There is not a lawyer or judge in America apparently or perhaps the whole Earth who understands why America is so utterly deluded and confused regarding America’s cop[rite] regime compared to OTHER 167 signatory nations of the Berne Convention’s Treaty. Yes; America claimed to accept these rules while holding their noses with one hand in 1988 and giving the rest of the world the finger with the other in 1990 passing the now judicially repealed VARA.

It is deceptive or “lawyerly” to allege any “right to be forgotten” was recently created by a Court in Europe with more cultural relevance and intellectual dignity and honor than those clinging to Article III thrones till death in the U.S. American lawyers allege not to understand the human right to protect free speech existing in the rest of the free world. Either this or promise to never recognize this human right to truly free speech is unprotected in a “free” America in order to pass the bar. This unrecognized human right to protect free speech is alleged to be protected by America’s lawyers well enough to allege “de facto” existence without “per se” existence as encouraged by Benjamin Franklin in 1787. These Latin lawyer-words words now mean like follows if asked by a citizen.
====================
“Well yes; of course this rite exists and has since the Copy[rite] Act of 1790. There are plenty of American laws we use to sue and protect your ability to exclusively control your own personal communications. Did you ever write these down? Were there witnesses? Was a call recorded? Was this story ever disclosed on the “web”?
====================
No, Eric Goldman Esq et al; The human right to exclusively control communications
exists regardless of the American legal questions of whether or not these communications exist in any form that persists independent of their creation like books, videos, diaries, paintings, or witness testimonies. American lawyer professors revealed a distinct fixation on this archaic American regime, ironically, known by confused American law professors and a deluded Congress as “fixation” at least since 1976.

Trying to claim blocking five-seconds from a performance was impossible was –BLEEP– ha, but was treated as correct. There was an attempt to address the issue
that a fixed act done can’t be forced undone. Stopping one venue from violating an implied consent fraud is would be pointless. This was like arguing since one murder can’t be stopped it is pointless to try to stop crime.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000725

I listened to the oral argument and have saved EVERY brief filed in this case as may the public from the URL above. I did not hear the mistake remaining from Reno v ACLU (47 U.S.C. §230) mentioned whatsoever in oral argument. 47 U.S.C. §230 is the –BLEEP– third-rail FRAUD most avoid. An injunction will soon be allowed if this Ninth Circuit Oligarchy has any honor. These “Kings and Queens” are the ones now on trial. Whatever their “Most Noble Ruling”; The decision will immediately be relevant to my case and will require Eighth Circuit Notification. If the honorable panel ruling is allowed it will be by myself, if made wholly dishonorable. as hoped by many like Eric Goldman Esq, notification of the Eighth Circuit will be the responsibility of unrepresented GOOG after leaving this claim with their marbles. I will advise the Eighth Circuit anyway to preserve my moral honor but will call the Ninth Circuit ruling a confused continuation of a 1790 misspelling en banc. Cross-posting does not have the same character as cross-claims but this comment will be posted on my lonely BLOG(s) instead of the comment left on Forbes.