I am not a noted lawyer or published privacy authority and will never seek a degree or profess an education because I desire for no school to have to claim influencing my mind or coloring my principles. I have no desire to be the top 500 or top 5000 of anything or be on any list to compare my mind to another human. I choose to remain an unknown.

 

After reading one privacy article "online", I deemed the unknown public should use this short lesson. This lesson on lexicography with supporting etymology clearly explains both the EU/US privacy and copyright/[rite] regime differences and leaves absolutely no room for doubt or further debate. Following the pathway illustrated herein, the public may OWN this discovery. It is not published or talked about because it would embarrass the entire United States.

 

I am a severely brain injured polymath with no continuous memory pre-2007 and a severely limited ability to remember day-to-day. I use TBI coping techniques to address this and will send this email over and over till a professional replies or asks me to stop. Yes; I realize using polymath is a very arrogant term to use for myself. This is how I would honestly be described already in historical descriptions, if there were ever to be historical descriptions of all I will or have done. I honestly do not understand why or how I know all the "useless trivia" left in my mind from my prior addiction to learning all humanities known scientific facts. I obviously failed to do this but have learned the majority of the basics.

 

The "small" cultural difference between the EU and the US is founded in the same lexicographical error supported by unconsidered or ignored facts included herein with very exacting etymology.

 

I touch on this and other advanced science ignored in other ignored legal briefs and an online comment repeated below. This is original research to verify as a comment spawned by an "online" article. Please do not use my name. The public can and will seek to know more about me after Edwards v Beck replaces Roe v Wade for all time in a few weeks to months almost exactly as my amicus curiae and amicus reply encouraged the Eighth Circuit. If this does not happen in less than three months then this will eventually be how abortion stops funding politics and how the abortions called blessed in some future time by Jesus Christ as He approached Calvary becomes an inalienable human right.

 

----------------comment-------------------------------------------

I did not understand this cartoon but am not the sharpest crayon in the pack. I bet it has something to do with taxes and possibly being late? Editorial or political cartoons have been around since roughly the 1730's and were begun by William Hogarth doing engravings that were then printed. This artists' work or "vision" could be reproduced in early printing presses by a publisher with no artistic skills. This is why, in Hogarth's native England, the human right to control original visual creations was protected with the Engravers Act of 1734. The engraver made a personal statement or personal speech with visual art but this visual art could then be manipulated by another over two centuries before Photoshop. compare Hogarth's political cartoon wth a more vulgar modfication of this engraving like spurred the Engraver's Act of 1734.
http://theendofpornbywire.org/Why-the-1734-engravers-act/

 

The cartoon could then be used in another political publication and be caused to appear indecent or support a political statement William Hogarth would never support. The Engravers Act of 1734 protected William Hogarth's ability to protect against undesired usage of original cartoon engravings for a renewable period of about 14 years. The right to control against unauthorized usage of these first cartoons was then passed to the surviving spouse for life by the 1766 Hogarth's Act passed two years after the first political cartoonist died.


The following continued spelling error is why the human right to control original speech was never protected in the United States when "
America" copied the "1710 Statute of Anne" from England almost verbatim and called this copy of an eighty year old legal rite "America's" Copy[rite] Act of 1790. The Supreme Court called this an artwork monopolization regime unworthy of being called law in Golan v Holder (10-545) in 2012.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an England Noah Webster never lived in, the term colour had frustrated many children along with Noah Webster who felt it should be spelled more like it sounded in common speech. Rather than colour, Mr. Webster felt the word should be spelled color for the <Coil - or> sound or <Cull - or> verses the tortured <cull - oir> or <coil - oir>. Mr Webster asserted there had been an etymological error and revised colour to the Americanization "color" in his first American English Dictionary test-run in 1806. While revising American English in monopolized elementary school textbooks, Noah Webster did not adopt his own new alphabet or the new alphabet of Benjamin Franklin but created many Americanisms by fiat in 1827. Mr. Webster and Mr Franklin agreed on many aspects of America's opportunity to establish a newer and simpler language from the English used in England but did not stop using the letter "K" although both agreed this should be done.

 

Benjamin Franklin was a noted polymath and published author and scientist who made sure the 1787 Constitution did not use words not included in Samuel Johnston's 1755 "c-Dictionary of the English Language-c" and stated this was because the Constitution was such an impacting document with an international audience of English speakers. Benjamin Franklin required the Constitution include no newly coined terms to avoid potential misinterpretations of the actual meaning intended.

 

Too ill in 1787 to give his own speech encouraging unanimous adoption of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin's speech was given by proxy. Mr Franklin had ensured the "progress clause" or Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution described the Congressional authorization needed to protect the fundamental human right to control original inventions, discoveries, or speech. Despite this honorable tenor; The United States' greatest scientist, author, and inventor refused a patent on the "Franklin Stove" invention from 1742 though offered by the governor of Pennsylvania.

 

Benjamin Franklin stated, "as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously", in his autobiography crediting "God" with any invention gifted to humanity via an inventor like himself.  This is why in America's copy[rite], newly discovered or realized facts, facts like herein are not eligible to be monopolized.

 

There was one particularly noteworthy new word "coined" by Sir William Blackstone in England in chapter 26, on p406 of Volume II, "Rights of Things" in the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" book series describing exclusive control of original intellectual property or statements perhaps later retracted in 1766. This was one decade and one year after the 1755 "c-Dictionary of the English Language-c". This authoritative series of law books is taught in ALL American laws schools today though this obvious fact has been ignored as could only be intentional.

 

Clearly Noah Webster and Benjamin Huntington used the early American hunger to secure individual human rights from Kings when the "Bill of Rights" was being considered to monopolize elementary school texts and prohibit reprinting of books imported by wealthy colonists since printing presses were now less expensive. Noah Webster did this to help ensure colour, honour, labour, and such would become color, honor, and labor. Noah Webster copied the "1710 Statute of Anne" rite for authorizing monopolizing book printing almost verbatim ignoring the subsequent "1734 Engraver's Act" and the 1766 "Hogarth's Act". Benjamin Huntington was a career lawyer and conscientious objector to the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Huntington signed the Declaration of Independence but felt armed conflict was initially a dishonorable refusal to settle the dispute legally.

 

Early in America, the "pistol duels" and "sword duels" used to protect honor in England were considered assault. Fighting to protect honor or reputation was considered absurd or a matter for attorneys to address in court. Benjamin Huntington felt there were adequate legal rituals outside the 1790 Copy[rite] regime to vicariously protect the effect original creations had on honor with the slander, defamation, and liable torts. None of these were included in the copy[rite] regime but NONE of America's attorneys or judges have ever addressed the fundamental human right never protected in America but authorized for protection in the United States like established in 1787.  The United States quickly began to be overthrown by a wealthy corporate oligarchy that now clearly controls America and is now probably irreversible.

 

The right to control personal speech online should be protected by 18 U.S.C. 2511 today if applied EXACTLY as written according to Honorable Antonin Scalia. This law was judicially voided by accident because of improper tenor.  This injustice will always be dishonorable for Jimm Larry Hendren, Erin L. Setser, and Timothy L. Brooks. 

This same law could rescue the Garcia v Google from needing to overrule the 1834 Wheaton ruling rejecting the fundamental human right to control speech after fixed (printed or engraved) that had already been protected in England for 100 years when the first SCOTUS consideration was done in America in 1834. This law, 18 U.S.C. 2511, would allow authorization of the YouTube injunction permanently as allowed by section 230 if it had been plead instead of copy[rite] violations only. It is NOT the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals duty to litigate for either party. The only honorable result today for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc is to rule the common law fundamental human right to control original speech after fixed should always have been protected as the progress clause authorized in 1787 but was never done

 

I am interested in seeking only amici or co-counsel for my case before SCOTUS. The only path to fixing online might not include United States Courts due to making anonymous access to pornography a new American civil right created in 1997 by Reno v ACLU because of the centuries of impact of an over two hundred year old spelling error leading to re-establishing the indulgences one disputed by Rev Martin Luther on Oct 31, 1517.  The egregious Reno v ACLU  mistake allowed and still allows illegal "obscene, indecent, and profane" communications to be broadcast by radio and by wire begun in 1997 when there were only around 55 million subscribers to wire communications terminated on one end by radio three years before Wi-Fi was trademarked.

 

You may view this disclosure online HERE. No name is included and no link to ANY particular US v UK privacy regime article is included. It is your decision alone to encourage the continuing of a complete moral failure in America or help educate America's Courts. Do you wish to raise your children with porn by wire still around wherever children carry their phones after digital radio makes everywhere "online"? Logging-in in a authenticated way would keep the porn everywhere but allow parents to supervise their children's communications and prevent consumption of America's free pornography source better known as "online" or "nternet" though starting with a capital "I". I will never bless this undefinable slang term with usage.
You may view this
disclosure online HERE
http://dianamichellephotos.com/copy%5Brite%5D.html

You may view this
disclosure online HERE.
http://master-of-photography.us/copy%5Brite%5D.html
You may view this disclosure online HERE.
http://theendofpornbywire.org/copy%5Brite%5D.html
You may view this disclosure online HERE
http://groupf16.org/copy%5Brite%5D.html
You may view this disclosure online HERE.
http://sleepspot.info/copy%5Brite%5D.html
You may view this disclosure online HERE.
https://curtisneeley.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/487/
You may view this disclosure online HERE.
http://community.beliefnet.com/curtisneeley/blog/2015/04/21/all_most_ready_to_give_up_in_american_courts.