You are on page 1of 23



Curtis J Neeley Jr. Plaintiff
CASE NO. 1!"#!$1%$
$ Fe&eral C'((uni"ati'ns C'((issi'ners)
FCC C*air(an T'( W*eel er et al )
US Re+resentati#e Ste#e W'(a",,
US Re+resentati#e-Senate Can&i&ate T'( C'tt'n)
US Senat'r .ar, Pry'r)
US Att'rney /eneral Eri" H'l&er Es0) Defen&ants
H'n'ra1le Ji(( 2arry Hen&ren) Diana E .ur+*y)
Pas"' .. 3'4(an II) R'5er 2elan& W'll(an)
Ker(it E&4ar& 3ye) Ste+*en 3reyer) Ste#en .. C'll't'n)
Ant'nin S"alia) Rut* 3. /ins1ur5) Denny C*in)
Ant*'ny Kenne&y) Sa(uel Alit') Ray('n& W. /ruen&er)
.i"r's'ft C'r+'rati'n)
/''5le In".
Violation of Rights of a Parent and Visual Artist
1. One fundamental natural right of all humans has been violated by United
States Congress and US Courts continually since authorized for protection in the
1787 Constitution of the United States. The laintiff! Curtis " #eeley "r!
encountered the United States first as a severely brain in$ured citizen in %&&' (ith
only the rights of a child until %&&) after becoming legally competent as an adult.
The natural human rights secured by the Constitution or that are authorized to be
protected by Congress include the natural right to raise children. *The Due Process
Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to
make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better'
decision could be made.* Troxel v. ranville! +'& U.S. +7 ,%&&&-
1 also submitted before ./.01O#. 2online3 on .arth at
%. The natural human right for citizens to e5clusively control creations is authorized
for protection in the Constitution by 6rticle 7! Section 8! Clause 8 or the 2rogress
Clause3 as follo(s.
2To promote the Progress of Science and useful !rts" by securing for limited
Times to !uthors and #nventors the exclusive $ight to their respective %ritings
and Discoveries.3
The above authorization has been ignored by Congress and US Courts since 178& (hen
#oah 4ebster abused the 9ritish (ord 2copyright3. Copyright (as first used in legal
(ritings by Sir 4illiam 9lac:stone
around 17)7 in /olume % of 2Commentaries on the
&a's of (ngland3 titled 2$ights of Things3 in Chapter %)! 2)f Title to Things Personal by
)ccupancy3! (ith footnotes ') and '7 on 2copyright3

referring to prior usage of 2copy;
right3 in .nglish rulings. #oah 4ebster intentionally misspelled copy<rite as copy<right to
disparage the human right to control usage of indecent visual creations recognized in
2.ngland3 ten years before the colonies declared independence in 177).
'. #oah 4ebster (rote the Copy=rite> 6ct of 178&
protecting only the rite for
authorizing copies of boo:s! li:e the *+*, Statute of !nne. This .nglish statute (as copied
almost verbatim recognizing no human rights and only legal rites t o aid t he career
la(yer destined to be $udge ?on. 9en$amin ?untington (hile representing Connecticut
a nd introducing the Copy=rite> 6ct of 178&.
@. The Copy=rite> 6ct of 178&

ignored the human right to e5clusively control usage
of potentially immoral creations recognized first in the 2(ngravers !ct3 or 2-ogarth's
!ct3 of 17'+ in .ngland. This (as modified to include cont inued control of usage for
immoral visual art by the spouse for life in 17)) after 4illiam ?ogarth died.
% lonang.comAe5librisAblac:stoneAbla;%%).htm
' copyright.govAhistoryA178&act.pdf
+. #oted le5icographer! #oah 4ebster! used the Copy=rite> 6ct of 178& to
6mericanize the spelling of the compounding of the (ords copy and rite to instead be
misspelled as =sic>2copyright3
. #oah 4ebster attempted to 6mericanize the spelling of
2tongue3 to be 2tung3
also in the first dictionary on earth (ith 2copyright3 and 2tung3
in 18%8. This first use of 2tung3 is ignored by 2merriam;(ebster.comAdictionaryAtung3.
). The intentional misspelling of copy<rite to instead be copy<right is a fact nobody
recognizes! but is obvious once pointed out. This e5plains (hy the United States has
never protected human rights of authors to e5clusively control immoral creations despite
resident Bran:lin C. 0oosevelt being one of the primary authors of the 2.niversal
Declaration of -uman $ights3 in 18@8 including 6rticle %7,%- or the first US
recognition of human rights to morally control creations li:e follo(s.
2/01 (veryone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests
resulting from any scientific" literary or artistic production of 'hich he is the
7. The olan v -older! ,1&;+@+-
decision by Cefendant ?onorable 0uth 9ader
Dinsburg recognized the t(o decisions by Congress for 2unstinting3
compliance (ith
the 9erne Convention including 6rticle )bis
as follo(s.
,1- 7ndependently of the authorEs economic rights! and even after the
transfer of the said rights! the author shall have the right to claim authorship
of the (or: and to ob$ect to any distortion! mutilation or other modification
of! or other derogatory action in relation to! the said (or:! (hich (ould be
pre$udicial to his honor or reputation.
@ 18%8.mshaffer.comAdA(ordAcopyright
+ 18%8.mshaffer.comAdA(ordAtung
6 un.orgAenAdocumentsAudhrAinde5.shtmlFa%7 emphasis added.
7 (((.supremecourt.govAOpinionsA11pdfA1&;+@+.pdf
8 merriam;(ebster.comAdictionaryAunstinting
9 la(.cornell.eduAtreatiesAberneA)bis.html emphasis added.
8. .arly in %&1%! Cefendants ?onorable Germit .. 9ye! Steven H. Colloton and
0aymond 4. Druender affirmed the Cistrict Court mista:e violating this human right in
the face of olan v -older! ,1&;+@+- despite this fact being specifically pointed out. This
in$ustice (as nothing besides reaffirming the bias and disfavor the Cistrict Court $udge
maliciously held violating 2Cue rocess3 rights once secured by the 1@
8. .ach Congressional or "udicial Cefendant eitherI 1- failed to recognize or secure
the fundamental human right to e5clusively proscribe use of properly attributed
immoral visual art(or: due to the 178& misspelling of the .nglish term copyright in the
United States protecting only the rite to authorize original copiesJ or %- failed to correct
this obvious moral right disparagement violating the Birst! #inth! and 1@
1. Cefendant Doogle 7nc violates 18 U.S.C. K%+11 for this laintiff continually. One
relevant portion of the attached US la( forbids these communications crimes as follo(s
and United States Courts must no( address these crimes instead of acting;out to protect
mista:es done due $udicial senescence and malice. See e5hibit 2Crime3.
2(1) (xcept as other'ise specifically provided in this chapter any person 'ho2
(a) intentionally intercepts" endeavors to intercept" or procures any other person
to intercept or endeavor to intercept" any 'ire" oral" or electronic communication3
(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 'hen2
(b.i)such device is affixed to" or other'ise transmits a signal through" a
'ire" cable" or other like connection used in 'ire communication3 or ...3
%. rofane communications of art once offered by this laintiff displayed from one
location by (ire communications (ere ruled not to be entitled to protections of
17 U.S.C. K1&)6 because these communications (ere 2online3. This ruling contradicted
the olan v -older",1&;+@+- ruling! the 2.niversal Declaration of -uman $ights3
6rticle %7,%-! and the 29erne Convention3 6rticle )bis This mista:e (as reaffirmed by
cohorts also not peers of this laintiff violating the Seventh! #inth! and 1@
'. This laintiff therefore removed these profane offerings due to the negative
impact on Birst 6mendment rights caused by denial of the fundamental human rights to
e5clusively control immoral creations and human right to protect reputation. These
rights are #OT the sub$ect here #O0 of ,+I1';cv;+%8'- alleged in the C:t. F%+ B06UC.
@. 6ll profane communications (ere removed from this location due to the chilling
effect on free speech. Communications continue from this location by (ire
communications still intending to reLuire authenticated adult memberships of this
business location to vie(. Doogle 7nc violates 18 U.S.C. K%+11 for this laintiffEs
communications TO DA6 by 2intercepting3 these and using these and other(ise
encouraging consumption by non;members of this location. See e5hibit 2Crime3.
+. These are statutory crimes the Cistrict Court failed to prosecute in 4eeley v
5ederal Communications Commissioners" et al" ,+I1';cv;+%8'- due to bias andAor
senescence ma:ing this Cistrict Court $udge no longer a peer of this laintiff and
because this Cistrict Court (as maliciously #OT follo(ing clear US la(.
). The human right to be tried by a $ury of peers is guaranteed by the Seventh! #inth!
and 1@
6mendments to the Constitution. This fundamental human right modified the
1787 2good behavior3 clause of 6rticle 777 of the Constitution (hen subseLuently passed
reLuiring $udicial retirement by age 7& at the latest to describe 2during good behavior3
for $udges. The fundamental human right t o a $ ury of peers (as reLuired for
accept ance of t he 29i l l of 0i ght s3 . Hinimum ages are easier to recognize as fair
but ma5imum ages should be reLuired per the Seventh! #inth! and 1@
6mendments to
the Constitution.
1. Copy=rite> la(s have disparaged fundamental human rights since first established
by a career attorneyA$udge! 9en$amin ?untington! disparaging this human right (ith a
legal rite initially on "une %'! 1788 (ith ?0 1& in the Second Session of Congress.
Deorge 4ashington affirmed this disparagement on Hay '1! 178& (hen signing ?0 @'
or the 2Copy=rite> 6ct3 and coining the misspelling #oah 4ebster used to help establish a
uniLue language for a young nation by establishing a school te5tboo: printing
authorization rite giving 4ebsterEs ne( dictionary preference in the United States.
%. This US copy=rite> la( disparaged one fundamental human right by marginally
protecting this human right (ith a legal rite. The human right and responsibility to
e5clusively control potentially immoral original creations is still protected by the Birst!
#inth and 1@
6mendments. Constitutional la(s do not 2create3 human rights that are
fundamental nor allege e5ceptions to human rights as unconstitutional 17 USC K1&7!
fair use! al(ays alleges to do by ignoring the moral human right to repent.
'. Bundamental human desires e5ceed fundamental human rights. This has been true
since humanity first began or developed by (hatever belief the reader accepts for the
arrival of air! humans! and (ater. Cesires to :no( the difference bet(een good and evil
or to be able to recognize fundamental human desires e5ceeding fundamental human
rights is allegedly (hy humanity e5ists per the 9ible. e.g. forbidden fruit of .den
1. ?onorable 2Cenny3 Chin violated this laintiffEs fundamental human right and
fundamental human responsibility to e5clusively control immoral creations (hen ruling
the unconstitutional 17 USC K1&7! fair use! rite permits unauthorized library boo:
scanning and e5panded electronic publication. The authors (ho consider their original
creations immoral or other(ise unfit for public consumption had the legal rite or US
copy=rite> ruled to e5clude this fundamental human right despite this laintiffEs
communications (ith ?onorable 2Cenny3 Chin in ,lI&+;cv;&81');CC-. See ,+I&8;cv;
+1+1- C:t 7';1 e5hibit C?7# as also timely filed in ,lI&+;cv;&81');CC-.
%. Doogle 7nc admitted violation of the human rights of this laintiff as seen in
4eeley v. 4ame6edia" #nc." et al! ,+I&8;cv;&+1+1;"M?- C:t. F1'+;% attachment F%
e5hibit Doogle;Oops% and ceased this O#. violation after reLuested during litigation as
seen in 4eeley v. 4ame6edia" #nc." et al! ,+I&8;cv;&+1+1;"M?- C:t. F1'+;1 attachment
F1 e5hibit Doogle;Oops or as can be seen searching no(
'. The ?onorable 2Cenny3 ChinEs mista:en ruling could no( be alleged by
Doogle 7nc to permit continued violations of laintiffEs rights by not considering these
li:e follo( as (as deciding a serious civil issue despite the Seventh 6mendment $ury
guarantee once e5isting in the United States.
10 + 2Bor Dod :no(s that (hen you eat from it your eyes (ill be opened! and you (ill be li:e Dod! :no(ing good and
evil.3 ; Denesis 'I+ #7/
2#n my vie'" oogle 7ooks provides significant public benefits. #t advances the
progress of the arts and sciences" 'hile maintaining respectful consideration for
the 8rites9 of authors and other creative individuals" and 'ithout adversely
impacting the 8rites9 of copy8rite9 holders.3
@. The ?onorable 2Cenny3 Chin authorized violations of laintiffEs human rights to
protect reputation by ma:ing visual art from one of perhaps several thousand physical
boo:s available to anonymous minors (ithout authentication and (ithout encountering
this boo: physically in a boo: store or library. This made the morally proscribed 2art3
available to laintiffEs minor child in school libraries via 2BCC .;rate3.
This upset
laintiffEs right to parent and may no( potentially be resumed claiming 2fair use3.
+. Doogle 7nc admitted this human right violation (as (rong and ceased this
violation and offered + million in a phone call! no( denied! after the Cistrict Court bias
(as certified by calling ,+I1%;cv;+%&8- C:tF+';' and ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t. F1 2identical
in almost every respect3. This claim is a $udicial B06UC and an in$ustice no( plead.
). This endorsement of breaches of human rights is also endorsement of the prior
criminal breaches of 18 U.S.C. K%+11 allo(ed by a biased Cistrict Court and then
affirmed by the .ighth Circuit and ignored by the Supreme Court. This ceased but
unpunished (rong adds to the malfeasance of the BCC Commissioners and the harms
done by each $udicial and congressional Cefendant.
1. The laintiff is a parent of a minor child (ho (ould li:e to use advanced
communications technologies li:e smart;phones! internet! and etc. This minor son is
1% fcc.govAe;rate;update
prevented from smart;phone o(nership or unsupervised use because of BCC failure to
regulate communications in the (ire medium. This gives this Cistrict Court $urisdiction
to resolve substantive issues in this case because elements of standing are all met. Brom
&ujan v. Defenders of %ildlife! +&@ U.S. +++! 11% S.Ct. %1'&! 118 M..d.%d '+1 ,188%-.
2the plaintiff =..> suffered an in$ury in fact! i.e.! an invasion of a legally protected
interest (hich is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than
con$ectural or hypotheticalJ
there =are> causal connections bet(een the in$ury and the conduct complained ofJ
it =is certain>! as opposed to merely speculative! that the in$ury (ill be redressed
by a decision in plaintiffEs favor.3
%. .ach Bederal Communications Commission Commissioner shares the duty to
regulate interstate and foreign commerce in communications by radio and (ire so as to
ma:e rapid! efficient! nation(ide! and (orld(ide radio and (ire communications
services available and promoting the safety of life and property by e5ercising authority
to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in radio and (ire communications.
'. The loss of Birst 6mendment rights! even minimally! is in$urious. 6arcus v. #o'a
Public Television" 87 B.'d 11'7 ,8th Cir.188)-. The only (ay for the laintiff to raise a
teenage son morally is by proscribing all usage of the plethora of technologies that could
be used to consume immoral art(or: 2online3 bypassing all (arning labels and
indulging in immoral art anonymously in school libraries or else(here (ithout verifiable
user authentication. This violates Doe v. $eed ,&8;++8- identity authorization for the
BCC duty to ensure safe communications consumption and this laintiffEs parental rights
to proscribe immoral art(or: consumption (hether proscribed by the BCC or not.
@. 6nonymous 2indulgences3
! li:e 0ev Hartin Muther protested in 1+17! no( allo(
children to consume immoral and even obscene art since the $eno v !C&. ! ,8);+11-
mista:e done late in the last century per the ages of those deciding.
+. Hany of the in$uries to this laintiff result from the BCC allo(ing Doogle 7nc and
Hicrosoft Corporation to conspire and assist other immoral spea:ers and force this
laintiff to proscribe 2internet3 (ire communications access for a minor son regardless
of (here encountered. The minor child and laintiff are then ostracized due to enforcing
a moral reLuirement and refusing to rely on filters.
6. The right to use a computer or smart;phone to communicate is an aspect of the
human right to receive information and ideas! an *inherent corollary of the rights of free
speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.* 7oard of (ducation
v. Pico" @+7 U.S. 8+'! 1&% S.Ct. %788! 7' M..d.%d @'+ ,188%-.
1. Doogle 7nc and Hicrosoft Corporation are conspirators delivering morally
prohibited content from the plethora of immoral spea:ers 2online3 to anonymous
consumers in constant violation of 18 U.S.C. KK,1@)%! 1@)@! %+11-. This creates a public
nuisance for minors and pornography addicts to consume in secret. The Bederal
Communications Commission should prohibit 6#1 and 6MM public nuisances using
either the radio or (ire medium for broadcasting communications to the un:no(n per
1@ Iindulgence remission of part or all of the temporal and especially purgatorial punishment that according to 0oman
Catholicism is due for sins (hose eternal punishment has been remitted and (hose guilt has been pardoned ,as through
the sacrament of reconciliation- ; Q ; merriam;(ebster.comAdictionaryAindulgence
@7 U.S.C. K1+1. The fundamental rights of parents are e5empt from 6MM statutory
preclusion and the criminal communications statute of 18 U.S.C. K%+11 is e5cluded by
@7 U.S.C. K%'&,e- from the 2=holy> ne(3 @7 U.S.C. K%'& allo(ing Doogle 7nc to e5ist.
%. The $eno v !C&. ! ,8);+11- mista:e is diametrically opposed to the
Pacifica ruling this same $udge authored in 1878 as an 6ssociate "ustice. This
Chief "ustice remained t(enty years beyond the 7& years of 2good behavior3 allo(ed
in 2rule of la(3 respecting nations! '' US States! Dreat 9ritain! 6ustralia! ?ungary!
Dermany! 7reland! #e( Realand! South 6frica! the .uropean Court of ?uman 0ights!
and in 1% of %7 .uropean Union countries ma:ing the US less free by preserving the
rule of an aging oligarchy li:e 6merican Colonies rebelled against in 177).
'. Bailure to admit senescence caused corporate and aggregate personal
political donations to be considered unlimited 2free speech3 sub$ect to Birst
6mendment protect ion by the Citi:ens .nited! ,&8;%&+- and 6cCutcheon ,1%;+')-
mista:es. These mista:es ma:e donations by this laintiff have no impact and harms
this laintiff. The retired oligarch responsible for the $oe v %ade! ,8);+11- mista:e
2%hile money is used to finance speech" money is not speech. Speech is
only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions
and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely
the same constitutional protections as speech itself" * Stevens said. *!fter
all" campaign funds 'ere used to finance the %atergate burglary" actions
that clearly 'ere not protected by the 5irst !mendment 3.

olitical donations are not votes! nor speech! but 60. used by the (ealthy to 2s ; elect3
corporate rulers and 2s ; elect3 $udges or help :eep the aging U.S. oligarchy in place.
@. 9esides these $udicial mista:esJ The $eno v !C&. ! ,8);+11- mista:e could not
be anything but another Supreme Court failing to recognize the 28holy9 ne' medium
for 'orld;'ide human communications3 as nothing beyond development of
broadcasting in the (ire medium on distributed interconnected (ires because of
development of a location selection scheme allo(ing devices li:e computers! ihones
or other apparatus to reLuest communications placed on other interconnected physical
devices simply by :no(ing the U0M or 7;address registered. This ma:es placement of
communications in publicly accessible locations a 2broadcasting3 li:e billboards or
other print advertisements broadcasting communications to the random public.
+. The entire =sic>3internet3 (as described e5actly by @7 U.S.C. K1+' S,+8-
(ire communications in 18'@! as (ere 6MM modern smart;phones. 4ire
communications terminated on either end by geographically distributed @7 U.S.C.
K1+' S,@&- radio communication loops are all 2'ireless3 telephones have ever been.
). This unLuestionable fact ma:es everything communicated to the anonymous
public via =sic>3internet3 (ires also a @7 U.S.C. K1+' S,@&- radio broadcast.
7. 4hen potentially 2indecent! obscene! or profane3 communications are
broadcast by (ire! these broadcasts may also be received via 4i;Bi radio ma:ing 6MM
2indecent! obscene! or profane3 =sic> 27nternet3 communications illegal for return to
6#1 anonymous public ma:ing Doogle 7nc and Hicrosoft Corporation hundreds
of 97MM7O#S of dollars in organized criminal proceeds.
1. The United States Court for the 4estern Cistrict of 6r:ansas granted an
impermissible! unconstitutionally vague in$unction and proceeded to misapply the
vague in$unction from ,+I1%;cv;+%&8- C:t. F+8 in the ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t. F%+ fraud.
26r. 4eeley is hereby enjoined from filing any further motions" pleadings" or
pro se complaints related to events previously litigated 'ithout first
obtaining the permission of the Court.3
%. The preceding in$unction is unconstitutionally vague and proscribes litigation said to be
related to the prior tortuous events in 6#1 (ay meaning 6#T?7#D sho(n on (ire
communications by 2search engines3! disguised as 2internet3! could be alleged to be
en$oined as (as ruled by this Cistrict Court in error affirming the personal bias and
clear malicious refusal to prosecute the proven (ire communication crimes plead.
3. ermissible in$unctions must be more precise and may not simply be used
to e5pand res judicata or collateral estoppel beyond fairness. *=9>asic fairness reLuires
that those en$oined receive e5plicit notice of precisely (hat conduct is outla(ed.* San
Diego .nified Port Dist. v. ..S. Citi:ens Patrl ,1888- )' Cal.6pp.@th 8)@! 8)8J
emphasis added. See also Schmidt v. &essard ,187@- @1@ U.S. @7'! @7)J and &ong
7each &esbian < ay Pride" #nc. v. City of &ong 7each ,188'- 1@ Cal.6pp.@th '1%!
'%8J and =etchens v. $einer ,1887- 18@ Cal.6pp.'d @7&! @7);@77J and City of #ndio v.
!rroyo ,188'- 1@' Cal.6pp.'d 1+1! 1+7J and 5oti v. City of 6enlo Park ,8th Cir. 1888-
1@) B.'d )%8! )'8-! as vagueness is a (ell;settled and often addressed legal issue.
4. The tort of violating moral copy=rite> per 17 U.S.C. K1&)6 for na:ed
art(or: placed 2 online 3 by this laintiff (as the precise 2events previously litigated3
and this (as (hen 17 U.S.C. K1&)6 (as ruled to not apply 2online3 in 4eeley v
4ame6edia #nc et al! ,+I&8;cv;&+1+1- as violated 27erne Convention3 6rticle
)bis" the >.niversal Declaration of -uman $ights? 6rticle %7,%-" and the olan v
-older" ,1&;+@+- ruling from %&1&. This tort (as decided incorrectly but (as #OT
2identical in almost every respect3 to this complaint or ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t F1 as (as
fraudulently alleged repeatedly in ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:ts. FF,1%! 1)! %%! %+-.
1. The State of 6r:ansas made it felonious to violate 18 U.SC. K%+11,1-,c- in
188+. One relevant portion of 18 U.S.C K%+11 follo(s as (as misunderstood or not
enforced due to unLuestionable bias andAor senescence.
2+;@1;1&'. Computer fraud.
7a8 6 person commits computer fraud if the person intentionally accesses
or causes to be accessed any computer! computer system! computer net(or:!
or any part of a computer! computer system! or computer net(or: for the
purpose ofI
,a.1- Cevising or e5ecuting any scheme or artifice to defraud or e5tortJ or
,a.%- Obtaining money! property! or a service (ith a false or fraudulent
intent! representation! or promise.
,b- Computer fraud is a Class C felony.3
218 U.S.C K%+11,1-,c-
,c- intentionally discloses! or endeavors to disclose! to any other person
the contents of any (ire! oral! or electronic communication! :no(ing or having
reason to :no( that the information (as obtained through the interception of
a (ire! oral! or electronic communication in violation of this subsectionJ ...3
%. 9esides the criminal and civil penalty for a Class C felony in 6r:ansas! 18 U.SC.
K%+%&,b-,%!'- authorizes punitive damages as follo(s.
2/01 damages under subsection /c1 and punitive damages in appropriate cases3 and
/@1 a reasonable attorneyAs fee and other litigation costs reasonably
'. The damages allo(ed in the 60 statute do not specifically include punitive
damages. Bailure to e5clude these implies allo(ance (hen (arranted li:e in this claim.
@. Hicrosoft Corporation and Doogle 7nc each still fraudulently allege the te5t
2Curtis #eeley3! and 2nude3 are on pages these te5ts are not on after legally
notified of this fraudulent allegation. Haintaining these frauds harm this laintiff by
causing na:edAprofane pictures from these pages to return in searches using the
laintiffEs name harming this laintiffEs reputation.
+. Cefendant Doogle 7nc corrected some computer frauds after reLuested and left
others maliciously. Cefendant Hicrosoft Corporation ceased one communications
crime p e r 1 8 USC K % + 11 in ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t F18;% labeled .5hibit 2H3 on
page 1.
). Cefendant Doogle 7nc currently fails to correct the communications crimes
revealed in ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t F18;1 labeled .5hibit 2D3 and every other fraud
pointed out for years (ith one of these frauds also being a criminal violation of 18
U.S.C. K%+11 as can be seen in attached e5hibit 2B06UC*. laintiff demands the
punitive damages allo(ed.
7. The Cistrict Court e5re5i'usly failed to address the criminal violations
disclosed in ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t FF,18;1! 18;%- labeled .5hibits ,H . D- done to
other artists and ruled this laintiff has no standing to pursue these crimes despite
causing harm to laintiffEs ability to parent and this laintiffEs minor children.
8. 4hen finding a lac: of standing! this Cistrict Court forgets the standing of
a parent protecting the Birst 6mendment rights of a child to consume legal
communications in school libraries (ithout stigmatization li:e in Counts et ux. v.
Cedarville School 7oard litigation regarding 2?arry otter3 themed boo:s in %&&'
because of the decade since %&&' increasing senescence and personal bias that is no(
unLuestionably held maliciously against Curtis " #eeley "r.
1. The Bederal Communications Commission had the statutory mission of
regulating the safe use of "'ntent broadcast in interstate commerce by (ire before @7
U.S. C. K1+' S,+8- (ire communications (ere cloa:ed or nic:named =sic> 2internet3
in the obvious $eno v !C&." ,8);+11- mista:e ! (hich destroyed US moral culture.
%. The creation of another imaginary non;medium besides =sic> 2air'aves3
should never have prevented regulation of (ire communications and regulation of
content broadcast or left accessible for public consumption in order to ensure safety for
children or this laintiff. The duty to regulate (ire communications used in
commerce al(ays reLuired legal challenge to the $eno v !C&." ,8);+11- mista:e by
the BCC but is no( sought by forty;nine state 6ttorney Denerals due malfeasance of
BCC Commissioners
'. 4ire communications among authenticated individuals and various apparatus
connected to (ires may safely deliver any legal free speech selected by the individual
(hether 2obscene! indecent or profane3. 4ire communications are sub$ect to criminal
penalty if 2broadcast3 or made accessible to the anonymous from apparatus connected
to (ires per 18 U.S.C. KK,1@)%!1@)@- since anything broadcast by (ire is also
broadcast by radio. #o ne( la( is needed but only follo(ing e5isting US la(s li:e
plead herein.
@. The interconnected (ires no( used for =sic> 2internet3 (ire communications
are e5actly the same type (ire communications used (hen US resident "ames
9uchanan and Tueen /ictoria e5changed telegraph (ire messages on 6ugust 1)! 18+8.
?ad there been interconnected net(or:s of (ires in 18+8J .very interconnected
telegraph apparatus (ould have received the same (ire communication via the
interconnected common carrier medium of (ire. =sic>27nternet3 communications
should have al(ays been sub$ect to Title 77 regulation by the BCC even (hen called a
28holy9 ne' medium3.
+. The BCC begun D# Coc:et #o. 1';8) and received no less than thirty;si5 formal
complaints including the complaint ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t. F1
that (as called 2identical
in almost every respect3 to ,+I1';cv;+%&8- C:t. F+';'
in a clear demonstration of bias
and senescence (ith ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:t. F%+
being a clear $udicial B06UC .
). The BCC D# Coc:et #o. 1@;%8 proceeding no( publicly contains the entire
doc:et of ,+I1';cv;+%8'- C:ts. FF,1;%+- including the fraudulently dismissed C:t. F1
complaint filed first in 1';8). The BCC alleged in D# Coc:et #o. 1@;%8 to be a(are of
obvious malfeasance and considered correcting the egregious error of failing to treat
(ire communications! disguised as =sic> internet (ire communications! to be common
carriers of interconnected (ire telecommunications this (ire medium al(ays (as.
7. 7nternet (ire communications are on common (ire carriers and 2#etfli53! Doogle
7nc! and all others should be forbid from purchasing preferred transmission and 7Ss li:e
2Comcast3! et al should be reLuired to deliver the data volumes purchased at the speed
advertised regardless of volumes of other user reLuests. See e5hibit 2CC3.
8. BCC Commissioners should pay damages for helping Doogle 7nc become the
monopoly harming this laintiff by ignoring 18 U.S.C. K%+11 and delivering 2obscene!
indecent! or profane3 communications to the anonymous though intended to be
proscribed for anonymous consumption by authors li:e this laintiff.
1) apps.fcc.govAecfsAdocumentAvie(NidO7+%1&)@%8)
17 apps.fcc.govAecfsAdocumentAvie(NidO7+%1&8&%')
18 apps.fcc.govAecfsAdocumentAvie(NidO7+%1&888)7
18 apps.fcc.govAecfsAdocumentAvie(NidO7+%1&8888&
1. Doogle 7nc and Hicrosoft Corporation should be ordered by an 60 $ury to pay
this laintiff punitive and compensatory damages of no less than V1& million each or as
the $ury determines based on the years of litigation reLuired thus far and malicious harm
done to this laintiff and all minor children. Doogle 7nc and Hicrosoft Corporation
should pay this laintiff significant punitive damages because of al(ays being a(are
image 2bits3 could and s*'ul& al4ays *a#e 1een rated or described so computers could
categorize images as labeled by authors! but ignoring this fact maliciously to increase
pornography profits and reinforcing the deception,s- of 6rticle 777 $udges li:e in open
court in 4eeley v 4amemedia #nc" et al" ,+I&8;cv;+1+1- on Cecember )! %&1&. See
Coc:et F%1) pp ,71! 7%- for this continuing deception made by Hichael ?. age .sL for
Doogle 7nc.
%. Senator Har: ryor! ?ouse 0epresentative Steve 4omac:! and ?ouse
0epresentative Tom Cotton should pay compensatory damages as determined by a $ury
for failing to protectI 1- the right to be tried by a $ury for serious civil mattersJ and
%- failing to see: a bill to reLuire $udicial retirement at age 7& or sooner to properly
Lualify the 2during good behavior3 clause of 6rticle 777! but still protecting the
independence of the "udicial 9ranchJ and '- for allo(ing the BCC to allo( inversion of
the Communications Cecency 6ct of 188+ and allo(ing unconstitutional @7 U.S.C. K%'&
to remain inverted by a senescent Supreme Court unable to recognize the $eno v !C&."
,8);+11- mista:e and unable to be 2peers3
to most citizens under age @+ including this
laintiff (hen this litigation begun.
%& merriam;(ebster.comAdictionaryApeer
'. Curtis " #eeley "r prays Senator Har: ryor! 0epresentative Steve 4omac:!
0epresentative Tom Cotton! and US 6ttorney Deneral .ric ?older also pay damages for
failing to introduce a bill or see: to protect the moral human rights of authors to
e5clusively control immoral creations for a time as encouraged in the Constitution by
6rticle 7! K8! Clause 8 in 1787 but never done though reLuested by this laintiff
repeatedly for years.
@. Curtis " #eeley "r as:s a $ury or $udge under 7& to find @7 U.S.C K%'& to be the
unconstitutional mista:e the obvious $eno v !C&. ! ,8);+11- error has al(ays been.
Curtis " #eeley "r realizes Congress canEt be ordered to legislate but Senator Har: ryor!
0epresentative Steve 4omac:! and 0epresentative Tom Cotton can be ordered to pay
compensatory damages (ith an updated damages a(ard to be reassessed in one year by
another $ury based on response or lac: of response to this litigation. 6 $ury may find
guilt for current malfeasance (arrants as little as V1 no(. 6 $ury (ill find continued
malfeasance (arrants much more after one year.
+. Cefendant BCC Chairman! Tom 4heeler! recently (rote in a blog post
as follo(s.
7 do not believe (e should leave the mar:et unprotected for multiple more years (hile
la(yers for the biggest corporate players tie the BCCWs protections up in court.
#ot(ithstanding this! all regulatory options remain on the table. 7f the proposal before
us no( turns out to be insufficient or if (e observe anyone ta:ing advantage of the
rule! 7 (onWt hesitate to use Title 77. ?o(ever! unli:e (ith Title 77! (e can use the
courtWs roadmap to implement Open 7nternet regulation no( rather than endure
additional years of litigation and delay.
22 fcc.ov/b#o/fin$in-best-pat!-forwar$-protect-open-internet
6bove the BCC Chairman told US citizens of a(areness the (ire communications disguised
as =sic> 2internet3 should have al(ays been Title 77 common (ire carriers. BCC Chairman!
Tom 4heeler! also advised prior abusers of common carrier (ires! li:e Cefendant Doogle
7nc! the continued priority customer access purchased regardless of other search traffic (ould
be allo(ed to continue. The current favoritism allo(ed (ould be illegal under Title 77 but has
no( been revealed to the public. The Title 77 2realization3 has been called the 2nuclear
option3. #ot hardlyX The nuclear option is establishing an BCC search of communications on
various apparatus left accessible to the public by (ire communications (ith the duty to ma:e
these 2billboards3 safe and ensure these are not obscene! indecent! or profane 2broadcasts3 in
violation of U.S. la( and use these searches to reduce ta5es by running ads.
). The 2'e should leave the market unprotected for multiple more years3! from the above
blog post admits the BCC is a(are of leaving the common carrier of (ire communications
unprotected for decades after the $eno v !C&. ! ,8);+11- mista:e . The BCC clearly intends to
protect the delivery of 2obscene! indecent! or profane3 communications to the
unauthenticated. This is nothing besides conspiracy by the BCC to violate US la(.
7. .ach BCC Commissioner sitting along (ith Tom 4heeler should pay this laintiff
compensatory damages for the years of (or: and be advised this $ury a(ard (ill be
reassessed after si5 months based on (hether (ire communications disguised as =sic>
27nternet3 are safe regardless of (here accessed anonymously (ithout filters or if these
continue to broadcast unsafe communications using the continued disguise of free speech to
spread immorality.
8. Curtis " #eeley "r demands an 60 $ury trial but every filing (ill be made part of
the public record and filed on BCC controlled computers attached to (ires and
perpetually be made accessible to the public there andAor at
including every doc:et number mentioned herein.
8. The general public is already the $ury this litigation is before and is the only $ury
that (ill matter in the end by reLuiringI 1- completely safe common carrier regulation
for =sic> 27nternet3 (ire communicationsJ and %- protection of the ('ral rights and
responsibilities of creators to e5clusively control immoral creations for a timeJ and
'- reLuiring mandatory retirement for 6rticle 777 $udges by the Social Security retirement
age of )+ or age 7& at the latest to end rule of an elderly oligarchy in the U.S.
1&. #one on .arth are li:ely to initially encounter modern times as a moderately
intelligent and morally reforming visual artist li:e Curtis " #eeley "r. did after a modern
miracle not li:ely to ever again occur. This morally reformed laintiff regrets creating
immoral visual 2art3 and (ishes to no( protect children and pornography addicts from
immoral visual art consumption by (ire! (hile avoiding responsibility for this
undetectable 2porn3 consumption.
11. The United States has the opportunity and clear moral obligation no( toI 1- see:
enforcement of previously ignored or unrecognized but e5isting fundamental human
rights and the associated individual human responsibilitiesJ and %- see: enforcement of
previously ignored US la(s. This claim should result in allo(ing uncensored but
authenticated individual (ired communications for all of humanity (orld(ide regardless
of nation and an almost immediate end to illegal display of immoral material to the
unauthenticated (hile escaping BCC regulation of (ire communications safety reLuired by
la(s ignored by the BCC since the Reno v ACLU ) 79:!$118 err'r ruining the innocence of
an entire generation.
Curtis ". #eeley "r.
%)18 # Tuality Mane
Suite 1%'
Bayetteville! 60 7%7&'
0espectfully Submitted!
. .
sA Curtis " #eeley "r.