Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , (13-cv-5293)

This is a discussion on Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , (13-cv-5293) within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , ( 13-cv-5293 ) The_End_of_Porn_by_Wire Has nothing to do with fair-use, copy[rite], false-light, defamation, naked images, or anything ...


Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR; USA
    Posts
    57
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK

    Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , (13-cv-5293)

    Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , (13-cv-5293)

    The_End_of_Porn_by_Wire

    Has nothing to do with fair-use, copy[rite], false-light, defamation, naked images, or anything mentioned in prior litigation but the first response will be an allegation of violating and injunction. This legal expense will simply add to the legal costs for GOOG and MSFT though MSFT may not waste time or money with this.

    Members of Congress are Defendants for failing to protect authors' rights for any time. I will serve my AR Senators and AR Representatives but already have served the President of the Senate, GOOG, MSFT, the Attorney General, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. The US AG will represent the US because 17 U.S.C. is called into question as unconstitutional since 1790 and only getting worse in 1976 with 17 U.S.C. 107 being obviously unconstitutional and then again in 2011 with 17 U.S.C. 106A being interpreted as not applying [sic]"online".

    Fair-use (17 U.S.C. 107) has been WRONG since tacked-in in 1976 and allowed the Google Inc books class-action to be dismissed in NY. I will seek to have millions of photographers from there join me but the violations of law have NOTHING to do with copy[rite], fair-use, [sic]"copyright", false-light, defamation, or naked naked images.

    The HIGH AND MIGHTY 47 U.S.C. 230 is called WRONG repeatedly. Even this Reno v ACLU (96-511) SCOTUS mistake does not apply to excuse the organized criminal business done by GOOG & MSFT as allowed by the FCC.

    The HIGH AND MIGHTY 47 U.S.C. 230(c) is WRONG on its face but 47 U.S.C. 230(e) disembowels this mistake.


    (4) No effect on communications privacy law
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
    18 U.S.C. 2510-22

    Communications privacy is the END of organized crime of GOOGLING FOR PORN without logging-in.

    Everyone should easily see why GOOG offered me five million to go away and see why I asked for 800 million or more from both GOOG and MSFT.

    This was dismissed in error but this claim can be done by ANY church, Parent, spouse or Visual artist in another jurisdiction.
    http://www.theendofpornbywire.org/do...mirrors/24.pdf



    Last edited by curtisneeley; 02-09-2014 at 08:37 PM.



 

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Neeley v Federal Communications Commissioners, et al , (13-cv-5293)
    By curtisneeley in forum General Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 09:42 PM
  2. Neeley Jr v FCC et al, (5:12-cv-5208)
    By curtisneeley in forum Photography News and Views
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2012, 12:19 PM
  3. Trademark and copyright violation lawsuit in Federal Court
    By curtisneeley in forum Glamour & Artistic Nude
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 04:35 PM
  4. Federal Way Cabin
    By Heather in forum Rural Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 04:41 PM
  5. How to trademark at the federal level?
    By Katherine E in forum Photography Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-09-2008, 09:56 AM

Tags for this Thread