Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq,
Joshua Reed Thane Esq,
Michael Henry Page Esq,
Counselors, each of you were called today and a message was left on the voice mail of Michael Henry Page Esq and an associate there advised that Michael Henry Page Esq was on the phone at the time. Ms “Phyllis” was told to please advise Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq and Joshua Reed Thane Esq that GOOG continues to bypass adult filtration for deviantart.com and return inappropriate images despite years of demands to stop.
Mr Neeley did not further describe the inappropriate search results from Salon.com that GOOG currently returns to further display outrageous disrespect shown in this matter. There are ABSOLUTELY NO inappropriate images posted on ANY Salon.com BLOG post whatsoever by Mr Neeley!
Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq should be particularly aware that the Salon.com BLOG resulted in accusations about “live” docket links to a nude photo being generated that were never posted ANYWHERE “live” by Mr Neeley. A text URL was turned into a LIVE link in her filing by Acrobat. Mr Neeley forgave Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq because there had never been a malicious intent. This will now be pursued as free speech violation.
Counselors may count GOOG being sought for another State action of “defamation and outrage” wherein the United States’ 47 USC §230 excuse will simply result in the Attorney General being made a “conspiring” party. The exclusion of internet wire communication defamations have always been egregiously an error and was obvious and discussed politely in a 2003 Duke University law publication. See 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0024. Nine years after this was discussed among law professors there will be a legal challenge and GOOG and the Attorney General will be defendants. There is no chance whatsoever that GOOG will still exist in 2020.
Has the fact that GOOG is entirely irrelevant in the 21st century become obvious yet to GOOG or to opposing counselors? http://duckduckgo.com/ Might make it more apparent. Searching internet wire communications stored or copied into a database and creating “indexed” outputs is less than trivial programming and should always have been illegal in the United States.
GOOG must now face Mr Neeley for scanning a book in New York and publishing three figurenude photographs by wire while facing Mr Neeley in District Court for violations of moral rights to exclusively control original nude and figurenude visual art as protected by Berne Compact Article 6bis and Berne Compact Article 9 that were inadequately secured in United States’ backwards Copy[rite] Act by 17 USC §106A in 1990 but were secured. This statute was called out as subordinated to the Berne Compact by the Supreme Court in case opposing counselors failed to notice. See Golan v Holder, (10-545). GOOG was specifically mentioned in the ruling and filed a self-serving amici that was rebutted point by point by the justices.
Above is “live” link to a BLOG post that explains this well enough that legal professionals will certainly be able to understand.
Mr Neeley asserts personal First Amendment “free speech” rights violated by GOOG returning disparaging photos before minors in searches for “curtis neeley” when some of these photos were published with adult filtration or existed exclusively in GOOG’s gstatic.com servers. The “live” links to the gstatic.com search results were removed about an hour ago from the Salon BLOG. This revision infringes on Mr Neeley’s right to freedom of speech that is anchored in the constitution. GOOG must now face Mr Neeley for systematically violating free speech. There is no chance whatsoever that GOOG will still exist in 2020 in case this is not yet clear to your client or to any of you.
“The Internet” is nothing more than a few separate databases stored by search engines like GOOG that were copied from computers connected by wires usually violating Berne Compact rights. Google books “snippets” returned for searches of published books is nothing but violations of Berne Compact Article 9 once “fair-use” has been found unconstitutional on it face besides being unconstitutionally vague as has been sought by Mr Neeley in the Eighth Circuit Appeal and as was already decided by the Supreme Court in Golan v Holder, (10-545) as was disclosed in the second to last letter to the Court.
The following PDFs are not “electronic publications” on portable media that were exempted protections of 17 USC §106A. Do any of you understand this yet?
This explanation was included in the letter to the Eighth Circuit and each of you in the (11-2558) docket. Mr Neeley has nearly “scrubbed” the host of computers located around the Earth that are connected by wires and called “the Internet”, as if this were a separate entity indexed by GOOG.
1. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_2-8-2012.pdf
2. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/jpg%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-8-2012.pdf
3. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-8-2012.pdf
4. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20-%20Bing%20Images_MSFT_2-9-2012.pdf
5. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20-%20Google%20Search_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
6. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
7. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
8. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/curtis%20neeley%20site_salon_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
9. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/jpg%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-9-2012-ddg.pdf
10. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/jpg%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
11. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/_%20site_curtisneeley._GOOG_2-9-2012-ddg.pdf
12. http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/google/_%20site_curtisneeley_GOOG_2-9-2012.pdf
These are accessible by wire by clicking above. Respecting the GOOG freedom of speech violating demand the links not be “live” links to disparaging images on the Salon BLOG the links will be removed although complete URLs in this email will be “live” links. No publicly accessible computer should be allowed to use an unmonitored and unregulated DNS. POOF Linking to pornography has finally made GOOG entirely inappropriate and the FCC will monitor ALL publicly accessible DNSs and regulate all cable television that uses wire communications.
In closing Mr Neeley wishes to repeat one last time that there is no chance whatsoever that GOOG will still exist in 2020.
Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability, he is determined to continue creating meaningful visual art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation will be created to preserve and promote his artistic photographic legacy.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al,
(5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)
APPELLANT BRIEF…………..………………….PDF
(56 pages)
APPELLEE BRIEF by NameMedia……PDF
(22 pages)
APPELLEE BRIEF by Google……....……….PDF
(20 pages)
APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF…………..PDF
(16 pages)
Appeal fully briefed and before the Eighth Circuit since 9/19/2011.
The obvious result is FCC regulation of wire communications; -
even when called “the Internet” for disguise!
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Emily Holleman
Kathy Riordan
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments