The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk: Request For Pro Bono Help In Bay Area

Print This Post

You may also like...

278 Responses

  1. Peter H says:

    Ken,

    How much of your time these days is being devoted to hours that are only billable in the form of awards for badassery?

    Not complaining or anything, but assuming your partners might. Maybe it's worth it for the PR for the firm. I know who I'm calling if I need federal criminal defense in the LA area.

  2. JDDrew says:

    Ann -

    I have some pretzels. I'll share with you if you'll share with me.

  3. My god, this just keeps getting more entertaining. I'm not going to speculate on who, but I will say I am reasonably confident I am going to fall over laughing *in the good way* when I find out.

    Seriously for an internet drama, this is funny*.

    *Funny in a lets watch the crazy guy go into a mental melt down kind of way. Not so funny in the lets abuse the legal system to screw and intimidate anyone who has caused me to be butthurt.

    What does make me smile though is how quickly and readily people have rallied to defend those being abused. If I could help by donating my time I certainly would.

  4. Jordan says:

    Why can't these things happen in Pennsylvania or New Jersey???

  5. @Jordan: because Rakofsky has saturated the market on Internet crazy litigants in that quadrant of the country.

  6. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Pitty, IANAL…

    However, whatever lawyer answers the Popehat Signal can pick up a nice bottle of Sonoma [1] wine from my office should they desire (pick yer favorite varietal) in Berkeley.

    [1] I live in Napa. My GF works in the wine industry. Thus, with extreme confidence, we can say, "Napa is for auto parts, sonoma is for wine"

  7. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and for those too cheap to have a Pacer account, this has geeky enough appeal that its showing up on RECAP as it goes along:

    http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.cand.256114

  8. Valerie says:

    And the digging continues…

  9. Valerie says:

    @ Nicolas The text is also up on the Nader Library site.

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

  10. Kris says:

    Shit just got real.

    I'm not a lawyer though at this point I am wishing I'd angled my life that direction. I love to be in on this for the satisfaction of curb stomping this idiocy, and to stand up for what's right.

    Thank you, Ken. This is amazing work.

  11. FloydPepper says:

    Anyone know anything about the Hon. Edward M. Chen? Looks like he has been assigned to the case.

  12. Barb Chestnut says:

    Given the obvious parallel, which Popehat has already pointed out, to the Rakofsky case, I think "speculation" is entirely to tentative a word for the bleedin' obvious.

    Let's see, who do we know who likes high-profile Internet first amendment cases, has already blogged about the case, and happens to only be admitted to U.S. District Courts for Eastern Michigan, Northern Texas, and Northern Ohio?

    But okay, I won't mention Fearless Leader™'s name…

  13. perlhaqr says:

    *claps hands, giggles*

  14. Connie says:

    Oh lordy. This is a trainwreck of epic proportions… Can't wait for the next installment.

  15. Valerie says:

    @ FloydPepper Chen is in Wikipedia. He seems sane and used to work for the ACLU, so I suspect he will not take kindly to attempts to subvert the first amendment.

    Any lawyer types who can give us an idea of when this farce might go before the judge?

  16. W Ross says:

    VIVA LE RESISTANCE!

  17. Ann says:

    @JDDrew – SHARESIES!!!

  18. Ann says:

    P.S. @Ken – I'm happy to try and help from a technology standpoint if needed. Now that I'm running my own IndieGoGo campaign, I'm seeing exactly how it works from the campaign operator's perspective. I've got some thoughts/questions pertaining to the Bear Love situation, but I don't feel comfortable verbalizing them just yet.

  19. V says:

    @Valerie
    not a lawyer type, but there was some initial conference scheduled for 9/19/2012 and the document describing the assignment of judge Edward M. Chen did not specify any particular dates. (So I assume 9/19 is still unchanged.)

  20. Juniper says:

    I've been at counsel's table all week at the CAND court right down the hall from Judge Chen… but, alas, I'm only a 3L. Someday… someday that popehat signal will be for me. Someday, after I sleep off this trial, that is. Sleep still exists somewhere, right?

  21. Piper says:

    Sent a note off to a friend who may be a possibility, and who's sense of snark rivals Ken's. I don't know if I may have just created a world-threatening chain snark reaction or not…

  22. W Ross says:

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/4:2012cv03112/256114/

    Some new docs, the three EFF lawyers sign in. All three appear to be worth 1.5 Charles Carreons, as far as law goes, meaning he now has 4.5 Charles Carreons worth of Law on his side.

  23. Narad says:

    The text is also up on the Nader Library site.

    The digression into Lamaism was… odd.

  24. Margaret says:

    All three appear to be worth 1.5 Charles Carreons

    I think you're selling them a bit short.

  25. W Ross says:

    Note that the Nader Library thread is being edited. Yesterday I possted this, regarding it:

    W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:43 pm

    "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

    Today it reads:

    "I am going to be glad to finally leave this realm. Although, like my guru once said, "plenty of time for death later." Maybe next lifetime, I'll do better, if there is a next lifetime. This is a sad realm we live in."

    There is no "edited" notice, so note that the text on those six pages can shift at any time. It also means she's reading, saw when we wondered if that was a statement of self harm, and corrected.

    So HI TARA! XOXOXOXOXOX

  26. Matt Scott says:

    I'm disappointed that she didn't accept my registration for the Nader Lib bulletin board. (I had no intent of going on and being a douchebag, but I did want to challenge her on a few points.)

    Oh well, can't say I'm shocked.

  27. Robert White says:

    @W Ross: In law and the internet, the CC is an entropic measurement, a degenerate unit if you will, that describdes the decay of an uncertain legal position under the vectored quantity of self-serving off-gassing from a polar moronatron.

    Please do not use the Carreon to describe stable lawyers as this can lead to confusion or domain errors.

    Remember the Carreon, or CC is an irrational term so its application leads to disjunction in the output of functional processes over range of otherwise normal functions.

  28. Foster says:

    @Robert White – that my good sir was an epic post

  29. Chris R. says:

    @Matt Scott, I don't really see many people posting before or after this all, so I doubt she lets many people join.

  30. Kristen says:

    @matt Scott @Chris R. Does anybody else post there other than Tara and he-who's-name-shall-not-be-spoken(TM)? I've only seen the two of them commenting (at naderlibrary).

  31. Mike K says:

    Well, when I attempted to sign up (haven't been accepted or heard either way) I saw that Tara had something like 76.6% of the posts and I think Charles had 4% (not nearly as sure on his) so other people have posted, probably back when it was first set up and they talked about Nader :)

  32. Josh M. says:

    @Robert White:

    You just made this chemical engineer's morning a bit more awesome. +100 Internets to you, good sir! :D

  33. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, for someone with access to Arizona's court records, this one might be entertaining to look up:

    http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/4:2011cv00039/579782/

    To see what else is in Carreon's MO when he's Pro Se.

  34. Nicholas Weaver says:

    OK, whoohoo, I can get this one too…

    Lets see about uploading things into RECAP

  35. Nicholas Weaver says:

    HAHAHAH. Chucky got his Prius reposessed, and responded by suing Toyota because they failed, by his claim, to properly validate the debt etc….

    Oh, and Chucky's lawsuit was for peanuts: Economics damages, $1000 fine, and "Attorneys cost" (non awardable), and he spent $350 just to file, for something that SHOULD have gone to small claims (Pro Se can't get attorneys fees!)

  36. Nicholas Weaver says:

    For those who want to look at THIS case without paying, as I download items:
    http://ia600403.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.azd.579782/gov.uscourts.azd.579782.docket.html

  37. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, typical Carreon sloppiness: He never attached his exhibits to his first complaint!

  38. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and he likes ammending when Pro Se, he did it in this one too…

  39. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and in ammending, he added "I was Butthurt because the Prius didn't get the mileage you guys claimed!" Wow… Ahh, Charles, when in doubt, Go CRAZY!!!

  40. Nicholas Weaver says:

    HAHAHAHAHAH… Toyota pulled out "Hey, since you are an attorney liscened elsewhere, you have to follow professional conduct, oh, and Rule 11, BEYOTCH!"

    And, also, Hey, Chuck likes misquoting law in his pro se complaints: "FCDPA doesn't apply to loan servicers and financers, only third party debt collectors"… http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.579782/gov.uscourts.azd.579782.15.0.pdf

    Oh, and he likes forum-shopping: Toyota is "Hey, this is an Oregon contract".

    One other thing: Chuck likes paper copy. The replies are all PDF and editable and small, but Chuck's submissions are often have-to-be-scanned-by-the-court, which makes it more annoying to cut & paste juicy nuggets of Legal Wisdom from Charles Carrion ™, attorney at WTF.

    Oh, and he likes errata and ammending again (he filed a motion to "please let me ammend further")

    But at that point, things settled, probably with a big "Go away kid, or we will crush you on our counterclaim for all the billable hours you are racking up on the part of our attorneys"

    So basically, I've now uploaded a lot of the stuff using RECAP, so if anyone else wants to have fun, they can.

    One other thing: We now have two cases of rather abusive Pro Se cases by Charles Carreon in Arizona federal court. If someone has access to Arizona STATE courts, it might be cool to see what Charles and Tara have been up to there.

  41. Mike K says:

    According to that amended complaint he thought it was fair to return a used car that was almost 5 years old for all of his money back… That would take a lot of misbehavior on the part of the dealer to get anywhere close to justifying.

  42. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Mike K: Not only that, but for 5 years, he never thought that the prius's gas mileage was an actionable problem until, ohh, whoops…

    This is clearly a case that should have been in small claims court. But Carreon certainly enjoys costing the opposition time and effort in making things a federal case.

  43. Chris R. says:

    Oh wow.

  44. Robert White says:

    How in the heck does one get repossessed in freaking year five? Did you not have four years warning to work out a budget?

  45. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Bonus: This is yet another case of Carreon "I'm wrong, but doubling-down anyway"

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.579782/gov.uscourts.azd.579782.13.1.pdf

    What appears to have happened is he screwed up and forgot to pay August 27th's bill. Oops, but he's overall chronically late. So when he paid september's, it was credited to August and he was still behind.

    When Toyota got irate, telling him he was past due, he stopped paying altogether in October, and started to fight things, first with Toyota and then filing his lawsuit in January.

    True, Toyota was not very responsive in replying to him, but clearly the January 25th response, with the detailed payment history, should have caused him to go "Oh, whoops".

    So instead, he doubled down and instead in March added the "They Butthurt Me on the Mileage, I want them to buy the car back for what I paid."

    Oh, and his "battery" claim on the service contract? It DOES cover the big battery, it just didn't cover the little battery (nobody does, the 12V lead-acid is considered a wear item by everybody), but he claims it doesn't cover the big battery, so more butthurt.

  46. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Robert: Because Carreon wasn't prompt on paying, missed a payment, didn't realize this, then went double-or-nothing on "its toyota's fault" and stopped paying altogether.

  47. Robert White says:

    Side Note: As a Prius Owner I have never been disappointed by my 42.7mpg (It used to be 44.2 but then they changed the headlight system, long story omitted). I know its not "the numbers claimed" but not being an idiot, and being fully aware that the dead-flat idealized course *required* *by* *law* on which the automakers prove themselves doesn't exist in real life, I have been quite satisfied.

    I am dumbfounded by people getting on the Toyota's case, because, as always, people being dumb is confusing to me. Milage (MPG) is a terrible unit of measurement since it isn't a linear expansion over its variables.

    Plus any idiot should -know- that the Prius was not optimized for mileage, it was optimized for -emissions-. Since thermodynamics is what it is, it should be obvious that when climbing hills for instance, running the engine faster (for clean emissions) and translating the speed into torque by going from mechanical to electrical and back to mechanical -must- -be- a mileage killer compared to direct mechanical linkage (using the polar-opposite manual transmission) where each unit distance can be measured in piston-strokes-per-foot but with lots of smoke.

    I think there needs to be a test before people are allowed to buy technology and if people fail the test they are permanently enjoined from speaking publicly at a depth beyond an emoticon, or bringing suit about, any element of the technology.

  48. W Ross says:

    Of course it's a goddamned Prius.

    LOL.

  49. Mike K says:

    In all fairness to his mileage complaint, I'm pretty sure they've changed the rules on how that can be calculated since then. Then again, every notice tends to indicate that those are under ideal conditions and people shouldn't expect to receive mileage that good. Also, don't the notices also typically list city and highway mpgs, at least at some point before the paperwork is done?

  50. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, where did he get "The salesman claimed 60 MPG" from?

    The sticker on the 2006 Prius is 48/46. And he got >40 MPG once he stopped lead-footing it and watching the display (the Prius is even more sensitive than most cars to lead-foot driving)

  51. SPQR says:

    The displays of basic incompetence by Carreon just keep rolling in.

  52. W Ross says:

    (TLDR Wild ass theory.) They're broke. Not paying four car payments is not something someone who can afford those car payments would do. It actually explains a lot. Car payments aren't like credit cards or whatever, they're more like a light bill or mortgage.

    People who can afford to pay them in any way usually default on them last.

    Tara's end times talk, the desperate cash/attention grabbing suits, the trying to pull multiple does in, the "I'll win or destroy myself and I don't care which." He doesn't have money, and since Tara's job seems to be to be crazy on the Internet and he's got two daughters in his 30's he's likely kicking money out to, he can't be Lawyering much Shouldn't we have found more cases? Dunno, maybe Attorneys don't work that much in general.

    I mean, am I wrong, or does this case kinda explain everything. I submit to you the fine people of the Popehat Comment Jury that Charles Carreon's broke and nobody's hiring him to Lawyer for them.

    That means he needs publicity and he needs cash and if he doesn't get one and hopefully the other he's run his race (as far as Lawyering/owing a house is concerned.) He's got nothing to lose.

  53. ShelbyC says:

    Perhaps someone can answer a question for me: Carreon appears to live in Tuscon, but doesn't appear to be licensed in Arizona. Arizona doesn't have a UPL statute, but the Arizona Supreme court claims to be able to regulate UPL there anyway. Is Carreon engaging in UPL by representing clients like FJ in Arizona? Does he have to commute to California or Oregon?

  54. Nicholas Weaver says:

    W Ross: I don't agree.

    a) This got settled somehow, and was resolved over a year ago.

    b) Looking through his payment history, Carreon NEVER paid on time. He was always sloppy about it.

    c) The Occam's razor answer: "Carreon double-downs when wrong" perfectly match the behavior here and elsewhere.

  55. Nicholas Weaver says:

    ShelbyC: He files in CA when its for other people, so that's not a problem. If anything required in-person, he'd have to fly to Oakland.

    The question is, does he report his law work as California (9%+ state income tax) or Arizona (4% state income tax) on his income.

  56. ShelbyC says:

    Well, according to the AZ state bar here:
    http://www.azbar.org/ethics/unauthorizedpracticeoflaw

    Practice of law means providing legal advice or services to another by:

    •Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal rights for a specific person or entity;
    •Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
    •Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and mediations;
    •Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court, administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or
    •Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.

    So I'd imagine that if he writes any of his letters or prepares documents or gives legal advice while physically present in Arizona, ISTM he'd be violating these regulations. Of course, there are exceptions for the practice of federal law, so maybe he falls under one of those. And I'll also say that I find the AZ Supreme Court's claim that it can regulate UPL in the absence of a statute highly questionable, to the extent that it extends to matters outside of Arizona courts.

  57. Valerie says:

    So he is a serial litigious douchebag.

  58. Chris R. says:

    @Valerie, yeah he just had only picked on people who could easily defend themselves before now. No one feels bad for Toyota when they get sued. It's when you go for litigious douchebag to litigious douchebag bully censor, that you really get people's attention. Double Down Carreon, as he's known.

  59. Nicholas Weaver says:

    ShelbyC: Ohh, interesting. He does seem to make it clear that he practices in Arizona, then:

    http://www.jdsupra.com/profile/charlescarreon/

    Which means if he reports his income as Arizona income, he may be not just avoiding taxes, but also practicing law without a license, which has gotten him suspended before…

    Memo to Charles Carreon: Don't double down against the Internet. Really don't double down on your double-downing. And really REALLY don't double down on your double down on your double down… Who know what might be dug up.

  60. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also here, he makes it quite plain that he practices law and his location is Tucson:

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-carreon/1/6b8/2ba?_mSplash=1

  61. Rand Bell says:

    Correct me if I'm wrong but practicing in another state is usually just fine as long as you have also have local co-council.

    And I believe you can always represent yourself pro se regardless. I believe those rules only really apply if you are representing someone else.

  62. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hmm, what's Charles's middle name? There are two cases where CHARLES HERNAN CARREON was a defendant in Tuscon, once a traffic ticket for not having his insurance, and once for disorderly conduct. Both dismissed, but the disorderly conduct one took a bit of arguing presumably.

    Case Number: J-1007-CR-20110447

    But nothing else pops up, for either him or "Tara Carreon" (except traffic stuff), so at least a brief search shows he keeps his Pro Se shenanigans to federal court (or perhaps CA state court).

  63. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Randal: he's a:

    Sole practicioner with boutique Intellectual Property transactional and litigation practice.

    So who's his local council if he's giving advice from his office in Arizona?

  64. Rand Bell says:

    I have no idea. But assuming he is registered with the Federal court I think IP law would typically be covered at the Federal level. Certainly anything with registered TM and SM issues are likely to end up there. And he could always engage co-council when needed if it was in state court.

    And there is an update — Indegogo's lawer's have checked in. I hope there is some serious lawyering billable time being booked that gets SLAPPed back at him. And the ACA and NWF haven't even checked in yet.

    http://ia600809.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256114/gov.uscourts.cand.256114.docket.html

  65. keddren says:

    @Rand Bell: I don't know if it's every state, but I remember Jack Thompson had to file a Pro Hac Vice application to represent a client in Alabama.

  66. @Rand: It's generally OK for a lawyer to temporarily represent someone in another state (in which the lawyer isn't licensed) when it arose out of representation in another state. A lawyer can even seek temporary admission ("pro hac vice") to another state's court, but it gets sketchy if the lawyer does so repeatedly.

    One other rule might be applicable here. Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.5:

    (b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:

    (1) Except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law;

    Mr. Carreon's website notes:

    My company is Online Media Law, PLLC, based in historic Tucson, Arizona. I am currently licensed to practice in the courts of California, and consult on Federal issues in various venues.

    Arizona's rule is based on the ABA Model Rule 5.5, the commentary of which notes, in part:

    When a lawyer seeks to practice law regularly in a state, to open an office for the solicitation of clients, or otherwise to establish a practice in the state, however, the state has a more substantial interest in regulating the lawyer's law practice by requiring the lawyer to gain admission to the bar. Although the line between the "temporary" practice of law and the "regular" or "established" practice of law is not a bright one, the line can become clearer over time as Rule 5.5 is interpreted by courts, disciplinary authorities, committees of the bar, and other relevant authorities.

    Another advisory opinion from the Arizona State Bar notes:

    1. May an out-of-state lawyer, not admitted in Arizona but residing in Arizona, practice law limited to the law of his home-licensed jurisdictions? No.

    No person shall practice law in this state or represent in any way that he or she may practice law in this state unless the person is an active member of the state bar or that person's conduct comes within the exemptions to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 including exemption 27 permitting legal services as set out in Arizona's multi jurisdictional practice rules at ER 5.5. Until s/he is admitted to practice law in Arizona, an out-of-state lawyer is a non-lawyer in Arizona and as such can only engage in conduct permitted by the exemptions to Rule 31 or the multi-jurisdictional practice rules at ER 5.5. The multijurisdictional practice rule ER 5.5(c) addresses the practice by attorneys who are in Arizona temporarily. The rules at ER 5.5 do not address and cannot be
    extended to permit the practice of law by an out-of-state lawyer permanently residing in Arizona unless the lawyer is in-house counsel.

    Consistent with the Supremacy Clause and preemption doctrine, Rule 31 exemptions and MJP rules at ER 5.5 permit out-of-state lawyers to practice federal law as authorized by federal law and rules. The Supremacy Clause does not extend to laws of other states. Neither the exceptions to Rule 31 nor the MJP rules at ER 5.5 permit the out-of-state lawyer to engage in the practice of law of the out-of-state lawyer's jurisdiction while s/he resides in Arizona.

    Rule 31(a)(2)(A) defines the "Practice of law" as providing legal advice or services to or for another… " The rules do not limit the term "practice of law" to Arizona law. ER 5.5(d)(2) assumes the practice of law is not limited to Arizona law. The multijurisdictional rule carves out a "safe harbor" in 5.5(d) for practice of law by an out-of-state lawyer stating the "lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction … may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that … are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction." The rule permits that lawyer to provide legal services authorized by federal law and the law of Arizona, and does not permit the out-of-state lawyer to provide legal services authorized by another state's jurisdiction. One can not extend the authorization to engage in the practice of federal law to an authorization to engage in the practice of the out-of-state lawyer's state of admission.

    Lastly, under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1-300(B), it is a disciplinary breach to practice law in another jurisdiction where doing so would break the regulations of that jurisdiction, and the California State Bar can discipline members who do so.

    That said, I'm not sure Mr. Carreon has broken these rules, at least based on what we know. It's possible that his representation of FunnyJunk was entered into in Arizona and related to California defamation law, even though (if I recall correctly) he was threatening to file in Federal court. But I think his establishment of a law office in Arizona might be a breach of Arizona's rules.

  67. Another thing: the New York Court of Appeal (New York's highest court) was similarly confused about Mr. Carreon's admissions, listing him as:

    Online Media Law, PLLC (Charles H. Carreon, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

    This appears to have been the court's error, as Mr. Carreon's pro hac vice application lists being licensed in only California and Oregon (though it uses the Arizona address).

  68. And a sidenote: with pro hac vice admissions, you have to get a current member of that state's bar to recommend your temporary admission. The attorney moving for Mr. Carreon's pro hac vice admission in the New York case wrote:

    Mr. Carreon was recommended to me by Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation [sic], with whom I have a long acquaintance, as an attorney willing and able to represent the defendant in this case on a pro bono basis. I understand that Mr. Lohmann and Mr. Carreon have been acquainted for several years. I have reviewed several of Mr. Carreon's briefs filed in Federal cases in the Northern District of California and an appellate brief he filed in the Ninth Circuit, and they make clear that he is skilled in Federal practice and is familiar with the Federal Rules of Procedure. I am confident that he will provide capable representation to the Defendant and adhere to the rules of practice for this Court.

    Fred von Lohmann was, in fact, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (and is now one of Google's top lawyers) — the same EFF that has now come to Inman's defense. Heh.

  69. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Remember, until Carreon v Bears, Cancers, and AboFrakenEverybody, Carreon actually had a good reputation in 1st Amendment circles.

    So having such an invitation makes sense.

  70. Of course. I just think the spectacular fall from grace is sad.

  71. Jess says:

    @Ann – I just contributed to your worthwhile cause. I also think the Charles Carreon parody site is a work of genius. All of the people putting themselves out there, bringing this content to us, adding very insightful, interesting, and quite hilarious viewpoints are superstars in my opinion.

  72. Ann says:

    @Jess – thank you thank you thank you!!! I can't believe how close we are to the $1000 goal. Only $140 left!

    I will be very disappointed if the comments section of my campaign doesn't get entered as Exhibit FU though. It sums up people's views on having their charitable intentions policed so nicely. ;)

  73. Chris R. says:

    @Adam, it's rather easy to be a proponent of free expression when no one is expressing their negative opinions about you publicly. It's easy to enjoy the level of free expression he and his wife have and not think about the flip side. Maybe he's just become more sensitive over time, maybe he isn't as gritty as he thought he was.

  74. Joe says:

    W. Ross, Nicohlas, others – without saying something I should not I can only say that CC is NOT in an enviable financial position. As a "superstar first ammendment attorney" he doesn't make spit.

  75. Look at that says:

    Oh whups! The cynical-c was for the Khan Kontest! Surry! *turns red with embarrassment*

  76. Ann says:

    @Joe – yeah, I've been doing my own investigating into the C's financials. It's not pretty.

  77. W Ross says:

    @Joe I had a feeling. That style of payment drop off is indicative of "the money done run out."

    When someone pays on time for years, then gets slapdash, then falters, comes back, then falters big, that's the money running out. It kinda makes the desperation and wild cash grabbing make sense. They're trying to protect their huge house next to the golf course.

  78. Robert White says:

    Sex.com case "just a fluke". Film at eleven.

  79. Ann says:

    @robert – What I've read indicates that Carreon offered his legal services on sex.com for $100/hr (I charge more than that for my services for God's sakes), in exchange for a gentlemen's agreement that he would be given a percentage of the ad rev after the case was over. Then the client only paid him that percentage for a couple of months and then stopped. Carreon sued the client and lost.

    So it sounds like the case he is most famous for made him next to squat.

  80. W Ross says:

    Yep, and all the Trademark stuff he does for other people, and other cases… there's not much, especially not recently. The theoretical value of his damaged career (in court) may LITERALLY be more valuble than the real thing, making his self destruction completely sensible if he thinks he can win.

    His career is worth more dead than alive at this point.

  81. W Ross says:

    (And let me put on the standard disclaimer, NOTE I SAID HIS CAREER is worth more dead to him. I don't want to be "that's my mother!"ed into your doe hunt.)

  82. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, king of the disclaimers on these threads.

  83. Chris R. says:

    It seems of all things, Charles Carreon is a man of great pride, who has refused to ask for help or accept it. In better circumstances that'd be an admirable quality.

  84. Margaret says:

    @Ann

    Any lawyer who works under a "gentleman's agreement" has a fool for… well, himself.

  85. W Ross says:

    @Chris R They're like litigation condoms; they make the thread less intense and pleasurable, but they stop unwanted litigation and Satirically Transmitted Subpoenas.

  86. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross. ZING! Also a note on what I last said, they of course do say, pride cometh before the fall.

  87. Look at that says:

    I literally failed the one law course I took, but I did learn that if it isn't in print, it doesn't exist. I've been a fanatic about contracts ever since.

  88. W Ross says:

    It's worse than that: "Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." is the original quote.

    Carreon has copious supplies of both.

  89. Nicholas Weaver says:

    $100/hr? Wow, thats a cheap lawyer. I guess ya gets what you pay for…

    Hey, wait a minute, what was the ambulance chasing for Goldline: ( http://goldlinelawsuit.com/recover-losses-goldline-fraud/ ), where was he planning on filing suit? If in state court, but from his office in Arizona, that does sound bad on the "You have to be licensed" bit since the federal supremicy clause doesn't kick in. Did he actually file anything? (Someone with CA state court search ability could find out)

    Anyone find any OTHER ambulance-chase attempt sites from Carreon?

    Oh, and true, his other Pro Se bit was a debt collector who was actually trying to collect, which is another sign of financial stress…

  90. Nicholas Weaver says:

    W Ross: Actually, we can estimate that to some degree. How many cases on Pacer is he listed as attorney in the past 4 years? The CA equivalent?

    There's only 23 trademarks with a Carreon as attorney of record, and I can't see MyBestBuds, LLC paying him that much to register "A Friend in Weed is a Friend Indeed" (and most are old, eg, "Hog Search: Search The Net", "Columbina" (apparently a clown) and other such gems)

    So yeah, the "They are in DEEP financial trouble" is probably the case at this point.

  91. Ann says:

    Comment Condom: $100/hour is just what I read in an article about the sex.com case, but that doesn't mean that is necessarily accurate!!!

  92. Robert White says:

    @Look at that: All agreements are verbal (using words); and Oral Agreements (using the mouth, e.g. not written) -are- enforceable, but they remain very hard to prove if they are disclaimed by any party. Way more of contract law hinges on credibility than you might expect.

    IANAL, but I used to help one (my father) a lot and I read, so I am a reasonably well informed non-lawyer and I have seen enough to know that what someone imagines you said can and will be held against you in a court of law at random times, especially by delusional or dishonest censorious ass-hat douchbags. 8-)

  93. Look at that says:

    @ Robert White *sad face* not often, I hope.

  94. W Ross says:

    http://www.indiegogo.com/WhatMightHaveBeen?c=pledges

    Looks like another Carreon Related IndieGogo project is going to go way over what they were going for.

    Wait a go, Little Lying Bitch! (I'll be donating this weekend.)

  95. Ann says:

    Right???!! I can't believe it.

    And I really can't believe it hasn't made an appearance in the Nader Library. Especially, since Chuck has demanded IndieGoGo suspend their other campaigns.

  96. Robert White says:

    @Ann, I don't think campaigns started -after- his complaint can be subject to the complaint.

    So if the internet keeps making new IndieGoGo campaigns to lambast this tool, he'd have to keep restarting his case. But it would be more effective to put some on Kiskstarter and such as well.

  97. n o 0 n e says:

    a little late to the party posting this, but how would carreons suit effect this charity drive::

    "Karen Klein, the 68-year-old bus monitor for New York's Greece Central School District, who skyrocketed to fame earlier this week when deeply upsetting video of her being verbally accosted and threatened by four foul-mouthed middle schoolers went viral on YouTube, outraging millions and inspiring a grassroots campaign to send the verbally victimized Klein on a vacation. Announcing itself with a goal of raising $5,000, the Karen Klein Vacation Fund will reach $600,000 in donations by early next week. "It's really awesome," said Klein, a grandmother of eight, to the New York Post. Next week, Klein will appear on The Today Show, where she'll express her amazement and gratitude and share her plans for her windfall (invest some, donate a lot to charity, and take that mandatory awesome vacation)."

    i mean she is going to get to use the extra money however, she wants – so, carreon would not approve.

    tl;dr = carreon should sue this charity drive as well.

  98. Robert White says:

    Nah, that's not actually a charity, it's a knee-jerk communal guilt complex playing out as a public recompense to a private individual.

  99. Valerie says:

    I just a quite civil exchange with one of caRreonS daughter on twitter I pointed out that many of us are angry that we can see our selves receiving such letter and being unable to afford a lawyer to advises Us and to have no way to respond from the extortionate attempt. Her response was reasoned and respectful
    , so there is hope for the family after all.

  100. Ken says:

    Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable.

  101. Absent this being a class action, can Carreon even attempt to restrain more than whatever sum he donated?

    Also: I'd love to see the P&As and Carreon's declaration. Seriously, a minimum of 36 paragraphs?

  102. Chris R. says:

    @Ken, I think at this point, he means the harms to his ego if he doesn't get to take full credit for the money making it to the charities.

  103. Chris R. says:

    harm not harms :(

  104. Aaron Mason says:

    Is this supposed to be tagged with the rest of the Oatmeal vs Carreon saga?

  105. Mike K says:

    @ann The $100/hour rate was what was originally paid. As part of the result of his lawsuit against his former client they doubled it. (from what I read somewhere, which I can't recall a location for due to reading too much random stuff)

  106. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable.

    Of course, that won't stop Carreon: He's shown in the past his reaction to being wrong is to double-down… I look forward to reading his objection to being pointed out how he's wrong on this. Well, it should be funny reading.

    Question: Can those who he's claiming to represent, namely, those who gave to the BearLove campaign, object to his preliminary injunction request?

    He's attempting to disrupt my ability to see a photo of Inman sitting on a pile of $20 bills, flipping FunnyJunk and FunnyJunk's lawyer the bird… Now if that isn't irreparable harm, what is? :)

    But the talk of his finances actually has me worried.

    I SUSPECT the "Carreon v Toyota" got settled because Toyota pointed out something which, translated from lawyerspeak to English, sounds like

    Hey, we're gonna crush your claims, and you know it. But our counter-claim is rock solid: you missed a payment, and then just stopped paying before you filed this silly suit. So settle now and either pay off or forfeit the car, or don't, in which case all our legal costs in our counterclaim get tacked onto the bill you owe us, we take the car, AND keep coming after you for all our legal costs. You did read the contract you signed, didn't you? Yes? Good.

    And yes, we know, we won't come out ahead if we try to collect on all the legal fees for our counterclaim because well, blood and stones and all that, except we'll make an example of you. This will help us persuade future pro se plaintiffs to actually pay attention to, you know, the law and contracts and stuff.

    'Kay, thanks.

    Yet if Carreon at this point is trending towards the judgement-proof financial event horizon, how much is "We can SLAPP you silly" or court sanctions going to work to dissuade him?

  107. Robert White says:

    @Chris R. You were correct the first time. It's plural. "Harms". Each personality and persona will take different damage based on individual resistances and D.R. particularly since they are of diverse alignment.

    He is, after all, dual-classed as both an Ass-hat and a Douchebag so his saving throws are for shit.

  108. AlphaCentauri says:

    "Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable."

    So I guess that means that the Oatmeal team can't freeze Carreon's assets now to cover the expected anti-SLAPP judgement. :( It's not much good having the ability to recover the cost of all those lawyers if the plaintiff is a very anemic turnip.

  109. Robert White says:

    I'm also pretty sure, from looking at both the text and writings, that he had to split his dump-stat between CHA and WIS. Either that or he totally botched his rolls during character gen.

    I mean this -is- an RPG character we're talking about… I hope…

  110. AwesomeFreddie says:

    On another article (I can't remember which one) there was a link to court documents from where Tara Carreon had debt collectors serving her due to non-payment of a Citibank credit card, and she (represented by the Great Chuck) sued them saying they did it wrong.

  111. AwesomeFreddie says:

    These aren't the links I originally saw, but:
    https://mariokenny.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/fdcpa/

    and

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/42825042/Sample-FDCPA-Lawsuit

    (teehee! "John Doe, spouse" – I wonder who that could be?)

  112. Nicholas Weaver says:

    More fun from the Oregon courts:
    U.S. District Court
    District of Oregon (Medford (1))
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-03084-CO
    Carreon v Miller

    And there looks like a SLAPP suit where Carreon was a defendent, but the files are not online:
    U.S. District Court
    District of Oregon (Portland (3))
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00-cv-00235-ST
    Cohen v. Carreon et al

    And Carreon vs the local county, again, with most files not online:
    U.S. District Court
    District of Oregon (Eugene (6))
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:01-cv-03073-TC
    Carreon v. Jackson County et al

    Speaking of which, watch out for Carreon to try to shelter assets from a judgement: From a footnote in the motion denying the other party's attorney's fees (they weren't, because they couldn't prove that Carreon DELIBERATELY filed then withdrew his attempt at an injunction in order to disrupt things):

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.4792/gov.uscourts.ord.4792.26.0.pdf

    While only of passing relevance here, the court notes the bizarre nature of the property transactions: apparently, on August 20, plaintiff transferred his interest in the property to his wife, Tara Carreon. On that same day, Tara Carreon transferred all of her interests to a corporation, American Buddha, Inc., whose president was Charles Carreon. On November 1, American Buddha, Inc. transferred the property back to Tara Carreon. The court can but speculate that the Carreons and the corporation were attempting to accomplish some sort of end-run around the state proceedings against the property and Mr. Carreon. See Letter of 8/27/01 to Mike Jewett (attached to Affidavit of Mike Jewett (#23)).

    However, that too can now be classed as a Carreon M/O.

    Oh, and the judge was amusingly snarky in stating that (only) one of Carreon's complaints should be dismissed without predudice:

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ord.4792/gov.uscourts.ord.4792.18.0.pdf

    However, the court notes that if the legal bases for a future filing will be identical, the wizardry of word processing and modern data storage should make defendants' task of refiling their motion in a subsequent proceeding quite easy.

    Unfortunately, the oakland CA court PACER is down, so its only Fun in Oregon for this go-round of things into RECAP.

    And his oregon activity is old, eg, we can't read up on his acting as an attorney in Rubins v Raymond, where he is literally acting as an ambulance chaser (one of the defendants is the ambulance company)

  113. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and I think the Carreon v Seidberg reply included the "Are you sure you want to double-double-down" with

    In the event the undersigned learn during discovery that this matter was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the undersigned will seek recovery of their reasonable attorney fees as allowed by 15 USC Sec 1692k(3) against the Plaintiffs and each of them.

    Oh, and one of the attachments is the filing in state court BEFORE carreon nuisance suit was filed. "Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. vs Tara L Carreon and John Doe, Spouse". Someone with Arizona court records access, it might be amusing to throw those online too.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.511117/gov.uscourts.azd.511117.7.0.pdf

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.azd.511117/gov.uscourts.azd.511117.7.2.pdf

    So, I think it was again a case of the lawyers going "We will win and we will make an example out of you".

  114. Valerie says:

    Meh – between unemployment, bank tomfoolery and the credit crunch, tons of people have had conflict with debt collectors as of late, and there have been some fairly egregious attempts to squeeze blood from stones – For instance this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/debt-collection-agents-hospitals_n_1449896.html

    I wouldn't put the Carreon debt stuff in quite the same category as suing the universe over a bear cartoon and trying to return a 5 year old Prius for the full value, at least without knowing the situation in greater detail. The debt suits could be an attempt to simply survive financially – the other stuff, however, is just butthurt ridiculousness.

  115. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, reading through the Citibank answer:

    Your undersigned deny that Ms Carren was not served. Your undersigned affirmatively assert that Ms Carreon was in fact personally served at her usual pace of abode.

    This also explains why the Carreons went after the process server with an abusive subpoena: Basically Carreon's paragraph 20 was a possible rule 11 violation and a key point of Carreon's court case, and CitiBank made it clear that, if Carreon was going to double-double-down, CitiBank would respond in kind.

  116. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    @Nicholas:

    IIRC, the Arizona state records are only available at the courthouse. In any event, the Carreon's didn't file anything in that case, from what I can tell, diminishing the chances that any lols will be recovered.

  117. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Valerie: I disagree, because this is important in understanding Carreon's tactics as a Pro Se litigant…

    He has a well established history now of abusive lawsuits. Not just in Arizona, but in Oregon as well (someone with physical access to the Oregon courts might want to post them online)

    The Toyota one is a classic example: He fell behind on his payments, and was always sloppy. When it was made clear to him that, yeah, you didn't pay a month, his response was NOT to go "oops", but to instead double-down and stop paying altogether, then double-double-down with his federal lawsuit.

    Likewise, the Citibank suit: It looks like his wife got served, ignored it, and CitiBank got a state summary judgment. Carreon's response was to take the case federal, issued at least one abusively broad subpoena, what appears to be lies to the court about not being served, and a whole host of, emm, creative interpretations of the law and truly bonkers claims (e.g. "Citibank got bailed out, because this got packaged up into an asset backed security, so this would be recovering twice".)

    The CitiBank one was abusive enough in character than opposing council basically called him on it in court filings!

    Thus its important to go through this, not only for the Shadenfreude factor, but also for understanding of the particular tactics of this pro se litigant.

  118. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Yeah. And the basic complaint was attached as an exhibit to the Citibank response anyway, so thats now in RECAP. Kinda boring, actually.

  119. Nibor says:

    As I stated before IANAL, when I was listening to the webcast from Ken I could not help to think of a little thread that was happening here, about the illegalness of CC doing legal activities from his home (in another state).

    What I heard in the web cast is that some of the complaint are federal but also some are state.

    I don’t know when a case if filed and it contains part federal all of it I becomes federal or that the state part (I believe it was the cyber bulling part) stays legally separate and there for would be illegal for CC to do.

    But I just am not that familiar with your legal system and sorry again for my rubbish English.

  120. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and he gets less sympathy from me for getting over his head in debt, since he and Tara declared chapter 13 back in 1994 (discharged in 1998):

    U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    District of Oregon
    Bankruptcy Petition #: 94-60117-fra13

    Charles Hernan Carreon & Tara Lyn Carreon

    This IS worrisome to me: Judgment-proof, pro se people in court can be dangerous, because the normal sanctions don't apply.

    Judgment proof, pro se, and an actual lawyer? Worse.

    Judgment proof, pro se, and a seemingly batshit insane lawyer? Uhh, I think we are going to find out…

  121. Valerie says:

    @ Nicholas Ah – I see your point about the pattern of pro se abuse & the misuse of supeonas. I also didn't realize he had a chapter 13 in his past.

    IANAL, and I guess I was thinking of a poor realitive of mine who got laid off from a factory, wound up needing to put essentials on the credit cards & unltimately defaulted when she couldn't find any thing other than a minimum wage job. She got some truely horrific harassment from debt collctors, and I guess I was willing to allow for the possibility that the Carreons found themselves in a similar situation.

    As I said before, I didn't feel bad for them about the Prius stuff etc. for the reasons you mentioned. And yes, a "judgement proof, pro se, batshit insane lawyer" is indeed a frightening, albeit a hilarious, prospect. :)

  122. Spencer says:

    @Nibor,

    First of all, IANAL, but in answer to your question: When a state claim and federal claim are brought in together, the judge may, but does not have to, keep the state claim in federal court as long as it basically has to do with the same circumstances that created the federal claim and if it makes sense try the claim along with the federal claim. Having a separate state trial and a separate federal trial where you are essentially proving the same stuff for the same reasons is expensive and redundant. The judge will look at the state claims and determine them using the state's law (So for a California claim, the judge will look at the California law and controlling decisions, even if the judge is actually in a different state) and will apply the federal law to the federal claims.

    If the state claim has to do with an issue that the state has not decided on yet, the federal court may have a state court make a ruling on that issue, or decline to hear the claim at all.

  123. "I've got some thoughts/questions pertaining to the Bear Love situation, but I don't feel comfortable verbalizing them just yet." -Ann

    nominated for #1 remark to take out of context.

  124. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and cases filed by Carreon as an attorney or party since 2010:

    Carreon v. Inman et al
    iCall, Inc. v. Tribair, Inc et al
    iCall Inc v. Julian Cain et al
    CFM Asset Management Inc v. Blue Star Media Ltd
    Carreon v. Toyota Financial Services Corporation et al
    ICALL, Inc v. IVR Technologies, Inc et al
    Americana Communications, Inc. et al v. WMS Providers, Inc. et al
    iCall, Inc. v. Reliance Communications Limited et al
    Carreon v. Seidberg Law Offices, P.C. et al
    Arden v. Kastell et al

    So thats 3 Pro Se cases, 4 trademark cases for iCall (a skype competitor, apparently), and 3 other clients.

    Americana Inc seems to be a dispute over processing credit cards (i'm assuming for a porn site, since it was a 6.5% fee considered acceptable, which says "high risk" merchant), which got bumped from Federal court.

    CFM asset management inc seems to be over an Internet sales referral scheme. (Also the holder of the "Quickbuck" trademark Carreon was attorney of record for). And Carreon didn't last, he was replaced by a John W Sullivan.

    I can't get Arden v Kastell et al, as that particual pacer-branch is down… But the defendant won on summary judgement, and it looks like it was arising over some employment/theft claim kerfuffle. (Carrion was the plaintiff's attorney)

    So the speculation that Carreon's income is, umm, not so great may be true: He's certainly not dealing with a huge amount of federal casework, nor a large number of trademark filings.

  125. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, thats federal filing, BTW, not state of california.

  126. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Arden V Castell, for people's viewing pleasure:
    http://ia600501.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.cand.223889/gov.uscourts.cand.223889.docket.html

    And I need to stop spending money on Pacer….

  127. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ah, what happened is the plaintiff got arrested for aleged theft, the case was rather botched and eventually dismissed, and Carreon (who was apparently also the guy's criminal defense attorney) and the plaintiff sued everyone involved: The company that runs the carts, the detective who did the arrest, etc.

  128. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I think the case is summed up in the argument for summary judgement by the other side (which the judge granted):

    The issue in this case is whether two detectives who observe plaintiff for more than two hours pocketing money earmarked for his employer have probable cause to detain that individual, and when the District Attorney opts not to continue a criminal prosecution for embezzlement, is the lead detective liable for violation of that individual’s Federal Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant and moving party Frank Kastell submits that the answer is “no”, and he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

    But giving Carreon credit here: He's a pretty staunch advocate if he's actually advocating for someone else, and he'll use every loophole, mistake, or issue he can find (in this case, the DA was very slow at producing a video which Carreon claims is exculpatory but others would actually find incriminating, which is why the DA seems to have dropped the case)

  129. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, is there any way to find out if Gary Arden is related to Charles Carreon? Although Carreon used to be criminal law, he hadn't practiced it in decades, which makes it strange to see him defending a client in San Francisco (from his office in Tucson).

    If so, that would also explain the feeling of "Everything that happens is a conspiracy against my client" feeling of Carreon's complaints in the case.

  130. Chris R. says:

    So his dad is a hot head, his mom is a tarot reader, and he's a uber successful cartoonist/SEO person. There might be hope for the Carreon kids after all.

  131. Ann says:

    When are we going to see the request for dismissal? It's time to put this shit to bed. :(

  132. Rand Bell says:

    Hopefully not until the legal smackdown is of epic proportions.

    I'm hoping the judge's now posted standing orders might have been the judge slapping chuckle's hand for trying to submit his "EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER". I'm speculating that in his haste to get his honor's attention he might not have made an appointment with the clerk.

  133. @Ann — gonna be a bit. If the defendants are waiving service, they'll have about two months to respond. I don't imagine they'll wait nearly that long (and CA's anti-SLAPP has a smaller window), but the first actual skirmish will be over Carreon's quest for a restraining order. I'd expect that'll happen next week.

  134. @Chris R.

    Wow. So the theory about Inman being related to a Clinton-era spook is out the window? Ha.

    Oh wait. No. It's just even crazier.

    Kind of strange that Bobby Ray Inman's sons are named "Thomas" and "William." And a William Inman was the owner of a steamship company called "The Inman Line," which was "one of the largest 19th century British passenger shipping companies on the North Atlantic," according to Wikipedia. And that Bobby Ray Inman was the director of Naval Intelligence.

    Do you think that when that lightbulb went off, a fire started somewhere?

    She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman.

  135. AlphaCentauri says:

    It looks like she's just finding every mention of the name "Inman" on the internet. She may have paid for a background check to get his parents' names, or she may just be guessing that, too. It's not a common name, but it may also be the kind of name people ended up with when they tried to anglicize Eastern European names. Multiple different family names could have ended up as "Inman."

  136. Chris R. says:

    I just want to know how here theory of Matthew Inman being "a man without parents" reconciles with her now listing his parent's on her board?

  137. Chris R. says:

    Also Ann Inman's website has a very Matthew Inman style to it.

  138. Moo says:

    It's really disgusting that she's trying to drag his parents into this. I guess crazy doesn't see when they're going to far. He hasn't been personally attacking any members of the family.

    I guess since she's convinced that Matt paid people to harass the Carreons, everything is fair game to her. Yikes.

  139. Chris R. says:

    Why does she hate Marc Randazza so much? He was one of the only people who originally tried to stand up for her husband.

  140. Hughhh says:

    @Chris R. The Carreons are probably most disappointed with Marc because he was originally on the "good side" and has switched, whereas the rest of us were evil to begin with.

    But then, IANABCP (Batshit Crazy Psycho) so it's hard to say.

  141. Matt Scott says:

    Your son is conducting a public lynching of our entire famly on the Internet. He appears to be extremely psychologically disturbed. Doesn't it worry you that he draws the pictures he draws? Do you ever think he might go out and murder someone with such callous attitudes towards human life?

    Definitive example of irony, much?

  142. Kris says:

    Her insanity is astounding. She has fixated to the nth degree on Inman, and everything having to do with him, even if only superficially. It's absolutely absurd. There just has to be an underlying mental illness here. I'd love to see some psychiatrists weigh in.

  143. ShelbyC says:

    Holy fuck she's a nasty little cunt.

  144. Mike K says:

    How many emails like that would it take to convince a reasonable judge to grant a restraining order against Tara to prevent her from contacting and trying to disturb Mathew's family?

    I can barely imagine how much her attack on his family members is going to increase the anonymous attacks on her family. I know it outrages me.

  145. @Mike K: difficult to establish harassment based on someone contacting your friends, family, etc. That's actually a good thing, because otherwise people can abuse harassment restraining orders as a means of censoring people (and instead of having to go through proving defamation). If someone does harass friends/family members, those people can apply for their own restraining orders.

    But still kind of hypocritical, considering how other people contacting the Carreon family is a 'lynch mob', etc.

  146. Then there's this other William Inman who was just convicted of murdering his wife. And his father's name is "William," too. Lots of freekin' William Inmans in the world. I wonder if there's any relation here to Matt Inman. I ask because according to Matt Inman's theory of life, any association between persons among whom one is allegedly guilty of some crime convicts the whole bunch.

    I've forwarded this to the editors of Merriam Webster as a proposed example of 'projection'.

  147. Moo says:

    That woman needs some serious help.

  148. Mike K says:

    On the bright side, people like her remind me of one of the benefits of having a common name. According to howmanyofme.com, there are 56 people with my last name and one of the two most common permutations of my first name in the US. As far as finding my family, there are almost 4000 people in the country with my last name. Out of those people, less than 2 dozen know me and out of those only my immediately family knows how to contact me without contacting my parents first.

    I actually find it funny when I search for my name in google and can't find myself because others with my name have much higher profiles. Although with someone like mrs. Carreon, she'd probably latch on to the German root of my last name and use that. Then again, Matt Inman is an even more common name than mine apparently, so maybe she'd just pick random people and claim I'm related to them.

  149. Chris R. says:

    Every time I am reading Nader Library, I feel like I am staring at a bad car accident, and I don't have a phone to call for help.

  150. Nibor says:

    Somehow I think that she also read this comments for this new bat crazy behavior started and she refers to it when the digging in their old court casses started and because she can't attack the posters (canibalkids) so her mind goes critical and she has to lash out. So she lashes out at the only target she can imagin and that is Inman but he is not enough so she goes after the ones that are close to him.

    I'm just thinking out loud and try to get some sence in why she does this, I've some knowlage

  151. Nibor says:

    On mental people, and most of the time I can find their logic, not seldom totaly different from normal logic, but I can follow what is happening

    But with her, hmm she makes it hard. But I think this latest outburst is à reaction on the postings here.

    Sorry on the two posts, fat fingers and typing on iPhone

    And I find what she is doing crazy, not acceptabel and I am not saying that anybody

  152. Nibor says:

    Is responceable for her actions

    And again those fat fingers of mine

  153. dex says:

    Poor Tara. She had thought of herself as a poet, prior to Inman. She had thought of herself as a philosopher, prior to Inman. She had thought of herself as cool; hip; young at heart; progressive; charismatic; intellectual; likable; strong and independent; internet savvy; interesting. Then Inman came along! In twenty-four hours her whole happy fantasy poofed. A vulgar cartoonist revealed her, a vulgar cartoon.

  154. dex says:

    @Nibor

    I got the same feeling, that the sight of her (and Charles's) background blooming somewhat ungorgeously on this thread provoked her to start digging for dirt on Inman. But the fact is that she has obsessed about him, his background, etc., very creepily, from the start.

  155. Valerie says:

    "Supposedly, Bobby Ray Inman's father owned a gas station, whatever that means. "

    I think it means he owned a gas station.

  156. Valerie says:

    The way her mind works is utterly fascinating. She is incapable of recognizing that while she and her husband immediately took to bashing Inman on the internet, his mother (do we know that is actually his mother?) did not write ANYTHING even commenting on the case.

    And she's now she's written a letter asking the Southern Poverty Law Center to look into the matter because Inman has a "weird obsession with grammar" & "Matt Inman is a mentally disturbed person who might be capable of murder in the future."

    That's right, now she is trying to involve the SPLC in her bizarro world adventures. When they inevitably tell her to fuck off, they will undoubtedly be considered part of the dolphin & Carreon hating Nazi-Communist-Illuminati-Mafia conspiracy.

    Just when I think the batshit can't get any higher on the cave floor that is her mind, she miraculously finds a way.

  157. Chris R. says:

    It's all a cover.

  158. Chris R. says:

    Wow. Now we have Jared Loughner. 3 more posts until a Genghis Khan reference. Over under anyone?

  159. Thomas says:

    I never thought Tara's Nader Library comments could get more insane…that is, until I took a peek today. It baffles me that she is quick to point the finger at others, saying they are "deeply disturbed," but fails to see it in her self. I'd say there must be some deep-rooted psychological issues at work here, and it's getting borderline scary. I now fully understand what may have turned a once-respected lawyer into what he is seen as today.

    At this point, does Matt have any recourse for the obsessive rantings of this apparent lunatic? She's posting family pictures, insinuating he's a murderer, running background checks on his family, and countless other things a deranged stalker would do. This seriously isn't restraining order-worthy?

  160. Matt Scott says:

    … Does she not understand that telling a civil rights era (well… just after, but founded by civil rights era leaders) group that "entire family is being brutally lyinched [sic]," when, in fact, your family faces no such threat of an actual execution at the hands of a mob, is about the most idiotic and insensitive thing you could do? (Maybe a notch under suing charities)

    And her post script to that letter, "Why wait until after the murder is accomplished to do something about these obviously disturbed kids?" is, I think, fairly representative of the Carreon's preferred modus operandi for the world: it could go wrong, ergo it will go wrong and we should stop it before it does go wrong. Given their political rants, this is, once again, quite freaking ironic. They don't want a government nanny state, they just want a populace that is comfortable with proactive "justice" carried out by either said populace or the judicial system.

    this is a quote from an article she quoted and emphasized in her postBut MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site.

    Her entire point re:Inman's grammar comics, misses the point that the articles she quotes are trying to make, which is that Loughner had a strange linguistic system, the use of which, he believed, would undermine the government. Inman, on the other hand, is not delving into some esoteric linguistic system, he's trying to get people to use (at least in a prescriptivist sense) language properly.

    this is another quote from the same article she quoted and emphasized in her postThe third implication, if Loughner is a Sovereign: The public debate should be focusing on the ongoing threat to law enforcement officials and every day public servants, and not just threats to members of Congress and elected officials… (this next section was not emphasized) In a long article on the Sovereigns MacNab wrote last year, she emphasized that most Sovereigns aren’t violent and promote their oddball views exclusively through paper–elaborate court filings, and letters to IRS and other government officials.

  161. Matt Scott says:

    Oops, forgot to add my commentary to that last quote.

    All I was going to say is that the M.O. of the Sovereigns (elaborate court filings to promote your position) sounds like Inman, right? Definitely doesn't sound like anyone else we know, or she knows. Nope. No one else.

  162. Nicholas Weaver says:

    the tl:dnr for Charles reading this: Walk away now, you still have a chance.

    Well, Tara's clearly reached 2.3 GenghisKHHAAAAAANNNNNSSSS in her rage at this point…

    If its the court records that are ticking her off, I'm the one who's been paying Pacer to make sure that things end up in the Internet Archive… I'm easy to find online, but it is admittedly Boring Stuff.

    But more interestingly: the attempted restraining order hasn't been filed yet. It could be that the computer system was down all morning, or it could be something else.

    In particular, I wonder if Charles is having second thoughts, as defense council reminds him of all the World of Pain he's about to step in, and this thread alone pointed out material, unresolvable defects in his attempt.

    (It would be a bonus if a history of shenanigans would play into the decision to award lawyers fees, since he does have a fair bit of history now, captured and collated.)

    But Carreon can still walk away.

    All he needs to do is file a motion to dismiss with prejudice, (or dismiss all but the Doe #1, if he really wants to try ranting against an unknown twitter poster over in Europe someplace…). He should do this Monday: the sooner, the better.

    I bet that, in a week, the Internet would forget about Charles, and Tara's rantings would end up being ignored rather than ridiculed.

    His reputation as a lawyer may be slaughtered from Google's perspective forever, but he hasn't been that busy in recent years anyway. And, as someone mentioned, he could become the Saul Goodman of nuisance suits: "Someone tick you off? Sue em in federal court. I work cheap."

    The Murum aries attigit point in litigation is if he attempts to file an ex parte restraining order or when the anti-SLAPP motion gets filed.

    The anti-SLAPP motion in particular is a bad one for Charles, because, as Ken talked about earlier, you can't just go "Whoops, sorry, dismiss the case" and get out of it, and if the motion is upheld, the court MUST award attorneys fees.

    Because a judgement against him for a couple lawyer-weeks of time will probably throw him into bankrupcy, and thanks to "reforms" passed by Congress in recent years, its not debtor prison (yet), but its getting close to that. (And how well can you discharge judgements in bankruptcy court when its for active acts, rather than just debts anyway? He'd find out…)

  163. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I think, fairly representative of the Carreon's preferred modus operandi for the world: it could go wrong, ergo it will go wrong and we should stop it before it does go wrong.

    That does seem to run through Carreon's filings as well. And also in his filings is very much "There is no coincidence, its always a conspiracy".

  164. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and its amusing that Tara is literally fixated on the Oatmeal grammar comics.

    :)

  165. Nibor says:

    @dex I agree and think she is a very troubled woman (to put politely) and that she could survive and not branded an madwoman, because she wasn't opposed or analysed to the degree she is now.

    This is what I think is going on, so I don’t say these are the facts, this are a the mere reflection of my thoughts on this situation.

    Her having her own “private” domain where she safely could ramble on and probably provided and caressed by the ones close to her, made it possible that she could maintain in her own bubble of reality.

    But now she acted out as she would have done before, only at previous occasions the people opposing her(and those close to her so endanger her “world”), didn’t go and look deeper, for they were personally attached to the case at hand and wanted to go on with their own lives (as everybody wants), they probably simply (tried to) ignored her, so after some time of rambling and lashing out everything quieted down and she could reside once more in her tranquil bubble.

    And here things go wrong this time, for the group that felt attacked/unsettled by the whole situation, was so much bigger, they could and did direct their attention to all the background noise and found her and her ramblings.

    At first this was/is entertaining for them, for they were and are not attached to the whole situation, they can simply walk away and go on with their life’s. She on the other hand can’t, she is fully engaged and part of the proceedings and everything happening now, it is endangering and even demolishing her tranquil bubble, so in her mind (her) world is being destroyed, she feels like she is viciously being attacked.

    And now she reacts in the only way she knows/can and that is lashing outwards and at anything she can find, at first at the internet but that is to amorphous, so she then goes after the things she can make real (to her) by naming “them” and demonising “them” and finally because “they” only react with ridiculing her, she goes ballistic and goes after the one person she actually can name and point out (she will likely be obsessed by him at this point and the things she published seem to confirm this) Trying to hurt him as much as she feels hurt, but the “wise target” remains silent, so she has to for in her mind there is no other way anymore, or somebody has to fiscally stop her from going on with this, steps it up and goes for the ones close to him.

    I’ve seen this before and more than once and only a few times this ended “good”.

    And yes each and every time the person lashing out was more or less mentally disturbed (again putting it politely)

    And these are observations made by me being an mental patient :-) and not a professional shrink.

  166. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Thomas: No. Tara's behavior is harmless. Crazy, but harmless.

    She's not able to incite anybody (so even if she's attempting to, eh, whatever), its all clearly batshit insane to any reader so it can't be defimation, and she's way down in Tucson so she's no physical threat to Inman.

    An attempt at getting a restraining order against Tara would quickly end up on the Popehat Censorous Asshat Wall Of Shame.

  167. Nibor says:

    :-) :-) :-) And no I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it. :-) :-) :-)

  168. AlphaCentauri says:

    @Nibor, I think your analysis is probably quite close to accurate.

    As far as how Charles could make a living if he backs out now, his reputation in shreds: Monetize that website of theirs. Tara's rantings are now high in search engine rankings with all the high quality links out there. Let her keep commenting on world affairs and sell ads. Add a forum to discuss, "What's going on in Tara's mind" to keep the conversation going when she no longer has Inman to focus on. She could comment on the comments in that forum but not be allowed to post herself, so instead of trolling, she'd have to create full length essays of batshitcrazy logic in her own section of the site.

  169. Nate says:

    Reading her crazy ramblings is astounding. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic the way she's projecting her crazy. First she says looking at Inman's photo, he's clearly paranoid (seriously, you've spent how long photoshopping him?) and now she's insinuating that he's a murderer in the waiting (because comics can't just be comics), and not satisfied with that, she's calling his mother crazy. She's also ignoring the fact that it looks like 2 of the 3 cases against his (alleged/supposed/guessed at) father were dismissed (IANAL so I might be reading that wrong). And on top of that…they're all nazis because they come from Europe and all Europeans are nazis! Wow, just…wow!

    It's no wonder Charles has gone full Carreon living with that.

  170. Mark says:

    Her ramblings are so over-the-top crazy that sometimes I wonder if she's not doing some sort of reverse-trolling: I wonder how many drive-by trolls are just sending nasty stuff to them for the lulz. Maybe she thinks that responding on the same level will "teach them a lesson"?

    Other than that, she seems a profoundly disturbed woman.

  171. Valerie says:

    I'm guessing that part of her reason for her bringing Oats' parents into this, rather than, say, going after one of people on these forums whose full names are known (and who are actually the people vocally criticizing her & posting records of Charles' legal history) is that the last time she tried going toe to toe with Ann (aka the "Lying Little Bitch") it resulted in yet another successful Carreon = asshat fundraiser (nicely done, Ann :) ).

    Now, of course the logical action, if she wanted to go tit-for-tat with Oats because she really believes that we are all simply his zombie army of doom, would be to post any court records in HIS past. I'm guessing she can't find anything juicy, hence the sextupling down (I may have lost count) & involving his parents who have not done or said anything publicly on this case.

    She seems to believe that the criticism of her came out of nowhere, rather than recognizing that it stemmed from the fact that #1 she published her husband's pterodactyl killa raps on their crazy-ass website, which, naturally, drew the internet's attention & #2 that, having seen the crazy-ass website, people were going to notice some glaring hypocrisy involving copyright infringement & crass photoshopping of "enemies."

    Tara, please google foot-bullet.

  172. Chris R. says:

    @Valerie, I agree that she believes this is a proxy war somehow with 2 distinct sides (hers and everyone else). Your explanation comes from a rational mind, which is to say, can never be truly correct in explaining her actual thought process. What she fails to recognize is that there are many sides to this situation. Here are a few I can think of:

    1. Carreon's + Apparently Susan Hunt
    2. Inman and his supporters (which I don't even know if his family counts as they haven't said anything publicly)
    3. People who don't give a crap either way.
    4. People who out of no loyalty to Inman are now fully curious about Tara's ramblings and are dissecting them.
    5. Trolls. Trolls have no loyalty but will pick a side and fight harder/dirtier than anyone, just to piss off the other side. They're extremist with no real beliefs.

    I am sure I could think of more, but I need breakfast.

  173. Margaret says:

    @Mike K

    As a total aside, thank you for introducing me to howmanyofme.com!! I have a very uncommon last name (I've never met anyone with my last name who wasn't related to me, and only ever seen someone unknown to me with my last name in print, maybe twice.)

    And now I know that there are exactly 4 people in the United States with my first + last name.

  174. Kristen says:

    It's sad. She is sounding more and more unhinged every day. My anger that she has decided to go after his family (albeit in an extremely feeble fashion) is tempered by my concern for her mental state. This woman is sick. I truly hope she gets the help she obviously needs.

    I'm not saying this to excuse the bile she is spewing and I do hope the law SLAPPs this inane suit down mercilessly. At the same time it must feel very lonely and frightening locked into that kind of conspiratorial thinking.

  175. dex says:

    @Nibor

    Great stuff. Have you seen Tara's YouTube video? Nothing bespeaks a cocoon-existence like unironically performing, in late middle age, one's terrible poetry in a public forum.

  176. Joe says:

    Tara had posted “The people attacking Charles outside legal or sober reporting on the situation is cyber terrorists.”

    Well shit, there’s my problem. Apparently I have to be sober. On the other hand the only time I can even try to make sense of Tara’s ramblings or Charles legal contortions is if I’m hammered. Actually I can't make sense of them even when I'm hammered.

  177. Chris R. says:

    Joe I don't think you're using the right substance to even come close to their state of mind.

  178. Chris R. says:

    @Angela, O.M.G. She knows. EVERYONE MOVE TO THE SECRET BACKUP BOARDS!

  179. Kristen says:

    @Angela Holy… wow!

  180. Matt Scott says:

    It's all you, Chris. You've outed us with your gravatar. CODE ZEBRA. REPEAT CODE ZEBRA.

  181. Kristen says:

    I just showed my husband the link from Angela above. He simply said: "you're a loony" in a British accent :)

    Anybody else see a small resemblance to a certain knight wearing black?

  182. Thorne says:

    No, Matt, 'Zebra' was LAST week…

    Mumble the dog-faced banana patch!

  183. Chris R. says:

    Matt, I apologize, I thought by claiming I was Illuminati no one would believe I was since we… obviously a logical error. I submit myself to the all seeing eye for judgement.

  184. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    And now she's attributing posts by Patrick to Ken in order to demonstrate his allegiance to the Illuminati. It's gonna be a long summer.

  185. Robert White says:

    Damnit @Matt Scott — I just finished setting up OCELOT TANGO WATERMELON, you just can not expect me to code ZEBRA -again- so soon. At the least you need to DELTA PLATE before you can ZEBRA anyway.

    Have you -not- received the new handbook?

  186. dex says:

    I spent twenty minutes browsing the Nader Library before bed last night, and afterward dreamed I was playing Settlers of Catan with Charles and Tara in costume and speaking pseudo-Shakespearean English.

  187. Robert White says:

    @Adam Steinbaugh — well at least the Illuminati cover is still working.

  188. Mark says:

    Folks, always remember to KEEP THE LASAGNA FLYING!

  189. Chris R. says:

    My favorite Tara quote today.

    CHARLES CARREON VS. THE ILLUMINATI
    United States District Court
    Northern District of California
    Case No.: CV-12-3112-EMC

  190. AlphaCentauri says:

    CHARLES CARREON VS. THE ILLUMINATI
    United States District Court
    Northern District of California
    Case No.: CV-12-3112-EMC

    You know how this all looks to those of us not living in California, of course?

  191. Valerie says:

    I wonder if she's heard back from the SPLC. My guess is they are sensible enough to either ignore or fob her off with some polite thanks for your letter, but go away.

  192. Joe says:

    Chris R., Angela – Oh double shit, Tara has immortalized me on her rant-blog. Interesting which comments she chooses to re-post.

    Meanwhile I am thinking of submitting yet another term to encyclopedia dramatica as follows:

    Carreontortion

    Car-re-on-tor-tion

    Carrentortion (sometimes called Carrentortionism) is an unusual form of lawyering which involves the dramatic bending and contorting of the law in an attempt to extort (I mean extract) legal fees out of the opposing party. Carreontortionism is often practiced in the filing of baseless and censorious lawsuits. "Carrentortionists" have an unusual natural ability to re-interpret the law in an extraordinarily flexible manner such that it no longer resembles its original intended form or function.

  193. Ken says:

    Why is it that crazy people can never distinguish different bloggers?

  194. Robert White says:

    @AlphaCentauri – You forget… -none- of the parties to the case live in California either.

  195. Robert White says:

    Carreonterpretation – The judicious exclusion of pivotal words or sections of statutes or precident in an attempt to make them appear relevant to a matter.

  196. Valerie says:

    Wow. Ken, you lucky bastard – she's dedicated a strange movie "vignette" to you.

    I believe the gist is the whole vast Illuminati / New World Order conspiracy would fall without you. Congratulations, I think that makes you the most powerful man in the world…

  197. Jess says:

    Robert – I think we should start a dictionary – that is now the fourth Carreon definition folks have come up with.

    Ken – I suspect it is because intraclass correlation, a descriptive statistic that can be used when quantitative measurements are made on units that are organized into groups; describes how strongly units (let us say bloggers in this case) resemble each other. The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" means that correlation cannot be used to infer a relationship between two variables, or in this case bloggers. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate the potential existence of causal relationships between bloggers. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two bloggers is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship, or, to in any way infer two different bloggers are in fact the same person. However, one may observe a direct correlation between the strange postings on American Budda and the medical dictionary terms for bipolar disorders, and infer that the author is indeed bat-shit crazy and therefore unable to understand the concept of correlation and linear relationships, and so therefore is unable to distinguish between different bloggers.

    Hope that helped. If it didn’t, go grab a triple martini.

  198. W Ross says:

    Just read Tara contacting Oatmeals mom. As an "employee" of Charles (shes his legal secretary) isn't that wildly unpopular.

  199. W Ross says:

    Improper. (Tablet decided it wanted another word.)

  200. desconhecido says:

    Jess

    Apparently, Tara is not the only loon around.

  201. Jess says:

    @desconhecido – what can I say? That's what happens when you spend too much time reading her site. You fall into the vortex.

  202. Chris R. says:

    @Valerie, why does she always type out the words in the screen capture? Anyone have a clue?

  203. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I'm dissapointed that I'm not part of the conspiracy, because if I'm part of the conspiracy, then PACER is part of the conspiracy for revealing all their other issues about the Carreons' ummm, interesting legal practice, sketchy finances, and pro se antics…

  204. Chris R. says:

    @Ken, It's because crazy doesn't see people as individuals, crazy sees people as conspiracies. So by being in any relation to the conspiracy you become a single entity in their point of view.

  205. Narad says:

    Mumble the dog-faced banana patch!

    Ahem.

  206. Chris R. says:

    Nicholas, I think you fall under the "Discordian Pope" clause of the conspiracy. So rest assured, you have not been forgotten.

  207. Valerie says:

    @ Chris R I don't know why she always rewrites the screen captures. Why does she think photoshopping penises on people strikes a blow for freedom?

    The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowng in the wind… (just seeing if I can get Dylan or Peter, Paul and Mary listed as co-conspirators).

  208. SPQR says:

    If they know he's represented, it is an ethical violation.

  209. Narad says:

    She really dropped a letter from the ceiling stitch with this one:

    I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd.

    Case History
    Kootenai

    Pay attention, madam.

  210. Carreon's application for a TRO will be up shortly at the RECAP page for the case.

  211. Carreon donated a hefty $10 to the campaign on June 14. That's 2.8% of what it cost him to file the lawsuit.

  212. C-chan says:

    @Chris R: I'll go for the technological answer and say screenreaders. Programs for the blind can't see the photos, but they can read the text.

    Of course, that could have nothing at all to do with it whatsoever. Still, plausible explanation at least. Because accessibility is always important, no matter what the actual content may be.

  213. John says:

    So, this TRO could be avoided had Charles read the following Indiegogo support link?

    http://support.indiegogo.com/entries/20517411-how-to-check-if-your-contribution-is-tax-deductible

    Frivolous indeed.

  214. Scott Jacobs says:

    From the TRO, page 9, lines 21-22

    His enthusiasm for the project caused him to claim the endorsement of non-profit entities without their permission

    I don't recall Inmann ever claiming the endorsement of the charities…

    Or is it Chuck's theory that simply by stating that you were collecting money for the two charities – and naming them – you were claiming their endorsement?

  215. Scott Jacobs says:

    And that's just what jumped out at me from glancing very quickly at the document…

  216. Scott Jacobs says:

    I'm sorry, I should have been more specific… That was from the "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES"

  217. Dan Weber says:

    Reading that reminds me of what a douchebag this guy is.

    27. Inman’s desire to exercise ownership and possession of the Charitable Fund for purposes of a publicity stunt is the only thing delaying the transfer of the funds to NWF and ACS.

    STOP PISSING ON MY LEG AND TELLING ME IT'S RAINING.

  218. Mike K says:

    If Indiegogo were able to prove that Carreon had read all the various terms like it not being a tax deductible donation and what their fees were going to be, would Carreon lose standing to sue since he isn't representing anyone that wasn't aware of those facts? I mean it's assumption on my part, but I'm fairly certain that he researched to find at least some way to sue before he 'donated' and if that's the case Indiegogo could possibly have the records indicating he visited those pages.

  219. Ann says:

    Just got a random comment on my blog from a "friend" of Charles who hasn't seen him in a number of years, but is apparently a support of CC and his family. Too tired to even process and respond right now.

  220. Carreon implies (at a minimum) to the court that he thought his $10 donation was going to be split between the charities. He made that donation at 9PM on June 14. He filed the lawsuit the very next day, alleging that people were being mislead by the fee taken out by IndieGoGo.

    So, no, he didn't think that.

  221. Dan Weber says:

    but I'm fairly certain that he researched to find at least some way to sue before he 'donated' and

    He stated somewhere that he was going to find "something" for which he could sue Inman. He didn't start with an offense and then decide to pursue. He decided to pursue and then had to find an offense.

    Chas's claim (one of them, amongst all the bullshit) is that any reasonable donor would expect that they were going to benefit from the tax deduction. In fact, according to the story he spins, he donated first out of 100% good will, and then was shocked to find out he was donating to Inman who would in turn gain the deduction.

    ACS and NWF both blew Chas off, which is probably what made him include them in the lawsuit.

  222. Scott Jacobs says:

    Now I – being a po' – did not donate, but I was wondering if someone who did could answer a question…

    When you donate on IndieGoGo, is there a step that requires you to check a box signifying that you have read the TOS blah blah blah, said items including the whole "we keep 4-9 percent" and "this shit ain't tax-deductible"?

  223. Eric says:

    @Mike K – Does it even matter if Charles didn't read the terms of service before donating? IndieGoGo provided clear terms of service on their website. Is it their fault that Charles chose not to read the terms of service before making his donation? Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I may be way off base, but it seems to me that IndieGoGo can't be blamed for Charles willfully remaining ignorant of the donation mechanism they were providing.

  224. Dan Weber says:

    If I give $5 directly to a charity via a credit card, they don't get all of it. The CC vendor will ding the merchant a little bit, even though it looks to me like I donated $5. I'm pretty sure this ain't fraud.

  225. @Scott Jacobs: No. It's just prominently in the FAQ.

    (I tested this by donating to Ann's wonderful fundraiser. Unfortunately, I'm po' too, so this donation was only 10% of what Carreon gave to BearLove.)

  226. Chris R. says:

    I'm surprised he didn't donate $9.99 just to argue semantics over where the rounded cent went.

  227. B&PC 17510.3, which Carreon cites, appears to govern the disclosures required in this situation. (How one would display a card over the internet, though, is beyond me.)

    But, 17510.3(b) suggests that Inman can't be liable:

    (b) Knowing and willful noncompliance by any individual volunteer who receives no compensation of any type from or in connection with a solicitation by any charitable organization shall subject the solicitor or seller to the penalties of the law.

    So, Carreon would have to demonstrate that his failure to make those disclosures was knowing and willful. More importantly, Carreon's theory that Inman is earning compensation by way of a tax write-off would swallow the rule, and would make most of the language superfluous: anyone who raises money for a charitable cause could get a tax write-off and could conceivably violate this law (if the knowing/willful part were proved).

    Potential tax write-offs are clearly not what the legislature had in mind.

  228. Dan Weber says:

    Does that really make it go away? I think the distinction between donating to a guy who gives to a charity and directly to the charity is real.

    Of course I think Inman is clear despite that, because he said he was raising the money to take the picture, and then donate the cash to the charities.

  229. Valerie says:

    @ Ann The guy linked to a blog URL that doesn't seem unhinged. He is quite a passionate liberal, by the looks of it, but seems rational from what I saw (I'm a liberal too, so I'm not taking a pot shot). He even has an entry satirizing conspiracy theories. For that reason alone, I doubt it is one of the Carreons. Also, he didn't call anyone a Nazi.

    http://www.littleaustralia.blogspot.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-admits-to.html

  230. W Ross says:

    Tara has changed the name of the thread to name us. She knows of the involvement of the Illuninatus (though not yet Dick Cheney, the Order of the Wolf and Dragon, or Alpha Division. Per Wizard Protocol I want agents running full data scrubbers and prepare for hot evac.

    Meet in Crawford Texas for further instructions.

    Praise the NWO, appraise Cthulhu, and the Weeping Angels,
    Agent Ross

  231. @Dan: I agree. I also think that argument is bolstered by the fact that a large number of people donated while Inman said that he was considering adding more charities to the list — people weren't donating to the charities (they had no idea what the charities were!), but to Inman's renouncement of Carreon/FunnyJunk with the added benefit that the money would help some unknown organizations.

  232. Valerie says:

    @ W. Ross Oh, have the Weeping Angles been called in? We don't want any trouble with the Doctor…

  233. Chris R. says:

    Agents,

    Crawford site Templar Down is secure and awaiting your arrival. Protocols Beta Nine are in effect so bring all electronic devices you've connected to the network with you. We will reroute communications through Satellite Global Omega starting now. Be aware that all unregistered devices will be locked out under commands of Wizard Knigge.

  234. Scott Jacobs says:

    God damnit, W Ross, we have told you before, DO NOT MENTION THE GRAND WATER BUFFALO!!!

  235. Ann says:

    @Valerie – agreed. I suspect he just hasn't read much into the "behind the scenes" stuff to fully appreciate the magnitude of douchebaggery happening here. I hope he really is a friend, and I hope that he can reach out and maybe talk some sense into the Carreons. If one of my friends was engaging in this behavior, I would stage a serious intervention and I would hope they would do the same for me.

  236. W Ross says:

    If you're on mission Excelsior Lee, move on. The NSA has garbage and sewage collecting and drug testing/analysis down already. Move all free resources to operation Bad Proud under the Penguin/Toyota front companies.

    And for gods sake somebody notify the Harbinger. These Carreons are the closest to escaping the reaping of anyone on Obama's Fair Game list ever and we cannot underestimate them.

    This will not end in another Timothy Leary situation, people. I did not reanimate J Edgar Hoover to tell him we can't handle a single Lawyer.

  237. Valerie says:

    @ Ann Thinking about the response Marc Randazza (elevated, along with Ken, to high ranking Illuminati) got when he tried to talk them down, I wouldn't hold out much hope of penetrating the crazy.

  238. THE RED BIRD FLIES AT DAWN. THE RED BIRD FLIES AT DAWN. EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE MISSION IS DEAD. DELETE EVERYTHING. I REPEAT, EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT PROJECT PENGUIN IS DEA [end transmission]

  239. W Ross says:

    (If she's going to live in a fantasy world, it should at least be well written.)

  240. Chris R. says:

    - .- .-. .- / -.- -. — .– … / .. – / .. … / ..- …

  241. Chris R. says:

    .– . / — ..- … – / .- … … ..- — . / – …. .- – / .- .-.. .-.. / .- –. . -. – … / .- .-. . / -.-. — — .–. .-. — — .. … . -.. / ..- -. .-.. . … … / … .–. . -.-. .. ..-. .. -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -.– / …. — -. — .-. . -.. / -… -.– / – …. . / . .-.. -.. . .-.

  242. Scott Jacobs says:

    I really hate it when you people do that. I spent a long time forcing myself to forget Morse Code.

  243. .– …. .- – / -.. — / -.– — ..- / — . .- -. / -.– — ..- / .–. . — .–. .-.. .

  244. AlphaCentauri says:

    Some of our transmissions are leaking out. They're being propagated in vibrations in dental fillings and household wiring. We need to switch to new frequencies.

  245. W Ross says:

    01010100011000010111001001100001001011000010000001111001011011110111010100100000011010000110111101101110011001010111001101110100011011000111100100100000011011100110010101100101011001000010000001110100011011110010000001100111011001010111010000100000011100110110111101101101011001010010000001101000011001010110110001110000001011000010000001100010011001010110001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000111100101101111011101010010011101110010011001010010000001101000011000010111011001101001011011100110011100100000011000010010000001110000011000010111001001100001011011100110111101101001011001000010000001100101011100000110100101110011011011110110010001100101001011100010000001010011011001010111001001101001011011110111010101110011011011000111100100101100001000000100111101100011011000110110000101101101011100110010000001010010011000010111101001101111011100100010000001110011011000010111100101110011001000000111100101101111011101010111001000100000011001100110000101101101011010010110110001111001001000000110100101110011001000000111011101110010011011110110111001100111001000000110100001100101011100100110010100101101001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100111011100110010000001100001001000000110110101110101011000110110100000100000011011010110111101110010011001010010000001101100011010010110101101100101011011000111100100100000011001010111100001110000011011000110000101101110011000010111010001101001011011110110111000100000011101000110100001100001011011100010000001100001001000000011000100110101001100000011000000110000001000000111000001100101011011110111000001101100011001010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011101110110111101110010011010110110100101101110011001110010000001110100011011110110011101100101011101000110100001100101011100100010000001110100011011110010000001100101011011010110001001100001011100100110000101110011011100110010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000110011001100001011011010110100101101100011110010010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000110010001100101011001010111000000100000011001000110111101110111011011100010000001001001001000000111010001101000011010010110111001101011001000000111100101101111011101010010000001101011011011100110111101110111001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100000011000100111010101110100001000000111100101101111011101010010011101110110011001010010000001100101011011100110011101100001011001110110010101100100001000000110001001110101011101000010000001100011011000010110111000100111011101000010000001100100011010010111001101100101011011100110011101100001011001110110010100101110001000000100100100100111011011010010000001101110011011110111010000100000011101110110100101101100011011000110100101101110011001110010000001110100011011110010000001100011011011110110010001100100011011000110010100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110111101110010001000000110010101101110011000010110001001101100011001010010000001111001011011110111010100100000011010010110111000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001100100011001010110110001110101011100110110100101101111011011100010110000100000011100110110111100100000010010010010011101101101001000000110111001101111011101000010000001100011011010000110000101101110011001110110100101101110011001110010000001100001011011100111100101110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001001001001000000110010001101111001000000110100101101110001000000111010001101000011001010111001101100101001000000111010001101000011100100110010101100001011001000111001100101100001000000110001001110101011101000010000001000011010011110100111001010011010010010100010001000101010100100010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000111001101101111011011010110010101110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001101101011010010110011101101000011101000010000001100010011001010010000001110111011100100110111101101110011001110010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000111001101100101011001010010000001100001001000000110010001101111011000110111010001101111011100100010111000100000010100000110110001100101011000010111001101100101001011000010000001110011011001010110010101101011001000000110100001100101011011000111000000101110001000000010110101010111011010010110110001101100001000000101001001101111011100110111001100101110

  246. Chris R. says:

    Acknowledged.

  247. Thorne says:

    Shit, I just ran out of tin foil…

    I'm vulnerable here, people! VULNERABLE!!

  248. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wow, I think Carreon, dissatisfied with sticking his cock in a hornet's nest, just stuck his head in the bear trap….

    He's gone on record now to effectively admitting to creating standing, since his donation was at the same time that he stated basically that "California law is so big…", obviously showing his intent to create standing to sue on some grounds.

    And his donation was AFTER the update, so its "known or should have known" time for the Rule 11 sanctions….

    A question: He's now given me standing to file an objection to his injunction, no?

    I gave $50 to the campaign (5x more than he did. I'm surprised actually, I thought he'd be so cheap as to only contribute $1), knowing that I would not receive any tax benefits.

    And by delaying the process, he is doing harm to my entertainment: I specifically donated to have photographic evidence of the spectacle of the kind-hearted Fuck You to FunnyJunk's lawyer.

    With each passing moment that Carreon delays the process, I'm suffering incalcuable pain and suffering. Well, I'd settle for one GAZILLION dollars, payable to the EFF. Or hell, $50 to the EFF.

    In addition, I will personally offer to pay Charles Carreon the amount of tax benefit he's lost (if he certifies that he both itemizes his taxes and properly reports all income from practices of law in the state of california on his california taxes), plus $5 each to both charities, so he will be made whole.

    So should I pull a Carreon and waste the court's time with a Pro Se objection, since by Carreon's standard I now have standing? And in the process, throw into the court's record Carreon's lovely history as a pro se litigant, who seems keen on abusing the process?

    I would also object to his appearance on the telephone, since he appears to only practice in California, thus his lack of office in California should not impose a burden on the court.

    Or if any pro-bono lawyer wants to help me draft an objection… I could use the entertainment tomorrow.

  249. W Ross says:

    There is one thing we've been dancing around here and I think it needs to be said plainly:

    Oatmeal looks like Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    Discuss.

  250. Scott Jacobs says:

    W Ross, you just blew my mind, man.

    My mind, it is blown.

  251. W Ross says:

    I know, right? Try not to see that shit now.

  252. Smorz says:

    CC donated again in the closing 8 hours of the Bearlove campaign. Saw his name before I donated. I've got a screen cap if I can get a link here to work…

    http://tinypic.com/r/dgp06w/6

  253. Valerie says:

    @ W. Ross. OMG! – Its always SUNNY. In other words it illuminates. And how would you describe people who illuminate? Illuminati! Dear God, it all makes sense now. Scratch Texas, we need to head to Paddy's Pub in Philly. The Master must have been sending us a secret message through the gang's hijinks. We were blind not to see it.

    Donkey Badger is on the move and the beavers have defeated the trees. I just pray to God its not too late…

  254. Smorz says:

    Carreon implies (at a minimum) to the court that he thought his $10 donation was going to be split between the charities. He made that donation at 9PM on June 14. He filed the lawsuit the very next day, alleging that people were being mislead by the fee taken out by IndieGoGo.

    My post is held up for moderation at the moment, but when it appears there will be a link to a screen cap showing CC donated again with about 8 hours left in the Bearlove campaign on June 25th. I'm SURE by this time he knew the terms and could not claim he was "mislead".

  255. Drew says:

    I find it interesting that he admitted in his sworn declaration that his offices are in Arizona and that he sent a demand letter to a resident of the State of Washington. His exhibits show that the letter was for a corporation that appears to be registered in Nevada to a resident of New York. Yet he is only licensed in California.

  256. Scott Jacobs says:

    Looking at the mocking of Tara here, and I just gotta say…

    I fucking love this blog.

  257. Chris R. says:

    @Drew, he was threatening a federal lawsuit which only requires him to be licensed in one state.

  258. Chris R. says:

    @Adam, magnificent.

  259. Also, if you believe this Reddit poster, Carreon emailed him and said:

    Please find attached a copy of the Complaint. As you will see, it doesn't accuse Mr. Inman of defamation, or seek damages for emotional distress or reputational injury. It does not ask the Court to shut down the Bear Love campaign, or to compel Indiegogo or Inman to alter their Internet speech by one syllable. Since my name is Trademarked, I seek an injunction against people using it to post false posts in my name on Twitter, and to sign me up for free porn using my email address. Seems reasonable. I do not seek to get damages from the charities, but rather guarantee them receipt of all the money that is raised by the campaign.

    My policy goal is to strike a blow against false, misleading, unregistered charitable fundraising, and the use of charitable fundraising for purposes inconsistent with charitable goals, such as making any person, anywhere, the focus of a Netwar campaign.

    I'll note that Carreon described part of his case as dealing with "Netwar" when I corresponded with him over Twitter.

    Methinks Carreon has a fundamental misunderstanding of the free speech implications. The goal of SLAPP suits isn't necessarily to make past words go away (which would require a full trial on the merits of a defamation claim, at a minimum). Rather, the goal is to subject critics to needless litigation as a means of deterring current or future speech. Moreover, an unrestrained qualification that charitable fundraising not subject someone to "Netwar" would substantially handicap fundraising efforts. Under this theory, can charitable drives be made off the basis of contemptible acts by a politician or public figure?

  260. Matt Scott says:

    Quoting Carreon's Declaration:

    Inman thus informed 14,406 donors to the Bear Love campaign that his decision not to divide the money four ways was the result of a compromise that I forced upon him. This is not true. There has been no compromise, for if there had been, Inman would have relinquished his assertion of control over the Charitable Fund, and Indiegogo would be directing the funds to the putative beneficiaries of the Bear Love campaign — ACS and NWF. Instead, Inman is insisting upon retaining his role as the intermediary.

    Ignoring the fact that Inman never stated he had engaged in any sort of compromise (beyond the tacit claim of such according to his statement, "if Carreon wanted a victory he got one" [or whatever, it was something like that]), Carreon really doesn't seem to get the meaning on the concept of compromise.

    In this example, Carreon wants all of the money split between two charities without Inman acting as intermediary (and thus not taking the much anticipated photo), while Inman wanted to split the money four ways and act as intermediary. Now, Inman is only splitting the money two ways (obviously minus Indiegogo's cut… which any intelligent person would have completely expected to be a part of this transaction) and still acting as intermediary. This is what we, those of us living in the real world, call a compromise. Both sides give a little.

    Carreon's idea of a compromise is, apparently, "It's all gotta be my way!"

    This, boys and girls, is not actually a compromise. It's a petulant little child crying because he didn't get his way.

  261. Narad says:

    This "Atomic Luciferians" piece by Tara is a real piece of oh-shit-we're-out-of-clonazepam-again. I think I'm starting to get the Blavatsky-Nazi connection (viz., she thinks Heinrich Harrer was a Theosophist or something, and, well, Aleister Crowley was a mountaineer too, so… well, I'm sure it all comes together somewhere).

    When you see the word "optical," you know you're looking at the Illuminati. They are obsessed with optics and eyes (especially in pyramids).

    The best part, at least from my perspective, is that I'm actually waiting for checks for some "jobs" done in service of a certain large pointy-headed North American optical concern. Cue Ed Sanders. You're way behind the curve, Tara. Don't worry, though: holograms are all a trick done with mirrors. Really.

  262. Scott Jacobs says:

    It continues

    Like a terrible, terrible, hilarious train wreck…

  263. Paul says:

    Wow… That Tara is seriously scary… She totally reminds me of my ex-gf stalker… That coo-coo for coco puffs whack job is the reason my wife and I don't have social network pages… I suspect Tara might just stalk Inman for the rest of her life (much like the EX who is still stalking me and it has been for 9+ years)…

    Looking at some of the crap she and Chucky have posted on american-buddha.com, they are both seriously disturbed… Nazi's for peace "By Tara Carreon"… That was a waste of 20 minutes I'll never get back… but more than that, the entire site is a psyche-peek into the intellectual retardation of two hippies who should have never messed with LSD… There is all sorts of weird nudity and some seriously lame attempts at creativity… Child/amateur level drawings/paintings… Crude poetry that really sucks, etc…

    If you want a good look at stupidity and what a no talent psycho looks and sounds like, http://www.veengle.com/s/Tara%20Carreon.html

    Or you can see it here on youtube…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQu_0GIZORY&feature=player_embedded

    You get to see Tara reciting a lame poem while the matrix plays in the background… And for seems like an attempt at a performance piece of poetry, yet seems like she is reading it for the first time. And it seems like she thinks she has the talent to give it inflection and meaning, but she clearly fails in a great big internet “FAIL!!!” sort of way… If it wasn't so pathetic and annoying, it would actually be laughable.

    Want to see an artwork slideshow of a psycho???

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JGfZIqd_6g

    I watch that and I can just picture Tara and Charles doing to Buffalo Bill wiener tuck and dancing to Goodbye Horses while they tweak out on LSD and destroy more of their severely addled brains. Is this just a morons attempt to become celebrity? I'm not sure about the motivation of either Carreon but I do believe that two morons like that belong together… And if they were chained together at the bottom of the ocean we would all call it a good start.

  264. Paul says:

    Hmm.. Aparently… Tara likes to post under the nick AmbuFortunaZapataGaudi … And she has been batshit crazy for quite some time… If you care to take a peek at the psycho behind the curtain, google that nick and see what she has been writing when she thinks she is anonymous…

  1. July 1, 2012

    [...] 2.8% of the fee he paid to file the lawsuit over his $10.  [Edit: an observant Popehat commentator points out that Carreon -- or perhaps someone contributing using his name -- doubled down on his donation in [...]

  2. July 2, 2012

    [...] who was respected among First Amendment circles before this circus came to town.  Carreon had connections to the EFF (having received pro hac vice admission upon the roundabout recommendation of an EFF [...]