Neeley Jr v FCC et al. The end of [sic]"open internet" nakedness!
13 Mar 2013
All GOOG stockholder/judges may consider the "Neeley III" litigation to be frivolous or intend to profess this wild hope or belief just as the senior judge Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren recently did. Each of you are again reminded to remain honorable in ALL your filings. Claude S Hawkins is commended. Very soon, if not already, the disparaging Neeley I, II, III comparisons, first used by Jennifer H. Doan Esq, will play a large part in the appeal being granted IFP status or this being dismissed. IFP status is not likely to matter whatsoever in the end.
Please understand the IFP request is a TEST of scienter for United States' legal system and very little else.
Replace q_ with q= if adult desiring to see nakedness in #5 or politically sensitive graphics - #3.
The violations or bypassing of identified adult filtration are not preserved as well in evidence for MSFT as these were for GOOG.but can be seen live now on number 3 and number 5 linked "live" in this email but not linked online to prevent links to nakedness. #3 bypasses adult identity filtration now and #5 violates the robots.txt protocol and is also a computer FRAUD crime in Arkansas now plead but ignored by recent senior-status Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren.
Do any readers honestly expect this litigation to resolve with this dismissal error? Senior-status Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren's error will become another demonstration of the cultural irrelevance of aging US judges due to calling searches of GOOG and MSFT databases wire-searches looking into some mysterious [sic]"internet".
Does the FCC anticipate beginning to "regulate" interstate and world-wide wire and radio communications used in commerce like the law already requires and finally establishing a search for computers connected to wires using the common carrier protocol that is safe for unsupervised minors like an FCC search engine? Get this done now!
What about enforcing 47 USC 605 for inappropriate violations of this law bypassing identity filtration like continues for both GOOG and MSFT. =HINT= This law once had nothing to do with satellites or television programming but unauthorized publication or use of wire communications or in this case communications by wire of NAKED pictures ONLY put in library books. OUCH!
GOOG busted this IGNORED law or $100,000 crime wide open in NY and this crime makes the NY book publications by wire utterly destroy GOOG.
Maybe Curtis J Neeley Jr will just quit or give up? No, Curtis J Neeley Jr, will seek monetary damages from each commissioner in order to motivate FCC rule changes.
The Eighth Circuit always had appellate jurisdiction for the original claim. This complaint is there now. Claude S. Hawkins Esq has appeared at the Eighth Circuit but this should not be resolved at the district level should it now Richard Welch Esq.?
Have any of FCC's more advanced minds figured out the facts included in Docket 56 on p2 and p3 under the "[r]ational" heading by Curtis J Neeley Jr? This is WAY BEYOND most minds as were the rule set proposed in District Court.
Commercial radio stations will now become geographically distributed Wi-Fi providers simply by setting up FM "cell towers" and selling USB FM Wi-Fi modems and subscriptions without ANY FCC rule changes at all? NONE! Watch this happen very soon as spectrum becomes a practically unlimited geographic resource like air that can be polluted and therefore must still subject to laws.
The offers to settle for five million each for MSFT and GOOG and requiring logging in to search for potential nakedness remain. Logging in will be required within five years like previously attempted by 47 USC 231.
This litigation "episode" Neeley III might eventually end with dismissal just like the Susan B Anthony case ended in error with theÂ $100 fine. GOOG will soon be reminded of why the "don't be evil" mantra was once so important since it was ignored but will become the rational for the future GOOG crash. Why, United States citizens in general are no longer so easily fooled.
The ONLY time the frivolous Visual Artist Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) was used for photography since passed was Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:09-cv-05151). This backwards US attempt to protect authors' rights "for a time" was invalidated by Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren in the action disparagingly referred to as Neeley I in the mistake of Docket 58. This mistake is now on appeal with a motion to appeal IFP but not using the disparaging term encouraged of "renewed".
Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren was given a chance to remain honorable with a Motion for Reconsideration but this aging judge's legacy will now be TWO clear demonstrations of how rapid changes in wire communications technology have confused many older judges in the United States' oligarchy early in the second millennium.
Lord Sir Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren decided to "strike" the "Motion for Reconsideration" and thereby tried to hide these mistakes as WILL NOT BE PERMITTED!
NOTHING done______WILL EVER BE HIDDEN!
Neeley v NameMedia Inc et al, (5:12-cv-5074) or Neeley II