Curtis’s Techdirt Profile

curtisneeley

About Curtis




Curtis’s Comments comment rss

  • Nov 28th, 2016 @ 2:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    Thank you sir. Unfortunately; Most of my filings are ignored by America's dishonorable 'corts'. Wire communications defined in 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59) include [sic] “internet”, email, mobile phones, iPads, wi-fi, and land-line telephones and have since 1934. This is why the FCC should be completely rebuilt to regulate ALL broadcasts of communications.

    Neeley Jr. v 5 Communications Commissioners, et. al. (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)

    FCC ECFS filings with the text "common carrier". See "common carrier" explained by Curtis J. Neeley Jr. to the FCC (over and over).

    PDF Links active to 100's of pages of legal filings within the FCC ECFS HERE

    My children are older and GOOG/MSFT searches with my name in them almost never return any of my prior "porn" and are now safe unlike before.

  • Nov 27th, 2016 @ 2:42pm

    Watching....

    Common carrier net neutrality is not an issue for politics but should always have been realized as fact. Just like 2 + 2 = 4

    Neeley Jr. v 5 Communications Commissioners, et. al. (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447) (Docket)(Docket)

    Mr. Eisenach and Mr. Jamison will be and are advised to be cautious or prepare to litigate. Thhe complaint was dismissed although ALL parties did as demanded; - ALMOST EXACTLY AS DEMANDED. Petition

    Google Inc. offered five-million early to settle but in one of their last conversations the Appellant's mother encouraged pursuit of this claim, “till the right thing was done”. Despite FCC affirming “online” is a common carrier; the recognition of wire communications and radio communications merging is not yet done.

    then:

    The dishonorable prior ruling(s) are counter to law and protect these and other organized wire communications privacy crimes and create the attractive nuisance of even labeled “good Samaritan” indecencies remaining broadcast today after made clearly illegal on 02/26/2015 without authentication. The pervasive immorality on display in an unregulated common carrier explains why this litigation should have been so impacting to human history evaluating the wholly immoral impact of U.S. Courts for all time.

    then:

    Honorable Timothy L. Brooks asserting only a Prosecuting Attorney may pursue civil damages for communications crimes encouraged the supervisory duties of this Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to protect justice. Justice was not done sua sponte but is plead reconsidered by the Eighth Circuit Panel and then considered en banc and not exclusively by three or nine judges unfamiliar with modern common carrier IP wire communications due to the FCC not wholly recognizing these on February 26, 2015.

  • Nov 27th, 2016 @ 1:30pm

    Title II Common Carrier is FACT not a policy

    Common carrier net neutrality is not an issue for politics but should always have been realized.

    Reno v ACLU, (1997) was written by culturally senile Stevens and other elderly oligarchs addicted to pornography. This one case was obviously wrong and made the Communications Decency Act do EXACTLY the opposite of the goal and destroyed the rights of parents to raise innocent children.

    Neeley Jr. v 5 Communications Commissioners, et. al. (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447) was dismissed after ALL demands were met because of calling a judge senile to his face in open court.

    I promised not to further sue GOOG and MSFT but will make any attempt to further pollute common carrier wires very expensive. Mr. Eisenach and Mr. Jamison are hereby advised to be on guard.

  • Nov 2nd, 2014 @ 1:56pm

    (untitled comment)

    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Brief%20Supt.%20Renewal%20of%20Motion%20to%20Appeal%20as%20Pauper.html
    ......
    http://t.co/RyK2ray65f
    The above are two links to the the Motion to Appeal as a Pauper to the Eighth Circuit that includes a request for summary judgment on the following complaint with all laws and references linked live in HTML.
    http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint.html#8
    The second link above goes to page eight which includes links to searches producing results the Western District of Arkansas would not scan into the record because of being called "obscene and indecent".
    See in the order from the FCC.gov mirror of docket #18.
    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521749649
    I believe looking at porn anonymously is the same as contributing to the delinquency of a minor and must be outlawed.

  • Dec 21st, 2013 @ 5:06pm

    My linked case above...

    resulted in GOOG spending SEVERAL hundreds of thousands to help guide the elderly Article III judge to claim or misinterpret the US moral copy[rite] regime of 106A does not protect [sic]"online".
    http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org Current complaint served yesterday in most common text formats. Doc/PDF/ODT/rtf/txt
    http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org/docket Free mirror of the docket and all filings.
    The idiotic US ruling that indecent thumbnails can be fair-use is called per se unconstitutional in this suit and the ENTIRE backwards US Copy[rite] regime with fair-use is called per se unconstitutional.
    ALL PORN SHOWN TO THE UNAUTHENTICATED IS CALLED CRIMINAL because it has been since Wi-Fi radio developed.
    --------------------------------------------
    Yes; I failed to protect one pornographers' moral right{mine} to exclusively control showing morally questionable art to children in the case linked above.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    ANY display of a porn image to the anonymous by GOOG, MSFT or ANYONE ELSE is criminal. The emperor has been naked for twenty+ years.
    Neeley v FCCs, et al, (5:13-cv-5293) can be seen above or be ignored.
    I know GOOG/MSFT/US Attorney General/FCC/US Senators/US Representatives will NOT ignore this litigation like everyone else will to help keep porn flowing to the anonymous for free.

  • Dec 9th, 2013 @ 9:55pm

    Re: Moral rights don't even apply!

    Duh, what about presentation of scanned indecent material to anonymous children.

  • Dec 10th, 2011 @ 11:17pm

    censorship called instead regulation...

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

    There is NO NEED for ANYTHING but following the laws that have existed since 1934.

    Its all over but the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court panel of three judges who have worked now since Sept 19, 2011 to figure out a way to keep pornography freely flowing by "Internet" wire communications despite the Communications Act of 1934. I will appeal, of course, to the Supreme Court regardless of why they allow nudity to be transmitted by wire communications despite the LAW.

    Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al, (5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)

    ----------------------------------------
    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)
    ---------------------------------------------
    This is NOT secret but this legal proceeding is being ignored by all media thus far.

    Links above are to the documents as filed and to US Statutes as passed. The dockets are linked above with the case listing and all Court PACER links are listed there as well. Clicking links in this post does not support ANY ADS and is for free informational purposes only.

  • Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Limiting these ridiculous laws to foreign sites is a HOAX just like the DMCA always has been.
    The FCC will regulate Internet wire communications after an Eighth Circuit appeal as demanded in United States Court.
    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.
    Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al (5:09-cv-05161)(11-2558)

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)

    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.

    Dangerous law? All laws are dangerous to criminals.

  • Dec 3rd, 2011 @ 10:47am

    tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock

    Limiting these ridiculous laws to foreign sites is a HOAX just like the DMCA always has been.
    The FCC will regulate Internet wire communications after an Eighth Circuit appeal as demanded in United States Court.
    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.
    Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al (5:09-cv-05161)(11-2558)

    PDF APPELLANT BRIEF (56 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of NameMedia Inc (19 pages)
    PDF APPELLEE BRIEF of Google Inc (14 pages)
    PDF APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF (16 pages)

    Has been pending for decision since Sept 19, 2011.

    Dangerous law? All laws are dangerous to criminals.

  • Jun 3rd, 2011 @ 4:51pm

    Well that is interesting but....

    I have sued GOOG for returning nudes when you type in my name and shall add the FCC for failing to obey the Communications Act of 1934 that makes display of nudes illegal. They, of course, asked the Court to grant them Summary Judgement again but after three years it might get to a jury in about a month. Everyone else stopped except GOOG=PORN!
    Docket FREE - 265 pre-trial filings
    -Google-, Bing, Yahoo, Ask.
    Somebody is too big for their own good and thinks they can write new copyrite laws.
    Congress usually does that rather than Google Inc book search or other search!

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 11:13pm

    "Do no evil?" Yeah - right.... more like "obey no law".

    Sure it would be great if GOOG could re-publish anything they found online or in libraries. Everyone could just surf google.com instead of going anywhere else online or ever visiting libraries or bookstores? "Do no evil?" Yeah - right.... more like "obey no law".

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

    fair-use is not fair

    Keep your eyes on the law that was passed in 1990 in the USA that gave artists moral exclusive rights to their visual art.

    It is no longer only a European right.

    It is destined for the Supreme Court and Congress again as you read this May 30, 2011.

    "Fair use" was alleged by GOOG to be scanning a book "posted" in a library and re-publishing it online regardless of copyrites. GOOG is not likely to redefine "fair-use" or "copyrite" in lawsuits.

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Re: Google and porn

    GOOG were advised of infringing images displayed in violation of VARA via DMCA processes and failed to cease display of unauthorized images. See the post or follow my GOOG lawsuit via my link.

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 10:48pm

    This lawsuit was decided in error...

    This lawsuit was decided in egregious error and the ruling does not have any impact except for parties afraid to defend their personal rights granted in the Visual Artists Rights Act("VARA").

    Thumbnail do not violate 17 U.S.C.? ONLY in the confused courts of the United States until they are educated about copyrites in New York, CA, and Arkansas by this particular Plaintiff.

    Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al (2:2004cv09484)

    Has the appeal been decided? Not hardly....(10-56316) Argued April 11, 2011 and not decided yet by the confused judges.
    Perfect 10 Opening Brief PDF
    Google Redacted reply Brief PDF

    Read linked Briefs and try to understand.
    It is not rocket science!

  • May 29th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

    Ha - you "domain real estate" guys thought I was kidding?

    Domain names are NOT real estate and the domain name market it nothing but a ponzi-scheme joke.

    Seizure of a domain operating illegal sites is easier than placing the site owners and operators in jail.(Domain registration privacy or hiding of owner identities)

    The seizure of previously registered and used domains is going before a jury and the joke called the "domain name market" will soon disappear. Google Inc and NameMedia Inc seized notable short domains and ran AdSense for domains ads on them till one sold.

    (5:09-cv-05151)
    Not a secret or quiet lawsuit but it is being ignored valiantly by the "domain name" press.

  • Apr 5th, 2011 @ 6:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Redefine robots.txt


    Indexing images using thumbnails IS COPYING!
    Yahoo is no longer the second place search engine because Microsoft Corporation or Bing does the Yahoo image search.

    Indexing of text has been excused as fair use when it is a summary of text with a link.

    Indexing of images was called fair use by United States Courts in a bare legal error by a horny judge that will soon be fixed in the following case.
    (5:09-cv-05151)


    http://www.Go-Oogle.net

  • Apr 5th, 2011 @ 5:44am

    Re: Redefine robots.txt

    Google already used the robots.txt as implied permission to index if not supplied in Germany. The open Internet has violated the Communications Act of 1934 since first called the Internet.
    I have sued Google Inc and will not cease pursuing them till Google Inc exists no longer except as a word for searching the Internet.
    The statutory Damages for copyrite violations are already more than GOOG ever has made.
    Last three years of the Docket.
    (5:09-cv-05151)
    Search the Internet without seeing my nude and figurenude original art with a custom search interface.
    www.Go-Oogle.net

  • Oct 21st, 2010 @ 8:46am

    A legislation using should words old judges understand?

    PORN broadcast by wire has been illegal since the Communications Act of 1934 but is ignored and called the Internet for disguise.

    (5:09-cv-05151) will end this.

    (10-6091), and (10-6240) demand the FCC begin regulating wire communications called the internet to protect PORN.
    See both online 100% for free below.
    Writ of Mandamus, Supplemental Brief Supporting Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

    The last two above are scheduled to be ignored 10-29-2010 or granted. Most filed at the supreme Court are ignored.

    (5:09-cv-05151) goes to a JURY March 28, 2011 and juries do not ignore anything!

  • Sep 13th, 2010 @ 8:07pm

    Curtis J Neeley Jr v Google Inc et al.....

    the United States is only a few years behind Germany and this case will be considered by the United States Supreme Court while throwing out US Title 17 and finally fixing it. (10-6240) and (10-6091) will probably be denied to protect porn trafficking.

    Google Inc gets to face an Arkansas J-U-R-Y next year and every other United States search engine will join them by March 31, 2011 or the 221st anniversary of United States' April Fools HOAX called "The copy-right Act" without using the hyphen to fool artist into believing a fundamental right was recognized.

  • Aug 29th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

    FCC nonfeasance

    This lawsuit has demanded that the FCC start regulating the FCC as has ALWAYS been their statutory duty according to the Communications Act of 1934 on page eight in paragraph 51.
    Curtis J Neeley Jr v. NameMedia Inc., et al,(10-6091)
    Read it yourself from my evidence! Communications Act of 1934 page eight
    or directly FROM the disobedient FCC=>[PDF] Communications Act of 1934: as ammended by Telecom Act of 1996

More comments from Curtis >>