TOC

3.      During this litigation Google Inc scanned a book in New York that had three of the Petitioner’s original figurenude photos.  Google Inc chose to re-publish three figurenudes digitally after this action and correctly attribute Petitioner to three nudes before ANONYMOUS viewers against the Petitioner’s desires.  This desire of Petitioner was known when initially republished by Google Inc as allowed due the FCC and US Title 17.

4.       United States Search Engines continue to refuse to cease the other outrageously offensive “truthful” attributions alleging United States “fair-use”.  Not all attributions were ever truthful and continued violation of rights granted by the Creator is not fair and makes the claimed “fair-use” only more offensive.

5.      All United States Search Engines take advantage of missing moral rights of US Title 17 and the nonfeasant Federal Communications Commission to traffic in pornography to anonymous viewers by WIRE as is described explicitly on p.8 ¶51 of the Communications Act of 1934. The WIRE COMMUNICATIONS definition found there better explains the Internet than the term found on page ninety.  Pornography is the single most profitable use of COMMUNICATION BY WIRE and make EVERY OTHER portion of this action too trivial to include. See Appendix CA-1934-p8, CA-1934-p90, Ex. Peven-Penis or search <images.google.com> for “Curtis Neeley” and see the nude art and  Michael Peven’s erect penis that would not be allowed on TV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-5-6