Update: Charles Carreon Files First Amended Complaint

You may also like...

355 Responses

  1. Richard says:

    I can't stop reading that as "First Amendment Complaint."

    I've read the first page of the document posted, and I know "first amended complaint" is accurate, but my brain keeps seeing "Amendment."

  2. TJIC says:

    What is it that you tell your clients all the time?

    Something like

    "JUST SHUT THE HELL UP!", I think ?

    It's too bad that Carreon doesn't have a lawyer who can give him that advice.

  3. Spodula says:

    Even I can poke holes in that.

    I did enjoy the bit about people expressing their hatred by donating to charity. If thats the True and un-abashed form of hatred, perhaps people should express their hate a bit more.

    A quick question which i'm sure will be answered in a future post anyway, but feel i should ask. While its perfectly obvious that Mr Inman doesnt fall under the statue, why doesnt indiegogo? or they have all the registrations they need anyway?

  4. John says:

    They must be having a sale on shovels at Carreon's neighborhood Lowe's. The hole keeps getting deeper.

  5. strech says:

    I wonder what the Attorney General of California will think about being dragged into this. Also, I don't think this bit of comedy was in the original complaint:

    If Inman’s deceptive methods, sanctioned by Indiegogo and tolerated by the Charitable Organization defendants, are given the green light simply because they get the fundraising job done, they will corrupt an already vulnerable industry. All manner of unregistered fundraisers will adopt Inman’s tactics. Needy charitable organizations will first be backed into fundraising campaigns without their knowledge, then bribed into winking at whatever bizarre, malevolent campaign will fill their treasury with spite donations. In place of legitimate charitable fundraising, unscrupulous, unregistered fundraisers like Inman will prosper as kingmakers who call the tune, inducing charitable organizations to dance to whatever grotesque melody they choose to play. Inman’s methods of fundraising will make true generosity an antiquated, outmoded reason for giving, and donating to satisfy spiteful motives, fueled by venomous Internet postings, will supplant the wholesome impulse to benefit others.

  6. Matt Scott says:

    39. By making the foregoing bolded statement, Inman and Indiegogo jointly misappropriated the popularity of the NWF and ACS as reputable charitable organizations, lead donors to believe that donations to the Bear Love campaign would go exclusively to the NWF and ACS, and lead donors to believe that donations to the Bear Love campaign would be tax-deductible.

    I can get why he could have a point re:the whole portion going to NWF & ACS (although, I'm fairly certain when you accept the ToS upon donating, you are forewarned of Indiegogo's 4-9% take), but nowhere does Carreon show anything even close to Inman & Indiegogo implying that such donations would be tax deductible. He simply makes the claim and assumes it's a prima facie statement.

    43…There is no such thing as a “philanthropic, kind-
    spirited way” to say “F*ck off.” There is only one way to say it, and one purpose for saying it, and that purpose cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.

    I hereby request the internet find as many ways and purposes of saying "fuck off" as possible. Also, since Carreon states in 39 that the fundraiser is not tax-exempt, why does he claim it is tax-exempt here?

    And I love that he complains about Bear Love raising a huge sum in a short time while another (good) cause only raised $3,750 over three weeks. The *internet lawyer* entirely fails to understand internet presence sizes and… well… pretty much the whole internet, again.

  7. Matt Scott says:

    I am somewhat concerned that Carreon has altered a significant portion of the language used in the complaint. I wonder how much of that stems from reading through the comments here and in other fora. For instance, Carreon has removed the false statement that the woman seducing the bear was meant to be his mother, now simply stating that such an image exists and is captioned with "this is a picture of your mom seducing a bear" (thereby implying, but not stating, that it is meant to be Carreon's mom).

    Plaintiff never experienced any such invasions of his privacy and quiet enjoyment before the Bear Love campaign.

    Woot! propter hoc ergo post hoc fallacy for the win! Maybe it wasn't the Bear Love campaign, but because your complete douchebaginess was revealed to the world?

    P.S. whoever signed him up for the Olive Garden Newsletter… well, that's pretty awesome.

  8. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wow! "IndiGoGo is responsible because this campaign is doing harm to me and therefore violates their terms of service"

    Where in contract law does it say in a contract between two people, an unrelated third party can sue for breach of contract if the two parties are in breach but don't care about it?

    Ohh, interesting, he NOW read the update, and is using that INSTEAD of the "Inman's going to keep everything above $20K".

    And he's dropped the "Doe 1 conspired with Inman" complaint. The word "Conspire" appears nowhere except in paragraph 17:

    Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that each defendant named herein, including those named as Does, is and at all relevant times mentioned was, the agent, servant, co-conspirator, advertiser, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants and, in doing the things alleged herein, was acting in the course and scope and with the knowledge of each of the other named Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that each Defendant named herein aided and abetted the others by authorizing and/or ratifying the acts herein alleged.

    He is still aledgeding that Inman posted his email address, and that its Super Sekret.

    OHH, the Mormons called Inman! UH OH, THEY IZ COMING TO RING YOUR DOORBELL!!!

    And "Ohh, the fake users could upload kiddy porn in my name! THINK OF DA CHULDREN!"

    However, its in many ways REMARKABLY more sane on a first skim. Its basically now two halves, that should be separated: "Charles Carreon, Defender of Charities", which should be dismissed due to his lack of standing and not being the proper venue (its a state law case), and "Charles Carreon vs Does 1-100".

    In his "Defender of Charities" view, he's still lumping in the "They Butthurt Me" in his complaint in general, but its no longer part of what Charles Carreon, ButtHurt Lawyer (R) is complaining about.

  9. Matt Scott says:

    err… post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy*
    Sorry for the dumbs. It's early.

  10. Nicholas Weaver says:

    A question: Given the amended complaint dropped a lot of the provably false statements, how does that affect the Rule 11 motion?

  11. Nate says:

    Oh….so now it's all about making sure that the poor donors (who are too thick to know how the indiegogo system works etc, -obviously) don't lose their tax deductions for their donations and preventing Matt Inman from getting their tax deduction.

    (hope I did the quote thing right) I hope the AG gives him a damn good spanking. This is all built on the fact that CC has abused his position of looking after someone's money, so therefore everyone else will. I completely dislike the way a lot of his case is trying to prove that Inman is a disreputable person and therefore the charities wouldn't have had anything to do with him. Add to that, that he's clearly 'forcing' the charities to take his "damn 'spite' donations, dammit" and he's clearly evil… because evil people force money on charities, oh yes!

  12. Nate says:

    Ahhahahaha so, clearly I didn't do the quote thing right. This is the section I was trying to quote:

    55. Inman and Indiegogo knew or should have know that donors would reasonably infer from
    the misrepresentation that the campaign had the endorsement of the Charitable Defendants, that
    their donations to the Bear Love campaign would be tax-deductible. However, because Inman
    was the founder and operator of the Bear Love campaign, donations to the Bear Love campaign
    could not be, and were not processed through Indiegogo’s “non-profit PayPal system.” Thus, without a court order imposing a charitable trust upon the Charitable Fund, thus making them the
    property of the Charitable Organization defendants, donations to the Bear Love campaign will
    not be deemed tax deductible. As a practical matter, the way the transaction has been structured
    by Indiegogo, if Inman donates all of the funds to tax deductible charities, the entire benefit of
    the tax deduction will go to him, which would result in unjust enrichment, and deprive the
    donors of their fair share of the tax deductions they reasonably expected to receive when they
    donated to the Bear Love campaign.

    So, clearly the charitable trust is just so the poor donors will all get their (expected) tax deductions. Of course it is, Chuck!

  13. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, I'm surprised he can still say he's a donor: Wouldn't IndyGoGo have dropped him from the contribution roll by now?

  14. Nate says:

    Spodula, my thoughts exactly. Let's get everyone's hate on and make charitable organisations' day! (But don't forget to give them notice 10 days before and register your intention to fundraise for them) :P

  15. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Finally, couldn't IndyGoGo give Carreon a big F-U by being the one to photograph the money, then send it directly to the charities? "All these points are moot, have a nice day, enjoy the SLAPP suit and Rule 11 motion, thanks, bye".

  16. alexa-blue says:

    For Inman to receive tax benefits for the donation, would he not have to first claim the money as taxable income (thereby offsetting the "unjust enrichment)?

  17. Nate says:

    Can a bunch of other donors get together a class action and sue CC for claiming falsely that he represents their interests and that they weren't so stupid to believe the things he thinks they did?

  18. What's funnier is that there currently a multimillion dollar a year charity that was started pretty much as a way to say "fuck off" in a kind-hearted, philanthropic way.
    I'm speaking of course, of "Child's Play", started by the never foul-mouthed gents at Penny Arcade.

  19. desconhecido says:

    I believe alexa-blue is correct. The money which Inman receives from Indiegogo is income to Inman. That needs to be reported as income. The donations will be deductible.

    The net result of this may be an increase in Inman's tax liability depending on his personal situation, AMT, etc.

    I find this whole tax deduction thing perplexing. I have no idea who would be stupid enough (other than Carreon) to think that giving money to Inman would be tax deductible.

  20. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Nate: I just gave $50 to gain standing for that one. After all, thats logic that works for Carreon. :) Tortious interference anyone?

    ($50, probably more than Carreon was willing to contribute… Who wants to bet that he contributed just $1 to gain standing?)

  21. Rand Bell says:

    "65. Plaintiff and the other Bear Love campaign donors have been cheated out of their reasonable expectation that their donations to the NWF and the ACS would be tax deductible."

    I, Rand Bell, made a contribution to the Bear Love campaign purely for the purpose of telling FunnyJunk to "Fuck Off" and had no expectation that said contribution would be tax deductible to myself.

    And I'd contribute more than I did to the Bear Love campaign to a legal defense fund protecting the first amendment against the censorious douchebag aka Charles Carreon.

    I bet if you asked the currently 14,197 (-1) contributors for such a declaration they would happily sign it. I know I would in a heartbeat.

    If there was ever a better example of "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" I haven't seen it.

  22. Nicholas Weaver says:

    desconhecido: That can all be bypassed probably by having IndieGoGo photograph the cash and then route the money directly, which would probably be a good idea for everyone on a CYA basis anyway.

  23. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Although, hey, Paragraph 55 counts as a falsehood, since Carrreon either knows or should knows that Inman can not reduce his net tax burden in this manner, since in order for the amount to be deductible, it would have to be reported as income, which means that, at best, this would not increase Inman's taxes, but thanks to limitations on the fractions of deductibility of charatible contributions + AMT rules, the only change to Inman's tax burden would be an increase in his taxes.

    Ah, Carreon, even when he makes a point to try not to include falsehoods this time around, he comes up with new provable falsehoods.

  24. Nate says:

    59. Plaintiff contributed to the Bear Love campaign with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS, and did not intend to benefit any other unnamed charity, or to appoint Inman the selector of what charities should benefit from his largesse.1

    Um… but, didn't Inman select the original charities? CC your logic is as cray cray as usual. And you clearly didn't donate to benefit the charities but to create legal standing. Didn't he say that in an interview or was that one of those fever nightmares that I've had since this case started?

    @nicholas Awesome. I'm in the UK, so I donated to a UK cancer charity directly and can't afford to donate again (or travel to california, though the holiday would've been nice) :(

  25. Nate says:

    I feel like we should've figured out a way to block the cray cray family from viewing popehat, we've clearly given him clues on how to amend his wording. I didn't read the initial complaint in full but so far I'm thinking the first amendment seems very different in tone to that. IANAL so, is that the usual thing to do?

  26. Matthew Cline says:

    Wait, Wait, I thought that FunnyJunk/Carreon had dropped the lawsuit.

  27. Nate says:

    70. After inducing donors to make donations to the Bear Love campaign, Inman induced donors to make purchases at TheOatmeal.com, exploiting the “halo effect” of his purported affiliation with the NWF and the ACS. Those purchases were therefore ill-gotten gains, subject to disgorgement.

    Um…what? When did he do that? Or does he mean by having a link on his site he was 'inducing'? That's probably CC logic after all.

  28. Ricker says:

    Regarding the tax deductibility of the donation, the Indigogo FAQ specifically states that donations are not tax deductible unless the fundraiser is a registered charity. Inman is probably not a charity and probably is liable for any taxes on the income. I agree that when Inman makes his donations he should be able to benefit from a tax deduction.

  29. desconhecido says:

    Nicholas, I don't think that a person can divert income like that and thereby avoid considering it income.

    Probably the best thing to do would be to let the campaign expire tonight and disburse the money first thing tomorrow. Indiegogo takes its cut, as per whatever agreement is in force with Inman, and transfers the rest to Inman. Inman transfers 50% to NWF and 50% to ACS and the whole thing becomes moot, maybe. Assuming that Richard Head's dumber brother doesn't get his injunction.

    One more thing about this tax deduction crap:
    Inman clearly is not a 501_c_3 charity and the Indiegogo FAQ clearly explains that contributions to campaigns such as Inman's are not tax deductible. Why would anyone think differently?

  30. Joe says:

    43…”There is no such thing as a “philanthropic, kind-spirited way” to say “F*ck off.” There is only one way to say it, and one purpose for saying it, and that purpose cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.”

    Oh really? I’d like to see him cite a specific law that says it can’t? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t exist. My God he is just making shit up as he goes along.

    #39 . . . . .“will fill their treasury with spite donations.”

    Uh, like the actual recipients of the donations are going to really give a fuck as to whether the donation was made based on spite or out of sincere true Budda Love – oh Christ spare me. Any donation = goodne$$.

  31. Nate says:

    I see "Modelista" has been named as Doe 1 behind the fake twitter account.

  32. Nate says:

    Interesting:

    79. Inman promptly took advantage of Modelista’s fake tweets by himself tweeting:
    a. Matthew Inman @Oatmeal: “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.”

    I for one had assumed that tweet was related to CC trying to get the fundraiser shut down and the law suit. He certainly hasn't provided a time stamp of when that was tweeted so who's to say what it's related to.

  33. HeatherCat says:

    So, what if anything can we donors to the BearLove campaign do – I mean is there anything written we can submit or some petition to sign that we do not want to be represented by this jerk because we do not believe in the accusations he's making?

  34. W Ross says:

    http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood

    14 hours left. I think Inman should skip the photograph (except then Carreon might say that because he didn't photograph it he was in breach.) It seems to me that it's probably not to- difficult to take the money from IndieGoGo, but it will be VERY difficult to take it from the 2 charities (I wouldn't add any cause that's new variables- like if he did one that worked with the EFF Carreon could say he was using the money for his own defense.)

    Instead of futzing around a lot, IndieGoGo should just wire transfer the money to the ACS and the NWF within hours of the campaign being over. Right now he can argue that he's going to do all sorts of the things with the money Oatmeal wouldn't- you get that money directly to the charities then he can't speculate on what it might be for, and you have to go after charities directly if you want to take the money…

    To put it in a trust and give it… back… to… those… charities..

    LOL.

  35. Nate says:

    @W Ross, and I bet he'd find a way to take a fee for managing that trust too. Is it possible to move the 'charitable fund' while it is the focus of this kind of legal pile of poo?

    From point 89, it does indeed look like people were right when they said someone had hit the 'lost password' button and he got an email. That of course means it was 'hacked' in his mind. But at no point did he lose control of his site (so he couldn't then regain it). He clearly does not know how the internet works, does he?! He's as computer literate as my partner's mother… which is to say not at all.

    (I feel like I'm posting too much…but I'm still making my way through the cray cray, so, um…sorry?)

  36. W Ross says:

    @Nate If Oatmeal didn't @ or Retweet it I can't see how he could possibly connect the two things. But even if he did, SO WHAT. He's allowed to mock- Carreon's argument is that every insult, joke, etc thrown his way either incites people to commit crimes against him or IS a crime against his trademark.

    No. In America we have a right to dissent, even colorfully, dramatically, or unpopularly. Carreon's wife is taking advantage of that right now http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=4b304a4adf9f35daf29d6fc6de72cdc7 by threatening to sue a regular commenter, and yet all of the things she's done in this thread that are MORE incendiary than anything the Oatmeal does is considered absolutely fine.

    Let's go over some quotes of the sort of noninflamatory discourse being thrown by the Carreon Clan:

    "You are a cancer, Matt Inman. "
    "Apparently, a bunch of Yellow Journalists, in the tradition of Henry Ford, decided that the "Internet" should be given to Matt Inman."
    "This is one of the little lying bitches working for Matt Inman, if it's true her name is "Ann," and she's really a girl. "She's" very active on his behalf. I wonder how much he's paying "her.""
    "Poor, little, fearful Ann who is afraid to blog and twitter because of evil people like Tara Carreon."
    "Matt Inman seems to be the de facto leader of the modern American Hitler Youth: "
    "If you want to get people to hate something, you gotta get 'em to hate it as a woman. Because woman is the nigger of the world. With cartoons like this, we can even feel SORRY for poor, little Hitler. Who would want to have their head trapped by a big, fat, drunken slob of a woman?"

    So who's inciting here, really?

  37. Nate says:

    @W Ross Yup, just because it was tweeted after someone else tweeted something while pretending to be him doesn't make the two related. In fact, he didn't even state whom he was talking about (of course we can infer, but still). And even then, if you can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out. I'm assuming that his postings on his sites and youtube vids would be admissible by Doe1's attorney as proof that he hasn't damaged his reputation in anyway that CC himself has.

    Also, holy crap, I'd only seen a few of those T.C. Comments. She really is paranoid delusional. I find it hard to mock her when she so obviously needs psych help.

  38. W Ross says:

    Or some choice favorites here:

    http://www.techdirt.com/user/taracarreon

    "You guys are Internet terrorists. Do you work for the FBI, like Anonymous? Doing hits on the good guys? You're no better than a lynch mob for the KKK. "Continuing to lash out" — you guys sound like the Mafia. "You're just not getting it, but we're going to teach you a lesson," said a guy who just called on the phone from China."
    "Aw, 'comon. The FBI would NEVER take away Inman's site. They work for him! Ha ha ha ha ha."
    "Matt Inman talks about a lot of cartoonists he emulates, but he's no Gary Larson! He reminds me more than anything of Al Capp, and I'm pretty sure he was part of the conspiracy to kill John Lennon."
    (Note: She's not suggesting the Oatmeal was part of the conspiracy to kill John Lennon, she's just bad at teh grammarz. Not incitey or defamatory on purpose, just funny.)
    "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."
    "***** REPOST FOR RETARD *****"
    "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?"
    "Like I say, lawsuits are Charles' department. Which do you like better? Don't try to change the subject." (in regards to their porn preference. Note, she does in the middle say she's joking, but a joke about suing into a "which type of outlandish porn do you enjoy" is pretty aggressive.
    "WANTED FOR IMPERSONATING A CHARITY: MATT INMAN
    $100,000 REWARD
    (Balloon 1: "Fight Cancer")
    (Balloon 2: "Love Bears")" <- so a bounty isn't incitement?
    "Mike Masnick Retard Wannabe Lawyer Writer ejaculates: "Carreon tries to claim that these images actually incite Inman's followers into action:
    'Inman’s followers are by and large technologically savvy young people eager to follow the latest trend, who embrace Inman’s brutal ideology of tearing you a new asshole.' "
    ""No reason whatsoever?" Why are you so retarded? You can't read? You don't think the public's donations should go to the charities they wanted them to go to? You think donation and fund-raising should be a free-for-all? You're an idiot, pure and simple. You can't see beyond your own dick."

    And so on and so forth.

    Now one might argue "that's his wife, Charles has nothing to do with these threads." Except no. Tara and his daughters tip their hands mutiple times that Charles is passing information to them, reading the threads and guiding the conversations with his weird culty vibe. Example:

    "Charles refreshed my recollection of the facts after I told him about this exchange. He found your lack of faith disturbing. Charles reminded me of following facts, and corrected me on several points. To keep the record straight, I pass them on to you:"

    So Charles Carreon is waging exactly the same type of satire war he's up in arms about, except nastier, and using his family as proxies. Long time followers of the comments (the so called Legion of Haters) know how extensive this is, and this is just a microcosm of it.

    So Carreon can keep going with the Charity specifics of law bullshit- he's got enough to wiggle in on that and get his stupid day in court. But I find it the depths of shitty hypocrisy to go "doe hunting" while your non-doe family does exactly what you're accusing others of.

    That is absolutely chilling to free speech, and I think "Doe Hunt" must forever be known as the following:

    Doe Hunt:
    An Internet witchhunt by a victim of free speech.

  39. Margaret says:

    Yeah, I donated to the campaign, right off the bat, before Carreon filed his cray cray lawsuit. I'm just a casual (not even that ardent) fan of the Oatmeal, and also, of telling people to fuck off philanthropically.

    When I donated, it was very clear to me that I was donating money to Mr. Inman, who had publicly pledged to donate it to the charities in question. (And I get why it would be a bad thing if he added more charities; although I wouldn't mind, I can see how others would.)

    After I donated, I briefly thought, "Hmm, that's not tax-deductible, is it?", and peeked at Indiegogo's terms of service, and determined that it was not, in fact, tax deductible. It was crystal clear to me that I was donating money to Inman, who was going to give it to the charities. If it was important to me to get the tax deduction, I would have donated directly to those charities. In this case, it was important to me to help the charities AND to assist Mr. Oatmeal in delivering a hearty "Fuck you."

    Now, I get that not all people are as "high information" as I am, so there may be people who didn't investigate whether their donations were tax deductible, or what Indiegogo's cut is, etc. And yes, there are a lot of situations in which the average person, who doesn't investigate things, gets taken, and there need to be ways to protect against that. But just because someone fails to get all the information and may make assumptions that aren't true doesn't mean that Indiegogo or Inman have misled people in any way. All the relevant information is there, and truthful.

    And that's the nature of Indiegogo and others sites like it. Some 12-year-old kid may put up a "campaign" and say, "Please send me some money so I can go on my church trip to build wells in El Salvador", and you may donate some money, and caveat emptor! You're giving money to some kid you don't know, who may take it and blow it on Gameboys and Cheetos, for all you know. If you're not into that, don't donate on crowdfunding sites. Personally, I *believe*, based on the established reputation of Mr. Inman, that he will, in fact, give the money to charity. If he doesn't, well, woe is me.

    tl;dr

    Indiegogo's terms of service are very clear, and they're acting within them. Anyone who doesn't investigate the terms of service before donating money has only themselves to blame.

  40. Nate says:

    Wow. I just got to page 30 (prayer for relief 8) and it seems he wants ALL ongoing campaigns on Indiegogo to be halted and the funds held in charitable trust, not just this one, until the site register as charitable fundraiser. Does that include the poor person he cited who's raising funds for an organ transplant?

    It seems CC hates ALL charity, and sick people who have the nerve to need & ask for financial help.

    I never thought I'd feel sorry for an Attorney General, but I do right now. It's quite clear that CC is trying to use this suit as a platform to make a name for himself by screwing with charitable giving online. Doesn't matter if the laws don't quite fit right, he'll make them fit. I wouldn't be surprised if all he'll succeed in doing is making Indiegogo move it's base of operations outside of California.

  41. W Ross says:

    Also, I'd like to submit the term "Doe Hunt" to the Lexicon of Internet Law:

    Doe Hunt (N)
    1) A bullshit legal tactic of filing a lawsuit with a large number of unnamed defendants, whom you will round up at a later date.
    2) The legal equivalent of slapping a banana clip filled with law into your litigation rifle, then aiming it at the Internet.

    Usage: "We'd better curb our free speech, guise. Charles Carreon's filed a motion to Doe Hunt."

  42. V says:

    @Nate
    That quoted tweet from Inman followed 11 minutes after Inman quoting a message from CC's website (contact page) "Due to security attacks instigated by [..]". I think there's a very good chance that's what Inman was referring to.

  43. Margaret says:

    echoing @Nicholas Weaver:

    Not having read this new complaint myself, but if Carreon has taken out some of the blatant/provable falsehoods from the original complaint, does that affect "Rule 11" or otherwise disciplining him? I mean, this whole thing stems from a series of lies, and even now that he's morphed it into something else, it was falsely premised, and should never have taken the court's time and resources in the first place.

  44. Nate says:

    @V. That would make sense too. It's hard to know without a clear timeline for everything else that happened. Inman could probably even argue that it's not even related to CC. It just goes to show that you can make any information 'fit' what you want when taken out of context. Well, you can if you're a douchebag like CC. ;)

    Just looking at the exhibits, the only one I'd be concerned he might have a tenuous case against is the @charles_carreon twitter for trademark infringement: there's nothing at all that indicates it's a parody on the profile bit. That said, there's no showing of earlier tweets and whether they make that clear. But even that I think is pretty thin. Which comes back to taking things out of context, I guess. If it goes as far as the jury, a lot will depend on how internet savvy they are. I'm hoping it doesn't get to that though. Certainly there seems plenty of grounds for dismissal, but again IANAL.

  45. Nathan says:

    W. Ross, your "Doe hunt" is genius. Genius!

  46. Josh M. says:

    @W Ross:

    I shall now use "Doe Hunt" on the Internets as often as possible. :D

  47. Jess says:

    @W. Ross – I like the hoodie – it makes you look totally evil.

    Also the term Doe Hunt is great. It looks like it will make it into the lexicon of internet legal terms – see here – 3rd post down.

    http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/24/my-dick-works/#comments

  48. my best friend led me to Popehat and you led me to PACER. one awesome turn deserves another! i regret only that i have so little to give…

  49. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, on Pacer: If you use Pacer with Firefox, install the RECAP Firefox Extension. This handy extension shows when RECAP has a copy of the document in the Internet archive (saving you the fees associated with downloading it), and allows you to contribute when you download something to save others money in the future.

  50. W Ross says:

    This is one that's not related to anything, just part of the general weirdness. The lawsuit says…

    "Plaintiff has been married to the same woman since 1974, has never signed up to a dating site, and does not want to have his name bandied about in an online forum peopled with “hot men and women.”" (from the suit)

    Charles is 56. Tara says she was in a death cult for 22 years here (http://www.techdirt.com/comments.php?start=60&u=taracarreon). Charles got his degree in 1986, kids are 30sish. So that means for some number of years, either the whole group was in a "Death Cult" together, or he was married to a woman who also happened to be in a cult.

    Again, this isn't related to anything noteworthy, just consider the timeline if Tara Carreon isn't just making things up to say crazy things on the Internet.

    WEIRD.

  51. nlp says:

    W Ross, I suspect that the "death cult" she mentions was some form of standard Christian religion. She was probably brought up in it, and converted when she left college.

  52. Margaret says:

    @W Ross

    Re: "does not want to have his name bandied about in an online forum peopled with “hot men and women.” "

    Mildly ironic given that his Twitter profile says "Counsel to the good and the good-looking".

  53. W Ross says:

    This, however is related:

    "Ordering Indiegogo to halt all ongoing campaigns on the Indiegogo site currently operating in violation of California law and hold all funds in a charitable trust until Indiegogo registers with the California Attorney General as a charitable fundraiser and in all other ways complies with California law regulating charitable fundraising;
    9. Ordering Indiegogo to cease any charitable fundraising that is unlawful under California law;"

    He doesn't want to just stop Bear Love, ANY charity on that site would "technically" be violating this bullshit he made up.

    "Ordering Indiegogo to cease any charitable fundraising that is unlawful under California law;"

    Stop all future fundraising from the Citizens of California.

    "A finding that the infringements by 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)"

    A Doe Hunting Licence, for CASH MONEYS!!!!

    "E. 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;"

    To pay him for filing a Butthurt lawsuit.

    "G. Punitive damages against Does 1 – 100 pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294; and, H. Such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper. "

    And as much treasure as he can carryNOT THAT. That's for Willie. YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING ELSE!

    "Ordering the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society 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; "

    And wants to stop any type of unsanctioned fundraising in the entire state of California for the ACS and NWF.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I would submit that Charles Carreon has gone full Bond Villain.

    (Related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338 )

  54. Nate says:

    He will be kicking puppies & kittens next!

  55. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Speaking of Fun With RECAP:

    (Tara) Carreon (and amended to include Charles Carreon) v Seidberg Law Offices, Joseph Whille, Kenneth Seidberg, and Does 1-10, under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act. It appears Ms Carreon may have not paid her credit card bill, and tried to fight the process. Oh, and a willingness to issue abusive and overbroad subpoenas, eg, to the process server who was supposed to serve things to her.

  56. Chris R. says:

    Doe Hunting is already being used on http://charles-carreon.com — W Ross for the win.

  57. Nibor says:

    @nate If he gets his way, (on the ordering Indiegogo to cease any charitable fundraising) he already does

    http://www.indiegogo.com/FreePurdy
    http://www.indiegogo.com/SaveBella
    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/125012
    http://www.indiegogo.com/twincitiesshelterrescue

    I just clicked/pcked some random ones, with still some time to go and goal not yet reached.

  58. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    Wholly speculative here, as I know next to nothing about tax liability or potential deductions:

    Isn't it possible that Inman, instead of receiving the donations as "income", has instead (in conjunction with IndieGoGo and the doners) created a charitable trust, or even just a plain ol' private trust, for which he is acting as trustee? And, in that capacity, wouldn't he incur no income and therefore not be earning a tax deduction? And, furthermore, in capacity as trustee, wouldn't he be obligated to pay the reasonable service fees of collecting and processing contributions to the trust corpus?

    Just throwing that out there for any of the attorneys following along. Again, purely speculative.

  59. Leif Goude says:

    I wonder how the lady trying to raise 5k for her kidney transplant travel costs appreciates being entered into evidence? Hopefully the site enjoys many of the less high profile fundraisers being successful as a result.

  60. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and it seems that "Filing, then amending within 10 days" is now a Carreon MO as well.

  61. Nibor says:

    @Nicholas Weaver, you forgot: then reading at "popehat" and "lowering the bar" what he has done wrong, in the middle

  62. Chris R. says:

    @Nibor, exactly. Do you think that even if some of these people don't meet their goal that they'll or the people who donated will be upset with indiegogo's TOS? I don't. If I donate to some lady who needs kidney's I'll just be happy she gets someone to help her.

  63. Peachkins says:

    From the amended complaint:

    "70. After inducing donors to make donations to the Bear Love campaign, Inman induced donors to make purchases at TheOatmeal.com, exploiting the “halo effect” of his purported affiliation
    with the NWF and the ACS. Those purchases were therefore ill-gotten gains, subject to disgorgement."

    Having actually donated to this cause and purchased from The Oatmeal within this time period, I would just like to state that this fundraiser in no way induced me to buy something at his shop. I bought what I did because I recently moved, wanted some new and whimsical artwork for my walls, and found a print there that incorporated a favorite painting of mine and cats. I like cats.

    I mean, really. What an idiotic statement on Mr. Carreon's part. Just one of many.

  64. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Nibor: If Carreon took our advice, he would have walked away two weeks ago. It would have blown over a week ago, and all the unsavory insanity, business dealings, etc, would be forgotten rather than tied by Google to Charles Carreon, Douchebag Attorney ™.

    Oh, and I just realized something: Carreon's probably making the anti-SLAPP case easier, since he's continuing to decry clearly protected speech, and makes it clear that he's suing over this issue because he is butthurt by this clearly protected speech.

  65. Margaret says:

    @Peachkins:

    So, Carreon thinks he can… take all the profits of anything that's been sold on the Oatmeal's site since the fundraiser went up? How does he intend to prove that any particular person who bought something from the Oatmeal's site even knew about the fundraiser, much less donated to it? Oh, that's right – he can't.

  66. Nibor says:

    @ Chris R. when I would be one of the donors, I would have read the terms and would fully willingly give my donation, in the knowledge that it could end up used differently, but from my end it is the gesture that I have made, that counts and yes that includes a fee for IndieGoGo.
    When I want to send a check directly to the cause, then my bank would take a fee for that too, so I don’t mind as long as it is a reasonable amount and 4% sounds reasonable, as well the use of the 9% as long as the target is not reached to activate the initiator to do more to get the cause/fundraiser under attention of the masses.
    And when the goal is not reached (and it’s a flex funding) then even the amount reached is like “every (little) thing helps”.
    But if cc got his way far less fundraisers for a (good)cause would get started, and the billions (wishful thinking) that will be spent in the future, by the Internet community will end up with Apple or Amazon and not Jan(e) Doe or Max and Felix who would have been saved, but of one butthurt batshit lawyer (I believe I will get a subpoena from cc now in another case ) they will have to fend for themselves or with a lot less funds.
    If he gets his way it a grief day for you guys, dolls and annimals over there on the other side of the pond.

  67. Dan Weber says:

    Holy crackers, that attempt to subpoena the process server really is abusive. here at recap

    Apparently the Carreons subpoena'd the process server to provide this as a result of the March 3rd serving:

    A. All documents recording all the work you did on March 1, 2010, including all process served, and the addresses at which you served that process.

    B. All documents recoding your expenditures and purchases on March 1, 2010.

    C. Your mileage records for February 22-March 5, 2010.

    D. All records of your credit card, debit card expenditures, cash expenditures, billing and invoices for February 22-March 5, 2010.

    E. Your cellular phone records for February 22-March 5, 2010.

    F. Your driver's licenses, process server's license.

    G. All photographs, videos and cell phone recording you took from 2/22-3/5/10.

    This is abominable.

  68. Nibor says:

    @Nicholas Weaver, I didn’t say he would be open to advice, just to correct many of the most obvious mistakes in de first draft with a lot of help from the Internets, he understands so good, ahumm :-)

  69. V says:

    @Margaret
    I think that's what the discovery process is for. As I understand it that's when parties can go fishing in other people's records to try to prove whatever they claim or disprove the other party.

  70. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Well, if he's reading this, at this point, I'm pretty sure he counts as a public figure, so we could always have a Hustler Magazine v Falwell contest. :)

    But it would be pretty boring compared to his and his wife's own brand of batshit insanity.

  71. Nibor says:

    O Nicholas, there you can get a subpoena for.

    And now I have to get it right this time (I realy suck at those HTML codes)

    For as I understand he as taken a new case

  72. AlphaCentauri says:

    I didn't donate through BearLove or buy anything from Oatmeal. But if I had, it would not have been due to a halo effect from those charities either way. If I wanted to donate, I would have done so directly. If I had donated through BearLove, it would have been SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of saying eff off to CC, regardless of the charity involved.

    (Well, maybe I wouldn't have donated to BearLove if it had been the Westboro Baptist Church. But the particular charity was definitely beside the point. )

  73. Jack says:

    @Nicholas Weaver, he counted as a public figure before this case nonsense ever began. He self promotes constantly, and is a published author.

  74. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Nibor: If Carreon is foolish enough to subpoena me, he's welcome to try.

    I'm a third party, not related to my knowledge to Doe 1-100, never met Matt Inman, and only contributed $50 to the BearLove campaign so I can have standing to join any Tortous Interference class action lawsuit that might filed against Carreon under the same logic he believes in is sufficient to gain standing in his ridiculous SLAPP suit.

    Such a subpoena would be clearly an abuse of the legal process, and would be quickly followed by both a complaint to the California State Bar and a Meet and Confer letter on the motion to squash the subpoena which would close with inviting Carreon to "Snort My Taint".

    So, in the spirit of Hustler v Falwell: Carreon, if you are reading this: Yes, Inman's cartoon doesn't depict your mom. For as we all well know, your mother prefers Polar Bears, not kodiac bears. Enjoy a glass of Campari when you watch.

  75. Nibor says:

    Sorry but I was refering to the "batman case" and your use of the frase "batshit insanity" and than linking to
    http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/25/told-you-so/
    To make cc even more ridicoulus
    Sorry I'm not so good in humor and sometimes I seem not to get it delivered right, my fault :-(

  76. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ah. Well, you see, "Batshit Insane" is a term of art, in the upcoming DSM-5. :)

  77. Nibor says:

    Ahh and my asperger is tippelde out for it ;-)

  78. Chris R. says:

    @Nibor, However I agree with Batman that referring to bats and a Carreon in the same phrase is offensive to all bats, Batmen and Batwomen (including minors i.e. boys/girls), and to all bat lovers, watchers, and farmers.

  79. AlphaCentauri says:

    "Insane" is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis.

    The DSM-V will have "295.72 Schizoaffective Disorder, Chiropterofecal Type, Continuous."

  80. Mike K says:

    If he dropped the points totally unrelated to the charity and brought them up in an appropriate venue, I think he'd be at least halfway to a reasonable case.

  81. nlp says:

    Matt Scott

    P.S. whoever signed him up for the Olive Garden Newsletter… well, that's pretty awesome.

    I think the Mormons offering to come over with a free book was funnier.

    (So let's see if I've done this blockquote correctly).

  82. Jon says:

    "On information and belief, Inman has stated that the Charitable Organization defendants approve of
    the Bear Love campaign, which further brings the ACS and the NWF into disrepute in the minds
    of right-thinking prospective donors."

    I would hope that the ACS and NWF support free speech as well as their own causes, and that "right-thinking prospective donors" also believe in the first amendment.
    Also, on what authority can Carreon decide what ACS and NWF would consider public disparagement?

  83. W Ross says:

    "Oh, and it seems that "Filing, then amending within 10 days" is now a Carreon MO as well."

    File 'em all, and let the Judge sort them out!!!

  84. Margaret says:

    @Jon:

    "right-thinking prospective donors" …?

    Right-thinking meaning, those who agree with Charles Carreon.

    Seriously, this guy! WTH?

  85. Sharon Price says:

    I noticed a couple of posts which indicate the contributions to the "BearLove Good. Cancer Bad" fund is income to Inman and/or in order for it to be deductible it would have to be claimed as income first. Not sure that would be the case. Could it be a gift under IRC Sec. 102 (excluded from income)? On the IRS website a gift is defined as any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration is not received in return. The intention of the giver is what matters – existence of friendship or non-existence of a business relationship. Inman offered no rewards or perks on Indiegogo's website (other than the good feeling of combating douchebaggery, but Inman actually does not offer this, it just happens to be the result) so it does not appear he is selling goods or services. I did find where Joanne Clark, Esq. said the money raised for Karen Klein (bus monitor) would not be taxable because it is a gift (by each of the donors). In that same article Slava Rubin (CEO and founder of IndieGoGo) said he could not give tax advice concerning her possible tax consequences, but that the donors would not be able to write-off their donations because her fund was not an official non-profit.

  86. Ann says:

    @W Ross – hey, check it out! The lying little bitch got her comment called out as one of the editor's picks.

    Oops.

  87. Matthew says:

    I love how Charles finds some random other fundraiser that gets less in donations than bearlovegood, but fails to point out that there are fundraisers that have made EVEN MORE money than bearlovegood. For example, http://www.indiegogo.com/loveforkarenhklein. All examples mentioned are worthy causes. I don't know how Mr. Carreon thinks he can take things out of context without any statistics or evidence and make a case.

  88. W Ross says:

    You know "The Lying Bitch" is totally your supervillain name now.

  89. Chris R. says:

    The cannibal kids leader, lying bitch. Loving it. Tara is good at calling people names they can really attach to.

  90. Chris R. says:

    @Matthew, it's easy. Just claim that if his trademark wasn't attached to Bear Love, then it'd make only 2 dollars.

  91. Stazzi says:

    I apologize if this sounds stupid but as a Paralegal who worked as a Legal Secretary for many years I have a question.

    Tara worked as Charles' secretary for many years and by all accounts is still employed in that capacity. For the purposes of Ethics rules/violations, if you are a secretary or assistant working ostensibly for the benefit of your attorney, aren't the actions of the secretary imputed to the attorney?

    Does that make Tara's inflamatory comments on many message boards both prior to and subsequent to the legal filing relevant?

    Again, I apologize if this sounds stupid, but had I ever rushed to the defense of one of my attorneys in the way that she has I would have been fired before I was able to hit "post."

    Of course, thankfully, I've never been exposed to this level of asshattery in my professional life.

  92. William C says:

    I just noticed the complaint no longer states

    So does that mean he acknowledges that his personal info was up long before all this madness?

  93. William C says:

    Wow that didnt work -.-
    This is what I was trying to quote:

    "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. (The
    email address appears on legal papers in PACER filings in cases where required by the rules of
    this and other U.S. District Courts; however, these filings are viewable only by PACER users.
    The email address was also used in the Whois registration database for various websites Plaintiff
    has registered for his benefit, and as by the authorized registrant/agent of various legal clients.)
    Inman or persons incited by Inman also proliferated the email address and Plaintiff’s home
    address on social networking websites, again for the malicious purpose of enabling
    cybervandalism."

  94. Smorz says:

    CC just donated again ($10) an hour ago to the Bearlove fundraiser.

  95. Ann says:

    WHOA. What is with Twitter abandonment?

  96. Smorz says:

    Sorry, link didn't work.

  97. Smorz says:

    @Ann
    Update to the new Ars story…

    Update: Carreon wrote to Ars in an e-mail on Monday afternoon: "I'm killing my Twitter account, so anyone who tweets under my name is an impostor."

  98. Scott Jacobs says:

    Update: Carreon wrote to Ars in an e-mail on Monday afternoon: "I'm killing my Twitter account, so anyone who tweets under my name is an impostor."

    MURDERER!!!!!

  99. W Ross says:

    @Ann He's initiating code "DFE" I'll bet. (Delete FUCKING EVERYTHING.) If you see any good stuff make sure to take screenies, cause at the end of a good fail there's always a pullback that starts slow and ends with a mad dash to delete every trace of anything they've ever done from the Internet.

    It would be funny if Inman's lawyers sent him one of those "do not destroy any evidence" letters re-he and his wife's interwebs activity.

  100. Chris R. says:

    @Smorz, Oh for a second I thought he was going to claim hacking.

  101. Anyone happen to grab a copy of the @charlescarreon Twitter feed before he yanked it? There's a particular tweet I'm interested in.

  102. Jason says:

    You could probably ask twitter to recover the account as evidence. You'd have to do it in an official capacity though.

  103. Scott Jacobs says:

    Adam – Try snapbird.org or Topsy.com

  104. W Ross says:

    He can't prosecute "Doe #1" AKA bringing in his own Twitter records without redaction (is that a word) so he's got to have them (or he's abandoning his Doe Hunt, but I doubt it.)

    But a lot of people have been pulling info, so I'm pretty sure someone has them. If not, they are other places, they're just harder to get to.

    The ironic thing is that Twitter Account represented his BEST ONLINE BEHAVIOR. Seriously, regarding Charles Carreon, the Twitter was about the ONLY thing that was professionally done.

    So nice work cutting off your nose to spite your face.

  105. W Ross says:

    (*"AKA Charles_Carreon without." My tablet ate some words.)

  106. Smorz says:

    Any of his tweets that were retweeted or responded to can still be found through a @charlescarreon search on Twitter itself.

  107. SPQR says:

    " … these filings are viewable only by PACER users. "

    Comedy gold. Its a public record, Carrion. What a twit.

  108. Smorz says:

    Never mind my last comment. It worked for a few moments now it's not.

  109. Scott Jacobs says:

    SPQR, please tell me what you just quoted…

  110. desconhecido says:

    Sharon Price says it might be a gift to Inman rather than reportable income. Could be, but it would be my guess that the IRS would try to treat it as income. That's my guess, though. No special knowledge about the issue here.

  111. Namio says:

    I'm not a lawyer, and I had to read through the complaint very slowly in order to understand it fully, but even I know that trying to claim, "THIS IS GOING TO RUIN CHARITABLE GIVING FOREVER, YOU GUYS!" is NOT a valid legal argument.

  112. Kevin says:

    Does any of this have anything to do with FunnyJunk anymore? So the FJ owner can just sit back and enjoy as Carreon goes on a personal campaign against Inman?

  113. Tom says:

    Nevermind the fact that it's hasn't happened yet – and he would be suing based on a hypothetical future state – can you actually sue some one for tax evasion? I thought that was the point of the IRS, and if you found an issue you reported it to them.

    Note: I don't live in America, so I don't know the ins and outs of tax law there.

  114. Jon says:

    Not a tax guy, but I would think (for an amount this large) that IndieGoGo would issue a 1099 to Matt, and then Matt can issue one (or whatever the appropriate mechanism is) to the charities so that it balances to zero on Matt's taxes? I would be very surprised to find this endeavor was not completely tax neutral for him.

  115. Margaret says:

    @Namio:

    HA! That's a good one. Yes, I'm not sure he can get anybody on board with the "money given out of spite is not as good as money given out of love and rainbows" argument.

    I'm pretty sure that if I decided that I hated zebras, and that I should donate to a lion conservation charity so there'd be more lions to eat zebras, and I sent said lion charity a check with a little note that said, "Go lions! Eat those fucking zebras!", they'd still cash my check. It's an interesting proposition. Maybe I'll try it.

  116. William Sutton says:

    Did I understand that right? The original analysis, IIRC, was that only the CA AG had the right to decide to prosecute charities for not filing the appropriate paperwork at the appropriate time, so now Mr. Carreon is trying to bootstrap the AG in by joining her as a defendant? I'm not an attorney, just an IT guy involved in the technical side of lit support, but somehow I just don't think the law works that way…

  117. Chris R. says:

    @William Sutton, yes. He also did not realize this until this weekend when the internet google searched the law and then made fun of him. He's an A+ lawyer.

  118. nlp says:

    I didn't see anything relating to an emergency injunction. Does anyone know if he filed one? Because the campaign is supposed to end in a few hours, and presumably the funds will be sent to the two charities. And since that will undercut the whole first claim for relief, I'm surprised he didn't file one.

  119. W Ross says:

    @nlp That's why I think they should forgo any photo, and just whisk the funds right to the Charities, before Carreon can get his grubby little paws on them. A judge seems less likely to go to two charities for givsies-backsies than someone who's just holding the funds.

  120. W Ross says:

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40&sid=8a9f65eca7dcc34bebef41fcaf915aa2

    Ohhhh Tara's gettin feisty again!

    "And now there are two false Charles Carreon websites. And we're going to have to sue them all. There are a lot of people just dying to be sued on this one. If you don't have a lawyer in the family, I would recommend you start getting concerned about this now. For yourself, friends, loved-ones, and fellow-citizens. This is a lynching on the Internet frontier."

  121. Robert White says:

    He lied again in this by omitting the "take a picture of it" part of the plan so that it looks like Inman's plan is chartable instead of a plan to get us to send money to him to say fuck-you funnyjunk, with the money -then- going to the charities as a waste product.

    e.g. by "subtle" omission CC is trying to make this look like a primarily charitable operation, instead of the "Art Project" it is, with a charitable after-echo.

    Everyone donating knows that its a "philanthropic fuck you", its right there.

  122. Matt Scott says:

    Oh please let me be sued! Please! Pretty please!

  123. Robert White says:

    CC says the donations were "Fueled by irrational hatred".

    I find the reaction to CC to be completely rational, constructive and not so much "hatred" as a pronounced "fuck off" that many of us have oft wanted to send to persons like himself when we encounter them. 8-)

    This isn't "Charity" its "art", pure sweet art.

  124. W Ross says:

    Looks like Charles Carreon has an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry now too, lol. That makes it an official Internet Drama.

  125. Chris R. says:

    I also like in the filing where he claims he could be arrested for child porn because of the fake accounts on Tube8. I mean that must be a giant slap in the face for the F.B.I. I bet they just get email addresses and raid whoever they're attached to. No biggie. We just need an email address and a battering ram guys.

  126. @William C:

    He took out the paragraph relating to his email address, but he's still alleging that the email address was 'private':

    Another fake tweet disclosed Plaintiff’s private email address, so cybervandals could sign him up to random websites and send him hate-emails

    Hadn't he already acknowledged elsewhere that the email address wasn't private, after people pointed out how ridiculous that assertion was?

  127. Robert White says:

    @Matt Scott: I think you meant "post hoc ergo propter hoc", not the other way around. e.g. "It happened after, therefore it was caused by", which is a classic failure of reasoning.

    What you said: "propter hoc ergo post hoc" ("it was caused by therefor it happened after") is always true in a cause-and-effect universe.

    Just Saying… 8-)

  128. @Chris R — yeah, because the FBI won't subpoena the IP address when it subpoenas the user information.

  129. BearLoveGirl says:

    How are donations "fueled by irrational hatred?" *facepalms*

    It wasn't hatred until the batshit douchetacular started.

    I hate to admit it, but the craziness has caused me to fear doing any parody of those-who-must-not-be-named myself. Yes, I am a big chicken.

  130. Cybervandalism is the act of invading, trespassing upon, and damaging the personal digital property of another, invading a person’s privacy, and entangling them involuntarily in embarrassing, harassing, commercial and social transactions without their consent that expose them to further damage and, as alleged hereinbelow, even the risk of criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

    This is a tort only in Carreon's imagination. Seriously. No court in the United States recognizes this as a claim.

    Solution! Ask a Federal court to create a new common law tort under California law!

  131. Robert White says:

    @Nicholas Weaver: He didn't actually drop the conspiracy complaint, he hid it in the text without using the word. There is a whole assertion about acting in concert, as empoyer/employee, with full knowledge, etc ad nausium. That is, CC tried to "paper over" the absurdity by requiring all 100 Does, Inman, Indegogo, and both charities to function with one brain after, presumably, having a big meeting and cross-chartering all their actions.

    Basically he took the word "conspiracy" out, likely as a way to make him not look like "a conspiracy theorist" but then he substituted in the whole slew of possible definitions of "to conspire". The likely original plagiarized text probably said something like "conspiracy can be found if elements such as …" but he forgot to change the "and"s to "or"s from the text, so now they have to be tied together in rather unlikely and mutually exclusive ways.

    e.g. He's not a conspiracy nut, he just thinks everybody is acting in concert as mutually re-employed interdependent co-actors in search of the overarching goal of letting people know what kind of a nut CC is…

    CC really isn't very good at this plain-English lawyering stuff.

  132. Robert White says:

    The fund isn't "charitable". Period. The money goes to Inman. He has promised to give all the money he gets to Two (now maybe four?) charities, but that promise is on his word. It might be breach after-the-fact if he -didn't- but even on the Indigogo site the beneficiary of the fund raiser is Inman.

    Note that the site never says you will be able to deduct the donation or anything like that.

    In the local text he refers, by link, back to his original letter so the "so he can take a picture of it" and "fuck off" is right there in the text.

    I have no problem with any of this.

    Technically, you are donating to "an art project" who's waste stream is a big pile of cash which the artist has promised to donate to charity.

    If anything, -the- -picture-, and mailing of same, are -two- -acts- that Inman -must- perform, since that was the primary stated goal of the campaign.

  133. Matt Scott says:

    @Robert White, yup, I caught my mistake just after I posted and made a comment about it.

  134. W Ross says:

    @Robert I like the cut of your jib. Cool argument.

    It's like he said "How much will you pay to see me eagle tap Shia LaBouff right in the sack" (and if that's misspelled I don't care; he ruined Transformers) not "I'm raising money for charity by doing that."

    The end result of the thing happens to be this money doing that, but it's part of the bit and because of that it's not really a charitable event at all; it's a protest with cash, at best but at worst a stunt- and the type of charitable event Carreon suggests it to be, neither?

    (Am I in the ballpark?)

  135. W Ross says:

    (Damn, I ee cummingsed that up. Hope you can translate that out of robot.)

  136. Chris R. says:

    Hooooly shit. She's posting again!

    Twitter hasn't even answered Charles' last take-down notice for a false Charles Carreon account. At this point, all he can say is "No one claiming to be Charles Carreon on Twitter is him."

    And now there are two false Charles Carreon websites. And we're going to have to sue them all. There are a lot of people just dying to be sued on this one. If you don't have a lawyer in the family, I would recommend you start getting concerned about this now. For yourself, friends, loved-ones, and fellow-citizens. This is a lynching on the Internet frontier.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40&sid=d7e2ce0129f0cfa54d44508e0c4ea583

    WHAT IS THE SECOND FAKE CARREON WEBSITE?!?!

  137. Chris R. says:

    Never mind got it: CharlesCarrion.com

  138. Robert White says:

    If all of this action CC claims is against CC, wouldn't all of this action be "aimed at" Arizona not California since CC lives in Tuscon?

    I mean if CC is going to play the victim card then he needs to play it in his own neighborhood.

    That would put the entire "trademark" thing in the wrong venue.

    Plus he has no standing between Indegogo and Inman so he's out of California there.

    He read, or should have read, the terms of service for Indigogo, and Inman's letter(s) so he cannot rationally claim being a victim there, particularly since he enunciates that he knows that the contribution isn't a charitable and tax deductible contribution.

    Really, he has -zero- standing, and I can tell that "without being a lawyer" (which, of course, means I could be wrong about the more obscure points like Tuscon not being in California for these purposes 8-).

  139. Matt Scott says:

    Given the fact that he's publicly stated that he will no longer have a twitter presence, he can't really go after (future) twitter accounts on the grounds of confusion any longer (as there is no authentic Charles Carreon account with which one could confuse the satire accounts).

    He's pretty dumb.

  140. Chris R. says:

    @Matt, that is if he were rational.

  141. Henry the Great says:

    The crazy lady is at it again… mad about the image on charlescarrion.com. I find the irony about this hilarious… didn't anyone tell her don't dish it out if you can't take it?

  142. Robert White says:

    @Matt Scott: yep, I saw your post right after your post, right after my post. 8-)

    My post post post is better because I told those not in the know why they now know why your post post, and my post post, were relevant.

    Not to post post on a post post post that isn't really adding anything after my post post.

  143. W Ross says:

    "And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling Internet!!!"

  144. Robert White says:

    You know CC has opined that he must include the California AG because such person must be involved to "modify or terminate" a trust.

    Thing is, his complaint is that there -isn't- a trust.

    Doesn't that mean, a priori, that joining the AG to the complaint is not proper or necessary?

    Seriously, this guy is really not very good at this law thing as far as I can tell.

    He is most certainly unable to process facts that would at least be flagged as cognitively dissonant by anybody who can follow the rules of an average board game.

  145. AlphaCentauri says:

    "Inman’s methods of fundraising will make true generosity an antiquated, outmoded reason for giving, and donating to satisfy spiteful motives, fueled by venomous Internet postings, will supplant the wholesome impulse to benefit others."

    As if spiteful motives never generated charitable donations when the vice principal sat in the seat in the dunking booth at the high school fair …

  146. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, you slay me.

  147. Just sayin'... says:

    From new ars technica article:
    “Plaintiff never experienced any such invasions of his privacy and quiet enjoyment before the Bear Love campaign.”

    I think his incessant Internet ramblings prove plaintiff has never enjoyed being quiet, even before this saga.

  148. harrison says:

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a law enthusiast.

    Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that each defendant named herein, including those named as Does, is and at all relevant times mentioned was, the agent, servant, co-conspirator, advertiser, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants and, in doing the things alleged herein, was acting in the course and scope and with the knowledge of each of the other named Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that each Defendant named herein aided and abetted the others by authorizing and/or ratifying the acts herein alleged.

    This is great. Everyone on the Internet is part of a massive conspiracy against Charles Carreon. Just incredibly, massively dumb.

    Plaintiff has received very large numbers of hate emails, some wishing him death by cancer, and many more forecasting the complete destruction of his professional life.

    (emphasis added)

    Forecasting the complete destruction of Charles Carreon's professional life as a serious lawyer is in no way based in any matters of fact.

  149. Scott Jacobs says:

    I find the reaction to CC to be completely rational, constructive and not so much "hatred" as a pronounced "fuck off" that many of us have oft wanted to send to persons like himself when we encounter them.

    I think "disdain" would be a far more accurate word… :)

  150. Nibor says:

    He probably will claim lost of revenues, because he had to close his twitter account for nobody would take him serious (of course not because of himself, but due to the cyber bulling by those "fake" twitter accounts)

    And from here on, he will call them does 002 and 003 :-)

  151. Robert White says:

    Wasn't he required to file a motion for -permission- to file an amended complaint?

  152. alexa-blue says:

    @AlphaCentauri – I suspect Carreon would say that at least the Vice Principal consented to be there.*

    It doesn't seem like the state has any business regulating a transaction between consenting parties to exchange money. But the state has lots of interest in regulating transactions I don't think it has any business regulating, which is one of the things that troubles me about this lawsuit.

    *On the other hand, Carreon's sitting in a dunking booth designed for FunnyJunk because he didn't read carefully, and he (and his crazy family) sit there hurling invective and taunting everyone to throw.

  153. John says:

    I would just like to point out this:

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

    And this:

    http://demonsit.blogspot.com/2008/09/red-devil-half-body.html

    Perhaps a minor quibble, but sketching over a previous image does not an artist make.

  154. Matt F. says:

    It's hard to understand why someone might go to what the vast majority consider an untenable position but that is what Mr. Carreon has done. While we're all enjoying watching his very public decent into madness perhaps its time to let these antics slip into the background.

    I propose that Mr. Carreon has entered his 13th minute of fame and we should leave him there for now. He can have the 14th minute when his lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice and after that he can have his last minute as a cautionary tale for the power of the internet. It can be a story about Mr. Carreon, Jack Thompson, and Paul Christoforo.

  155. Jack says:

    @AlphaCentauri, What I don't understand about Chuckle's logic regarding the motivation for giving is why does it even matter? Since when does the state regulate fiscal transactions based upon whether or not the motives of either party were "spiteful"?

    Should the state start regulating other commerce based on the perceived degree of spite? Should we add a "venomous intention tax" to any transaction deemed spiteful, or which might undermine our wholesome heritage of giving?

    It bears repeating, the mental gymnastics required in order for CC to even attempt to rationalize his actions approach an Olympic skill level.

  156. Joe says:

    I somehow seriously doubt someone suffering from cancer who receives assistance from ACS is going to care about whether someone donated out of "spite".

    I've found no law prohibiting it – it looks like Carreon just made that shit up.

  157. Jason says:

    He can't possibly have much of a case. Honestly, at this point, I think any reasonable judge would say that he's done more to damage his own reputation that Oatmeal fans would have if they HAD been deliberately incited.

  158. SamuraiKnitter says:

    All right, up front, I know nothing of California charitable organization laws. That said, I have one big question.

    If there is a charitable trust set up to administer the funds collected by BearLove, what are the odds Carreon could angle to get himself appointed adminstrator of it? Is it possible this is an attempted money grab, beyond the claims for attorney's fees? (Again, I sincerely don't know. That's why I'm asking.)

  159. Jason says:

    I don't think even Carreon would be that-
    Nope, wait…
    I…
    Hmm.

  160. Nibor says:

    He will likely try.

    But if IndieGoGo and Matt Inman are shavy and their lawyers alouw it, they have taken the picture in a bank building and after that directly send it to the charities Matt wants (maybe with a note that there is an on-going law suit)

  161. V says:

    @Robert White
    According to some how-to website there usually is a period in which automatic amendments are possible. I have not yet been able to find anything official regarding how long that would be in Northern District of California.
    (I did find a document for NY, that says you only get 1 without filing a motion for permission.)
    I also found a Pro Se Handbook for the Northern District of California that says

    A defendant must respond to an amended complaint either:

    1. Within the time remaining to respond to the original complaint, OR
    2. Within 14 days after being served with the amended complaint,
    whichever period is later.

    I'd guess the period to file an amended complaint (without motion for permission) is probably similar to those 14 days. Maybe 14 days from the original complaint and/or similar to NY (just one), to prevent amendment after amendment.

  162. Reese says:

    Usually the one free amended complaint comes before the defendant(s) have had the opportunity to file their answer. After that, it is on motion, or stipulation between the parties. Judges are fairly lenient in granting (one, maybe two) amended complaints so long as it is early in the process, there hasn't been too much discovery conducted yet, and the complaint doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the charges.

    After perusing PACER, my favorite part of the prospective litigation is the ADR. Most larger jurisdictions I have practiced in require some sort of mediation/arbitration/dispute resolution in order to ease the burden on the formal court system. But the thought of ADR between these parties is hilarious and yet presumably quite frustrating for the non-loonies at the table. I foresee a long of banging fists on the table, perhaps even a puppet show.

    They say that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. And in this case, a crazy for a lawyer too.

  163. V says:

    Oops. forgot this part from that Pro Se Handbook

    a defendant must file a
    written response to the complaint WITHIN 21 DAYS

    So probably similar to that time period, rather than 14 days.

  164. Jack says:

    @SamuraiKnitter Given that CC doesn't have standing to sue under the law, and that he donated just in an attempt to give himself standing to sue, and that neither Inman or IndieGoGo would be considered "commercial fundraisers" under the law, it's highly unlikely that there's a snowball's chance in hell that there will be a charitable trust set up.

    If he did win on that point, and the judge did order that a trust be set up (again, a very big if) it would be unlikely that he would end up administering the trust. My guess is that it would end up in the hands of the AG's office, or be assigned to a professional Fiduciary.

  165. Joe says:

    @samuriaknitter – that is exactly what Carreon is trying to do. Get himself appointed trustee – so he can “supposedly" make sure the funds go where they are supposed to. Given that at one time he suspended for spending client money he obtained in a settlement for personal use, it's a bit like putting the cat in charge of the canary. Or as W. Ross hypothesized, “he must have rent due”.

  166. Foster says:

    @Stazzi – I would love to hear more on your point its raises many questions. one I have is would not his wife/secretary treating people with a law suit be the equivalent of him making the treat himself in a legal caspisty?

  167. Foster says:

    also I have been wondering if he is having or has had one of those moments your doing something and realize how fucking stupid it is but decide to keep at it thinking it's too late to turn back….. Also at what point in the suit is it too late for him to say "OOOPS… my bad I was being a total vindictive assfuck sorry, I am going to just leave now" and avoid any real legal or disciplinary actions?

  168. Matt Scott says:

    Ars has a new article about to Tara discussing the awesomeness that is the Nader Library Pterodactyl Killer Thread.

  169. Grifter says:

    Matt, that article's pretty kind to her, all things considered.

  170. Matt Scott says:

    Grifter- yeah, I felt like they were pretty respectable to her, too. They do a decent job of showing what she says and engendering some charitable understanding of why she could be saying it.

  171. SamuraiKnitter says:

    @Jason

    I just keep thinking about how he didn't file the suit until after the donations hit six figures. Granted, it hit the six figure mark pretty quickly, but he's acted on OTHER things awfully fast.

  172. William C says:

    @Ann
    Not sure if you came across this yet

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=20

    Look at the fifth post.

  173. Beth says:

    The latest Ars Technica article is definitely an interesting take on the situation. I feel it glosses over a critical point, though. In the last section, it seems to treat lawyerly involvement as a natural extension of dispute. That's exactly the problem. Tara can rant and name-call all she wants. So can FunnyJunk. Sending extortionary cease & desist letters, threatening subpoenas, and filing lawsuits is an entirely different story.

  174. "this is a lynching on the internet frontier"??
    i can actually parse the government agent noise, and wannabe-savage-critiques of public figures, but what is this "this" to which she refers?

    – actual lynchings on the 'actual frontier', i am willing to go out on a limb here, never involved lawyerly retaliation on behalf of the victims (and if there were an exception or two to this i would expect even the loopiest [non-institutionalized] wife of a lawyer to… okay, scratch that part)

    – if she's calling the imagined inman-rallying-a-standing-army-to-defame-hubby a lynching, well, balls-on-sleeve hyperbole is nothing new in taraland.

    – if she's calling the thing she's been referring to for the majority of the paragraph – suing ~all two~ of the fake accounts (and sorta implied Does) – a lynching, she's… just… so very, very doing-it-wrong. right, nothing new there either. as since pointed out, one does not think "can dish it out but can't take it" means what she thinks it means. at this point i'd have to say no matter how hard she tries, she will not, in any other-than-fantasized way, transform her matrimonial unit into the john-&-yoko-championed third-class citizens of the internet.

    – if it's some sort of appeal to 'frontier law' in an internetty context… some kind of absorbed conceit from living in wild, wild tucson (near a golf course?) then forgive me, but i want to see more in this vein, precious.

    apologies for wasting space-time on whimsical analysis of naderlibrarian scribblings. i promise to get a real job real soon. thank you all for the digging & monitoring.

  175. Grifter says:

    theNuszAbides, it's not all just golf courses out here…we also have meth labs!

  176. there i go, over'think'ing again. of course i'd already forgotten her invoking the kkk right off the bat. so she really is painting the oestian cyberhomestead as… old-timey courts-savvy crypto-jew-negroes?… and teh Inmanian Army as the classic jackbooted pointy-hatted kkknazi art-stompers. yummy.

  177. @Grifter – my apologies for, in my haste, neglecting the glorious regional fauna and infrastructure. willing to adhere to internets-court judgment ASAP.

  178. Scott Jacobs says:

    A question for Ken…

    The post that William C refers to…

    How many possibly defamatory comments can YOU count?

  179. W Ross says:

    @SamuraiKnitter He'll have to try. His wife is paranoid and he's a narcissist, so nobody on Team Carreon would ever trust that much money to be controlled by someone who's not him.

    That being said, Charles, if you do get it, make sure Tara doesn't get a key.

    We know she has sticky fingers ;)

  180. Ann Bransom says:

    Question…. why does it say "pisacca" on the devil's underwear?

  181. Grifter says:

    Ann, I assume it's a reference to this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishacha

  182. W Ross says:

    @Ann I don't have a fucking clue. I googled it and it's a town in Peru, but they don't seem to make Satan Drawers.

    Normally I can place every piece of the salad spinner full of thoughts centrifical force is whipping out through her drawing arm, but that one is "rosebud" like in it's mystery.

    Maybe we should never know what, or indeed who, picassa may be…

  183. W Ross says:

    @Grifter

    DAMN YOU! YOU RUINED MY UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

    Mystery solved, Tara Carreon can't spell, lol.

  184. Chris R. says:

    Okay to make it clear I am not a Pishacha but I do admire their veracity. I think we could rehabilitate their image and make them good things. Like little underworld helpers, Santa's helpers with long teeth.

  185. Chris R. says:

    Actually Pschacha can inflict insanity unto their victims, maybe that's what Tara is telling us. She's possessed?

  186. W Ross says:

    I think we need our phantom cartoonist to return, and turn the popehat wearing people into: a cia agent, a klansman, a mobster, a nazi, a demon, a Guy Fawkes, and an Occupy protester blazing a J., a killer clown, a Pishacha, etc

    Still riding bears (with maybe one riding a dactyl.) They're all on the left, riding angrily towards center wielding… dunno, something funny, or just swords. Then the carreons, the admin (a dark void with a question mark face) charging towards center from the right, ready to do awesome battle.

    It would be the best computer wallpaper/facebook timeline photo ever.

  187. C says:

    @ W Ross Don't forget Loki, apparently we yellow paper journalists are giving the internet to him.

  188. C says:

    Yellow Journalists* I misquoted, which hopefully doesn't lead to being served for libel.

  189. Margaret says:

    @ W Ross:

    HOLY SH**TAKE MUSHROOMS! That is crazy shit (the Register.com thing). Another egregious example of using a dubious legal threat as a cudgel, and in this case, the target just rolled on over.

  190. Mike K says:

    That's highly disturbing. There's not even a slight veiling of the threat in that letter (unlike the one to The Oatmeal). It specifically tells them to give him a name to sue or they will be named. (both lies apparently…)

  191. W Ross says:

    I like that the website author posted it and is not backing down. That takes some balls, and besides all the awesome lulz that twitter account/site provided, he did it in the face of actual peril.

    That's pretty much the trolling equivalent of storming the beach at Normandy with a pen knife and a cock sock because you REALLY FUCKING HATE FASCISM!!!

    So, ya know (pope) hats off.

  192. Look, ma! Someone read my blog! :)

    I updated it to add Carreon's threat to make Register.com a Doe.

    Also, this makes me wonder when Register.com revealed the register of the domain. Was it before or after Tara's post (on the Saturday following the amended complaint) stating that they knew the person running the site was a woman?

  193. Margaret says:

    Interesting that Register.com disclosed the identity information, but did not "shut down" the charles-carreon.com site as requested by the esteemed Mr. Carreon.

  194. @Margaret: that's because Carreon told them he'd let them off the hook if they revealed the register's identity.

    Nevermind that both Section 230 of the CDA and the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(iii)) probably make Register.com immune from the acts of an independent user even if those acts constituted trademark infringement.

    Of course, the Lanham Act also provides a remedy against a complaining person if the domain name registrar (like Register.com) takes an act based on the complainant's "knowing and material misrepresentation."

  195. Ann says:

    Oh, did I forget to tell you guys my imposter vagina was served with papers earlier today? The jig is up! I am Spartacus!

  196. Chris R. says:

    Impostor Vagina(R) Ann Bransom 2012. People put your hands together.

  197. W Ross says:

    Ann, you are my Goddamned hero.

  198. Margaret says:

    @Ann:

    Wait, what? Were you actually served with actual papers? (Were you making sushi at the time?)

  199. Ann says:

    @W Ross – if "Ann" is my real name

    @Margaret – no, I'm just Carreoning with you. ;)

  200. Ken says:

    You know, if I were a better man, I could read "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community" without bursting into laughter.

  201. Mir says:

    I just realized that the intensely long, name-calling rant that Tara posted contains several lines from one of the Marc Randazza quotes in the original Popehat post.

    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.

    Which makes me wonder if she's just listing names other people have called them over the last few weeks. If so, it's sad she doesn't have a cooler head and better communication skills, because a sane-sounding post explaining that might actually have gotten her some sympathy.

    Not much, given everything else. But a little.

    *eats more popcorn*

  202. W Ross says:

    "The Entity Formerly Known as Ann" it is, then!

  203. Now, now, Ken, I'm sure it must have been incense for them.

  204. Peachkins says:

    With what has happened with register.com, this whole thing has seriously become scary.

    @Ann, I'm so glad to hear you weren't actually served, because with everything that's happened up to this point, it wouldn't have surprised me.

  205. W Ross says:

    Harrassed people = People upset by speech that follows them.
    The Carreon Clan = People upset by speech they seek out, that they could easily avoid.

    That's why this is so chilling, honestly. They're trying to shut down speech that they could very easily avoid being offended by by NOT FUCKING LISTENING.

    The trademark/defamation stuff is just Charles' weaselly little way to get every cowardly little boy's dream – a world where everyone is required by law to like him.

  206. John Hawkinson says:

    "If you are interested in a particular federal case, you can get a PACER account and sign up for automatic email notifications each time a document is filed in the case."

    Umm, no you can't.
    At least not usually.
    Only CM/ECF accounts can sign up for notifications (not PACER accounts), and the decision to grant CM/ECF accounts for non-filers (e.g. press) is a local decision that is up to each and every district court (or circuit court). Most of them do not permit it. And most of the handful that do so only offer such accounts to accreditted members of the press/media.

    The one exception I am aware of is the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which will give a non-filter account to anyone.

    Or did I misinterpret you?

  207. Ken says:

    John:

    Hmm. All the places I have ever tried have had policies. Wasn't aware that some places don't. Anyway, the NDCA — at issue here — does.

  208. W Ross says:

    Love Ars' coverage so far. They have to be banking too, cause there's always about three of the stories in their most read at any time.

  209. W Ross says:

    ( this is how I feel after the first lawlsuit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhv-xZgdy-0 )

  210. @W Ross:

    "And when you all get shot, and cannot carry on, though you die, La Resistance lives on."

    Perfect.

  211. [.... not that I'm advocating people getting shot. Far from it. [I can't believe I need to post this disclaimer.]]

  212. John Hawkinson says:

    Hmm. All the places I have ever tried have had policies. Wasn't aware that some places don't. Anyway, the NDCA — at issue here — does.</blockquote]

    Wow, thanks Ken, and kudos to the Northern District. (I'm in Massachusetts so my interests tend to be a bit more east-cost focused, but out of the ~20 districts that I've looked into this in, only the NDCA and CA1 have said they grant ECF accounts to members of the general public.)

    For anyone looking, the NDCA calls it the Special Mailing Group and the reg. process is at the above link.

    By way of example, the Central District of California is one of the better districts, in that they do offer non-filer accounts, but they only offer them to media, and even there it's somewhat of a challenge to actually get one, because they don't get many requests and not many people there seem to know how to actually set one up. (I think, in December, they told me they had issued five or so accounts total.)

  213. W Ross says:

    Admit it, it's starting to feel that (Internet) serious. He's going balls to the wall, and the precedents he sets if he wins (he won't) will FUCK satarists, critics, pundits, and citizens.

    "Why did the Carreons start this war? What the fuck are they fighting for? When did this case become a marathooonnnnnnnn."

    Yeah, this might have to be our battle song, lol.

  214. Margaret says:

    In the immortal words of Martin Lawrence:

    Shit just got real.

  215. W Ross says:

    http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update

    Oatmeal update!

    "Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother. After the photo is mailed I'll be sending checks to the charities. I'll also post receipts as well as public confirmations from both charities that they received every penny that was promised."

  216. Jack says:

    From the Oatmeal:
    "Carreon has provided notice that he intends to ask the court for a restraining order which will stop the transfer of funds from Indiegogo. If we can't get that silly bullshit dismissed, the money could be held up for days, weeks or months. Assuming we can, I should have the money in about a week."

    So I'm guessing that a Judge will be ruling on that part of the suit in the very near future. Can't wait to see how hat plays out.

  217. Joe says:

    I am seriously disappointed that Register.com disclosed the info. It's clear to anyone but an absolute moron that it was a parody site.

    Ann, every time I think of the possibility of Carreon being foolish enough to come after you I think of this song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbPbObY1l4

    And every time I think of Charles and Tara Carreon I think of this song

  218. W Ross says:

    "Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:39 am Post subject:
    And the Matt Inman Mafia got our local paper, The Tucson Weekly, to repeat the same old lies about our client Funnyjunk removing Inman's attribution from his pictures — Funnyjunk NEVER did that — and that we're suing The American Cancer Society for a bad purpose, instead of a good purpose, which is to make sure they get the money, and not Matt Inman. Matt Inman has REFUSED several times to relinquish control of the fund either to the Court or to Indigogo, after Charles made requests for him to do so. He's a game-player, this little Matt Inman. He thinks he's going to get his hands on a big pot of money."

    Translation: We want that money SOOOOOOOO BAD!

  219. Chris R. says:

    I'm pretty sure when he gets to court people are going to stare at him in awe of his craziness level and think to themselves:

  220. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, I like how FunnyJunk is "our" client. So if she is employed by her husband, wouldn't her legal threats be binding to him?

  221. Jess says:

    "He's a game-player, this little Matt Inman. He thinks he's going to get his hands on a big pot of money."

    That is seriously one of the stupidest things Tara has said to date. Does she really think if Inman did NOT follow through on his commitment that the same people on the internet that are ridiculing them would not in fact then turn on Inman. Inman has given no indication he plans to do anything other than what he originally committed to doing. Suing someone for committing a crime that has not yet occurred is just simply unbelievable.

    As far as the people sending the Carreon's hate mail – they are being stupid. Parody is fine but direct harrassment is not. It makes them no better than Carreon.

  222. http://www.american-buddha.com/tids.htm

    "This article, authored not by a mental-health professional, but rather by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles, focuses on the case histories of three American tantric teachers who manifested destructive delusional behavior."

    wut.

  223. Margaret says:

    @ Jess

    "He's a game-player, this little Matt Inman. He thinks he's going to get his hands on a big pot of money."

    Agree 100% with what you said – you can't sue someone for a crime that's going to happen in the future. That said, Mr. Inman is going to get his hands on a big pot of money. And take a photo. Possibly while rolling around in it. And then he's going to get up, grab the money bags, and hand it all off to charity.

    As noted, Mr. Inman would have to be pretty damn stupid – like, Carreon-level stupid – to think he could pocket the money somehow and no one would know. And Matthew Inman is not stupid. His kung-fu is strong, as they say.

  224. HeatherCat says:

    So…. they're suing the charity, so now the charity will need to spend more than they would actually get from Mr. Inman so they can keep counsel against this suit, in order to make sure they receive money…

    did I get that right??

  225. Ara Ararauna says:

    "Carreon has provided notice that he intends to ask the court for a restraining order which will stop the transfer of funds from Indiegogo. If we can't get that silly bullshit dismissed, the money could be held up for days, weeks or months. Assuming we can, I should have the money in about a week."

    That part saddens me a lot, putting the retcon-shitnsanity of Chas' file aside. I'm quite familiarized with restraining orders upon "goods": here I'm still waiting for a final verdict on a problem that it is now more than 8 years old, and my belief is that it will age more and more that I already lost all hope to recover all our restrained goods and house included (a realtor fraud case with no apparent end, you might get the picture).

    I just hope for the sake of the charities and Oats that the money will get restrained for little time, or else, that SB will even use that same excuse to SUE MOAR and say that the fund raising was a fraud because money never arrived to their payees (due to all this filthy restraining he himself arranged on first place!).

    Geez… this is nuts… lawyers like that would have been skinned at the public platz if this was XVIII century, for bad praxis and/or prevarication of its trade; just take away his lawyer badge and he returns back to a normal skinny whiny human with way too much time to waste on picking fights through internet. Strip him of his powers and see him sink into the quick-sand by the weight of the real Justice. Seeing him still digging the hole and pricking with the finger on every festering blister is nauseating and must stop soon, for gods sake :(

  226. @HeatherCat: yeah. And Inman/IndieGoGo will have to raise more money to pay Carreon's attorneys' fees. Unless Carreon has the chutzpah to ask that the charities pay his fees.

    I mean, assuming it ever got that far.

  227. Valerie says:

    "This is a nazi-communist-fascist-right-wing argument."

    Ok, Tara, pet peeve as a social studies teacher – those things are not the same! Yes, both communist and fascist nations have been totalitarian, unpleasant places to live. That does not mean their raison d'etre is identical. Shoe polish and shit both taste bad when used as condiments, but they come from very different places.

    "This idea that Funnyjunk did the thing that his users are alleged to have done, is the same stupid reasoning that got us into the war in Afghanistan and Iraq: the idea that every person in those countries was guilty because of what some people allegedly did. What happened to individual responsibility? I know, I know, everything's Communist now — we have GROUP responsibility now. Human rights are out the window."

    So, you claim not to believe in guilt by association. And yet you lump all your critics into the "BAD PEOPLE" category.

    Yeah, I think you and your husband are asshats and that this lawsuit is a fragrant piece of bullshit that needs to be SLAPPed down. I do not, however, wish you physical harm, nor have I sent pizzas or porn to your house. The fact that the troll who sent you a nasty email also wants to see your lawsuit thrown out does not make me a BAD PERSON simply because I agree with him on that one point.

    Your utter lack of self-awareness is so staggering that I think I may pass out.

  228. Ara Ararauna says:

    http://www.american-buddha.com/tids.htm

    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles
    by an attorney with extensive experience with tantric lifestyles

    *calls Spanish Inquisition to seize that witch'ttorney*

    ((out of context)) Oh hey @W Ross has a face now :)

  229. Jess says:

    @Margaret – I hope Inman rolls around in it. I hope he takes a pic of himself naked rolling around in it, blows it up to 6 x 6 and mails it to Carreon to hang on his wall.

    If in fact he made such a pic, I would buy it.

  230. Ara Ararauna says:

    @Valerie – Wow, that reply is a srss mother reply. Will mirror because it is worth 10.000 and has over 110% of reason.

  231. HeatherCat says:

    @Jess – I dare say that I would buy that pic too. And for the reasons it stands for, I think my boyfriend would be cool if I prominently displayed it on the desk here. ;)

  232. HeatherCat says:

    @Val – applause and +1,000! You've just expressed my own thoughts so succinctly… well, probably a LOT of our thoughts.

  233. Dan Weber says:

    Matt Inman has REFUSED several times to relinquish control of the fund either to the Court or to Indigogo, after Charles made requests for him to do so.

    What? Chas requested something, and Inman didn't obey? NAZI MONSTER!

    Elsewhere here in Opposite World, we sue people to make sure they get money.

  234. W Ross says:

    @Ara Ara Yeah, I figured with all the "EVERYONE IS TALKING FROM HIDING" it's better to just throw my face up there and say "No, we're really not." Then I hid half of it with a hoodie cause it kinda made me look like a Wizard.

  235. Valerie says:

    @ W. Ross I think the hood makes you look more like the head of the thieves guild in Skyrim – or, if you want to be more sinister, the Dark Brotherhood. (Why yes, I am dork for saying that).

    Attention Carreons: Fus Ro Dah!

  236. Kristen says:

    @Dan Weber no, they're suing the charities for a *good* reason. It's okay to sue charities (apparently?) if you are just sure that some bad man is going to do something bad with their (sorta, but not really) money*… maybe. You just can't sue charities for a *bad* reason.

    *If Inman makes that picture, I'll take ten.

  237. Ara Ararauna says:

    Reading this http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/defenders-of-the-oatmeal-create-parody-websites-to-pick-up-the-fight/

    Freedom of speech is in danger as Chas goes to turn his name into a living full fledged corporation and sue everyone that misuses his name and BRAND of his clan of failure.

    To think that I had my times insulting the disgusting actions of Viacom, Activision and such, now I'm afraid we all will get sued because we "misused" the names of those poor corps. for decades on every nook and cranny of Internet and RL… Is this going out of hand? Will his insanity prevail over reason?

  238. Grifter says:

    @Valerie:
    The Communism/Fascism thing is an annoyance of mine, as well, but now I have the perfect response:

    "Shoe polish and shit both taste bad when used as condiments, but they come from very different places."

    Thanks!

  239. W Ross says:

    @Valarie It's nerdier than that… it's an N7 hoodie.

  240. Ara Ararauna says:

    AOletsgo | about 2 hours ago
    Since Carreon's online escapades are themselves batshit crazy, the batshit crazy things said on the parody website are, perhaps, themselves indistinguishable from his trademarked brand of censorious douchebaggery, lending force to Mr. Carreon's otherwise spurious infringement allegations. In other words, if you are already a parody of yourself, does another parody not create a likelihood of consumer confusion?

    Wanted to share, it's full of funny.

  241. Look at that says:

    From Arstechnica

    "enderandrew | Ars Scholae Palatinae 8 minutes ago
    Charles Carreon has a servicemark.

    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f= … nk9k4r.2.1

    The name is only trademarked in association with providing legal services. The parody blog is obviously a parody blog, and not providing legal services. Same with the Twitter accounts. No one would confuse the parody blog with a law firm."

  242. Valerie says:

    @ Grifter Glad I could be of service :)

    @ W Ross I have been out nerded. Well played, sir, well played.

    @ Ara I think that is a perfect analysis of this Kafkaesque situation.

    How does the amended complaint thing work? Does the court just toss out the original complaint? I would hate to see the beauty of the original crazy not on the record, shared with the world, and preserved for posterity…

  243. SPQR says:

    Valerie, nothing that has been filed disappears.

  244. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    @Valerie: no, the original complaint is still part of the record, but it's more or less irrelevant to the court.

  245. Look at that says:

    Sorry about the link. I put this in mainly for the lawyers out there who may be reading this site. I know 'nuttin 'bout law, service marks, trade marks and copyrights. But, I suspect a service mark is way diff than a trademark or copyright.

    Y'all are so much fun to read. Thanks.

  246. moo says:

    [I don't know how to do fancy quote boxes :/ ]

    "nor have I sent pizzas or porn to your house."-Valerie
    But it does sound like a very sexy time! Bowchicawowwow

    "@Margaret – I hope Inman rolls around in it. I hope he takes a pic of himself naked rolling around in it, blows it up to 6 x 6 and mails it to Carreon to hang on his wall.

    If in fact he made such a pic, I would buy it." -Jess

    I would buy it also. But my reasons are impure and based on physical appreciation of Mr. Inman. ;) Or wait…it's for the cause! (fingers crossed)

  247. SPQR says:

    Look at that – to simplify, a service mark is a trademark.

  248. Valerie says:

    So if a lawyer like Chas dashes off a half-assed complaint but then amends it there's no penalty for having initially gone of half cocked and made ill considered and inaccurate assertions?

  249. Chris R. says:

    I am glad that Charles has retained an attorney, hopefully one less subject to legal rage. Who knows.

  250. Valerie says:

    @ Chris R Two questions:

    #1 Why is Inman wearing nail polish?

    #2 Who the hell is Sue Hunt?

  251. @Valerie: she's a nephew of Doe Hunt

  252. Chris R. says:

    @Adam LOL x.x
    @Valerie – she apparently is a contributor to american buddha and has done Carreon portraits etc. http://susanhuntart.com/category/family-portraits/

    I also do not think anyone should contact her. She is probably just a friend of Tara's who helping her girlfriend out.

  253. Margaret says:

    @Chris R:

    Charles retained an attorney other than himself? Did I miss that?

  254. Moo says:

    Susan Hunt really captured Carreon's molten troll complexion. Is it supposed to look like his forehead bubbleth over?

  255. Chris R. says:

    @Margaret: "Carreon told Ars on Tuesday, adding that he had retained counsel in Phoenix"

  256. Chris R. says:

    Miravlix | Smack-Fu Master, in training reply6 minutes ago
    New Poster
    I will never understand why America glorify bullying and bad behavior against another person. It's fine to be upset with Charles action, but the guy IS STAYING WITHIN THE LAW with his actions, so lying, bullying and criminal activity to harm the person is way out of line. The people attacking Charles outside legal or sober reporting on the situation is cyber terrorists.

    I wonder if that's Tara. The first time poster thing kinda made me think it was…

  257. Matt Scott says:

    @ChrisR- Probably not, the writing style is different (and I don't just mean the complete lack of cray cray).

  258. W Ross says:

    @Chris R. I also wondered that.

  259. Matt Scott says:

    err… just caught the last sentence of the quoted comment (re: cyberterrorist). I still don't think it's her, but I take back my lack of cray cray statement.

  260. lfox says:

    @w ross- just offer punch and pie, more will come out of the folds if you do

  261. lfox says:

    all 14406 individuals that donated (not related to CC), should join in on a civil suit against him for trying to impede the process and act on our behalf without our request. We all knew what we were getting in to, which is exactly WHY the internet has donated almost a quarter mil- to say "F U" to the same individual claiming to speak on our behalf. No one wants him representing us. I want my money photo (duck tales style), and then off with the money to the charities.

  262. Chris R. says:

    The main reasons I thought she might be were:
    A) Read most people's replies and they are referring to him as Carreon, this person refers to him as Charles
    B)New account
    C)Cyberterorrist statement.

    But after a quick Miravlix Carreon google search, I believe it is not. I think we found our first non-Carreon(or real life friend) supporter. It's a rare species indeed.

  263. Look at that says:

    I too wondered about the Miravlex post; sounds a little off.

  264. So, er, my lil blog post is on the second or third page of Reddit, and apparently getting posted to a local law school's newspaper. And so goes the Streissand Effect. Again.

    I'd like to thank my first reader, W. Ross…

  265. Jack says:

    Miravlix appears to be a guy in Denmark, named Steen. He may be aquatinted with the Carreons as I've found evidence that he's been the admin on at least one server that's physically located in AZ. He also appears to have some interests that parallel TC's. I'd say there's about a 50-60% chance he's a sock-puppet.

  266. Jack says:

    *Acquainted (typing on phone)

  267. Chris R. says:

    So Ann has started something: http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/06/delicious-oatmeal-that-might-have-been.html

    Might want to check that out. Great read as usual, and sure to make Carreon go Mt. St Helens.

  268. Matt Scott says:

    I spend a lot of time looking at Matt Inman's face in my photoshop projects.

    Tara Carreon's latest post is sounding a lot like one of Censorious Douchebag's satirical articles.

    Also, I've asked her to clarify her definition of tautological nature of the mind twice now, she really doesn't seem to understand what a tautology is… The Philosophy major in me is crying over her latest post (but that's not a topic for a law blog, so I'll move on).

    In Tibetan Buddhism, there's this cool idea of the wisdom hag that every man needs in order to get enlightened. I'm a wisdom hag, but nobody believes it, ha ha ha. Like Phil Dick said, "a person knows what they are." I offered once to be an upcoming-important kid's wisdom hag. He arrogantly turned me down. His loss, not mine!

    She really can't get away from her absolute belief that everything she does is absolutely right and just, can she? It's sad, her complete lack of self-reflection.

  269. W Ross says:

    Nobody hurts Ann's Vagina's feelings. That's 50 Shades of Not OK.

  270. Valerie says:

    @ Matt How much does "wisdom hag" pay? I'm looking for a job.

  271. Smorz says:

    @lfox – all 14406 individuals that donated (not related to CC), should join in on a civil suit against him for trying to impede the process…

    This was something I mentioned in the previous Carreon topic that I would love to see happen. Could there be better poetic justice?

    "The Empire Internet Strikes Back"

    As a donor to the cause, I'm going to be pissed if the charities are forced to wait for my contribution because of 1 vexatious lawyer with a personal vendetta. I knew what I was getting into when I made the donation and I don't need some crackpot Arizona lawyer inserting himself into the cause and trying to speak for me in some unwarranted fashion.

  272. Chris R. says:

    @smorz, Couldn't we file friend of the court briefs?

  273. W Ross says:

    https://twitter.com/annbransom/status/217847950137753602

    That is so awesome. Consider retweeting that if you don't hate freedom. Or if you do. Either way, it's worth being retwozen.

  274. Smorz says:

    @Chris R – I had thought of that but I'm 2,000 miles away. Not sure how to go about it from such a distance.

  275. Valerie says:

    Holy illuminati, masonic, mafia, CIA collaboration, Batman! She has the cojones to call someone else paranoid!

    The best line? "It appears that Charles and I have gone to hell, and we're playing with the little hell children. I think it's damn nice of us, as grown-ups, to play with the evil little kids. Not that we had a choice in the matter."

    Yes, it isn't like you had a choice to a) not send an extortionate letter or b) respond to mild (and deserved) mockery with an atomic suicide bomb. Absolutely no choice. So sad.

    And Tara, if you happen to read this, the movie you are thinking of is "Children of the Corn" & they aren't zombies, they are members of a death cult – oh sweet serendipity…

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/mondo.nodeathcults.htm

  276. Jon says:

    @smorz

    If CC can file a claim trying to protect the charitable funds from a yet-to-be-seen threat wouldn't that mean mean either a.) there'd be standing to file against him (with a prayer for relief being that CC repay any penny the charities had to spend dealing with this, instead of selfish attorney fees) or b.) CC's claim is so baseless we don't have standing either?

  277. Matt Scott says:

    @Valerie- I'd totes recommend you for the position, considering I've seen you properly use Death of God and a few other philosophical concepts that most people utterly eff up.

  278. W Ross says:

    "I am going to be glad to finally leave this realm. Next lifetime, maybe I'll do better! This is a sad realm we live in. "

    O.o

  279. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, I think her husband should stop suing people, read her forum, and get her help immediately.

  280. Tali says:

    Holy Crap! I leave the internet for 2 days and this whole thing gets crazier than even I would have imagined.

    @Ann Awesome idea for the fundraiser, I will try to donate if I can, but birthing a baby can be expensive

  281. W Ross says:

    @Chris R Yeah, that's mildly troubling. If it's the only one, whatever, but if she does it again she might be a danger to herself and we gotta call somebody.

  282. Valerie says:

    "People are by and large ignorant cowards. No wonder the fascist right-wingers feel superior. At least, they are men and women of action! And I admire that. I could only hope that they similarly will admire my superior state of mind. Let's get together and think superiorly…"

    Yes, let's do that. The cannibal kids will round up some religious right wingers and you can show them your pornographic Bush and Condalezza Rice fan-fiction. I am sure they will kneel at your feet & bask in the glow of your profundity.

    BTW – You know who was a man of action? Hitler. Just sayin'.

  283. Smorz says:

    @Jon

    a) I would hope so
    b) Perhaps, but even if/when his suit gets SLAPPed down or dismissed, he's still been an obstructionist that ground goodwill to a halt because of a personal vendetta, as TC continues to make absolutely clear.

    Regardless, he shouldn't be able to walk away clean from this ordeal. Not at this point. There are different possible outcomes that the court or bar could hand down, but for the other donors, a civil suit could/would be the only recourse.

    Can't wait to see the response that will come from Inman's lawyer. The suspense is killing me!

  284. Smorz says:

    @Ann – Love what you did:) Bravo!

  285. W Ross says:

    What Charles has done to his reputation on Twitter:

    https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%22Charles%20Carreon%22

    On Google:

    http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=charles+carreon&oq=charles+carreon&gs_l=hp.3..0i3j0l9.695.2242.1.2379.15.15.0.0.0.0.233.2568.0j9j5.14.0…0.0.NPdjm5y8LmY&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e757a35b73c411c2&biw=1440&bih=809

    On Bing:

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=charles+carreon&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=charles+carreon&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=

    They need to stop talking. I know they've been given that advice over and over and over, but they can't look at those links and think there's any kind of a win they can salvage here. I seriously can't believe they cannot see what everyone else does.

  286. Nibor says:

    I don’t know if this it possible or legal but:

    Inman didn’t tell which two charities he wanted to include, of course he can’t include them now and already stated that he won’t.

    So what if he chooses two that are remotely related to the ACS and NWF, like the Ronald mc Donald homes (by the way I don’t know if these are a charity in the US, but over here they are homes close to a hospital, where parents can stay when their child is treated for cancer, so they can be together) and let’s say a dolphin sanctuary (I know, I know, Inman and dolphin’s aren’t best of friends).

    And now the clue he asks the ACS and NWF if they are willingly to donate a part of the bearlove campaign money, let’s say $ 25K to those causes so the ACS to the RmD homes and the NWF to the D sanctuary, in name of the bearlove campaign.

    Because those secondary causes are related to the guidelines of the primary charities so they can account for it.

    Maybe they are enticed to do so for they are also sued by the same mad man. I can only assume that both charities, see eye to eye with the fact that Inman is not the one to blame and not only because he gives them the money.

    This will take away even the little victory CC could claim if he wanted to and probably will, for Inman now can claim he spread the money exactly as he intended, only forced by CC to use a little detour.

    I wonder what you all think on this one, is it possible and or legal.

    And Matt if you read this or someone gives you this hint, please do use this loophole if it is legal, and ACS and NWF are inclined to help you.

  287. Foster says:

    @Nibor
    I honestly think Carreon would still not accept Matt doing anything but the fist plan with 2 beneficiaries even if the NFW and ACS consent to a 4 way spit I think he'd try legal action on matt and all four charities then

  288. Nibor says:

    I'm trying to say that Matt gives it to ACS and NFW 50/50 so he complies with all that is going on.

    But then "totally on their own incentive" the ACS and NFW donate a part of the money to the other charities (in name of the bearlove campaign)

  289. Grifter says:

    Nibor, while technically an option, I doubt that NWF or ACS would be up for that; it puts them too firmly in league with TEH EVUL OHTMEEL!!, and I'm sure they don't want to be involved at all except in terms of cashing the check.

  290. Grifter says:

    Also? I'm actually offended that TC quoted PKD. He may have gone a little loony in the end there, but I don't think he'd have ever been behind "hey, let's sue some charities!"

  291. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Question: The registrar.com letter was clearly "Do this or I'll sue you", but with the "I'll sue you" on grounds that, well, Carreon either knows or should know is false: the registrar is protected from these claims.

    Is this yet another case of something-to-add to Carreon's CA State Bar Complaint pile and the Rule 11 sanctions pile: threatening a frivolous lawsuit to extract information outside of discovery or a subpoena?

  292. Valerie says:

    @ W Ross I notice more people who speak foreign languages commenting on Charles Carreon on twitter etc.

    Its pretty bad when you live in Tulsa and yet your truly epic asshattedness has people tweeting about you in Dutch (at least I think it was Dutch). French and Spanish as well.

  293. Chris R. says:

    @Valerie, he's big in Australia too apparently.

  294. Valerie says:

    I don't condone animal abuse, but this seems like a legitimate reason to punch a dolphin in the face.

    http://gma.yahoo.com/rogue-dolphin-alone-katrina-menaces-lake-area-132602544–abc-news-pets.html

  295. Chris R. says:

    @Valerine, wow… even his pod was like "this guy's a jerk" and abandoned him. Carreon Dolphin!

  296. Robert White says:

    You know, if Indiegogo just did the transfer right away, the problem would be long gone. That the transfer "typically" takes four days doesn't mean you cannot have your glasses in about an hour… 8-)

  297. lfox says:

    @smorz- well i'm about 3,000 miles away but would still join in. I dont want my money messed with; i'd sooner cancel my credit card and mail matt a personal check than risk CC get his grubby hands on it. this is all kinds of wrong, and wonder if any of the legally apt individuals here have the where withal to tell us if it's possible. I want to stand up and say "I love the oatmeal, bears, and smite cancer- and CC doesn't speak for me."

  298. Robert White says:

    I
    CLAIM
    BRAGGING
    RIGHTS
    FOR
    SAYING
    THIS
    HERE
    FIRST
    (I think)

    CC is -going- to clam, onces Inman completes the transfer to the charities, that the money only went to the charities because of his lawsuit.

    CC is also going to believe this to be true to the bottom of his tiny decrepit heart.

    Just Sayin…

  299. Robert White says:

    I think we should all take a picture of some of our own cash and send it to CC with a copy of the bearlove picture, and donate that cash to something…

  300. Just to note — Marc Randazza commented on my blog post to say I'm wrong. I think he's (mostly) right: the ICANN rules basically force Register.com's hand on this one. Not that it shifts any blame from Mr. Carreon for using that to unmask a critic, but it certainly diminishes (if not eliminates) Register.com's culpability.

  301. V says:

    @Robert White
    Sorry, I think someone beat you to it, depending on your definition of HERE.

  302. Chris R. says:

    Ann I got your fundraiser on the default from page of the Oatmeal's latest blog section's comments.

  303. Chris R. says:

    from = front // Don't know what happened there.

  304. Valerie says:

    @ Robert :) It almost goes without saying. The general tone that radiates from the Carreon clan is that without their continued martyrdom for all that is good and pure we would be all be wandering through a hellish, zombie infested wasteland.

  305. W Ross says:

    @Adam Yeah, I don't blame Register. It's not their job to protect the entire Internet. If they had, they'd be heroes, but not doing so doesn't make them villains.

  306. Nibor says:

    @ valarie can you give me the link to that tweet, I am Dutch so I could look at it if it is, also most of the other languages used over here in Europe I can pinpoint for you if you really want to know :-)

  307. Nibor says:

    @Ann over 50% already you’re going strong here.

    Okay not as strong as Bearlove good, Cancer bad, but hey you got a much smaller fan base.

    Go get em ;-)

  308. Ann Bransom says:

    I'm just tickled someone besides me donated!!!! lol

  309. Valerie says:

    @ Nibor I clicked on it – google says its Dutch, but here it is anyway: https://twitter.com/#!/hmblank

    For the record, the legend of Charles Carreon has spread to the middle east – new tweets in Hebrew.

  310. Nibor says:

    @Valerie, Yep that's my lovely Dutch language :-)
    And a nice touch, in the article to whichthe last tweet refers, TC is called a fishwife, this is a Dutch saying which means a woman that is jellying (originally on a market in trying to sell fish) but has really noting to say.

    @Ann, if you ever doubted us :-(

  311. Valerie says:

    @ Nibor Yeah, when I hit google translate I did wonder if fishwife was Dutch for asshat. :)

  312. Robert White says:

    @Ann: Not being you, I would have set up the site to donate to two charities and one despicable organization, all unnamed, with only like 0.5% (e.g. one half of one percent) going to the despicable organization.

    All art should be at least a -little- dirty. 8-)

  313. Daniel Hagan says:

    FYI, this post isn't in the outmeal_v_funnyjunk tag on your blog…

  314. Wondering says:

    I wish in his latest post that Inman hadn't felt forced into saying that Carreon was getting a small victory. I hate seeing a bully get any sort of victory, no matter how small.

    I wish he would have said something like, "Instead of adding two more charities, I'm splitting the money just between the ACS and the NWF because now they may need the additional cash to pay legal fees from being sued."

    Carreon would get no victory in that case.

  315. Look at that says:

    Fishwife is an old insult describing a loud, obstreperous woman. In fact, fishwives were instrumental in the French revolution.

  316. Valerie says:

    @ look at that As a teacher, I must commend your excellent use of the word obstreperous.

  317. Ken says:

    @Daniel: Thanks, fixed.

  318. Nibor says:

    Mann, my English sucks, I wanted to say something like that, but had no idea how to put it this clear (thanks “Look at that” for it)

    oh without that French revolution part, that I didn’t know.

  319. Margaret says:

    @Wondering:

    I really wish he hadn't put an "exact figure" in his post – Mr. Inman does seem to be overlooking that the 3% credit card fee is on top of Indiegogo's 4% fee. Either way, I can't imagine why anyone reasonable would be upset by that – every method of fundraising has some overhead, and every time you donate via credit card, even directly to the charity, the 3% comes off the top.

    Still, he quoted a number, and if the number doesn't come out exactly as he said (never mind the fact that each charity will still get $100k), Carreon will jump on it like… well, like a vulture on carrion.

  320. Henry the Great says:

    @ Margaret:
    I think as long as Inman does what he says he s going to do (to which I had no doubt from the begining) as long as he has receipts and a paper trail…. Carreon can't possibly claim he took anything even is there is a 3% credit card fee.

  321. W Ross says:

    @WilW Tweeted/FBed/Blogged about him. And tomorrow he becomes the front page article on Encyclopedia Dramatica for two days.

  322. AlphaCentauri says:

    Register.com didn't cave on this one. They just followed the rules. The whole idea of proxy registration for domain names is on somewhat shaky regulatory grounds. "Generic TLD" domains, like .com, have to have public registration information. Domains by Proxy can make it hard for spammers to harvest your information, but when it starts being used to hide the real owner of a domain in a legal dispute, ICANN would consider them out of compliance with their domain registration agreement.

    If you really want some privacy with a .com domain, you have to use fake information. And if you do, someone like Carreon can get your site shut down in a minute by proving the registration information is fake. Or you could register your domain with a different TLD, like .bs or .ru, but I suspect that if someone is willing to pay a lawyer in whatever foreign jurisdiction, they could still get the information with a subpoena.

  323. Robert White says:

    @AlpahCentauri in other words, all the legal threats were beside the point and he could have just asked nicely.

    Kinda sums up CC's problems from the get go eh?

  324. Mike K says:

    @ann I read one (so far) of your older pre-Carreon blogs and left a comment because it touched me, and wanted you to know :)

    @ken Any idea on when we get to see your thoughts on the amended complaint? I know it's hilarious, but I decided against law school at some point and enjoy seeing more detailed analysis. I stuck with the easy stuff like computers and math and considered the fun of teaching (which I might still do at some point, depends on how ambitious I get).

  325. W Ross says:

    (In accordance with the protocols, there is a new Charles Carreon article. If you notice comments here have dried up, it's because we're there.

    There is here: http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/27/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-request-for-pro-bono-help-in-bay-area/

    Also, shit just got real, looks like the Pope-Signal is up.)

  326. Smorz says:

    @lfox – I share your feelings and agree with you completely but it appears you and I are alone here on that topic. Perhaps an email to the EFF would better provide some answers. I don't know.

  327. Cassy Foesch says:

    In his Prayer for Relief, Paragraph E, CC prays for attorney's fees. Except that "the Supreme Court has held that where a statute permits attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees."

    Seriously, this may have removed many of the outrageous lies, but is still based on a ton of legal bullshit. I am not a lawyer, nor am I a law student. I'm just READ IN THE LAW… and I know that most of his arguments are absolute bullshit. This is shit so clearly basic that even a 1st year law student could poke holes in it big enough to drive a station wagon….

  328. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Casey: That's GREAT.

    It means that Carreon can get bupkis on attorneys fees no matter what happens!

  329. Mike says:

    The thing I find fascinating about this right now is that according to http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/win-lose-or-draw/Content?oid=13970862 , carreon has said that he only served the original notice after funnyjunk told him all of the oatmeal's comics were removed, and would not have done so if they were not. Think about this for a minute…..This means that he had to have known that all of the Oatmeal's claims in the blog post about funnyjunk were basically correct and truthful and that he filed suit anyway, simply because he/his client did not like what was truthfully being said. That sounds like a textbook SLAPP suit very much deserving an anti-SLAPP suit to me. Anyone more knowedgeable know anything more on this?

  330. Mike says:

    whoops, that was never actually filed as a lawsuit, only a notice was sent — so I imagine my above post does not apply. Feel free to ignore me! needless to say I'm not a laywer. :|

  331. Rand Bell says:

    Yup – that's just douchebaggery.

    "Take back the entirely accurate statement you said many months ago since I believe it's not an accurate statement of how things are now and pay me $20k because I shouldn't be responsible for having my past bad actions called out — you should. Or I'll sue you."

    And technically it's FunnyJunk saying it while being badly represented by CC.

    On a side note does anyone else hear Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya" in their head when they read about CC?

  332. V says:

    I think CC contradicts himself a little regarding the fake CC twitter account. In his Amended Complaint he states:

    79. Inman promptly took advantage of [fake CC]’s fake tweets by himself tweeting:
    a. Matthew Inman @Oatmeal: “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.”

    However, his Exhibit E shows that the first tweet from fake CC was in reply to Oatmeal's hornet's nest tweet.

  1. June 25, 2012

    [...] my detractors are out here again spewing villainous threats and making libelous statements about me (I'm look at you W Ross and theMattScott). People out there have been claiming that I am devoid of clientele. Well my loyal followers, I have [...]

  2. June 26, 2012

    [...] (Pishacha but she can't spell), some call them demons, or pterodactyls, I call them snakes. These snakes feed you logical conclusions and try to make you a true believer in the devil Matthew Inman. So the question is, what do you do [...]

  3. June 28, 2012

    [...] I know is that when this is all over, I am going to take my $220,024 plus attorney fees and go to Asia where I can get a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t. I heard they find Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils [...]