Curtis’s Techdirt Profile

curtisneeley

About Curtis




Curtis’s Comments comment rss

  • Oct 27th, 2017 @ 10:38am

    FCC, Congress, Law

    The FCC does not get to decide which laws to obey or apply. Applying Title I instead of Title II was always misfeasance encouraged by SCOTUS with the Reno v ACLU (1997) mistake. Congress tells the Commission how to regulate wire communications used in commerce. The merger of radio and wire communications was misidentified by the Reno v ACLU (1997) mistake. There has never been a new medium and there will never be a new medium.

  • Oct 26th, 2017 @ 3:39pm

    Re: Re:

    Did you even read the legal definition you linked to? A monopoly never exists if there is a choice. Choice(s) equals no monopoly. Monopoly is a common English word and must follow the meanings used in common dictionaries. Legal dictionaries trying to establish any "monopoly dogma" are wholly invalid.

    The "Information Services" Pai will try to convert the net into again will be wildly unsuccessful. I will personally try to make sure of this.

    An exclusive advantage results in dominance but not a monopoly according to any common English language. Nobody can redefine monopoly into something else. Judges might try but even this FIAT will not be allowed.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/monopoly

    I will not pursue Google Inc and MSFT again without new provocation from either. I will join with others asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to review and set aside any attempt to redefine wire communications from the Communications Act of 1934 as ANYTHING ELSE.

    Neeley Jr. v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et. al.

    I can/will help another large law firm make the FCC and Pai follow the law instead of using "Information Services" or other dogma to subvert the Communications Act. The FCC already knows this.

    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10810046119574/Reply%20to%20NPRM.pdf

    https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file /10830155969282/Reply%20to%20comments3.pdf

  • Oct 25th, 2017 @ 4:20pm

    (untitled comment)

    The reality here is simple: Net Neutrality was created by the FCC without any true legal basis (it's not law, it's only department rules, as it were) and if the current FCC wants to change them or remove them, the bar shouldn't be any higher than it was to create the rule to start with, which was a simple majority of the sitting FCC members.

    Oops. /\/\ WRONG /\/\ Title II has been in the Communications Act of 1934 law for a very long time.

    See http://Title-II.com

    Yes, but google has:
    blah...

    blah...

    blah...

    Oops. /\/\ WRONG /\/\ GOOG is not a monopoly in ANY WAY. Perhaps the meaning of the word was forgotten? https://www.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

    GOOG having even 100% of the market does not make GOOG a monopoly while there is another choice for web searches. NO monopoly exists because there are "better", more private web searches exempt from ALL U.S. laws or subpoenas and even the NSA.

    I detest GOOG. GOOG spent many hundreds of thousands against me in U.S. Court(s) for six years. GOOG is just not a monopoly. Use someone else like I ALWAYS do.

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will not allow the FCC to get rid of the 2015 Open Internet Order. It makes absolutely no difference what Republicans or Democrats try to do now. The pot was called black by a kettle and the web will ALWAYS be a common carrier of wire and radio communications since no new medium will ever be created and has NEVER existed despite the senile ramblings of senescent judges in Reno v ACLU.

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 5:22pm

    (untitled comment)

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=UN+internet+as+a+human+right

    Sorta; I guess. 47 nations want this to be true although as impossible a human right as the individual human right to marry.

    SCOTUS said there was an individual human right to marry anchored in the liberty used in the Constitution. It does not matter this is impossible as an individual human right. The UN might want this to be a human right but "net" access can never be a human right.

    Neeley Jr. v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et. al. All Defendants partially or completely met my demands. GOOG and MSFT will always continue to comply.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/fee_schedule.html

    Petition for Review = $500 is all needed except for legal fees and miscellaneous expenses.

  • Oct 24th, 2017 @ 4:44pm

    Fix the FCC.

    http://fixthefcc.com

    The "web" was recognized as a Title II common carrier on February 26, 2015 while facing me in federal litigation begun in the Western District Court of Arkansas.

    I say "recognized" only because regardless of what Chairman Pai and his cohorts do with 17-108; Regardless of when this is done, this gives me standing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the FCC. The "web" was ALWAYS simply wire communications on a common carrier of interconnected wires when developed.

    The FCC spent a great deal of time/$ and GOOG and MSFT spent around a million in legal fees alone.
    GOOG offered 5 million to drop the case.

    Free copies of the dockets and all legal filings are linked from the following website.
    See http://fixthefcc.com
    Almost a thousand pages.

    There was NEVER a *"wholly unique new medium of worldwide human communications"* ...! NEVER
    The "web" was always simply a new use of archaic medium(s) and merging these wire communications with radio.
    See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153#59

  • Apr 13th, 2017 @ 6:12pm

    Pai Should have no options.

    The nternet has ALWAYS been computers connected by wire/radio connections. The nternet was never "a unique and wholly new medium for worldwide human communications", but was usage of computers to pass 47 USC §153 ¶(59),wire communications, as sometimes was/is merged with radio communications, 47 USC §153 ¶(50).

    2 + 2 = 4 and Chairman Pai can't change facts or the U.S. law that requires net neutrality.

  • 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!

More comments from Curtis >>