America's worst spelling FIAT

CurtisJNeeleyJr
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:38 pm

America's worst spelling FIAT

Postby CurtisJNeeleyJr » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:39 pm

The_1790_copy[rite]_mistake.pdf
(131.18 KiB) Downloaded 113 times
. . . . The United States does not allow defense of personal honor or reputation except indirectly by litigating using various torts, as planned by two colonial lawyers. Various torts like defamation, slander, libel, and other "privacy" violations are often used attempting to protect a fundamental human right left unprotected in America.
.
. . . . Yes; U.S. law developed from British law(s), however, the reason for the legal AND cultural split from Europe is because the U.S. was overthrown by an America failing to protect or recognize fundamental, natural human rights needing protection. The natural human rights to protect personal honor from prior fixed expressions were protected in Britain first in 1734. The right to defend the self from the self or protect human dignity and the honor of authors from “fixed” free speech of these same authors after recanting a prior mistake is a fundamental, natural human right unprotected in the U.S. as a result of an eighteenth-century censorship usage of the “Copy[rite] Act” of 1790, which is called now a “regime” consistently in Golan v Holder(iv) in 2010.
.
. . . . In 1789-90, Noah Webster(i) copied the 1710 “Statute of Anne"(ii) nearly verbatim as the “Copy[rite] Act of 1790"(iii). This eighty-year-old British publishing rite or ritual did not address the fundamental, natural human right to prevent undesired use of “fixed” communications. This type abuse of original “fixed” communications was protected against first by IP law(s) in Britain in 1734 or twenty-five years longer than Mr. Webster had been alive.
.
. . . . The 1790 “American Copy[rite] Act” was the first time the word [sic]"copyright" was used to describe the British rite or “Statute of Anne”. This British rite protected NO HUMAN RIGHT to control original “fixed” communications whatsoever. SCOTUS called this imported ritual an “American regime” in 2010 after two-hundred and twenty years of treatment as honorable law, which “Title XVII” has never been.
.
. . . . The human right to prevent unauthorized use of original fixed communications was protected by "copy-right" in Britain first with the “Engravers Act of 1734"(iv) because William Hogarth wanted to control usage of revealing engravings used in earth's first political cartoons.
.
. . . . In late 1766, Sir William Blackstone(v) was writing “Rights of Things"(vi) and compounded “copy” and “right” using footnotes “l and m” on page 407 to refer to prior usage in British rulings as the human “right" to control creation(s).
.
. . . . This 1734 Act of Parliament was modified, and sought encouraged by Benjamin Franklin, to allow a surviving spouse, Jane Thornhill, to continue controlling a dead author's (William Hogarth) original communications for life in 1766. This was the first time ever on Earth an individual human right to control fixed communications survived the creator of these original communications because these engravings were racy for the time and could be reproduced mechanically and be easily edited to look more indecent or vulgar.
.
. . . . This was, ironically, a decade before the U.S. “Declaration of Independence”. Ignoring the first British IP laws in 1790 set U.S. IP law back permanently and is why “Americans” today do not understand “copy-right” as the human right to prevent unauthorized copies of original communications. e.g. European “Right To Be Forgotten” v GOOG(vii) This two-hundred and twenty-five year old heterographic misspelling is why the State marriage rite was recently called an individual human right by SCOTUS in 2015.
.
. . . . America used the “Copy[rite] Act”, publishing rite, in 1790 to make “American English” schools universally revise spellings from British English. This is the reason American English is sometimes spelled different than British English. (i.e. color, colour, honor, honour, copy[rite], copyright)
.
. . . . Noah Webster teamed with the first Connecticut Delegate, Samuel Huntington,(viii) to keep American lawyers busy trying to protect the human right to control unauthorized use of personal communications without violence. (i.e. pistol duels, fisticuffs.) Compounding the words “copy” and “rite”; America misspelled this compounding by fiat as [sic] “copyright” while a “Bill of RIGHTS” was being considered and ratified and most certainly not a “Bill of Rites”.
.
. . . . Sir William Blackstone(ix) had already compounded “copy-right” early in 1766 using the words “copy” and “right” instead of “copy” and “rite” on pages 406, 407(x) in “RIGHTS of Things”. This was done early in 1766 due to not mentioning the right to control use of revealing creations or the first inherited [sic] “copyright” by Jane Thornhill(xi). The dictionary used for the Constitution in 1787 was published in 1755(xii) by Samuel Johnston without “copyright”.
.
. . . . The “coining” of Britain's copyright was done in a book on the laws of Britain while discussing the common law right to control creation of additional “fixed” copies of original communications (books, engravings). The rite for controlling (censoring) copies of printed facts differs from the natural right to control the original ideas being communicated instead. (i.e. stories, discoveries, engravings, and photos)
.
. . . . The intention heterographic compounding of “copy” and “rite” as copy[rite] was in the first “American edition” of the Samuel Johnson dictionary in 1804 on page 56.(xiii) This use of copy[rite] copied the definition “the sole right to print a book” and the misspelling assigned by fiat to describe only a book printing censorship monopoly or government rite by Noah Webster in 1790 with no human right inferred and no reference to prior use of the correct compounding by Sir William Blackstone in early 1766.
.
. . . . Copy[rite] was most certainly an early “Americanism” not listed in the First “American” issue of Johnson's Dictionary based on the eleventh edition from London as printed and published by James Maxwell in 1819.(xiv) The British dictionary still did not usually include the copy[rite] misspelling for another fifty years.
.
. . . . The words “congress”, “wage” as a verb, and “constitutionality” are listed as “Americanisms” in the 1836 “American edition”(xv of Johnson's dictionary published by Charles J. Hendee and hereby alleged [sic] “copyright” was used in England/Britain as the sole right to print a book with no human right inferred. This deception was wrong in 1836 and can be seen as wrong today.
.
. . . . This fundamental human right to protect self-honor was discussed by Sir William Blackstone(xvi) early in 1766 before the special act of Parliament transferred and extended this human right to control communications of a dead spouse for life to Jane Hogarth. This first British “copy-right” was for risque engravings done by the inventor of political cartoons in the early 1730's named William Hogarth.
.
. . . . Jane Hogarth Thornhill's spouse died two years before a special act of Parliament was passed in 1766. Ms. Hogarth(xvii) then died during composition of the “American” Copy[rite] Act of 1790, or in 1789. This “regime” was created twenty-three years after the special act of Parliament passed for the first human right for a widow to control use of copies of risque art done by a former spouse.
.
. . . . Samuel Johnson lived from 1709-1784 and died before Noah Webster used “American” Congress to coin an Americanism of the term used in Britain in early 1766 to describe a human right to control copies of original communications as “copy-right”.
.
. . . . “America's” new Congress copied the book publishing rite Britain used in 1710 to regulate or censor mass fixations of books as printing became more common. Noah Webster used this copied ritual to make elementary school texts in the United States consistently teach “American” children to spell color, honor, flavor, etc. without the extra British vowel. Noah Webster created a new dialect but never shortened the British spelling of tongue to [sic] “tung”, though attempting this spelling FIAT for several decades.
.
. . . . Noah Webster wished the “Americanism” for tongue to be spelled as [sic] “tung”. The first edition of Noah Webster's “American Dictionary of the English” language in 1828 had [sic] “tung”(xviii) as well as the “Dictionary for Primary Schools” in 1836(xix). Noah Webster's progeny replaced the [sic] “tung” fiat with “tungsten”(xx) in the University edition by 1850 though the copy[rite](xxi), color(xxii), and honor(xxiii) fiats remained and became part of the new “American” English dialect. The “tung” fiat was rejected and quietly abandoned by lexicography cohorts by 1841.(xxiv) The “tung” fiat was not used in 1806 by even Mr. Webster.
.
. . . . This clearly explains the “RTBF”(xxv) forcing GOOG to “SHUT THE HELL UP”(xxvi) in Europe and remove old links to embarrassing personal data. Google Inc could never develop in Europe where original personal speech is subject to control by the author after published for life plus seventy years. The fundamental human right to control “fixed” communications or lack of this right is the cultural basis for the “mysterious” right to be forgotten or retract a prior embarrassing or retracted statement or discovery.
.
. . . . This is perhaps “Much ado about Nothing” like in 1598 by William Shakespeare.? -No; SCOTUS has resolved to fool Americans since 1843 by rejecting the natural human right to control fixed communications and yet treat the American copy[rite] ritual as if this government rite had mysteriously evolved to protect natural human rights allowing the U.S. to allege Berne Convention compliance improperly since 1990.
.
. . . . The natural right of a human to protect communications made or things done in the past is the human right not protected by law in America like alleged in “Title XVII”. The United States has attempted to preserve parts of this human right vicariously since the States left Britain. The Fifth Amendment protects the ability to refuse to self-incriminate or tell on the self. The Fourth Amendment protects the ability to hide evidence and lie about it.
.
. . . . The fundamental human right to protect honor without physically harming another is usually left unprotected in America if the communications made or things done are fixed in any way detectable by the public. This includes having sex after evidenced by pregnancy. Books written or artwork done can and will continue to communicate whether this is still desired or if a prior fixed creation becomes egregiously regretted. Sperm taken into a vagina while communicating once became obvious in a few months if pregnancy resulted.
.
. . . . The fundamental human ability to refuse to speak in order to protect personal honor is respected in America per the Fifth Amendment. This self-incrimination Amendment does not protect against fixed speech made in the past if fixed voluntarily but is now regretted like is STILL protected against in Europe. Europe was legally several centuries ahead of the United States before this nation failed. America's oligarchy silently overthrew the United States as was planned by voters in 1929.
.
Conclusion
.
. . . . The fundamental human right to protect personal honor is missing in America. The representational democracy of the United States began to cease preserving the rule of “We the People” with the Appropriation Act of 1929. An oligarchy was planned to replace the United States with rule by the wealthy and “best” of America and was 90% irreversible after Citizens United in 2010.
.
. . . . Antonin Scalia attempted to explain the rational used for the mistake of calling a corporate bribe protected speech instead on February 26, in Ft. Smith, Arkansas to a litigant with a history of describing 73-year-old Jimm Larry Hendren to be displaying senility or some other mental defect in United States Court. This litigant told Antonin Scalia, “although years older than Jimm Larry Hendren and perhaps not also addicted to free anonymous access to pornography like Jimm Larry Hendren had proven himself to be”, this mistake cut directly against the idea of originalism when interpreting the Constitution. Antonin Scalia had just said, “it says what it says”, in the Marshall's Museum presentation given. Antonin Scalia agreed with this litigant's position of protected speech being only for the speech of individuals when influencing voting to make representational democracy valid and said this would quickly be made clear in future rulings but would not be done sua sponte due to the Citizens United mistake.
.
.
Conclusion cont.
.
. . . . The ability to protect human honor without harming another is missing in America because of a devout Christian's 1790 sin. The cultural impact of using the heterographic “copy[rite]” to confuse government rites with human rights in 1790 to create the American English language could not have been anticipated by Noah Webster because the Wheaton, 1843 SCOTUS mistake was made only weeks before Mr. Webster died and first rejected the natural human right to protect honor without violence but using copy[rite] to prevent unauthorized uses of embarrassing or retracted prior communications.
.
. . . . Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed colour, honour, labour, valour, copy[rite] and various other spellings to eliminate the letter “u” and allowed a U.S. government rite to approximate a human right to this very day. Spelling the copyrite used in America as copyright instead resulted recently in SCOTUS again calling a government rite a fundamental individual human right. Marriage will NEVER be an individual human right as could not be made more obvious or more certain until the reader looks for a government or church marriage involving only one individual.
.
. . . . There is no human right to marry. There will never be a human right to marry regardless of gender. The missing human right to protect honor would allow gay marriage to be established in order for monogamous intimate unions to protect the honor of homosexual humans.
.
.Conclusion concl.
.
. . . . Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed for unequal personal honor, as Citizens United, 2010 affirmed. Spelling the copy+rite used in America as copy+right allowed GOOG to reject the human right to repent for prior creations of pornography, as ruled in Neeley Jr. v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-051535)(14-3447) although the FCC alleged “online” was a Title II Common Carrier for communications as demanded in United States Court for about seven years.
.
. . . . Transmitting an indecent or obscene digital image “online” is a felony today as well as hazardous abuse of a public Title II Common Carrier for communications. Every JPG image could and should be rated to protect children and pornography addicted Title III judicial personnel. GOOG is VERY aware of this fact and maliciously refused to only index rated image files in 2015.
.
. . . . Free online pornography being shown to anonymous children, abortion of living fetal humans, and marriage being called a human right instead of the human rite it has always been are all incontrovertibly linked to Noah Webster's 1790 intentional use of the heterograph “right” instead of the heterograph “rite”.
.
.Mr. Webster was aware of the impact of fixed speech on culture in light of knowing of the “Magna Carta”, the “95 Thesis”, as well as the U.S. Constitution's "Progress Clause", and plagiarizing the first Copy[rite] Act from the British 1910 “Statute of Anne”. Mr. Webster ignored the 1734 Engravers Act protection for visual artist honor and the 1966 modification allowing a widow to inherit the right to protect the honor of her dead spouse.
.
.
See a list of dictionaries by Samuel Johnson in the Internet Archive.
See a list of dictionaries by Noah Webster in the Internet Archive.
See ... (Human-Dignity-US.org/Old-Dictionary/) for free PDF copies of 1700's & 1800's dictionaries.

Return to “Right to Control Original Communications”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest