NamesCon2020

Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al

Located in Legal Discussion started by CurtisNeeley, May 17, 2014.

Replies:
44
Views:
7,105

  1. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-05135)

    This 23-page complaint is filed as a paid case in the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
    The elderly prior judge and all Article III judges who on in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or are on the Supreme Court and exceed the age of 7o are listed along with Commissioner Tom Wheeler of the FCC.
    The complaint also names "Honorable Denny Chin" from the Southern District of New York for his fair-use Google Inc books mistake as well as the U.S. Attorney General along with Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation for maliciously violating communications privacy laws exempted from 47 U.S.C. §230.

    Docket mirror: http://master-of-photography.us/theendofpornbywire/ or via http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org
    The attached exhibits were mutilated by the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas but are available online as follows.

    Complaint and exhibits in color (with naked images):
    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28
    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=13-86
    http://www.scribd.com/collections/4506920/5-14-cv-05135

    Complaint only:
    http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2434364
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/curtis-neeley/514-cv-05135-complaint/paperback/product-21620438.html
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/223673331...ation-of-Rights-of-a-Parent-and-Visual-Artist
    https://www.namepros.com/attachments/complaint-pdf.5853/

    This completely NEW lawsuit does not seek any copy[rite] violation and does not involve Namemedia Inc.
    The prior offer to settle for 5-million by Google Inc that was rejected is mentioned in this complaint. on page 8.
    http://master-of-photography.us/theendofpornbywire/index.html#8

    5. Google Inc admitted this human right violation as wrong and ceased this violation and offered 5 million in a phone call, now denied, after the District Court bias was certified by calling (5:12-cv-5208) Dkt#53-3 and (5:13-cv-5293) Dkt. #1 identical in almost every respect”. This claim is a judicial FRAUD and an injustice now plead.

    From the bottom of page 12 the following fact is reported.

    5. When potentially “indecent, obscene, or profane” communications are broadcast by wire, these broadcasts may also be received via Wi-Fi radio making ALL “indecent, obscene, or profane” [sic] “Internet” communications illegal for return to ANY anonymous public making Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in organized criminal proceeds.

    The FCC released a NPRM last week on 5-15-2014 that apparently plans continuing to not regulate [sic] "internet" as a common carrier and plans to continue to allow some (e.g. Google Inc and Netflix) to purchase priority access to searchers as is described as wrong in my lawsuit on Page 17 as follows.

    4. The interconnected wires now used for [sic] “internet” wire communications are exactly the same type wire communications used when US President James Buchanan and Queen Victoria exchanged telegraph wire messages on August 16, 1858. Had there been interconnected networks of wires in 1858; Every interconnected telegraph apparatus would have received the same wire communication via the interconnected common carrier medium of wire. [sic]“Internet” communications should have always been subject to Title II regulation by the FCC even when called a “[holy] new medium”.

    The sky is falling!

    Well; The sky is not falling but has always been on the ground all around us. People (e.g. Defendants) are now being asked to realize unregulated [sic]"internet" wire communications have been illegal since long before Al Gore invented [sic]"internet" wire communications" and before these were disguised as [sic]"internet" in 1997 by a senile oligarch addicted to pornography. See Reno v ACLU, (96-511)
     

    Attached Files:

    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    ORDER Setting Hearings: Show Cause Hearing set for 5/27/2014 01:30 PM in Fayetteville -- 5th flr (Rm 509) before Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. The Clerk is directed to mail this order to Plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on May 16, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Court Exhibit 1, # 2 Court Exhibit 2, # 3 Court Exhibit 3, # 4 Court Exhibit 4, # 5 Court Exhibit 5)(jn) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

    4 - I am ordered to explain why I should not be found: 1) in contempt of court; 2) liable for Rule 11 sanctions; and 3) subject to summary dismissal of this complaint.

    This should finally get interesting before a 49 year-old judge instead of the biased 70+ year old judge I described as battling senility.
     
  3. DU

    DU Secret Santa VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    19,292
    I rule contempt.
     
  4. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    I appreciate your opinion but moral copy[rite] proceedings are not "identical in almost every respect" to the private communications criminal violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511, as was clarifid in the (5:13-cv-05293) Skt.#25 fraud.

    I am not able to find a single prior prosecution of this type crime (18 U.S. Code § 251) in all of history do to my limited resources.
     
  5. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    So did the judge and dismissed the lawsuit.

    I quit.
     
  6. DU

    DU Secret Santa VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    19,292
    Time to move on. This is not a bad thing. You can find something else to take the burden of time away - there's always more photography, more time to be an educator.

    Good luck in whatever it is you end up doing.
     
  7. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    This Plaintiff stated during the hearing under oath to believe no further filings would be made because of not realizing ONLY Prosecuting Attorneys or licensed attorneys could seek civil damages for criminal, communications privacy violations and criminal computer frauds as told in open court during the hearing. It was apparent early in the hearing Honorable Timothy L. Brooks clearly intended to dispose of the claim presumed by this court to be res judicata. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. realized there would be dismissal, contempt, and sanctions. This realization quickly short-circuited the Plaintiff's ability to communicate contemporaneously. This communications disability is a result of a severe traumatic brain injury despite intensive speech therapy because a disability not realized can't be addressed.

    This Plaintiff affirmed a belief of misreading criminal law and begged for forgiveness. Nothing that was sworn to was not believed to be true at the time sworn to but Honorable Timothy L. Brooks was clearly incorrect to tell this Plaintiff that civil damages had to be pursued by another party. The attached complaint(complaint) should now be served with a stipulation like described further herein. If there is a law or regulation preventing this claim it is begged to be pointed out clearly in the order filed. If already composed but not entered, this is prayed to be treated as a motion for reconsideration. cont...

    9. This Plaintiff is determined to elucidate the illegal violations of private communications now being ignored by the United States' oligarchy twisting the English language and allowing criminal interception of private communications like when copy-right was written copy[rite] but spelled wrong in the [sic] “Copyright Act of 1790”. This legal term remains misspelled preventing the U.S. from being an honorable nation subject to fair rule of law(s) protecting basic human rights like exist in Europe today.
    ......
    13. This ruling is absurd and should now be reconsidered in order to make a better book or movie ending about how United States became the “Land of the Free” for viewing evil “online” due to an oligarchy beginning with the Reno v ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 mistake. This “free speech” mistake is extended now so statutory criminal violations of communications privacy, for this Plaintiff or other “Good Samaritan” authors, are allowed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks shortly after Senate coronation though exempted specifically from the Reno v ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, “47 U.S.C. §230” mistake that occurred in 1997 when written in 1995. See 47 U.S.C. §230(e).
    ....................

    42. This current injustice will follow repeated improper rulings by this District Court that 17 U.S.C. §106A does not protect for “online” display of art protected by 17 U.S.C. §106A everywhere else. This court intends to rule “[anything involving online or web searches]” violates principles of res judicata though wire communications privacy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2511 was never before any court in the United States and is here called res judicata and is again a dishonorable ruling but is protected yet again by complete judicial immunity for United States' Article III oligarchy.

    Please note the repeated use of honorable and respectful tenor herein indicates more a fear of further injustice than respect based on prior just and honorable United States Court rulings.
    ================================================
    ================================================
    ================================================
    I filed the first amicus in the AR Act 301 12-week abortion limit appeal at the Eighth Circuit (14-1891). This Amicus Brief is short but should result in reversal of the Eastern District of Arkansas mistake made by Honorable Susan Webber Wright when combined with the other briefs filed.
     
  8. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    Tick tock,tick tock,tick tock,tick tock,tick tock,tick tock,tick tock,tick tock.
    Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.
    It has been forty days and forty nights or enough time to flood the whole Earth or enough time to write the District Court order that begins the end of free anonymous access to labeled pornography on the web? Hmmm. I wrote that I am going to appeal to both the immoral Eighth Circuit and the immoral SCOTUS either way and that United States' Courts are NOT honorable and are NOT respectable based on prior rulings.
    http://master-of-photography.us/theendofpornbywire/PDF-Mirror/14.pdf
     
  9. WritersWrite

    WritersWrite Established Member

    Posts:
    72
    Likes Received:
    114
    How does this involve domaining?
     
  10. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    While I was in a coma or incompetent between 9/3/2002 and 2006 my guardian allowed two domains to expire. When this occurred, NameMedia Inc registered each of these and then sold one domain at auction. My first commercial and pro art photography website sold for $2,300.00. The other hotel reservation domain was always just a parked domain. This is still registered but does not resolve today.

    I sued NameMedia Inc in federal court and lost. This lawsuit cost NameMedia Inc much, much more than the $2,300.00 and I rejected an offer to settle by GOOG of 5-million to drop pursuit of stopping free, anonymous porn trafficking using my name.

    I should have sued NameMedia Inc for violating the privacy of communications but was not yet fully recovered from my incompetence. NameMedia Inc had just purchased photo.net and removed the adult filtration once required for naked art viewing. This type filtration has since been returned to keep "good Samaritan" photographers though the best have left. During this lapse in moral filtration, GOOG got an angry, elderly (73 y/o) oligarch to rule 17 U.S.C. 106A did not protect art shown "online" that was protected everywhere else..

    This was the only 17 U.S.C. 106A ruling on photography since the law was passed in 1990 and is ludicrous but typical for senile justices who are called senile in filings and get angry. Oops

    My current filings are for violations of private communications and for computer frauds that continue today and are allowed by the FCC. How much will your domain portfolio be worth when the FCC creates a search engine and starts to regulate interstate and international wire communications like defined in 1934 by 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59) long before Al Gore invented "online" and before Bill Gates' parents were even born.

    How much will your domain portfolio be worth when the FCC regulates "online" wire communications instead of calling these wire communications some "holy new medium" exempt from all regulation.
     
  11. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    20. The 1790 linguistic fraud by Noah Webster and an early career oligarch,
    Benjamin Huntington, created the most profitable organized immorality in all of history allowing ads to be sold on indexes built from unsolicited copies of potentially private communications because these were not hidden or labeled. This clear immorality is now extended by Honorable TLB to include indexing of hidden communications labeled by “Good Samaritans” as not fit for public display.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2014
  12. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    Well guys, just to keep this windmill joust interesting.

    Each may be awaiting summary judgment dismissing your clients or employers due to a presumed res judicata ruling after the May 27th Show Cause Hearing? Many have never entered appearances since this action commenced.

    Regardless; long enough time passed since the Show Cause Hearing and even entry of the frank, respectful but biting "Supplemental Supporting Brief to the Response". See attached Dkt #14 for the further response to the Show Cause Order after the Show Cause Hearing's "taking this under advisement" for resolution of this cause. A "Summary Judgement Motion" has now been entered. See attached Dkts. ## (15, 16, 17).

    Honorable Timothy L. Brooks "took this matter under advisement" at the close of the 5/27/2014 Show Cause Hearing but has not yet ruled.The "judgement" under consideration is now plead by motion. Honorable Timothy L. Brooks has no less than (167) open cases entered during 2014 with at least (33) criminal cases and (103) civil cases.The caption of every case was attached to Dkt. #16.

    The District Court was asked to scan the color exhibits into PACER and is awaiting permission to do this from The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks' staff. The mutilated color exhibits to Dkt. #1 remain part of the record and were supplemented with attachments to Dkts. ##(16, 17). The District Court may again refuse to adequately scan the very costly color exhibits for the public to review via PACER. This further injustice will be "par for the course" of injustices encountered thus far by this Plaintiff in this District. This expected injustice was referenced at the close of biting Dkt #14 with footnote six on the "Respectfully Submitted" closing as follows.

    "6 Please note the repeated use of honorable and respectful tenor herein indicates more a fear of further injustice than respect based on prior just and honorable United States Court rulings."

    I have absolutely no respect for the United States' entire judicial branch based on immoral prior rulings by scores of culturally senile oligarchs already. Most American citizens actually feel exactly the same way! It is time for a Constitutional Amendment but this impossible in the politically broken United States after being overthrown by the American corporate regime begun in the early 1900's before discovery of nuclear technology and shortly after WWI.

    The American regime remains a far better regime to live within than many other nations. I will continue to pursue justice in the "immoral United States Courts" with the hope that justice might accidentally happen because I am too old and too disabled to leave and take my family to a more honorable country. Many now clearly exist. If or when "Contempt of Court" is finally entered it will clearly be deserved. I ONLY fear Article III courts and despise United States' entire judicial system where "ruling for life" was preserved in error by the corporate regime for an appearance of justice. This was also to save on the costs of indirectly controlling this American Corporate Oligarchy so prior corporate expenditures are cumulative influences until death as completely controlled Congress many decades ago.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Curtis Neeley Jr
    14792634795
     

    Attached Files:

    • 14.pdf
      File size:
      808.7 KB
      Views:
      7
    • 15.pdf
      File size:
      99.6 KB
      Views:
      12
    • 16.pdf
      File size:
      616.4 KB
      Views:
      6
  13. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    Looks like this judge is NOT addicted to pornography (18) like Judge Jimm Larry Hendren has certified himself to be.

    Contempt of Court does not begin to address how I feel about United States Courts.

    19, 20 >>> can anyone tell?

    This should be over very soon.
     
  14. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    Honorable GOOG, MSFT, Counselors,
    Honorable Johnathan Thane Esq,

    I appreciate your attending the Show Cause hearing where it was probably presumed I would be dismissed and sanctioned. This may still, indeed, be the case. This would be as dishonorable as EVERY immoral ruling by pornography-protecting Hon Jimm Larry Hendren herein. These immoral mistakes will now become a legacy. {GOOG, MSFT}

    Docket 19 Motion to Dismiss Parties supported by docket 20 reveals how different Hon TLB was in docket 18 and compared this to Hon Jimm Larry Hendren's immoral past and linked the current immorality by Hon Jimm Larry Hendren to the prior presumption of being worthy or better qualified to tell parents what medium minor children should or should not access while in school libraries.

    Honorable Marshall S. Ney Esq,

    You have not entered an appearance and may not yet represent MSFT herein. Perhaps the Motion for Summary Judgment was not expected by any and may not be timely or ripe. Per Hon Jimm Larry Hendren's culturally senile Local Rules; pro se parties are not allowed to be CM/ECF parties. The printed color exhibits were very costly and embarrassing.

    Regardless, The Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in docket 15 supported by docket 16 Supporting Brief. There remains absolutely no issue remaining to be tried as can be seen in the annex of docket 17 as is required by Local Rule 56.1

    MSFT, Docket 17 does not need the "obscene and indecent" exhibits for proof.
    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...D1556EE26FE60AE812314A7CF093B&selectedIndex=0

    The above obscene image of Michael Peven's erect penis image alleges to be sourced from http://www.curtisneeley.com/MichaelPeven/index.html despite this page being renamed and therefore returning ONLY a 404! This page NEVER had a naked photo and the complete HTML source of this page is an exhibit with the "no index" and "no follow" HTML codes that were ignored and each are highlighted.

    http://master-of-photography.us/theendofpornbywire/All docket15-16 exhibits/
    username "Summary_judgment"
    password: "14-cv-05135"

    MHP Esq,

    Your familiarity with the prior Perl "epoch date of Jan. 1, 1971" does not then permit the successful deception given in open court before the Magistrate Judge. The outrageous intentional deception was that GOOG has no way of knowing if a photograph is of a naked human or other. MHP said this programming "trivia" knowledge was from a game of trivial pursuit? See the transcript: ( http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/docketPDFs/216.pdf )

    The transcribed deceptions follow from p71/93.
    • THE COURT: Well, just out of curiosity, is it possible for Google to prevent these pictures from coming up when you type in his name?
    • MR. PAGE: No. Well, not, not without an insane amount of effort. For one thing, search is completely automated. It goes out, it crawls the web, it sees what's there, and it reports it back. The machine has no way of knowing whether a picture is nude, whether the person searching for it is Muslim. All it knows is that there are some bits out there that say Curtis Neeley and there are other bits on the same page and there are pictures. .....
    Then from p72/93:
    • "Similarly, there is no way for us to selectively search the photographs that this person really on any given day finds offensive, even though he put them there himself. "
    • ......
    • "We report on the current state of the internet. We can individually, of course, block results, but we are -- but Google has very strong institutional reasons not to start playing censor to the internet based on everyone's request. There is no end to that whole --"

    Google Inc has done much better at mitigating damages for YEARS than MSFT.
    {curtis neeley peven} on GOOG image search is acceptable but {curtis neeley peven} on MSFT image search is *CRIMINAL* because this page NEVER had nakedness! EVER.

    Do ANY OF YOU think a judicial branch addicted to "online" pornography will preserve display of nakedness to anonymous judges and anonymous children?

    Few would challenge the United States Marine Corps about the "moral" right to reject politically motivated wars. The recent deal to trade terrorists for a deserter is related now to this case. I personally challenged the United States Marine Corps and asserted the MORAL right to refuse becoming a U.S. mercenary outside of defense of the U.S.

    I am the ONLY conscientious objector in history who earned a USMC Good Conduct Medal. This testifies against Bergdahl leaving his post for moral reasons. The mighty, honorable, USMC allowed my morally motivated discharge though begun during the Gulf War or Operation Dessert Storm.

    I am committed to challenge the entire immoral United States Judicial Branch and view this MORAL challenge as honorable. There is an honorable resolution of this pursuit. If fresh, young, overworked, Honorable TLB makes the morally honorable rulings now "pending", this pursuit is almost ready for trial. This wire communications will be publicly searchable very soon.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Curtis Neeley Jr
    14792634795
     
  15. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    The District Court prejudicially dismissed me and Sanctioned me $500.00 for violating FRCP Rule11. Hon T. L.B. did not read all pending filings and also ordered me to pay Google Inc legal cost for this filing.

    This ruling by Hon T.L.B. was immoral but this judge specifically allowed a motion for reconsideration filed today. Although Hon T.L.B. cannot prevent an appeal Hon T.L.B. could have forbid the motion for reconsideration filed today.

    I do not use the name of Hon T.L.B. to prevent establishing an unbreakable association with his name like was carefully done already with porn-protecting Hon. Jimm Larry Hendren on every search engine on Earth. I think?

    See: GOOG, MSFT, ASK, YANDEX, DDG, YAHOO

    I do not understand why i was led to challenge the allowance of anonymous access to pornography or the swine lurking inside almost EVERY church in America. The immoral United States courts may not be part of the solution to this problem yet but U.S. Courts deserved at least a chance to repent for creating the "online" immorality Congress tried to fix twice. Old judges have protected their anonymous porn addictions.

    The Western District of Arkansas appears to want to perpetuate the anonymous access to pornography Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren is addicted to. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren feels morally superior and more worthy to personally choose what to provide children anonymous access to like he once did for "Harry Potter" books after parents required parental permission before he vetoed the parents.

    The certificate of service filed today warned Hon T.L.B. the motion for reconsideration filed today will be the last opportunity to rule morally before the dead, rotting albatross of this immoral case is permanently affixed around his neck like is already done for Hon Jimm Larry Hendren. It loosely hangs around U.S. Courts already but after or if Hon T.L.B. rules immorally the appeal will be done as a pauper to the Supreme Court but will read very much like an attack on the entire judicial branch itself.

    I will start saving to pay off the sanction but an appeal will take several years to be dismissed - I think. Not paying the sanction results in nothing except I can't sue anyone till it is paid although I feel morally obligated to try.

    Sincerely,
    Curtis Neeley Jr
    14792634795 t-sms
    15014217083 f
    curtis(at)curtisneeley.com

    P.S.
    The Brief Supporting the Motion for Reconsideration is very hard on Jimm Larry Hendren and calls the dismissal by Hon T.L.B an immoral decision that will result in a jury trial now if decided honorably.

    I clearly have "Contempt for U.S. Courts". I already told the court anything besides contempt for U.S. Court's "pornography addiction" requires immorality.
     
  16. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    The dishonorable and immoral Western District Court of Arkansas prejudicially dismissed me and Sanctioned me $500.00 for violating FRCP Rule11. Hon Timothy L. Brooks did not read all pending filings and also ordered me to pay Google Inc legal cost for this filing.

    This ruling by Hon Timothy L. Brooks was immoral but this judge specifically allowed a motion for reconsideration filed today. Although Hon Timothy L. Brooks cannot prevent an appeal, Hon Timothy L. Brooks could have forbid the motion for reconsideration filed today.

    I did not use the name of Hon Timothy L. Brooks to prevent establishing an unbreakable association with this name like was carefully done already with porn-protecting Hon. Jimm Larry Hendren on every search engine on Earth. I think?

    See: GOOG, MSFT, ASK, YANDEX, DDG, YAHOO

    I do not understand why i was led to challenge the allowance of anonymous access to labeled pornography or the swine lurking inside almost EVERY church in America. The immoral United States courts may not be part of the solution to this problem yet but U.S. Courts deserved at least a chance to repent for creating the "online" immorality Congress tried to fix twice. Old judges have protected their anonymous porn addictions.

    The Western District of Arkansas appears to want to perpetuate the anonymous access to labeled pornography like Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren is addicted to. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren feels morally superior and more qualified to personally choose what to provide children anonymous access to like honorable Jimm Larry Hendren once did for "Harry Potter" books after parents required parental permission before he vetoed the parents in 2003.

    The certificate of service filed warned Hon Timothy L. Brooks the motion for reconsideration filed today will be the last opportunity to rule morally before the dead, rotting albatross of this immoral case is permanently affixed around his name like is already done for Hon Jimm Larry Hendren. It loosely hangs around U.S. Courts already but after Hon Timothy L. Brooks ruled immorally the appeal will be done as a pauper to the Supreme Court but will read very much like an attack on the entire judicial branch itself.

    I will start saving to pay off the sanction but an appeal will take several years to be dismissed - I think. Not paying the sanction results in nothing except I can't sue anyone till it is paid although I feel morally obligated to try.

    Sincerely,
    Curtis Neeley Jr
    14792634795 t-sms
    15014217083 f
    curtis(at)curtisneeley.com

    P.S.
    The Brief Supporting the Motion for Reconsideration was very hard on Jimm Larry Hendren and calls the dismissal by Hon Timothy L. Brooks an immoral decision that will result in a jury trial now if decided logically and honorably.

    I have EXTREME "Contempt for U.S. Courts".
    I told the court anything besides contempt for U.S. Court's anonymous "labeled pornography" access" addiction requires immorality.
     
  17. Kate

    Kate Domainosaurus Rex VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    21,117
    Likes Received:
    22,424
    Who is your lawyer ?
     
  18. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    I am doing this pro se & have no money.
    I am correct according to U.S. communication privacy (18 U.S.C.§2511), and Arkansas computer fraud laws (Ark. Code Ann 5-41-103). PERIOD! All criminal laws are exempt from §230!

    Judges, and probably all reading this, are addicted to viewing "enter net" anonymously. Viewing "pornography" anonymously should be illegal already. Congress tried to prevent this TWICE!
    Immoral U.S. Courts are WHY this immorality occurred after Congress tried to halt this per se immorality and protect anonymous children. Seeking morality from immoral, senescent U.S. Courts will never happen. Immoral U.S. Courts deserved this attempt but failed.
    [​IMG]
     
  19. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    This for the one or two long-time members marginally wishing to watch a significant legal battle begun about cyber-squatting end before the book about communications law and online communications begins.
      This legal battle has cost Google Inc many HUNDREDS of thousands in legal fees. OUCH! This, however, was a trivial cost for Google Inc to rewrite United States law. The moral rights of an author to control display of visual artwork was tacked into the Copy[rite] Act in 1990 with 17 U.S.C. §106A. This change was done in order to make the United States appear more Berne Convention compliant though the U.S. misunderstood the right to control unauthorized copies first with the 1790 Copy[rite] Act though spelled [sic]"the 1790 Copyright Act".
      The HOAX of 17 U.S.C. §106A was ruled to NOT protect "online" by porn-protecting Jimm Larry Hendren. {1,2,3} This was what Google Inc wanted and was worth billions though costing little in comparison to purchasing enough Senators and Congressmen to pass law.
      The nP website has evolved greatly since I first posted on Jul 27, 2009 and now looks as well done as any REAL business website. This is exceptional for a website about making money by buying and selling domain names.
    The domain name economy developed entirely during the portions of my life that were erased mostly from my memory. I once had several websites {1, 2, 3, 4} and my ex-wife renewed only one while I was incompetent. NameMedia re-registered two of these when they expired. Data Transfer Solutions purchased one for $2,300.00 giving NameMedia Inc about $2,280.00 profit.
      Goname Inc bought the other from NameMedia Inc and you can see it linked below and for sale for $97 and giving up your right to a jury trial and 17+ pages of other legal crap.
    You agree to waive the right to trial by jury in any proceeding that takes place relating to or arising out of this Agreement.
    I will NOT buy it for $97 and by doing this agree to 17+ pages of legal crap but will make them a very irresistible offer like I should have initially made to NameMedia Inc in 2009.
    I owned this domain the ONLY time it was ever used for a real website and was last recorded March 29, 2003 while I was an incompetent. I am not incompetent now.
     
  20. Kate

    Kate Domainosaurus Rex VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    21,117
    Likes Received:
    22,424
    Perhaps you should have retained the services of a qualified attorney. This could have saved you legal fees and penalties. But a real attorney would probably do all they can to keep you out of this mess you created.

    This is debatable. Legally, you are not competent enough to undertake the case (regardless of its merits).
     
  21. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    I am not incompetent. The courts have ruled on my competence already. Competence was required to be tested before divorce. I now live on my own and spend my own SS. My post brain damage IQ is a dozen points above the average college graduate found HERE along with that of most nations on Earth. IQ does not measure ability to apply intellect.

    I have asked numerous attorneys for help and none would get involved. It is sad that my mind remembers so much useless fact. I can't understand why laws of the state and nation are not being followed by United States Courts. Calling a federal judge's ruling a demonstration of senility beginning shouldn't overturn the WHOLE constitution? IT HAS THUS FAR.

    =========================================
    1. This legal mess resulted in three large websites with hundreds of thousands of naked images ceasing to exist except as parked domains.
    2. One portion of Google Inc books is gone and will remain gone forever!
    3. Two large and noted websites removed all usage of my personal name though naked images I created will remain forever at these though you must pay to see one.
    4. This legal mess resulted in the Internet Archive Foundation excluding portions of the archives of many sites if not the whole sites.

    =========================================
    The Europeans tried to legally protected the human right to protect honor from harm by links to old publications that are disparaging but true.

    This legal mess resulted in image searches for "Curtis Neeley" at GOOG and MSFT not returning MY naked images as well as in the most used searches on Earth below besides Exalead. This naked image was pulled from one minor website that no longer exists. I will give them 30 days before I pursue them. Hmm; wait, - maybe I will just quit?
    One still returns for Bing but this will be gone after MSFT gets a clue and obeys the law and ceases this Ark Code Ann. 5-41-103 COMPUTER FRAUD. Hmm; wait, - maybe I will just quit?
    See the following image searches:
    {DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, Ask, Picsearch, Exalead, Incogna }

    I have promised my future spouse to cease this particular law pursuit after the Eighth Circuit appeal.
    I was the FIRST amicus curiae brief for the AR Act 301 12-week abortion limit appeal.
    I was allowed to file the only amicus reply brief in support of the Eighth Circuit and few of these are ever attempted.
    See the free docket mirror.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2014
  22. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    It is Finished!

    Brief Supporting Renewal of Motion to Proceed as a Pauper on Appeal

    Complaint for Communications Privacy Crimes and Computer Fraud Felonies

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint.html

    Brief Supt. Renewal of Motion to Appeal as Pauper

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint.pdf

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint/Complaint.html

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint/


    I tell United States Courts I have absolutely NO respect for SCOTUS since Citizens United and McCutcheon while leaving 47 U.S.C. §153¶(59)*, wire communications, disguised as [sic] "Internet" since 1997. I do not care if this Motion is approved really because I offended a few folks in NWA.

    The book, website and movie are underway.

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/
     
  23. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-3447
    Curtis J. Neeley Jr.

    Appellant,

    vs.



    5 Federal Communications Commissioners,
    FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, et. al.,
    US Attorney General Eric Holder Esq,
    Microsoft Corporation,
    Google Inc.

    Appellees
    .




    APPEARANCE
    The Clerk will enter my appearance as Counsel for the following party(s):
    Curtis J. Neeley Jr.

    Certificate of Service
    I, Curtis J. Neeley Jr., certify electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit using the CM/ECF system and the Federal Communications Commission via ECFS in the GN #14-26 proceeding. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Everyone else on Earth may view this docket free “online” from TheEndofPornbyWire.org/14-3447/*. Formerly served counselors for each party were electronically notified but were advised by the District Court not to respond by mistake.

    Curtis J. Neeley Jr.
    2619 N Quality Lane
    Apartment 123

    Fayetteville, AR 72703
    14792634795 t-sms
    15014219703 f
    Respectfully Submitted,
    s/ Curtis J. Neeley Jr.


    * Live PDF links
     

    Attached Files:

  24. WritersWrite

    WritersWrite Established Member

    Posts:
    72
    Likes Received:
    114
    There's a lot of info to wade through here but what I am picking up is that this all started over a $10 parking ticket due to an expired meter. Is that right?
     
  25. CurtisNeeley

    CurtisNeeley Established Member

    Posts:
    305
    Likes Received:
    18
    This litigation has cost GOOG, MSFT, and NameMedia Inc close to a million dollars in legal fees already. I was once offered 5 million by GOOG. I told a seventy-three year old judge the ruling that moral copy[rites] do not apply online was a sign of the beginnings of senility. You could read over the Motion to Appeal in HTML or PDF and the Complaint in HTML or PDF also.
    Yes; This litigation all began because I was asked to bid on a domain I had used since 1997 or earlier. The other people asked to bid paid $2,300. The other domain still costs $97 and has never been anything but a "for sale domain" since 2003.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2014

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...