Summary Judgment plead in (5:14-cv-05135)

Honorable GOOG, MSFT, Counselors,
Honorable Johnathan Thane Esq,

I appreciate your attending the Show Cause hearing where it was probably presumed I would be dismissed and sanctioned. This may still, indeed, be the case. This would be as dishonorable as EVERY immoral ruling by pornography-protecting Hon Jimm Larry Hendren herein. These immoral mistakes will now become a legacy. {GOOG, MSFT}

Docket 19 Motion to Dismiss Parties supported by docket 20 reveals how different Hon TLB was in docket 18 and compared this to Hon Jimm Larry Hendren's immoral past and linked the current immorality by Hon Jimm Larry Hendren to the prior presumption of being worthy or better qualified to tell parents what medium minor children should or should not access while in school libraries.

Honorable Marshall S. Ney Esq, -7849001Gm!2

You have not entered an appearance and may not yet represent MSFT herein. Perhaps the Motion for Summary Judgment was not expected by any and may not be timely or ripe. Per Hon Jimm Larry Hendren's culturally senile Local Rules; pro se parties are not allowed to be CM/ECF parties. The printed color exhibits were very costly and embarrassing.

Regardless, The Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in docket 15 supported by docket 16 Supporting Brief. There remains absolutely no issue remaining to be tried as can be seen in the annex of docket 17 as is required by Local Rule 56.1

MSFT, Docket 17 does not need the "obscene and indecent" exhibits for proof.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...D1556EE26FE60AE812314A7CF093B&selectedIndex=0

The above obscene image of Michael Peven's erect penis image alleges to be sourced from http://www.curtisneeley.com/MichaelPeven/index.html despite this page being renamed and therefore returning ONLY a 404! This page NEVER had a naked photo and the complete HTML source of this page is an exhibit with the "no index" and "no follow" HTML codes that were ignored and each are highlighted.

http://master-of-photography.us/theendofpornbywire/All docket15-16 exhibits/
username "Summary_judgment"
password: "14-cv-05135"

MHP Esq,

Your familiarity with the prior Perl "epoch date of Jan. 1, 1971" does not then permit the successful deception given in open court before the Magistrate Judge. The outrageous intentional deception was that GOOG has no way of knowing if a photograph is of a naked human or other. MHP said this programming "trivia" knowledge was from a game of trivial pursuit? See the transcript: ( http://www.curtisneeley.com/NameMedia/docketPDFs/216.pdf )

The transcribed deceptions follow from p71/93.

• THE COURT: Well, just out of curiosity, is it possible for Google to prevent these pictures from coming up when you type in his name?
• MR. PAGE: No. Well, not, not without an insane amount of effort. For one thing, search is completely automated. It goes out, it crawls the web, it sees what's there, and it reports it back. The machine has no way of knowing whether a picture is nude, whether the person searching for it is Muslim. All it knows is that there are some bits out there that say Curtis Neeley and there are other bits on the same page and there are pictures. .....

Then from p72/93:

• "Similarly, there is no way for us to selectively search the photographs that this person really on any given day finds offensive, even though he put them there himself. "
• ......
• "We report on the current state of the internet. We can individually, of course, block results, but we are -- but Google has very strong institutional reasons not to start playing censor to the internet based on everyone's request. There is no end to that whole --"

Google Inc has done much better at mitigating damages for YEARS than MSFT.
{curtis neeley peven} on GOOG image search is acceptable but {curtis neeley peven} on MSFT image search is *CRIMINAL* because this page NEVER had nakedness! EVER.

Do ANY OF YOU think a judicial branch addicted to "online" pornography will preserve display of nakedness to anonymous judges and anonymous children?

Few would challenge the United States Marine Corps about the "moral" right to reject politically motivated wars. The recent deal to trade terrorists for a deserter is related now to this case. I personally challenged the United States Marine Corps and asserted the MORAL right to refuse becoming a U.S. mercenary outside of defense of the U.S.

I am the ONLY conscientious objector in history who earned a USMC Good Conduct Medal. This testifies against Bergdahl leaving his post for moral reasons. The mighty, honorable, USMC allowed my morally motivated discharge though begun during the Gulf War or Operation Dessert Storm.

I am committed to challenge the entire immoral United States Judicial Branch and view this MORAL challenge as honorable. There is an honorable resolution of this pursuit. If fresh, young, overworked, Honorable TLB makes the morally honorable rulings now "pending", this pursuit is almost ready for trial. This wire communications will be publicly searchable very soon.

 See this wire communication on Namepros.com forum thread as post #14.
--
Sincerely,
Curtis Neeley Jr
14792634795