Human Dignity & Confusion in "America"

. . . . The United States does not allow defense of personal honor or reputation except indirectly by litigating using various torts, as planned by two colonial lawyers in 1790. Various torts like defamation, slander, libel, and privacy violations are often used attempting to protect a fundamental human right legally left unprotected in America.

. . . . Yes; U.S. law developed from British law(s), however, the reason for the legal AND cultural split from Europe is because the U.S. was overthrown by an America failing to protect or recognize fundamental, natural human rights needing protection. The natural human rights to protect personal honor from prior fixed expressions were protected in Britian first in 1734. The right to defend the self from embarrassment or protect human dignity and the honor of authors from “fixed” free speech of authors after recanting a prior mistake is a fundamental, natural human right left unprotected in the U.S. as a result of an eighteenth-century censorship usage of the “Copy[rite] Act” of 1790, which was called just a “regime” consistently in Golan v Holderiv (2010).

. . . . In 1789-90, Noah Websteri copied the 1710 “Statute of Anneii” nearly verbatim as the “Copy[rite] Act of 1790iii". This eighty-year-old British publishing rite or ritual did not address the fundamental, natural human right to prevent undesired use of prior “fixed” communications. The unauthorized abuse of original “fixed” communications was protected against first by IP law(s) in Britian in 1734 or twenty-five years before Mr. Webster was born.


. . . . The “American Copy[rite] Act” was the first time the word [sic]"copyright" was used to describe the British rite or “Statute of Anne”. This British rite protected NO HUMAN RIGHT to control original “fixed” communications whatsoever. SCOTUS called this imported ritual an “American regime” in 2010 after two-hundred and twenty years of treatment like honorable law, which “Title XVII” has never been.

. . . . The human right to prevent unauthorized use of original fixed communications was protected by "copy-right" in Britian first with the “Engravers Act of 1734iv” because William Hogarth wanted to control usage of revealing engravings used in earth's first political cartoons which were close to being offensive or vulgar for the day.

. . . . In late 1766, Sir William Blackstonev was writing “Rights of Thingsvi” and compounded “copy” and “right” using footnotes “l and m” on pages 407 to refer to prior usage in British law as the human “right" to control original creations or discoveries.

. . . . This Act of Parliament was modified after sought encouraged by Benjamin Franklin, to allow a surviving spouse, Jane Thornhill, to continue controlling a dead author's, (William Hogarth) original communications for life in 1766. This was the first time an individual human right to control fixed communications survived the creator of those original communications because the protected engravings were racy for the time and could be reproduced mechanically and be easily edited to look indecent or vulgar.

< 2 >

. . . . This was, ironically, a decade before the U.S. “Declaration of Independence”. Ignoring the first British IP laws in 1790 skewed U.S. culture to undignified and is why “Americans” today do not understand “copy-right” as the human right to prevent unauthorized copies of original communications. e.g. European “Right To Be Forgotten” v GOOGvii This two-hundred and twenty-five year old heterographic misspelling is why the State marriage rite was called an individual human right by SCOTUS in 2015.

. . . . America used the “Copy[rite] Act, publishing rite, in 1790 to make “American British” schools all revise spellings from British English. This is the reason American English is sometimes spelled different than British English. (i.e. color, colour, honor, honour, copy[rite], copyright)

. . . . Lawyer Noah Webster teamed with the first Connecticut Delegate, Samuel Huntington,viii to keep American lawyers busy trying to protect the human right to control unauthorized use of personal communications without violence. (i.e. pistol duels, fisticuffs.) Compounding the words “copy” and “rite” being used, America misspelled this word by fiat as [sic] “copyright” while a “Bill of RIGHTS” was being considered and ratified making individual human rights a prime concern for a new nation.

. . . . Sir William Blackstoneix had already compounded “copy-right” early in 1766 using the words “copy” and “right” instead of “copy” and “rite” on pages 406, 407x in “RIGHTS of Things”. This was done before an Act of Parliament extended the 1734 right to a surviving spouse due to not mentioning the right to control use of revealing creations or the first inherited [sic] “copyright” by Jane Thornhillxi. The dictionary used for the Constitution was published in 1755xii by Samuel Johnston without “copyright”.

< 3 >

. . . . The “coining” of British copyright was done in a book on the laws of Britian while discussing the common law right to control creation of additional “fixed” copies of original communications (books, engravings). The rite for controlling (censoring) copies of printed facts differs from the natural right to control the original ideas being communicated instead. (i.e. stories, discoveries, engravings, and photos)

. . . . The intentional heterographic compounding of “copy” and “rite” as copy[rite] was in the first “American edition” of the Samuel Johnson dictionary in 1804 on page 56xiii. This use of copy[rite] copied Noah Webster's definition “the sole right to print a book” and the misspelling assigned to describe only a book printing censorship monopoly or government rite by Noah Webster in 1790. No human right was inferred and no reference to prior use of proper compounding by Sir William Blackstone in 1766.

. . . . Copy[rite] was most certainly an early “Americanism” not listed in the First “American” issue of Johnson's Dictionary based on the eleventh edition from London as printed and published by James Maxwell in 1819.xiv The British dictionary still did not include the “American” copy[rite] misspelling for another fifty years.

. . . . The words “congress”, “wage” as a verb, and “constitutionality” are listed as “Americanisms” in the 1836 “American editionxv of Johnson's dictionary published by Charles J. Hendee as alleges [sic] “copyright” was used in Britian also as the sole right to print a book with no human right to protect honor inferred. This deception was wrong in 1836 and can be seen to still be wrong today.

< 4 >

. . . . The fundamental human right to protect self-honor was discussed by Sir William Blackstonexvi early in 1766 before the special act of Parliament transferred and extended this human right to control communications of a dead spouse for life to Jane Hogarth. This first British “copy-right” was for risque engravings done by the inventor of political cartoons in the early 1730's named William Hogarth in 1734.

. . . . Jane Hogarth Thornhill's spouse died two years before a special act of Parliament was passed in 1766. Ms. Hogarthxvii then died during composition of the “American” Copy[rite] Act of 1790, or in 1789. This legal “regime” was created twenty-three years after the special act of Parliament passed for the first human right for a widow to control copies of risque art done by a former spouse.

. . . . Samuel Johnson lived from 1709-1784 and died before Noah Webster used “American” Congress to coin an Americanism of the term used in Britian in early 1766 to describe a human right to control copies of original communications as “copy-right”.

. . . . “America's” new Congress copied the book publishing rite Britian used in 1710 to regulate or censor mass fixations of books as printing became more common. Noah Webster used this copied rite to make elementary school texts in the United States consistently teach “Americanchildren to spell color, honor, flavor, etc. without the extra British vowel. Noah Webster created a new dialect but never shortened the British spelling of tongue to [sic] “tung”, though attempting to do this for several decades, though soundly rejected.

< 5 >

. . . . Noah Webster wished the “Americanism” for tongue to be spelled as [sic] “tung”. The first edition of Noah Webster's “American Dictionary of the English language in 1828 had [sic] “tung”xviii as well as the “Dictionary for Primary Schools” in 1836xix. Noah Webster's progeny replaced the [sic] “tung” fiat in the University edition by 1850 though the copy[rite]xx, colorxxi, and honorxxii fiats remained and became part of the new “AmericanEnglish dialect. The “tung” fiat was rejected and quietly abandoned by lexicography cohorts by 1841.xxiii The “tung” fiat was not used in 1806 by even Mr. Webster.

. . . . This clearly explains the “RTBF”xxiv forcing GOOG to “shut the hell up”xxv in Europe and remove old links to embarrassing personal data. Google Inc could never develop in Europe where original personal speech is subject to control by the author after published for life plus seventy years. The fundamental human right to control “fixed” communications or lack of this right is the cultural basis for the “mysterious” right to be forgotten or retract prior embarrassing and retracted statements or discoveries.

. . . . This is perhaps “Much ado about Nothing” like in 1598 by William Shakespeare? -No; SCOTUS has resolved publicly to fool Americans since 1843 by rejecting the natural human right to control fixed communications and yet treated the American copy[rite] ritual as if this government rite had mysteriously evolved to protect natural human rights allowing the U.S. to allege Berne Convention compliance improperly since 1990.

< 6 >

. . . . The natural right of a human to protect communications made or things done in the past is the human right not protected by law in America like alleged in “Title XVII”. The United States has attempted to preserve parts of this human right vicariously since the Colonies rebelled against Britian. The Fifth Amendment protects the ability to refuse to self-incriminate or tell on the self. The Fourth Amendment protects the ability to hide evidence and lie about it and not be searched.

. . . . The fundamental human right to protect honor without physically harming another is usually left unprotected in America if the communications made or things done are “fixed” in any way the public can detect. Books written or artwork done can and will continue to communicate whether this is still desired or if a prior fixed creation becomes egregiously regretted.

. . . . The fundamental human ability to refuse to speak in order to protect personal honor is respected in America per the Fifth Amendment. This self-incrimination Amendment does not protect against fixed speech made in the past if fixed voluntarily but is now regretted like is STILL protected against in Europe. Europe was legally several centuries ahead of the United States in a “Rule of Law” before the U.S. failed. America's oligarchy silently overthrew the United States as was planned by voters in 1929.

< 7 >


. . . . The fundamental human right to protect personal honor is missing in America. The representational democracy of the United States began to cease preserving the rule of “We the People” with the Appropriations Act of 1929. An oligarchy was planned to replace the United States with rule by the wealthy and “best” of America and was 90% irreversible after Citizens United in 2010.

. . . . Antonin Scalia attempted to explain the rational used for the mistake of calling a corporate bribe protected speech instead on February 26, in Ft. Smith, Arkansas to a litigant with a history of describing 73-year-old Jimm Larry Hendren as displaying senility or other mental defect in United States District Court. This litigant told Antonin Scalia, “although years older than Jimm Larry Hendren and perhaps not addicted to free anonymous access to pornography like Jimm Larry Hendren had proven himself to be”, the Citizens United mistake cut directly against the idea of originalism when interpreting the Constitution. Antonin Scalia had just said, “it says what it says”, in the Marshall's Museum presentation given. Antonin Scalia agreed with this litigant's position of protected speech being only for the speech of individuals when influencing voting to make representational democracy valid and said this would quickly be made clear in future rulings but would not be done sua sponte due to the Citizens United mistake.

< 8 >

Conclusion cont.

. . . . The ability to protect human honor without harming another is missing in America because of a devout Christian's 1790 sin. The cultural impact of using the heterographic “copy[rite]” to confuse government rites with human rights in 1790 to create the American English language could not have been anticipated by Noah Webster because the Wheaton, 1843 SCOTUS mistake was made only weeks before Mr. Webster died and rejected the natural human right to protect honor without violence but by using copy[rite] to prevent unauthorized use of embarrassing or retracted prior communications.

. . . . Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed colour, honour, labour, valour, copy[rite] and various other spellings to eliminate the letter “u” and allowed a U.S. government rite to approximate a human right to protect dignity to this very day. Spelling the copyrite used in America as copyright instead resulted recently in SCOTUS again calling a government rite a fundamental individual human right. Marriage will NEVER be an individual human right as could not be made more obvious or more certain until the reader looks for a government or church marriage involving only one individual.

. . . . There is no individual human right to marry. There will never be a human right to marry regardless of judicial FIATS. The missing human right to protect honor would allow gay marriage to be established in order for monogamous intimate unions to protect the honor of homosexual humans.

< 9 >

Conclusion concl.

. . . . Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed for unprotected personal honor, as Citizens United, 2010 affirmed. Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed GOOG to reject the human right to repent for prior creations of pornography, as ruled in Neeley Jr. v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-051535)(14-3447) although the FCC alleged “online” was a Title II Common Carrier for communications as demanded in United States Court by this author for about seven years.

. . . . Transmitting an indecent or obscene digital image “onlineis a felony today as well as hazardous abuse of a public Title II Common Carrier for communications. Every JPG image today could and should be rated to protect children and pornography addicted Title III judicial personnel. GOOG is VERY aware of this fact and maliciously refused to only index rated image files in 2015 and only allow vulgar searches for authenticated searchers.

. . . . Free online pornography being shown to anonymous children, abortion of living fetal humans, and marriage being called a human right instead of the human or church rite it has always been are all incontrovertibly linked to Noah Webster's 1790 intentional use of the heterograph “right” instead of the heterograph “rite”. Mr. Webster was aware of the impact of fixed speech on human culture in light of knowing of the “Magna Carta”, the 95 Thesis, as well as the U.S. Constitution, Progress Clause, and plagiarizing the first Copy[rite] Act from the British 1910 “Statute of Anne”.

< 10 >

Mr. Webster ignored the 1734 Engravers Act protection for visual artist honor and the 1966 modification allowing a widow to inherit the right to protect the honor of her dead spouse. Noah Webster was a devout Christian but the spelling FIAT [sic] “copyright” destroyed the innocence of American children and addicted many, if not most, Americans and many, if not most, Title III judges to protecting free online pornography as protection of speech.

< 11 ^

See a list of dictionaries by Samuel Johnson at the Internet Archive.
See a list of dictionaries by Noah Webster at the Internet Archive.
See ... (Human-Dignity_US.org/Old-Dictionary/) for free PDF copies of 1700's & 1800's dictionaries.

iv Regime: “ strict and often arbitrary rules and laws [imposed] on the people” -

vii  From 2009-2015 GOOG spent about half-a-million in legal fees opposing this right although the FCC alleged to recognize “online” as a Title II Common Carrier on Feb. 26, 2015 in order to quietly obviate Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et. al.,(5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447) Defendants Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation did the same though Google Inc did not completely and remains earth's most profitable porn deliverer using unsafe wire communications despite the FCC alleging to protect public usage of Title II Common Carriers.

xxiii http://human-dignity-us.org/Old-Dictionary/1806-tung/1806-tung.pdf

Tung was not included in the appendix to the 1941 reprint of the 1806 first-run where words not yet included in 1806 but added by 1928 were alleged to be listed. The allegedly incorrect tongue was used 58 times in 1806.
http://human-dignity-us.org/Old-Dictionary/1806-tongue/1806-tongue.pdf https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.18060429 (view whole 1941 reprint )


No. 14-3447




Curtis J. Neeley Jr.



5 Federal Communications Commissioners,
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, et. al.,
US Attorney General Eric Holder Esq,
Microsoft Corporation,
Google Inc.


Brief Supporting Renewed Motion to Proceed as a Pauper to the Eighth Circuit on Appeal after Denied by Western District of Arkansas

     This civil action should be the most significant communication case ever pursued in the United States, if not the entire Earth. The individual, moral, human right* and not the “Americanlegal rite* for exclusively controlling communications disguised as [sic] “internet” or copy[rite]* was before the District Court with a Plaintiff/Appellant seeking only to enforce federal statutes written decades before wire communications were disguised as [sic] “internet” and called a “[holy] new mediumin FACTUAL error.

     Wire communications defined in 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59) include [sic] “internet”, email, mobile phones, iPads, wi-fi, and land-line telephones.*

     Every electronic communications today beside two-way radio communications and some satellite communications are nothing more than wire communications defined in 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59)* in around 1934 when the Federal Communications Commission “FCC” was created.


     This fact has not yet been realized as newer devices or apparatus began to combine various radio communication apparatus with wire communications. Wire medium usage combined with radio medium usage allow near-immediate world-wide communications by both wire and radio. World-wide radio communications exclusively would be cost prohibitive and unreliable though not impossible.

     Every commercial radio station today could deliver Wi-Fi [sic] “internet” on the assigned FM frequency using both time displaced modulation “TDM” and frequency modulation concurrently after adding local apparatus much like cell towers and distributing these wire-radio apparatus within their geographic “FM” radio coverage. The technology for making radio stations useful as ISPs is already available and in use in China. Digital broadcasting has never been considered this way in the U. S. except for “digital cable TV1 and is done only trivially now for digital radio.

Ark. Code. Ann. 5-41-103* Crimes

1.     When “alleged” cached copies of web pages are no longer accurate, the results of search queries become IMMEDIATE Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* computer frauds. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation each claim to find “Curtis Neeley” in searches of cached pages while claiming “Curtis Neeley” is not on these same cached pages. This fact was demonstrated in exhibits and needs no trial for proof. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation searches incorporate an undisclosed data source or keyword consideration factor causing the computer frauds seen in exhibits* to this case.


2.     Evidence and discovery are not needed to punish these demonstrated computer crimes. PUNITIVE damages are the “general” type of damages now sought for these intentional, continuing, organized computer crimes. No prosecuting attorney is needed for pursuit of damages for violations of Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-1032* as follows though asserted by mistake May 27, 2014 and again in the orders of Doc.## (22,25,27,35)*.

5-41-103* Computer fraud.
(a) A person commits computer fraud if the person intentionally accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, computer network, or any part of a computer, computer system, or computer network for the purpose of:
(1) Devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or extort; or
(2) Obtaining money, property, or a service with a false or fraudulent intent, representation, or promise.
(b) Computer fraud is a Class D felony

3.      When Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation computer accesses or searches obtain money alleging fraudulent representations by computers, criminal violations of Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* occur. Civil pursuit of damages for this computer felony are allowed per Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-106.* This Arkansas criminal statute does not require Google Inc or Microsoft Corporation access this Appellant's computer specifically but “any computer, computer system, computer network, or any part of a[ny] computer, computer system, or computer network” because all usage of AR computers is protected.

4.      The District Court claim this statute requires violation of Appellant's own computer from Doc. #22* follow with internal quotations replaced with curly brackets. The following legal MISTAKE, if allowed, will be judicial modification of ARKANSAS LAW or judicial activism warranting supervision by this Eighth Circuit Court.

< 3 >

5.      The mistakes of law in Doc. #22* warranting appeal “IFP” follow with underlining and emboldening added but not added to offend.

...Plaintiff must allege that Defendants intentionally accessed his computer, computer system network or any part thereof, for the purpose of {devising or executing any scheme or artifice to defraud or extort; or obtaining money, property or service with a false or fraudulent intent, representation, or promise.} Ark. Code Ann. § 5-41-103” - mistake of law from Doc. #22*

6.       Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* precedes and Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-106* follows. Together; These specifically give this Appellant incontrovertible standing when ANY computer, computer system, computer network, or any part of ANY computer, computer system, or computer network is used in Arkansas fraudulently to obtain money.

5-41-1063* Civil actions.

(a) (1) Any person whose property or person is injured by reason of a violation of any provision of this subchapter may sue for the injury and recover for any damages sustained and the costs of suit.

(2) Without limiting the generality of the term, "damages" include loss of profits.

(b) At the request of any party to an action brought pursuant to this section, in its discretion, the court may conduct any legal proceeding in such a way as to protect the secrecy and security of the computer, computer system, computer network, computer program, computer software, and data involved in order to prevent possible [sic]“reoccurrence” of the same or a similar act by another person and to protect any trade secret of any party.

(c) No civil action under this section may be brought except within three (3) years from the date the alleged violation of this subchapter is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence.

7.      PUNITIVE damages are warranted because the embarrassment, outrage, and mental anguish as well as the mental costs of this suit are far beyond calculating except by jury deliberation whether called “punitive” or other after years and years of litigation. Embarrassment before the Appellant's mother can't be fixed. During one of their last conversations, the Appellant's mother encouraged pursuit of this claim “till the right thing was done” in spite of five-million offered previously by Google Inc to settle.

< 4 >

8.      Why Google Inc offered $5,000,000 to stop this “frivolous lawsuit” on appeal in “America” before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and why Google Inc refused and still refuses to simply require indecency searches authenticate to settle this claim should be unbelievably obvious. The United States was founded by people leaving Europe and seeking protection for human rights and freedoms by written laws. This “American” desire is protected for data privacy better by the European “Grand Chamber” due to the C-131/12* ruling listed below in part. Still; Preventing computer frauds requires updating out-of-date searches if requested to prevent Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* felonies.


...the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful...”

18 U.S.C. 2511 Crimes

1.     The “Progress Clause” of the constitution authorizes Congressional protection of the right to exclusively control privacy of original communications “for a time” but was not done despite oaths of office. Most United States law schools and most judges are unaware noted international writer, Benjamin Franklin, felt the U. S. Constitution was too internationally important a document to be used to coin new words not appearing in the authoritative “Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language” (1755) in 1787 when helping write the Constitution.

< 5 >

2.     Benjamin Franklin suggested use of only words found in authoritative dictionaries in both the Constitution and the first “State of the Union” on January 8, 1790 though the first “State of the Union” addressed the importance of fulfilling the following “Progress Clause” to promote intellectual immigration before an imported new word from Britian was coined by Noah Webster and Congress in 1790.

                                   PROGRESS CLAUSE
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

3.     United States' Courts and perhaps ALL U.S. law schools describe this clause with a word undefined until 1808 in any dictionary or the “Copy[rite] Clause”. This intentionally misspelled “American” word was used in the “Copy[rite] Act of 1790” with a new “American” misspelling of the compounding of copy and rite by an elementary textbook author desiring to create a new language, which has since occurred. The moral right to control creations marginally allowed “Berne Convention Compliance” from 1990 until Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren ruled United States' legal ritual or LEGAL RITE, 17 U.S.C. §106A*, does not protect “online” in 2011.

4.     Benjamin Franklin5 and Noah Webster6 were noted lexicographers. Most are aware Benjamin Franklin was a “founding father” who flew a kite. Few realize Noah Webster copied the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 from British 1710 “Statute of Anne” but ignored the human right to control art protected by British 1734 “Hogarth's Act”.

5.     This early United States law officially misspelled compounding of “copy” and “rite” with the “Americanized” word imported from Britian of [sic] “copyright”. Benjamin Franklin was seriously ill but made sure [sic] “copyright” was not coined in the 1787 Constitution or first “State of the Union” by proxies though dying April 17, 1790. Noah Webster then used the “Copy[rite] Act of 1790” to coin and intentionally misspelled or “Americanized” a word from Britian when signed into law on May 31, 1790 by George Washington.

6.     The first U.S. President refused to “coin” this new word in the first “State of the Union” address despite addressing the importance of fulfilling the “Progress Clause” explicitly to attract the best minds from other nations as immigrants to a new nation respecting the rule of law this Appellant now relies on seeking “IFP” from this Eighth Circuit.

7.     Forty-three days after Benjamin Franklin died; The “Statute of Anne” RITE was copied verbatim and edited a tiny bit by the United States. The “1710 English Publishing Ritual” for authorizing printed copies of books was called a unique new “Americanized” spelling for compounding “copy” and “rite”. This continued misspelling explains the United States' failure to recognize the moral RIGHTS of original creators of potentially embarrassing visual creations that may later be retracted in order to repent.

8.     An artist's personal reputation and honor were once marginally protected “morally” by 17 U.S.C. §106A until this legal rite was ruled to not protect ANY human right “online” by Hon Jimm Larry Hendren. This mistake is not plead again as alleged.

< 7 >

9.     47 U.S.C. §230(e)* exempts 18 U.S.C. §2511* and ALL criminal statutes. The organized criminals Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation continue violating these laws after notified of these criminal acts. The absurd, immoral statute (47 U.S.C. §230) does not affect criminal laws in ANY WAY. The moral ability of “good Samaritan” authors or speakers of original indecent but secreted communications to exclusively control reception of these communications by minors is potentially protected by 18 U.S.C. §2511* because interception of wire communications is criminal regardless of when the speech was made with respect to when this speech is then intercepted.

10.     The District Court alleged “contemporaneous” qualifies “interception” via judicial fiat. The relevant portions of the clear law follow. All five (5) “top-secret” visual presentations intercepted in this complaint reside within electronic apparatus in order to “contemporaneously” transmit these five presentations ONLY when requested by authenticated parties and NEVER to be shown to the random public if requested without authentication like organized criminal Google Inc does in an organized crime. The record should show these Google Inc criminal interceptions. Searching TODAY* will reveal these crimes continuing.

18 U.S.C. §2511*

18 U.S. Code §2511* - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—

(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—

(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or...

< 8 >

…... … . . …. big skip …... … . . ….

(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—

  1. to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

11.     Honorable Timothy L Brooks stretches 18 U.S. Code §2511*(2)(g)(i) out to protect Google Inc by fiat when criminally revealing “top-secret”, colored charts from this Appellant's deviantart.com profile labeled as “adult” and requiring authentication for viewing7. This fiat is wholly dishonorable because these graphics are not accessible to the “general public”. The unauthenticated anonymous “general public will never see the images thus labeled by “good Samaritan” authors like this Appellant at deviantart.com without assistance by organized criminals like Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation though Microsoft Corporation has stopped these (5) and many more to mitigate damages awarded.

12.     The dishonorable prior ruling(s) are counter to law and immorally protect these and other restricted indecent wire communications crimes creating the attractive nuisance of free pornography remaining today. This immorality explains why this litigation should be so impacting to the United States if not the entire Earth.

13.     Doc. #22* is both indisputably dishonorable and indisputably immoral despite Doc. #18 giving the false impression of more morality for Honorable Timothy L. Brooks than demonstrated in the past by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren protecting a favorite “porn” or protecting anonymous consumption of “artisan n_des” or “Harry Potter” books by children with no respect for the parents or other responsible adult wishes.

< 9 >

14.     Stretching 18 U.S. Code §2511*(2)(g)(i) by fiat as an immoral defense and allowing interception of communications labeled as “not fit for anonymous consumptionwill be immoral in perpetuity. The District asserted, counter to law, that only a Prosecuting Attorney8 could pursue civil damages for these communications crimes. Honorable Timothy L. Brooks thereby encouraged the supervisory duties of this Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to protect justice as is now plead allowed “IFP”.

15.     The Arkansas statute saying otherwise, Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-106, is included above on page four. The federal statute contradicting this ruling is 18 USC §2520* and the relevant portion follows with highlighting added but not added to show bad tenor.

18 USC §2520*

(a) In General.— Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

(b) Relief.— In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes—

(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

16.     The assertion that only a prosecuting attorney or other licensed lawyer was required was NOT correct when made in open court and will NEVER be correct but is seen in Doc. #13* p13 or footnote #8 and is wildly contrary to law. Allowing an IFP

< 10 >

appeal and ordering a Summary Judgment of guilt with an Arkansas jury asked to consider the damages awarded during trial and considering mitigating defenses is one honorable moral ruling that could and potentially should now follow.

17.     One 18 U.S.C. §2511* and one Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* crime by Google Inc ceased since this action was filed as can be seen in exhibits to Doc. #16* compared to Doc. #1 Exhibit “Crime”* p14 of 26 and noting the copy[rite] graphic gone TODAY*.

18.     The thousands of hours working to seek cache updates will help a jury considering damages if this matter of communications privacy is ordered set for a jury trial to determine damages since guilt is a matter of law. The Western District of Arkansas should be ordered to allow the attached complaint Exhibit C”* which is a concise subset of the initial filing without addressing senescence or oaths of office this Appellant apologizes for initially bringing due to legal incompetence and severe frontal lobe traumatic brain injury.

19.     The “obscene and indecent” exhibits* to Doc. #16* showed the evil computer frauds continuing on 7/17/2014 despite hundreds of hours seeking cache updates from each organized criminal. These requests were often ignored or denied as seen in the exhibits* and these will aid the jury considering damages after set for a jury.

20.     In the early days of wire communication disguised as [sic] “internet” (?-2014), many of these communications depended on potential private communication crimes by Google Inc or plagiarisms disguised as “indexing” to exist as was encouraged by the immoral Supreme Court mistake of Reno v ACLU, (1997).

< 11 >

21.     The factual errors from Reno v ACLU, (1997) are no longer enforceable in Europe since C-131/12* required retraction of dishonorable links if requested by the affected private parties in order to protect personal data regardless of these “describing the internet” like alleged by Counselor Michael Henry Page Esq.

22.     Wire communications ARE STILL disguised as [sic] “internet” in “America”. The judicial immorality of Reno v ACLU, (1997) and its progeny have become obvious to forty-six State Attorney Generals and the European Union.

23.     One better wire communications search apparatus is INFINITELY more private due to use of computers wholly exempt from “NSA” requests for private, personal search data and is based in Russia where the “NSA” is a State/public enemy and is outside the tiny, unregulated, immoral bucket of slime the U.S. calls the “open internet”. This nasty bucket floats in the sea of safe world-wide wire communications. The bucket's walls are called by many the “Great Firewall of China” where FM radios are ISPs such that Wi-Fi there is almost universal and almost free like it could be here if the FCC followed the mission given in 1934.

24.    Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren may personally define pornography in a manner that exempts tasteful fine-art figure studies. The majority of United States' anonymous Article III judges and anonymous Christians may agree with Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren and call some pornography “artisan n_des” like Honorable Timothy L. Brooks does in Doc. #22*.

< 12 >

25.     Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren and Honorable Timothy L. Brooks punishing “child pornographers” in the past does not mitigate addictions to anonymously viewing naked art or “artisan n_de” images demonstrated by immorally ruling United States' moral rites for photographs or other visual art do not apply “online”, as affirmed by this Eighth Circuit. See 17 U.S.C §106A*

26.     United States' Article III judges are committed to preserving the ability to anonymously view “artisan n_de” images “online” using the disguise of protecting free speech. This commitment reflects a shifting culture in the United States where the personal right to categorize naked images as “artisan n_de9 justifies continuing the mistaken creation of an imaginary “unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communications” by Reno v ACLU,(1997). This mistake was preserved in the immoral Ashcroft v ACLU (2002, 2003, 2004) because of court clerks, Article III judges, pastors, Senators, and Representatives addicted to viewing naked depictions of human bodies anonymously.

27.     Judicial assertions of moral superiority began like herein with Counts et ux v Cedarville School board (2003). This assertion of moral superiority allowed books to be checked out from school libraries without the permission once required by parents for books forbidden as “immoral” by parents.

< 13 >

28.     This assertion of judicial moral superiority became a cited free speech case despite allowing immoral communications proscribed by many parents. Parents therefore were not allowed the parental right to control free speech consumed by their children. This was not fully litigated and was never before this Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals but would have been reversed here or SCOTUS if pursued.

29.     The immoral attractive nuisance seen in “obscene and indecent” exhibits* included a naked erect penis of University of Arkansas professor, Michael Peven. The penis FRAUD returns for image searches for “Curtis Neeley”* today in a demonstration of Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* computer frauds becoming intentional federal 18 U.S.C. §2511* private wire communications crimes by Microsoft Corporation after addressed by the immoral Western District of Arkansas ruling that moral rites for art, 17 U.S.C. §106A*, do not protect images “online”. This page remains removed ALONG with ALL OBSCENE uses of “curtis neeley” and “n_de” TOGETHER.

30.     The prior immoral ruling(s) never included violations of personal communications privacy. This penis FRAUD is a wholly new violation because the page “allegedly” causing the continuing computer fraud TODAY* no longer exists so <curtisneeley.com/MichaelPeven/index.html>* causes a file not found error though black and white were reversed in the “stricken” exhibits to save ink costs. The United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas prevented CM/ECF electronic participation by pro se parties in Doc.#9* in order to prevent justice for this pro se party due to higher costs of printing exhibits* not required for represented parties.

< 14 >

    This injustice is not appealed because the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas demonstrated a complete inability to understand wire communications disguised as [sic] “internet” and treats authenticated access required by PACER as another source for public access to indecent exhibits* though the public can't access PACER but can access {TheEndofPornbyWire.org/index_5135.html#28}*. See Doc. #18*.
    The original HTML was included with the originally ignored exclusion requests highlighted. PUNITIVE damages should be awarded by an Arkansas jury considering this obscene pornography appears in searches in public schools when searching for Appellant's personal name TODAY* if filters are not properly installed or configured.

33.     This Appellant worked extremely hard to repair wire communications disguised by the United States Supreme Court as [sic] “internet” for over five years and removed the public nuisance of anonymous access to free pornography returned using this Appellant's name while in schools mostly. The Appellant will continue this struggle for the rest of life hoping to make all wire communications safe enough to reach world-wide as alleged in 1997 in a wild factual error. This entire filing will soon be a book and movie regardless of future Article III rulings.

34.     This Plaintiff/Appellant tried to assist the AR Attorney General with an amicus brief* filed prior to the AG's Appellant's Brief. An amicus reply* was done to support the Eighth Circuit in the Arkansas Act 301 appeal (14-1891)*. If United states' Courts are marginally moral; These short amicus briefs will help the Eighth Circuit end the immoral, public, legal debate and immoral, public, political debate concerning abortion.

< 15 >

    This “Brief in Support of Appeal as a Pauper” has at least one moral result. Damages awarded by an Arkansas jury should lead to establishment of communications in the wire medium as a “wholly unique new use of the wire and radio communication mediums for safe worldwide human communications” after made safe to view ANYWHERE anonymously world-wide by ANYONE with no filtration after commercial radio stations become ISPs. This can be technically explained by the Plaintiff/Appellant roughly using the (5) colored graphics intercepted and revealed to the unauthenticated public by Defendant/Appellee Google Inc.

36.     This new use of old mediums could not remain the attractive nuisance for “anonymous indulgences in indecency” the [sic] “Internet” is today. Communications in the wire medium will STILL potentially contain the most raw and offensive of legal pornography for authenticated consumption. This will be considered private indecency consumption sin by those calling private termination of pregnancy, (called a fundamental human right first by constitutional Arkansas Act 301 for 11-weeks), to be nothing more than choosing to murder.
37. Killing unborn babies was inferred to become “blessed” in a future time by Jesus while approaching Calvary and remembering flooding the Earth and destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and killing all the “innocent” babies and children on Earth or all the people in the first two cities allowing homosexual marriage. The Plaintiff/Appellant feels this time has begun though homosexual marriage will soon become common in these end times. Article III Courts now assert the marriage RITE to be a human RIGHT instead.

< 16 >

38.     Appellant prays the Eighth Circuit prevent the improper Dismissal with Prejudice and sanctions levied and set this action for a jury trial to determine damages. Defendant/Appellees Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation have unquestionably violated 18 U.S.C. §2511*, C-131/12,* and Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103.* A jury should set fiscal punitive damages. The issue of compensatory damages and declaratory injunctive relief from each FCC commissioner and the US Attorney General for violating human rights under color of law is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983*.

39.     Wire communications disguised as [sic] “internet” will quickly become as safe for wholly anonymous human communications as telephones were in 1986 when Teresa "Teri" Susan Weigel had never performed obscene pornography but had accepted posing naked in Playboy magazine and calling these “artisan n_des”. Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren promoted this slippery moral slope “online” for naked modeling described in Doc. #22* as “artisan n_des” by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks rather than the shameful “porn” any naked presentation has been since Adam and Eve. See Genesis 3:7*

40.     Authenticated searchers choosing to view the most obscene of legal pornography should continue “online”. The attractive nuisance of “America's moral sewers” of anonymously distributed free pornography should soon no longer exist. The honorable ruling after appealed by Google Inc, et. al. to the Supreme Court for denial of review will quickly end ALL “online” child pornography and allow ALL of humanity to share knowledge, work together, fight disease, vote “online”, and find safe energy sources, and fight human injustices wherever these injustices continue.

< 17 >

41.     The action's attached but not scanned exhibits* and Doc. #17 leave guilt a matter of unquestionable law with damages the only issue remaining for a jury to consider. Wire communications disguised as [sic] “internet” today will become wholly safe for anonymous children to use without filtration or supervision anywhere on Earth kids might carry mobile phones including public schools and libraries after commercial radio stations become ISP capable making “online” as pervasive and as free as commercial FM radio is today.

42.     Appellant has “legally” contacted ABC, ACLU, CBS, CNN, FOX, PBS counselors along with “Southwest Arkansas Times”, “Northwest Arkansas Times”, “New York Times”, and the “Washington Post” newspapers and several Baptist churches as well as North America's legal counselors for the United Methodist Church. Noted law professors from Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, Yale,and the University of Arkansas were asked for input and provided help herein or did not and are given absolute privacy while desired but will be confirmed if requested.

43.     The Parents Television Council and American Family Association counselors were either contacted or were not as will remain private if desired. Seven Supreme Court clerks discussed this case privately by phone and are guaranteed absolute privacy except the one maliciously advising Plaintiff/Appellant by phone of intending to protect anonymous, immoral, “online” pornography consumption like Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Honorable Magistrate Erin L. Setser and Honorable “Timothy L. Brooks each tried or still try to preserve in this action.

< 18 >

44.     This strengthens the immoral communications consumption protecting legacy extending now from allowing “Harry Potter” books to allowing “artisan n_de” or “top secret” art labeled as inappropriate for anonymous viewers to continue being accessed by anonymous children in school libraries despite rights of parents to raise moral children based on morality determined by the parents and NOT as forced by the Western District of Arkansas by fiat like in 1993 and like being done again now.


1.     Every document filed in this case will be published by wire and be accessible for free in perpetuity including EVERY “obscene and indecent” exhibit* to authenticated viewers only. These “obscene and indecent” exhibits* will not be “indexed” or rebroadcast to the anonymous by organized criminal Defendants/Appellees. The Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* computer fraud crimes plead result from access of computers readily accessible to the general public. A moral ruling will immediately end these.

2.     Honorable Timothy L. Brooks did not consider law or facts listed like a drug crime or child pornography crime. Doc. #25* revealed “artisan n_des” being protected despite the confused moral presumption on display in Doc.#18*. The eventual decision(s) will be made public and be included in a website, book, and then a movie and be made publicly available in perpetuity.

3.     The (1517) “95 Thesis”* by Rev Martin Luther would have very little impact had this disputation regarding the immoral sales of indulgences not been translated from Latin and distributed internationally on the newly invented printing presses in 1518.

< 19 >

4.     This plead disputation will be published continually and promoted continually until individual creator responsibility for potentially indecent artwork is recognized by the United States like Europe did first in May 2014 in C-131/12.*

5.     This human right to control original speech was ignored by the Western District Court of Arkansas. This personal “free speech control” matter will be another Earth impacting decision made in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals like the (14-1891) abortion ruling now pending. All media, law professors, and church personnel contacted could be shown in exhibits but would require around fifty pages and violate the privacy assured to many who perhaps did not wish to help protest “online” indulgences in tagged indecency due to addictions to “online” indulgences in indecency.

6.     Legal contact with ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC was a (15)* page joint reply to their FCC GN #13-18 comment. A (5)* page reply was submitted for the Electronic Freedom Foundation(EFF). Legal contact with the National Association of Broadcasters(NAB) due their comment was a (28)* page reply. PBS received a (9)* page reply and the ACLU received a (3)* page reply.

7.     “Professor of Law” Leli Levi from University of Miami School of Law was given a (12)* page reply. 100,000+ brief commentators on the “New Indecency Policy” of the FCC or GN #13-86 proceeding can access the (17)* page response to general comments by each submitted to the Federal Communications Commission. The general public can access these and are likely to ignore these comments like the FCC does to accentuate the damages to this Plaintiff/Appellant's unprotected human rights. “Professor” Christopher M Fairman from the Ohio State Moritz College of Law was left a (27)* page reply to the Professor'soutrageous comment on the FCC indecency policy.

< 20 >

8.     Unfortunately these all have improper tenor because of an inviolate belief that “during good behavior” requires retiring from public service by seventy years of age. This belief is as firm as Plaintiff/Appellant's belief in God and is shared by most U.S. States and the vast majority of the nations from the European Union and requires only an Act of Congress to define “during good behavior” and no CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT like will never again occur in the corporate “American” regime.

9.     Senescence affects human brains as certainly as rust affects exposed ferrous metal. The effects of time on the human body are factual and certain though the impact of time on the mind is not predictable except for the irrelevance of formative life experiences.

10.     The critical need for hard-to-find legally educated judges was the foundation for Article III not requiring retirement by age seventy due to the lack of legally educated citizens and lack of publicly supported law schools.

11.     11. Honorable Timothy L. Brooks' absurd claim in Doc.#35* that the appeal is not timely was yet another claim counter to cited law because the primary parties served were five Federal Communications Commissioners and the United States Attorney General. Cited Fed. R. of App. P. (4)* allows ANY party to appeal for sixty days if ANY party represents a Government Agency and 60 is 15 and 29 days more than the 45 and 31 days alleged passed provided Honorable Timothy L. Brooks counted correctly while ignoring the relevant portions of cited Fed. R. of App. P. (4)* as should further spur supervisory action to minimize public disrespect for United States Courts.

< 21 >

12.     The fact that ONLY Defendant/Appellee Google Inc entered an appearance after served was because the Doc. #4* Show Cause order included permission for the other parties served to ignore this action. Defendant/Appellee Google Inc and Honorable Timothy L. Brooks communicated ex parte as noted in declarations and planned a swift sua sponte dismissal. This injustice remains despite the fact that “planned” and “sua sponte” are mutually exclusive terms such that “sua sponte” is impossible after ex parte communications noted by Joshua R. Thane Esq in Doc. #26-1* for twenty-four minutes at a cost of $151.

13.     This Brief in Support of a Renewed Motion to Proceed as a Pauper to the Eighth Circuit on Appeal after Denied by Western District of Arkansas is concise and specific and uses 14pt type and is 6,196 words. The attached complaint does not include the prior offensive, misguided, and upsetting claims of judicial senescence or violations of oaths to defend the Constitution and enforcing copy[rite] as the human right intended and only seeks enforcement of criminal statutes per the clear readings of law. This is the LAST filing and would/will only be reformatted into the Appellant's Brief.

14.     Curtis J. Neeley Jr. prays the Eighth Circuit order Summary Judgment of Liability for the crimes plead in the complaint of Exhibit “C”* sua sponte including reckless “indexing” of hazardous, harmful, and unrated JPG images to harm Plaintiff/Appellant's ability to parent and safely use “online” although sua sponte is now impossible after encouraged herein. Denial of an “IFP” Appeal now plead will be dishonorable Summary Judgment and endorse the injustices that will soon become obvious to the whole public.

< 22 >

15. This Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is now begged to allow Plaintiff/Appellant to proceed as a pauper on Appeal and order the Western District of Arkansas to grant a jury trial to set damages for the crimes for which guilt should be declared because guilt for the crimes for which damages are sought in the Complaint in Exhibit “C”* are matters of law per the clear exhibits entered. Guilt is also clear searching live now below.

Curtis J. Neeley Jr.
2619 N Quality Lane
Apartment. 123
Fayetteville, AR 72703
14792634795 t-sms
15014219703 f

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ Curtis J Neeley Jr.

* = Live PDF links throughout

unless maliciously removed by the FCC to discourage justice. PDF links remained in the appearance “hack” entered already.

< 23 ^^

1     Converting broadcast “FM” TV to 100% “TDM” digital required EXACTLY this technology. The commercial radio “TDM” conversion would require regulation by the Federal Communications Commission “FCC” in order to protect unsupervised minor children or the mission for the FCC when created to replace the Federal Radio Commission after wire communications were first combined with other apparatus using other mediums enabling near-instant world-wide communications regularly shortly after WWI.

3     statutes.laws.com/arkansas/title-5/subtitle-4/chapter-41/subchapter-1/5-41-106* highlighting added. All text with “*” herein is live PDF linked

7     And I might also add, Mr. Neeley, that if you look at, I believe it is

Subsection (1)(g) of 2511 -- for the record, this is 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g), there's

an exception for communications that are readily accessible to the general

” Taken from transcript of Show Cause Hearing by Honorable

Timothy L. Brooks on Doc. #13* p13

8  “And with regard to this notion that Google or anyone else is violating Section

2511, number one, that's the criminal part. You don't have standing to prosecute

a crime; this Court doesn't have standing to prosecute a crime. So even if it is a

crime, there isn't anything that you or I can do about it. The U.S. attorney is the

one that needs to bring those charges.”
Taken from transcript of Show Cause

Hearing by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on Doc. #13* p13 -

9 This Appellant refuses to use the wholly vulgar word n_de without obfuscation

herein because development and use of this vulgar term is why the debate about

“defining” pornography exists. All naked art is pornographic and an immoral

judicial choice used to create a n_de slippery-slope existing since Miller, 1973

in the U.S.