report, I'd like to think they would've been fired, but as usual they stuck together and were able to maintain their ability to run the jail as they saw fit simply by breaking their own rules and lying about it. Normally people as dimwitted as deputies wouldn't stand a chance against someone with my skills, intellect, and educational background hell bent on undermining them, but in their jail they can simply torture you into compliance and avoid accountability due to lack of evidence no matter who you are. The deputies in this case likely felt unable to control their victims within the rules and resorted to corporal punishment to maintain control. Scalding hot water is an often surprising necessity in correctional facilities. Without it there would be no hot coffee in the morning and inmate productivity would plummet. Coffee is often the only legal drug inmates have access to and they need a hot cup of coffee before going to work if they have an inmate job. Even unemployed inmates need coffee whether they're working on their case, working out, fighting, or just pacing around aimlessly. Unfortunately, sometimes people throw scaling water on others which is why many county jails don't have hot water taps. That makes it safer without as much of a productivity hit due to most county inmates not working, but it doesn't eliminate the risk entirely. If the facility sells inmates radios then it probably sells batteries which inmates will use to create small fires out of toilet paper to boil water. Having hot water taps just eliminates the fire risk otherwise present if you want to scald someone. According to public records, Casey Howell is a white male standing 5'10'' tall and weighing in at 180 lbs. with the inmate number 367816. Also according to public records, Enzo John Finamore is a 24 year old resident of Lehigh Acres, Florida. His is 5'7'', weights 200 lbs. and his inmate number is 367815. You can learn more about this case in the video below. #caseyhowell #enzofinamore #torture #assault
Clearfield County Deputy Zachery Dodson was arrested over the weekend after shooting a patron in the face at the Invictus club on Dubois Street. Dobson is accused of getting into an argument with the club's owner after being cutoff and asked to leave. When the owner asked Dobson to leave again he allegedly pulled his gun and began making terroristic threats when a patron stepped between the two of them. Dobson shot the patron in the face before the owner tackled him, took away his gun, and held him until police arrived. Dobson was booked into the Jefferson County Jail on charges of aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, reckless endangerment, and simple assault. Zachery Dodson is also employed as an officer with the Curwensville Borough Police Department. His employers have issued the usual statements they make whenever an officer is arrested claiming that his actions don't reflect on his co-workers. You can learn more about his case in the video below. #zacherydodson #invictus #assault
WORKS WITH CPD/ RAT! RAT! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!! #rat#humdoldtpark#chicago#westside
There is nobody dirtier in the state of Utah than Detective Micah Vehrs. I used to work with him and I would see and hear about how he mistreated suspects, made up charges, lied to our supervisors, blackmailed suspects and other cops, etc etc etc. Seems everyone in the department was afraid of him because he is still working. #utahcorruptdirty
Shreveport officer Alexander Tyler was arrested today for just negligent homicide in the killing of Alonzo Bagley. Bagley was just running away from a fellow officer when Tyler felt an itch on his trigger finger. You can watch Bagley running away in the bodycam video below. Despite this clearly being an unjustified shooting of an unarmed man, Tyler's bail was set at just $25,000. He is currently listed as an inmate at the Caddo Correctional Center, but that will likely change simply due to how low his bail is. We feel that Tyler is undercharged because this was clearly an intentional shooting. He might not have had the specific intent to kill Bagley at the time, but that would still make this an intentional shooting worthy of at least a manslaughter charge. Most people get charged with some degree of murder when they intentionally shoot someone and that person dies as a result of their injury. Even when prosecutors know a case is not murder they typically charge the person anyway and offer to drop it in exchange for a manslaughter plea. We think an ordinary person would probably be charged with murder based on the video below. According to public records, Alexander James Tyler is a 23 year old resident of Shreveport, Louisiana. The jail website lists his zip code as 71107 which matches a record we have for a house on Sandra street. The jails website also list the following: DOB: 06/14/1999 Race: W Sex: M Height: 6.02 Weight: 250 #alexandertyler #alonzobagley #murder
Wayne Brown is CI#682950648. He is in two discovery packets from the jurisdiction of Clermont County Common Pleas Court. #snitch#testify
Newton Police officers Nathan Winters and Christopher Wing are suing someone they wrongfully arrested for defamation. Tayvin Galanakis was pulled over last year and wrongfully arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence despite passing a breathalyzer test. The arrest appears to be motivated primarily by Galanakis choosing to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to refuse a drug test. While it is true that most states have laws requiring people to consent to breathalyzer and field sobriety tests in order to have a driver's license, the same is not true of urine and blood tests for drugs. Despite not having to take a drug test, Galanakis consented to one after being taken to jail, passed the test, and was released without charges. He then took to social media to fire back against the officers that kidnapped him. The social media campaign is the basis for the defamation lawsuit. Officer Winters has been accused of domestic abuse by his ex-girlfriend and was subject to a restraining order according to media reports. Those same reports say that Winters has never been charged with a crime as a result of the alleged abuse. Counsel representing Winters, Wing, and the city of Newton allege that Galanakis falsely accused Winters of being convicted of a crime. Generally, it is considered defamatory to falsely state that someone has been convicted of a crime when they've only been accused of crimes. People have been kicked off this site for that. However, Winters might be in a bit of a bind if he engaged in the conduct or it appears as though he likely engaged in it even though he was not convicted. Arguing that you were defamed when the nature of the allegedly defamatory allegations mirror allegations lodged in court proceedings often can be problematic because it leaves the door open for the allegedly defamed to maintain a claim just because the part about being convicted was false. This author has considered filing defamation claims on such grounds in the past and was advised by counsel that it wouldn't be worth my time. This author can relate to Winters in this case. Over a decade ago, I was targeted by a deranged stalker who received help from law enforcement. The stalker presented herself to them as a self described "victim's rights activist" trying to build a case when none existed. What should have been a simple case of the cops telling her she wasn't a victim because no crime had been committed and to stop bothering them resulted in a response more to the tune of "we wish there were laws against what he is doing, so if you catch him violating any laws at all let us know." The problem with that reaction is it often leads to selective prosecutions of people like me. People who don't live criminal lifestyles but are doing something perfectly legal which pisses a lot of people off. In those cases they often exercise their discretion and choose not to charge the first person they treat as a victim. Often they won't even acknowledge wrongdoing by their so called "victim" and choose instead to whitewash the person as if they'd done no wrong. The federal prosecutor in my case sounded like her attorney, by that I mean it seemed he would regurgitate whatever nonsense she threw down his throat without verification. They pushed this "vulnerable victim fights back" narrative which only worked because they never charged her with anything. The government is really good at making the real criminals look like victims simply by not enforcing the same laws on them which they're enforcing on others on their behalf. I would've loved to have sued Assistant United States Attorney Sean Hoar for defamation but he is immune from suit due to his job as a federal prosecutor. If Iowa is like my state (Oregon) then there are laws on the books preventing members of the public from pursuing defamation claims against police officers. I found out about my state's law the hard way after I sued several local corrections deputies for several things including excessive force, battery, and defamation. The defamation claims were for false statements they made in incident reports at the jail. It turns out that Oregon law makes privileged any statement made by a law enforcement officer in furtherance of their duties. The state feels it would be too difficult for officers to do their jobs if they had to worry about being sued every time they falsely accuse someone. Proponents of this feel that vexatious litigants would tie up the courts with frivolous lawsuits if it were possible to sue cops every time someone says they lied. Under this system, the police have absolute privilege to defame you but if you defame them they can sue you. This double standard makes it highly unethical for a police officer to file a defamation claim against a civilian in the first place. Think of the chilling effect this may have on future victims. Someone whose been wrongfully arrested might not pursue a lawsuit if they're afraid of being counter-sued for defamation just for telling their story. While it is alleged that Galanakis did more than tell his story by tracking down damaging information on one officer before allegedly misrepresenting it as a conviction, that is not how many will see this. They will see an arm of the state abusing the court in an effort to discourage people from suing. Now people who're victims of false arrests or excessive force will have to consider the liability of being counter-sued by the police should they be unable to prove their claims. This could have had a chilling effect on me back when I sued the United States for excessive force under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). I eventually received a small settlement after prevailing on summary judgment despite the defendants blocking surveillance cameras well enough to cover up most of what they did. Ironically, the judge in that case refused to throw out my claims because the cameras which could've cleared their names had they not been lying were clearly obstructed by them. I was willing to settle for less than it would have cost them to win a trial, so they settled. I never considered myself potentially at risk of a counter-suit for defamation should I not be able to prove my claims. I could see someone in their position potentially file a counter-suit for defamation on the grounds that none of the cameras showed them acting as alleged and they have sworn statements from officers all disputing the plaintiff's story. This is a big problem in cities like Portland, Oregon where the police still don't have body cameras and prosecutors consider their word gold. I could see a lot of cops filing counter-suits for defamation simply because there is no video supporting the plaintiff's version of events, other officers support them, and they feel the plaintiff lacks credibility due having a record. This is a slippery slope which might lead to a situation in which you'd better not sue law enforcement unless you know you can win because otherwise you'll be hit with a counter-suit for defamation. Conclusion As people who enjoy absolute privilege to lie on the job, cops have no business filing retaliatory defamation claims against the public. #tayvingalanakis #nathanwinters #christopherwing #defamation
Ashley Kelty is working for the feds. She has been a informant on several cases with the hopes of avoiding jail time. She was currently arrested due to concerns about her safety. #police#snitch#informant
This boy is a real life snitch. How were you locked up for that long then let out on bond yet everyone you deal with goes to jail except for you? Your charges get dropped yet others don't?!!! You move weight but your the only one to never get caught #police#snitch#informant
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer Medgar Webster Sr. was arrested last weekend for working at Whole Foods while on the clock as an MPD officer. Webster is accused of collecting over $35,000 in pay including overtime for time spent working at Whole Foods while on duty over the past couple years or so. In addition to the fraud, Webster is accused of failing to seek authorization to work at Whole Foods or fill out forms all MPD officers are required to fill out before working elsewhere. Webster is the former head of the D.C. Police Union. You can learn more about this case in the video below. #medgarwebster #wholefoods #fraud
Big snitch confidential informant kanawha county sheriff's department been working undercover since 1986 watch her also loves to call the cops and never gets arrested #carkasuecarlasue
"I kill black people for a living, I am a cop" is what San Diego Police officer Devion Johnson was accused of saying while drunkenly trying to provoke a black man into a fight back in 2020 according to documents (uploaded above) recently released by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD). The release was not on their own accord but rather to comply with a new law requiring California law enforcement agencies to be more transparent. Johnson shot and killed a black man by the name of Toby Diller just six months later (https://ift.tt/OMBFEP6), coincidence? Possibly, but while we don't know for sure if he bragged about killing black people for a living, we do know that he was extremely drunk in the video below. He was arrested for public intoxication but was later allowed to return to the force. He is no longer with the department. Johnson's encounter with his fellow officers takes up the first half of the video and then some. The second part includes interviews with witnesses including a man without pants. According to media reports, you should be able to hear Johnson use racial slurs and kick the patrol car at some point. According to public records, Devion Volta Johnson is a 35 year old resident of Lancaster, California. He listed his party affiliation as "other" when registering to vote in 2012. He appears to operate a Gmail account created using just his first and middle name spelled exactly with no spaces or anything like that. #devionjohnson #racism #blacklivesmatter #tobydiller
El Paso Police officer Eric Bernardino Ramirez was arrested Monday on over 20 charges including aggravated sexual assault on a child and various acts of indecency. His bond was set at $1,000,000 which he managed to post the day of his arrest, so he is now free. The El Paso Police Department has relieved Ramirez of his duties pending the outcome of an internal investigation. We suspect this rape and release to be the result of police treating fellow officers preferably. According to media reports, the abuse began in 2014 when the victims was less that 14 years old and continued through 2016. The abuse did not stop until about a month before Ramirez joined the El Paso Police Department. Ramirez was indicted back in December but for reasons not released it took over a month to book him. We suspect the department of taking steps to protect Ramirez simply due to the fact that he was able to post bond so quickly and so much time went by between his indictment and arrest. Usually, someone can't just post 10% of $1,000,000 right away because few people have that much sitting in a checking account unless they never invest. People typically are less liquid and end up sitting in jail for awhile until they can convert their assets into cash. It wouldn't surprise us if Ramirez' lawyer arranged for him to turn himself in after he had his bond ready. According to public records, Eric Bernardino Ramirez is a 36 year old resident of El Paso, Texas. His last known home address is listed as El Vergel Drive, but we stress that address might not be current and we are only pasting the street name because the record tying him to that address dates back to 2005 and we just are not confident that it is current even though our background check service lists it as being linked to him through now. We only share locations in cases like this because we think parents and kids should know if a man free on bond facing child rape charges is living in their neighborhood. Please do not use this information for any unlawful purpose. Texas prisons are brutal places for ex-cops and child molesters. We ask that you let the system do its thing so that good convicts can serve justice. #ericramirez #rape #childmolestation #sexoffenders