rtis J Neeley Jr.                                                                                                 Plaintiff

                                    CASE NO. ____________

Federal Communications Commissioners,
US Representatives; John Boehner,
et al,
US Senators; Joe Biden,
et al,
US Attorney General, Eric Holder Esq,                                                                D
Microsoft Corporation,
Google Inc.


The Plaintiff, Curtis J. Neeley Jr. states a complaint that is difficult to caption for reckless violation of numerous Federal Statutes involving simultaneous radio and wire communications when private communications were intercepted and are then BROADCAST publicly. The Federal Communications Commission failed and fails to protect the Plaintiffs minor children for usage of interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio and fails to protect the safety of [sic] internet wire communications when BROADCAST to citizens including the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs children as required by law. These wrongs are further explained for each Defendant as follows and are labeled I-VI. Trial by jury is demanded to decide punitive damages awarded against Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation and compensatory damages awarded against the FCC since guilt is a matter of law per 18 U.S.C. §2511, 47 U.S.C. §151, and 47 U.S.C. §605 and IS unquestionable.


Federal Communications Commission
Failure to Protect Wire Communications

1.   The Supreme Court mislabeled the usage of computers to facilitate wire communications BROADCASTING a wholly new medium in Reno v ACLU, (96-511). This plain error is not yet addressed or recognized by Congress. Indecent radio and wire communications BROADCASTING should not be exempt from regulation like wire BROADCASTS are now due to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nonfeasance and the Reno v ACLU (96-511) LANDMARK Supreme Court mistake. See FCC v Fox, (10-1293)(2012).

                                                                > >>


2.  The clear intention of the Communications Act of 1934 was regulation of all pervasive distant communications BROADCASTING. The Reno v ACLU MISTAKE causes the portions remaining from the Communications Decency Act of 1995 to DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSE DECENCY by preempting responsibility for all indecent simultaneous radio and wire communications when BROADCAST instead of the promotion of decent distant communications when BROADCAST to unknown parties that will include children.

3.   The FCC demonstrates nonfeasance by failing to intervene or otherwise seek to prevent 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1)1 from continual misinterpretation by courts counter to: 1) the Constitution, 2) the title of the indecency excusing §230, and 3) the mission of the FCC given in 47 U.S.C. §1512 wherein Congress created the FCC and gave the agency clear regulatory authority over distant radio and wire communications when BROADCAST to the unwitting for interstate or world-wide commerce.

4. The continual display of NAKED art to unidentified parties, like the Plaintiffs children, United States Judges and clerks, and other unidentified pornography consumers over radio and wire communications BROADCASTING is allowed by the FCC refusing to perform the statutory mission of protecting safe usage of pervasive interstate and world-wide radio and wire
(c) Protection forGood Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

^^^^ 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) above sought to protect wire communications connectivity providers like telephone wire communications providers were protected from delivering though unaware.

247 U.S.C. §151 - For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire

and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination

on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire

and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national

defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio

communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing

authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to

interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known

as the Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall

execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.

Highlighting added throughout this complaint for wire and radio” to prevent continued ignoring though reversed elsewhere to encourage wire communication BROADCASTING regulation.

                                                                 < 2 >


ommunications BROADCASTING in commerce from 47 U.S.C. §151 in plain English as can be read in footnote #2 on previous page or continue being ignored to allow the continuous organized criminal BROADCASTING of porn-by-wire” to the anonymous by radio and by wire.

5. No procedure exists to address this nonfeasance for citizens beyond those already tried for years by this Plaintiff tolling any 18 U.S.C. §2520(e) limitations. Jurisdiction vested in the Western District of Arkansas Court per 28 U.S.C. §2675(a) after failure beyond six months to end this nonfeasance and police [sic] ”internet” wire BROADCASTING after the claim was first made.

6. The attempts by the FCC to establish tacit jurisdiction for open [sic]internet broadband rules failed miserably to assert the clear statutory jurisdiction to regulate interstate and world-wide wire communications when BROADCAST using the slang term [sic] internet or the slang term that is improper when used in any law or in any legal filing as a singular noun. This improper usage of the English language is like copy+rite used in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 but spelled [sic] “Copyright” to deceive and make citizens believe human rights were protected that never were.

7. The FCC v Pacifica ruling from 1978 was substituted wholly for the 47 U.S.C. §151 rational for regulation of distant radio and wire communications BROADCASTING in plain error by the FCC when simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING displaced common usage of facsimile machines and telegraph machines for wire communications. The FCC regulated radio and wire communications when telegraph wires were the only timely communications across oceans but were not capable of BROADCASTING like possible now.

8. The FCC uses the thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling now to determine jurisdiction instead of 47 U.S.C. §151 in clear error or as an excuse for not regulating the network of computers that replaced telegraph machines as the apparatus connected to wires for interstate and world-wide communications BROADCASTING in commerce to the unauthenticated who may be children.

                                                                 < 3 > 


9. Wire communications described precisely in the Communications Act of 1934 in 47 U.S.C. §153 (59)4 became the worldwide network of computer apparatus connected to either end of wires. This simple fact went unrealized in the Reno v ACLU landmark” mistake from 1997 alleging instead to discover a wholly new medium for human communications and failing to recognize one new usage of two very old mediums.

10. The Reno v ACLU, (96-511) Supreme Court error5 causes simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING to become Earths radio and wire venue for utterly unsafe indecent communications when BROADCAST to the “unwitting” public despite the rest of the ignored text of 47 U.S.C. §151 requiring protection for the safe use of both mediums in interstate and world-wide commerce.

  1. The FCC fails now to ensure safe personal communications for this Plaintiff in interstate and world-wide communications when BROADCAST for commerce. Plaintiff is left protected only by 18 U.S.C. §2511 per 18 U.S.C. §2520 despite 47 U.S.C. §151 due the nonfeasance of the Federal Communications Commission.

    12. The FCC has abandoned regulation for the safety of content of radio and wire communications when BROADCAST despite the plain statutory mission given in 47 U.S.C. §151 to protect the safe use of both of these mediums for distant communications when BROADCAST in commerce to unknown parties.


4(59) Wire communication

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.

5Reno v ACLU, (96-511) The claim of, …[i]nternet is a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication", failed to address internet radio and wire communications occurring simultaneously on both old mediums and was written early in the days of [sic]internet” radio and wire communications when few understood simultaneous [sic] internet radio and wire communications to be the new medium independent manner of pervasive distance communications. This was perhaps more confusing to those growing up without [sic]internet” radio and wire communications, smart-phones, or nuclear weapons like the Justice writing the Reno v ACLU, (96-511) ruling and many reading this though few alive grew up without nuclear weapons. This error becomes more obvious every day and should be overruled and will be corrected soon without any doubt by the courts or by legislature.

                                                                < 4 > 


13. T
he thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling leaves the FCC using an archaic and no longer valid interpretation of clear statute to avoid content regulation on simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING despite clear text requiring regulation of all distant communications especially when BROADCAST to unknown parties.

14. The landmarkcourt error of Reno v ACLU allows irresponsible radio and wire communications to BROADCAST pervasive distant NAKEDNESS counter to 47 U.S.C. §151 requiring protection for the safety of the public for uses of radio and wire communications when used for BROADCAST ING in commerce to unknown parties since first done.

15. This cultural error made by the Supreme Court causes the current uses of simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING to not be regulated by clear law and be given over-broad First Amendment protections without the associated responsibilities for safe communications BROADCASTING, which are the prerequisite required for all free speech and especially for speech BROADCAST to unknown parties ruled constitutional in Pacifica in 1978.

16. The FCC allowed and allows simultaneous usage of radio and wire communications BROADCASTING to become patently unsafe today and harm this Plaintiffs reputation and ability to parent as well as harming more people than live in the Western District of Arkansas and, in fact, more people than live in the entire United States.

17. The FCC duty to protect public safety when using distant radio and wire communications BROADCASTING became utter FCC nonfeasance when television signals generally moved to wires called cables and away from the radio medium exclusively.

18. Regulation allowed the FCC for fleeting indecency in radio television BROADCASTS by CBS v FCC, (06-3575) is incompatible with indecent images authored by the Plaintiff or associated with the text “curtis neeley allowed currently to be criminally BROADCAST by unsafe radio and wire communications regardless of who placed this indecent content on various computers made accessible to unknown parties by simultaneous radio and wire communications without respect to the popular “nickname for medium-independent communications BROADCASTING.

                                                                 < 5  >


19. The FCC was created to protect communications by the Communications Act of 1934 five decades before any wholly new simultaneous usage of radio and wire for communications BROADCASTING existed and was nicknamed [sic]”internet” for creation of modern indulenges.

20. No new medium has ever existed in spite of this clear Supreme Court mistake. See the clear English definition of medium.6

21. The failure to properly apply 47 U.S.C. §153 (59) was done by one Justice who grew up without fear of nuclear war due to growing up before WWII and before the first usage of two WMDs for terrorizing Japan was done by the United States utterly destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan with two recently invented bombs.

22. The failure to recognize a new manner for using the centuries old wire medium for BROADCASTING and calling this new manner for usage of the old wire medium a unique and wholly new medium was plainly wrong yet was adopted in error by the FCC and not challenged as was and still remains the statutory duty of the FCC and Congress.

23. The rapid progress of science and visual art spread by criminal radio and wire communications BROADCASTING has allowed the overwhelming desire for anonymous NAKEDNESS consumption to distort laws and lure humanity, including United States Courts and the FCC, into preserving anonymous NAKED wire communications consumption where responsibility for criminal NAKED radio and wire communications BROADCASTING is avoided counter to the safe use of pervasive distant communications BROADCAST by wire and/or radio.


6 Medium noun 1) a middle state or condition; mean. 2) something intermediate in nature or degree. 3) an

ntervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced. 4) the element that is the

natural habitat of an organism. 5) surrounding objects, conditions, or influences; environment.

^^ medium. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved Sept.12, 2012, from <>

                                                                < 6 >


24 The Reno v ACLU, (96-511) error is counter to the Constitution and rule of law and harms this Plaintiff as well as the safety of all minors and spouses on Earth with access to unsafe yet pervasive simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING revealing NAKED images searching for curtis neeley or more well-known NAKED art producers by name in a Google Inc or Microsoft Corporation image search without authentication as allowed by the FCC to cause harm to this Plaintiff contrary to 47 U.S.C. §151 despite years of complaints by the Plaintiff doing nothing but tolling any applicable limitations.

25. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation's indexing copies of NAKED content after INTERCEPTED and revealing NAKED images by criminal radio BROADCASTING should always have been penalized for trafficking nakedness by the FCC due to communicating NAKED images via BROADCASTING in different contexts as new content by harvesting NAKED image content and choosing to REBROADCAST this unsafe NAKED image content and create the pervasive lure for anonymous pornography consumption for ridiculous profits despite the FCC duty to make radio and wire communications BROADCASTING safe for interstate and world-wide communications when BROADCAST in commerce to the unwitting public.

26. The duty of the FCC has always been to halt the organized criminal interception of private wire communications and BROADCASTING these private obscene, indecent or profane communications to the anonymous by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation and any others like can be seen in exhibits that are prepared and will be shown to the jury. These are not entered but can be seen by any party looking [sic]”online” and without any authentication besides a click-lie acceptance of an indulgence roughly 496 years after indulgences were protested by Rev Martin Luther.

                                                                < 7  >



NAKED Image BROADCASTS alleging a fraudulent continued

use of the Plaintiff's personal name in illegal BROADCASTS

Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc violating Free Speech

and artistic
integrity after Advised of Illegal Obscenity,

Indecency, and Complete

1. Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc databases alleging to represent the network of computers connected to wires for BROADCASTING associate the Plaintiff with illegal NAKED image displays using “curtis neeley for radio and wire communications BROADCASTING now called open “inter + net”, though advised these FRAUDS are prohibited by laws. (18 U.S.C. §1464 and .A.C.A. §5-41-103).

2. Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc refuse to halt this personal name use without court orders after requests that all NAKED images be removed from illegal radio BROADCASTING using the text “curtis neeley” by accurately refreshing the cache like Google Inc almost did.

3. Microsoft Corporation advised the Plaintiff that ceasing use of “curtis neeley” to BROADCAST NAKEDNESS in the Microsoft Corporation database would require court orders after noting the Plaintiff’s distress about obscene results and violations of the robots exclusions protocol and harming this Plaintiff and violating the Plaintiff's person and the right not to be associated with illegal BROADCASTING of NAKED art or a crime not done by Plaintiff.

4. Injunctions requiring Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc disassociating “curtis neeley in database BROADCASTS of NAKED images are now sought regardless of other terms used by unidentified searchers who may be minors or where identities cant be checked by an authority like is also plead ordered resumed now by the FCC as would be ceasing illegal non-action.

                                                                 < 8  >



Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation

Recklessly Use Wire and Radio

Communications to Violate

Free Speech

1. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation continue to associate “curtis neeley with the presentation of illegal NAKED photographs placed online by various random parties world-wide due to past “publications” and thereby violate the First Amendment Rights of the Plaintiff. These criminal radio and wire BROADCASTS of “obscene, indecent, or profaneimages require no authentication and allow anonymous viewers including minors, Muslims, or the Plaintiffs children to view NAKED images returned using “curtis neeley in searches of computers networked by wire despite the ease of preventing these criminal BROADCASTS for decades but not done recklessly to increase pornography profit. See the curtis neeley nude BROADCAST by Google Inc preserved to be shown to the jury in exhibits or see the curtis neeley BROADCAST by Microsoft Corporation. These illegal radio and wire BROADCASTS occur for the most profitable crime EVER done per 18 U.S.C. §1464.

2. Yes; The Plaintiff once sought adult feedback on creations of NAKED art and sold this art from websites providing subscriber filtration so these NAKED images were not BROADCAST and were shown ONLY to authenticated adults after identities were verified by email wire communications making “interceptions and disclosures” of these communications criminal per 18 U.S.C. §2511 and 47 U.S.C. §605.

3. Google Inc formerly and currently bypasses this subscriber filtration and VIOLATES 47 U.S.C. §605 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 after advised of this wrong. Google Inc does this to continue displaying NAKED images otherwise shown only to identity providing viewers for profit. Google Inc searches for “curtis neeley limited to <> formerly revealed naked art and still reveal artwork declared not safe for work” (NSFW) after Google Inc was advised of this CRIME repeatedly. See 18 U.S.C. §§(1464, 2511).

                                                                 < 9  >


4. The undesired return of artwork declared by the Plaintiff as indecent to unauthorized anonymous persons was documented repeatedly and can be seen now. Indecent naked images were removed from <> and vociferous advisement was given to Google Inc with hundreds of federal filings. This violated the Plaintiff's right to protect the person and common law privacy and 47 U.S.C. §605 and was criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511. Plaintiff now seeks punitive civil damages for this criminal act to significantly offset the federal deficit after taxed since 18 U.S.C. §2520 authorizes PUNITIVE damages.

5. The bypassing of authenticated subscriber filtration by Google Inc continues for this Plaintiff and ALL users of seeking the subscriber identity requirement for viewership of art marked indecent and with text “nude” as could not be more obviously illegal.

6. The unauthorized republication of NAKED images from this website presented material publicly to ANYONE that was and remains clearly not intended for presentation to anonymous minors thereby invalidating all possible 17 U.S.C. §107 claims.
7.   Google Inc continues now violating law and constitutionally protected privacy and natural human rights to exclusively control original creations “for a time” and harasses the Plaintiff with fraudulent use of computers bypassing identity filtration and continues returning art self-tagged and labeled indecent in searches for “curtis neeley” to minors in the radio and wire mediums as is allowed by the FCC though rendering radio and wire communication BROADCASTING unsafe due to FCC nonfeasance and unpunished organized criminal businesses as well as American Courts judicially nullifying several Acts of Congress perhaps due to both judicial and congressional senescence causing a lack of formative life experience and unfamiliarity with BROADCASTING by wire. This use of wires for broadcasting developed near the end of the last century but was mistakenly called a new medium in clear error in Reno v ACLU, (96-511), as pointed out herein over and over.

                                                                 < 10  >


The “Google Inc Books” 2010 Violation

1. Google Inc attributed the Plaintiff accurately but inappropriately to three additional NAKED photographs via interstate and world-wide radio and wire communication BROADCASTING after Google Inc scanned three NAKED images by the Plaintiff from one book from a New York library against the Plaintiffs known desires. This was done after March 7, 2010 in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511 despite spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees against this Plaintiff to continue illegal NAKED image BROADCASTING to children for profit in addition to the millions spent in legal fees or offered artists in New York and offered this Plaintiff to revise copy[rite] law and claiming to rewrite federal copy[rite] laws in United States Courts for the Southern District of New York in violation of the common law and natural rights of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The indecent book “preview” has since been withdrawn by Google Inc but damages should be paid for this crime to punish Google Inc for this organized criminal business.

2. This negligent and harassing criminal action by Google Inc was done while litigating against this Plaintiff for the undesired criminal BROADCASTING of Plaintiff’s self-tagged NAKED artwork and caused this Plaintiff further harm by creating another three harassing invasions of the moral rights and the person protected by common law and the Constitution. These were violations of exclusive common law and natural rights and were unauthorized criminal broadcasts of NAKED book artwork in the radio and wire mediums. Publication was once done by the Plaintiff, but only in the book medium. Viewing these NAKED image publications required physical encounters with the book and not simply typing “curtis neeley” into computers connected to wires networked ANYWHERE on Earth using Google Inc.

3. This criminal republication to minors was thousands of miles from the book in New York. The Plaintiff’s teen daughter or other minor searchers would never encounter this particular NAKED visual art in a book on photo art in New York while in schools in Arkansas.

                                                                 < 11 >


o4. This was a fundamental violation of privacy by Google Inc that is constitutionally protected and also protected by common law in Arkansas according to the opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General. For common law tort grounds see Dunlap v. McCarty, 284 Ark. 5, 678 S.W. 2d 361 (1984). For constitutional grounds see McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, (1989).

5. Congress agreed this manner of human rights violation was forbidden by Treaty in 1988 and again in 1994. Unwavering Berne Convention compliance was ruled constitutional on January 18, 2012 in Golan v Holder,(10-545) despite self-serving amicus opposing this finding by Google Inc.

6. The fair-use exceptions of 17 U.S.C. §107 to the exclusive rites for using morally questionable visual contributions to books have been unconstitutionally vague since 1976 when created. Fair-use makes it impossible for common people to understand or agree on this law as is required for all laws and violates the rights of the person to prevent unauthorized but properly attributed use of original indecent art like protected for centuries in the civilized world like by theEngraver's Act of 1734/5” or “Hogarth's Act of 1734/5 ” in “English” law done before the United States existed.

7. Besides unconstitutional vagueness; 17 U.S.C. §107 often violates the accepted treaty of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works” despite the Golan v Holder ruling the Berne Convention” copy[rite] “regime” acceptance by Congress clearly counteracting the Supreme Court mistakenly rejecting common law human copy rights in Wheaton v Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834). This mistake was a century before Congress invalidated this mistake passing 42 §1988 and was before the word [sic] “copyright” had been adopted in England. [sic] “Copyright” was NOT in the 1836Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language” though appearing first on Earth in Noah Webster's first “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828.

8. The 17 U.S.C. §107 fair-use claim does not consider unwanted additional publicity and world-wide publicity for reformed indecent NAKED image authors and violates privacy and the right to remain silent about past creations of indecency without criminal convictions like sex offenders or other such rational for requiring public registry of past indecent actions and thereby violating this Plaintiffs person; secured by natural and common laws older than the United States.

                                                                 < 12  >


9. T
he fair-use exceptions of 17 U.S.C. §107 to the publishing rite for NAKED art have never been fair and have always been unconstitutional. Any name associated REBROADCASTING of morally questionable art causes expanded publication and violates the Constitutional right to be secure in the person and remain silent and resist expanded dissemination of prior indecent creations and unauthorized use of the personal name to the disgrace and against the will of the author; propagat[ing] sentiments under his name, which he disapproves, repents and is ashamed of.. Quoting Honorable Lord Mansfield in Millar v Taylor (1769) 98 ER 201 at 252 done before the United States existed and done at least a century before America quietly overthrew the United States.

V. FCC Decency Regulation Nonfeasance

1. Protection of anonymous citizens from exposure to indecent radio and wire communications BROADCASTING is a legitimate state interest mostly IGNORED for decades though ordered protected by 47 U.S.C. §151. It is absurd and shows nonfeasance when the FCC allows 47 §230(c)(1) to be repeatedly misinterpreted by American Courts diametrically opposed to the clear intentions of this law and title of both the Communications Decency Act and the Good Samaritan section itself or 47 U.S,C. §230(c)(1).

2. The law intended by Congress to promote communications BROADCAST decency instead was cited by the FCC, this District, and Google Inc to traffic NAKED art once created by the Plaintiff before simultaneous radio and wire communications BROADCASTING was disguised as the interactive or interconnected network of interactive computer networks and christened inter+ net in Reno v ACLU, (96-511) in clear error as elucidated herein.

3. The responsibilities for production, trafficking, and viewership of NAKED content or indecent content is unconstitutionally waived for all US laws by 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) allowing utterly unregulated speech in violation of the clear natural right to be free from defamation and computer frauds and other harms to the person including 18 U.S.C. §1464.

                                                                 < 13  > 


4. 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1) invalidates the common law right and Ninth Amendment Right not to have original creations copied and permits
privacy violations proscribed by numerous state laws as well as 47 U.S.C. §151. United States laws are entirely ignored by the FCC and American Courts as could not be more clearly wrong or be brought more squarely before American Courts than in this claim. This wrong is continued in order to perpetuate anonymous access to pornography, as if this were some human right and not the result of the organized criminal radio and wire BROADCASTING of morally questionable art by Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc now competing to do best.

5. Plaintiff seeks only common sense regulation of radio and wire communications when BROADCAST to the unwitting public. Google Inc advised having clear institutional interests in preventing identification of receivers of BROADCASTINGS of NAKEDNESS before Honorable Erin L. Setser in the Western District of Arkansas on Dec 10, 2010. See (5:09-cv-5151) Dkt. #216. BROADCASTINGporn” to the anonymous is criminal per 18 U.S.C. §1464.


Congress failed for two hundred and twenty-three

years to recognize the natural human right and

the associated natural human responsibility to

exclusively control attribution to and authorization

to display morally questionable art and preventing

this questionable art from being shown to

unwitting children or others who will be harmed

simply by exposure to this original but morally

questionable art

1. Congress was authorized in 1787 to protect the “rights” of authors to control original art “for a time” in the Constitution by Article I, Section 8 in Clause 8. Congress quickly coined a disparaging misspelling of the compound word derived from copy and rite to protect the ritual for authorizing copies to be made. Congress called a copy of the 1710 Statute of Anne from “England” the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 but spelled this copied ritual the Americanized spelling of “copyright” and ignored the 1735 Engravers' Act protection for the human “right” to proscribe unauthorized display of properly attributed but morally questionable visual art for the life of the author plus the authors' spouse.

                                                                 < 14  >


2. The word “copyright” was first used by Sir William Blackstone in about 1767 in Volume II of the Commentaries on the Laws of England titled The Rights of Things in chapter 26 with footnotes 36 and 37 referring to prior usage of the hyphenated words “copy-right” in English legal decisions. This usage of the word was not noted in Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language as is considered the first authoritative dictionary of the English language and was used for writing the US Constitution. The word “copyright” was not in this dictionary in 1759, 1799, 1822, 1836. A 2005 commentary follows.

The American adoption of the Dictionary was a momentous event not just in its history, but in

the history of lexicography. For Americans in the second half of the eighteenth century,

Johnson was the seminal authority on language, and the subsequent development of American lexicography was coloured by his fame

The Dictionary has also played its part in the law, especially in the United States. Legislators

are much occupied with ascertaining 'first meanings', with trying to secure the literal sense of

their predecessors' legislation ... Often it is a matter of historicizing language: to understand a

law, you need to understand what its terminology meant to its original architects ... as long as

the American Constitution remains intact, Johnson's Dictionary will have a role to play in American law.”

3. Noah Webster wrote or copied the 1710 Statute of Anne and modified or Americanized this early eighteenth century ritual into the Americanized misspelling of Copy[rite] as [sic]”The Copyright Act of 1790”. This was spelling the compounding of copy and rite by using copy and right though authorization of the publication ritual was all that was protected. The human right of visual artists to exclusively authorize use of morally questionable visual art already existed in England. This human right was ignored to create legal clientele for Benjamin Huntington and other lawyers by approximating human rights with legal authorization rites now continuing in America without addressing natural moral human rights recognized by most of the civilized Earth long ago like was admitted by the Supreme Court in Golan v Holder.

10 Hitchings 2005, London p.226; notice the British spelling of colour versus the Americanized color asserted by Noah Webster in his American dictionary of the English language in 1828.
11 Hitchings 2005, London p.229

                                                                 < 15  >


4.      Golan v Holder ruled the Berne Convention replacement of Title 17 for authors' rights accepted twice by Congress was Constitutional. This ruling was ignored or not followed though happening recently during the misapprehended consideration of the first of these continuing communications crimes by the Western District of Arkansas' Court due to these crimes being called copyright, defamation, false light, and other inapplicable torts in egregious error by a severely brain injured Plaintiff acting pro se and failing to seek civil punishment for federal crimes and the criminal business conspiracy committed by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation that continues. All judicial officers and all law clerks over age 65 have inadequate experience with BROADCASTING in the wire medium and accepted Reno v ACLU, (96-511) as a landmark Free Speech ruling instead of the clear error Reno v ACLU, (96-511) has always been. This wire communications claim requires the next generation of judicial personnel for complete fairness. Judicial Branch unfamiliarity with BROADCASTING in the wire medium is due extreme sea-changes in wire communications usage becoming both a medium for broadcasting illegal material by radio to the unknown or a wire and radio communications medium used for private free-speech exchanges. Radio broadcasts have been misunderstood by humanity for a century and continue. The [sic]“airwaves” of Pacifica have never existed. Radio does not need a medium anymore than gravity or the mysterious magical “indulgence-medium” that was never a medium but was coined as [sic] “Internet” and called a medium in egregious error where laws requiring public protection for broadcasting to anonymous children were waived.


1.     FCC Commissioners should be ordered to pay statutory and compensatory damages measured by injuries sustained after trial of no less than $150,000 each. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation should pay PUNITIVE monetary damages as the jury feels is just per 47 U.S.C. §605 (Unauthorized publication or use of communications) and per 18 U.S.C. §2511 (Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited) per indecent image remaining associated with curtis neeley and left accessible after first advised for a total of no less than 50 million dollars for criminal conspirators Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation. 

                                                                 < 16  >


                                                              CONCLUSION cont
2.    Damages ordered paid by Corporate Defendants should be heavily impacting due to ignoring vociferous advisements regarding unwanted criminal NAKED image associations with “Curtis Neeley” and even expanding these violations while facing the Plaintiff in Federal Court. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation should also compensate the Plaintiff due to non-fiduciary losses increasing the fiscal award. These embarrassing damages will be further explained in person before the jury. FCC Commissioners failed to assert anything but improper venue and this response should be considered an admission of nonfeasance that is obvious.
3.     T
his prayer seeks the right thing” being done and thereby finally establishing pervasive radio and wire communications as the border-less medium independent venue safe for unsupervised children, Chinese citizens, Muslims, and for pornography addicts as well as free speech including speech not the least bit acceptable for unsupervised children and others but protected for identified responsible adults willing to identify as contactable adults so ages may be checked by the FCC or the owner of the computer or other device used to view radio and wire communication BROADCASTS of NAKEDNESS and finally connecting the entire Earth [sic] “online”.

4.      The FCC should be ordered to resume protection of minors and pornography addicts from anonymous access to harmful simultaneous radio and wire communications or be ordered to cease ignoring 47 U.S.C. §151 or nonfeasance. This protection is the currently ignored duty related to free speech, privacy, authors’ rights, and regulation of pervasive public radio and wire communications BROADCASTING. The wire medium used for BROADCASTING has been unregulated and unprotected since 1978 in violation of Pacifica long before the simultaneous usage of two media was called one unique and wholly new medium for human communications in error that could not be more wrong or be brought more squarely to American Courtd due misapprehension of fact and law done first in 1997 and continuing today.

                                                                 < 17  >



5. Indecent adult-only communications will continue safely via radio and wire communications to authenticated individuals but should not be allowed BROADCAST to the “unwitting”. The Plaintiff prays the FCC be ordered to resume prohibition of NAKED wire communications to anonymous persons, as has been trivial now for decades. The subscriber identity requirement for viewing NAKEDNESS is wholly supported for even controversial and vaguely indecent naked subjects by Doe v. Reed, (09-559) when legitimate state interests are served. The legitimate state interest and DUTY to protect children could not be more obvious than these state interests are now.
6. A
ll spouses, minors, and parents on Earth have been left exposed to harm by access to pervasive but unsafe anonymous NAKED image BROADCASTS provided by both Corporate Defendants in the organized criminal business scheme for hundreds-of-billions of dollars.

7. Roughly half the damages awarded will be taxes paid to the United States and offset taxes though this is not a class action. See 21 U.S.C. §848 Continuing criminal enterprise”.

8.     The jury should award the Plaintiff enough PUNITIVE damages to impact the American budget. Each corporate Defendant is seeking to continue criminal NAKED content trafficking to the anonymous like is improper and clearly against US law and common sense and has been obvious for decades but was never pursued because of treatment of Reno v ACLU (96-511) as landmark instead of the clear landmark error Reno v ACLU (96-511) has always been due to judicial senescence. Article III judges often refuse to retire long after the age allowed citizens by Social Security despite the overabundance of qualified judicial candidates now compared to when the United States began. Lifelong terms were enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. “During good behavior” should now be carefully defined to include retiring at age 65 or 70 at the latest as the Sixth and Ninth Amendments support.

                                                                 < 18  >


9. T
he scourge of pornography on families will become treatable soon after anonymous access to NAKED artwork or anonymous NAKED artwork BROADCASTING by wire is prohibited by the FCC as is now sought ordered by an order to cease nonfeasance or cease illegal non-conduct. This regulation will quickly end all simultaneous radio and wire child pornography and quickly establish SAFE distant communications BROADCASTING and Free Speech exchanges once ensured by the Communications Act of 1934 and now finally reaching worldwide.

10. Defendant Microsoft Corporation responded to the Plaintiff and demanded the injunction now sought though Microsoft Corporation did not oppose the Plaintiff before this complaint was filed like Defendant Google Inc did vociferously.

11. Google Inc opposition resulted in the moral copy[rite] of 17 U.S.C. §106A being ruled inappropriately to
not apply to simultaneous radio and wire communications because of misapprehension of the copy[rite] law regime applications despite unstinting Berne Convention Compliance ruled the intention of this law in Golan v Holder. The Plaintiff has sound common law moral rights warranting punishment for republication of NAKED art and even properly associating NAKED art with the Plaintiff's personal name and broadcasting these per 42 U.S.C. §1988. Congress therein restored common law moral human rights to preclude accurately attributed copies of morally questionable original art that remain unprotected despite the unfulfilled Constitutional provision for Congressional protection of author's rights. See ignored Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

12.     Google Inc had an organized criminal policy for years for continued delivery of NAKEDNESS to the unidentified via radio and wire violating Pacifica. This is criminal and created a market for unsafe indecent radio and wire communications BROADCASTING using the oldest lure given to humanity and offering an increase of NAKED display. The pervasive lure of NAKEDNESS was presented by Google Inc on one simultaneous use of the radio and wire network mediums for BROADCASTING instead of fruit left hanging on one forbidden tree.

                                                                 < 19  >


                                                                    CONCLUSION cont

13.     Defendant Google Inc spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees and adamantly refused to stop trafficking Plaintiffs NAKED art and NAKED art associated with “curtis neeley” to children and pornography addicts encouraging billions in profit while facing the Plaintiff in American Courts. Microsoft Corporation admitted being made aware of obscene image associations with the “curtis neeley” text and continue these illegal NAKED associations for income as well. Microsoft Corporation's <> should never be profitable after broadcasting pornography to the anonymous by radio and wire is again prosecuted as the crime it has always been.

14. This District Court should invalidate all usage of 17 U.S.C. §107 fair-use to violate privacy while trespassing on private computers and indexing computers uninvited or how Google Inc chooses to steal indecent NAKED content. This Court should invalidate 47 U.S.C. §230 preclusion that violates the rule of law as well as the title of this absurd statute.

15. 47 U.S.C. §230 was used by Defendant Google Inc to ignore advisement of obscene or indecent and criminal image associations with “curtis neeley” by the Plaintiff as well as unsafe illegal profane speech sought censored recently by the White House in the interest of unregulated free speech by Google Inc. It is well past time for this American Court order regulation of all communications BROADCAST in commerce to the public in the Western District of Arkansas by the FCC because unconstitutional laws like 47 U.S.C. §230 can preempt absolutely no other law but are currently allowed to do this by mistakes that are due to irrelevant judicial formative life experiences.

16.      This action will not be resolved finally without scores of amici filed as the District Decision is appealed again to the Supreme Court. Still; This District Court has authority to resolve this complaint by injunctions demanding resuming regulation of radio and wire communications entering or leaving the Western District of Arkansas and findings of liability for Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation with a jury instructed to determine the PUNITIVE award paid by each Corporate Defendant. Each FCC Commissioners and member of Congress should be ordered to pay compensatory damages of at least $1.

                                                                 < 20  >


                                                              CONCLUSION cont

17. The Supreme Court was WRONG in Susan B. Anthony v United States (1873) and the fine levied for voting while female was ignored by Susan B. Anthony though preceding suffrage by forty-eight years. Clear natural rights and clear US Statutes were misapprehended herein because unregulated [sic] “internet” wire/radio BROADCASTING of indecency has always been illegal.

18.         The Supreme Court was just as wrong in Reno v ACLU (96-511) as the Supreme Court was in Susan B. Anthony v United States, (1873). This clear error has been used by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation to encourage ridiculous criminal income. The FCC currently uses the Reno v ACLU (96-511) landmark error to allow unsafe distant free speech BROADCASTING counter to 47 U.S.C. §151, and 18 U.S.C. §1464 as well as persistent organized criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511, and 47 U.S.C. §605 when identity filtration was bypassed by criminal conspirators Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation.

19.     Indecent free speech made in the Plaintiffs past now causes vulgar art once published nearby in websites to be associated with the Plaintiff's personal name by both Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc after advised of this criminal fraud. See the! criminal radio BROADCAST by Microsoft Corporation and the! criminal radio BROADCAST by Google Inc to the anonymous minor” or anonymous pornography addict for profit as can be shown in vulgar exhibits saved for display to an AR jury.

                                                                << < 21  >



1. ANY [sic] “internet” presentation to the anonymous is a radio BROADCAST and is the criminal enterprise making billionaires along with the legal business this crime supports without any possible question. Plaintiff prays this clear fact now be judicially recognized.

2. Plaintiff prays these crimes not be allowed to continue in the Western District of Arkansas and prays these now be punished by an Arkansas jury. Arkansas was one of the first states to use cable television wires for BROADCASTING left unregulated by FCC nonfeasance due to the rugged mountainous local terrain making radio broadcasting alone unprofitable. Arkansas is now an ideal venue to begin the end of Federal Communications Commission nonfeasance by requiring compensatory damages from each FCC Commissioner, the leaders of Congress, and punitive and compensatory damages as determined by an Arkansas jury from each criminal conspirator violating clear communications law.

Curtis J. Neeley Jr.

N Quality Lane Suite 123

ayetteville, AR 72703


Most Respectfully Submitted,

Curtis J Neeley Jr.

                                                                                  << < 22  PDF

Your IP has been stored. ALL visitation of this page is noted as another public record of elucidation. Visitors should now be aware that usage of the slang word [sic]"internet" as a singular noun "nickname" is an improper description of either an authenticated venue for Free Speech or an unauthenticated, and generally illegal wire and  radio broadcast.  This has been an overfive year process and the prior records are accessible. The PDF of this complaint is public.  This can be purchased as a book as well from for $7 + shipping or ordered from as paper printouts for cost + shipping.
This has never been about money.  Just use the 
PDF and print it yourself.