Consent order restricting criminal records

[quincy]

Thanks so much. I am not concerned about mugshots as they are already removed.

It seems that person simply wants to create uncomfortable situation to me, by anonymously publishing this material at websites located outside of US jurisdiction but still available for internet search in US.

What would be the impact of such publication (on me) when compared to the publication available (from the official court records itself) if there was no consent order restricting and sealing the criminal records?

It is hard to guess what the impact on you will be.

A name search by an employer potentially could come across the online publication. An employer would not be able to access the records otherwise. How much weight any one employer would give to such information, however, is a question mark.

 

[dilbert3]

Thanks so much. Finally, do the readers of such documents (posted by that person in his or anonymous website) believe that those documents are legitimate (in the same way they believe if those documents were available at the court website) or fabricated. Say it other way, whether the readers will give the same or similar weight to those documents from that website as they give if they were at court website.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Thanks so much. Finally, do the readers of such documents (posted by that person in his or anonymous website) believe that those documents are legitimate (in the same way they believe if those documents were available at the court website) or fabricated. Say it other way, whether the readers will give the same or similar weight to those documents from that website as they give if they were at court website.

How is anyone here going to know what some random person believes about a document?

 

[quincy]

Thanks so much. Finally, do the readers of such documents (posted by that person in his or anonymous website) believe that those documents are legitimate (in the same way they believe if those documents were available at the court website) or fabricated. Say it other way, whether the readers will give the same or similar weight to those documents from that website as they give if they were at court website.

People believe that a lot of the things they see or read on the internet is true when it is actually false and they believe that a lot of the things they see or read on the internet is false when it’s actually true. Not everyone will check sources of material.

If someone approaches or contacts you to ask about the truth of what they saw/read, you have the opportunity to tell them the truth.

You may or may not be believed.

 

[STEPHAN]

You could try to get an agreement with them to not post it for some exchange.

 

[quincy]

You could try to get an agreement with them to not post it for some exchange.

That actually is what many states are working to make illegal. I do not recommend anyone make any “deal” with any website that publishes or threatens to publish objectionable content.

The business model of some owners of websites (like the mug shot websites and the Don’t Date Him websites) is to publish objectionable content on one site and then offer removal services for a fee on another site - and both sites have the same owner.

 

[Zigner]

That actually is what many states are working to make illegal. I do not recommend anyone make any “deal” with any website that publishes or threatens to publish objectionable content.

The business model of some owners of websites (like the mug shot websites and the Don’t Date Him websites) is to publish objectionable content on one site and then offer removal services for a fee on another site - and both sites have the same owner.

I think the "deal" in question was suggested between the OP and the individual with the information.

 

[STEPHAN]

I think the "deal" in question was suggested between the OP and the individual with the information.

Yes. And I have suggested using a lawyer.

 

[quincy]

I think the "deal" in question was suggested between the OP and the individual with the information.

Right. I understood that. But what kind of “deal” can be made with a foreign publisher? I can only think of paying to keep the documents from being published (or to remove them if already published). And that can be a slippery slope.

 

[Zigner]

Right. I understood that. But what kind of “deal” can be made with a foreign publisher? I can only think of paying to keep the documents from being published (or to remove them if already published). And that can be a slippery slope.

The information is in the hands of a local individual, not a foreign publisher. The goal would be to prevent it from being published on the internet at all.

 

[quincy]

The information is in the hands of a local individual, not a foreign publisher. The goal would be to prevent it from being published on the internet at all.

So ... paying to keep it from being published.

 

[Zigner]

So ... paying to keep it from being published.

Right - wasn't disagreeing with that part of your post.

 

[quincy]

Right - wasn't disagreeing with that part of your post.

The issue then becomes, when does the pay-off stop - and who exactly does it stop. There will always be the risk and the threat of a foreign publisher getting ahold of the documents.

I believe that paying off blackmailers is wrong.

 

[Zigner]

The issue then becomes, when does the pay-off stop - and who exactly does it stop. There will always be the risk and the threat of a foreign publisher getting ahold of the documents.

I believe that paying off blackmailers is wrong.

And that is a fair enough viewpoint.

 

[quincy]

And that is a fair enough viewpoint.

Haha. I, of course, think so.