The Complaint  sought allowed is http://www.curtisneeley.com/FCC/3rd-booklet-complaint.pdf  and is substanatively the same as this HTML wire/radio broadcast. It is to much work to continue updating as HTML so follow there..

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Curtis J Neeley Jr. Plaintiff

v

CASE NO. 12-5208

Federal Communications Commission,

Microsoft Corporation, Defendants

Google Inc.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1) VIOLATIONS OF PRIVACY; 2) FAILURE
TO REGULATE WIRE COMMUNICATIONS FOR SAFETY WHEN USED IN
COMMERCE; 3) VIOLATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO CONTROL
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS FOR A TIME; AND  
4) BYPASSING AN
IDENTITY REQUIREMENT INSTALLED TO
PREVENT DISPLAY OF NAKED ART
TO ANONYMOUS VIEWERS OF
INTERSTATE AND WORLD-WIDE WIRE COMMUNICATIONS BROADCAST IN COMMERCE

The Plaintiff, Curtis J. Neeley Jr. states a complaint for reckless presentation of the Plaintiff in simultaneous radio and wire communications when broadcast violating privacy by internationally distributing NAKED artwork creations publicly that are personal “sins” sought maintained privately. The Federal Communications Commission fails to protect the Plaintiff’s privacy on interstate and foreign communications broadcasting by wire and radio and fails to protect the safety of [sic] “internet” wire communications when broadcast for citizens including the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s children, as required by law. These wrongs are further explained for each Defendant as follows labeled I-V. Trial by jury is demanded but not expected.

I.

Federal Communications Commission's Failure to Protect Wire Communications

1.     The Supreme Court mislabeled the usage of computers to facilitate wire communications a “wholly new medium” in ACLU v Reno, (96-511). This plain error is not yet addressed 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. See FCC v Fox, (10-1293)(2012)

>
I II III IV V


























2. The clear intention of the Communications Act of 1934 was regulation of all pervasive distant communications broadcasting. The ACLU v Reno 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.

3. The FCC demonstrates nonfeasance by failing to intervene or otherwise seek to prevent 47 USC §230(c)(1)1 from 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 USC §1512 wherein Congress created the FCC and gave the agency clear regulatory authority over distant radio and wire communications when broadcast for interstate or world-wide commerce.

< 2 >
I II III IV V


























4. The continual display of NAKED art to unidentified parties, like the Plaintiff’s children, Lord Most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, 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 communications broadcasting in commerce from 47 USC §151 in plain English as can be read in footnote #2 on previous page or continue being ignored to allow anonymous “porn-by-wire”.

5. No simple administrative procedure exists to address this nonfeasance for citizens beyond those already tried for years by this Plaintiff. These include service of the general complaint by certified mail in 2009 and electronically “filing” this complaint repeatedly via FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) as can be seen by the public searching the <fcc.gov> website. Jurisdiction vested in the Western District of Arkansas Court per 28 USC §2675(a) after failure beyond six months to end this nonfeasance after the claim was first made.

6. Kim Mattos, of the FCC, advised the Plaintiff that decency regulation for interstate radio and wire communications was beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC and claimed, “everyone at the FCC”, was aware of this complainant and this complaint. The attempts by the FCC to establish tacit jurisdiction for open [sic]“internet” broadband rules failed miserably to assert the clear 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 in another improper usage of the English language like copy[rite].

< 3 >
I II III IV V
























7. The FCC v Pacifica3 ruling from 1978 is substituted wholly for the 47 USC §151 rational for regulation of distant radio and wire communication 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 broadcast better when telegraph wires were the only timely communications across oceans.

8. The FCC uses the thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling now to determine jurisdiction instead of 47 USC §151 in clear error 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 when broadcast in commerce.

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

< 4 >
I II III IV V

























10. The ACLU v Reno, (96-511) Supreme Court error5 causes simultaneous radio and wire communications broadcasting to become Earth’s radio and wire venue for utterly unsafe indecent communications when broadcast despite the rest of the ignored text of 47 USC §151 requiring protection for the safe use of both of these mediums in interstate and world-wide commerce.

11. The FCC fails now to ensure safe personal communications privacy for this Plaintiff in interstate and world-wide communications when broadcast for commerce. Plaintiff is left protected only by the Constitution and common law despite 47 USC §151 due nonfeasance of the Federal Communications Commission.

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

13 The thirty-four year old Pacifica ruling leaves the FCC using archaic and no longer valid interpretation of clear statute to preclude content regulation on simultaneous radio and wire communications broadcasting despite clear text requiring regulation of all distant communications especially when broadcast to unknown parties.

< 5 >
I II III IV V
























14. The “landmark” court error of ACLU v Reno allows irresponsible radio and wire communications to broadcast pervasive distant NAKEDNESS counter to 47 USC §151 requiring protection for the safety of the public for uses of radio and wire communications when broadcast in commerce to unknown parties that has been criminal since first done. See 18 USC §1464.

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.

16. The FCC allowed and allows simultaneous usage of radio and wire communications broadcasting to become patently unsafe today and harm this Plaintiff’s reputation and personal privacy as well as 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 exclusively the radio medium.

18. Regulation allowed 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 to be transmitted by unsafe radio and wire communications broadcasting regardless of who placed the indecent content on computers made accessible to unknown parties by simultaneous radio and wire communications without respect to the popular “title” given this medium independent communications media for broadcasting.

< 6 >
I II III IV V
























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

20. The failure to properly apply 47 USC §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 with only two bombs.

21. 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.

22. The rapid progress of science and NAKED art spread by criminal radio and wire communications broadcasting has allowed overwhelming desires 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.

< 7 >
I II III IV V

























23. The ACLU v Reno, (96-511) error is counter to the Constitution and rule of law and harms this Plaintiff’s privacy 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. This is allowed by the FCC to cause harm to this Plaintiff contrary to 47 USC §151 despite years of complaints by the Plaintiff.

24. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation indexing copies of NAKED content and revealing NAKED images by criminal radio broadcasting should always have been penalized as transmitters of nakedness by the FCC due to communicating NAKED images broadcast 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 for commerce.

II.

NAKED text-image Associations Left Violating Privacy by Microsoft Corporation after Advised of Inappropriateness

 1. Microsoft Corporation database searches alleging to represent the network of computers connected to wires for broadcasting associates the Plaintiff with NAKED image creations using “curtis neeley” in searches of radio and wire communications broadcasting now called open “inter” + “net”, though advised these COMPUTER FRAUDS are prohibited by State and Federal law. (18 USC §1030, ACA § 5-41-103.)

< 8 >
I II III IV V

























2. Microsoft Corporation refuses to halt this reckless personal name association without court orders after requests that all NAKED images be removed from radio broadcasting using the text “curtis neeley” by refreshing the cache.

3. Microsoft Corporation advised the Plaintiff that ceasing the text-image association of “curtis neeley” with 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 violating the privacy of the Plaintiff and violating the Plaintiff's personal common law right not to be associated with NAKED art. See docket #5 attachment #2 Exhibit “B”.

4. Injunctions requiring disassociating “curtis neeley” in database searches from NAKED images are now sought regardless of other terms used by unidentified searchers who may be minors or where identities can’t be checked by an authority like is also plead required now by the FCC as would be ceasing current nonfeasance.

III.

Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation Recklessly Use Wire Communications
to Violate Privacy

1. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation continue to associate “curtis neeley” with the presentation of NAKED photographs placed “online” by various random parties world-wide and violates the common law rights and Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff. There are insufficient safeguards used on these criminal radio broadcasts of images for prevention of anonymous viewers including minors, Muslims, or the Plaintiff’s children from viewing NAKED images returned using “curtis neeley” in searches of computers networked by wire despite the ease of preventing criminal broadcasts for decades but not done recklessly to increase pornography profit. See “curtis neeley nude site:creative-nude.net” in Google Inc “moderately safe” broadcast or Docket #51 attachment #1 Exhibit “CNN” or “curtis neeley site:michelle7-erotica.com” by Microsoft Corporation. These radiuo broadcasts occur because of the most profitable organized criminal activity EVER.

< 9 >
I II III IV V
























2. 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 to authenticated adult identities via verifiable email wire communications, as should be ordered required by the FCC in keeping with 47 USC §151.

3. Google Inc formerly and currently bypasses subscriber filtration and VIOLATES 47 USC §605 after advised of this wrong. Google Inc does this to continue display of NAKED images otherwise shown only to identity providing viewers for profit. Google Inc searches for “curtis neeley” limited to <deviantart.com> formerly revealed naked art and still reveal artwork declared “not safe for work” (NSFW) after Google Inc was advised of this clearly CRIMINAL wrong repeatedly. See 18 USC §§(1961(1),1962,1964, 2511)

4. The undesired return of artwork, declared by the Plaintiff to be indecent to unauthorized anonymous persons, was documented repeatedly and can be seen now. Indecent naked images were removed from <deviantart.com> and <redbubble.com> and vociferous advisement was given to Google Inc and hundreds of Federal Court filings. This violated the Plaintiff's common law copy right and common law privacy and 47 USC §605 and was criminal violation of 18 USC §2511. Plaintiff now seeks punitive civil damages for this to significantly offset the federal deficit after taxed.

5. The bypassing of adult (authenticated subscriber) filtration by Google Inc continues for this Plaintiff and ALL users of <deviantart.com> seeking the subscriber identity requirement for viewership of art marked indecent or “not safe for work” (NSFW).

< 10 >
I II III IV V
























6. The unauthorized republication of NAKED images from two websites presented material publicly to ANYONE that was clearly not intended for presentation to anonymous minors invalidating all possible 17 USC §107 claims. Google Inc continues now violating common law and constitutionally protected privacy and copy right and harasses the Plaintiff with fraudulent use of computers bypassing identity filtration and continues returning art labeled indecent in searches for “curtis neeley” to minors in the radio and wire mediums as are allowed by the FCC though rendering radio and wire communications broadcasting unsafe due to FCC nonfeasance.

IV. The “Google Inc Books” 2010 Privacy Violation

1. Google Inc attributed the Plaintiff accurately but inappropriately to three additional NAKED photographs via interstate and world-wide radio and wire communications broadcasting after Google Inc scanned three NAKED images by the Plaintiff from one book from a New York library against the Plaintiff’s known desires. This was done after March 7, 2010 despite spending hundreds of thousands in legal fees against this Plaintiff to continue NAKED image broadcasting for profit in addition to the millions spent in legal fees or offered artists in New York to revise copy[rite] law and claiming there to rewrite federal copy[rite] laws in United States Courts for the Southern District of New York in violation of the common law rights of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The offensive book “preview” was withdrawn by Google Inc but damages should still be paid for this wrong to punish Google Inc for the organized criminal business.

< 11 >
I II III IV V

























2. This negligent and harassing criminal action by Google Inc was done while litigating against this Plaintiff for the undesired redisplay of Plaintiff’s NAKED artwork and caused this Plaintiff further harm by creating another three harassing invasions of privacy protected by common law and the Constitution. These were violations of exclusive common law rights and were unauthorized republication of NAKED book artwork in the radio and wire mediums. Publication was done by the Plaintiff in only 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.

4. This was a fundamental violation of privacy by Google Inc that is constitutionally protected and protected by common law in Arkansas according to the opinion of the Arkansas Attorney General. See Arkansas Attorney General Opinion No. 96-161 in docket #5 attachment #3 Exhibit “C”. 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 privacy 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 amici opposing these finding by Google Inc.

< 12 >
I II III IV V
























6. The fair-use exceptions of 17 USC §107 to the exclusive rites for using 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.

7. Besides unconstitutional vagueness; §107 violates the accepted treaty of the “Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works” despite the recent Golan v Holder ruling calling the “Berne Convention” the copy[rite] law accepted 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.

8. The 17 USC §107 claim does not consider unwanted additional publicity and even world-wide publicity for reformed indecent NAKED image authors thereby violating 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 Plaintiff’s privacy.

9. The fair-use exceptions of 17 USC §107 to the publishing rite for NAKED art have never been fair and have always been unconstitutional. Any name-associated rebroadcast of NAKED 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 or 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.
< 13 >
I II III IV V
























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 USC §151. It is absurd and shows nonfeasance when the FCC allows 47 §230(c)(1) to be repeatedly misinterpreted by Federal Courts diametrically opposed to the clear intentions and title of the Communications Decency Act and the “Good Samaritan” section 47 §230(c)(1).

2. The law intended by Congress to promote communications 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 network or interconnected network of interactive computer networks” and christened “inter”+ “net” by ACLU v Reno, (96-511) in clear error as pointed out than herein.

3. The responsibilities for production, trafficking, and consumption of NAKED content or defamatory content is unconstitutionally waived for all laws by 47 USC §230(c)(1) allowing utterly unregulated speech in violation of the clear natural right to be free from defamation and computer frauds.

< 14 >
I II III IV V
























4. 47 USC §230(c)(1) invalidates common law copy right and permits privacy violations proscribed by numerous State laws as well as 47 USC §151. United States laws are entirely ignored by the FCC as could not be more clearly wrong or be brought more squarely before United States Courts though this claim was misapprehended by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren to perpetuate anonymous access to pornography as if this were proper and not the result of criminal radio broadcasting like Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc do best.

    5. Plaintiff seeks only common sense regulation of radio and wire communications when broadcast. Google Inc advised of having clear institutional interests in preventing identification of searchers looking for NAKEDNESS before Honorable Erin L. Setser in Western District of Arkansas on Dec 10, 2010. See (5:09-cv-5151) Dkt. #216 Broadcasting porn to the anonymous is criminal. See 18 USC §1464.

CONCLUSION

1. FCC Commissioners should be ordered to pay actual compensatory damages, measured by pecuniary injuries sustained herein after trial. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation should pay punitive monetary damages as the jury feels is just per 47 USC §605(Unauthorized publication or use of communications) and per 18 USC §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 consistent with 47 §231.

2. Damages ordered paid by Corporate Defendants should be heavily impacting due to ignoring vociferous advisement regarding unwanted NAKED image-text associations 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 should now pay compensatory fiscal damages for allowing these unsafe crimes and failing to assert anything but improper venue as should be considered an admission of nonfeasance.

< 15 >
I II III IV V
























CONCLUSION cont

3. This prayer seeks only the “right thing” being done and thereby finally establishing pervasive radio and wire communications broadcasting as the border-less medium independent venue safe for unsupervised children and pornography addicts and for free speech including speech not the least bit acceptable for unsupervised children but protected for identified responsible adults willing to identify as contactable adults so ages may be checked by the “adult claim verification office” of the FCC or the owner of the computer or other devise used to view radio and wire communications broadcasting of NAKEDNESS.

4. The FCC should be ordered to protect minors and pornography addicts from anonymous access to harmful simultaneous radio and wire communications broadcasting or be ordered to cease 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 for broadcasting has been unregulated and left unprotected since 1978 or long before the simultaneous usage of two media was called “unique and wholly new medium for human communications” in egregious error that could not be more wrong or be brought more squarely to United States Court due the egregious misapprehension of Honorable John Paul Stevens.

5. Indecent adult-only communications will continue safely via radio and wire communications broadcasts but the Plaintiff prays prohibition ordered by the FCC for anonymous persons to receive NAKED wire communication broadcasting, as has been trivial now for decades. The subscriber identity requirement for viewing NAKEDNESS is supported for even controversial and vaguely indecent subjects by Doe v. Reed, (09-559) when legitimate state interests are served.

< 16 >
I II III IV V

























CONCLUSION cont

6. All spouses and all 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 an organized criminal business policy.

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 USC §848Continuing criminal enterprise”.

8. The jury should award the Plaintiff enough punitive damages to impact the United States budget. Each corporate Defendant is seeking to continue criminal NAKED content trafficking to the anonymous as is improper and clearly against US law and common sense and has been obvious for decades.

9. The scourge of pornography on families will become treatable soon after anonymous access to NAKED artwork is prohibited by the FCC as is now sought ordered by an order to cease nonfeasance or illegal non-conduct. This regulation will quickly end all simultaneous radio and wire child pornography and quickly establish “SAFcc” distant communications broadcasting once ensured by the Communications Act of 1934.

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.

< 17 >
I II III IV V
























CONCLUSION cont

11. Google Inc opposition resulted in the moral copy[rite] of 17 USC §106A being ruled to not apply to simultaneous radio and wire communications because Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren misapprehended copy[rite] law despite “unstinting” Berne Convention Compliance ruled the intention of the law in Golan v Holder. This improper ruling should have no impact on the common law moral rights of this Plaintiff to punish for republication of NAKED art and association of NAKED art with the Plaintiff's personal name per 42 USC §1988 since Congress therein restored common law moral human right to preclude copies of original art that remain unprotected despite the unfulfilled Constitutional provision for Congressional protection of author's rights. See ignored Constitution Article I, Section8, Clause 8.

12. Google Inc made it a company policy for years to protect the continued delivery of NAKEDNESS to the unidentified via radio as is criminal and thereby created a market for unsafe indecent radio and wire communications broadcasting using the oldest lure given to humanity and offering an increase of NAKED knowledge. The pervasive lure of NAKEDNESS was presented by Google Inc by delivery on simultaneous radio and wire communication network broadcasting instead of fruit left hanging on one “forbidden tree”.7
< 18 >
I II III IV V

























CONCLUSION cont

13. Defendant Google Inc spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees and adamantly refused to stop trafficking Plaintiff’s NAKED art and other associated NAKED art to children and pornography addicts for profit while facing the Plaintiff in United States Courts. Microsoft Corporation admitted being made aware of obscene text-image associations and continues these improper NAKED associations for profit as well.

14.     This District Court should invalidate all usage of 17 USC §107 fair-use to violate privacy while trespassing on private computers and indexing computers uninvited or how Google Inc chooses to steal NAKED content. This Court should invalidate 47 USC §230 preclusions for violating the rule of law.

15.    47 USC §230 was used by Defendant Google Inc to ignore advisement of obscene or indecent and criminal text-image associations by the Plaintiff as well as unsafe 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 United States Court to order regulation of all communications broadcast in commerce in the Western District of Arkansas by the FCC since unconstitutional laws like 47 USC §230 can preempt absolutely no other law but are currently allowed to do this by mistake.

16.     This action will not be resolved finally without scores of amici filed as the District Decision is appealed to the Supreme Court. Still; This District Court has authority to resolve this complaint by injunctions demanding resuming regulation of radio and wire communications broadcasting 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 and FCC Commissioners being ordered to pay actual compensatory damages, as well as statutory damages after trial.

< 19 >
I II III IV V

























CONCLUSION cont

17. Unsafe wire or radio communications should be ordered prevented by the FCC in the Western District of Arkansas since jurisdiction was vested here by 28 USC §2675(a) due to the years of failing to address this complaint. This demand will end the careers, political or otherwise, of anyone even acknowledging this complaint including all media and everyone else notified. This is the primary rational for United States Courts remaining beholden only to law.

18. 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. Ms Anthony remains the only person in history fined $100 by US Courts for voting straight republican ticket. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren also misapprehended clear natural and written laws herein.

19. The Supreme Court was just as wrong in ACLU v Reno (1996) 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 for ridiculous criminal profit. The FCC uses the ACLU v Reno (1996) landmark error to allow unsafe distant free speech broadcasts counter to 47 USC §151, 18 USC §1464, and 47 USC §605.

< 20 >
I II III IV V

























CONCLUSION cont

20. Indecent free speech made in the Plaintiff’s past now causes vulgar art once published nearby to be associated with the Plaintiff's personal name by both Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc after advised of this criminal fraud. See the “curtis neeley site:michelle7-erotica.com” criminal radio broadcast by Microsoft Corporation and “curtis neeley nude site:creative-nude.net” criminal radio broadcast by Google Inc to the anonymous “minor” or pornography addict for profit.

21. These crimes must not be allowed to continue in the Western District of Arkansas and must now be punished by an Arkansas jury. Arkansas was one of the first states to use cable television wire left unregulated by FCC nonfeasance due to the rugged mountainous local terrain and is now an ideal venue to end Federal Communications Commission nonfeasance.

Most Respectfully Submitted,

______________________
Curtis J Neeley Jr.

Curtis J. Neeley Jr.
2619 N Quality Lane
Suite 123
Fayetteville, AR 72703

<<<
I II III IV V



























1(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) 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 USC §230(c)(1) above sought to protect wire communications connectivity providers like telephone wire communications providers were protected from delivering though unaware. 



247 USC §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 broadcast regulation.

3 FCC v Pacifica the “landmark” First amendment holding from 1978 with the “pervasiveness theory,” held that distant

broadcasts of speech were “uniquely pervasive” and an “intruder” in the home, and therefore demanded special, artificial

content restrictions and relied on the pervasiveness of radio waves exclusively and failed entirely to address the pervasiveness 

of wire communications when simultaneously  available by radio as “interconnected networks” of wire communications are due

to non-existence in 1978.

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.

5ACLU v Reno, (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 ACLU v Reno, (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.

6 Medium noun 1) a middle state or condition; mean. 2) something intermediate in nature or degree. 3) an intervening 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 Dictionary.com: <dictionary.reference.com/browse/medium>

7 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” <^^ Genesis Chapter II

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

^^ Genesis Chapter III ^^^From chapter II and III of Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission.

Your IPs was already mailed instantly to Neeley if it has been long enough for your IP to prevent swamping Neeley's email. Click this IP LINK to see your IP and explore the prior unsuccessful legal actions and the continuing legal pursuit of the FCC, Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation.

The New FCC [sic] "internet" rule-set can be found HERE.
You can also see how interactive wire communications can be above.
Not clicking the link will not prevent your IP from being harvested.