LeRoy Nellis

Contact

<h1>Sealed Records, Defamation-for-Profit, and a Coordinated Failure of Accountability</h1>

Court-sealed 2019 mugshot reused for 2023 arrest
Side-by-side comparison. Left: 2019 mugshot sealed by court order. Right: 2023 arrest coverage using the same image—four years later.

Disclosure. This article documents events as experienced by me and supported by dates, images, and observable outcomes. It raises questions of compliance with court orders, due process, consumer deception, and regulatory oversight. Where intent or authorization has not been adjudicated, issues are framed as matters requiring investigation.

Executive Summary

A mugshot from a 2019 arrest—sealed by court order—was later reused to represent a 2023 arrest. The four-year age gap is visible. The legal status of the image was clear. Yet it reappeared anyway.

This article addresses not only the reuse of sealed material, but the broader defamation-for-profit pipeline that followed: arrest sites monetizing defamatory content, regulatory inaction, and continued amplification on major social platforms.

The Core Violation: Sealed Means Sealed

In 2019, an arrest image of mine was generated and later sealed by court order. A sealing order prohibits release, reuse, or redistribution. It exists to prevent prior allegations from being resurrected to prejudice later proceedings.

Despite this, the same sealed image was publicly reused to depict a December 2023 arrest—four years later. This is not a clerical error. Sealed records do not circulate by accident.

Why the Four-Year Gap Matters

Age differences are not cosmetic. Reusing an old image to represent a new arrest manufactures a narrative. It substitutes convenience for truth and invites the public to infer continuity that does not exist.

If the image were current, there would be no controversy. It was not.

Defamation-for-Profit Arrest Sites

After the sealed image resurfaced, it was republished by arrest and mugshot websites operating a well-known business model:

  • Publishing arrest images and accusations without outcomes or context;
  • Selling advertising and, in some cases, paid “removal” or reputation services;
  • Failing to publish meaningful contact information or ownership details while engaging in commercial activity;
  • Relying on government-supplied data to legitimize defamatory content while disclaiming responsibility.

This is not journalism. It is monetized defamation.

FTC Outreach and Regulatory Inaction

I contacted the Federal Trade Commission, including through FOIA requests, regarding these arrest and mugshot sites and their deceptive practices—specifically the non-publication of contact information while selling advertising and the exploitation of arrest data for profit.

To date, there has been no substantive response or enforcement action. This regulatory vacuum has enabled continued harm.

Platform Amplification (Including Facebook)

These defamatory arrest pages are allowed to distribute content widely on social media platforms, including Facebook, where algorithmic amplification magnifies harm.

When sealed or inaccurate arrest content is amplified on major platforms, the injury becomes permanent, searchable, and self-reinforcing.

After the Violation: Silence as Strategy

Once the reuse of sealed material became apparent, there was no public correction, no explanation of authorization, and no disclosure of remedial steps.

Silence is a choice. Refusing to correct the record is a choice. At that point, the issue shifts from error to cover-up.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

If sealed records can be quietly reused when convenient, sealing orders lose their meaning. Due process becomes optional. Public trust erodes.

This is not an isolated failure. It is a systemic problem spanning law enforcement, commercial publishers, regulators, and platforms.

Questions That Demand Answers

  • Who authorized the reuse of a sealed 2019 image for a 2023 arrest?
  • What safeguards failed—or were bypassed—to allow it to surface?
  • Who coordinated the response after the violation was identified?
  • Why has there been no public correction or accountability?

Call to Action

State and federal authorities—including the Texas Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas—have been formally notified and provided exhibits.

What is required now is transparency:

  • Release authorization trails and access logs;
  • Disclose communications related to the image’s reuse;
  • Address defamation-for-profit practices and deceptive advertising;
  • Stop platform amplification of sealed or unlawful content.

Sealed in 2019. Reused in 2023. Who covered it up?

Comments

Leave a comment