. . . . . . My parents and now 2nd ex-wife were told I would be lucky to have the mentality of a toddler if not expiring when the respirators were removed after six weeks in a non-responsive coma due to a severe traumatic brain injury. My 2nd spouse wanted to remove the respirators because of a prior discussion with me about artificial respiration but my parents were against it. My parents allowed my wife to disconnect the respirators unlike Terrie Schiavo's. As my blood oxygenation dropped. my brother held my hand and encouraged me to breathe which I did, -barely. My brother told the doctors I had squeezed his hand and was trying to breathe. He was told random contractions occurred along with death. My brother demanded the neurologist return and examine me closer because I was trying to breathe and responding. My brother also never quits a firmly held contention. I do not think a "Neeley" ever will.
. . . . . . . . . The neurologist returned and asked me to give him a thumbs-up if I was attempting to breathe and I allegedly did. My 2nd wife, who was mourning my death in the hospital Chapel, was told I had responded but would soon die without returning the respirator. My 2nd now ex-wife allowed them to void the Do Not Revive (DNR) order and for several more weeks I was slowly weaned from the respirator.
. . . . . . . . I was paralyzed roughly mid-back due to a vascular spinal cord injury caused by my descending aorta being torn from my heart. I had five broken back bones and broke all the bones in my body except the other vertebrates, right shoulder and arm bones, right ribs, sternum, fingers and toes. These broken bones did not sever the spinal cord. The left ribs tore the artery from my heart and punctured my left lung etc. I have no memories of study in high school, ACU, ASU, or U of A, schools. I do not remember serving in the USMC in Japan, driving a semi in 37 States, or being a SCUBA Rescue Diver. I apparently once wrote reservation software and offered distribution of reservations until priceline.com required exclusivity and did professional photography.
See (6/14/2001, 5/25/2002, 9/3/2002, ?/?/<2006?, ?/?/<2009?).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .BEDSORES, SINS, REHABILITATION
. . . . . . . .I was not able to use my legs for anything but accumulating pressure sores that would not heal properly. My therapists helped me re-learn my wives and children, their birthdays and anniversaries and other important dates. I slowly learned how to speak again but may never be able to do this well or without betraying my intellect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FORGETTING
1). . . . . . . . I do not remember my first ex-wife or the "dozens" of women and one man I allegedly physically "loved" but should have never done. I do not remember most of the things I did that were wrong or were immoral like others do but some are not completely gone.
2). . . . . . . .How can I remember checking my first ex-wife's uterine dilation to help her know when to begin pushing as I delivered my daughter at home but struggle with her birthday? Why do I know 6.022 x 10^23 is the Avogadro's constant or number of atoms in one mole? How did I finish a photography degree at NYI in 2004 and remember the basics of calculus. I was a senior in secondary education math with CREDIT for 110 hrs but do not remember why I understand what I do..
3). . . . . . . .The trouble is the nternet once did not forget. I was one of the first pro "master" photographers to use computers and connected wires to distribute "artistic" images of humans without clothing as art around 1996..? Sorry; but I am part of the reason pornography became the driving force or primary rational for the rapid development of the nternet and am part of why U.S. Courts called the merger of wire and radio communications a "[holy] new medium for worldwide human communications" in the 1997 (Reno v ACLU) SCOTUS legal mistake ignoring the definition of wire communications. This was the beginning of the protection of free distribution of pornography to our children by illegal and criminal wire and radio communication broadcasting using the First Amendment incorrectly.
4). . . . . . . . I have helped the nternet forget much of my prior immoral photography and have discovered the human right to protect honor does not exist in the United States like in Europe or in ALL the OTHER 167 Berne Convention nations. The United States signed this treaty Sept. 9, 1986 but ignores the moral rights part in Article 6bis. U. S. courts rejected this fundamental human right to protect free speech after fixed "online" in (Neeley v NameMedia Inc., et al) My fixed original indecent free speech was and some top secret free speech is still subjected to unauthorized repetition by GOOG. GOOG, MSFT, et. al. still continue to fraudulently associate my name with images from these old pages counter to the Constitution and the mission given the F.C.C. in 1934 to protect the safety of interstate and world-wide communications by wire or radio. See 47 U.S.C. §151.
. . . . . . . . I have not yet given up hope on the United States Supreme Court's honor but do not hope to one day walk. Hope is a many flavored dish encouraging refusal to give up tasting the dish in search of a pleasing flavor. I do not remember walking or running but miss neither. The best sign that a paralyzed person will not always be paralyzed is the paralyzed person continues to breathe. Breathing, eating, or drinking ALL require hope.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .GAY MARRAGE
. . . . . . . . I am initiating a civil union recognized by the State of Arkansas already despite the dishonorable speech requirement passed in Arkansas to stop same sex unions from being called marriages. What this means to my family and friends is I am getting "married" on June 20, 2015. I HOPE this "civil union" is the LAST “marriage” I will ever do. I do not remember either of my first two marriages but think marriage is supposed to be a rare life event done to make sexual relations HONORABLE instead of casual and frivolous.
. . . . . . . . I filed the first brief in Arkansas' Act 301 Appeal of the invalidation of this law in partial support of voiding Hon. Susan Webber's legal mistake. I filed the ONLY pro se Amicus Reply the Assistant AR AG had ever seen allowed. This&nbsp;Amicus Reply carefully described the errors in ALLother briefs including my own. Arkansas will soon have the most severe limit of 12-weeks to artificially abort gestation but at the same time this ruling will replace Roe v Wade as the controlling ruling regarding intentional artificial pregnancy termination. The fundamental human right to control personal honor supports the individual human right to abort a pregnancy for 12-weeks though protecting honor was left out of the Bill of Rights and the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. This will lead to OTC abortafficients eventually because the woman or girl's fundamental human right to protect personal honor supports ending a pregnancy exactly like removing a tick but only before a heartbeat might be detected by another.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .GAY MARRAGE & Free Speech.
. . . . . . . . Oh yes; almost forgot; I will help educate SCOTUS on the ONLY way to honorably resolve the gay mariage cases recently heard, and for all time. No current State attempt to be involved in defining marriage, including Arkansas, have been honorable because the alleged requirements for separation of Church and State. The definition of any word is far beyond the honorable jurisdiction of ANY court or law. This fact is obvious but there is sufficient case law regarding forced speech. No court or law can force a new definition for ANY word or force or proscribe use of any specific word definition. I have not yet accepted the redefinition of marriage to include couples of the same gender, but will eventually. I will then assert the definition has never included any specification for genders. The common-law definition could be and was asserted to have been one woman and one man for millennia. History does not support this. The biblical definition does not support this either though many pastors inappropriately claim this despite the clear scriptural telling of the coming honorable</u> SCOTUS ruling in these "end times". Mathew 24:38.
1). . . . . . . . Benjamin Franklin was a noted international writer who felt the Constitution too important a document to coin words not listed in Samuel Johnston's 1755 “Dictionary of the English Language” to make sure there was no possibility for confusion about the meanings or intent of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin published his, “A Scheme for a new Alphabet and a Reformed Mode of Spelling”, in 1768 in London. Mr Franklin included the need for a new phonetic method for spelling in the 1779 London publication that follows with a ridiculous title.
. . . . . . . . Political, miscellaneous, and philosophical pieces : arranged under the following heads, and distringuished by initial letters in each leaf: General politics; American politics before the troubles; American politics during the troubles; Provincial or colo”.LINK
2). . . . . . . Benjamin Franklin was why Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, and the first State of the Union did not include the word recently coined in Enngland by Sir William Blackstone in 1766 on page 406 in chapter 26 of his Volume II “Rights of Things”. This coinage of copy-right into copyright is from the four-volume series of law books “Commentaries on the laws of England”. These are taught about in all Earth's law schools today. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 follows.
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Article I, Section 8, Clause 8
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
. . . . . . . This section 1was originally known as the “Progress Clause” until May 31, 1790 and then magically became the [sic] “Copyright Clause” 59 days after Benjamin Franklin died on April 17, 1790. Noah Webster's 1828 “Dictionary of American English Language” misspelled or Americanized copy+rite into copy+right during the early U.S. consideration of explicitly guaranteeing individual human rights against a government replacing the Monarchy in the “Bill of Rights”.
Quote follows from a confused but honorable law professor's BLOG who signed a brief linked above.
"|...analytical deficiencies of the now-vacated Garcia v. Google opinion ....[snip.... ] isn’t surprising given that an appellate court was making up the facts out of thin air...| LINK
1). . . . . . . The NOT vacated Garcia v Google opinion is still in effect and keeping the illegal video off YouTube and not, therefore, continually intercepting and disclosing Ms Garcia's originally made free speech. A vacated opinion has no force. America's copy[rite] regime has been unconstitutional since May 31, 1790 by denying and disparaging the fundamental human right to control original speech made with artwork "for a time" after fixed to protect honor existing in England for one-quarter century in 1790. This was a full century before the first obvious SCOTUS mistake in the America, which overthrew the United States.
2). . . . . . .The coming ruling was left no chance for preserving justice except overruling Wheaton v Peters (1834). This mistake has been obvious since 1834 for everyone with enough intellect.
. .
.Garcia v Google and Google-books HONOR related mistakes.
1). . . . . . . Cris Armenta Esq. did not argue this obvious fact but is now aware of the following two legal vehicles to protect Ms Garcia's honor from being destroyed by Google Inc without question:
. . . . . . . A) Encouraging SCOTUS to recognize the common law right as well as the natural human right to protect honor from abuse due to unauthorized usage of prior fixations of original speech. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may take this up sua sponte in order to finally recognize America's missing human right within the Copy[rite] Regime of 1790. This would make indexing by search engines and snippets immediately require affirmative authorization like I argued necessary in 1999. This would immediately invalidate Hon. Denny Chin's Google-books fair-use ruling that is ignorant, arrogant, and obviously wrong.
. . . . . . . B) Pursuing the criminal interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited, or 18 §2511, makes punitive damages available if not avoided by the injunction now remaining in force. This would make punitive damages available for all book authors with honor damaged by their own determination by Hon. Denny Chin's /google-books fair-use ruling that is a fair-use ruling that is ignorant, arrogant, and obviously wrong.
2). . . . . . . Yes; there are exact Blackstone quotes that results in both options above. The Ninth Circuit en banc has no duty to consider legal facts not yet plead but Cris Armenta Esq. must now present these on appeal if the Ninth Circuit does not let copy[rite] protect HONOR or file a post-judgment motion or face disbarment.
. .
. . . . . . . . I will file a petition for certiorari in Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et. al., before June 20th and tactfully attempt to educate the entire U.S. public along with each SCOTUS clerk and eight more SCOTUS judges after Hon Antonin Scalia already agreed about the fundamental human right missing explicitly from the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights" though authorized for Congress to protect by the Constitution and implied to be retained by the people and not be disparaged or denied by the Ninth Amendment. This fundamental human right existed in England already for thirty-plus years but was accidentally or “intentionally” denied and disparaged by a career lawyer three years later and then by Congress on May 31, 1790 instead of protected when Noah Webster copied the 1710 "Statute of Anne" book printing monopolization ritual or RITE almost verbatim in order to prevent England's elementary school textbooks from being reprinted by the wealthy. Many American colonist could buy printing presses and reprint imported schoolbooks from England. The misspelling or Americanization of copy[rite] was how Noah Webster became a noted elementary American English dictionary author (lexicographer) and changed England's (colour, honour, labour and copy+rite) into American (color, honor, labor and copy+right or [sic] “copyright”). This misspelling disparaged the human right to control original speech after fixed by denying this fundamental human right existed or needed protection in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. This misspelling of the compounding of two words set American IP law eighty years behind England except marginally protecting the non-enumerated human right vicariously with the slander, defamation, and liable legal torts.
.. .
. . . . . . . . The missing American human right to protect honor explains many important legal issues today like how abortion, marriage, copy[rite], and democracy, which was extinguished by Citizens United after flickering now since the Reapportionment Act of 1929, should ALL resolve honorably. My (pauper) opinion must be as important or honorable as Alice Walton's and elections must not allow purchasing more honor or consideration of opinions by the wealthy.
. . . . . . Curtis J Neeley Jr (I) is(am) NOT the anti-Christ but is(am) the first person in all of human history to have had this perspective on language and law coupled with this level of intellect, experience, sinfulness, and determination to repent and protect HONOR</u> though this perspective is not unique in recorded history. SCOTUS may deny the Petition for Certiorari but the republication of this very thesis and it will equal the moral impact of Martin Luther's “95 Thesis”. My LAST Petition for Certiorari will surpass the impact of every other legal text ever written whether justice occurs very quickly at SCOTUS or soon elsewhere.


Curtis J Neeley Jr.                                                                                  Plaintiff/Appellant


CASE NO. 14-cv-5135

5 Federal Communications Commissioners,
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, et al,
US Attorney General, Eric Holder Esq,                                                Defendants/Appellees

Complaint Seeking Civil Damages for Intentional Continued Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511 & Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103 as Authorized by 18 U.S.C. §2520 & Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-106 & Authorized from FCC Commissioners & the U.S. Attorney General by 42 U.S.C. §1983

This Plaintiff/Appellant has a long, convoluted, dishonorable history in the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas for the only attempt in history to seek damages for violations of 17 U.S.C. §106A* “online” for original photographs or for photographs shown ANYWHERE since 1990 when 17 U.S.C. §106A* was created. This District Court held 17 U.S.C. §106A* excludes “online” publications. This prior mistake is not the rational for this complaint. All naked images authored by this Plaintiff/Appellant besides two “online” not indexed pages are gone or are deleted. There remains ABSOLUTELY no authorized usage of this Plaintiff's name with Plaintiff's or other original obscene naked art like fraudulently asserted by both Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation in organized Computer Fraud crimes. Unfortunately; Two or three usages of Plaintiff's name remains on pages with naked images by Helmut Newton. These misuses of Plaintiff/Appellant's name are NOT PART OF THIS COMPLAINT.


1. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is a prohibited criminal act and this entire statute does not contain “contemporaneous” or any reference for times intercepted or places intercepted like Honorable Timothy L. Brooks asserted counter to clear law. “Intercept” is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2510(4) as follows.

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

2. Communications authorized only for authenticated individuals are not authorized for display to the general public like described in 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(g)(i)*. Communications are intercepted by Google Inc and shown to children and the unauthenticated. Plaintiff/Appellant seeks the punitive damages authorized in 18 U.S.C. §2520(b)* when appropriate. Organized criminal Interception of “good Samaritan” artists like this Plaintiff/Appellant attempting to conceal indecent or top-secret art from the unauthenticated make punitive damages appropriate.

II. Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103 - ORGANIZED CRIMES

.     Plaintiff/Appellant also seeks civil damages for Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* computer frauds from Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation when these type “damages” are appropriate. Civil recovery is provided by Ark Code Ann. 5-41-106* as follows:

ARK. CODE ANN. 5-41-106*

(1) Any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation of any provision of this subchapter may sue for the injury and recover for any damages sustained and the costs of suit.

(2) Without limiting the generality of the term, "damages" include loss of profits. -


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.” ...

< 2 >

1. Plaintiff/Appellant seeks redress from each FCC Commissioner and the U.S. Attorney General for allowing the communications privacy and computer fraud crimes in communications used in interstate commerce under color of law by failing to regulate interconnected wires as “Communications Act of 1934” Title II common carriers these were admitted to be on Feb. 26th, 2015. These wires use the [sic]“Internet” wire communications protocol defined in the “Communications Act of 1934” in 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59)* exactly like follows.


    The term “wire communication” or “communication by wire” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.

2. The definition above clearly includes all mobile telephones, Wi-Fi communications, and every apparatus communicating on the [sic] “Internet” via wire communications whether called “wireless” or “Wi-Fi” the last few miles or not.
3.     Actual damages are more than $512.82 and a jury trial of peers is demanded and guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment as follows below with $512.82 being the inflation adjusted amount $20 from 1790 would be in 2014. Punitive damages are warranted and demanded from an AR jury guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment. This fundamental human right is mentioned in the “Communications Act” of 1934 as follows.


[uniting] the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate”.| underlining substituted for original italics.

< 3 >


In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

4. This Plaintiff/Appellant has a severe traumatic brain injury and is acutely aware of the potential for negative impact on a human's mental state caused by physical changes in the human brain. Regardless; the term inviolate was carefully written by Congress in order to preserve the “Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial” - inviolate.1

5. This means the desires of the United States Court for Western District of Arkansas to look at “artisan n_des” anonymously like described by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks and Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren and the personally biased desire of Honorable Magistrate Erin L. Setser to find this Plaintiff/Appellant in violation of a prior injunction despite contrary facts in the record are wrongs unable to harm or change the jury right except by judicial fiat, like already done, begging this Eighth Circuit's correction.

6. The decision of Honorable Magistrate Erin L. Setser to forbid “IFP” appeal makes misunderstanding2 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59)* as relevant to an appeal as the desire to protect an impermissibly vague injunction by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren.

< 4 >

IV. Reckless “Indexing” of JPGs

1. Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc are organized criminal conspirators recklessly indexing and displaying harmful unrated JPG image files. Halting this one wrong would make electronic communications safe for everyone and would almost immediately end ALL continuing “online” child pornography.

2. The JPG file format for images was established by the Joint Photographic Experts Group initially in 1992. One decade before Google Inc existed, the JPG file format contained provisions for descriptive, machine-readable data about the binary or otherwise “gobbledygook” JPG “bits” like ratings for automatic categorization of JPG files.

3. EVERY JPG FILE EVER CREATED ALLOWS FOR DESCRIPTIVE METADATA. This fact is wildly counter to the deception made in court and will always be factual and reveal a fraud by Google Inc on the court and on the entire Earth.

4. These clear facts are recklessly ignored by ALL Defendant/Appellees. This intentional ignorance destroyed Plaintiff/Appellant's parental human right to determine the type moral communications allowed encountered by minor children using wire communications in interstate and world-wide commerce or the mission of the Federal Communications Commission since 1934 per 47 U.S.C. §151.* The mission NOT DONE* since the 1997 imaginary new medium mistake.

< 5 >

5. Transporting unrated JPG files in interstate or world-wide wire communications involving an indecent naked human is criminal today per 18 U.S.C. §§ (1462*, 1464*).

6. These laws are wholly ignored by the Federal Communications Commission, the Attorney General, and is violated by both organized criminal Defendant/Appellees. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation violate 18 U.S.C. §2511* by intercepting and displaying images labeled by “good Samaritan” authors as “not fit for anonymous consumption” and restricted to authenticated viewers and NEVER accessible to the general public with simply “one more click like comparing the immoral *B<photo.net>*G displays to the general public compared to *B<deviantart.com>*G and seeing the source pages where the content was intercepted from directly where excluded for the anonymous instead of the organized communications privacy crimes done by interceptions of Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation.


1. This Plaintiff/Appellant now prays that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte orders the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas to conduct a jury trial to establish damages after determining guilt is established by law for violations of Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* and 18 U.S.C. §2511* visible in the non-scanned record or searching “online” at MSFT for {Curtis Neeley nude}.* Looking “online” at GOOG for {Curtis Neeley nude}* reveals Google Inc. Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* computer frauds and {Curtis Neeley site:deviantart.com}* reveals FIVE 18 U.S.C. §2511* crimes EXEMPTED 47 U.S.C. §230* preemption by 47 U.S.C. §230(e).*

< 6 >

2. The following domains were where prior indecent communications were all removed after years and years and great costs can be seen or Ark CODE Ann 5-41-103 crimes or 18 U.S.C. §2511 crimes persist. Those marked with “<<” or “>>” and bold continue criminally today. The last two marked “>>>” are unfortunate but not included in this complaint because these remain supported by fact.

3. This Plaintiff/Appellant worked many thousands of hours and utterly purged a host of “computer apparatus” attached to interconnected physical wires using this Plaintiff/Appellant's former original naked creations or prior authorized uses of this Plaintiff/Appellant's name. These computer apparatus are connected to common carrier wires for “contemporaneous” wire communications to the general public when requested and once included the following locations and those listed/linked in exhibits. Only two still use Plaintiff/Appellant's name and nakedness together. The five colored graphics from #05 below require authentication to see unless intercepted by Defendant/Appellee Google Inc then and shown to the public in clear violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511*.

01.*B<photo.net>>G*, 02.*B<creative-nude.net>G*, 03.*B<absolutearts.com>>G*, 04.*B<pbase.com>G*, 05.*B<deviantart.com>>G*, 06.*B<cravagolina.wordpress.com>>G*, 07.*B<<curtisneeley.com>G*, 08.*B<fineartamerica.com>G*, 09.*B<michelle7.com>G*, 10.*B<<michelle7-erotica.com>G*, 11.*B<aventar.eu>G*, 12.*B<<flickr.com>G*, 13.*B<wordpress.com>>G*, 14.*B<prmob.net>G*, 15.*B<weblog.com.pt>G*, 16.*B<wikimedia.org>G*, 17.*B<wikipedia.org>G*, 18.*B<artistrising.com>G*, 19.*B<artnude.pp.ru>G*, 20.*B<artring.net>G*, 21.*B<blogspot.com>G*, 22.*B<blurb.com>G*, 23.*B<canalblog.com>G*, 24.*B<free.fr>G*, 25.*B<google.com>G*, 26.*B<groupf16.org>G*, 27.*B<imagekind.com>G*, 28.*B<listphotographers.com>G*, 29.*B<lulu.com>G*, 30.*B<menshelp.cc>G*, 31.*B<nudeartcollection.com>G*, 32.*B<photopoints.com>G*, 33.*B<purestorm.com>G*, 34.*B<redbubble.com>G*, 35.*B<salon.com>G*, 36.*B<sexblognews.ucom>G*, 37.*B<sexoteric.com>G*, 38.*B<plus.google.com/113306317695805427659>G*, 39.*B<corpscircuits.canalblog.com>G*, 40.*B<models-forum.com>G*, 41.*B<purestorm.com>G*, 42*B<aduznfreshman.blogspot.com>G*, 44.*B<signatureillustration.org>>>G*, 45.*B<cafephilos.wordpress.com>>>G*

< 7 >

4.     Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151) is the case where Google Inc successfully deceived Honorable Magistrate Erin L. Setser and Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren into believing uploading to an “online” apparatus or “website” makes the information uploaded accessible to the random public or donated to the public.
5.     NameMedia Inc purchased <photo.net> and asserted this same immoral deception. NameMedia Inc asserted “ownership” of all naked images placed on *B<photo.net>G* before the NameMedia Inc purchase. This was immoral but NameMedia Inc has since deleted all naked images by this Plaintiff/Appellant and other moral authors and ALL use of Plaintiff/Appellant's name on pages with nakedness while attempting to settle.

6. Plaintiff/Appellant once used <photo.net> and uploaded world-class naked images and sold these. <[P]hoto.net> required an authenticated membership to view these naked images after tagging like done today at *B<deviantart.com>>G* though these type tagged images are intercepted today by Defendant/Appellees Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation, though Defendant/Appellee Microsoft Corporation has now ceased a few.

7. NameMedia Inc was guilty of criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511* but these criminal violations are wholly protected by the over-broad injunction and honorably applied collateral estoppel and NOT by res judicata the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas now stretched to allow current criminal violations of law.
8. Besides the protection of NameMedia Inc by the over-broad injunction and honorably applied collateral estoppel, NameMedia Inc is also now protected by the statute of limitations included in 18 U.S.C. §2520(e)* of two years.


< 8 >

10. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren ruled moral rites to artwork do not apply “online”. Insert ¶#9 again here. Regardless; NameMedia Inc lost ALL moral world-class photographers due to violating 18 U.S.C. §2511*. Current users of *B<photo.net>G* ARE exempted by the 18 U.S.C. §2511(g)(i)*. Honorable Timothy L. Brooks stretched this out to improperly protect Defendant/Appellee Google Inc for violations of this Plaintiff/Appellant's current usage of <deviantart.com>* as begs Eighth Circuit supervisory jurisdiction more than mixing up collateral estoppel and res judicata as well as the cited Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure Rule #4* regarding timeliness.


1. This Plaintiff/Appellant prays this Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals examine the record and this complaint or just look “online” and then order a jury trial in the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas to determine fiscal damages per: 1) Ark Code Ann. 5-41-106* for violations of Ark Code Ann. 5-41-103*; and 2) those warranted by 18 U.S.C. §2520* for (5) violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511*; as well as those warranted by 42 U.S.C. §1983* from each Federal Communications Commissioner and the U.S. Attorney General because guilt is a settled matter of law.

< 9 >

2. Plaintiff/Appellant also prays for immediate injunctive relief such that all violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511* and all violations of Ark Code Ann. 5-41-103* are ordered ceased immediately for Plaintiff/Appellant's name and seeks orders for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate “online” wire communications as a Title II common carrier and require ratings of all “obscene, indecent, or profane” JPG files communicated in interstate or world-wide commerce before indexed as soon as possible because this is already required by clear wording of U.S. law in 47 U.S.C. §151*.

Curtis J. Neeley Jr.
2619 N Quality Lane
Apartment 123
Fayetteville, AR 72703
4792634795 -t-sms
5014217083 f

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Curtis J Neeley Jr.

* = Live PDF links

< 10 ^^

1Inviolate -: not harmed or changed : not violated or profaned; especially : pure |
Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inviolate>.

2Well, Mr. Neeley, do you, do you understand that when you post something on the internet, you're making a public posting? You understand that? When you go on there and blog about a photograph, it's likely that it's going to be -- your comment and your name are going to be linked to that photograph, so I'm having a hard time understanding why you fault Google for that.” | From (09-cv-05151) Dkt #216* p13

                  The End of Porn byWire.org

       The litigation is over except for the coming Petition for Certiorari after the Petition for Panel Rehearing Seeking en banc Hearing was denied. Please United States citizens remember this litigation was presented tactfully to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and will perptually be presented to EVERYONE on EARTH by broadcasts in the wire medium. These are the PDF and HTML versions of filings ruled not to convince Honorable James B. Loken, Honorable Lavenski R. Smith, and Honorable William D. Benton. This request was the same query as asking United States Courts to Affirm two plus two equals four. The confused, angry, culturally irrelevant, pornography addicted Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren of the District Court was backed up by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks ruling immorally as encouraged by a magistrate judge with absolutely no practice before any court in this action when asked the same thing. The Eighth Circuit panel did not bother to do anything but read these prior injustices and assume the District Court fiats were not done by an agry old man because District Court Judges are usually honorable despite advanced ages or shared addictions to anonymously viewing legal pornography.

       This litigation did not again include physical display of the indecent and obscene searches because these were ALL included as active links in each PDF. These are all already publicly accessible from the Federal Communications Commission in the 14-28*, 13-86*, 13-186*, 10-25*, 10-127*, 09-191*, and other* proceedings with live vulgar links in Exhibit Z* and other BRIEF filings made links by the FCC accidentally for their website. LINKS are allegedly NOT supported by FCC's ECFS. (HACK, HACK, HACK... cough)

The Petition for Panel Rehearing Seeking en banc Hearing was quickly read over and ignored. The United States clearly does not follow the laws written by Congress.  

Petition for Panel Rehearing Seeking en banc Hearing

Nov. 11-18-2014
Filings-as-HTML here.

  1. 14-3447 Docket*

  2. Motion to Proceed as a Pauper*

  3. Brief Supporting Renewed Motion to Proceed as a Pauper*

  4. 2014 Complaint*

  5. Exhibit X*

  6. Exhibit Y*

  7. Exhibit Z*

Nov. 11-18-2014
Filings-as-PDFs here.
(not mutilated like done by FCC)

  1. Motion to Proceed as a Pauper*

  2. Brief Supporting Renewed Motion to Proceed as a Pauper*

  3. 2014 Complaint*

  4. Exhibit X*

  5. Exhibit Y*

  6. Exhibit Z*


     Physically interconnected wires finally circumscribe the entire Earth allowing 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59) "wire communications"
otherwise disguised as "the enter net" which should have finally allowed SAFE worldwide communications for all of humanity WITHOUT FILTRATION. The development of immediate worldwide communications should have led to cures for cancer and development of unlimited clean power sources. The honorable development of the interconnected wire medium was made impossible by SCOTUS failing to recognize the "enter net" as nothing but computers replacing telegraph and fax machines connected by physically interconnected WIRES when also combined with the radio medium. The Reno v ACLU mistake alleged to create an immaginary new medium.

     The United States' Courts are why the attractive nuisance of unregulated "free speech" disguised as "enter net" exists and continues today because of addictions to anonymous access to free porn or anonymous access for children and judges like Honorable Timothy L. Brooks to enjoy what was called "artisan n_des" in a judicial fiat counter to United States law in Doc 22.

Honorable Timothy L. Brooks is NOT culturally senile but was surrounded by cultural senility in the Judicial Branch as a whole and quoted one of Hon Jimm Larry Hendren's angry, immoral "lies" in immoral Doc. 22*. This egregious mistake was called dishonorable and immoral in the Doc. 24* brief supporting the Doc. 23* motion to reconsider mistakes of law and set a new trial. The immoral and dishonorable mistake by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks was not fixed while "Honorable" Timothy L. Brooks remained semi-anonymous.  No new trial was ordered or no honorable ruling was done by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks. This mistake will become young Honorable Timothy L. Brooks and all justices involved most egregious and most widely known mistake and will haunt a potentially 30-40+ year rule.

<  2  >

     The worst law mistake in earth's history began an ineffective process of appeals you see linked above. United States courts encountered thus far are wholly immoral and are utterly addicted to assuming moral superiority to United States' parents and presume to be better suited to decide which unrated "good Samaritan" labeled JPG files young children should see on the "enter-net" anonymously.

1. Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-5135)*
| Dishonorably dismissed counter to law by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks.
This biting but respectful BRIEF* SHOULD have resulted in this complaint* being allowed for
an AR jury but WAS NEVER READ!  
This Partial Summary Judgment Motion* with biting Support Brief* should have resulted in the
complete end of unauthorized display of indecency to the anonymous but
2. Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:13-cv-5293)*
| Legal mistake by immoral, angry, culturally-senile, porn-protecting Jimm Larry Hendren.

3. Neeley v FCC, et al, (5:13-mc-00066)*
| Legal mistake by immoral, angry, culturally-senile, porn-protecting Jimm Larry Hendren. 

4. Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5208)* (13-1506)*(13-6502)*
| Legal mistake by pro se plaintiff and immoral, angry, culturally-senile, porn-protecting
Jimm Larry Hendren.
5. Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:12-cv-5074)*
|  Legal mistake by severely brain injured pro se plaintiff
6. Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151)*(11-2558)*
| Immoral decision by immoral, angry, senile, porn-protecting Jimm Larry Hendren*.
The only consideration for moral copy[rites] for photography in history!
Moral rights ruled not to protect for unauthorized use of embarrassing photo art "online".

<  3  >

       Donate funds in the form beside photos below via PP to support Curtis J Neeley Jr. and  help end unauthenticated indecency access and/or recognition by United States of the moral right to repent and control whether prior immoral visual art creations can be legally shown by GOOG, et. al. to
unauthenticated children and federal judges against the moral honor of reformed artists. 17 U.S.C. §106A was ruled not to apply "online" by immoral and culturally senile Hon Jimm Larry Hendren* in the only consideration of this law since passed in 1990.  Europe protects personal privacy and honor better than the United States because European artists have ALWAYS had the right to control name-associated usage of creations since 1734*!  The United States officially misspelled the compounding of copy and rite with the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 before England's new word [sic] "copyright" was ever in any authoritative dictionary. Noah Webster wrote the copy rite act of 1790 several decades before his first 1828 "Dictionary of the AMERICAN English Language". Noah Webster was a 'Christian' and famously said, "Education is useless without the Bible"*, but would despise how United States' courts now turn wire communications into the "porn-ter-net" and then re-established indulgences protested first by Rev. Martin Luther on Oct. 31, 1517*.

     True judicial morality was never expected herein with about 103*-civil cases and roughly 66*-criminal cases for 167* or so cases for Honorable Timothy L. Brooks of around total 893 cases opened in the first six months of 2014 for theWestern District of Arkansas. Four-plus civil cases per week for Honorable Timothy L. Brooks to consider with over one additional crime to consider each week. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. contends this case-load is absurd.

Donate money to help Curtis J Neeley Jr. seek the end of unauthenticated indecency access and the recognition by United States of the moral human right to repent and control whether past creations of immoral visual art can be legally shown by GOOG, et. al. to unauthenticated children and federal judges against the wishes of reformed artists. This continuously harms the Berne Convention Article 6bis* honor of these reformed artists and violates law, 18 U.S.C. §2511*, clearly not applying online for some mysterious reason.

$ $$

Martin Luther
Martin Luther
Noah Webster
Noah Webster
Curtis Neeley at Facebook.com
Curtis J. Neeley Jr.

Jimm Hendren article in new window
Jimm Larry Hendren
Timothy L Brooks
Timothy L. Brooks
<    4   ^^^