Curtis Neeley's Open Salon Blog

ALL-RN_13-86_Porn-Support-comments listed/linked

Wed, 22 May 2013 20:05:24 -0400

626 RN 13-86
Porn-Support-comments
out of 95,686

(choose new window as target tag does not stick)

Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (12-cv-5208)(13-1506)

17 pg
5/21/2013 536 KB filing

Addendum

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:04:54 -0400

Addendum — n , pl –da 1. something added; an addition.

The backhanded response perhaps to this litigation made by the FCC of “RA 13-86” has almost reached the end of the 30 day comment period and soon the reply period will begin. There apparently was a “rumor” that the FCC intended to allow non-sexual frontal nudity and ‘f|_|c|k’ type vocalizations if these vocalizations were not planned.

The rumor had no direct relationship to Curtis J Neeley Jr because the policy in effect on radio/television broadcasts currently is very close to correct in Mr Neeley’s opinion. There should, however, be a per-complaint type fine where complaints require responsibility and must be actual audience complaints or parents complaining for their potential audience of children. Frivolous complaints then should cost the complainer. The immense fines should, however, be divided among the sponsors of the broadcast and not the “innocent” broadcasters.

The addendum gives the Eighth Circuit a clear idea of the acidity of the tenor Curtis J Neeley Jr feels for the aging oligarchy of United States Courts. The addendum advises indirectly: the ONE moral answer to the Motion for Appeal IFP is also the ONE moral answer to the appeal. This ONE moral answer results in the end of anonymous porn-by-wire.

The United States Court system may not be moral enough for this decision en banc. We shall soon see. Taking two months for consideration of this motion clearly means the entire oligarchy is considering whether they are moral enough for this decision en banc.

Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren will not again sit before Curtis J Neeley Jr and be considered per se honorable by Mr Neeley and this should be clear. Any remediation order should, therefore, include requiring another attempt to find an “honorable” judge since the first attempt ended in complete failure. This failure was after Mr Neeley sought reconsideration, which ended with this being STRICKEN (PDF, HTML) by Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren in an obvious attempts to hide immorality.

Lords most Honorable RILEY, WOLLMAN, LOKEN, MURPHY, BYE, MELLOY, SMITH, COLLOTON, GRUENDER, BENTON and SHEPHERD can be seen disclosing morality “online” recently. FWIW This ruling is “online” here as well.

LOKEN,73; RILEY, 66; SMITH, 55; COLLOTON, 50; GRUENDER,50; BENTON, 63 and SHEPHERD, 62 opposed abortions with pro-abortion dissent by MURPHY, 79; WOLLMAN, 79; BYE, 76; and (MELLOY, 65) with italics indicating senior status replaced now by KELLY, 49

This legal pursuit is ONLY to enforce current written laws. Mr Neeley is not re-inventing the wheel. Failure of United States Courts to enforce the laws created by Congress has already occurred per Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren. The Eighth Circuit oligarchy above might surprise everyone and end irresponsible access to “porn-by-wire”. Whatever this oligarchy decides will not remain anonymous and will be added to Mr Neeley’s RA 13-86 Reply Brief before filing.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr.
Voice: 479-263-4795
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless, and self-centered. Curtis has a severe disability but is determined to continue creating meaningful visual art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation will be created to preserve and promote his artistic photographic legacy and fight to have author's rights finally protected in the United States like never yet done. The CN Foundation seeks the end of utterly anonymous (minor) access to wire communications of indecent visual art if sought by authors requiring FCC regulation of ALL wire communications including [sic]”internet” wire communications. Even the wire communications ending with a tiny wireless hop to an iPhone.

Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-05208) (13-1506)
Complaint, (District docket Mirror)(Eighth Circuit docket mirror)

Dropping PH of Plaintiff's communications tenor

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:04:58 -0400

Opposing Counselors,

Has any Counselor considered the last line of the Brief Supporting the pending Motion to Appeal IFP. Nowhere in these filings is the offensive term used by confused Sir Lord honorable Jimm Larry Hendren of “renew” in concluding his denial order? Words are important and this was insulting. The issues on appeal are all, in fact, included entirely in this supporting brief except the sanctions. The inappropriate sanctions are presumed to be understood as ridiculous and therefore covered. This should be clear when each Counselor and Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren are told these illogical rulings were, in fact, frivolous and not based remotely on any law. These illogical rulings were, in fact, based blatantly on ignoring a number of US laws. These frivolous, offensive, and illogical rulings were perhaps retaliations for being called senile and mentally challenged in 2010 by Mr Neeley.

The Eighth Circuit is very aware the final “rhetorical” question follows. “Where will history now record the Eighth Circuit?” This question puts the aging subset of Title III oligarchs on notice that this decision will pin their moral places in history. It was a mistake to describe Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren as utterly bankrupt morally in previous emails. Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren demonstrated having warped “royal” morals regarding pornography allowed. Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren forbids “illegal” pornography in other cases but herein demonstrated a clear addiction to anonymous access to “legal” pornography like most US citizens today. US citizens, even those wholly opposed to pornography, still generally support the persistent availability of pornography on [sic] “internet” wires to create rational for feelings of moral superiority after avoiding [sic] “internet” pornography.

Many, if not most, judges in the United States are regular viewers of legal [sic] “internet” pornography and many Supreme Court Clerks are regular viewers of legal [sic] “internet” pornography including presumably Ruth Jones Esq. This SCOTUS clerk individually advised Mr Neeley by telephone of planning to do anything possible to protect anonymous access to [sic] “internet” pornography and dismissing this litigation or “recommending” dismissal ASAP.

Nobody with four working brain cells believes a senior citizen oligarchy of nine considers each case seeking certiorari. This United States oligarchy of judges utterly invalidates the individual rights thought protected by the Constitution in 1787. The aging Title III oligarchs at the Eighth Circuit or their clerks are now fully on notice this decision will not be accepted “per curiam” if denied. The decision to deny IFP must follow the criteria for summary judgment since this is, in fact, what denial of IFP is in this case. This clear fact is pointed out in the conclusion of the Supporting Brief as well as the Motion to Appeal IFP.

Any day now this action may be denied IFP status “per curiam” requiring further legal filings seeking the identity of the subset of aging Title III oligarchs presumably addicted to anonymous legal pornography access. Few of these Title III oligarchs are as elderly as Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren but several if not most will be offended by the Plaintiff’s acidic tenor that will only become more acidic if a political solution is required to end pervasive anonymous access to nakedness by unregulated wire communications.

Political pursuits are underway and this explains the increasing acidity of the tenor being used. Politicians are on notice but the public needs to be quickly awakened and this process has begun.

The request for comments by the FCC regarding the “egregious indecency” banning policy was perhaps a backhanded response to this litigation? It is has become clear with 79,615 comments that the public is of one opinion regarding nakedness on public broadcasts.

THE PUBLIC IS DECIDEDLY AGAINST PUBLIC BROADCASTS OF NAKEDNESS or 99.96%.

521 comments include the text [sic] “internet” and 82 comments included the text “online” as of 4/25/2013 at 03:49 CST. The Plaintiff in this filling does not require sleep like normal people do. There are, of course, 30 supporters of pornography shown on radio broadcasts as well as by wire broadcasts. These “porn-hound” comments are linked. There were 42 comments that sought further regulation of broadcasting and called for FCC regulation of broadcasts by wire communications disguised as the [sic] “internet” or “online”. This was only .05 % or a tiny portion. The broadcasting of NAKEDNESS supporters were only ¾ of those who requested regulation of wire broadcasts as well.

The Opposing Counselors in this legal pursuit are reasonably intelligent and have generally conducted themselves honorably. The movie sequel title disparagement was offensive but was adopted in error by Sir Lord Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren. The counselor who begun this fraudulent comparison is reminded to remain honorable and is forgiven for this FRAUD and not named whether she asks this or does not.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr.
Voice: 479-263-4795

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

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless, and self-centered. Curtis has a severe disability but is determined to continue creating meaningful visual art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation will be created to preserve and promote his artistic photographic legacy and fight to have author's rights finally protected in the United States like never yet done. The CN Foundation seeks the end of utterly anonymous (minor) access to wire communications of indecent visual art if sought by authors requiring FCC regulation of ALL wire communications including [sic]”internet” wire communications. Even the wire communications ending with a tiny wireless hop to an iPhone.
Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-05208) (13-1506)
Complaint, (District docket Mirror)(Eighth Circuit docket mirror)

Aereo Update: Next Stop, En banc or a bank...?

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 12:04:26 -0400

I did not read through this whole legal hand wringing and is utterly preposterous that ANYONE mentions subtleties of language like follow from CommLaw BLOG and especially not lawyers:

"linguistic subtleties, like whether the terms 'transmission'ÂÂ and 'performance'ÂÂ were intended by Congress to mean the same thing"

Linguistic subtleties like protecting the RIGHTS of artists and inventors for a "limited time" with an anachronistic ritual copied verbatim from England in 1710 and maliciously called the [sic] "Copyright" Act of 1790 that was, -in fact, the Copyrite Act of 1790?

It is OBVIOUS that linguist, Noah Webster, and career lawyer/judge, Benjamin Huntington, wrote the copy[rite] act in 1790 and fooled an entire nation to believe the rite protected RIGHTS of artists and inventors for a "limited time". Really?

The entire United States Court system is being tested in Neeley Jr v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-52508)(13-1506) and may prove to be morally bankrupt. The elderly oligarchy of judges may be just as addicted to pornography by anonymous wires as the populace.

The en banc procedure is just another HOAX where more than three of the aging US oligarchy addicted to porn decides based on their nobility.

This comment will be screened out of existence but this information will get more traffic than this BLOG post could ever hope.

GUYS, this is part of the end of free [sic] "internet" PORN shown to anonymous kids.

http://www.commlawblog.com/2013/04/articles/broadcast/aereo-update-next-stop-en-banc/index.html

Honorable_ Jimm _ Larry _ Hendren-

Tue, 9 Apr 2013 20:04:26 -0400

Jennifer H Doan Esq Opposing Counselors, et al,

Some name search results have already been impacted. Mr Neeley can write search engine "software" in his sleep as will become obvious over the next decade as this case resolves.

Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's name was not used except as necessary by Mr Neeley until yesterday morning

Everyone's chance to be immoral silently is now OVER.

Immediate or real-time results were impossible but have now occurred. Welcome to the digital era your "honor". The way Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's name will be remembered has already been impacted but the Plaintiff once avoided use of Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's name due to realizing that links would result due to to Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's improper orders already. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's name was added as a tag as well as Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq. The tag caused the text to be an HTML link to the BLOG POST.

In this wire communication it should now be obvious about the difference between text ("jennifer haltom doan esq") and a LINK ("jennifer haltom doan esq")? Will Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq correct the deception in Docket 205 by November 27 or cause Plaintiff to prepare a motion for Rule 11 sanctions? Jimm Larry Hendren's "Dennis Factors" were revealed as a FRAUD.

jennifer haltom doan esq
honorable jimm larry hendren

The previous two text names are actually links in contrast to the text fraudulently called a LINK by Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq in Docket 205 and with the LINK added to the attached Exhibit A. A grievance has been submitted and the text is in the post of the HTML reached by two links above. The BLOG entry is already the number one result for Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq on and search engine links above. Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq is likely aware already that the grievance has been filed.

==============================================================

http://www.ask.com/web?q=honorable+ Jimm + Larry + Hendren 4 of 10
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=honorable+ Jimm + Larry + Hendren 2 of 10
http://www.bing.com/search?q=honorable+ Jimm + Larry + Hendren one of 10
http://www.google.com/search?q=honorable+ Jimm + Larry + Hendren 10 of the first 50

The search engine algorithm manipulations involved are beyond the logical scope of common counselors including Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq and is certainly beyond the scope of the logical abilities of most judges. Logical algorithm manipulation is beyond the Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren who invented "Dennis Factors" to excuse arbitrary abuses of discretion due to text from a law manual from 1948 cited as case law in a bald error. This fraudulent use of factors called "Dennis Factors" was explained sufficiently in Docket 204.

Mr Neeley can write search engine "software" in his sleep as should now be obvious to even Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren and logically deceptive Jennifer Haltom Doan Esq. Nearly any programmer on Earth could write a search engine. It is a trivial use of logic that is not easily profitable unless in a country ignoring the fundamental right to be secure in intellectual property. This blatant injustice called "fair-use" only exists in the United States and is called an exemption by judges who are battling senility.

Perhaps NAMEMEDIA INC has realized the permanent effects of logical algorithm manipulations by now in spite of not being used since Jan 24, 2010. expired Oct 15, 2010 or thirty plus days in the past causing a new claim against ICANN Inc. ICANN Inc, however, was protected by "Dennis Factors". When will finally actually expire and be available to the public?

The plus and minus in the first four preceding U_nregulated wiR_e L_ocations (URLs) above returns only the database content stored with "namemedias" but not from the domain . The second four (4-8) only search for namemedia. The last four (9-12) search only for database content with the text "namemedia" AND the text "sued". OUCH

Jennifer Haltom Doan, if you or another print this out for evidence, please do not add links to any strings of text regardless of how it supports malicious claims or attempts to deceive. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren was sitting in District Court before wire communications began to be called the Internet. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's life experiences are irrelevant for most subjects who call Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren "honorable" whether the rulings made are honorable or are simply the closest Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren can get to fair or honorable having only archaic life experiences.

This will be a public wire communications and it should now be obvious what the results for that will be.

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA