Saturday, May 14, 2016

Gov/Church rites v human rights

Regarding human rights versus government rites;
Yes, very many Europeans regret denial of the rite for allowing the "selected" public to keep and bear firearms.  Ironically, this is NOT any more a fundamental, individual, human right than the government or church rite of marriage. This might shock or offend many alleged conservatives but is an obvious fact.
There is no fundamental human right to keep and bear firearms because firearms must first be purchased or be otherwise acquired making this ritual fairly obvious. The plainly obvious reason marriage is not a fundamental human right leaves SCOTUS, 2015 appearing logically senile in addition to being culturally senile. No single individual human on earth can ever be married.  The marriage rite, whether recognized by a church or State, requires two individuals.
See this explained as well as read of how Hon Antonin Scalia reacted to an explanation of the error of Citizens United (Yes; Hon. Antonin Scalia regretted this) on Feb. 26, 2015 in about 2,750 words below with linked sources. 

Hon Antonin Scalia was assured privacy till death. Unable to convince another two to protect fetal human dignity by Jan. 11, 2016 there was no longer reasons for Hon Antonin Scalia to persevere and watch over this failed nation.
This "Copy[rite] Manifesto" needs the diligent work of a good editor but is very close.  On the three websies below you may see a writing addressing fetal abortion, the copy[rite] heterographic, anonymous  online pornography for children, and gay marage.  This manifesto links all these contentious issues to an intentional early American misspelling by a noted Christian lawyer though apposed by wholly secular Deist and polymath, Benjamin Franklin. (Includes HTML of Act 301 abortion limit Petition for Certiorari denied Jan. 11, 2016) (Includes HTML of appeal for Eighth Circuit to reconsider America's dishonorable courts)
Curtis Neeley Jr
14792634795 t-sms
15014217083 f

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Giving up on "American" courts

I am not a noted lawyer or published privacy authority and will never seek a degree or profess an education because I desire for no school to claim influencing my mind or coloring my principles. I have no desire to be the top 500 or top 5000 of anything or be on any list to compare my mind to another human. I choose to remain an unknown.
After reading one privacy article "online", I deemed the unknown public should use this short lesson. This short lesson on lexicography with supporting etymology clearly explains both the EU/US privacy and copyright/[rite] regime differences and leaves absolutely no room for doubt or further debate. Following the pathway illustrated herein, the public may OWN this discovery. It is not published or talked about because it would embarrass the entire United States.
I am a severely brain injured polymath with no continuous memory pre-2007 and a severely limited ability to remember day-to-day. I use TBI coping techniques to address this and will send this email over and over till a professional replies or asks me to stop. Yes; I realize using polymath is a very arrogant term to use for myself. This is how I would honestly be described already in historical descriptions, if there were ever to be historical descriptions of all I will or have done. I honestly do not understand why or how I know all the "useless trivia" left in my mind from my prior addiction to learning all humanities known scientific facts. I obviously failed to do this but have learned the majority of the basics.
The "small" cultural difference between the EU and the US is founded in the same lexicographical error supported by unconsidered or ignored facts included herein with very exacting etymology.
I touch on this and other advanced science ignored in other ignored legal briefs and an online comment repeated below. This is original research to verify as a comment spawned by an "online" article. Please do not use my name. The public can and will seek to know more about me after Edwards v Beck replaces Roe v Wade for all time in a few weeks to months almost exactly as my amicus curiae and amicus reply encouraged the Eighth Circuit. If this does not happen in less than three months then this will eventually be how abortion stops funding politics and how the abortions called blessed in some future time by Jesus Christ as He approached Calvary becomes an inalienable human right.
I did not understand this cartoon but am not the sharpest crayon in the pack. I bet it has something to do with taxes and possibly being late? Editorial or political cartoons have been around since roughly the 1730's and were begun by William Hogarth doing engravings that were then printed. This artists' work or "vision" could be reproduced in early printing presses by a publisher with no artistic skills. This is why, in Hogarth's native England, the human right to control original visual creations was protected with the Engravers Act of 1734. The engraver made a personal statement or personal speech with visual art but this visual art could then be manipulated by another over two centuries before Photoshop. compare Hogarth's political cartoon wth a more vulgar modfication of this engraving like spurred the Engraver's Act of 1734.
The cartoon could then be used in another political publication and be caused to appear indecent or support a political statement William Hogarth would never support. The Engravers Act of 1734 protected William Hogarth's ability to protect against undesired usage of original cartoon engravings for a renewable period of about 14 years. The right to control against unauthorized usage of these first cartoons was then passed to the surviving spouse for life by the 1766 Hogarth's Act passed two years after the first political cartoonist died.

The following continued spelling error is why the human right to control original speech was never protected in the United States when "
America" copied the "1710 Statute of Anne" from England almost verbatim and called this copy of an eighty year old legal rite "America's" Copy[rite] Act of 1790. The Supreme Court called this an artwork monopolization regime unworthy of being called law in Golan v Holder (10-545) in 2012.
In an England Noah Webster never lived in, the term colour had frustrated many children along with Noah Webster who felt it should be spelled more like it sounded in common speech. Rather than colour, Mr. Webster felt the word should be spelled color for the  sound or verses the tortured or . Mr Webster asserted there had been an etymological error and revised colour to the Americanization "color" in his first American English Dictionary test-run in 1806. While revising American English in monopolized elementary school textbooks, Noah Webster did not adopt his own new alphabet or the new alphabet of Benjamin Franklin but created many Americanisms by fiat in 1827. Mr. Webster and Mr Franklin agreed on many aspects of America's opportunity to establish a newer and simpler language from the English used in England but did not stop using the letter "K" although both agreed this should be done.
Benjamin Franklin was a noted polymath and published author and scientist who made sure the 1787 Constitution did not use words not included in Samuel Johnston's 1755 "c-Dictionary of the English Language-c" and stated this was because the Constitution was such an impacting document with an international audience of English speakers. Benjamin Franklin required the Constitution include no newly coined terms to avoid potential misinterpretations of the actual meaning intended.
Too ill in 1787 to give his own speech encouraging unanimous adoption of the Constitution, Benjamin Franklin's speech was given by proxy. Mr Franklin had ensured the "progress clause" or Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution described the Congressional authorization needed to protect the fundamental human right to control original inventions, discoveries, or speech. Despite this honorable tenor; The United States' greatest scientist, author, and inventor refused a patent on the "Franklin Stove" invention from 1742 though offered by the governor of Pennsylvania.
Benjamin Franklin stated, "as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously", in his autobiography crediting "God" with any invention gifted to humanity via an inventor like himself.  This is why in America's copy[rite], newly discovered or realized facts, facts like herein are not eligible to be monopolized.
There was one particularly noteworthy new word "coined" by Sir William Blackstone in England in chapter 26, on p406 of Volume II, "Rights of Things" in the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" book series describing exclusive control of original intellectual property or statements perhaps later retracted in 1766. This was one decade and one year after the 1755 "c-Dictionary of the English Language-c". This authoritative series of law books is taught in ALL American laws schools today though this obvious fact has been ignored as could only be intentional.
Clearly Noah Webster and Benjamin Huntington used the early American hunger to secure individual human rights from Kings when the "Bill of Rights" was being considered to monopolize elementary school texts and prohibit reprinting of books imported by wealthy colonists since printing presses were now less expensive. Noah Webster did this to help ensure colour, honour, labour, and such would become color, honor, and labor. Noah Webster copied the "1710 Statute of Anne" rite for authorizing monopolizing book printing almost verbatim ignoring the subsequent "1734 Engraver's Act" and the 1766 "Hogarth's Act". Benjamin Huntington was a career lawyer and conscientious objector to the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Huntington signed the Declaration of Independence but felt armed conflict was initially a dishonorable refusal to settle the dispute legally.
Early in America, the "pistol duels" and "sword duels" used to protect honor in England were considered assault. Fighting to protect honor or reputation was considered absurd or a matter for attorneys to address in court. Benjamin Huntington felt there were adequate legal rituals outside the 1790 Copy[rite] regime to vicariously protect the effect original creations had on honor with the slander, defamation, and liable torts. None of these were included in the copy[rite] regime but NONE of America's attorneys or judges have ever addressed the fundamental human right never protected in America but authorized for protection in the United States like established in 1787.  The United States quickly becan to be overthrown by a wealthy corporate oligarchy that now clearly controls America and is now probably irreversable.
The right to control personal speech online should be protected by 18 U.S.C. 2511 today if applied EXACTLY as written according to Honorable Antonin Scalia. This law was judicially voided by accident because of improper tenor.  This injustice will always be dishonorable for Jimm Larry Hendren, Erin L. Setser, and Timothy L. Brooks. 
This same law could rescue the Garcia v Google from needing to overrule the 1834 Wheaton ruling rejecting the fundamental human right to control speech after fixed (printed or engraved) that had already been protected in England for 100 years when the first SCOTUS consideration was done in America in 1834. This law, 18 U.S.C. 2511, would allow authorization of the YouTube injunction permanently as allowed by section 230 if it had been plead instead of copy[rite] violations only. It is NOT the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals duty to litigate for either party. The only honorable result today for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc is to rule the common law fundamental human right to control original speech after fixed should always have been protected as the progress clause authorized in 1787 but was never done

I am interested in seeking only amici or co-counsel for my case before SCOTUS. The only path to fixing online might not include United States Courts due to making anonymous access to pornography a new American civil right created in 1997 by Reno v ACLU because of the centuries of impact of an over two hundred year old spelling error leading to re-establishing the indulgences one disputed by Rev Martin Luther on Oct 31, 1517.  The egregious Reno v ACLU  mistake allowed and still allows illegal "obscene, indecent, and profane" communications to be broadcast by radio and by wire begun in 1997 when there were only around 55 million subscribers to wire communications terminated on one end by radio three years before Wi-Fi was trademarked.

You may view this disclosure online HERE. No name is included and no link to ANY particular US v UK privacy regime article is included. It is your decision alone to encourage the continuing of a complete moral failure in America or help educate America's Courts. Do you wish to raise your children with porn by wire still around wherever children carry their phones after digital radio makes everywhere "online"? Logging-in in a authenticated way would keep the porn everywhere but allow parents to supervise their children's communications and prevent consumption of America's free pornography source better known as "online" or "nternet" though starting with a capital "I". I will never bless this undefinable slang term with usage.
You may view this
disclosure online HERE
You may view this
disclosure online HERE.
You may view this disclosure online HERE.
You may view this disclosure online HERE may view this disclosure online HERE.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

Reply to professor's profession of confusion

ALL American lawyers were wholly confused by a simple, intentionally, disparaging spelling error in 1790. This American mistake at law is too obvious to ignore here after the law professor's BLOG post I read regarding technology and marketing law.
Q4 2014 & Q1 2015 Quick Links Part 7
(Consumer Reviews, RTBF, Defamation, Censorship, Sec. 230)
This posted there as a comment. (slow-link)

International Censorship

.... has always existed because America created an imaginary new medium in 1997 and told the federal agency responsible for American censorship of joint radio and wire medium broadcasting(s) (disguised as an imaginary new medium) a mysterious new medium was discovered and entitled to absolute unqualified free speech. The Reno v ACLU ruling was moronic and void on June 26, 1997. This void and ignorant ruling still keeps pornography flowing freely in America. This is why China built the Great Firewall and is why ALL American search engines respond differently based on IP geolocations of requests for queries like mentioned as geoblocking in a previous guest-post at the Professor's BLOG. This comment will return to this law mistake later.

Right to Be Forgotten

The absolute, natural, human right to control repetition of personal information was protected in England first in 1734 and was first called copyright in 1766 by Sir William Blackstone in Volume II "Rights of Things" on page 406 with footnotes L and M referring to usage of "copy-right" in prior English rulings. This twenty-sixth chapter first usage of copyright for exclusive control of original communications was in the "Commentaries on the Laws of England law book series still taught in ALL American law schools today! Though used by an English "Kings Counsel and Sergeant of Law" in an authoritative legal text; the coining of the term "copyright" occurred in 1766 and could not be placed in Johnston's 1755 dictionary used in 1787 for composition of the United States Constitution.


This was where American and European protection for human rights and free speech parted ways forever! This is why Garcia v Google confused American lawyers so badly including the noted law "professor" running one BLOG. See his confusion demonstrated in an amicus filed therein.

Section 230 MISTAKE at LAW

America's Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and turned the law Congress wrote to protect the decency of communications and protect ISPs from liability for communications they delivered but did not make. American laws protected telephone companies from acquiring liability for the content of communications they delivered with rare exceptions like ignoring the do not call list.

EXCLUSIVE ISP LAW before rewritten by U.S. Courts

ISPs had no reason to inspect the communications they delivered as a result of Section 230 exemption from liability. The Supreme Court wholly misinterpreted the CDA on June 26, 1997 and created the legal foundations for wholly unregulated free speech by twisting the protections for "good Samaritans" who labeled or blocked indecent content into the Section 230 MISTAKE at LAW excusing search engines for broadcasting obscene, indecent or profane communications the "good Samaritan" authors or publishers attempted to prevent from illegally and dishonorably broadcasting to the unauthenticated public. Searching for labia at or at or at GOOG, or MSFT shouuld require authentication like at FB to protect children and horny judges.
Should a common carrier be this unsafe and this ILLEGAL?

America's defamation, slander copy[rite] BAND-AIDs

The ability to limit electronic communications access was protected by U.S. law clearly till this commentator personally offended the current ruling judicial oligarchy. America's defamation, slander and copy[rite] BAND-AIDs are not able to protect the honor of this nation's judicial branch today from bleeding-out after the Garcia v Google and Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al became amputations of justice made or encouraged for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits today. These will each be presented to the Supreme Court within 90 days but BAND-AIDs will not be adequate for the Reno v ACLU evisceration of U.S. law and the amputated human right to control reproduction of original creations ignored due to intentional misspelling in the U.S. since the May 31, 1790 but protected in England since 1734.


ALL Title II usage of "nternet" communications is NOTHING besides wire communications defined in 1934 whether delivered by Wi-Fi or mobile phone apparatus for the last few miles back to the wires that allow terrestrial communications to travel beyond line of site by radio. EVERY "obscene, indecent, or profane" communication accessible by "nternet" is illegally broadcast to the unsuspecting unauthenticated public by radio in violation of U.S. law.

Please; WAKE UP!!!

AMERICA overthrew the UNITED STATES from
May 31, 1790 to Citizens United on January 20, 2010.
This was a decent 219-year 8-month self rule experiment and I hope this failure is not irreversible but it looks irreversible already.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015


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.

This civil action will be the most significant communication case ever pursued in all history whether quickly resulting in justice or not. The moral, human right* and not the “American”, legal 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 rules written decades to centuries before wire communications were disguised as [sic] “internet” and called a “[holy] new mediumin a FACTUAL error one justice affirming this error in 1997 will now correct.
Wire communications, 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59),* include [sic] “internet”, email, mobile phones, wi-fi, and all telephones. Distant communications beside two-way radios and some satellite communications are nothing more than wire communications defined in 1934 when the Federal Communications Commission “FCC” was created.


Continues for 14 pages at

Saturday, December 27, 2014

017937849CJNJr1986 12-26-2014 Notice

This notice will be electronically communicated by wires to (25) addresses BCC including:
Ms. Bettina E. Brownstein Esq, Ms. Susan Talcott Camp Esq, Ms. Courtney M. Dankworth Esq, Ms. Holly Elizabeth Dickson Esq, Mr. Colin Jorgensen Esq,Ms. Mary Elizabeth McAlister Esq, Mr. Allan Edward Parker, Jr. Esq, Ms. Shannon R. Selden Esq,Ms. Anita Staver Esq, Mr. Claude Gabriel Szyfer Esq, Ms. Stephanie Toti Esq, Time, The New Republic, Grace Church,

The two primary cultural arguments of ALL time are the human rituals of reproduction and the human rituals concerning individual speech.
The earlier human species[1] developed rituals to counter certain natural human drives and further separated the human species from "lower" animals. Humans have used rituals promoted by agreement to rules or laws protecting certain species-wide desires from natural human drives for pleasure that are as general as the natural human drives to eat, drink, reproduce, sleep, or comfortably continue to exist. 

Four examples of “lower” animals having no human ritualized controls.
1. If one male desires to mate, this male will attempt to mate regardless of the wishes of others. {war, rape}
2. If one animal wants to dispose of another, this animal will dispose of the other regardless of the wishes of others. {abortion, murder, war}
3. If an animal wants to speak, this animal will speak regardless of the wishes of others. {obscenities, treason, propaganda, war}
4. If any animal obstructs any natural drive of another animal, the obstructed animal may kill the obstructing animal.{rape, murder, abortion, war}
1. Consuming free-speech (looking) without anyone knowing or being able to check ages or otherwise "judge" for the consumption of speech once considered indecent by most pastors and younger Article III judges is the natural human desire to exclusively control the self. The human desire for exclusive control the self is the basis for desiring the ability to make unregulated speech or desiring the ability to consume unregulated speech secretly or desiring the ability to cease gestation. This natural human drive is the same as “lower” animals desiring as much food as possible when fed abundantly while in a group and hiding any extra food for speculative later consumption.
2. SCOTUS is most naturally addicted to only their human free-will regulating their anonymous choices regarding free-speech or abortion. One SCOTUS clerk advised Curtis J. Neeley Jr. of an existing plan to protect the anonymous distribution of speech during a telephone wire communication. This communication was unpleasant. Five other SCOTUS clerks addressed this human desire as well. These clerks were not anonymous but Curtis J. Neeley Jr. remembers only notation of one today due to his or her colloquial job title and marital status at the time of the call.
3. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. once thought he would never file a brief or pray for ANY type relief from SCOTUS. This has changed since meeting the wise Honorable Antonin Scalia at age 78. This makes the SCOTUS gatekeeper clerk's opinions useful and irrelevant at the same time. Please watch these opinions assisting herein while concurrently teaching these six SCOTUS clerks and nine SCOTUS oligarchs to take better control of these types of future communications.
4. Broadcast is a verb that describes the dispersal of something without any particular concern about the manner this something is received. Democrats and Republicans broadcast their particular political ideals from rooftops, newspapers, mail, and via unregulated interstate and world-wide wire communications. Farmers generally broadcast grass, wheat, or other grains with no concern about how these are received besides perhaps concentration.

18 USC §1462 – 6/25/1948 – 2/8/1996*
Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier [or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)]*, for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—
(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or
(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or
(c) any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or
Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier [or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934)]* any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

18 USC §1464 – 6/25/1948 – 9/13/1994*
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined [under this title]* or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. 

5. On 9/15/1999, long after the 6/26/1997 failure of SCOTUS to recognize the more than 33.8 million commercial users of seamless integration of wire and radio communications in 1995, Wi-Fi was trademarked by the Wi-Fi Alliance. This was more than ten years before the 77 year-old SCOTUS author of the obvious factual error alleging some imaginary, “[holy] new medium for human communications” retired. Honorable John Paul Stevens alleged to discover a “[holy]new medium” that did not exist when this judge was sixteen and the FCC was created to regulate wire and radio broadcasting and was therefore exempt from archaic FCC moral regulations protecting children who would eventually be entitled to absolute free speech. The disproportional impact of childhood teachings is usually forgotten by the elderly and apparently Honorable John Paul Stevens was not exempt.
6. This oligarch ruled till 6/29/2010 despite the immoral reintroduction of unregulated communications in 1997 or the immoral reintroduction of indulging in guilt-free speech. This clear immorality was first recognized and protested by Rev Martin Luther on 8/31/1517 with 95 Thesis in about 1800 Latin words that translate into roughly 2,741 of Americanized English or roughly as many more words in Americanized English than this “disputation” has to this point.
7. Anything uttered today “online” is concurrently uttered by radio communications. This clear fact was true for more than 33,800,000 commercial subscribers when Honorable John Paul Stevens alleged to find a “[holy] new medium” entitled to guilt-free free-speech.
8. This ruling was VOID on 6/26/1997 and has become more VOID every year since for the last eighteen years or long enough to jump-start the type living predicted in one ancient book,[2] as will follow. The new cultural immorality of today may now be irreversible but the ability to assert legal age and being granted permission to make or consume indecent speech has existed since before “online” was discovered in 1997. Asserting legal age and permission to access otherwise forbidden legal speech will not reduce the availability-of or access-to otherwise legal forbidden speech. Adults and judges would then be responsible for their own minor's speech or their own clerks' speech, like alleged already today, -by mistake. The profitability of otherwise forbidden legal speech will quickly return. Sure; Legal pornography will mostly still control the profitability of integrated wire and radio communications disguised as another imaginary medium since 1997.
9. Free pornography and profitable illegal pornography escaping prosecution will cease almost immediately when falsification of IP address becomes a crime the FCC pursues to promote safety like created to do when: 1) Honorable John Paul Stevens was a sixteen year old teenager; and 2)World War II had not yet begun; and 3) nuclear weapons did not yet exist; and 4) Israel was not yet a nation; and 5) humans had not yet visited space, much less the moon.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”
Matthew 24:37-39
“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
10. No natural right to cease gestation without risk of physical consequences has ever existed and will never exist for “lower” animals. The natural right to kill undesired or inconvenient offspring after birth existed exclusively for “lower” animals since human rules, rites, or laws forbid this natural right for the human species and at the same time forbid the existing natural right to artificially cause gestation to cease by accepting the risks involved.
11. In 1973 the SCOTUS oligarchy honorably ruled that the natural right to protect and control the self outweighed the prospective natural right to exist when ONLY these two competing rights were addressed. This allowed female human the ability to cease gestation after this process began without facing the choice of starvation, coat-hanger mutilation, or other gestation cessation inducing risks. The human species had finally progressed in establishing honorable rules like were implied to one day become a human moral choice by the main character in one popular ancient book as this character considered eminent death while recalling prior choices to eliminate inhabitants of two cities and the elimination of all life in one region of the earth except for fish and one boatload of animals. The ability of human females to consciously elect to not become parents by moral choice and not face introduction of another life destined to end unfavorably was clearly implied by this distressed main character as follows from this famous book cited again as noted in end note [2].

Luke 23:27-31 (NASB)
27 And following Him was a large crowd of the people, and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him. 28 But Jesus turning to them said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
Exodus 20:13 – (KJV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.

12. Roe v Wade is treated by many as allowing violation of this book's command from earlier forbidding killing. This rule, rite, ritual, or law is also translated as, “you shall not murder” (ESV). This implication requires common sense and the associated moral human choices. Using the literal translation from 1605, -done about eighty-eight years after Rev. Martin Luther's 95 Thesis which lead to King Henry VIII commissioning a translation in 1535, requires only common sense for use. Most interpretations of this very exacting rule do not forbid consumption of meat. One interpretation of this very exacting rule does prohibit consumption of meat, capital punishment, abortion, or any human killing of any animal life. This could be treated as a more honorable or just interpretation until considering the consumption of even flour or corn requires killing the potential for new plant life in every grain of wheat or kernel of corn. Meat eaters encourage plant consumption(killing) by plant eaters so humans can then consume these plant eaters. The Latin translation of Exodus 20:13 is “non occides”. This language leaves a great deal implied and must be why Latin is the language of law.

13. Roe v Wade was honorable and addressed other important reasons for FUTURE modification of the regulation of gestation after science made continuation of gestation more hazardous to the self than cessation of gestation. AR Act 301 will be ruled a permissible modification of human laws addressing the desires of other impacted parties before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today better than was considered in Roe. This ruling will be more honorable than addressing speculative claims for preservation of potential human life requiring the morally impossible determination of when humanity begins, as will never be addressed. Every Arkansas voter is now before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals including every person in Arkansas whether these people actually voted or could not yet vote due to being in the third day of gestation or only in an ovary or testicle. There are millions of live sperm cells swimming in a uterus before this court today though none of these live cells may continue growing long enough to be recognized as lives.
14. 5017937849CJNJr1986 This communication should impact the future of humanity and is sent by impermissibly unregulated wire to those listed above by name but will be broadcast by wire and be read or ignored by ANYONE on earth just as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals may do with the following broadcasting of facts. Both the “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Death” interests should be able to clearly see the need for FCC regulation of wire broadcasts to protect the public and should recognize the exclusive fundamental human right to control the body honorably requires allowing painless voluntary cessation of gestation until this gestation might impact the exclusive rights of others including the child resting an ear on a uterus and hearing a heartbeat. The potential life, individual, baby, fetus, embryo, or cell group is wholly irrelevant and superseded by the rights of the father and the public teaching children to treat sex as a decision that includes addressing the potential for new life.
15. 5017937849CJNJr1986 Curtis J. Neeley Jr. once had absolutely no respect for oligarchs who remain active during bad behavior or after age sixty-eight due to witnessing cultural senility, if not pure senility, of Lord Most Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren. Teenagers are subject to the draft but can't purchase alcohol until the age of twenty-one. A young eighteen year old female may “honorably” and legally star in the most outrageous of legal “online” pornography for three years as a married mother and still be unable to purchase alcohol. (Many already do.) Honor would remain intact and she would never be recognized by anyone without an authenticated claim to wish to see this type behavior in a way that could be checked when the FCC begins enforcing the Communications Act as written in 1934. This will make this type female decision once again profitable and restore Playboy print magazine to profitability. Yes; SCOTUS, -age is just a number as are (3, 3.1415926535898, 18, 21, 68, 70). None of these numbers ever exactly describe a person with any detail though the first three numbers could not purchase alcohol. (68) could still be an honorable judge in many nations. The last number could not still be a judge in ANY honorable court worldwide except for the U.S. where a test must be developed to ensure good behavior on a per case basis.
16. 5017937849CJNJr1986 There are females who enjoy treatment by a subset of the general public in ways that appear exploitative. There are also females who would prefer suicide to motherhood. Thirteen weeks is enough time today, after Act 301 is affirmed as legal, for these females to painlessly cease gestation. There are millions of people with very firm beliefs “souls” are created by humans via intercourse. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. has a firm belief in God and Jesus Christ and the sacrificial death by Christ followed by resurrection. Repentance for evils done and accepting the gift of Jesus Christ is all that is required for existing forever in God's presence. This belief is speculative and irrelevant to both issues addressed herein.
17. 5017937849CJNJr1986 “Prayers” are the ONLY interstate or world-wide broadcast communications that should be exempt from regulation by the FCC according to current law. “Online” unregulated indecency like is occurs today has already destroyed the sexual morality of two generations. Abortions prior to 13-weeks of gestation is the future Christ encouraged for the masses He knew would reject His sacrificial gift on Calvary. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. has a firm belief the free-will God allowed Adam and Eve to retain includes permission to perform-in and enjoy performing-in or consuming even obscene pornography communicated by wire to individuals or groups but not for illegal broadcast to the anonymous public by GOOG after intercepting good Samaritan's authentication filtration. This is as clearly illegal as murder for anyone else apparently except GOOG.

18. This fundamental human right to produce (speak) or consume (hear or view) pornography includes a concurrent duty to jealously forbid performance-by and consumption-of pornographic depictions by children regardless of how artistic the nakedness might be. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. admits belief in God and Christ is logical only for the most intelligent of the human species by offsetting evidence of irrelevant history described precisely but summarily in Genesis alleging creation took only six days.

19. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. experienced things and has advanced knowledge of these no human besides Lazarus could ever have. One example includes technical details of how commercial FM radio stations can beginning offering Wi-Fi, country, or rock music TODAY on one data stream. This advanced knowledge shares too many details with Top-Secret multichannel microwave tropo-scatter military telecommunications technology (USMC 2831) to be described without a waiver by the U.S. Attorney General or release by the USMC Commandant. Few humans today could hope to understand this technology but thousands on earth will or already do in China. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. apologizes to the humans who were negatively impacted by dishonorable parts of his past that are not remembered fully. The severe TBI and severe physical disabilities are perhaps punishment enough.

"online” FREE SPEECH
Motion to proceed IFP at Eighth Circuit on Appeal

Brief Supporting Motion to proceed IFP at Eighth Circuit on Appeal

Exhibit “C” filed.

Exhibit “X” filed.

Exhibit “Y” filed.

Exhibit “Z” filed.
Regulations re: Gestation -ABORTION-
1. This extremely profitable argument will soon end and neither side will like or protest Act 301's affirmation as the gestation law for the whole earth it will soon become. This is abundantly clear whether fathers or parents are mentioned in the 15 minutes of oral arguments on 1/13/2015 or are not. Allowing Act 301 to be enforced and then fine tuned as suggest to address speculative claims is obvious to any ninth grade student in the United States after reading the briefs or just the amicus reply now before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Curtis J Neeley Jr most sincerely apologizes for mistakenly stating Mike Huckabee vetoed Act 301. Realizing the AR governor vetoed Act 301, this severely brain injured but extremely interested party used Mr Mike Huckabee's name by mistake. This apology is included in the reply brief supporting the Eighth Circuit Court.

05/16/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellant
05/27/2014 Appellant's Brief
06/03/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellant
06/18/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellant
07/10/2014 Apellee's Brief
07/18/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellee
07/18/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellee
07/18/2014 amicus curiae in Support of Appellee
07/22/2014 Reply Brief in Support of Eighth Circuit Court
07/23/2014 Appellant's Reply Brief
20. Refusal to stop the free-online-speech litigation completely for five-million dollars offered casually by GOOG would be a dishonorable alternative to seeing the “abortion” and “free-speech” issues resolve amicably for humanity. Curtis will not further elaborate about the six-plus weeks on a respirator and unresponsive in a coma for the same reason Lazarus does not describe the four days he was dead in the book. Who knows; Perhaps this is all the result of coping with a TBI and a persistent delusion?
21. Both of these issues will resolve as suggested here but perhaps not at this time. Individual pornographic free-speech will be consumed by most while minor children will still have the innocence of youth protected from the new “free” drug of pornography. Sexual intercourse will become wholly a pleasurable recreational act that includes no real risks for procreation unless chosen. The “Pro-Life” interests may keep spending money trying to ban abortion otherwise but will quickly learn this is futile and costly
22. The coming affirmation of legality of Act 301 is the way laws remain and coming FCC regulation of ALL wire communication broadcasting to the anonymous will end the need for protection against indecent broadcasts. China and Iran will soon throw open their porn protections allowing all of humanity to finally share knowledge and collaborate instantly like was once the professed goal of wholly evil Defendant organized criminal enterprise Google Inc. Voting by authenticated wire communications will then be possible
Curtis Neeley Jr
14792634795 t-sms
15014217083 f

[1] Egyptians, Chinese, Mayan, Native American, Aboriginal, and too many ancient peoples to list
[2]Let every reader engage this notice with absolutely no presumptions or speculative assertions
from these ancient texts and address this notice as regarding only clear fact.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

14-3447 Docketed

Defendant/Appellee Counselors,

I have completed the Brief “renewing” the IFP motion at the Eighth Circuit I will now seek to file. See it as PDF* or as HTML*. The complaint ignored as "moot" previously will be attached. See it as PDF*or as HTML*. Portions of p8* of the complaint are included below.

I do not particularly care how this case ends now because I am getting older and want to begin enjoying my family more in light of my disabilities.

I will seek to appeal “I.F.P.” and seek summary judgment by law at the same time.

The Corts of the United States are not capable of justice compared to European Courts. This has been true for centuries but is becoming PAINFULLY obvious today after the C-131/12* personal data control ruling. A portion of this "right to be forgotten" ruling is in p5* of the Supt Brief.

I do not believe Magistrate Honorable Erin L Setser should be a judge having never ever been a private attorney. I do not accept the ruling of ANY judge over (68-70) as fair or reasonably considered including most of the aging SCOTUS oligarchy. I would leave the U.S. for Europe if I were a young man in search of a nation with fair rule of law and democracy.

GOOG crimes:

01.*B<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103
B<<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103
B<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103
B<>>G*, 18 U.S.C. §2511*
B<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103
13.*>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*
B<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*
B<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*
These next two accesses are NOT criminal in the U.S. but have both “Curtis Neeley” and naked images which violate the personal data control ruling of C-131/12* in Europe.
44.*B<>>G*, NOT criminal but distressful.
B<>>G* NOT criminal.
MSFT crimes:
02.*B<<>>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*
07.*B<<>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*, 18 U.S.C. §2511*
10.*B<<>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*
B<<>G*, A.C.A. 5-41-103*

*B - Bing image searches.
G* - Google Inc image searches.
*B< or >G* - Indicate safe searches
*B<< or >>G* - Indicate searches are AR Computer Fraud felonies per Ark. Code Ann. 5-41-103* or are Communications Privacy felonies per 18 U.S.C. §2511*

* - Links open in new windows

Curtis J. Neeley Jr.
1479263xxxx t-sms
1501421xxxx f!