|
Joshua Reed Thane Esq, et al, From the Docket #9 FRAUD the Magistrate will find as follows. “Mr. Neeley initially and intentionally placed on the internet himself, and now refuses to withdraw.” Neeley placed nudes for sale on deviantArt.com and not “on the internet”. These
nude images would not be seen at the site unless the viewer of the page
with these nudes was a member of deviantArt.com and had chosen to view
nudes. This type bypassing of filtration continues for
every nude filtered from the deviantArt.com site. Not only were the
nudes NOT placed “on the internet”, - these nude images were not donated
to Google Inc for ad sales. These nudes were initially filtered except for adults and were WITHDRAWN because Google Inc bypassed this filtration.
These
nudes have been gone or have been WITHDRAWN for MONTHS, yet were still
found in the hidden stash of images that Google Inc revealed today. This can be seen in the results that are documented in No 1 below or as attached. Joshua
Reed Thane Esq might desire to now correct the obvious errors that can
be seen documented back to the first day of this year as seen in PDF #8
linked below. This is another separate claim. Filing a revision that
anchors how history treats the reputation of Joshua Reed Thane Esq is
now appropriate. 1. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_7-4-2012_p1-std-htm.pdf 2. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_7-4-2012_p1-std-htm.pdf 3. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_6-14-2012_p1-std.pdf 4. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_6-3-2012.pdf 5. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_5-18-2012-one-std.pdf 6. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_GOOG_4-30-2012_one.pdf 7. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart3-31-2012.pdf 8. www.CurtisNeeley.com/Google/exhibits/Curtis%20neeley%20site_deviantart_01-01-2012.pdf Google Inc has lost this lawsuit already and should consider mitigation of damages or other legal expenses. Joshua Reed Thane Esq did not face a “frivolous” grievance but the pending request for Rule 11 Sanctions will suffice. There was no motion for Rule 11 Sanctions as threatened by NameMedia Inc. Joshua
Reed Thane Esq should think back to law school and remember that use of
pronouns was discouraged as was the use of initially, and unnecessary
adverbs entirely. Neeley avoided use of the common three letter
colloquial for telling a falsehood. Honesty is encouraged and is, in fact, required by Statute. Remember the old legally modified spelling rule? An “i” before “e” except after “c” but especially not after an “L”. Unregulated
porn-by-wire ends with this action without any doubt. The Supreme Court
knows this demand is coming as should be clear given their recent
decisions in Golan v Holder, (10-545) and FCC v Fox, (10-1293) and especially consid
|
