The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody

You may also like...

372 Responses

  1. Miya says:

    WOW!
    The crazy level has been impressively elevated. I can't wait to see this guy get spanked in court.

  2. VPJ says:

    Wow. This is Marc Stephens-Josefph Rakofsky-love-child level crazy.

    Well, maybe not that crazy, but lord, it ain't sane.

  3. John David Galt says:

    This guy makes Charlie Sheen sound normal.

  4. TJIC says:

    This is awesome.

    The Oatmeal tweeted a few days ago:

    > https://twitter.com/Oatmeal/status/213350365314289665
    >
    > It's interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet's nest try
    > to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well.

    What are we to make of this lawsuit? And by that, I mean "how can we extend this analogy?"

    I propose "we're now watching a man treat the hornet stings on his dick and balls by applying a soothing woodchipper".

    OM*G.

  5. Linus says:

    Is this the part where someone will come along and suggest that we "are confusing Carreon and his client" and that this is all Inman's fault for "escalating"? Cause that would be awesome.

  6. Gretchen says:

    Carreon bloviated:

    You're right; you haven't– and you still haven't, because that isn't "inciting people to violence."

    Isn't a lawyer supposed to know this shit?

  7. Gretchen says:

    Ah, damn. That was supposed to include the quote: "I don't know if you're familiar with his cartooning–people having their heads thrown in a chipper, his character of a pterodactyl consuming blended brains with gusto–I've actually never seen anyone incite people to violence in that fashion."

  8. Matt James says:

    Random thought – is it possible that Carreon is suffering from some form of dementia – Alzheimer's perhaps? Right now this is just sad to watch – like a round Russian roulette with one player.

  9. So it appears that Carreon, when his website was under heavy load, put up a simple page saying "Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled."

    Now, I imagine that Carreon had about as much evidence for this as he has had for the rest of his claims (which is to say, NONE AT ALL). By claiming that Inman instigated the attacks, has Carreon opened himself up to a counter-suit for defamation, libel, or the like?

  10. jb says:

    Is there any chance this lawsuit qualifies as a SLAPP, and thus Carreon is exposing himself to the consequences thereof?

  11. Epona Harper says:

    Great googly-moogly! Batshit insane doesn't begin to cover this.

    Stop digging, dude. Forget China. You're 100 feet above Bejing from your digging and about to hit escape velocity.

    I hearby raise a glass of my homebrewed cherry mead in hopes he gets the legal dope-slapping of the century.

  12. Teratoma says:

    No mention of Funnyjunk's participation – must mean they wised up and are distancing themselves from Carreon.

  13. Ken says:

    jb: I will (probably) comment on the SLAPP issues once I read the complaint.

  14. Turk says:

    The eagerness with which people will throw away a career is astounding.

    A classic example of why you shouldn't represent yourself…you need someone to talk you down off the ledge.

  15. Joe says:

    LOL &
    POPE-ORDER

    Censorious Asshat Investigations Unit

    In the internet system of Great Justice, crimes of censorious asshattery are considered especially heinous and investigated by an elite squad known as the Popehat Censorious Asshat Unit which is divided into two separate but equally important groups – the members who investigate the censorious asshat’s shenanigans and the members who LOL @ the offenders and their butt hurt.

    These are their stories.

    http://s1063.photobucket.com/albums/t519/Joe_pullen/?action=view&current=Slide1-2.jpg

  16. Dr. Flippin' Zeus says:

    For some crazy reason, I have a prurient interest in watching members of the Bar set themselves on fire . . . A strange fetish, I know, butt immensely pleasurable, nonetheless . . .

    This story is at least the script material for a made-for-TV movie, if television still exists, or maybe even direct to DVD, if DVDs are still relevant . . .

    This Carreon character is something special (I never had heard of him before I stumbled across this website today while preparing for a hearing an Anti-SLAPP Motion I filed in "Pro Per") — can you say A-S-S-H-A-T?? I knew you could . . .

  17. Chris says:

    Quite frankly on the level of crazy, I am going to have to quote Dragonball Z:

    "HE'S OVER 9000!!!!!"

  18. Ann says:

    As a non-lawyer, may ask what the chances of his disbarment for this behavior are? It's very frightening for a blogger/writer/social media marketer when an attorney can force you into having to spend money on an attorney, even just to respond to a letter, let alone a suit. His family members are now making threats towards commenters on Twitter and news articles that if they keep criticizing him they will be subpoenaed. It's gone from funny to frightening and tragic. I'd like to blog about the issue, but I also don't have the money to be retaining an attorney if I were to become one of the Does. Advice?

  19. David Sugerman says:

    What a fricking pinhead. I am not admitted in Ca. but am willing to help pro bono if any of the defendants need additional help

  20. Jess says:

    From Carreon's site – When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. Ugghh.

    A little poem to lighten the day – now think of this to the music/tunes of Will Smith and the Fresh Prince of Bellair.

    Now this is a story all about how
    Carreon tried to turn the internet upside down
    And I’d like to take a minute so just sit right down
    And I’ll tell you how he became the prince of asshat town

    In Los Angeles with a degree from U-C-L-A
    Filing lawsuits is where he spends most of his days

    Chillin out, maxin, relaxing and all drool,
    Throwin down legal-shit hoping to get in a duel

    When a guy named Oatmeal whose comics were good
    Pissed off some wanks in Funnyjunks neighborhood

    A lawsuit was filed but Oatmeal wasn’t scared
    He made fun of Carreon, his feelings not spared

    The lawsuit against The Oatmeal clearly was not right
    And of any reason, Carreon soon lost sight

    If anything you could say that this case was wrong
    That surely Carreon’s mind must be gone

    He pulled up to the courthouse about seven or eight
    His case had no merit, so sad, too late

    He yelled to the cabby "Yo, homie smell you later"
    I gotta go show people that I’m such a hater

    He looked at his kingdom which he had brought down
    Sittin on his throne as the prince of asshat town

  21. Nicholas Weaver says:

    He could have walked away. He should have walked away… We would have forgotten about this douchebag laywer already…

    He's not walking away. So as a non-laywer, sitting back with the popcorn, I hope he gets SLAPPed silly in court.

    Oh, one question, if he's filing it Pro Se, but claims that it was an act to defame "himself and his client", would this potentially get him in trouble if his client didn't authorize him to file this suit?

    Because FunnyJunk, unlike Carreon, has gone radio silent, realizing just how bad the Streisand effect is.

  22. Sarahw says:

    This is really too bad. He can't be right in the head.

  23. Kristen says:

    All I can say is this guy has gone to plaid. This level of overreaction has to be breaking some fundamental laws of nature.

    Question: can a person ever outlive the stigma of having sued a *charity* because their feelers are hurt? I'm pretty sure that automatically labels one as an absolute tool for all eternity.

  24. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, ken:

    (Maybe. As I said before, it may be more instructive for Mr. Carreon to learn about those by finding himself on the business end of them.)

    Tell us… Please. You've already warned him, telegraphed him in just what ways he could be hurt in court, turning his Butthurt in the First Degree into Butthurt in the Nth Degree. Not just you, but Randazza and others have told him, publicly and I'm assuming privately to just STFU and let things blow over.

    Thus its actually more entertaining at this point to discuss, in every little detail, the oncoming freight train that Mr Carreon has chosen to play chicken with. Especially since you aren't going to be really giving him anything he can use (except, perhaps, for an anticipatory feeling of dread and doom), since the advice he could use he already ignored, but for the rest of us, we can sit back with the popcorn and giggle…

  25. Jack B. says:

    Joe @5:16 – as a fan of L&O in all its incarnations, gotta say I love the graphic.

  26. Joe says:

    Thanks Jack. On another note a poster by the name of Humble Oatlet on The Oatmeal’s site posted a commentI thought was very apropos – - – - -

    “After reading the very erudite response by The Oatmeal's lawyer, I wonder if I'm the only one who opines that whatever past glory Charles Carreon may have from litigating sex.com will be forever eclipsed by the following headline if this really goes to trial:

    "Like a giant pterodactyl, counsel for The Oatmeal swoops upon and devours Funnyjunk's carrion ("Carreon") counsel for lunch in Court."

  27. SPQR says:

    The incompetent double down on a losing hand and tell everyone what brilliant poker players they are.

    The really crazy ones do it with an incoherent pleading.

  28. W Ross says:

    Any chance you'll start a legal defense fund (maybe with the EFF?) It wouldn't take a lot of people kicking in $5 or $10 to cover the things that you guys can't do for free. Not just because we don't want to see you guys bear the brunt of that, but because I think a lot of us want to see you guys break your (legal) foot off and establish some Internet law precedent that will protect the rest of us (I do satire too, and people like this are terrifying.)

  29. nwhepcat says:

    I find myself sorta hoping Condoleezza Rice hires him to sue himself. I think he'd take the job.

  30. Marguerite Kenner says:

    Hey guys, just letting you know I'm a intellectual property paralegal in California and if you're looking for pro bono assistance, drop me a line. I'd LOVE to help.

    Also, if you haven't already, DEFINITELY contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.

  31. DrDuran says:

    I have jury duty at the federal court In Oaklabd in the morning, too bad this suit won't be the one I'm there for!

  32. Dan Z says:

    Wow…I've never seen anyone infinity down on stupid before this.

  33. Gabriel Chapman (@Bacon_Is_King) says:

    so what judge wouldn't sanction this clown besides Vaughey?

  34. I'd like to propose "Carreon" as a new verb:

    Carreon
    Verb

    1. To lash out blindly, yet only succeed to cause harm to oneself.
    He became so enraged, he lost control and began to carreon wildly, until he was covered in self-inflicted bruises and passers-by began to back away slowly.

  35. Chris says:

    Also in his complaint he says that theoatmeal.com is not copyrighted and his comics are due no protection under copyright law. Someone needs to tell this guy to do a google search or something. Matthew Inman has many of his comics in his original book "5 Very Good Reasons to Punch a Dolphin in the Mouth" which was published by Andrews McMeel Publishing. I pretty sure that is clear indication of a copyright.

  36. Chris says:

    Pardon me, he said that in an interview. Not in his complaint.

  37. Pen says:

    Directly from the copyright.gov site: "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

    This is basic copyright law, and not even up for debate. How can Carreon not understand that the simple act of creating his comics was all he needed to to for them to be under copyright?

    Carreon really dove off the deep end on this one, hasn't he?

  38. I take that to mean that Oatmeal cannot counterclaim for copyright (if FunnyJunkmwere to sue — which, by all indications, it hasn't done so) because you have to register a work with the copyright office before suing on it.

    But that's easily remedied by… filing the work with the copyright office.

  39. Chris says:

    Still all works previously published in his book would be filed already. So there would be no getting around that.

  40. Perry G Buote says:

    Matt James • Jun 17, 2012 @4:34 pm
    was right its like roulette but with 5 bullets one player

  41. We're sending Carreon an indulgence for being a petulant, amoral, censorious douchebag. Hopefully it'll help his immortal soul, though we suspect it won't do much good for him in the here-and-now. Please note, we're sending this as a gift, no strings attached.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151015106580935&set=a.192871065934.167136.655960934&type=1&ref=nf

  42. Silver says:

    Adam and Chris, as per Pen's post, the current copyright law does not require material to be registered.
    Copyright is confered at the point of creation.
    Registration was removed from the law many years ago.

    The U.S. Copyright Office has a great fact sheet on copyright at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.

  43. W Ross says:

    http://www.charlescarreon.com/ looks… uh… different.

    I think it may have cracked under the strain of lookieloos. Anyone else getting an animated gif and something about undergoing scheduled maintenance?

  44. Max Swisher says:

    I love the oatmeal, and I've been a fan for years and years.

    The fact that this jackass is doing this is just disgusting. I mean, it's bad enough to sue the oatmeal – but seriously, suing the wildlife foundation and cancer society? That's just not right.

    I hope he dies in a hole.

  45. resonanteye says:

    Man oh man, I love butthurt.

    This guy is a good one, too.

  46. resonanteye says:

    …and by "good one", I mean "wingnut".

  47. Not what he seems says:

    (Tune: Kansas's "Carry On, Wayward Son")

    Chorus:
    Carreon, you hired gun,
    your career is over and done,
    lay your stupid case to rest,
    don't you try no more.

    A child could see right through your noise and confusion
    No one's gonna buy your flimsy illusion.
    Such a careless writer, were you much too high?

    To the law it seems you're totally blind, man
    Thought your threats would work, you must be a mad man
    You're hearing voices, or you're dreaming if you thought you could win

    (Chorus)

    Should have spoken to someone who could reason
    cause your logic has just zero cohesion
    claim you're internet lawyer, you ain't got a nano-clue

    In your stormy wrath of childish emotion,
    tossing idle threats and verbal explosions
    Who'll you blame for your misfortune, besides the voices in your head?

    (Chorus)

    Bridge:
    Carreon: You should always remember
    Carreon: You're unmasked as a puffed-up pretender
    When a hip blog, you bluff and bully
    you went viral, now you're owned

    Carreon, you hired gun,
    your career is over and done,
    tuck your tail between your legs,
    and say goodbye to the law.

  48. Chris Sherlock says:

    May I suggest that you be careful in what you say about Carreon… there is no real evidence to support the fact that he runs or publishes the American Buddha website. In fact, a previous blog post that he has recently taken down but that is still accessible via Google cache has him stating that

    I am doing this case [for American Buddha] pro bono, because I’ve been well acquainted with the director for many years…

  49. Thom says:

    If this even makes it anywhere near a court it's a travesty.

  50. That Anonymous Coward says:

    You've heard of the Streisand Effect, it seems sort of fitting a new phrase was coined and voted funny in the last week on TechDirt.
    The Carreon Effect: The act of doubling and then quadrupling down on an untenable position.

    And that was before this lawsuit was mentioned…

  51. Chad Alan says:

    I love how Carreon tries to assert that the satirical representation of Japanese (however politically incorrect and offensive they were) by Walt Disney and Co was in any way related to the bombings in Japan by the US. Like Pres. Truman was watching a Disney cartoon and said, "You know, I wasn't sure what to do about this Japan problem. We've pretty much beaten back the Germans, but I've been wringing my hands. However, now that I've seen this cartoon. I say let's bomb the ponytailed, buck-toothed short guys I saw in that cartoon. They've been sufficiently de-humanized to me." What a joke.

  52. Nate says:

    What a douche canoe. Only the lowest of the low would sue a charity, I'm not sure what kind of status you acquire from suing TWO charities, possibly guaranteed entry into the inner circle of hell!

    He still seems to be under the impression that the cartoon of the bear love was 'his' mom, when in fact it was FunnyJunk's mom. so either Charles Carreon either fails at reading comprehension OR he's admitting that he's the douche behind FunnyJunk. Either way, it's kinda sad.

  53. kagurazaka77 says:

    It doesn't matter if your work is registered at the copyright office. As mentioned before, copyright exists – and you can enforce it – as soon as the work is created.

    Registering it just makes it a whole lot easier.

  54. Guest says:

    >which has caused people to hack Inman's computer and falsely impersonate him

    So… Carreon is suing Inman because people hacked into Inman's computer?

    Surely there should be limits to testing the limits of sheer idiocy.

  55. andrews says:

    Looks like Carreon has forgotten the First Rule of Holes.

  56. blixco says:

    He hosts mp3s that anyone can download, breaking a few copyright laws. Anyone want to sic the RIAA on him?
    http://www.american-buddha.com/childoffortuneindex.htm

  57. Jay Maynard says:

    Dumb question time. Why is Carreon suing on his own behalf instead of on behalf of funny junk.com? Is it, perhaps, that the folks behind funnyjunk.com don't want to go on the record as to who they are? Or is it that he is behind funny junk.com? Enquiring minds want to know.

  58. One should never go FULL Rakofsky.

  59. Zecc says:

    Nothing to sue here, Carreon.

  60. perlhaqr says:

    Wow. Double Rakofsky. I never thought I'd see it.

    "He's gone plaid!"

  61. medlaw says:

    Another festering sore on the legal profession. Hey wait, maybe I'm one of the "Doe's" on the complaint?

  62. W Ross says:

    "Carreon tells Comic Riffs one of his goals is to become the go-to attorney for people who feel they have been cyber-vandalized or similarly wronged on the Internet."

    I know I'd hire him; he's doing just a super job so far! >:D

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/funnyjunk-lawyer-suing-the-oatmeal-cartoonist-inman-over-indiegogo-charity-drive/2012/06/18/gJQAbZhDlV_blog.html

  63. Costner says:

    Carreon is having an incredible few weeks. First he is introduced to the Streisand effect at levels previously only witnessed by Streisand herself (and perhaps Marc Stephens), and now he has been officially voted in as the mayor of Doucheachusetts… primarily because he seems to have ran unopposed.

    Congratulations Charles – you make the cast of Jersey Shore look like Rhodes Scholars.

  64. David says:

    In what central-american country did carreon study for his degree? did he sleep through jurisprudence? did he bunk tort law?

    "if for not the actions of…" carreron fails to realize that if not for the actions of his client – FJ – then none of this would have occurred. To rectify his shortcomings as an ambulance chaser he decides to sue the receiving charities themselves to broaden his ickiness to unfounded depth of depravity.

    It is my hope, and my wish for christmas, that carreon gets bitch-slapped so hard by the ACS and the NWF and Inman's lawyers that he wishes he never hung a lawyer shingle outside his cave…

    Bears good! Cancer bad! Carreon worse!

  65. jess says:

    Indiegogo stated in an e-mail. The company was working with its lawyer "to make sure everything was legit about the campaign," and determined it hasn't "seen any behavior to cause them to believe that this campaign doesn’t comply with their terms of service."

    It would seem to me that Carreon cannot succeed in pursuing Indiegogo since they are nothing but a service agent. Compliance with IRS and State reporting rules falls clearly on the charity itself not Indiegogo – to state otherwise would be like holding Google responsible if someone sent out a threatening email – Google may have to reveal the details of the sender but they themselves are not responsible.

    Also, I’m wondering why Carreon is droning on about Inmans charity not apparently being registered in California when Inman lives and works out of Washington State. Washington State rules state you only need to register with the Charities Program in the Office of the Secretary of State and provide an annual solicitation report if both of the following are true:

    1. Someone receives any salary or fees for performing the activities for which the funds are raised (there is no evidence Inman is taking a cut of anything and he has indicated all of the proceeds will go to charity – Indiegogo would also not qualify under this provision since they are not performing “activities for which the funds are raised”

    2. The total amount raised in a year does not exceed $25,000. Clearly based on his original posting stating he was looking to raise $20,000, Inman did not think he would raise over $20,000 which would have meant he would not have needed to register with Washington State or any other states with rules similar to Washington so long as he did not exceed their cap on funds raised.

    Where I’m a bit fuzzy is that the Washington State law is about where the “donor” is located and not where the charity is located. So if the $ value of donations per state falls under the reporting guidelines for each state, it’s possible Inman may still not need to fill out any paperwork or register. Somehow I’m confident that if he does, he will be able to file any necessary “registration” paperwork after the fact and not get into any trouble since it was clear up front he was not expecting the level of success he has seen.

    Carreon seriously thinks he is going to get some DA to “charge” Inman (with what appears to be a misdemeanor at best)for being successful in raising money for a charity he needs to have his head examined. I can’t see a DA anywhere that would want to go near that political time bomb seeing how Carreon is currently being crucified in the media.

  66. Max Kennerly says:

    Good for him! He's totally got a valid cause of action for Streisand Effect. I'm tired of wildlife and cancer patients getting all the attention. All of society's resources should be directed towards building some douchebag lawyer's ego.

  67. "Carreon tells Comic Riffs one of his goals is to become the go-to attorney for people who feel they have been cyber-vandalized or similarly wronged on the Internet."

    I'm fairly certain that "butthurt" isn't a tort…

  68. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken, to quote myself:

    Oh, one question, if he's filing it Pro Se, but claims that it was an act to defame "himself and his client", would this potentially get him in trouble if his client didn't authorize him to file this suit?

    It gets worse. The Slashdot posting on this has it as FunnyJunk suing the Oatmeal over Trademark and incitement etc… Not Cameron, but FunnyJunk.

    If it turns out Mr Cameron is purely Pro Se, does this mean that FunnyJunk may have cause to sue its own (perhaps now ex) lawyer for taking actions which said lawyer either knew or should have known would damage his client's reputation by proceeding in ways which were both legally and publicly unsound, especially after being warned by council for The Oatmeal about the dangers of proceeding?

  69. Ken says:

    Nicholas, we'll see for sure when the complaint is available. But the Slashdot summary was, I think, just a non-lawyer's general take, and therefore imprecise about the parties.

  70. Kevin says:

    Am I the only one seeing this as just another example of Ocean Marketing's PR fail?

  71. Ann Bransom says:

    annnnnnnd he's posted the freaking lawsuit on his website. *grabs popcorn*

  72. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken: Right. But the point is that Cameron either knew or should have known that this filing would damage his client, even (and especially) if his client is NOT a party to this suit, and the Slashdot post is one example, as he's still "FunnyJunk's Lawyer" everywhere on teh Internet, causing reputation damage not just to himself but to his client.

    Oh, and one more possible hint of a future dbag-ish move from Mr Cameron: The Comic Riffs blog at the Washington Post managed to talk to Cameron:

    Carreon tells Comic Riffs that he himself has donated to the "BearLove" campaign. He also says he found the drawing to be disgusting. "I think satirical content is fine," Carreon tells us, "but him accusing my mother of bestiality is revolting, and I will not forgive it."

    I wonder if that is so Carreon now believes he has standing to sue IndyGoGo, the National Cancer Foundation, etc… Because hey, he goes "I gave, then oops, I realized I was duped, because it wasn't an official fundraiser registered in California?"

  73. Kris says:

    One of the many things about this case I don't understand is where Carreon gets off saying that Inman directly insulted HIS mother. Inman stated it was directed towards FJ's mother, and yet it's one of the (many) things that's ruffled his feathers to the point of action.

    (Not a lawyer nor even an avid reader until this fiasco. Thanks for the great commentary, the pro bono offer, and keeping us informed. Much appreciated!)

  74. Ann Bransom says:

    Here's a link to the complaint Carreon filed. Pull up a chair and sit a spell. It's a doozy. FORTY FIVE PAGES.

    http://charlescarreon.com/Carreon.v.Inman.Gov.Code.25559.Redacted.pdf

  75. Dangerboy says:

    Ken, he has the lawsuit up in PDF on his website now (Carreon), and it is pure comedy GOLD.

  76. Grifter says:

    Oh, god, apparently Carreon lives in my city. I apologize on behalf of Tucson to everyone!

  77. Ann Bransom says:

    Has a pterodactyl ever appeared in a court document before Friday? EVER?

  78. perlhaqr says:

    1. To lash out blindly, yet only succeed to cause harm to oneself.

    "For some reason I was reminded of my first fight with Tyler."

    ——

    What a douche canoe. Only the lowest of the low would sue a charity, I'm not sure what kind of status you acquire from suing TWO charities, possibly guaranteed entry into the inner circle of hell!

    Douche catamaran, of course.

    ——

    Ken: I too was curious about whether the CA Anti-SLAPP law would apply to a Federal case filed in CA.

    Also, you said: Further analysis must await review of the complaint, which should be available to the public soon. Note that there is no way to tell yet — without the complaint — the causes of action he has levied against the charities. He may have sued them only for injunctive or declaratory relief.

    What does that last part ("injunctive or declaratory relief") mean?

  79. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ann: Wow wow wow…. I'll leave it to the real lawyers to read in detail, but in just a skim…

    WOW. Cameron's doubling-down on the Pterodactyl!

    25. Inman has announced his vindictive response to his real and imagined enemies by posting, within the source code of all of the webpages on his main website, http://www.theoatmeal.com, the following image and text, depicting himself as a pterodactyl that will “ptero-you a new asshole.” A screencapture of the core of the source-code appears as follows:

    I hope The Oatmeal's lawyers really do p-tero Cameron a SLAPP-related new asshole.

    32. Inman made his intention to utilize the Charitable Organization defendants as a “human shield” for his assault on Plaintiff and his client FJ clear when he summed up his attack with the statement addressed to FJ:
    {The "consdire this my philanthropic…" reply}

    And YES, it is "I contributed" standing claim! HA, I knew it…

    38. Plaintiff is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS. Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign to have their reasonable expectation that 100% of the money they contributed would go to a charitable purpose. Plaintiff opposes the payment of any funds collected from the Bear Love campaign to Indiegogo, on the grounds that the contract between Indiegogo and Inman is an illegal contract that violates the Act, and its enforcement may be enjoined. Plaintiff opposes the payment of any funds to Inman because he is not a registered commercial fundraiser, because he failed to enter into a written contract with the Charitable Organization defendants, because the Bear Love campaign utilized false and deceptive statements and insinuations of bestiality on the part of Plaintiff and his client’s “mother,” all of which tends to bring the Charitable Defendants and the institution of public giving into disrepute.

    And now, we get to the whole "Iman Incited Butthurt in the First Degree" claims…

    On June 14, 2012, Doe 1, incited by Inman, or in the alternative and on information and
    belief, Inman himself, registered the Twitter name “@Charles_Carreon,” and began publishing fake “tweets” on Twitter that were of immediately attributed to Plaintiff. This was not only an act of trademark infringement, but also false personation in violation of California Penal Code § 529.

    Oh, and for the "Charity in trust" part, he wants full attorneys fees…

  80. Grifter says:

    Continuing to read the suit:

    "In order to initiate an Internet jihad against Plaintiff and FJ, Inman unloaded the contents of his “Hitler’s porta-potty” on Plaintiff and FJ,"

    Wow.

  81. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, one thought: The BiFD claims require a conspiracy between Iman and whoever did the fake Carreon twitter account…

    But Twitter is notoriously good at saying FOAD to third party subpoenas, as one other little detail Carreon is going to discover going forward. Well, lets see what happens as he decides what is the step beyond woodchipper in the hornet's nest reaction?

  82. W Ross says:

    http://charlescarreon.com/Carreon.v.Inman.Gov.Code.25559.Redacted.pdf

    There's the PDF.

    He's asking for:

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendants
    as follows:
    A. A permanent injunction:
    1. Imposing a charitable trust upon all assets in the possession of Indiegogo
    collected from Plaintiff and other donors, allocating half to the National Wildlife Foundation,
    half to the American Cancer Society, and none to Defendants;
    2. Barring Doe 1, or alternatively Inman, from falsely personating Charles Carreon
    or using the Charles Carreon registered mark alone or in combination with other words, symbols
    or designs including in any manner;
    3. Requiring Indiegogo to register as a California fundraiser before proceeding with
    any future charitable fundraising;
    4. Requiring the NWF and the ACS to affirmatively require written contracts with
    all commercial fundraisers in the State of California and to police the activities of fundraisers in
    order to prevent future abuses, false advertising, and unfair practices;
    B. An award of actual damages suffered by Plaintiff in such amount as shall be established
    by proof;
    C. An accounting and disgorgement of Inman’s and Indiegogo’s ill-gotten profits, if any,
    from the conduct alleged herein;
    E. A finding that the infringements by Inman and Does 1 – 100 were willful, and/or that
    Plaintiff’s recovery is inadequate based on Defendants’ profits; wherefore treble damages are
    warranted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a); ______________________________________________ _______________________________
    COMPLAINT, Page 21 of 22
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    F. A finding that this is an exceptional case, and that an award to Plaintiff of its full costs
    and reasonable attorney’s fees is therefore warranted pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1117;
    G. An order pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), requiring Inman, Indiegogo, the NWF, and the
    ACS to file with the Court and serve on Plaintiff within thirty (30) days after service of an
    injunction order as requested herein, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the
    manner and form in which they have complied with the Court's Order;
    H. Punitive damages against Inman and Does 1 – 100 pursuant to California Civil Code
    § 3294;
    I. Such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.
    Dated: June 15, 2012

  83. manybellsdown says:

    I can assume, at the rate he is going, that the Does named in the suit are everyone who has ever read the Oatmeal. Or eaten oatmeal for breakfast. Or is a bear.

  84. Rob Crawford says:

    Been here, done that.

    Dig around for "Pets Warehouse" and the pro se lawsuits its owner indulge(s/d) in. He sued customers for complaining; he threatened suits for people reporting about the lawsuit.

  85. I think you should consider action under 28 USC §§ 1912, 1927 (I'm from Ohio and the equivalent statute under Ohio law is 2323.51, which allows you to ask for attorney's fees for frivolously filed suits) as well as F.R.C.P. 11.

    Granted, if you're successful, he's likely to go Chapter 11 if he can, but it would make you feel better … :S Sorry to see you go through this because you're defending yourself. I'm guessing Mr. Carreon (Carrion?) may have some bipolar issues. I know someone like him and this is just the thing this other person would do.

    Good luck.

  86. Jeremy says:

    I often wonder just how many smaller comic sites/blogs get suppressed by people like Carreon for every Oatmeal who is popular enough to stand up to them. Oatmeal has some amount of fame, which is not easy to attain on the internet. How many perfectly reasonable, but low-rank blogs have their freedoms impaired by people like this that we just never hear about?

  87. Raya says:

    WHAT. I clicked that first link to Carreon's "humor" website (the poorly Photoshopped sexual encounter between Bush and Rice). Wish I hadn't. That's the most racist thing I've seen on the Internet since the "hilarious" pics of Obama as a witch doctor. Sexist, too. And, you know, unbelievably tasteless.

    But The Oatmeal has crude line drawings of pterodactyls eating brains, so the moral high ground is all Carreon's for sure!

  88. huhmaster says:

    It would be interesting the to watch the legal battle in the courtroom. It should be telecasted live.

  89. Morakyr says:

    Soooooo using Charles Carreon own logic, if The Oatmeal added Charles Carreon as a beneficiary of the fund raising Charles would have to sue himself….

  90. W Ross says:

    "30. In order to initiate an Internet jihad against Plaintiff and FJ, Inman unloaded the contents of
    his “Hitler’s porta-potty” on Plaintiff and FJ, drawing a misogynistic cartoon depicting an obese
    female dressed in her underwear, with pendulous breasts popping out of her brassiere, an
    enormous posterior distended by an overstretched thong, rouged cheeks, and a crudely-lipsticked
    mouth, calling out to an apparently disinterested brown bear half her size, “COME HURR AND
    LOVE MEEEE!” He described it as a “drawing of your mom seducing a Kodiak bear.”
    A true copy of the webpage is attached as Exhibit A."

  91. David says:

    I thought "Bear Love Campaign" would get less funny as it was repeated over and over in a legal document, but it really hasn't.

  92. W Ross says:

    60. This is an exceptional case; wherefore Plaintiff is entitled to an award of its reasonable
    attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

    Wait a second… so he's the attorney, but he wants to be awarded fees to pay… himself?

  93. Ygolonac says:

    Uhm, yeah, that comment I left in the previous post regarding "appointment with the neurosurgeon to loosen the metal plate"?

    Well, shit.

    WET CLEAN-UP IN COURTROOM B…

  94. W Ross says:

    62. As noted above, Doe1 or Inman proliferated Plaintiff’s email address via a fake tweet made by “@Charles_Carreon.com.” Plaintiff had not posted the chas@charlescarreon.com email address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations."

    Except that it's the contact link on this page…
    http://www.ragingblog.com/

  95. Jeremy says:

    38 Plaintiff is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS. Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign to have their reasonable expectation that 100% of the money they contributed would go to a charitable purpose

    So.. Carreon contributed to the fund… the mind boggles. Is this what Cartman felt like when his funny bone was broken?

  96. Paragraph 38: Carreon donated to the Bear Love charity campaign so he could sue it.

    Absolutely reprehensible.

  97. Turk says:

    "30. In order to initiate an Internet jihad against Plaintiff and FJ, Inman unloaded the contents of his “Hitler’s porta-potty” on Plaintiff and FJ, drawing a misogynistic cartoon depicting an obese female dressed in her underwear, with pendulous breasts popping out of her brassiere, an enormous posterior distended by an overstretched thong, rouged cheeks, and a crudely-lipsticked mouth, calling out to an apparently disinterested brown bear half her size, “COME HURR AND LOVE MEEEE!” He described it as a “drawing of your mom seducing a Kodiak bear.”

    If he thinks he can win a case based on that, he is sadly mistaken. Jerry Falwell failed on the same subject when he sued Hustler based on a parody ad the magazine printed in which Falwell was having an incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse.

    A First Amendment lawyer ought to know this case like the back of his hand. For those that don't, here is the Wikipedia version:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

  98. Sarahw says:

    Wait a minute,wait a minute. Is Carreon not only the attorney funnyjunk hired, but Funnyjunck itself? Because it was "Funnyjunk" to which the "your mom" comedy trope was directed. It made the joke funnier because "Funnyjunk" is a corporation with a non-corporeal mom.

  99. LookingGlass says:

    Is there a legal reason why the National Wildlife Federation and American Cancer Society are given as defendants but not identified in the Parties section of the filing or is that just evidence of sloppiness in the creation of the filing?

  100. Agent V says:

    Charles and Dino M. Zaffina ought create a support club for delusional whiney b!tches.

  101. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, hey, ross, thanks!

    That Carreon site shows him specifically advocating mass internet-directed emailing to get someone to change his behavior, in the first post tagged "legal rage". Someone should archive the whole site before Carreon drops it down the memory hole!

    Pornographers Infringe Emily Trademark and Mattel Is Silent — How Swell Is That?

    I can’t seem to get Michael Moore’s interest, but if some other people, like angry moms, started filling his inbox with complaints, it might make a difference.

    This is due to what appears to be a silent treatment response from Mattel from his first attempt to solicit business from Mattel by an email which stated

    I practice in the field of domain law, and it recently came to my attention that the EmilyDoll.com website that is sitting atop the Google ranking for the search "Emily+Doll".. {sick of typing, since he just did an image capture}

    The email image

    And a subsequent email which instead began (IMO, a bit more threateningly) with

    I am now pursuing this matter as a legal journalist…

    with a bunch of obnoxious questions.

    From his petulant posting beyond it, its probable Mattel just ignored him as a crank. Given the 2000-odd comments since August 2009 are spam-bot, we can tell how successful this was…

    At this point, not only do I believe that Saul Goodman is a better attorney than this guy, I now believe that Saul Goodman has better character as an attorney than this guy.

  102. Ken says:

    Started a Twitter hashtag game: #charlescarreonnewcareers

  103. T. J. Brumfield says:

    "There is no better site on the internet for simultaneously teaching and entertaining about the legal system."

    …save for Popehat.

  104. Ken says:

    You guys who keep coming up with the examples of falsehood and hypocrisy just rock. You're the Army of Davids.

    Do me a favor — whenever you find a good web page showing an inconsistent statement, or an item that shows hypocrisy, take a screenshot or print it to pdf in case he memory-holes it.

  105. Reed says:

    Paragraph 50: "Plaintiff makes it a practice to engage in tempered speech even on matters of heated debate."

    Indeed….

  106. Charles Carreon says:

    Lol wow, I can't believe the @charles_carreon twitter user made it into the lawsuit. I ran that account until it got suspended. It was fun while it lasted. You can now find me on @charles_carron

  107. Grifter says:

    Ohh, that ragingblog is a fun place!
    The irony of this title:
    "New York Times Financial Columnist Shows Dreadful Lack of Common Sense"

    I'm sorely tempted to try to find his local info and attempt an in-person interview. But I'm concerned; if he lets me do it, will I catch crazy?

  108. ShelbyC says:

    So he manufactured standing by contributing, say, $1, to the fundraiser? Would he lose standing if the Oatmeal gave him his dollar back? What if I sent him a dollar on the Oatmeal's behalf?

  109. W Ross says:

    @Ken If popehat can work for free, so can we! I'm a satirist and this is bad precedent, so I'm happy to help move information around.

    "50. The fake tweets from @Charles_Carreon were abrasive and provoking to other Twitter users, and engendered immediate negative responses, having the effect of intensifying public hostility toward Plaintiff, and causing him irreparable harm in the marketplace for legal services. Plaintiff makes it a practice to engage in tempered speech even on matters of heated debate, and
    does not sling insults like “dumbass” and “idiot.” Nor was it Plaintiff’s attempt to use his Twitter account @charlescarreon to engage in verbal combat with other Twitter users."

    Provably untrue. He may not on Twitter, but the shops, poems, and his own writings (linked elsewhere in this post and comments) shows he does engage in exactly that type of speech that is equally offensive, outragous, and are even fricken cartoons.

    (for example http://www.american-buddha.com/chas.scribble.49.htm )

    Also, if you want to wander the stuff of his on american buddha, click the link below and it'll generate the search automatically. Picking through it little by little, but everything he accuses others of doing he seems to do regularly.

    (Note that it will make your brain melt both from bad design, general craziness, and poor keening. Long term exposure to Tara Carreon's wrting has also been known to cause flame wars, intercrazies, and typists finger.)

    Charles Carreon articles at american budha:
    http://www.american-buddha.com/search/?match_type=all&search=%22charles+Carreon%22

  110. Daniel Hagan says:

    Anyone know where FunnyJunk LLC is registered? I couldn't find it in CA, WA, OR, LA (D&B hit, but no record), or FL (domain registrar address). Seems odd that when it came time to sue, FJ isn't a plaintiff…

  111. L'lee says:

    Ok, I can't be the only one whose seen the irony in the similarity of his last name to carrion – the sustenance of wolves, vultures and jackals, can I?

  112. T. J. Brumfield says:

    Sarahw raises an interesting question. Has anyone identified who owns FunnyJunk?

  113. T. J. Brumfield says:

    "made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS"

    It is clear he donated solely for the purpose of suing. This is evident by the fact that he previously unsuccessfully tried to shut down the campaign and thusly prevent these charities from receiving money. How can he with a straight face say that he is trying to support the two charities he is actively suing?

  114. T. J. Brumfield says:

    The WHOIS information for FunnyJunk, CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com are all privacy protected. However, FunnyJunk.com isn't hosted by a US server and doesn't use the same privacy protection company that CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com use.

    CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com do use the same privacy protection company, but are hosted by two different companies.

    http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/funnyjunk.com
    http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/charlescarreon.com
    http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/american-buddha.com

  115. Richard says:

    Would this work as an archive in case Carreon memoryholes his website? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:american-buddha.com

  116. joe says:

    I've no idea if it was the real Tara Carreon who posted to Forbes 3 days ago as folllows:

    "Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason that Matt Inman is so popular is because he appeals to the degenerate forces which have made all of our lives so miserable in this world? i.e., the rapists, looters, and warmongers who love nothing more than seeing a hipster sadistically put into a woodchipper, a baby being kicked, or a woman being ridiculed?"

    If it was her I find her comment about The Oatmeal quite hypocritical considering she seems to have no issuess ridiculing other famous women on her American Budda website by photo shopping their faces to create false pictures with naked mens genitals or womens breasts.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.kathleenturner.htm
    http://www.american-buddha.com/mondocannibafeast2.htm

  117. Mike says:

    I noticed in there that he is requesting a jury. How far can he go to exclude jurors? I have a hard time imagining there being enough people without bias (against him or for the various defendants) to even have a fair jury.

    Couldn't Indiegogo just claim truthfully that they are raising money for Inman and not any charity, making it his duty to meet any requirements of fundraising in his location and not where Indiegogo is located? I know that wouldn't be the hilarious result people want to see of the lawyer losing horribly, but still would be interesting.

    This stuff makes me think I must be a lot more naive than I thought. It's already gone way beyond where I would have thought logic, common sense, and morality would have allowed it.

  118. Sarahw says:

    Mr. Clean Hands needs some better soap. Meanwhile I just found out bears can COUNT the number of times Funnyjunk, LLC's mom importunes them for love.

  119. LookingGlass says:

    There's a FunnyJunk incorporated in Nevada:
    "FunnyJunk, LLC"

    Managing Member for that LLC is one Bryan Durel of New York.

  120. W Ross says:

    That groundswell is happening. His name is generating 200 new mentions an hour in Google. Mashable just picked it up.

    http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/funnyjunk-suing-charities-indiegogo/

  121. W Ross says:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/ambu.digitalpamphleteer.htm

    "Internet censorship is just the latest outbreak of a disease that government always suffers from — wanting to control what people can say," says Carreon, "We are shining a light on a problem that no one in Ashland knew about — the existence of a censor inside of the City who could, and did, turn off websites for totally improper reasons. In the case of American Buddha, it was a complaint from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who was the subject of a risque cartoon that was posted on the American Buddha website http://www.american-buddha.com, In other cases, we don't know what the reasons were, but the websites were turned off."

    So he hated it, but he also learned how to do it and then did it to others? But here's the really interesting thing. He seems to have a long history of letting his wife (who's appeared in some really disturbing comments mentioned in other threads that seem legit based on her writings) do his dirty work for him.

    As he was posting highminded rhetoric, she was posting photoshopped pictures of the woman in question getting orally gangbanged. (VERY NSFW http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.kathleenturner.htm ).

    Now in theory no matter how crazy the wife is she should be off limits, EXCEPT… his POINT in this whole thing is Mathew Inman incited third parties to do his dirty work while he kept his hands clean. So it's semi-related, at least to know what to expect next.

  122. Cass says:

    Wait. Wha??

    First Carreon insinuates WWII was caused by Walt Disney (@chad alan, I was wondering if anyone else would say it…)

    And then #38 in his lawsuit states that he, himself, is a contributor to the BearLove campaign, ("…Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign…") I don't want him doing on thing on my behalf or bewhole. So can I sue him for misrepresentation since I didn't authorize him to include me?

    I, like many others, thought this whole thing would keep me entertained for a few days, and then *poof*. This is one time I am glad to admit I was wrong….

  123. Insane says:

    This whole thing is completely mind blowing. This is like on of those '40's farce movies where Carry Grant's actions and words are completely misconstrued. And the butthurt people incite all kinds of mayhem over nothing. The only thing that really bothers me is the only girl in this one is from the bear love campaign. I feel sorry for Inman since the hero always gets the girl in the end.

    I would like to think that maybe Carreon is some sort of white knight fundraising genius that is willingly falling on his sword to bring in beaucoup bucks for NWF and ACS and that no one is really so stupid to actually sue as a result of not being able to comprehend that a comedian does comedy. Perhaps if the former were the case he would be the hero and get the girl in the end, instead of Inman.

  124. Kendie says:

    @Mike regarding a jury selection, this carnival of events is not as well known outside the online-comics/internet law circles. Most of my friends are avid consumers of news and memes, but have not heard of this. Imagine jury selection of mostly 40+ year olds, and I doubt anyone would have heard of it, and might be swayed by the childish vulgarity of theOatmeal's drawings (which I'm a huge fan of) and they also might believe the drivel flowing from Carreon's beak.

  125. W Ross says:

    http://theoatmeal.com/blog/carreon

    The Oatmeal has responded. Very cool, very noble. The #*$&storm is following right behind, though.

    https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/charles%20carreon

    O.O

  126. Ann Bransom says:

    I decided to get some perspective on the situation from my own counsel. My six year old niece. I feel that her perspective on the matter is pretty cut and dry.

    http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/06/bear-love-streisand-effect-and-charles.html

    In other news, I can't believe this week.

    Seriously.

    And it takes a lot to surprise me anymore.

    I know that Pope Hat and Lowering the Bar are not going to provide too much commentary on the suit that has been filed so that Inman's attorney can do his job, but come on guys. Scale of 1-10. What are the chances of this thing actually going to court?

  127. L. Hutz says:

    Would this work as an archive in case Carreon memoryholes his website? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:american-buddha.com

    For a little while, but not as permanent as web.archive.org (which has american-buddha.com's robots.txt file blocks). And whoever runs American Buddha could take the pages down and request that Google delete the cached versions.

  128. T. J. Brumfield says:

    LookingGlass – the address Bryan Durel is using is a rented mailbox at a UPS store.

  129. W Ross says:

    https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/214786887666249728

    Charles Carreon's fail is so big it's now DDOSing sites with the power of it's own awesomeness.

  130. Sarahw says:

    I was just going to post that you can look up the Nevada llc info; Carreon isn't listed as an officer or agent or anything.

    If the managning member has changed, the latest report on that is due at the end of this month (June 30).

    N

  131. Diana Lee says:

    I'm so glad you guys have his back. This is just ridiculous. Even a totally frivolous lawsuit like this one can cost the defendants a lot of money to make it go away.

  132. Sarahw says:

    I was just going to post that you can look up the Nevada llc info; Carreon isn't listed as an officer or agent or anything.

    If the managning member has changed, the latest report on that is due at the end of this month (June 30).

  133. In terms of archiving Carreon's sites, there are tools for Mac, PC, and Linux that will download and archive entire sites intact:

    Mac: http://www.sitesucker.us/
    PC or Linux: http://www.httrack.com/

    A question for any lawyers—what would constitute legitimate evidence that an archive or screenshot is real, and the pages haven't been altered?

  134. Scott Jacobs says:

    The Oatmeal's response was very good. My favorite part?

    Hugs and sexy bear kisses,

    It's like a massive, dildo-shaped "FUCK YOU", only funnier.

  135. Ann Bransom says:

    oh look, Ken. You got a love letter on Techdirt:

    Posted on: Jun 18th, 2012 @ 11:59am by TaraCarreon

    I really hope that Ken at Popehat (why is he the Pope's hat?)volunteers to represent Matt Inman pro bono. It'll be so much easier for us to win, then.

  136. Kristi says:

    The whole situation is a mess, but it's really a sad day when someone would include two charities in their lawsuit. I mean, how does one look at themselves in the mirror thinking "I'm suing charities that help wildlife and people with cancer. I'm just awesome like that."

  137. Nicholas Weaver says:

    On a page by page examination, Carreon's website version appears to match the official one from lowering the bar.

    Thus for those wanting to cut & paste goodies from Carreon's complaint where he seems to commit false statements, gross hypocracy, and other such nuggets of joy, use Carreon's web page copy since thats in PDF text form.

  138. grumpasaurus says:

    pst… it's "IndyGoGo does too," not "IndyGoGo does to."

  139. W Ross says:

    @Ann Yep, that's the exact kind of behavior I was talking about. Search for "Tara Carreon" or "TaraCarreon" and links in the last week and you can her popping up tons of places doing exactly what he claims is so egregious.

  140. jess says:

    Ann – nice post from your year old niece. Sometimes the youngsters know right from wrong and how to play nice with others better than the adults.

    On another note, no way to know for sure if that was TaraCarreon on TechDirt but if it was I would pay to see that showdown.

  141. Margaret says:

    Not a lawyer (or even a blogger), just a casual fan of the Oatmeal who's finding the whole situation fascinating, and enjoying how informative and understandable Popehat's posts are.

    I just have to say, yes to everything else that's been said, but also: How does a guy who is associated with an Internet post containing a photo of some woman's head (a real person whom he apparently dislikes for some reason), Photoshopped with dicks pointing at her mouth, claim he has some kind of MORAL HIGH GROUND?? The mind, she boggles.

  142. T. J. Brumfield says:

    Ken, I have a question.

    Assuming this does qualify as a SLAPP lawsuit, could Carreon be on the hook for the legal fees of Inman, the NWF, the ACS, IndyGoGo, AND 100+ Does? That would be one hefty bill.

  143. Sarah says:

    @guest
    "Surely there should be limits to testing the limits of sheer idiocy."
    Do you mean we should pass laws? ;) I'm pretty sure that would result in an entire court system filled with equally entertaining cases!!

    @jeremy
    That's the *truly* important issue here.

  144. Charles Carreon wrote a rap song about his battle with "The Oatmeal"

    http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.donttalkaboutmother.htm

  145. My open letter to Carreon (to his chas@charlescarreon.com e-mail address):

    Hi Chas,

    Just saw your suit against, among others, the National Wildlife Federation and American Cancer Society. You’re going to sue NWF and the Cancer Society? Really?

    First of all, you have no standing to sue those organizations and the fundraising platform, which should be obvious. Second, your remaining claims are frivolous against anyone but Does 1 – 100. Any use of your “trademark” was clearly not done to provide legal services and clearly constituted fair use, and you have no evidence to show that Inman attempted to incite anyone.

    In short, congratulations on making a name for himself as the man who sues charities, legitimate and lawful Internet content publishers, and anyone else who doesn’t bow to you. As a human being, you should know better, but as a lawyer, your conduct has departed frmo the minimum professional standards requried by you. I will be filing a formal complaint with the California Bar regarding your conduct.

    Yours,

    Jonathan Corbett

  146. LonePaladin says:

    Here's a good one:

    37. Inman’s stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign to the NWF and the ACS, presumably splitting that amount between the two Charitable Defendants.

    Actually, he stated that he was going to take a picture of the money he got, then send half to each charity. He didn't say "$10,000 each" or something like that, just that each would get half.

  147. Eponymous Coward says:

    Having just read some of the complaint what struck me as odd is that on line 38 Carreon claims to have been a contributor to the Bear Love Good fundraiser. This makes no sense to me unless he did it so that he can make a claim against it as a stakeholder in the charity drive. This gets truly stranger by the minute…

  148. Jack says:

    he claims that his personal confidential email wasn't available on the internet, yet anyone that can do a Google search could have easily found it. For example, I found this post which includes his "private" email address http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=chas%40charlescarreon.com&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CG0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.american-buddha.com%2Fambu.emailcharles8.28.07.htm&ei=6IXfT6_EMsLY2gXy_Z3iAQ&usg=AFQjCNHdrTi-Cdq8t6V176B7ZGb4nStPug

  149. T-Willard says:

    This is why we can't have nice things on the internet.

  150. Curtis says:

    Perhaps a nudge to the left of this situation, but Megaupload owner, Kim Dotcom, is currently under US Federal investigation (and be held by *New Zealand* authorities for US "crimes") for copyright violations identical to FunnyJunk. Kim Dotcom's house was raided by a swat team, all his computers were seized, hundred's of millions of dollars were frozen, and he was initially thrown in jail for weeks without bail…

  151. Jack: nice catch. I took it one step further and used the search tool on the American Buddha website. That purportedly private email address appears at least 23 times on that website.

  152. W Ross says:

    Woah… from that Tara Carreon Techdirt link. It might be worth it to find out if that's her, since she's threatening people with nuisance lawsuits:
    ——
    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    TaraCarreon (profile), Jun 17th, 2012 @ 4:59pm
    Since when did you become a copyright chicken hawk? You probably still have MP3s and movies on your hard drive that you got through illegal file-sharing on Napster, Kaaza, and Pirate Bay, you hypocrite. Better delete all of them right now before Charles subpoenas them to prove that you're a media mole.
    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
    insightful funny report
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    STStone, Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:04pm
    Subpoena me for what — saying things you don't like?
    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
    insightful funny report
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    TaraCarreon (profile), Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:17pm
    For all of that illegal content on your hard drive. You'll have to seek a protective order to keep your porn stash private. What's your preference — het, gay, bi, BDSM?
    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
    insightful funny report
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    STStone, Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:20pm
    What law does he plan to subpoena me under? I haven't…

    …wait. Did you just vaguely threaten to try and out me to the general public using a subpoena and use that as a tool to embarass and humiliate me?

    WOW. You, darling, have sunk lower than your husband.

  153. mojo says:

    90% of lawyers give the other 10% a bad name.

  154. W Ross: one of her subsequent posts says she's "JK" and that Charles Carreon would NEVER abuse the legal system like that. I'm still not sure whether it's actually her or, if it is her, how it's relevant.

  155. Anarcoplayba says:

    Hia, good afternoon to everyone.

    I'm a brazilian lawyer who also works with trademarks and litigation and I can only be sad that some people (everywhere) seems to truly corrupt their own legal system and right's protections.

    My best wishes for the Oatmeal and all of you who voluntereed yourselves in the defense of not only a website, but also free speech and the right to not be so serious.

  156. MJ says:

    Considering how butthurt Charlie is about the comic of the super sexy mom & bear, he wasn't shy about drawing a comic of his own which I thik clearly shows intent for bodily harm against Matt Inman (represented by the Pterodactyl) – http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.donttalkaboutmother.htm – also, rap.

  157. Keith A says:

    Funny thing is- Carreon has already tried to use these same tactics in his defense of the Emily Doll trademark: http://www.ragingblog.com/2009/05/pornographers-infringe-emily-trademark-and-mattel-is-silent-how-swell-is-that/

    I guess it must be different when those same tactics are used against you!

  158. Jack says:

    MJ Nice find.
    I think it's hilarious that he thinks that the oatmeal's cartoon was about his mom when the oatmeal stated clearly that the cartoon was aimed at the FJ admin's mother. Unless of course "chas" is actually the admin of FJ, which would explain a lot.

  159. Jack says:

    Carreon isn't listed as an agent or managing member of FunnyJunk LLC on the Nevada Secretary of State website, so there goes that theory.

  160. Vinnie says:

    Carreon's statements are fallacious and don't deserve the negligible bandwidth it takes to host them. According to Carreon, Inman is guilty of the following:
    1) encouraged people to hack his website
    2) "brute force" his WordPress installation
    3) in turn, he had to change his password.
    4) encouraged people to violate my trademark
    5) violated my twitter name

    Inman never said anything referring to, implying, or suggesting the hacking of anyone's website.
    What did he do specifically or encourage people to do to his WordPress, to his "trademark" or Twitter name?
    Nothing.
    Why? Because most of Inman's readers possess the minute level of Internet savvy it takes to Google someone's name and find some contact information. He never came close to encouraging or soliciting any kind of retaliatory action from his readers, and instead redirected his energy and resources into fundraising for charitable causes. It was completely within Inman's rights to make it known what had happened, and to defend himself in the public eye.
    To say that Carreon is grabbing at straws is like saying teenage girls should exercise more prudence with the pictures they upload. Perhaps Carreon should himself find a lawyer.

    Oh, and he thinks he had to change a password. I have no words for that statement.

    I hope Inman and the whole lot countersues with defamation charges and earns even more money to donate to charity.

  161. Pablo says:

    People should try and take a crack at username and password for:

    Edited to add: no they fucking shouldn't. Can you read? Take that shit somewhere else, asswipe.

  162. Jack says:

    Jeff Dover,
    The California bar lists him as being disciplined in 2006 and suspended but it looks like he was punished for the same thing Oregon punished him for http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/127139

    Note that his "private" email address is publicly available on the CA State bar website.

  163. Fletcher says:

    I am playing armchair lawyer here, but reading the complaint leaves me with some questions. As I follow the story, my understanding is that Matthew Inman, DBA the Oatmeal, has started a fundraiser to do two things: create a photo of $20,000 to send to Charles Carreon, and then purportedly to donate that money to charity. However, at no point either through the blog at oatmeal.com, nor through the indiegogo site have I seen any implication that Inman represents anything but his business, which is not a charity. As I understand sites like kickstarter and indiegogo, they exist so people like me can give money to other people. I see no contracts that say they have to use the money as I see fit, and in this particular case the money is stated to be directed towards Inman taking a picture and then giving $20,000 to two charities. After that first 20k was raised, I saw no implied promise that Inman couldn't just pocket the difference. Since Carreon was not one of the people who donated in the first hour, how does he even see the possibility of a claim? He gave money to a for-profit business, with a promise that a small portion raised would go to two non-profits, but without claiming to even be raising money directly for them. The primary purpose appears to be to raise cash to take a photograph, which would seem to complete the terms of the implied contract. Is Carreon perhaps illiterate? Or just someone who believes lawyer jokes?

  164. Nikropht says:

    This guy and his wife are total asshats. His wife took a pic of a well known Washington post writer and photshopped it onto porn. When she asked them kindly to stop they did not. So she went the legal route.
    Whole thing is here http://www.american-buddha.com/ambuvs.city.toc.htm

    Also for interested parties. The Carreon's home address and phone is posted in those links on their own website.

  165. SamuraiKnitter says:

    It's not just – potentially – Carrion's wife. Someone claiming to be his daughter spent the weekend roaming Twitter and randomly calling to task people who were criticizing "her father".

    I'm not including the Twitter user name, on the chance it's NOT his daughter but someone else stirring the pot. And also, even with all else, I still hesitate to drag someone's child into a mess, even an adult child apparently begging to be dragged in.

    If he REALLY wants to put on the act that he finds this internet shaming so horrible, shouldn't he rein in his own family from doing essentially the same thing? Would their behavior be admissible in court, if this ever got that far? Or is it all just a really big cluster F at this stage?

  166. Anarcoplayba says:

    Not really: http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood?c=activity

    Matthew Inman posted an announcement 5 days ago

    One other note: a lot of people have been asking what I plan to do with the extra money we raised over the initial $20,000. 100% of it is going to charity. I’m going to add 2 more charities to the list, in addition to the ACS and the NWF.

  167. joe says:

    Ken may post a reminder and The Oatmeal also said “And to anyone else who is reading this: it goes without saying, but stop harassing Carreon. Be lawful and civil in your interactions with him. If you want to help, go donate.”

    Poking fun at Carreon on various blogs and outing his lies = OK.

    Posting his home address, contacting him personally, flooding his personal email with nasty grams, or suggesting hacking any of his accounts = not OK.

    Remember – we should be the good guys

  168. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Keith: It wasn't a trademark "defense", it rather appears to be the petulant response of an ambulance chaser who's attempt to drum up businsess for himself failed miserably, so instead he wanted to encourage people to email-bomb his would be client!

  169. Anita says:

    So why would FunnyJunk have hired Carreon to send that original letter to The Oatmeal a full year after their original scrape? Why is it happening now (opposed to a year ago)?

    And if one of Carreon's problems with The Oatmeal is that he called him derogatory names (e.g. douchebag), then isn't his behavior proving out that opinion? Someone needs to protect this man from himself.

  170. Jack says:

    I really hope that this nonsense results in disciplinary action for Carreon. At the very least he made a false statement in his filing. Doesn't that count as misconduct?

  171. Dave says:

    I see his website now comes up on "Web Of Trust" as having a bad reputation!

  172. Adam says:

    Anyone else find it fitting that Carreon sounds like carrion?

  173. Kit says:

    I know many people have pointed it out before this, but here is the actual quote, written right in the description of the charity, where Inman states that the cartoon of the bearloving mother is directed at the owner FunnyJunk:

    "Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother. I'm going to try and raise $20,000 and instead send it to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. "

    So… what am I missing? How can Carreon include that cartoon in his lawsuit on his own behalf?

  174. William C says:

    If one were to search for Charles Carreon here,
    http://calbar.ca.gov/
    They would find all of his information.
    This information is readily available to the public, I wonder if he himself was aware of that?

  175. Thorne says:

    [Kanye]
    "Yo, Charles, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Paul Christoforo had one of the best Internet meltdowns of all time! One of the best Internet meltdowns of all time!"
    [/Kanye]

  176. Kelly says:

    Was a huge fan of yours after the Ecologica Malibu fiasco over at Regretsy. When I saw this start with the Oatmeal, I instalty thought of you. (The Popehat signal went up!) Loving your updates and insights, and I'm thrilled to see you offer your help, Ken. You're a freaking legend! I just hope this internet nutjob eventually figures out when to stop.

  177. Huh, would you look at that? says:

    While looking at this:

    Kit • Jun 18, 2012 @3:18 pm

    I know many people have pointed it out before this, but here is the actual quote, written right in the description of the charity, where Inman states that the cartoon of the bearloving mother is directed at the owner FunnyJunk:

    "Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother. I'm going to try and raise $20,000 and instead send it to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. "

    So… what am I missing? How can Carreon include that cartoon in his lawsuit on his own behalf?

    It suddenly occurred to me: What if this is a freudian slip of the largest magnitude?

  178. jess says:

    Thorne – Joe pointed the thing in III of this series at http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/15/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iii-charles-carreons-lifetime-movie-style-dysfunctional-relationship-with-the-internet/ @ 9:11pm. It does indeed remind me of the Christoforo – Penny Arcade silliness. Christoforo, Ratkofsky, and Stephens are all startingly similar in their petulant pursuit of "fix my internet butt hurt ego". Part of me wants to tell them to put on their big boy pants. Sadly it appears they are all incapable of listening.

  179. Chris says:

    joe • Jun 18, 2012 @2:03 pm

    "Poking fun at Carreon on various blogs and outing his lies = OK.

    Posting his home address, contacting him personally, flooding his personal email with nasty grams, or suggesting hacking any of his accounts = not OK.

    Remember – we should be the good guys"

    Joe, first off there is no "WE". Second fuck you for trying to be my moral compass. I'll do what I damn well want to, and if writing him a letter doesn't help the cause I don't give a shit. I don't exist for the cause as you have determined the "good guys" to represent.

    You may be trying to help but you are being a censorious asshat yourself.

  180. VPJ says:

    overtly petulant-entitled-crazypants.

    That would be a good name for a rock band. Or an annual award. The Annual Popehat Overtly Petulant Crazypants Awards. Hrmmmmm…

  181. Ken says:

    Joe, first off there is no "WE". Second fuck you for trying to be my moral compass. I'll do what I damn well want to, and if writing him a letter doesn't help the cause I don't give a shit. I don't exist for the cause as you have determined the "good guys" to represent.

    You may be trying to help but you are being a censorious asshat yourself.

    Chris:

    You're free to let your moral compass spin any way it wants. But if you really think saying "don't be a dick, and don't engage in criminal conduct, and don't engage in conduct that helps Carreon and hurts his critics" is being a censorious asshat, then I think you don't grasp the message of these posts or this site.

  182. Jason says:

    This guy is digging so furiously he's going to hit escape velocity soon.

  183. Thorne says:

    Funniest thing about Rakofsky is that, shortly, the new meme should be…

    "You never go full Carreon."

    …and he'll find himself forgotten. Relatively speaking, of course.

  184. Cass says:

    If you ever get good and truly bored, Carreon's own blog posts make for some insightful reading. As in, he has filed this same lawsuit, from the other side, and lost. Old dogs/new tricks.

    http://verbalassassin.com/2012/06/18/oatmeal_and_army/

  185. William C says:

    Marc Randazza(he was mentioned in the edits of Part 1, a friend of Carreon) has posted about the who fiasco:

    http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/carreon-triples-down-sues-matthew-inman/

    He sums it up quite nicely, "Carreon just made himself a meme — and not in a good way. This will not end well for him. I just want to say that I tried. I really tried to get him to come to his senses. I tried really really hard. "

  186. Thorne says:

    And if you're bored and suddenly find the urge to end it all, Google 'Subterranean Meltdown' for the WORST. POETRY. EVER.

    "You never go full Carreon."

    "Which one?"

    "Does it really matter?"

  187. Chris says:

    Ken,

    As I said in the comments from the last post. I'm not fond of the criminal or illegal labels.

    I grasp the point all too well.

    What I don't like is when ANYONE tries to tell me how to behave. And especially when they represent the "right side" or the "good guys".

    And I would suggest that if Carreon v. Oatmeal is on such shaky ground that a letter or an email calling this guy a cunt is going to sway the whole thing, then it's a lot more precarious than I had originally thought.

    And if that isn't the case (and I don't think it is) then telling people not to do the things which are completely legal because it might hurt a third party's perceived good guy status, well that is being a censorious douche.

  188. Jim C says:

    Jack @1:43pm: Nevada is home to a lot of shell corporations and Professional Corporate Officers of Record — basically, they collect a fee for filing incorporation papers and maintaining a mail drop (forwarding the received mail on to the next layer of the shell). Lots of "XXXX Y Avenue, Suite ZZZ" addresses map to UPS Stores (formerly Mail Boxes, Etc.) and the like in strip malls, with the "Suite" being the box number.

    My hunch is that FunnyJunk, LLC, if that's in fact the same company, is using a similar arrangement. For reference, here's of someone running on the fringes of the law using Nevada-based shell companies.

  189. Ken says:

    And if that isn't the case (and I don't think it is) then telling people not to do the things which are completely legal because it might hurt a third party's perceived good guy status, well that is being a censorious douche.

    Not unless you have thin skin — Charles-Carreon-level thin skin — about having your conduct criticized.

    Being threatened with a lawsuit, or sued, or threatened with arrest, or fired — those are censorship. But Wil Wheaton is not a censor when he says "Don't Be A Dick."

    Criticism is not censorship.

  190. SPQR says:

    Hear, hear, Ken. And urging people to uphold a community's standards are part of building community.

  191. Jim C says:

    Let's try this again with proper HTML: Here's an example of someone using Nevada-based shell corporations to aid in running around in the grey areas of the law.

  192. Chris says:

    Joe wasn't criticizing Ken. He was Directing. I live by that golden rule thing. I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. As a corollary, I don't do to others as I don't want done to me: I don't direct nor take direction.

    SPQR,
    I didn't realize when I starting believing in my God given right to speech I became part of a community that needed policing.

  193. Just want to point out what you probably already know:

    The primary complaint (and the only thing in here that might have a vague wave of a hand towards legal relevance) is Carreon's claim that Inman et al failed to comply with California's charitable fundraising regulations.

    Except that, since Carreon is apparently in asshat mode, he didn't bother to read the statute. It took me five seconds to determine that the statute in question doesn't create a private right of action. It says:

    Cal. Gov. Code 12598. (a) The primary responsibility for supervising charitable trusts in California, for ensuring compliance with trusts and articles of incorporation, and for protection of assets held by charitable trusts and public benefit corporations, resides in the
    Attorney General.

    And also:

    Cal. Gov. Code 12591. Nothing in this article shall impair or restrict the jurisdiction of any court with respect to any of the matters covered by it, except that no court shall have jurisdiction to modify or terminate any trust of property for charitable purposes unless the Attorney General is a party to the proceedings.

    In other words, private parties can't sue to enforce the statute under which Carreon is suing.

  194. SPQR says:

    Chris, you made Wil Wheaton sad.

  195. Erwin Felling says:

    Anyone else feel the utter ANGER and DISILLUSIONMENT (not to mention the absolute sense of bewilderment I had after visiting) that radiates from american-buddha.com??

    Wow.

  196. Thorne says:

    @ Chris…

    It's not about "policing"; it's about exercising good judgment.
    As Ken stated, criticism is not censorship.

    Wanna send him Carreon an e-mail expressing your opinion that he's a cunt? Knock yourself out.

    It's a not-so-fine-line crossed when someone sends an e-mail that says something like "I hope you die in a fire. And I hope I'm the one holding the matches, fucker."

    That helps no-one and we'd all be fools not to believe some douchebags did just that trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak of the Internet.

  197. Brett says:

    "Hi, I'm Charles Carreon, welcome to Jackass!"

  198. Chris says:

    @Thorne,
    Good judgement IS NOT directed. It is something you either have or you don't. And nudging me and anyone else in such a way as Joe did above and Ken did in part III is wrong.

    And your right, it is a very BROAD line between calling someone out and threatening them.

    And I doubt anyone who reads this blog with any regularity does any of the threatening nonsense. That's why the direction is so reprehensible. It's nudging from good intentions, which is where all censorious douches start.

  199. JohnJ says:

    Also not to be a copyright hawk but considering american-buddha.com directly hosts and disseminates copyrighted music, shouldn't we send a couple of investigatory requests to the RIAA?

  200. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    Yeah, telling me that I shouldn't do something is wrong! Now excuse me while I tell Carreon he shouldn't do something.

  201. RandomOnlooker says:

    @JohnJ

    At least two people over on techdirt are doing the same thing. I can't see any harm in it in any case. After all, if they're really on the right side of the law contacting the *AA's won't mean anything.

  202. Thorne says:

    Y'know, it seems to me the only other person who failed this miserably every step of the way while never once doubting in his ability (or lack thereof) was Ed Wood.

    I don't see this going the way of 'Plan 9', though.

    No, twenty years from now, I can see this becoming another 'Rocky Horror', with people staging dramatic readings of Carreon's 45-page complaint while audience members shout sarcastic lines.

  203. T. J. Brumfield says:

    The really weird thing is that Carreon claims it is legal for him to provide direct downloads of unlicensed copyrighted music. How does that work?

  204. Thorne says:

    By the way…

    If someone grabbed a copy of his sex.com book off his website and then uploaded it to FunnyJunk, would the Internet collapse in a black hole of irony??

    Food for thought.

  205. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    TJ: American Buddha argues that because they label themselves a "library", it's fair use. The Second Circuit last year rejected Carreon's argument that the site wasn't subject to jurisdiction in New York. I don't know what the status of the case is after that.

  206. W Ross says:

    @Chris You're totally Carreoning thing out of proportion here!

    Also @CharlesCarreon is now going through and answering Tweets. *headdesk*

    https://twitter.com/#!/charlescarreon

  207. Dan Weber says:

    telling people not to do the things which are completely legal

    There has to be a gap between what's legal and what's socially acceptable. People don't have to tolerate things merely because they are legal. I have to be able to say "that is a scummy thing that you do, even though it is legal and should remain legal."

    Carreon claims it is legal for him to provide direct downloads of unlicensed copyrighted music. How does that work?

    He has a novel interpretation of the law, that he can just say the magic words "I'm a li-berry" and that makes it not a copyright violation.

    I get the feeling that he's been skating by on this by dealing with tiny fish in tiny ponds, but now that the legal community at large has seen it, it will come under scrutiny for once and collapse.

  208. Yeah, Carreon says whoever is satirically impersonating him is going to be a defendant, and is going to reveal their identity via subpoena. Apparently getting Twitter to nix the account isn't enough to stop the oh-so-great damage. Whoever that is might want to get ahold of Ken.

  209. Sam Gleske says:

    I would like to add that "chas@charlescarreon.com" is easily found on the internet with a single google search, "*@charlescarreon.com site:whois.domaintools.com" without quotes.

    His claim that only privileged persons had access to this address is bogus from his statement in #62 of the redacted filing. The second link of that search renders the email address…
    http://whois.domaintools.com/ethicslawyers.com

    Along, with what appears to be a business address but could also be his personal as I have no way of knowing. The point is his claim is, "How can people find information on the internet that I posted on the internet?" Kind of a dumb argument if you ask me.

    Pretty weak.

  210. Joe says:

    Ken, SPQR Thorn, thank you for your comments.

    Chris. First I have no idea why you would believe my comment was directed specifically at you. Second, I will say that anyone posting on this board since November of last year when I first found this site is well aware the last thing I do is try to “tell” anyone else what to do –I doubt the scurvy lot of them would listen anyway. Third, I know better than to try to “direct” traffic in Ken’s living room – he doesn’t require my help. Forth, if you think "such direction is so reprehensible and that it is nudging from good intentions, which is where all censorious douches start", then I wonder if you have really been paying attention to Ken’s prior posts. Fifth, I understand and appreciate the effort and time Ken, Patrick, and David put into this site and I enjoy participating in the Popehat community. Unfortunately there have been times in the past where Ken has had to strike commenters because they stepped over the line – perhaps you were unaware of that. If the community becomes too troublesome because Ken has to continually police it for idiots that encourage or promote seriously stupid things that border on inciting illegal actions (as a prior poster on this very thread did in fact do), then my fear would be someday Ken decides it is too much trouble and “poof” no more Popehat. I would miss my daily dose of Popehat and I have to tell you I really hate it when people try to fuck that up for me.

    Chris – your comment “Good judgment IS NOT directed. It is something you either have or you don't. And nudging me and anyone else in such a way as Joe did above and Ken did in part III is wrong.” Indeed Chris, good judgment shouldn’t need to be directed but apparently in your case it does, because if you have such a serious problem with my “comment” which BTW is the same EXACT stance on the situation as The Oatmeal, AND you’re going to sit here and tell Ken he is wrong and argue with him about it then I would say you are showing a very serious lack of good judgment. Seriously, what makes you telling me what I can or cannot say any better? While you’re at it why don’t you zip The Oatmeal a note telling him what a censorious douche he is for trying to tell people to behave and see how that goes over with him.

  211. Cameron Brydges says:

    Wow. He's pretty much taken himself past the point of no return with this whole situation, now. There's no way he can gracefully get out of this, even though he'd still be best to just drop it now and save whatever face he can.

    He's pretty much cemented himself as this decade's Jack Thompson (the guy who essentially blamed all modern violence on video games, and specifically "Grand Theft Auto").

  212. Chris R. says:

    Chris, I don't think asking people to be civil is censorship. I think suing someone because they weren't is.

  213. jess says:

    Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @6:11 pm

    Dude that is a seriously funny ass comment. Thanks for the laugh. I also agree with your comments to Chris RE his reply to Joe.

    Chris – you may not realize this but is a blog “community” not Twitter. This is Ken’s blog– HE decides what you get to say here whether you like being told what to do or not. If you don’t like his policy or his “requests” for how people conduct themselves on this blog then I don't know – - – - perhaps you need to decide if this is the place for you. Have to say calling the blog owner wrong in this situation——– not real high on my list of demonstrating "good judgment".

  214. Jonathan says:

    I might not live in America, nor am I a lawyer, blogger or anything of the like. Still, this is providing me with a source of nearly unending amusement.

    This is lifted directly from the IndieGoGo page: "Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother."

    I would have thought reading comprehension was an important thing as a lawyer, I might be mistaken on that in this case. Inman clearly states the owner of FunnyJunk, not Charle's Look-At-Me-I'm-A-Pretentious-Douche Carreon. So Carreon, I heard you liked carrion so we put some in your carry-on so you can carry on.

    On a related note, while I do abhor what Carreon is doing, I still think that we should observe some modicum of civility in how we deal with this. I don't exactly think that email hacking/personal attacks via email or mail/website hacking are going to achieve anything other than drive him into some sort of lawsuit against the internet and puppies. Instead, channel it constructively!

    Bearlove Good, Cancer Bad, Carreon Worse.

  215. yundah says:

    It's summer and television offerings are at the nadir but I don't care. We have the evolving singularity that is Carreon preparing to fall in on himself. I feel badly for Matt Inman. I love The Oatmeal and I think he is brilliantly funny. He should not have to put up with this idiocy. I also agree with Popehat that it is ridiculous that these types of suits can be filed. We do need to develop rules that allow the courts to hammer idiots who file frivolous suits.
    Someone above made a comment worrying about "bear love" losing its luster as one read through the complaint. I started imagining the clerk and judge reading this stuff, then a hearing or two where Bear Love, or even better, the Motherf*****g Pterodactyl gets talked about, over and over, and decided that that just might be a good day to be a judge.

  216. joe says:

    @ Chris R. – thank you – I can see by both your Avatar and your comment that you likely know I was referring to the "other Chris" in my last post "-)

  217. Mike says:

    This is a PICTURE of the ACTUAL LAWYER from his OWN WEBSITE Pretending to Commit SUICIDE!

    http://www.american-buddha.com/chasflag4.jpg

  218. Mike says:

    LOOK! The Lawyer may be a Copyright Infringer on his OWN SITE!

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/103533326117556337218/posts/EriD18SEsvF

  219. Churles Curreon says:

    "Charitable organizations operating in California must approve all written contracts for fundraising on their behalf."

    Neither of those charities is located in California.

  220. Brian says:

    Although Mr. Bumble was referring to the legal doctrine of coverture when he observed, "the law is a ass," I think the same could be easily applied to this absurd suit if it goes anywhere. What a pity that Inman and so many others have had to waste their time, energy, and money on addressing the petulant cries of someone clearly out of touch with reality.

  221. Mike says:

    Look at this Page on his OWN WEBSITE! Is This Copyright Infringement?
    http://www.american-buddha.com/site.map.htm

    Here is an ENTIRE Maya Angelou Book!
    http://www.american-buddha.com/lit.heartofwoman.htm

  222. Andrew Roth says:

    Grifter, I'm comfortable absolving Tucson of all responsibility for Charles Carreon. He was raised in Tucson, and he pretentiously invokes it in his self-absorbed poetry, but he long ago established himself as an Ashland original. If any place deserves responsibility for Carreon's douchebaggery, it is Ashland, Oregon.

    I know something whereof I speak because, God help me, I currently live in Ashland, although I've been scheming to get the fuck out for months. Worse, I'm a member of the California diaspora, which is disproportionately responsible for making Jackson County all different kinds of fucked up. I'd like to think that I'm doing something to make that wretched little corner of the world a better place, but I'm part of a most inauspicious demographic.

    I seem to be the only person who's in town for pragmatic reasons, mainly farm work. Everyone else is on some sort of obnoxious "quest." There's no reasoning with people so self-absorbed, self-important and self-righteous. One thing's for sure, those bearfuckers have self-esteem down pat!

    Carreon is worse than average for Ashland, but not nearly as much worse as one should hope.

  223. Nigel Declan says:

    I wonder… has anyone ever seen both Charles Carreon and James Rakovsky in the same room together?

  224. S.B. says:

    What a stupid dumbass… Do all lawyers in usa so retarded?

  225. G Thompson says:

    Just saw the following comment over on techdirt and wasn't wuite sure if anyone had seen this (and yes it's from her) [ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/11235319370/carreons-full-filing-reveals-he-donated-to-oatmeal-campaign-himself-plus-other-assorted-nuttiness.shtml#c1099 ]

    TaraCarreon (profile), Jun 18th, 2012 @ 10:45pm

    WANTED FOR IMPERSONATING A CHARITY: MATT INMAN
    $100,000 REWARD
    (Balloon 1: "Fight Cancer")
    (Balloon 2: "Love Bears")

    http://www.american-buddha.com/wanted-poster-matt-inman10.jpg

    Not sure if relevant for the Anti-Slap etc in the US legal system (or counter suit perhaps???) or just as I stated in a reply full proof of hypocrisy, but it leads me to conclude even more so that Carreon (and by proxy his wife it seems) needs lots of Oatmeal for constipation since he/they is/are extremely full of shit.

  226. Jerky says:

    So how does an internet "lawyer" get away with distributing free mp3's from his "Buddhist Library"?:
    http://www.american-buddha.com/music.toc.htm
    I suggest you report him for online piracy!
    https://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php?content_selector=report-piracy-online

  227. Ashley says:

    I'm reading through the complaint right now, and even though I'm not well versed in the legal language I can already see quite a few glaring inaccuracies involving everything from Inman's stated intention to references to the Indiegogo contract. I can honestly say I've been following this story like a pre-teen girl follows Justin Beiber. I can't wait to see the next act – and even though I assume all will be well for Inman, Indiegogo, and the two charities, I really hope everything goes well for them in the next stage of this saga.

  228. Simon says:

    Carreon keeps blathering on about The Oatmeal accusing his mother of bestiality. On the fund raising case this is patently not the case. In the description of his IndieGoGo campaign he says:

    "Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother"

    The picture in question is a humourous representation of the OWNER of FunnnyJunk's mom and a cuddly loving bear. It is definitely Carreon's mom.

  229. DES says:

    Ken, could you please add an "Oatmeal v FunnyJunk" or similar tag to these posts?

  230. Nibor says:

    I've noticed that those FunnyJunk guys are no longer involved, they were the start of it all, probably they have as much troubles with the dwindling economy as everybody else (this is my evil brain talking and I have no evidence to support it) , and they took a shot, missed and bailed out as soon they saw the (possible) fallout, as only Charles was that wise.

  231. Patrik says:

    A trademark in the category "Computer & Software Services & Scientific Services" for "FUNNYJUNK" was filed on the 23:rd of May-2012. Description: "Hosting an on-line community web site featuring a forum where users can post, comment on, and cast votes of approval or disapproval for pictures, photographs, cartoons, stories and videos, and participate in a ranking system in which users are ranked according to the number of favorable votes their postings receive."

    The request was filed on behalf of "FunnyJunk, LLC in Bridgeport, CT, 066072433". Designated correspondent for the trademark request is "CHARLES CARREON of CHARLES CARREON, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 2165 S AVENIDA PLANETA, TUCSON, AZ 85710-5461"

  232. Melissa says:

    So many times have I come across people like Charles Carreon. Their egos were all massive but terribly fragile, and they would never back down from a fight even if the world saw them as fools. Just the fact that Carreon is specifically SEARCHING for the slightest possible reason to sue Inman is proof that he does not care about human decency, his only goal is to try and cure some of his massive butthurt by getting "revenge" on Inman. This behaviour is so Cartman-like, it's fascinating.
    Poor Carreon is a small-time bully who tried to beat up someone who was never in the wrong, and who coincidentally also has a massive Anonymous army willing to aid him.
    You can never sue or beat the Anonymous.

  233. Sgaile-beairt says:

    wow that guy Marc is a real jackhole too, if he's representative of carreon's friends no big surprise this has gone as it has — did you see his comment at end of that thread where he said that Carreon should (hopefully metaphorically) beat his wife and daughter into shutting up ("pimp hand") so they dont embarrass him further??

  234. Sgaile-beairt says:

    also this brings to mind Emersons line, the more he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons…..

  235. Anony-moose says:

    62. As noted above, Doe1 or Inman proliferated Plaintiff’s email address via a fake tweet made by “@Charles_Carreon.com.” Plaintiff had not posted the chas@charlescarreon.com email address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations."

    – Yet, there's this screenshot of his email actually showing on his site. Just showing that it's available and found it online. Nevertheless:

    http://imgur.com/nkhh8

  236. Marzipan says:

    Another point of factual error:

    36. The Indiegogo contract provides that it will keep 9% of the Charitable Fund and pay the remainder to Inman.

    However, according to Indiegogo, for a "flexible funding" campaign, they only take 4% if the campaign is successful, with an additional 3% going toward credit card processing fees. Given that Inman's flexible funding campaign was successful within 64 minutes of its launch, the most that would be taken by Indiegogo and its funds processors would be 7% at the time of his pleading.

  237. Stuart says:

    Apparently Mr Carreon has been suspended a couple of times:
    http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/05nov/discipline.html

    CHARLES H. CARREON
    OSB #93469
    Ashland
    60-day suspension
    Effective Oct. 24, 2005, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Ashland lawyer, Charles H. Carreon, from the practice of law for 60 days. Carreon admitted violations of DR 3-101(B) (unlawful practice of law) and DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit or maintain client funds in trust).

    http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602&categoryId=83521&month=2&year=2007#s19

    CHARLES H. CARREON [#127139], 50, of Pacifica was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 21, 2006.

  238. Marzipan says:

    Furthermore,

    37. Inman’s stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign to the NWF and the ACS, presumably splitting that amount between the two Charitable Defendants.

    The complaint is disingenuous, both for assuming that 100% of the funds would go to the charities (for the reasons listed above and stated clearly on Indiegogo's site), but also for assuming that Inman would take the remaining money for himself. In the updates for the campaign, Inman clearly states that "a lot of people have been asking what I plan to do with the extra money we raised over the initial $20,000. 100% of it is going to charity."

    Additionally, in 38., Plaintiff alleges that "the Bear Love campaign utilized false and deceptive statements and insinuations of bestiality on the part of Plaintiff and his client’s “mother,”" which is also factually untrue. As sarcastic as Inman's rejoinder to the letter was, he was clear to separate "you" and "your lawyer", the former referring to FunnyJunk, the latter referring to Carreon. It was the former whose "mother" was implied in the rejoinder.

  239. Ken says:

    You guys with your analysis and investigations; you're amazing.

    New post about the complaint on Wednesday.

  240. joe says:

    Sgaile-beairt Jun 19, 2012 @3:42 am•

    I think you have to know Marc R. to put that comment in proper context. He is far from politically correct, but I suspect that was actually his sarcasm flying over your head.

  241. rocketgeek says:

    I think I've figured out the root stock of the madness of the Carreons — they're associated with the LaRouchies. I was paging through some of Tara Carreon's nuttiness on Techdirt, and she referenced something called "How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science". Odd name, and I collect anti-science crazy, so I looked into it. It's direct from the LaRouche cult.

  242. Jess says:

    I’m wondering if it’s just me but there is one fundamental thing that just keeps glaring out at me about this lawsuit. A large part of it appears to be about alleging improper use of charity funds. It would seem to me that first a crime has to be committed and THEN a lawsuit is filed. I don’t understand how anything about the funds raised by The Oatmeal’s charity can be included in the lawsuit when the charity drive was not even wrapped up/completed at the time the suit was filed. I’ve never heard of a lawsuit filed in preliminary anticipation of someone misappropriating funds. Smells a bit too much like hey let’s pull that person over and search their car because they “might” commit a crime.

  243. Foster says:

    does he not read updates…
    in the complaint i saw he states that Mr. Inman was only donating $20,000 split between the chariteis and suggests that he would keet the rest tho 2 days after the goal was reached he sated in the updates "One other note: a lot of people have been asking what I plan to do with the extra money we raised over the initial $20,000. 100% of it is going to charity. I’m going to add 2 more charities to the list, in addition to the ACS and the NWF." would that not make Mr. Carreon"s point mute?

  244. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ken:

    New post about the complaint on Wednesday.

    I hope you go Full Randazza on Carreon, since well, muram aries attigit.

  245. Nibor says:

    I just thought of this, if Charles or his wife are the owners of FunnyJunk in any way than the mother complaint could maybe stick ??

    Sorry for my bad English, and lack of thorough knowledge of us law, I have an excuse I'm Dutch

    I wonder has Charles Carreon one ????

  246. flip says:

    From that interview, it seems as though Carreon is hoping to find some evidence in discovery, because he appears to *think* there's a connection between Inman and the attacks; but doesn't state that he has proof of it. I am not a lawyer, not even close… but surely filing a suit without actual evidence is pretty bloody stupid?

    And as someone who has battled plagiarism, even I know he's talking out of his ass in regards to copyright infringement. What I got from the interview was that one must have copyrights registered on a domain name for it to be copyrighted: which is of course, bullshit. I am not an American, but even I know that whilst you *can* register your works as copyrighted with your government, you don't have to, and it's certainly not required in order to defend your copyrights. So long as you can prove that the material is original to you, then it doesn't need to be registered at all. — It gets more complicated if you're not an American of course, though you can still submit DMCA letters to American-run websites. For those of us outside the USA, there is often no way to register your work anyway, so if Inman were in another country, the point would be even more moot.

    By the way registration is just an easy way to prove that you were the originator, and when you created it. It's like saving your bank records for tax audits. Sure, you can do the audit without the records, but it sure makes things easier because you have paperwork that proves what you're saying. A screenshot from the Wayback Machine of your website on a certain date would prove that the Oatmeal comic was the original, because all the other sites could only get the comic off it after the first date of publication on the Oatmeal website (presuming the site is the first place it's published by Inman) – and doesn't require any 'registration' at all.

    What the hell does Carreon think copyright is? Does he not know that it's an automatic thing? And how can a lawyer be so incompetent not to know this stuff – I knew it just by researching it from government websites. Heck, I even tracked down the online version of my country's copyright law and can read the actual text of the law myself – instead of relying on internet summaries or example cases. Does Carreon not know how to do even the most basic research?

    He said in the interview: "Anyone who thinks it's going to wreck my career because I stood behind my client, stand behind myself, and point at the wrong doer as a bully…they have absolutely no understanding of what makes a lawyer."

    At this point, I don't think standing by his client is wrecking his career. I think his utter ignorance of copyright law will.

    He is a perfect example of the growing group of people who think that something on the internet is fair game for use, that copyrights are just some person's way of being greedy, and that even if it is copyrighted and illegal to use, it doesn't matter because they're not making any money off it, and the "others do it so why can't I" excuse. I've met all these arguments before, and they're not only pathetically illogical, it doesn't get around the simple fact that it's still illegal to use something without permission. (I take a hard line that even if you don't make money out of the use, you should obtain permission unless the material has a clear copyright notice – saving you the trouble of asking if it's in creative commons/public domain) I've also seen various websites go extra lengths to 'get around' plagiarism despite clearly doing it and ignoring DMCA letters and any correspondence.

    My last thought is how can someone be so overwrought about trademark infringement not know anything about basic copyright law. Sounds like he wants to pick and choose what laws should be followed by him (and his clients) when he feels like it. … Actually, one could, according to other things he's done, assume that he knows exactly what he's doing and is just trying to make any kind of noise to get publicity.

    I really hope the Oatmeal, etc win. Because there doesn't seem to be anything to this except Carreon being a pain in the ass trying to do in the courts what he can't in the public eye. (On the other hand, I'm all for making sure money goes to charities in the proper legal fashion. I don't like this as a tactic in this case, but it tempers my view a little)

    … Another thought: usually web hosting companies state in their terms and conditions that site owners can't post anything pornographic, racist, etc. Has anyone considered that Carreon's own stuff can be removed because of that? I'm not suggesting people attempt to take his site down, rather that it could be used as a counter-argument in a law suit. He may call it censorship, but that argument wouldn't work because he had to agree to the TOC of his web host, which is legally binding.

  247. Kendie says:

    Could someone confirm what Courtney pointed out? And translate it for us non-layers?

    "Cal. Gov. Code 12598. (a) The primary responsibility for supervising charitable trusts in California, for ensuring compliance with trusts and articles of incorporation, and for protection of assets held by charitable trusts and public benefit corporations, resides in the
    Attorney General.

    And also:

    Cal. Gov. Code 12591. Nothing in this article shall impair or restrict the jurisdiction of any court with respect to any of the matters covered by it, except that no court shall have jurisdiction to modify or terminate any trust of property for charitable purposes unless the Attorney General is a party to the proceedings.

    In other words, private parties can't sue to enforce the statute under which Carreon is suing."

  248. SPQR says:

    flip, while you don't have to register in the US to gain copyright protection, you do have to register in the US before filing suit.

  249. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Nibor: Nobody has been able to find anything which suggests the relationship between Carreon and FunnyJunk is anything more than (quite possibly ex at this point) lawyer and client.

    E.G. FunnyJunk uses LeaseWeb for hosting, privacy registered through Moniker Privacy Services.

    American-buddha.com appears to be hosted on a home/business system using Cox cable, while both RagingBlog.com and charlescarreon.com are hosted through bluehost.com, and all are registered through whoisprivacyservices.com.au

    I do wonder how Carreon obtained FunnyJunk as a client, and whether he may have engaged in improper solicitation of business (given his MO with Mattel previously posted)

    Combined with the Pro Se nature of the filing (if Carreon had an ownership stake in FunnyJunk, you would expect FunnyJunk to be on the lawsuit since FunnyJunk, not Carreon, was the subject of the "Mom and Bear" cartoon), its pretty clear we can't assume any more relationship between FunnyJunk and Carreon than the publically established one.

  250. mgabrys says:

    Apologies in advance, but I'm a noob with legalese. What is a "Hitler’s porta-potty"?

  251. Jess says:

    Kendie – I’m no lawyer but it means a private party (person) cannot sue another person if that person fails to follow Federal or State guidelines on registering and reporting proceeds from a charity – only the wronged party – which in this case would be the State or the Federal Government can sue under that provision.

    On another note, if it is Carreons contention that his donation was not used for its stated purpose then it would seem all Inman’s has to do is return Carreons donation to him and that part of the case would be dismissed.

  252. Maleah says:

    Can other members of the bar request an evaluation or file a complaint with the bar and have his license revoked? I would have to imagine he's broken all kinds of ethics guidelines with this.

  253. Nibor says:

    @ Nicholas Weaver, thanks for explaining.
    And I never wanted to imply something was going on, that isn't true, I just wanted some clarification on the matter, and you just gave exactly that to me, so again thanks.

  254. Dan Weber says:

    Yet, there's this screenshot of his email actually showing on his site. Just showing that it's available and found it online

    He's removed it. Does that show consciousness of guilt, or willingness to destroy evidence, or something like that?

    Sounds like he wants to pick and choose what laws should be followed by him (and his clients) when he feels like it.

    Well, a lawyer should represent his client. I don't think there's anything wrong with a lawyer today representing a client who is trying to chase down someone else for copyright violation, and tomorrow defending someone who has been accused of copyright violation.

    A lawyer is not required to be consistent across cases. He is required to be as good an advocate for his client as he can.

    By representing himself he's kind of screwed the pooch on that, but there ya go.

  255. Ann Bransom says:

    The cray just doesn't stop with this guy. He and his wife actually started their own religion last year. And then, like most of us, failed at it utterly.

    http://www.oestia.com/

    P.S. How can one person have SO MANY WEBSITES. It's no wonder he's "forgotten" what's on half of them. I would too if I had copied and pasted the internet in it's entirety.

  256. Jess says:

    Ann, that's a great find and holy wowzer on the crazy. Too bad he's not following the Ninth Principle of his newly founded religion "Act with Clear Intent and Awareness of Consequence"

  257. Ann Bransom says:

    @Jess – yeah the leaps they are able to make in their own thinking processes kind of stagger the mind. Like going from being so anti-religion that you can't even abide Christmas music to starting one's own cult. Or from (NSFW) photoshopping political figures you don't particularly care for to telling the Washington Post "I think satirical content is fine, but him accusing my mother of bestiality is revolting, and I will not forgive it.”

  258. Mike K says:

    Wow Ann. That site has one of the most obnoxious designs I've seen. Judging by that and the American Buddha site, The pair lack a sense of aesthetics. I mean, I think some pretty annoying stuff is cool and fun (like random color changing text) but before publishing something for the public I make sure it isn't physically painful to the average person.

  259. Nikropht says:

    @Ken you should read this…. He his such a hypocrite.

    Also he has his own address, phone and email plastered all over this site.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/ambuvs.city.toc.htm

    As you are probably aware american-buddha.com is one of Carreon's sites he runs with his wife.

  260. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    "Ask yourself, before you seek to enlist others to do your will, whether you can do it yourself. If your purposes require the aid of others, assume that they have their own uses for their time and energy, and plan on requesting their assistance in exchange for your own."

    For example, before enlisting the aid of the courts to (purportedly) make sure a charity is registered, consider offering the $350 filing fee yourself — which, it turns out, is the same as the fee to file a Federal lawsuit.

    "Refrain from forcing others into submission, because the victory will be temporary and the resentment long-lasting."

    And how.

  261. W Ross says:

    http://www.ragingblog.com/2009/05/pornographers-infringe-emily-trademark-and-mattel-is-silent-how-swell-is-that/

    He's taken down the email link with his original email address in an attempt to "revalidate" the idea that nobody could have gotten that email addy save for twitter… which would have done something if I didn't still have a copy of his free Sex.com PDF that has the same email at the end of it (that he gave away himself.)

    That being said, does internet balletion count as destroying evidence?

  262. W Ross says:

    @Anon-ymoose http://imgur.com/nkhh8

    YOU ROCK. Can we screen the new version with a date to show it was removed (if that matters?)

  263. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Dan: IANAL, but…

    If he just removes content from public view, thats 100% kosher. The need to preserve evidence does not mean you need to keep it public.

    If he deletes content, thats destruction of evidence and a Shepherd Fairey level of No No.

  264. akm says:

    IANAL and only been to the site a couple of times before this dust-up, but I'm hooked on watching the slow-motion train wreck.

    From Ann's Comment regarding his religion:
    Under the Eighth Principle.
    Avoid threatening harsh consequences, and never make a threat you lack the means or will to accomplish. Refrain from forcing others into submission, because the victory will be temporary and the resentment long-lasting.

    Seems like his original letter may have been in conflict with this part of his religion.

  265. W Ross says:

    @Nicolas view-source:http://www.ragingblog.com/2010/03/undercapitalized-augusta-resources-can-mine-copper/

    Well in terms of the code for it, that has been "destroyed" but I see your point in that he'd have to take the site down to preserve the page and protect the data.

    So that's probably weak, but we got the screenie that it was there and I (think) that's all that's needed to prove he's either a lying, disingenuous bag of douche, or is too old/smokes too much weed to remember what he posts on the intertubes.

  266. W Ross says:

    (That was supposed to display the source, which has the mailto removed. But since you'd be looking at something that's not there, it's not really necessary.)

  267. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Even now, its still all over the American Buddha site:

    http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/chaz_email.pdf

    a capture of a google search just conducted.

    Its been scrubbed from the http://www.ragingblog.com site, but many have screenshots of the pre-scrubbed version.

  268. Nicholas Weaver says:

    W Ross: thats not destruction. Destruction is if he didn't keep a copy someplace else of the pre-change version, AND if he denies that the pre-change version exists.

    Its perfectly allowable to throw the public facing site down the memory hole as long as he keeps copies on his own system. The remarkable thing is he's being surprisingly slow about it. The damage has been done:

    a) Its shown he's apparently attempted to mislead the court about the "private" nature of his email address

    b) Its shown he's engaged in conduct which he claims is illegal in others in his complaint

    And if he denies such, the evidence has been preserved by others already in many cases.

  269. W Ross says:

    Sweet. So the "my email is a magic, secret, special email" is disproven either way with the screenies. It's also in the Sex.com pdf that he specifically said was his gift to the internet, and I DO have that downloaded.

    I was trying to find someone with a grammarly account so they could run the manuscript for plagarism :)

  270. Joe says:

    Rats I posted this under the wrong thread so here goes again.

    Don't forget you can use Wayback as well to pull copies of archived web pages. The wikilink provides the necessary instructions on how.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_the_Wayback_Machine

    H. Ross – I've a friend with a grammerly account – she teaches at a University and is always having to check plagarism on student papers. Let me know if and when anything needs to be checked.

  271. W Ross says:

    @Joe I have the PDF, I just gotta get it to you. Email willrosswriter AT gmail DOT com and I'll throw it over to you, then she's just got to feed it into the machine and it'll run it. But don't tell anyone what my email is cause I'm the internet writer and it's super secret and I haven't shared it anywhere ever.

    It's a long shot and not exactly related but I'm curious as to how slipshod he actually is (they seem to have utter contempt for copywrite, and if that's true there will be a lot of near copy sentances and junk.)

    It also has the email address on it, and here's the thing… he DISTRIBUTED that AFTER he made a claim to the courts that it was something he was trying NOT to distribute and that would hurt him if it got out.

    So if he claims that, then hands it out, does that show anything at all- or is it just ironic and hilarious?

    @ken Throw me an email too if you want that .PDF again, too.

  272. Chris R. says:

    I already site vacuumed ragingblog.com before he changed the email contact form. Also this: http://imgur.com/jCqRt

  273. Attacklawyer says:

    Stupid point, but does he even have standing to bring an action against the charities and to force a charitable trust? I'm not in California but my guess is that an action like that is usually enforceable by the Atty Gen of the State or a state officer. Just sayin.

    What a frickin tool.

  274. theNuszAbides says:

    well done Joe, I was increasingly surprised that anyone didn't seem to know about the Wayback Machine. though Carreon is doing a bang-up job of affirming that I am not, as I tend to assume, the last person to learn of such things.

  275. Captain Obvious says:

    This Carreon guy sounds amazingly similar to Brett Kimberlin… minus the bombing spree…

  276. Ann Bransom says:

    @Chris R – The Google letters are really the best of them all. The level of self importance and complete lack of understanding over how search engine indexing works necessary for someone to send those letters and think anyone at Google could give a crap is beyond measure.

  277. William C says:

    If one were to search for Charles Carreon here,
    http://calbar.ca.gov/
    They would find all of his contact information(Address, Phone, Email).
    This information is readily available to the public
    I doubt he could remove it from their archive even if he tried. Not sure how long it has been there though.

  278. W Ross says:

    @WilliamC It all helps. It's been beaten to Christ but all of these various things show he was all but shoving his personal info down people's throats until people started *gasp* using it to contact people.

    @ChrisR NICE. I agree with Ann, those letters are like looking at the opposing team's playbook/diary. Good save.

    Also HOLY GOD 32 trackbacks.

  279. Paul F says:

    I wonder if Charles realizes that a simple crawl of his website wit a bit of regular expression magic reveals about 10 email addresses (before my script ran into socket errors), of which two appear to belong to him.

    I'd have archived american-buddha.com locally, but some of that stuff might make my server sick.

  280. Joe says:

    Just a fun reminder of some of the funniest (at least in my opinion) comments and excerpts from Inman and Carreon left here on all 4 threads dedicated to this topic.

    “If someone grabbed a copy of Carreon’s sex.com book off his website and then uploaded it to FunnyJunk, would the Internet collapse in a black hole of irony??” Thorne

    “I wonder… has anyone ever seen both Charles Carreon and James Rakovsky in the same room together?” Nigel Declan

    “I mean, it looks to me like he just went and fucked the chicken, and didn't even lube up first… “Scott Jacobs

    “It's interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet's nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well.” The Oatmeal.

    "I am doing this case pro bono, because I’ve been well acquainted with the director for many years" I will refrain from making jokes about working "pro boner." AlphaCentauri

    “This guy is digging so furiously he's going to hit escape velocity soon.” Jason

    “Congratulations Charles – you make the cast of Jersey Shore look like Rhodes Scholars.” Costner

    “The incompetent double down on a losing hand and tell everyone what brilliant poker players they are. The really crazy ones do it with an incoherent pleading.” SPQR

    “Mr. Clean Hands needs some better soap.” Sarah W.

    "Please don’t take me for a copyright hawk” Charles Carreon.

    “That's… …possibly a sign that an appointment with the neurologist is required, to loosen the metal plate.” Ygolonac

    "THE INTERNET IS AN ARCHIVE, IDIOT." The Oatmeal

    "Holy fucking shitballs inside a burning biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, Captain! I hope that the reporter merely got the story wrong, because if not, that's more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns' undergarments." Marc Randazza

    “An Indulgence gift for Mr. Carreon Please note, we’re sending this as a gift, no strings attached” Christopher Ambler
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151015106580935&set=a.192871065934.167136.655960934

  281. Doc RocketScience says:

    @mgabrys • Jun 19, 2012 @8:41 am

    Since no one else has answered you:
    It's a reference to an interview Inman once gave. He was asked about how he dealt with criticism. Inman responded that, when he used to work for other people, he tried to be diplomatic and non-confrontational. Now that he is basically self-employed, he's… less so. Rather, he's quite willing to open up a stream of invective at his critics – empty "Hilter's porta-potty" as it were. A porta-potty, if you don't know, is a name for a small, portable, chemical toilet, used by campers. It will store the waste, and can have nezyes added to help break it down, but eventually you have to empty the "black water".

  282. W Ross says:

    https://twitter.com/charlescarreon/status/215245355011411968

    He's going to try to make Twitter and ArsTechnica give up anonymous user information. Will that require new filings?

    I wonder if he'll add them to the list of people he's suing for damages.

  283. Ken says:

    Can you post a screenshot of that? He's blocked me.

  284. W Ross says:

    http://imgur.com/61X8W

    There you go, in context.

  285. W Ross says:

    (and the link he's pointing to http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1176683&start=40 {the sock posts in there.} )

    Also sent you a physical jpg to your addy.

  286. Ann says:

    Based on one of his other tweets and comments his wife is also making, they seem to believe that Inman is actually paying, as in cutting checks, to people who are harassing him. Wonder if that will be brought up at some point in the course of this complaint?

  287. AlphaCentauri says:

    Inman promised to send the bear love picture to the owner of FunnyJunk, along with the picture of $20,000. That original drawing might be worth something after all this. If he wants to distance himself from Carreon gracefully, he could auction it off and give the proceeds to charity.

  288. adcenterde says:

    He's like the bastard love child of Brett Kim Berlin and Crystal Cox.

  289. Ted N says:

    I sent Carreon the text of the Cossack's Reply to the Sultan. I thought it was fitting.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks

    History is awesome. I wish school had included stuff like that.

  290. Jonathan says:

    I could be completely wrong here but why is Carreon trying to charge Inman by Californean law when Inman lives in Washington?

  291. Kim says:

    When you don't know where someone is incorporated, try checking TESS, the US trademarks database. TESS is a dull girl, but she's remarkably honest and often informative.

    If you go to the simple search page and look for the wordmark "FunnyJunk," you can tie Carreon to the Nevada corporation. He's the attorney listed on the wordmark filing. I hope this helps.

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4001:ngs6l9.1.1

    Word Mark FUNNYJUNK
    Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Hosting an on-line community web site featuring a forum where users can post, comment on, and cast votes of approval or disapproval for pictures, photographs, cartoons, stories and videos, and participate in a ranking system in which users are ranked according to the number of favorable votes their postings receive. FIRST USE: 20010901. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20011201
    Standard Characters Claimed
    Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
    Serial Number 85632448
    Filing Date May 23, 2012
    Current Basis 1A
    Original Filing Basis 1A
    Owner (APPLICANT) FunnyJunk, LLC CORPORATION NEVADA 315 Seaview Ave. #109473 Bridgeport CONNECTICUT 066072433
    Attorney of Record Charles Carreon
    Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
    Register PRINCIPAL
    Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

  292. Kim says:

    If you investigate further on the wordmark, you can find this:
    http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks/uspto/funnyjunk/85632448

    Keep following the links to see what else Carreon has filed. It's somewhat amusing.

  293. V says:

    Jonathan, I wondered that myself. IndieGoGo has its HQ in California according to their website.

  294. Squirrels says:

    Boy, he's on a manic roll now!

  295. M says:

    Seriously, Oakland/Northern District of California? The 9th Circuit? CC did not choose a friendly venue.

    I'm going to go watch (perhaps dressed as a bear).

  296. M says:

    Also, Charles' email is listed on the CA bar website where it's public disclosure is not legally required…

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/127139

    (BTW what was he suspended for?)

  297. M says:

    Alas, his suspension was not juicy:

    Caution! Almost 180,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Read the Discipline Key for an explanation of the different levels of disciplinary action. Use Attorney Search to check an attorney's official bar membership record.

    ridiculously large wall of text about other lawyers deleted by admins. Really?

    CHARLES H. CARREON [#127139], 50, of Pacifica was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE and prove his rehabilitation. The order took effect Sept. 21, 2006.

    Carreon, who is licensed in both California and Oregon, was disciplined in Oregon for practicing without a license in Canada. He represented a U.S. corporation as house counsel for its business operations in Vancouver, British Columbia, but he was not licensed there.

    As counsel for the company, he held in trust settlement proceeds from a litigation matter. Without consulting with his client, Carreon used $1,400 of the settlement money to pay a money judgment obtained for a residential lease he had signed in connection with his employment in Canada. He knew or should have known that the company disputed whether he was entitled to payment for the lease as a reimbursable expense.

    The Oregon order found that Carreon violated his duty to maintain client funds in trust. The violation amounted to a violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Practicing law in a jurisdiction where he was not entitled to do so also violated the California rules.

    In mitigation, Carreon has no prior record of discipline and no clients were harmed.

    Taken from the CA Bar Journal
    http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602&categoryId=83521&month=2&year=2007#s19

  298. Are you the guy who came up with Bearfood, also? I like it! You are a busy fellow…

  299. Fenwick says:

    By this point it may be piling on, but his e-mail address is linked at the bottom of the American Buddha Online Library page here:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/money.toc.htm

    By the way, the ABOL is interesting. By establishing this part of the American Buddha website as an Oregon nonprofit, they declare ABOL as exempt under various copyright exemptions from copyright infringement, and they offer a load of stuff to download, including Carreon musical favorites like the Ramones, Joan Baez, Yoko Ono, the Dickies, and Iggy Pop.

    I imagine that any rights holder who complains to the DMCA agent, Charles Carreon will probably find himself in court forthwith. Can you be your own DMCA agent? If you declare yourself an online service provider under the DMCA, and you yourself then upload copyrighted materials, then do you get off scot free from infringement claims because you (the OSP) get the two-week notice period to demand to yourself (in your uploader capacity) to take the stuff down? If you sue the infringer in his uploader status, does his OSP status protect him?

    I wonder why Mr. Carreon didn't recommend this tactic to FunnyStuff? All they'd need to do is become a nonprofit library and they're home free (… I guess the nonprofit part would not go over well with them).

  300. flip says:

    @SPQR • Jun 19, 2012 @8:32 am

    Thanks for the reply (I really shouldn't play at knowing law on a legal blog ;) )

    But, can you clarify: does that mean that if Inman would like to sue for copyright infringement, he has to first register his works? Or did you mean something else.

    @Dan Weber • Jun 19, 2012 @9:56 am

    Apologies, I wasn't very clear: I'm referring to Carreon's own actions in this, but you're right I probably was confusing it a bit with him representing Funnyjunk and him representing himself. But from what I got from the interview, it sounded like he doesn't have a problem with copyright infringment. Though it's hard to tell if he's speaking from his POV or his client's.

  301. Nick says:

    http://www.charlescarreon.com/new-media/media-free-speech-test/2009/03/19/

    Is it just me or has he pulled his reply from this page? If so it is an interesting part of this story.

  302. mb says:

    On Friday, June 15, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon passed from mundane short-term internet notoriety into a sort of legal cartoon-supervillainy.

    I object. Dr. Doom and Lex Luthor would have thought things through better than this guy did, so lumping him in with supervillains is an insult to supervillains.

  303. Ara Ararauna says:

    What I am still amazed is that Carreon hasn't sued FJ because it is one of the sources of the cancer that it is killing the internet (mostly due to the M00t – a word he's fond of – that runs that site). For example, here are some quotes made by the admin when he is on his "time of the month":
    "how about a goodbye ban?"
    "13 year old faggots jumping from one stupid thing to another"
    "fuck off worm"
    "I like taunting you faggots"

    This looks like the Streisand Effect by the sound of it. Why Carreon headed the word of such a person with such a bad repute for his 27 years it is beyond mortals' comprehension… (he also has a penchant for bestiality porn, either in photograph or drawn by hand, it is a fact from which he brags about).

  304. Ara Ararauna says:

    Now that I have readed the RamblingBeachCat article, looks like Mr. Carreon doesn't know about "Happy Tree Friends", and the fandom behind all of it, pfff…

  305. Jes says:

    It's pretty amusing that this completely insane overreaction by Carreon has probably done more damage to FunnyJunk's name than the posts by The Oatmeal. Hope he isn't expecting to retain them as a client following this.

  306. Ara Ararauna says:

    Just for the people trying to know where FJ is or might be:

    Originally from Baton Rogue in Louisiana, Admin now lives in central New York near the NY Eye and Ear Infirmary. Admin used to own a company called "Spork You, Inc" which owned the original FunnyJunk domain. Quite recently, Admin (and his internet-lawyer) decided to register FunnyJunk, LLC (in the glorious state of Nevada) and conveniently decided to leave the list of financial officers empty until about two weeks after the deadline for submission. After submitting the officer list, Admin pretty much doxed himself (not that anyone actually cares). As of now, Admin is 27 years old.

  307. Aqpwod says:

    I feel really sorry for Funnyjunk sometimes. They hired the shittiest lawyer to represent them.

  308. Frank says:

    Disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, I'm Canadian (pointing it out because I do have a few business law courses in me, but apart from general similarities it's not the same system) and I can barely keep my eyes open after a grueling week of summer mid-terms. YMMV.

    After reading Ken's excellent post I started to dig into a couple of links a bit more. I got snared by the Carreon family's website, american-buddha.com

    At the risk of suffering an aneurysm I took a long hard look at the material written by Charles.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/amfightsong.toc.htm
    http://www.american-buddha.com/arizonakid.toc.htm

    There is even more insane stuff posted by other Caerron family members, but that's beside the point.

    I think however that regarding Charles' allegation that Ian's strips and posts depict violence, skepticism towards his claims is warranted, as at the very least he's produced questionable content himself.

    What really blew my mind was the huge archive of integral music albums available as direct download mp3s. Maybe the media up here biased my perception of music file sharing, but isn't the RIAA supposed to send terror squads to your door for less?

    http://www.american-buddha.com/music.toc.htm

    Anyway, I'm not saying that Charles owns or operates the website, nor that he put the mp3s there, but at the very least he's acting as legal consul as mentioned left and right.

    Within the context of the oatmeal v funnyjunk fist fight I can't overlook the similarity of the situations, where people hijack copyrighted material for their purposes.

    Intrigued by the disclaimer of responsibility, "ABOL is a wonderful system that enables you to enjoy copyrighted material by respecting the limitations of 17 U.S.C. 108.", I started to Google stuff.

    Since the notice doesn't refer to a specific section, I had to take a stab at understanding the approach. I'm guessing they are playing on article a), but I'm pretty sure the fact that each download spawns another copy puts them in breach.

    Also, the 108 lays out copyright exemptions for libraries and archives. Curious, I looked more into the org, since they explain they are an Oregon non-profit.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/money.toc.htm

    I snickered at the first paragraph. The links to each files are labelled "I AGREE". I still don't know what I'm agreeing to.

    http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=362802&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE

    Over here in Canadaland, being a non-profit doesn't mean you can claim to be a library. You guys might have fun with that.

    Also, there is a two year gap in their registry, so I guess one could claim that during that period they had music up there illegally.

    The point of this sleep deprived barely coherent rant is that Charles has quite the artistic talent himself, and that I find the legal strategy of A-B.com rather shitty. It does put his strategy of defense of funnyjunk into context, as well as his understanding of the web.

    http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.burnbridges.htm

  309. Jimmy Soma says:

    Carreon lists his email address in the public online member directories for the California and Oregon State Bars. Here are the links:
    http://www.osbar.org/members/display.asp?b=934697
    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/127139

    Carreon's email address was entered in these attorney directories in one way and one way only: he included it himself when he filled out details for his directory listing. It's completely optional to include one's email address, which Carreon has chosen to do. Both directories are fully accessible to the public. In fact, if somebody wanted to find the email address for a specific attorney, one of the first places to look would be the online bar directory in the state where that attorney is licensed.

    In conclusion, apparently Carreon wasn't thinking straight (or was lying) when he falsely claimed to have never voluntarily posted his email address on the Internet.

  310. Helen says:

    This thing needs to be broadcasted live, or else I'm missing the only chance in my lifetime that I get to hear lawyers say "Bear Love Campaign" in a courtroom. *snicker*

  311. Rob says:

    Freaking Funnyjunk Admin banned my 3 year old account FJ for posting this video.

    This is my revenge! I hope he freaking burns for this.

  312. W Ross says:

    Those look delicious. Think about how many nuggets he could have gotten for 20,000 dollars!

  313. RavenBlack says:

    @Fenwick's "(… I guess the nonprofit part would not go over well with them)."

    I think most people would be pretty happy and unhurt by running their business as a nonprofit – a nonprofit can still pay employees, and it can employ the owner. I believe there's a cap on how much they can pay, but that cap is many times the median wage. http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/29/news/companies/nonprofit_salary/index.htm says "the median compensation for chief executives at the nation's biggest nonprofit organizations climbed 7% to $361,538."

  314. mmrtnt says:

    This is all I have to say about it.

  315. HeadHunter says:

    I don't see why Carreon feels that Inman's speech is actionable – if I recall the standard for libel, the statements must be defamatory AND untrue.

    While there may be some debate as to whether or not Inman's statements impact Carreon's livelihood (as Carreon is quite capable of making HIMSELF look like a tool without help), there can be no doubt that every word of ridicule and scorn heaped upon Carreon is accurate and well-deserved.

  316. Belarm says:

    First: IANAL. However, as someone who, for various sick and twisted reasons, actually enjoys reading 1st Amendment case law, it seems to me that Carreon's accusations of 'obscenity' are utterly baseless and without merit, and that he should damned well know it.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong (No, really – I love learning about this stuff), but I was under the impression that obscenity must be both offensive and must convey no idea in order to qualify – otherwise, it's merely offensive speech, and afforded the full protection of the 1st Amendment. You would have a hard time bringing, e.g. a case against someone for yelling 'fuck you', as, though it may be highly offensive, there is a concept conveyed, and it's quite clear what that idea is.

  317. Too many comments to check, so this may be a repeat, but…

    Has anyone noticed he libels Inman on his site?
    http://www.charlescarreon.com/temporarily-unavailable/

    "Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled."

    That's an actionable accusation of conspiracy.

    Someone should sue this pissant little cockholster until he screams like a bitch.

  1. June 17, 2012

    [...] Popehat dug up the lawsuits. They include: 1. The lawsuit is captioned Charles Carreon v. Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does [Does are as-of-yet-unnamed defendants], Case No. 4:12 cv 3112 DMR. [...]

  2. June 17, 2012

    [...] Makes Things Worse By Trying To Shut Down The Oatmeal's Fundraiser (2012-Jun-13) [TechDirt] ~ The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody (2012-Jun-17) [popeHat] Share this:DiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]

  3. June 17, 2012

    [...] UPDATE: The lawyer who filed the suit, Charles Carreon, is now suing the charities Inman raised money for. [...]

  4. June 17, 2012

    [...] more about the dumbest decision of the century here. Share this:EmailMorePrintShare on Tumblr Leave a [...]

  5. June 18, 2012

    [...] Congratulations, Charles Carreon. You are the new laughingstock of the Internet. And all by your own doing. Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark [...]

  6. June 18, 2012

    [...] night, legal blogs "Lowering the Bar" and "PopeHat" both reported that Carreon filed a case late Friday against Inman in San Francisco federal court. [...]

  7. June 18, 2012

    [...] This guy is classy. [...]

  8. June 18, 2012

    [...] lawyer who threatened to sue the web comic The Oatmeal on behalf of FunnyJunk.com is apparently now suing The Oatmeal on his own because that web comic’s owner, Matthew Inman, raised [...]

  9. June 18, 2012

    [...] attorney Charles Carreon has sued not just The Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman, with whom he has been in an Internet battle for the [...]

  10. June 18, 2012

    [...] (i.e., worse blackjack hand in the deck). He takes the situation to DefCon 5. Last night, Popehat was alerted by another legal watcher that Charles Carreon has filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, [...]

  11. June 18, 2012

    [...] selected to benefit from his campaign, the World Wildlife Fund and the American Cancer Society. Legal blog Popehat explains first that Inman and IndieGogo, the fundraising site, had fallen into Carreon’s legal [...]

  12. June 18, 2012

    [...] Let's start with the attorney, but to do that, let me first introduce the players. We start with Matt Inman, the creator and artist behind The Oatmeal, mix in a little FunnyJunk, stir in the possibility of a lawsuit, and viola! What you end up with is a Kool-Aid that tastes good, and is very entertaining. I highly recommend you head to Popehat, and read Part I, Part II, Part III, and finally, Part IV. [...]

  13. June 18, 2012

    [...] control.  If you don't know what's going on with the Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk you should read these articles now. Basically it all started a year ago when The Oatmeal's Matthew Inman accused FunnyJunk [...]

  14. June 18, 2012

    [...] That lawyer I called an asshole? He's also suing the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. [...]

  15. June 18, 2012

    [...] is also suing the charities, as Kevin from Lowering the Bar and Ken from Popehat have pointed [...]

  16. June 18, 2012

    [...] (i.e., worse blackjack hand in the deck). He takes the situation to DefCon 5. Last night, Popehat was alerted by another legal watcher that Charles Carreon has filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, [...]

  17. June 18, 2012

    [...] Charles Carreon discovers the Streisand Effect. Share this:EmailFacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

  18. June 18, 2012

    [...] came out today that, on Friday the 15th, attorney Charles Carreon filed suit against Matt Inman, creator of The Oatmeal webcomic series, Indiegogo and two charities, namely the National Wildlife [...]

  19. June 18, 2012

    [...] is also suing the charities, as Kevin from Lowering the Bar and Ken from Popehat have pointed [...]

  20. June 18, 2012

    [...] which IndieGoGo refuses to do; 7) the rest of us have a good chuckle about it all. Ken of Popehat.com and Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar broke the story that, on Friday, Carreon did, in fact, file [...]

  21. June 18, 2012

    [...] from Popehat: On Friday, June 15, 2012, attorney Charles Carreon passed from mundane short-term internet [...]

  22. June 18, 2012

    [...] comments There isn't much to say about this that hasn't been covered elsewhere, and covered best by Inman [...]

  23. June 18, 2012

    [...] that attempting to shutdown a collection for two non-profits wasn’t enough.  He now intents to force them to waste funds in frivolous litigation.  There’s a term to describe individuals who do things such as that, I believe it begins [...]

  24. June 18, 2012

    [...] oh heck no, I'll not spoil the fun, just go read it. You can also read more about it here from the guy who got sued by some cretinous lunatic. Share this:EmailFacebookRedditPrint : Humor : lawyer, [...]

  25. June 19, 2012

    [...] and the American Cancer Society. All the blogs I've read link back to Lowering the Bar and Popehat, both legal blogs. They've stated that Carreon has no case. What Carreon needs at this point [...]

  26. June 19, 2012

    [...] proceeded to go a remarkable step further, with train-wreck consequences outlined at BoingBoing, Popehat, and Lowering the Bar. [...]

  27. June 19, 2012

    [...] No. It doesn't look like they're stopping, does it? [...]

  28. June 19, 2012

    [...] dead in a few years? Roku thinks so. What happens when you piss off the Internet? This, this, and this. From the time of the podcast recording, things have escalated and it seems that the lawyer is now [...]

  29. June 19, 2012

    [...] te spitten en juridisch jargon te ontleden. Het is zelfs zo dat ik in m'n vrije tijd "juridische stukken" (ofja, reflecties op..) ga [...]

  30. June 19, 2012

    [...] (i.e., worse blackjack hand in the deck). He takes the situation to DefCon 5. Last night, Popehat was alerted by another legal watcher that Charles Carreon has filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, [...]

  31. June 19, 2012

    [...] the legal aspect of this bizarre suit, watch Popehat (who broke the news that Carreon was suing The Oatmeal) and Randozza's [...]

  32. June 19, 2012

    [...] Carreon is now personally suing everyone involved. He's suing Inman. He's suing the National Wildlife Federation. He's suing the American Cancer Society. He's suing IndieGoGo. I'm suprised he's not suing FunnyJunk for good measure. [...]

  33. June 19, 2012

    [...] The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody Background: the previous entries in our coverage of Charles Carreon's bizarre and contemptible behavior on behalf of his client, FunnyJunk, against The Oatmeal can be found here at Part I, Part II, and Part III…. [...]

  34. June 20, 2012

    [...] Read the whole story here, you WANT to – make sure you cut your fingernails before tho, otherwise… [...]

  35. June 20, 2012

    [...] (i.e., worse blackjack hand in the deck). He takes the situation to DefCon 5. Last night, Popehat was alerted by another legal watcher that Charles Carreon has filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, [...]

  36. June 20, 2012

    [...] The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody(Popehat) [...]

  37. June 20, 2012

    [...] Someone on the Internet sues some charities… [...]

  38. June 21, 2012

    [...] (i.e., worse blackjack hand in the deck). He takes the situation to DefCon 5. Last night, Popehat was alerted by another legal watcher that Charles Carreon has filed a lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, [...]

  39. June 22, 2012

    [...] havoc until forcibly medicated," which doesn't need further explanations, I think.PopeHat explains it all in gory details. I love this part:38 Plaintiff is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his [...]

  40. June 24, 2012

    [...] Comments Har du inte läst på om fallet redan, läs artikeln här för att förstå min text [...]

  41. June 27, 2012
  42. June 27, 2012

    [...] Popehat Summary: The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody [...]

  43. June 27, 2012

    [...] The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody [...]

  44. June 27, 2012

    [...] that address in the masthead of a periodical/newspaper he used to publish and had used it as the contact information on his blog. Carreon also thought his website was being hacked. More on this [...]

  45. July 10, 2012

    [...] and if you are concerned about getting sued by this prick for his actions, never fear! For, as Ken from PopeHat.com says about this entire situation: I can say that Charles Carreon remains a petulant, amoral, censorious douchebag without violating [...]

  46. July 18, 2012

    [...] they can lead to monstrous injustice. Just to name a few examples, lawsuits are used to simply harass people, destroy their livelihoods or even kill them, effects which are sometimes achieved already with the [...]