CurtisNeeley

Rapist Polanski's house arrest is a splendid captivity isn't it?

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:18:43 GMT

Roman Polanski Raped a 13 year old girl and has been excused by the public?
He has a daughter several years older than the girl he raped.
Polanski's house arrest is a splendid captivity
Read the rape description and search for climax to find the .. .Ah...err. CLIMAX!

Part of 1977 Grand Jury Testimony transcript as a
text searchable PDF about
RAPIST POLANSKI

Roman Polanski should be especiallty thankful!

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:46:37 GMT

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.

House un-building

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:37:32 GMT

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

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:29:52 GMT

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.

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:43:12 GMT

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.

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:38:01 GMT

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

off the mountain in G'mas House Cafe parking lot

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:34:32 GMT

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.

Scull Creek Trail....Slideshow

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:29:50 GMT

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.

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:13:26 GMT

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.

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:18:42 GMT

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.

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:38:56 GMT

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

The now not-so-limited edition of SUMO.

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:59:32 GMT

The now not-so-limited edition of SUMO

Curtis Neeley sues NameMedia for cybersquatting!

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:25:13 GMT

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

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!
==============================================

Earth Eye Images letterhead

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:11:51 GMT

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.

Summary judgement!

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:35:38 GMT

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:57:00 GMT

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

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

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

Donate to fund my lawsuit?

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:24:22 GMT

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

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

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)

Scull Creek trail...

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:25:51 GMT

Looks like a wall is too short?

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

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

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:50:47 GMT

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.

It rained yesterday and the day b4 and b4

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Tue, 12 May 2009 01:46:36 GMT

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.

April fools

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:09:21 GMT

Nails are easy to pull out compared to woodscrews.
Who would guess they were needed?
April fools. Maybe it won't fall again?

Barn goes up quick if all the boards are already cut?
Do you think dad used screws to keep it up longer?
Can you tell I only had one photo build a going up show with?
This would have been easier with several instead of one.
barn-rebuilt.swf = FLASH link.

new barn fell

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:51:38 GMT

Who would guess that when
Spring breaks...

A newly built barn might break too?
Dad said the new barn fell and sent a phone pic.
new barnstormed.swf = FLASH link.

Spring break...

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:41:02 GMT

Dad's new barn after about one week of work.

Out in the woods with my 4 X 4

E walking by the stream to dad's pond.

E tied up and on the train track. Ha.

4 X 4 'Walk' w/T

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:40:05 GMT

I went for a walk on Scull Creek Trail. /\/\/\/\

I was in my EXTREME 4 X 4, but will never try this steep a trail segment! /\/\/\/\/\

My next museum quality photo is somewhere about here I bet. I will find out tomorrow - I hope. /\/\/\/\

This is as close as I got today. :-(

I went down to below the bridge at the Creek. This is looking down at me from the bridge. /\/\/\/\

This is below the bridge looking back up. I thought I would never see this so I took a photo although it is only to document a scene I saw. /\/\/\/\/\

This is four photos stitched together with Canon PhotoStitch but was shot with an Olympus SP-350. /\/\/\/\

Perfectionist...?

curtisjneeley@curtisneeley.com — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:29:27 GMT

This looks a little better than the pic below in the first frame. The second is a bit rough still, but I think this is finally done.

CurtisNeeley

Rapist Polanski's house arrest is a splendid captivity isn't it?

Roman Polanski should be especiallty thankful!

House un-building

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

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

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

off the mountain in G'mas House Cafe parking lot

Scull Creek Trail....Slideshow

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

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

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMO

The Not-so-limited Edition SUMOThe Not-so-limited Edition SUMOThe Not-so-limited Edition SUMOThe Not-so-limited Edition SUMOI 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

The now not-so-limited edition of SUMO.

Curtis Neeley sues NameMedia for cybersquatting!

Earth Eye Images letterhead

Summary judgement!

Eartheye Lawsuit

Donate to fund my lawsuit?

Scull Creek trail...

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

It rained yesterday and the day b4 and b4

April fools

new barn fell

Spring break...

4 X 4 'Walk' w/T

Perfectionist...?