26 November 2009 @ 10:46 am

Roman Polanski should be especiallty thankful!

Today the Swiss let Roman Polanski go. Polansky is on mansion-release! The news I read was quick to change their attitude. Polanski now only ALLEGEDLY raped Samantha in 1978 and all the other charges were dropped and he was promised to serve 90 days. See it HERE. This is a FRAUD!


13?	Practicing her SUCKING pose?

I decided my language in this post was not fit for minors and must be read at an outside link HERE.

Leave a comment

12 November 2009 @ 07:34 am

Google chooses a jury

Ms XY,

Thank you for reviewing my previous document. I appreciate your demonstration of your confusion that was illustrated by your sending the link to the UDRP. Try any search on any search engine for NameMedia and lawsuit and avoid discovering the lawsuit I ALREADY filed that Network Solutions will join Google and NameMedia in. The UDRP is part of the problem. They are not able to address a claim that has been filed in a court of jurisdiction. My filing in the Western District of Arkansas in US Court completely removes URDP from the process. I am unable to do a class action although I realize there might be one.

I can indisputably prove to the most non-domainer juror that I HAVE a trademark that was violated by NameMedia Inc. after being made aware of the TM pending expiration by Network Solutions and with encouragement of Google AdSense for Domains. All acting together and violating my privacy, TM, and copyrights.

You are hereby advised again that your company needs to decide whether two million dollars is a price they are willing to pay for their actions to settle out of court. I am adding Network Solutions Inc to the case next week. All the data is already accessible publicly but I will broadcast the addition of Network Solutions and Google now regardless of your actions.

It was interesting that you say you reviewed ICANN's requirements for registrars. Following the guidelines does not come close by any stretch of imagination to requiring a registrar PUBLISH the private data that is protected in US law by TMs and Copyrights. Network Solutions tries to obfuscate contact data for a fee. I think that there are a few that are now trying to obfuscate the registry expiration dates?

I feel that Network Solution will no longer exist after this lawsuit is over. I think the "industry" of domaining will no longer exist. I appreciate your confusion regarding intellectual property legalities. Sending the link to UDRP was futile. Do you realize that the tribes wont get involved in federal court issues?

You can review this http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-arwdce/case_no-5:2009cv05151/case_id-33207/. I am sure in the next few days that NameMedia will seek dismissal and file a counter claim. I will not settle this out of court with NameMedia for any amount of money. In less than twenty-four hours the same will be true for Google.

Thank you for reading. Unfortunately, I feel as if I am trying to explain asymptotes to a high school football team when you send the exact ICANN fact that absolves ICANN and bolts Network Solutions to this complaint.

I highlighted and linked to the definitions of the three words that might seem confusing above and two that follow. I was made confident by your reply that you feel "requires registrars to collect and provide free access" is the same meaning as publish? Provide and publish start with the same letter. You need to involve a lawyer at this point if you think a mandate to provide free access to data in any way excuses Network Solutions violations of my TMs or copyrights. Besides being wrong, it will make the reasonable jurist angry.

http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/NetworkSolutions/inDex.html Archive of this email dialog with private personal data removed.

http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/Googles-policy-of-cybersquatting/

Please do not bother replying without consulting an attorney. I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater than two million dollars.

See disclaimer below. In the event you desire to reveal more of your friendly, but confused thoughts, please use larger type.

Sincerely,

Curtis Neeley Jr.

From: Curtis Neeley Jr. [mailto:Plaintiff]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM
To: X, Y; AdSense for Domains: Trademarks
Cc: legal@namejet.com
Subject: RE: Network Solutions Executive Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM [#535961205] Google AdSense for Domains Trademark Complaint

Ms x,

        I understand ICANN's position and have spoken with ICANN already. Requiring that an expiration date be publicly available in a whois database is not a requirement to advertise or publish the expiration dates. Having a list of dates that are about to expire is not required by any stretch of the word publish. ICANN does NOT require that Network Solutions publish any of the information you alleged is required. I expect that you are not an attorney or an English instructor. I appreciate your empathy and hope to educate you in a way that you will not find offensive. You should involve either an attorney or a college level professor to assist you in determining your next reply. My brain damage erased most of my memories about my advanced degrees. I feel you should seek help in responding to this matter if you actually believed that Network Solutions was in any way mandated into committing the fraudulent violation of my personal data that I had associated with either of my TMs by ICANN. I believe you will find ICANN as surprised as I was that nobody has brought this type action already.

        The fact that you were not the first to cybersquat on either of my domains by buying does very little to excuse a policy of advertising any domain that is about to expire. It only reduces the amount I have asked Network Solutions to pay for the cybersquatting they promoted. A business policy of promoting domains that will soon expire by using a transitive case of the verb expire to say they are expiring is fraudulent. The very second they expired; the intellectual property that they once were should no longer existed.  Network Solutions’ calling them "expiring" is a violation of the rights of the © and TM owner.

        Interesting to see you try to blame ICANN for your actions of copyright and trademark violating. Please read through the ICANN WHOIS page today as well as your registry agreement from the past and try to find a mandate to publish anything. I do not believe you will be able to STRETCH it into a permission to publish the times a domain will expire and there is definitely no mandate. The requirement that registry data be available in a publicly accessible whois search is what Network Solutions and the rest of the domain "industry" use to excuse their creation of a fraudulent value for any domain. Network Solutions then uses NameJet to perpetrate the fraud in cooperation with Google. Google then licenses any domain that is under ten characters and that contain general terms to be a part of Google "AdSense for Domains". This is an attempt to turn domain names into another search request. The domain "industry" is a complete fraud. It is not almost a fraud, but is a fraud to both advertisers and to consumers. It is a fraud that the Curtis Neeley Foundation is on a mission to end.

        The fraud is like the old fraudulent teachings that the Earth was flat. If domain expiration dates were not disclosed, the masses would realize that no domain without a pre-existing business plan or business history is valuable at all. The search engines of Google and others are using these frauds well as propagating these frauds to earn advertiser income by turning domains into just an extension of searches terms.

        I do not believe that I am so mentally challenged as to be the only person able to see the fraud that is now the HUGE Internet bubble that will burst when my lawsuit is resolved. I have not heard from Google today and expect that they feel they are too big to worry about a paralyzed and Pro Se plaintiff proceeding as a pauper. Google has less than forty-eight hours to notify me that they are willing to settle for ten million or greater for their portion of the actions violating my rights to the TMs that were used in the United States for commerce. They state that since the TMs consisted of general or descriptive terms they were "fair game" for AdSense. The jury will simply say this claim is NonSense and not AdSense. I see that they are currently still profiting from the cybersquatted site sleepspot.com and that it is still for sale. It will be my duty to add Google after Wednesday at COB. I already fired the warning shot across their bow.

     I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater than two million dollars.

Without receiving a two million dollar settlement offer by that time, I will proceed to both pursue Network Solutions and Google Inc for punitive damages. The sizes of the awards that will be rewarded by juries might help spawn support for tort reforms? Network Solutions and Google will be involved with me in court for the next decade. I was once not expected to live past 2012 due to my injuries. I now think I will live much longer. The most common cause of death for persons with my type injuries is suicide.



    I would have added ICANN to the suit if I were unable to learn from them that they did NOT require the publishing of personal data that Network Solutions does now with NameJet. You can see that they tried to address expired domain recovery by following the link above. No business would EVER want to hide their registry data from a person searching for whois data. The fact that Network Solutions now uses NameJet to help propagate a profit from private registrations is evidence that I will use to bind Network Solutions tightly to Google as conspirators of NameMedias.com cybersquatting.

Consider this my ONLY nice offer.

I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater than two million dollars.

To assist you in your apparent confusion about the ICANN requirement Network Solutions so fraudulently calls a mandate to publish, I will add links to the legal definition I see online.  How can Network Solutions so blatantly call a requirement that a registrant be available in a WHOIS database an excuse for a violation of copyrights? I will proceed to sue NameMedia who took advantage of Network Solutions' violation of my right to make information about my copyrights publicly available.

I restate my DEMAND and try to be absolutely clear. I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay greater than two million dollars. 1,999,999.99 at that time will be an offer I consider only additionally distressing. Network Solutions makes money by creating a method of making the WHOIS database not really a WHOIS but a WHENIS. This is a fraudulent policy that I will seek to end. I include my previous email to Google to keep Network Solutions from feeling alone in being called a perpetrator of this fraud.

I include Google Inc. to let them see how serious this will be. Trying to license the address bar by licensing all typographical errors and errors where general and descriptive words were entered in the address bar instead of a Google search request.

Yes - I believe the lady Network Solutions and Google each hear singing is quite heavy. I do not think calling her fat is polite.

This will be published on my blog as an HTML tomorrow at 5 PM.

To further explain the ICANN's position I will make the fictitious fraud more obvious.

This is publicly accessible by anyone with the following URL who checks it with a HTTP request.

This is exactly as registry data is MANDATED to exist.

Tomorrow at COB I will publish it as loud as NameJet does a pending delete.
Everyone following this will see it at NameMedias.com.   FYI this is simply at http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/NameMedia/index.html.

This will be accessible at http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/NetworkSolutions/inDex.html in a few minutes.

Ms XY, does this help you understand the reality about what you so FRAUDULANTLY call an ICANN MANDATE better? My test jury did yesterday.

BCC: Curtis Neeley Foundation Board

  Google AdSense for Domains: Trademarks,

        I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of cybersquatting. This is in addition to the ten million I will also win from NameMedia and Network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as licensing general or descriptive words as domains to simply run ads or words that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas, Google AdSense for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to prevent public education. The public impact of simply educating the commoners of the policies in place will ruin Google Inc.

            I do not particularly care if you "investigate" my complaint. You have given me solid proof that Google is reckless in choosing who they will license a domain from. Thank you for doing that although I am sure it was inadvertently done and was not your intent. I would suggest you read over these filings [07CV3371]. I have read most of them.   It was humorous to watch lawyers devote pages and pages to the words control and license.

        The case number is linked to a case above that I believe you will find particularly relevant. It particularly addresses the court recently denying defendants' motions to dismiss certain of the infringement claims based on arguments that the domains were not being "used in commerce" and/or did not create the requisite "likelihood of confusion." Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 07CV3371 (N.D. Ill, March 20, 2008). Just google  07CV3371, or use Yahoo, Inc, however, I used the word google in the previous sentence in its common linguistic verb use and not in a trademark use. I realize Google Inc, registered the word with USPTO. It has since become so common a word that it is no longer a solid ®. I did not earlier and will never capitalize google when using it so commonly. Spell check still suggested it as a capital.  'Nobles' are hard pressed to recognize us commoners?
Modern Language Association (MLA):"google." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2009.
<Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google>.

        The uses of words above are linked to the online reference I cite. AdSense will soon learn that googling is a superb action verb we commoners enjoy. I recommend that Adsense "investigate" using it. The country you are currently in exists very much as a result of common people refusing to believe that rights were obtained by birth or by an ability to pay a filing fee. The document I refer to is online. I suggest that you google "We the people, in order" and even link it to save you typing. Google Inc. so hoped that their use of the noble USPTO would make a claim of trespassing on commoners TMs like mine more excusable.

        There was a period in the USA where rights COULD be purchased. Even after declaring independence and fighting a war, it was not until a bloody civil war that equal rights were established for men by an Executive Order.  No wonder he only got a penny. It was not till the next century in 1920 with the passage of the nineteenth amendment that women were allowed to vote. I wonder how often noble lawyers or noble judges consider that the racial equality of the commoner with respect to voting preceded the equality of the right of the female commoner to vote.   It was still easier for a commoner in the United States to accept a black man as president than a beautiful white woman. Even in this century. Does anyone think we really need sixty more years to be led by a woman?

        I hope Google Adsense for Domains legal staff enjoyed the preceding refresher on law.  I only took one law course and have no memories of it. You might see the over-use of the term commoner. Common law trademarks have existed longer than the Lanham Act in 2002.   I once suspected that I inadvertently used the circled R -®- with SleepSpot.com. I should have used © and TM although I was acting only as a commoner who did not realize only the wealthy could pay to use ®. The jury I demanded will be of commoners like me who probably will not understand that either. On further research I had displayed © and TM only. This was publicly available when Google Inc. first licensed eartheye.com and sleepspot.com. I copyrighted eartheye.com and sleepspot.com and they were marketed correctly in use for commerce several years before Google licensed them with NameMedia. I believe a jury will recognize this act as a pattern of fraudulent conduct to create billions in unjust enrichments. No juror will have a domain "portfolio" running AdSense for domains. Read that last sentence over and over and over. Hospitality.bet has been cybersquatted for over ten years. They look like Google ad license even today but they are disguised very well if they are from Google. A requirement that Google be named for ads they license will be demanded.

        The next paragraph is linked to the noble USPTO government site.  "Google AdSense for Domains" will not need to google to find it. I will help in your "investigation" and include as a link to the USPTO FAQ.   Google Adsense for Domains is welcome to visit my BLOG and view it as HTML or as a signed PDF Wednesday. Email and HTML are easy to fake and will hold little weight as evidence. A signed PDF is much easier to validate although not impossible.

            Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and registration

        They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I planned to be a multi-millionaire with SleepSpot.com. I intended to quickly replace PriceLine.com® as the Internet destination to find a "Place to Sleep". I would not need Captain Kirk or any other celebrity. My marketing would make them embarrassed to pay so much. Read evidence of my first use in commerce in the United States in an Internet jurisdiction here as a webpage. I saved it as a PDF even though NameMedia can't hide this record. Better safe than having evidence hidden I have learned.

        Google Adsense for Domains chose to entice NameMedia to violate my TMs.   When they did this, I am sure Google Adsense for Domains used the description of common law trademarks like Google Adsense for Domains did in the reply where Google Adsense for Domains attempted to also extort common law TM research for free.  Google Adsense for Domains should have performed a TM search before licensing either eartheye.com or sleepspot.com to run Google Adsense for Domains on.    The internet Archive is a neutral party that had proof publicly available for free of the site and TM first being used in commerce in the USA. The USA is a country filled with commoners like the jury members will be. Until NameMedia placed a spider text on the root of the server that Google is licensing to hide the evidence they found publicly available. They were too late. You can see a PDF of the Internet Archives files that they have now hidden. This act was ANOTHER malicious act and was an additional copyright violation. Google Inc dba NameMedia are infringing on my copyright in addition to my TMs. The courts have already ruled that a request for an order that the spider text file be removed is reasonable. I have contacted the Internet Archive already. The files remain and will now be evidence of NameMedia's pattern of cybersquatting sites they then license these to Google Inc.

        One needs only to research-"typo-squat" PriceLine.com to see Google licensing "cybersquatting sites" or ad sites like one from Oversee.net. The page is Pricelike.com. Being paralyzed and suffering a stroke requires that I type with one hand. 'K' is so close to 'N' on a keypad that I made the typo error and discovered a page that is making money for google running ads for competitors of Priceline.com. I see AdSense for Domains biting a hand that feeds it. This is a site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. I see PriceLine paying to be the SPONSORED result.  A reasonable juror will see Google Adsense for Domains violating the ® of the large Google Inc. advertiser PriceLine.com at Pricelike.com. Can Google Adsense for Domains say Class Action?  I can't do a Class Action Pro Se. I think Google Adsense for Domains should have already written off a settlement deal since Vulcan Golf only asked for one million. I originally asked for ten and even that feels trivial when I see Google actively cybersquatting their own advertisers. Priceline already demonstrates what they think of typo-cybersquatters with the following eighteen URLS that are aliased to their own site.
[pricelime.com, priveline.com, pricelinr.com, proceline.com, pricekine.com, prixline.com, pruceline.com, kriceline.com, piceline.com, pricelin.com, pricerline.com, prizeline.com, pricrine.com, pricelinw.com, pricekline.com, pricwline.com, priceline.net, priceline.org]

I am sure there are more but I wanted to quit finding cybersquatters licensed to Google.

1. http://www.oriceline.com is another zero width frame of http://usseek.com/search/internet/airline%20tickets This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. To competitors!
2. http://www.lriceline.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling.
3. http://www.pricesline.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. They are the closest thing to a non-TM-infringing cybersquat that I see because they run no air travel links.
4. http://www.priceslines.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling.
5. http://www.preceline.com/ Is another ad site Google is licensing from SEDO. It does not advertise the same thing as priceline but it is licensed from a company that is already a Google co-Defendant in the [07CV3371] case already.

Six licensed Google ad pages or cybersquats found while looking around one registered TM.

        This email took about thirteen hours to write. It was not a free TM search. HERE is a public proof that I was using SleepSpot in commerce that NameMedia can't hide with a robot text file on the server they are licensing to Google Inc. It is currently not on the IA site. When I was initially trying to settle out of court with NameMedia, I offered one domain name in trade. I offered to trade the domain ozarkphotos.net to them. I was told they wanted better than 2600 for eartheye.com. NameMedia recently requested $2,788 for sleepspot.com from me directly!   See it first used in commerce in a PDF HERE, HERE or HERE with a © and TM displayed and dated 1999 or in the last century.10

        I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of cybersquatting. This is addition to the ten million I will also win from NameMedia and network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as licensing general or descriptive words simply as domains to run ads or words that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas Google AdSense for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to prevent public education. Every URL listed in this email is current as of 11/07/2009. I have saved them all as signed PDFs for use in my lawsuits.

        This will not be published in my BLOG or my protest site online mentioning Google until Wed 11/18/2009. I will then contact PriceLine, Vulcan Golf and every other TM violating site I can find. You can find signed PDFs of SleepSpot.com as they were accessed from the internet Archive before Google and NameMedia hid them. My protest URL is www.NameMedias.com which is NOT a cybersquat like Google so often encourages. It is a bona fide first amendment expression that NameMedia is already aware of.

        The three business days above will let Google's legal and executive staff have three business days to weigh settling out-of-court for ten million. I will sue and seek punitive and exemplary damages of one tenth of Google's net worth. One-hundredth of 154 billion is 1.5 billion. Unless I hear an offer of at least ten million by Wed 11/18/2009 at 1700 CST I will change nothing except the first letter and seek 10 Billion. Punitive damages must PUNISH.

I repeat ten million by 11/18/2009 1700:01 CST or I will demand ten billion for the malicious intentional act.

GOOGLE'S DISMISSAL OF MY COMPLAINT AND THE EXTORTION DEMAND FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE WAS AN INTENTIONAL MALICIOUS ACT.

Google Inc. must not have even googled [+Sleepspot.com +"Curtis Neeley" +resevations] << I save you the typing.

        A severely brain damaged pauper with no legs and who has had a hemispheric stroke and came closer to dying than nearly anyone in history is now suing Google for licensing NameMedia's cybersquatting of TWO TM'd domains Pro Se presenting to a JURY from a wheelchair is newsworthy?

This email is archived and saved as a PDF. You may view it in HTML at
http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/Googles-policy-of-cybersquatting/

        One Pro Se pauper being awarded 10 billion in punitive damages for a malicious act will withstand the reviews of commoners.
Commoners might view it as a special tax because half of it will be paid as a tax.

        Taxed commoners already have a lien on the settlement.   They paid for the filing fees and service to NameMedia. They will serve Google and Network Solutions when I figure out how to amend and re-file the complaint. I will send this from several mail servers. My time is included by default. One second late is a decision. Compare it to "Deal or No Deal" after the button is pushed. 9.5 million offered by COB on 11/18/2009 will only ad to my distress. Ten million is less than one percent of Google and not nearly punitive.

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com

as signed PDF

11 November 2009 @ 05:40 pm

House un-building

I have started to take advantage of the fact that I just sit-around a lot.
You see above how I just sat and watched a house being recycled.
It was donated to the Habitat for Humanity of Washington Co.
You can see it at 725 pixels HERE
A FLASH movie SWF HERE
A Windows XP screen saver Slide-show executable HERE

Leave a comment

03 November 2009 @ 11:33 pm

Subject:SleepSpot.com, eartheye.com and NameMedia Inc.

Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:53 PM
To: adsense-domains-trademark@google.com
Subject: SleepSpot.com, eartheye.com and NameMedia Inc.
TM lawsuit 5:2009cv05151

Dear person,

This is intended to be a polite and amicable attempt to resolve a circumstance where Google Adsense is aiding a malicious cybersquatter to profit at the expense of my TM. This is the second communication. One period on the page is a web beacon. It is the same web beacon that has already accessed the prior attempt to resolve this matter. I realize that someone read this and the IP resolved to La Jolla, CA? I have seen online in the Google AdSense Support forum that this email address is usually ignored and snail mail is preferred.

That seems to fly in the face of reason for an Internet company to ignore email complaints. I read very much of the motions that are online in the Vulcan Golf Case No. 07CV3371. I read in your AdSense policies that, "domains submitted for the AdSense for domains program may not violate any trademark (and related rights), copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party", and then I see that you go on to say, " domains may not be involved in litigation or under dispute". Excuse me but eartheye.com and sleepspot.com are each named in a US Western District of AR Court Case No. 5:2009cv05151. The prior notice had it linked. Google AdSense will be added along with Network Solutions when I figure out how to do it.

There is nothing that Google AdSense can do now besides halting the ad serving on the domain sleepspot to cease conspiring with NameMedia Inc. to inflict damages. This will only keep the intentional emotional distress infliction from resolving to co-conspirator Google. The domains were abused by NameMedia Inc. for six years and I will seek to recover all monies paid to NameMedia Inc. on each of them. I will also use Google's encouragement of AdSense websites to create the conspiratorial link. I will seek all Google's AdSense profit for the two domains. I will seek to recover for the unjust enrichment due to the fraudulent act AdSense conspired in.

I agree that Google currently has no duty to determine the validity of a domain before accepting it in AdSense. Your TM policy will suffice for most ad sites. However, Google AdSense should require a domain owner who is not the original domain owner to disclose that fact and state that it has never been used as anything but an ad site. Use only as an ad site does not risk any use of the mark in trade or TM.

I am sure that Google AdSense will pay Vulcan Golf LLC. at the close of the suit. The amount may be lower than the requested million, but I wager that Google AdSense will pay a lot. The typo that was registered should have been obvious and any reasonable juror will quickly agree. The allegedly ugly error page could have been income for Microsoft and I bet Google knows that. A plug-in that detects a parked page and instead runs ads based on the desired URL?

Interesting idea I thought so I googled it. "Microsoft's decision to replace error pages with its own search tools has so far drawn a muted response from competitors. Representatives at Yahoo and AltaVista both declined to comment on the move, while Google did not return phone calls Tuesday." Google ignore a CNET call. No Way! Google's "AdSense for domains" is Google's "muted" answer. I do not use Explorer so I have no idea if Google "licensing" parked pages is similar, but it gets past AdBlockerPlus on FF 3,

Google is in an interesting situation with me. Google conspired with NameMedia to infringe on my trademark by not checking that the domain ownership had not recently changed and not asking NameMedia to report a domain non-origination. This was a grossly negligent failure. Google also profited when I paid for ads clicked while run on NameMedia's pages.

This is not a request. It is a friendly demand! Please advise me of the address for your registered agent for accepting service via registered mail.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA

www.CurtisNeeley.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation is created to preserve and promote his artistic photographic legacy.

P.S.

Did I mention that I am upset?

I realize my TBI might create an exaggerated perception of distresses and many might feel it to be distorted?

I do not particularly care what many think. I only care what an informed jury will think.

The prior VIEWED AND IGNORED request is included below.

NameMedia dba BuyDomains 'cybersquatted my domains while I was incompetent due to a severe TBI. I alerted them to my prior use and they asked that I submit a bid greater than 2,600 on Eartheye.com because they saw the TM had not been registered.

They ran ads on Eartheye.com for five years until they sold the domain in a blatant TM violation. They have run ads on SleepSpot.com for six years and are running them now. I used SleepSpot to serve hospitality reservation software. There was a history of it available on the Internet Archive until July or Sept of this year when they disabled the IA spider with a robots text file. I am extremely angry and have filed a Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in US Court 5:2009cv05151. I am seeking in excess of ten million dollars. I realize that seems excessive to many, but its only around one-sixth of one year's annual profit for a violation that spanned six years or about two percent of their profits for the times covered. They also intentionally created these emotional distress after being advised.

I plan to add Google to the suit or the next due to these TM issues when I find during discovery that Google paid NameMedia for ads to be run on either the sites since 2003. I think we can assume that Google will be added in some way. I am extremely angry and will seek that Google be required to perform a registration verification that requires a domain ad account to be the original registrar of the domain. That could be done automatically and instantly and a domain advertiser who is not the original registrar should be prevented from using a prior TM without demonstrating a license to use the TM and certifying that it is not a 'cybersquatted ad site'.

I am not sure of the damages I will seek, however, I know without a doubt that Google is aware that they make thousands each day while running ads on domain 'cybersquatters', as the system is now. You say that you are not in a position to arbitrate TM issues and use that as the excuse to mitigate a harmful action you encourage. You are in a position of profiting from these encouraged violations and I believe a jury will agree. They will also agree that Google encourages 'cybersquatters' as a pattern of business because of the income it produces.

In my next lawsuit, I will seek to end ALL Google parked domain ads. There should be no comparison between a "domain-portfolio" and a portfolio of billboards. Domains are intellectual properties only. A domain that is parked is nearly always 'cybersquatted'. Google is regularly conspiring with cybersquatters. A parked domain should never be allowed to run ads. Google is aware that a parked domain is nothing but an ad site and calling them editorial content. Allowing them is a demonstration of an intent to profit by sites and conspiring to deceive regular search users. With SleepSpot.com and other sites NameMedia Inc. tries to manipulate the Google search. Google knows the site has been a parked ad site for the last six years. Google and NameMedia are co-conspiring to deceive those searching for content and not searching for an ad site. Google ads are currently running on the domain so Google will be involved now for sure. I just checked SleepSpot and clicked a few ads to help give me standing or grounds.

The content network should have a parked site exemption! It will after my lawsuit for sure. I may have paid for ads at sites like sleepspot or ad sites run by NameMedia Inc.

This complaint is not a threat. This is simply an attempt to resolve this TM and deceptive ad content policy issue out of court. You may respond by email. I will send this in email and post it on my BLOG today.

Google is in a unique position to resolve this amicably without requiring a legal action. Create a parked site exclusion that is selected by default and cease and desist conspiring with NameMedia Inc. at sleepspot.com to profit from a TM violation that is involved in a current US Federal Lawsuit. Follow it online. Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc. - 5:2009cv05151

The period you can click on at the end of this sentence is a 3x3 pix web beacon. You may click if you would like to see your IP that will also verify delivery of this notice. It will be simply a non-tracked period on my BLOG.

I will verify notice every day of Google's actions with sleepspot.com. I will visit by proxy IPs and verify the Google ads removal.

I prefer a notification of the site being 'blacklisted for ads' sent to NameMedia with me as a CC.

This would be a demonstration that might mitigate Google's cybersquatting conspiracy. It will not remove Google's liabilities for conspiring with NameMedia for the past six years.

Continuing to conspire with NameMedia Inc. to profit at sleepspot.com beyond twenty-four hours of notification will be intentionally causing me additional distress.

Leave a comment

01 November 2009 @ 07:45 pm

SleepSpot.com, eartheye.com and NameMedia Inc. TM lawsuit

Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:23 PM
To: adsense-domains-trademark@google.com
Subject: SleepSpot.com, eartheye.com and NameMedia Inc. TM lawsuit

NameMedia dba BuyDomains 'cybersquatted my domains while I was incompetent due to a severe TBI. I alerted them to my prior use and they asked that I submit a bid greater than 2,600 on Eartheye.com because they saw the TM had not been registered.

They ran ads on Eartheye.com for five years until they sold the domain in a blatant TM violation. They have run ads on SleepSpot.com for six years and are running them now. I used SleepSpot to serve hospitality reservation software. There was a history of it available on the Internet Archive until July or Sept of this year when they disabled the IA spider with a robots text file. I am extremely angry and have filed a Trademark Infringement Lawsuit in US Court 5:2009cv05151. I am seeking in excess of ten million dollars. I realize that seems excessive to many, but its only around one-sixth of one year's annual profit for a violation that spanned six years or about two percent of their profits for the times covered. They also intentionally created these emotional distress after being advised.

I plan to add Google to the suit or the next due to these TM issues when I find during discovery that Google paid NameMedia for ads to be run on either the sites since 2003.
I think we can assume that Google will be added in some way. I am extremely angry and will seek that Google be required to perform a registration verification that requires a domain ad account to be the original registrar of the domain. That could be done automatically and instantly and a domain advertiser who is not the original registrar should be prevented from using a prior TM without demonstrating a license to use the TM and certifying that it is not a 'cybersquatted ad site'.

I am not sure of the damages I will seek, however, I know without a doubt that Google is aware that they make thousands each day while running ads on domain 'cybersquatters', as the system is now. You say that you are not in a position to arbitrate TM issues and use that as the excuse to mitigate a harmful action you encourage. You are in a position of profiting from these encouraged violations and I believe a jury will agree. They will also agree that Google encourages 'cybersquatters' as a pattern of business because of the income it produces.

In my next lawsuit, I will seek to end ALL Google parked domain ads. There should be no comparison between a "domain-portfolio" and a portfolio of billboards. Domains are intellectual properties only. A domain that is parked is nearly always 'cybersquatted'. Google is regularly conspiring with cybersquatters. A parked domain should never be allowed to run ads. Google is aware that a parked domain is nothing but an ad site and calling them editorial content. Allowing them is a demonstration of an intent to profit by sites and conspiring to deceive regular search users. With SleepSpot.com and other sites NameMedia Inc. tries to manipulate the Google search. Google knows the site has been a parked ad site for the last six years. Google and NameMedia are co-conspiring to deceive those searching for content and not searching for an ad site. Google ads are currently running on the domain so Google will be involved now for sure. I just checked SleepSpot and clicked a few ads to help give me standing or grounds.

The content network should have a parked site exemption! It will after my lawsuit for sure. I may have paid for ads at sites like sleepspot or ad sites run by NameMedia Inc.

This complaint is not a threat. This is simply an attempt to resolve this TM and deceptive ad content policy issue out of court. You may respond by email. I will send this in email and post it on my BLOG today.

Google is in a unique position to resolve this amicably without requiring a legal action. Create a parked site exclusion that is selected by default and cease and desist conspiring with NameMedia Inc. at sleepspot.com to profit from a TM violation that is involved in a current US Federal Lawsuit. Follow it online. Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc. - 5:2009cv05151

The period you can click on at the end of this sentence is a 3x3 pix web beacon. You may click if you would like to see your IP that will also verify delivery of this notice. It will be simply a non-tracked period on my BLOG and may show an underline.

I will verify notice every day of Google's actions with sleepspot.com. I will visit by proxy IPs and verify the Google ads removal. I prefer a notification of the site being 'blacklisted for ads' sent to NameMedia with me as a CC.
This would be a demonstration that might mitigate Google's cybersquatting conspiracy. It will not remove Google's liabilities for conspiring with NameMedia for the past six years.
Continuing to conspire with NameMedia Inc. to profit at sleepspot.com beyond twenty-four hours of notification will be intentionally causing me additional distress.

Please advise me of the address for your registered agent for accepting service.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffered a severe traumatic brain injury that often very negatively impacts his communications. He is often perceived as blunt, tactless, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a severe disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art. The Curtis Neeley Foundation is created to preserve and promote his artistic photographic legacy.

P.S.
Did I mention that I am upset?
I realize my TBI might create an exaggerated perception of distresses and many might feel it to be distorted?
I do not particularly care what many think. I only care what an informed jury will think.

Leave a comment

28 October 2009 @ 05:38 pm

Erik Zilinek looks aware of my lawsuit regarding NameMedias actions toward me.

Erik Zilinek looks aware of my lawsuit regarding NameMedias cybersquatting actions toward me.

Erik Zilinek, or someone logged in as ezilinek logged in to NamePros Forum and saw my posts there. I imagine he has found several others. We will see what they will do. I suppose NameMedia's Intellectual Property Attorney was served? See his message to me regarding my claim on eartheye.com

Leave a comment

20 October 2009 @ 05:36 pm

off the mountain in G'mas House Cafe parking lot

This is a gif looking off the mountain in
G'mas House Cafe parking lot just S of
Winslow where I once lived for about a decade.
So far it is just two photos about one month apart but
Aas the leaves change so will this photo.
The second photo was over-exposed.

Leave a comment

20 October 2009 @ 05:32 pm

Scull Creek Trail....Slideshow

This is an old animated gif photo that shows
some work along the Scull Creek Trail.
I liked the original day's sky and left it in place.
I thought I would prefer it opened up but
I think the nice clean look is better.
The initial photo was on Sat of BBBBQ in Fayetteville.

Leave a comment

07 October 2009 @ 07:14 pm

NameMedia-Harrasses-Curtis-Neeley-on-10-07-2009

To: Erik Zilinek; David Hauser; Peter Lamson; domains@buydomains.com
Subject: What is a Domain Worth? 1000-100,000 statutorily

Mr Lamson,

One might not have thought candy was worth three-million or that business was worth eight-million? I do not believe they were worth that amount. They sold for that much. Things that cost a great deal more than their worth are common. Neither domain is likely to see a ROI.

A domain that is cybersquatted can cost from $1,000 to $100,000 in statutory damages. Read 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) over and over. Then read Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc. - 5:2009cv05151 USARWES Federal There you will see the lawsuit that will eventually end NameMedia's domain speculation and blatant cybersquatting. NameMedia is guilty of cybersquatting two of my trademarked domains. One was a common law trademark that has been used in business with the world's largest retailer. There is no question of law that needs to be tried. The only thing left to be tried is the amount of damages. My Federal Lawsuit was filed as a pauper and was provisionally approved already.

NameMedia Inc. dba BuyDomains intentionally committed the act of cybersquatting against me twice after being made aware that I felt violated. After NameMedia Inc. was advised of my distress and my disability, they sold eartheye for $2,300 after asking me to bid on my own trademarked domain. This sale was disclosed during the IPO that was announced and then retracted. This email dialog will be additional evidence of NameMedia's continued infliction of distress. I will use it to demonstrate a company that has a pattern of aggressive and malicious cybersquatting. Mr Zilinek Esq. told me it was his opinion that my common law trademark was insufficient and would not withstand a domain name challenge before a tribunal, but that I was welcome to bid on the domain.

I can demonstrate that eartheye was sold after I made Mr Zilinek aware of my belief that the domain was mine because of an existing trademark. There is no question that needs to be settled by a jury besides the amount of the punitive and exemplary damages. I have asked for a minimum of ten-million dollars in damages.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is hard to quantify. Can you prove that I am an InterNIC member like your closing alleges. I have several domains and, even with my with my reduced mental abilities, I do not think I have anything to do with InterNIC. Please do not contact me with a question that a reasonable juror will say demonstrates a further intentional infliction of emotional distress. I have seen two psychiatrist for suicidal concerns. I was admitted to the hospital once by ambulance. I have resolved to remain alive as I am and even without my domain name. I am not sure how much the psychiatrist feels that loss of my domain contributed to my distress. That will be an interesting to ask at a trial. I personally believe that psychiatrist are generally clueless.

I do not feel candy was worth three-million or that business was worth eight-million. A jury may not feel that a multi-million-dollar company inflicting additional emotional damages on a severely brain damaged and paralyzed person who was once a professional using eartheye.com for his photography and SleepSpot.com for his reservation software warrants nine-million and eight-hundred-thousand dollars in punitive damages. SleepSpot was going to quickly displace PriceLine in internet reservations. To answer your malicious email. I say; Who will ever know what it would have been worth?

A client of mine, who I have many invoices with eartheye.com on, donated construction of a handicap accessible house that is worth more than a quarter-million dollars now. There are about fifty businesses who will testify in court supporting my trademark. I will file for a summary judgment leaving only the amount of damages to be argued before a jury.

NameMedia cybersquatted on a pauper and NameMedia cybersquatted on a giant. You already lost to Cargills Inc. at a tribunal but are apparently thumbing your nose at them. With a seven-billion per year cash flow, it is hard for me to imagine that they won't testify supporting me during my punitive damages hearing. I do not need to imagine because I have contacted them today and legal there will call me back.

In case my disclaimer is overlooked in the normal course of your email reading, I want to let you know that I am severely brain damaged. I am not sure how much the results of my dealing with the stress and emotional damages that I felt when NameMedia intentionally ransomed my domains contributed to my divorce. I know that it did. The punitive and compensatory damages of losing a spouse and the loss of intimacy will be for the jury to guestimate. I am not sure how much the intentional emotional damages caused by NameMedia affected my suicidal tendencies. I am also not sure how much the intentional emotional damages caused by NameMedia affected my loss of a relationship with my two oldest children. That will be for the psychiatrists to guestimate. NameMedia was not responsible for me losing my legs or for causing my stroke. NameMedia had no responsibility for my paralysis or my severe TBI. NameMedia is directly responsible for my loss of income in commercial and artistic photography. NameMedia is directly responsible for my loss of two domains although I notified them of the situation!

I AM ANGRY AND DO NOT EVER WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU EXCEPT IN SETTLEMENT OFFERS. LETS START IN EXCESS OF THREE-MILLION DOLLARS.

Please make it a priority that I am not contacted again with a question about domain name value AGAIN. That is exactly why you are now defendants. You talk a lot about SEO?

Google:
BuyDomains eartheye
NameMedia lawsuit

NameMedia IPO lawsuit
NameMedia
Erik Zilinek
Peter Lamson - - twenty years experience? Hmmm

I do not use Yahoo, but still:
BuyDomains eartheye
NameMedia lawsuit

I hope to more than decimate your company incomes for a year. I would actually prefer to see NameMedia's executives in prison for five years. Would any of you invest in a company without Googling their name+IPO+lawsuit?

NameMedia IPO lawsuit I will save you the typing.

My losses that were intentionally inflicted by NameMedia after CONSIDERATION by their legal was many millions of dollars. Had Polanski not settled his lawsuit for 500,000 and a promise of silence from his rape victim. he would have been serving a life sentence. This act that NameMedia took against me will probably result in a bankruptcy. Maybe you will sell worthless stock first in the domain name frenzy you create by making names the next get-rich-quick scheme. I hope everyone in America is made aware of the way you distressed me on purpose!

I repeat......I AM ANGRY AND DO NOT EVER WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU EXCEPT IN SETTLEMENT OFFERS. LETS START IN EXCESS OF THREE-MILLION DOLLARS.

This will join my NameMedia BLOG. Email is NEVER private. LEAVE ME ALONE! I will be contacting my local prosecuting attorney.

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA

www.CurtisNeeley.com

Fayetteville, AR 72703

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Lamson [mailto:domains@buydomains.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:13 PM
To: curtis@curtisneeley.com

Subject: What is a Domain Worth?

If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view.
What is a Domain Worth?
Dear Curtis Neeley,

Please join us on October 22nd for our next Afternic webinar, where we will share the secrets of successful domain name pricing.

Participants in the "AfternicDLS Sales Secrets: How to Price Domain Names" webinar will learn how to:
Determine domain pricing objectives
Unlock the hidden brand value of domain names
Avoid common domain sales missteps such as pricing based upon traffic volumes or revenue multiples
Maximize your profits through proper determination of Asking, Reserve and Floor prices
Use of negotiation tactics designed to insure "win/win" outcomes for both buyer and seller
Enjoy domain sales results similar to those reported each week by AfternicDLS
The AfternicDLS "How to Price Domains" webinar will conclude with a question and answer session.

Title: AfternicDLS Sales Secrets: How to Price Domain Names
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2009
Time: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM EDT

We hope you can join us!

Sincerely,

Peter Lamson
Senior Vice President & General Manager
NameMedia Marketplace
plamson@namemedia.com
www.Afternic.com
FOLLOW US ON: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Afternic • 230 Third Avenue • Waltham • MA • 02451 • United States
866-351-9586 (US) 781-839-7990 (Worldwide)
Unsubscribe Instructions
You are receiving this email because you are a valued Afternic member. If you would like to be removed from this list, please click here.

1 comment | Leave a comment

28 September 2009 @ 02:14 pm

Rape is OK if you are a wealthy movie director like Polanski? Right Mrs Geimer.

A wealthy criminal is all he was then and a wealthy criminal is all he is now. At the time it happens Samantha reported that she was thinking then that she shouldn't be going to a second photo shoot with a man who already tried to shoot her nude but she was only a kid. She was barely a teen and thought if it wasn't okay, Polanski wouldn't tell her to do it. When it originally happened if Samantha had told her mom, her mom would never have let her return with Polanski for the second shoot.

When Polanski made another appointment a few weeks later, Samantha thought she had no reason to suspect anything but says she still didn't want to go. As a 13 year old that was trying to be a movie star she still thought it would be a good opportunity. Polanski took pictures, then he got in naked with her and she says that she was now thinking, "Oh, this is not right." I'm scared and woozy, so she told Polanki that she had asthma and to take her home. She went as far as too get out, and grab a towel, but Polanski didn't want to take her home yet.----

Polanski then gives the child drugs told her to lie down for a minute. 13-yr-old Smantha knew then that Polanski wanted to have sex and was not going to take no for an answer. She was drunk and afraid and didn't know what to do, so she just let him get nearer. They were interrupted briefly by Angelica Huston.

Afterward, Polanski came back and said, "Lay your cute, near-virgin butt back down," and Polanski took off 13-yr-old Samantha's underwear. Polanski had been interrupted, so he stuck it in her anus to relieve himself without a danger of inseminating Samantha —then Polanski went back to talk to Angelica. -----

Samantha got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. Polanski took Samantha home and told her, "Don't tell your mom about your seducing me."

When her mom overheard Samantha telling her boyfriend about the sex with the director on the phone, the mother called the police after verifying it with Samantha.

The rest is history..., "Convicted child's rapist eludes police and continues to be a wealthy, privileged director."

Read Samantha's LA Grand Jury testimony as a searchable PDF from 1977. Samantha just wants it all to end. I bet his arrest is worth several million for her today.

The linked PDF was generated by running Adobe Acrobat OpticalCharacterRecognition ran on scans of the released documents. Some of the text was left as image data if the scan was too hard to read.

Leave a comment

06 September 2009 @ 08:41 pm

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

I assume you are familiar with SUMO? Originally it was limited to a publication of 10,000 books? The original SUMO is sold out but the publisher lists it for $15,000 <<Go see

10K books at $15K is $150 Million dollars!

June Newton is going to re-release the book in a smaller format as a ten year anniversary edition later this year by the same publisher?
Pre-order it now at Barnes & Noble - - - Pub. Date: October 02, 2002
Go see it at $102 instead of $15,000.00
the now not-so-limited edition SUMO ?

It flies in the face of an email I got from the publisher’s sex book editor recently. It was an email alleging a requirement for originality by the publisher.

Suppose I had the money to purchase the book SUMO. It is too big to even sit and look at because it was so original? Now a newer, smaller, more accessible edition of the very same book is released by the same publisher and is another allegedly limited-edition run? It is offered for 1/100^th the $15,000 price you see on the original publisher’s site.

Spend around 10-15 thousand on one oversize SUMO book or buy 100 copies of the same photography in a more useful size? The publisher just screwed owners of the not-so-limited edition SUMO. If I had bought a SUMO for that much more than the publisher just made it worth by printing the book again, I would want to take legal action. Detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment are the first two torts that pop into mind. I imagine they will face one or the other within next year.

Ralph Gibson does some very nice books that are possibly superior to mine. They are done by the publisher who I contend gets very few submissions like mine or like his regardless of the ridiculous and intentionally malicious claim in the email.

Gibson’s photos and my photos are not intentionally erotic. The sex book editor ssaid (s)he was not rejecting mine because they were unsolicited. They were rejecting them because photos like mine are the most common approach to erotic photography and not original enough?
This from a sex book editor?

Yes, but from a sex book editor who works at a company that re-releases a new edition of what was once a limited-edition book? A book that consisted of numerous photographs that were previously published. A bogus claim for an originality requirement from a publisher who re-releases a limited edition of a book that was full of unoriginal photographs to begin with?

What an interesting and revealing line. Did it make them somehow feel better to say this? It made me angry. Grrrr. I would prefer to have received a disclaimer along with the insulting email. The editor felt my disclaimer was near genius? I suggested they might try one like this - - -

****DISCLAIMER*****
As the sex book editor I am faced with politely issuing very many rejections each day. Sometimes I have so many to issue that it begins to preclude even looking at the submissions I am rejecting. My replies might reflect having not looked at your photography. I hope that is not the case but often it must seem that way.

Trying to claim a requirement for originality is too ridiculous now to even fit in a disclaimer for a publisher who re-issues a book that was a compilation of previously published photos in the first place.

I retracted any submission they may have gotten by me. I perceive as obvious the fact that they did not even glance at it. I would not let them print my book now at all. It is printed to rigorous quality control standards and is beyond that of their usual printers. It costs too much per square inch for the quality I demand.

Perhaps the Curtis Neeley Foundation will have them reprint it in ten years? I hope I am not dead enough for that to have a remote chance from happening.

I did not include my disclaimer in my message to them or here because I was hoping to help begin the unpleasant realization the sex book editors should now begin to feel. I have not mentioned the name of the publisher of SUMO out of courtesy.

Please do not use their name in any comment. Comments will be edited or deleted if I do not like them. This post was re-done to ensure this control.

My Limited-edition is actually limited and guaranteed to exceed SUMO in aesthetic quality as determined by a majority of any random survey of fifty people or I will give the purchaser a a refund plus $50. My book uses 100lb. paper and is a hard cover. I am not satisfied with a printer just yet due to bindery issues.

A preview PDF of MINE is online. It is too low a resolution to print very big. ~PDF
Am I over-confident? I say put-up or shut-up! I do not just show you a few images. Match my guarantee? Didn't think so.
Figurenude is all online.
I plan to redo the pages so the text is readable without a print quality PDF.

BUY FRAMED Open Editions of Curtis Neeley Art photography

Leave a comment

30 August 2009 @ 01:01 am

The now not-so-limited edition of SUMO.

The now not-so-limited edition of SUMO

Leave a comment

26 July 2009 @ 06:26 pm

Curtis Neeley sues NameMedia for cybersquatting!

NameMedia renewed domains I once owned and used commercially that expired while I was incapacitated by a traumatic brain injury{TBI }.

1997
Eartheye Dec 22

Curtis Neeley had just begun Earth Eye Images and doing published photography business with companies like Wal-Mart

1998
Eartheye Dec 5

Curtis redid eartheye website to reflect is commercial photography.
This was a particularly difficult time for Curtis because of a divorce.

1999
Eartheye Apr 23
1999
Eartheye Oct 13

The eartheye site was largely unchanged during this time as Curtis faught custody a battle and ,pved his home and his studio Here you see Curtis first incorporating his fine art nudes at eartheye with a warning entry. As Curtis looks back at these nudes, he sees too much erotica by himself in this earlier development as an artist.
Oct 1999 Here you can see the nude link removed and a discouraging message to models with no nudes.

2000
SleepSpot Mar 04

I see my first business use of SleepSpot.

2000
Eartheye Aug 17

Here was a site consisting primarily of nudes. Here we also see a mentioning of SEX and BONDAGE although none of it was shown. [THANK GOD]

2001
CurtsNeeley June 14, 2001

Presenting only wedding photos with no nudes linked from here. I suppose people are not wanting to see nudes when looking for a wedding photographer.

2001
Eartheye Feb 02

This is now where I decided to place my nudes and here you see a link to CurtisNeeley called commercial. I had first used the word figurative to describe my photographs as well as the term nude. Here you will also see of a very limited edition book "In His Own Image"
I wonder Who's image I was referring to?

2001
SleepSpot.com

I had visited Dineyland and SleepSpot was handling room reservations for the Orlando Howard Johnson. I was also a software inventor. [CIRS] PriceLine was about to have competition from SleepSpot using software I wrote!

2001
CurtisRes
March 31, 2001

First use of this logo and a desciption of a software system that was an attempt to change the way the internet was used to find a place to sleep.

2002
Eartheye
Jan 27, 2002

Here you see this site concentrating on my photography of the nude. You could not arrive here from CurtisNeeley as of Feb 11, 2002. There were no links from CurtisNeeley on this date.

2002
CurtisNeeley
Feb 11,2002

There were no links to eartheye from CurtisNeeley on this date.

2002
CurtisNeeley
August 10, 2002

This was 24 days before I was in the wreck of Sep 3, 2002. From here you see a link to eartheye Aug 10, 2002 where the nudes were kept. To reach them you had to agree to see nude art or pass a warning screen.

2002
Car Wreck

Sept 03, 2002

Here you will see my tiny car. The mutilated front side is on the left. I was not drunk and neither was the other driver. I was severely brain damaged. I was unresponsive and in a coma for just over six weeks. Here you me see me with the ventilator attachment still in my trachea.

2003
NameMedia
Aug 31 2003

Cybersquatting eartheye There was nothing there but a [for sale] sign.
This is evidence that they used my established domain for no use other than to sell it at a profit.

2003

St Vincent's
Aug 31, 2003
2003

Here you see me with post-comatose amnesia. You can see the feeding tube and my children. I did not remember any of them and do not to this day. Two are step-children by my second wife. One of them is having a birthday. My second wife had removed me from the ventilator that was my life-support so that I could finish death after six unresponsive weeks. While my brother held my hand and I lay dying, he thought I squeezed. He asked a neurologist to check and was told it was only a random reaction of a dying man. He then said that if I was there I would respond to a verbal request for air. He stated something like, "If you are there and can hear us and are trying to breath, give us a'Thumbs-Up'", and it is said that I did. That is only a interesting bit of trivia I use no to support a new artistic theme of the nude figure. I call it "Thumbs-Up".

2004
eartheye
June 22 2004

On the birthday of the brother who held my hand you can see eartheye being cybersquatted by NameMedia d/b/a BuyDomains. The scrolling page title is not there but all it still says is that its for sale.

2004
sleepspot
June 08, 2004

NameMedia d/b/a BuyDomain has the domain archived while demonstrating only that it is being cybersquatted.

2005
CurtisNeeley
Sept 11 2005

Here you see my Earth Eye Images Studio operating.
In use for commerce!

2006
CurtisNeeley
Sept 11 2005

Here you see my Earth Eye Images Studio operating.In use for commerce!

2007
Eeartheye
Feb 08, 2007

NameMedia d/b/a BuyDomains ask you to call 781-839-7903 or 866-866-2700 to buy the domain. The archive does not have the 2005 or 2006 ransom notes.
It was still only for sale four years later.

2007
NameMedia d/b/a BuyDomain
Nov 29, 2007

Domain consultant responds to my advisement of prior ownership of domain Eartheye by asking me to speak to NameMedia legal. They contacted me again in 2007. I have that for evidence! I told them that the domains were previously used by me in business and that I would gladly pay renewal fees and trade another domain for their return. They said the domains were now "premium" domains and ....
BuyDomains wanted 2600 or greater.

2009
NameMedia d/b/a BuyDomain
Jan 26, 2009

Let BuyDomains remind you that our Winter Savings Event will continue through January 31, 2009. Spectacular discounts are available by calling our Domain Consultants at 866-846-5099 US) 339-222-5121 Worldwide). by VP Sales
[This after being aware of my disability and claim to domain.]

2009
[NameMedia
Erik Zilinek
Feb 13, 2009 ]

Erik wrote his legal opinion and decided that he as the familioar lawyer knew my claim was in error after research?

2009
eartheye
July 27, 2009

Earth Eye LLC purchased the domain and are now using it to conduct business. I wonder how much they paid for the domain?

Lawsuit    Lawsuit    Lawsuit
Lawsuit Lawsuit   Lawsuit
Lawsuit    Lawsuit    Lawsuit

I am very angry and want to punish the people who I found responsible for killing my domain with a prison term. Money will only mitigate this and help me establish a foundation for a legacy.

My domains were active for six years or more. It is recorded in the Internet Archive back a dozen years or 1997! See the imeline above.
NameMedia killed my domains! My legacy was destroyed by NameMedia! NameMedia kidnapped my domains and asked me for $2600 ransom.

When I could not pay what NameMedia said it was worth, they sold it to a company that then started to use the domain to begin their business.

NameMedia cybersquatted both my domains to death!
I am suing NameMedia and asking for a ....minimum of TEN MILLION DOLLARS.

I would prefer to see NameMedia's responsible employees go to jail!

I am not wanting to look into a domain dispute "tribunal" like their attorney referred to using. They are very familiar with that tribe. The primary TRIBE they use for "resolving" disputes is simply another part of the problem.

The Supreme Court needs to finally clean up these underhanded domain name kidnappers. I filed in the Western District of Arkansas United States Court last week. A Federal Lawsuit for my peers to decide! Grrr! Not a tribe!
I demand a JURY! Read the suit as initially filed.
Lawsuit

I am suing as a poor, legless, brain injured, and paralyzed, pauper! I asked to proceed without paying. I was provisionally approved! I forgot to sign the thing. Oops! Brain injuries are a bother.
==============================================
YOU ARE MY COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!
==============================================

Leave a comment

22 July 2009 @ 08:11 pm

Earth Eye Images letterhead

I have brochures used for commercial photography by
Earth Eye Images Studio also. I will scan those and post them.
eartheye.com used to be my website and NameMedia
cybersquatted it for seven years till a new business
made it pay off to cybersquat.

Leave a comment

18 July 2009 @ 11:36 am

Summary judgement!

There are no questions of law that require proof that will prevent the plaintiff from receiving desired relief. The only things left is an illustration of damages and presenting arguements for the need for exemplary damages to prevent NameMedia from damaging others as their normal course of business.

I am accepting donations.

Eartheye.com(Oct 13, 1999) See the archive as my old studio site started to separate my fine art and other.
Eartheye(Nov 12,2000) Here you see it as the domain I was starting to use mostly for my version of art. (Nudes here)
CurtisNeeley(June 14, 2001) My photography websites were starting to split from my fine art completely for the first time. Here you only see my wedding photography
CurtisNeeley.com(May 28, 2002) ONLY my commercial photos.
CurtisNeeley.com(Nov 26, 2002)My commercial photos with a link to Eartheye via a WARNING about nudity. I was unresponsive and in a coma Nov 26,2002.

Eartheye(Aug 31, 2003)First Internet archive of NameMedia's cybersquatting eartheye. I was a post-comatose invalid.
St Vincent(Aug 31 2002) The jury will be interested in seeing me with a feeding tube still attached on my step-daughter's birthday.

SleepSpot(Mar 4,2000)
SleepSpot(Sept 25 2002) The jury will be interested in knowing
that I was in a coma and unresponsive on my 34th BIRTHDAY when it still looked OK!
SleepSpot(Oct 31 2003) The jury will be interested in seeing this
domain being first archived while being ransomed to an incompetent disabled.

I was once a [CIRS]software designer who was trying to sort my figure art photography from my other photography?

Eartheye Lawsuit

Leave a comment

16 July 2009 @ 12:57 am

Eartheye Lawsuit

To: Erik Zilinek
Cc: Peter Lamson; Jason Miner
Subject: Domain Name cybersquatting lawsuit... <eartheye.com>

Dear Mr Zilinek,

Please see the attached letter . Ignore it if you want, this is not a threat of a tortuous interference with business like you warned me about doing. The attached documents were filed in The Western District of Arkansas United States Court already. I hope in Middlesex, MA a US Marshall will soon serve it to you.

I hope the results of this lawsuit forever ends this portion of NameMedia's business completely and prevents anyone else from suffering the type emotional damages NameMedia put me through already intentionally and after much consideration as you stated in your email to me.

Sincerely,

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA

www.CurtisNeeley.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.

Page 1 of 2
Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801
January 30, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXX Quality Lane, Suite xxx
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>
Dear Mr. Neeley:
Reference is made to your recent correspondence to the executives of the wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary of NameMedia, Inc. (“NameMedia”) concerning the <eartheye.com> domain name registration. NameMedia and its subsidiaries register and offer for sale domain names that have expired and/or have become available to the public and they do so in good faith. NameMedia’s policy is to register and maintain only domain names that incorporate common acronyms, words, or phrases and/or descriptive terms for which the available evidence suggests no single party has exclusive rights.
Searches of the trademark databases maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), the World Intellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO”) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (the “OHIM”) reveal neither your currently registered nor present application for an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark. Tribunals at the WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum (the “NAF”) have routinely recognized the principle that the Rules under a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)proceeding require that a domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which a party has rights.
By contrast, in order for a party to bring a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”), the party must not only own a trademark, but that mark must be either distinctive or famous. If you have evidence to suggest that you registered, or applied for
Page 2 of 2
an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark prior to NameMedia’s registration of the subject domain name, or if you have evidence of your trademark’s fame or distinctiveness, we will certainly consider such evidence. Without such evidence, however, a court will likely find that on July 2, 2003—more than five and half (5.5) years ago—NameMedia acquired the subject domain name in good faith and without notice of any competing claims when the previous registration lapsed.
Thus any assertion of bad faith at the time of NameMedia’s registration of the domain would likely fail because there is no evidence that your company is either well-known in NameMedia’s jurisdiction; well-known in a field in which NameMedia operates; or that the similarity between the <eartheye.com> domain name and your company name was deliberately created by NameMedia. Accordingly, it appears that there is no legal reason why NameMedia should not maintain its <eartheye.com> domain name registration should it choose to do so.
This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of these matters and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims— including, but not limited to, defamation and tortious interference with business contracts—NameMedia has against you or any entities associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.
Sincerely,

Erik S. Zilinek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eartheye Lawsuit

Leave a comment

05 July 2009 @ 08:27 pm

Donate to fund my lawsuit?

Erik S. Zilinek wrote me and chose a lawsuit. I hope he did not think I would mistake WIPO to be a valid domain name dispute resolution process. It is just part of the way you all establish fictitious "real estate" values. I have not saved enough money yet to file in the Arkansas Western District of United States Court, but I will sue for many millions of dollars. I am considering allowing other firms to join me and perhaps even take the lead. Several have now asked and you will probably hear from one soon. Eventually none of NameMedia's officers who became wealthy using these malicious type actions will remain wealthy.

I am more than a little upset. I suppose this will all eventually be part of the evidence regarding my mental anguish. I struggle to type this with my one normal arm in a wheelchair or from a hospital bed.

Maybe you knew there was an interest in the domain by the PERSON who originally registered it? Did they advise you I was still interested? NameMedia is not doing as well with sleepspot that they also stole from me while I was incapacitated. I will give you folks a bit of a clue about how it was once very valuable to me. There was once even a copyright notice. NameMedia ignored that warning. Eartheye is common law trademarked to me as well and I intend to bring a copyright/trademark violation TORT as well. Yes, Mr. Zilinek, I intend to sue NameMedia for their violation.

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,

Website archive of years leading up to my accident. {Nudity in all these linked archives}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Archives of the years after it was kidnapped and offered for ransom by NameMedia, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am more than a little upset!

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com
XXXX Quality Ln, Ste XXX
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Voice: XXX-XXX-XXXX

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.

Page 1 of 2
Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, Massachusetts 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801
January 30, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXX Quality Lane, Suite xxx
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703

Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>

Dear Mr. Neeley:

Reference is made to your recent correspondence to the executives of the wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary of NameMedia, Inc. (“NameMedia”) concerning the <eartheye.com> domain name registration. NameMedia and its subsidiaries register and offer for sale domain names that have expired and/or have become available to the public and they do so in good faith. NameMedia’s policy is to register and maintain only domain names that incorporate common acronyms, words, or phrases and/or descriptive terms for which the available evidence suggests no single party has exclusive rights.

Searches of the trademark databases maintained by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), the World Intellectual Property Organization (the “WIPO”) and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (the “OHIM”) reveal neither your currently registered nor present application for an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark. Tribunals at the WIPO and the National Arbitration Forum (the “NAF”) have routinely recognized the principle that the Rules under a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)proceeding require that a domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which a party has rights.

By contrast, in order for a party to bring a claim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the “ACPA”), the party must not only own a trademark, but that mark must be either distinctive or famous. If you have evidence to suggest that you registered, or applied for

Page 2 of 2

an “earth eye” or “eartheye” trademark prior to NameMedia’s registration of the subject domain name, or if you have evidence of your trademark’s fame or distinctiveness, we will certainly consider such evidence. Without such evidence, however, a court will likely find that on July 2, 2003—more than five and half (5.5) years ago—NameMedia acquired the subject domain name in good faith and without notice of any competing claims when the previous registration lapsed.

Thus any assertion of bad faith at the time of NameMedia’s registration of the domain would likely fail because there is no evidence that your company is either well-known in NameMedia’s jurisdiction; well-known in a field in which NameMedia operates; or that the similarity between the <eartheye.com> domain name and your company name was deliberately created by NameMedia. Accordingly, it appears that there is no legal reason why NameMedia should not maintain its <eartheye.com> domain name registration should it choose to do so.

This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of these matters and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims— including, but not limited to, defamation and tortious interference with business contracts—NameMedia has against you or any entities associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.

Sincerely,
Erik S. Zilinek

Page 1 of 2

Erik S. Zilinek
Legal Counsel
NameMedia, Inc.
230 Third Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451
ezilinek@namemedia.com
T: (781) 839-2860
F: (781) 839-2801

February 13, 2009
VIA E-MAIL ONLY

Curtis J. Neeley, Jr., M.F.A.
d/b/a Curtis Neeley Photography
XXXX N Quality Lane, Suite XXX
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Re: NameMedia, Inc. d/b/a BuyDomains.com: <eartheye.com>

Dear Mr. Neeley:

Upon further consideration and review of the circumstances surrounding NameMedia’s registration and use of the subject domain name, NameMedia is maintaining its position as previously stated. NameMedia’s use of the domain name has been legitimate and proper and in no way impinges on your rights. Since NameMedia registered, and is using, the domain name in good faith, we consider that a tribunal would not preclude NameMedia from retaining or continuing to use the domain.

To that end, all potential buyers of domain names held by NameMedia are routinely referred to the Sales Team at its wholly-owned BuyDomains.com subsidiary. Our Sales Team has indicated that your offer of <ozarkphotos.net> in exchange for the subject domain name is not acceptable. If you would like to negotiate the sale of the domain further, please contact the Sales Team at BuyDomains.com.

This letter is sent solely in the interest of promoting an amicable settlement of this matter and nothing contained herein should be construed or understood as an admission or waiver of any kind. NameMedia reserves all legal, equitable and administrative rights, remedies and defenses available and this letter is sent without waiver of any claims or counterclaims NameMedia has

Page 2 of 2

against you client, or any entities or individuals associated therewith. I remain at your disposal should you have any questions or additional legal concerns.

Sincerely,

Erik S. Zilinek

-----Original Message that helped recover my memories-----
From: Jason Miner [mailto:domains@buydomains.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:15 PM
Subject: Winter Savings Event - get great savings on eartheye.com
Dear Curtis Neeley,

Let BuyDomains remind you that our Winter Savings Event will continue through January 31, 2009.
Spectacular discounts are available by calling our Domain Consultants at 866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide).
These discounts do not appear on the BuyDomains website, so call us now to get eartheye.com or any other domain in our inventory!
Best wishes to a successful New Year!
Jason Miner
VP Sales
www.BuyDomains.com
jminer@buydomains.com
866-846-5099 (US)
339-222-5121 (Worldwide)

1 comment | Leave a comment

27 May 2009 @ 08:26 am

Scull Creek trail...

Looks like a wall is too short?

Looks like the wall won't be too short for long?

Leave a comment

18 May 2009 @ 09:21 am

Michael Peven - some of his confidential information

See as HTML at http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/BLOG

Daum Museum be aware Michael Peven, who showed there May 30, 2003 - September 13, 2003 and is in the permanent collection with confidential information. Michael Peven first published pornography in the guise of art in 1979 and still promotes it today? How did that slip by your curatorial staff? I would think a show underwritten by the Missouri Art Council would not promote an artist who did "art" of that sort. I believed the Museum is almost in the buckle of the Bible belt. I do not even find a nude at the museum site. They presented an artist who shot "his" erect penis as art five years before they added some of his confidential information twenty-six years ago? .

He pulled a set of artist books that resembled match books and called them "snatches". He published these with his erect penis on display at the University of Arkansas server for several months, the Daum museum can be excused for missing his porn. Large images of a dog printed spread across various pieces on a wall? Good Dog was so far ahead of its time. Its time might not get here this century. Leave it to the Daum Museum to preserve his past art masterpiece of dog snapshots in the old exhibit section.

At least it wasn't his erect penis printed on a wall divided across several frames.
buen perro, buon cane, goede hond, guter Hund, bon chien, good dog; translated enough they are still only snapshot of a dog. Pevin has his confidential information in the museum collection. It is not his erect penis. It is still a low-grade erotic snapshot. It is less vulgar but it is typical Michael Peven fare. They are from five years after his snatches were published. He had his erect penis put away by then. You guys have been fooled and on his resume for twenty-six years. That is almost as long as he fooled the University of Arkansas.

The University of Arkansas cleared their server of his pornography within 24 hours of the first complaint of 2009. His masterpiece confidential information in your collection stamps your approval on his reputation. Lands you in his resume. With Daum museum's help, who will he deceive next?

Below was the alert the University of Arkansas got.
Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography!

Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.
So is Michael Peven's : ERECT PENIS.

Michael Peven works at the University of Arkansas Art Department and publishes pornographic photographs.

Michael Peven has been employed at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years. What a waste of taxpayer money! To study photography at the University of Arkansas a person implies an approval of Michael Peven’s pornography masquerading as art!

Michael Peven's pornography will offend the morals of any reasonable juror and even those who are the most accepting of the nude as art. Michael Peven continues to lead the University of Arkansas in non-photography after more than a quarter century as its figurehead.

Michael Peven must feel publishing erotica and pornography will not harm his career. It probably won't. We will see soon enough. Someone should explain why the University of Arkansas has wasted so much money on Michael Peven for thirty years.

The University of Arkansas made a severe error hiring Michael Peven as a photo instructor.

Donors might decide instead to support a new NWA Crystal Bridges Museum of visual art?

Michael Peven took a photo of a semi-nude male, along with an erect penis, and printed it on a simulated matchbook. Michael Peven then calls it a snatchbook. Michael Peven first published pornographic photos of his erect penis about thirty years ago. Michael Peven still offers it for public viewing. It was removed from the University of Arkansas website after complaints that minors were not even warned! The porn once found on the University of Arkansas server is still linked below on a server of a book seller. It was first pulled from the University of Arkansas server but it was removed after receiving a public complaint. The green text below accompanied the vulgar images.

A set of six oversize styled matchbooks featuring well known US landmarks and monuments on the front flip cover. Also titled "SNATCHES”, the sexual wordplay hints at the subtext, here laid out not beneath the surface but under the (matchbook) covers, that suggests a less than Puritan take of some of Us' more famous and revered erections

Michael Peven initially published pornography two years after the University hired him thirty-two years ago? Michael Peven markets these "snatches" today! Artist books are what Michael Peven's Masters Degree is in and NOT photography!

His art book series called "snatches" are a vulgar publication! Michael Peven has been a pornographer paid as a photo instructor by the University of Arkansas for thirty years after his erect penis photo was published. An erection shown inside what he calls a "snatch" is not a nude study as art. It is a photo of an erection. How many donors will still be donors after they see his vulgarity that they have paid for? Perhaps they have not noticed?

Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography. I call it all three. Michael Peven's vulgar publication was first thirty years ago. In these hard economic times, the erect penis Michael Peven publishes a photo of will be all the evidence anyone needs to introduce. Removing the "snatches" marketing now will not help Michael Peven's morals. It might stop his continuing to repel potential students and donors to the University of Arkansas?

How much does it matter who the penis was owned by? Michael Peven's site on the University of Arkansas server once showed them with no warning to minors. It was removed after several protests. It should be easy to find artistic photography done by the photo instructor at a major university? It isn't.

How many have sought an MFA in photography in Michael Peven's thirty-two years?
How many more might have come if he were gone?

Why would the University of Arkansas hire a man publishing PORNOGRAPHY to teach photography?
THEY DID!
Michael Peven has no degree in photography, but teaches it.
An Artist Book/Photography MFA was close as Arkansas could get to photography? I hope it is not for long.
Michael Peven being offered and then accepting an early retirement would solve the University's dilemma. Will Michael Peven's departure from the University be fast enough and quiet enough to avoid a loss of donors? I doubt that.

How many school teachers were fired for nude photos that were not as vulgar as done by Michael Peven while a college art professor?

Here are examples found quickly on the internet. (1)(2)(3)(4)(...)

If an acceptable instructor replaced him, more artists might pursue a degree at the University of Arkansas?

The pornographer employed by the Art Department at the University of Arkansas will be hard to ignore.

Michael Peven's history as a publisher of pornography and Michael Peven's current lack of morality as demonstrated by his publishing his penis photo he took thirty years ago will be glaring.

What will the Walton family or other large donors think about donating after reading of this issue?

Michael Peven could be dismissed for cause or otherwise replaced in the event he refuses to cease publishing his pornographic 'snatchbooks'?

Help end Michael Peven allowing nudity displaying sexuality to be excused in the guise of art.

Curtis only recently encountered Michael Peven's blatant pornography being passed off as an artist book. Curtis found this while promoting his book "Figurenude".

Curtis Neeley became outraged and compelled to act to avoid appearing to condone Michael Peven's definition of art and Michael Peven's blatant misuse of nude photography. As a serious area photographer who feels nudes can be art, Curtis Neeley must protest very loudly.

Are University of Arkansas staff already letting Michael Peven publish his ERECTION and hiding it behind the mask of art?
Before Curtis Neeley's complaint, Michael Peven's penis was seen publicly on the University of Arkansas' own server?

Image was removed from the University server eleven hours or so after Curtis Neeley's complaint.

Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.
So is his: ERECT PENIS.

Leave a comment

16 May 2009 @ 09:38 am

Michael Peven, a photography instructor at the University of Arkansas

Malfeasance? Michael Peven, a photography instructor at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years, taught thirty years after his first use of pornography!

Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online although they were removed from the University of Arkansas uark.edu server.
So is his: ERECT PENIS.

Michael Peven works at the University of Arkansas Art Department and publishes pornographic photographs.

Michael Peven has been employed at the University of Arkansas for thirty-two years. What a waste of taxpayer money! To study photography at the University of Arkansas a person implies an approval of Michael Peven’s pornography masquerading as art! Michael Peven's pornography will offend the morals of any reasonable juror and even those who are the most accepting of the nude as art. Michael Peven continues to lead the University of Arkansas in non-photography after more than a quarter century as its figurehead.

Universities should be a place for open, messy debates? Someone should explain why the University of Arkansas has wasted so much money on Michael Peven for thirty years. I feel the University of Arkansas made a severe error hiring Michael Peven as a photo instructor. Donors might decide instead to support a new NWA Crystal Bridges Museum of visual art?

Michael Peven took a photo of a semi-nude male, along with an erect penis, and printed it on a simulated matchbook. Michael Peven then calls it a snatchbook. Michael Peven first published pornographic photos of his erect penis about thirty years ago. Michael Peven still offers it for public viewing. It was removed from the University of Arkansas website after a complaint that minors were not even warned! The pornography professor Peven did that was once found on the University of Arkansas server is still linked below on a server of a book seller. It was first pulled from the University of Arkansas server. It was removed after receiving a public complaint. The green text below accompanied the vulgar images.

A set of six oversize styled matchbooks featuring well known US landmarks and monuments on the front flip cover. Also titled "SNATCHES”, the sexual wordplay hints at the subtext, here laid out not beneath the surface but under the (matchbook) covers, that suggests a less than Puritan take of some of Us' more famous and revered erections

Michael Peven initially published pornography two years after the University hired him thirty-two years ago? Michael Peven markets these "snatches" still today! Artist books are what Michael Peven's MFA is in!

His art book series, he calls "snatches" is a vulgar publication! Michael Peven has been a pornographer paid as a photo instructor by the University of Arkansas for thirty years after his erect penis photo was published in 1979. An erection shown inside what he calls a "snatch" is not a nude study as art. It is a photo of an erection. How many donors will still be donors after they see his vulgarity that they have paid for? Perhaps they have not noticed?

Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography. I call it all three. Michael Peven's vulgar publication was first thirty years ago. In these hard economic times, the erect penis Michael Peven publishes a photo of will be all the evidence anyone needs to introduce. Removing the "snatches" marketing now will not help Michael Peven's morals. It might stop his continuing to repel potential students and donors to the University of Arkansas?

How much does it matter who the penis was owned by? Michael Peven's site on the University of Arkansas server once showed it with no warning to minors. It was removed after a protest. It should be easy to find artistic photography done by the photo instructor at a major university? It isn't.

How many have sought an MFA in photography in Michael Peven's thirty-two years?
How many more might have come if he were gone?

Why would the University of Arkansas hire a man publishing PORNOGRAPHY to teach photography?
THEY DID!

Michael Peven has no degree in photography, but teaches it.

An Artist Book/Photography MFA was as close as Arkansas could get to photographer?

Michael Peven being offered and then accepting an early retirement would solve the University's dilemma. Would Michael Peven's departure from the University be fast enough and quiet enough to avoid a loss of donors? I doubt that. How many school teachers were fired for nude photos that were not as vulgar as done by Michael Peven while a college art professor?

Here are examples found quickly on the internet. (1)(2)(3)(4)(...)

If an acceptable instructor replaced him, more artists might pursue a degree at the University of Arkansas?

The pornographer employed by the Art Department at the University of Arkansas will be hard to ignore. Michael Peven's history as a publisher of pornography and Michael Peven's current lack of morality, as is demonstrated by his currently publishing his penis photo taken thirty years ago, will be glaring.

What will the Walton family or other large donors think about donating after reading of this issue? Michael Peven could be dismissed for cause or otherwise replaced in the event he refuses to cease publishing his pornographic 'snatchbooks'?

Michael Peven is a university photography professor allowing nudity displaying sexuality to be excused in the guise of art. I only recently encountered Michael Peven's blatant pornography being passed off as an artist book. I found this while promoting my book of fineart nudes. "Figurenude".

I became outraged and compelled to act to avoid appearing to condone Michael Peven's definition of art and Michael Peven's blatant misuse of nude photography. As a serious NWA area photographer who feels nudes can be art, I feel I must protest very loudly.

Are University of Arkansas staff already letting Michael Peven publish his ERECTION and hiding it behind the mask of art?
Before my complaint, Michael Peven's penis was seen publicly on the University of Arkansas' own publicly funded server? Image was removed from the University server about eleven hours after my complaint.

Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.
So is his: ERECT PENIS.

Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA

www.CurtisNeeley.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: Curtis Neeley suffers from a severe traumatic brain injury that impedes the way he communicates. He is often perceived as blunt, self-centered and rude. Although Curtis has a disability, he is determined to continue performing meaningful art.
---------------------------------------

Figurenude.com

Romans 14:16 -
“Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil.”

Leave a comment

14 May 2009 @ 10:52 am

another rainy - day gives me time .....

There appeared to be water over the trail!

There WAS!
but I made the poor judgement call
and yes those tracks coming out of the water
are mine.
There should be a sign.

me trying to paint...

"attempt 14"
Need a basis for shapes
because- I don't draw well.

I will use this to paint the barn...
sucess or close enough to please me.
It was for my mother's day gift.

Leave a comment

11 May 2009 @ 08:46 pm

It rained yesterday and the day b4 and b4

A couple of days ago it had a bit of a flood.

It was pretty deep by the bridge.
I just told him to keep his shorts dry.

He wanted to get his hair wet....

His hair is wet and shorts are still dry.

Leave a comment

08 May 2009 @ 08:53 pm

Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography by Michael Peven

Malfeasance. Stupidity? Pornography!

Michael Peven's artist book series he calls SNATCHES are still online.
So is his ERECT PENIS.