Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VIII: Charles Carreon Gets Sued, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Joins The Fray

Print This Post

You may also like...

323 Responses

  1. Ann says:

    FREEEEEEEEEDDDDOOOOMMMMM!!!!!

    :D

  2. Grifter says:

    Every time you think "Well, that's all the crazy he's got", he's got just a little more.

  3. Marzipan says:

    Apparently, Carreon is intending to tie himself up for quite some time. With the resources that will be necessary to litigate on all these fronts, I'm not sure how he'll find time for paying work in the near future.

    I'd like to believe there's a part of him that knows this is wrong, but that such a part of his psyche is being overruled by pride, a sense of rectitude, and a large dose of reactive aggression.

    Thank you, Ken, for your Pope-signal. I'd imagine that Doe (would this be #2?) is incredibly grateful for the assistance.

    Off to read the latest roadside Carreon.

  4. Orville says:

    Looks like there is even more good entertainment coming to my hometown. I'll have to see about getting some time off to watch the fireworks.

    If I can, I'll order a Hornets jersey to wear.

  5. Hannah says:

    At first this whole thing was funny. Then it was hilarious. Then it was pants-shittingly hilarious. Now it's past the point of being funny, and is just goddamn annoying.

  6. Grifter says:

    There are some pronoun issues in the post…Carreon calls Doe a "she", while you call Doe "Mr." and "he", Ken…while I know you're trying to preserve privacy, it might make sense to make your pronouns agree?

  7. Wow. Carreon threatened to rummage up some rationale that somebody, somewhere was 'profiting' off of the domain name by saying that Inman would be 'ratifying' the domain if Inman didn't ask Charles-Carreon.com to stop linking to the Oatmeal. That's right — Inman is profiting somehow because sites he doesn't control link to his website, and one of those viewers might eventually buy something from Inman.

    So, once again, his target remains Inman, above everything.

  8. Wil says:

    I am now going to ask everyone I email to forward them to Ralph Nader…

  9. Wren says:

    I just…wow. I'm beginning to think that Carreon really does have some serious mental health issues going on that need to be addressed. I'm glad that this seems to be bringing light to some of the processes of law that are less moral than they should be, but I also think the man needs some serious help.

  10. Margaret says:

    "I will be using digital forensics to establish actual trademark damages"

    AhhhahaahahahaHAHAHAHA…. oh, trying to sound smart. S-M-R-T.

    Also, how could the "10 Points" NOT be grounds for disbarrment? He's literally threatening to harrass John Doe.

  11. Mark says:

    The Nader part makes sense. He agreed to keep the communication confidential, so, technically he cannot complain to Nader himself without voiding that promise.

  12. HeatherCat says:

    ZOMG, you can't even blink on this site!

  13. Dan Weber says:

    Mr. Carreon also demanded that Paul Alan Levy convey Mr. Carreon's disquiet about this case, and Public Citizen's involvement in it, to Ralph Nader

    Response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TozoL_P0804#t=15s

    To be fair, Ralph Nader founded Public Citizen, so it's not entirely out of left field.

    Carreon says "thank you for your proffer to keep things confidential" but I don't see any such offer being made. Was it referenced elsewhere, or is he making things up?

    Every time I think it's time to leave Chas alone, he starts being a bully again. The previous thing was the "why are you hitting yourself?" of accusing Inman of slowing down the transfer of funds by refusing to consent to Chas's demands. Now it's blatant legal threats.

  14. Connie says:

    Oh lordy. He's threatening them with eventual lawsuit and litigation which never ends? Sounds about par the course…

  15. Michael K. says:

    Ten points? TEN?! Any villain worth his third-act monologue knows you never go past three. Now I'm gonna have to report him to the Guild.

  16. V says:

    @Grifter
    At some point, before Register.com (temporarily) disclosed the domain info, CC and his wife thought it was a woman that ran the parody site.
    CCs email that Ken talks about is dated June 23rd, while Register disclosed information around the 26th.

  17. Nicholas weaver says:

    It's exponential, not logarithmic

    ObMathPedantry

  18. V says:

    @Dan Weber
    The offer to keep things confidential is referenced on a blog post by Paul Alan Levy. See the link above with the words "Read Paul's post about it here"

  19. AlphaCentauri says:

    The name on the domain registration during the fleeting interval when it was public is a male name.

  20. Yar Kramer says:

    I've never posted here before, and I've been kind of just sitting back and watching this, but:

    … the law offers a remedy to the bold.

    You lawyer up, and you take it to him.

    Looks like it's not just the bold, but also the italicized! :D

  21. Noah Callaway says:

    Ken, your point that this should more be about a rally-cry to fix a broken system than "oh look Charles Carreon is a jerk" is well-taken.

    That being said, as someone who has only recently become aware of the extent of the problems: how do we fix the broken system? Raising awareness around this kind of behavior is helpful, certainly. What else needs to be done?

  22. HeatherCat says:

    I agree with Noah Calloway here – what CAN we do to fix a system that will allow endless headaches from the vindictive types who clearly live for this sort of torment?

  23. VPJ says:

    I saw PAL arguing with another first amendment badass (whom we all know) on M Doe's website. Not surprised he took the case and ran with it. *waves pompoms* I know which horse I'm backing.

  24. Seerak says:

    Looks like it's not just the bold, but also the italicized! :D

    The Bold and the Italicized

    Sounds like something that ought to be available on the Kindle. Or on daytime TV.

    Or a government scandal.

  25. Chris R. says:

    I await Tara's moderate, thoughtful and concise legal analysis of this situation.

  26. Paul Alan Levy weighs in here.

    Not gonna lie — having your blog cited by a guy as admirable as Levy brings me great joy. Sorry, not trying to brag (OK, yes I am), but between Levy and Randazza debating on my blog and Ken giving me props, all I need now is for Eugene Volokh to call me an idiot and I can die a happy man.

  27. Mark says:

    7. [...] I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.

    What an inappropriate, uncivil, thing to say. Same thing he did to Inman, by the way.

  28. Thorne says:

    @Chris R

    Why? It's like a broken record when she goes all "Jay and Silent Bob" on us…

    "You are the ones who are the ball-lickers!!"

    ;)

  29. Chris R. says:

    @Thorne, I like google searching all the relevant claims she makes. It's like learning through insanity. Most the references she makes I wouldn't ever end up finding on my own.

  30. Nicholas Weaver says:

    To Cathy Gellis: A lawyer this kickass deserves free booze… :)

    Drop me an email with your preferred varietal, and I'll have a bottle of wine waiting for you where I work in downtown Berkeley.

    You also can email me with computer questions, me being a certified Ph. D. computer geek. You can reach me at nweaver at icsi dot berkeley dot edu.

  31. Thorne says:

    I dig the "learning through insanity" part.
    It just gets a little dangerous when you try and take the references and try to draw the correlation to each other estimating her 'logic'.

    "Okay, if I'm seeing this right, she's saying '4 + Circle = Parsnip'. Whaaa-?!"

    ;)

  32. V says:

    @Grifter
    and the Doe v Carreon complaint states

    Doe is identified using female pronouns generically, without implying Doe's actual gender.

  33. Hannah says:

    @Dan Weber

    When I read about Carreon, I feel more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AutYNQYGjpE

  34. Cigars says:

    I watched as Jeff Merkey, pro se, attacked Al Petrofsky in the SCOfacts case when SCO was spewing about Linux. There's also the Jonathan Riches escapades…

    It won't stop, until we see true tort reform. Rule 11 doesn't go far enough, and application of sanctions is rarer than it should be. Losers should have to bear the legal costs of the winners.

  35. Roxy says:

    Just when I don't think that this could possibly get more crazy a whole new can of crazy opens up and joins the party. This is, by far, the most amazing story on all of the internets. More unpredictable than imagechan and far more entertaining.

  36. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, chuckles…

    that a judgement that recites the domain name was obtained by fraud upon the registrar, in the form of a misrepresentation that she did not know of my trademark upon the name, might well be non-dischargeable in bankrupcy.

    Now, Chuckles, you aren't a bankruptcy attorney, but you and Tara have already gone through the process once. Well, you went through the easy version. Its now a fair bit less pleasant [1].

    But you should also know this: The same could very well apply to the anti-SLAPP sanctions, awarded attorneys fees, and Rule 11 sanctions that are now about to charge down you like some enraged elephant strung out on Heisenberg Blue.

    You might, might still be able to walk away with a shred of dignity… But I think the time you have left is measured in hours.

    [1] E.G, you moved to Arizona what, less than 3 years ago? Did you buy your house less than 40 months ago? Ooops, bye bye homestead exemption…

  37. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and an open offer to all the lawyers working on Ptering Carreon a new one…

    I am a Ph.D. in computer science, specializing in network measurement and network security. If you need an expert to go through log files and reconstruct information, or want suggestions on some information that would be really REALLY nasty to subpoena Charles for, I can either help or point you to those who can. Pro Bono.

  38. raphidae says:

    Truer by every step he takes: http://www.carreon.info/ (where's my cease-and-desist?)

  39. Budgy says:

    Wow…. just wow!

    I've been following this from the beginning when Matt posted the response to the original CC demand and everything I've seen since makes me glad that I'm not subject to the US legal system.

    CC strikes me as a man who has taken leave of what little sense he had when he, to quote The Oatmeal, went "balls in as well"… By my reckoning of anatomy, most of CC's lower body must be in there now.

    The legal back and forth is most enlightening and the assorted blogs and attachments are very educational. Thanks to all for helping to shed a little light on this murky world – here's to seeing Mr CC's ability to litigate in this fashion removed once and for all.

  40. Chris R. says:

    @Thorne, oh I never try to interpret her thought process, just want to see what facts she is trying to distort into her internal narrative.

  41. Adam Raymer says:

    If this happened in Canada, there would be disciplinary hearings, and possible disbarment… Why can't this be Canada?

    -@CCTranslated

  42. Joe says:

    Good lord – I go to work for a few hours – you know at a real job unlike you schlubs :-) and when I come back the entire world is turned upside down. Am beginning to think my Avatar is appropriate and not just because the missus thinks I'm a clueless moose.

    Hat's off to Satirical Charles for standing up and dishing it right back out. Only thing missing was a "snort my taint" line.

  43. Mike K says:

    I'm impressed that he didn't take the warning letter sent to him the same way he expects people to take his threat letters. This is just, incredible.

  44. Shannon Lynch says:

    I almost want Tara to be sued for what she writes on Nader Library. Just for the pure fact I can see him defend his wife highlighting the pure hypocracy with the John Doe and Inman debacle he is in now.

  45. Valerie says:

    Ok, so I bunked off to enjoy dinner and an argument with my significant other for a couple of hours, and Charlie manages to find yet another way to double-quintuple-sextuple-down again? Like Chris R., I eagerly await Tara's reasoned opinion.

    To an extent, I agree with Ken – the whole Carreon clan is far from the most noxious group on the internet. They are crazy, sometimes crass, but certainly not even in the top 10% of internet refuse.

    That said, Charles IS the freak of the week, but he also is highlighting an important internet / free speech issue. Let's be honest, the web won't watch and engage unless the subject is freaky (or a cat video).

    I actually hope he comes out of this ok (not that he wins from a legal perspective, merely that he doesn't self destruct in an utterly life-destroying way) – his asshattery is doing the web & legal system a service and, honestly, looking at his raps / his wife's ranting, I think the degree of mental illness involved mitigates the asshattedness to an extent.

    Agent URANA$HT signing off…
    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

  46. Matthew Cline says:

    Could you upload the memorandum to the complaint which lists the relevant laws?

  47. Grifter says:

    @Adam Rayner: If this was Canada, couldn't he have whined to the "human rights commission" and gotten all these mean things taken down?

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

  48. Nick says:

    Grrr…still can't post comments

  49. Nick says:

    There is a sick part of me that would love to see this go to trial, just to see how much the crazy gets cranked up.

  50. Swindapa says:

    The Carreons LOVE Nadar. Nadar's staffers smelled the crazy over the Internet well in advance of this case, and banned Tara from the Nadar Facebook page. Her letter to Nadar is well worth the read. It's hilarious and pitiful and full of pathos and everything, especially if you go back a page and see what she was banned FOR.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=701&start=10

    It's pretty clear that Public Citizens stepped into a land mine of old history here – and it's clear that PC's involvement has solidified the previously held belief that Nadar's staffers are part of some conspiracy. One wonders when they'll accuse the man himself. Ultimately, PC's envolvement will only serve to lash the Carreons to greater douchebaggery.

  51. Jess says:

    Satirical Charles is my hero.

    I hope he continues to carry on. ;-)

  52. Victor says:

    Looks like the self proclaimed protector of free speech on the internet lawyer Carreon has completely pulled away from all social media as his official Twitter and Google+ is nowhere to be found.

    It seems the only way to get him to appear now is fake violate his trademark and get a nice lawsuit letter served fresh or consult the gatekeeper at the naderlibrary forums. Be warned!

  53. Mike K says:

    You know, this is actually good information for me. Without any knowledge of the law I would have assumed that I had to wait for someone to sue me. Of course, I also thought that it was a requirement to seek out a settlement in a reasonable timeframe after learning of infringement rather than waiting several years so the person could rack up imaginary damages.

  54. V says:

    This saga is doing wonders for my vocabulary; first gravamen, now vituperative.

  55. EH says:

    Yet more Orly Taitz. What wound up shutting her up, just boredom? I don't recall it being any one, lightning bolt from the sky type thing.

  56. AlphaCentauri says:

    The Carreons LOVE Nadar. Nadar's staffers smelled the crazy over the Internet well in advance of this case, and banned Tara from the Nadar Facebook page. Her letter to Nadar is well worth the read. It's hilarious and pitiful and full of pathos and everything, especially if you go back a page and see what she was banned FOR.

    http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=701&start=10

    Wow, I bet there are a lot of Nader donors who are silently thanking whatever deity they worship that his campaign had the good sense not to send her their contact information.

    Interesting that they consider "charles-carreon.com" a trademark infringement but run a site called "naderlibrary.com"

  57. @AlphaCentauri: CarreonLibrary.com is still available. Just sayin'.

    Also: PLEASE let Orly Taitz get involved somehow. I'm sure that would make this one of the first signs of an impending apocalypse.

  58. Neil says:

    You know, this could all just be a big ole publicity stunt by Carreon. Sure, it'll tarnish his reputation. But, at the end of the day, his name will be "out there," and he'll have a firm reputation as someone who's maybe a little off his rocker, but doesn't back down. That might drum up some business for him.

    So who knows. Maybe business has been slow. Or maybe he's just been bored lately. Either way, it's possible that he's just trying to get his name out there.

  59. Brian says:

    As a lay-person, I'm curious about one thing. What is the likelihood of Mr Carreon being censured or even struck off for unethical behavior?

  60. @Brian: it's possible, but unlikely at this point. It took years of frivolous lawsuits before Jack Thompson got booted.

    In any event, it's unlikely that a state bar will care until Carreon gets sanctioned (assuming he does). If the sanctions are more than $1,000 (or there are non-monetary sanctions applied against him), he'll have to report that to the California State Bar. Then they might take a look, but one frivolous lawsuit is unlikely to get him booted, though he does have prior suspensions that might raise some eyebrows.

  61. Brian says:

    @Adam: What a pity. I had vague hopes that retribution for this sort of thuggery and nonsense would consist of a swift, messy, and painful object lesson involving lawyers forming a hollow square round Mr Carreon and snipping the buttons off his three piece suit.

  62. Grifter says:

    @Adam:

    But isn't he practicing again?

    "On September 19, 2009, Thompson announced that he intended to resume practicing law as of October 1, 2009, claiming that he was "never disbarred" because all of the orders resulting in his disbarment were legal nullities.[148] He dared The Florida Bar to get a court order to stop him.[148]"

  63. Z says:

    Just out of curiosity, How many people can sue Tara for defamation of character? I know she posts on a public venue, so if someone were to search names, now they will see "Matthew Inman, young Hitler" and the like.

    I know it was covered in this series that people have the right to say these things in heated debates, but she's posting these in topics on her own, no provocation and no retorts. Seems like each of her posts are public attacks on innocent characters.

  64. Sunhawk says:

    … I need popcorn. Lots of it. This is just such a glorious twist to the saga that I have a desire to spectate.

  65. Mike K says:

    Wow. Tara's response is up. She seems to be looking at issues through some kind of glasses that are other than rose colored.

  66. Victor says:

    I think CC doesn't have a ways to go to match up to Thompson's ass-dickering. All these defense lawyers combined can definitely put him into so much litigation that he'll wish he wasn't a lawyer. Probably even compel the State Bar to see he is in the business just for himself rather than the defense of the public. What ever happened to his client, FunnyJunk? Is he still putting their interest above his own, if ever?

    If he even finds some remote way of getting a piece of the money that Inman is sending to the charities, make no mistake I see an immediate disbarment seeing his history of absconding with client's money. In this case even more heinous seeing as how the money is meant for charity!

  67. Adam Raymer says:

    @Grifter:

    Well he could. Except Harper is certainly going to completely defund them any day now. Anyyyyyyyy day now.

  68. Ann says:

    I see Tara believes in hell now. Also, despite having 2 weeks to file, the illuminati taking advantage of the filing system being down for 3 days…

    Yep. That's what did it. That's what fucked him over.

  69. Victor says:

    @Mike: My god…. the whole internet is against them! We need to hold a charity event so they can raise money to fight back against slimebags like Ken and Marc and just about every lawyer associated with Inman and his gang of thieves who declared an internet jihad!

  70. Grifter says:

    I wonder why Tara doesn't try to post here?

    Ken, Patrick, et al, would you let her if she did?

    Or is it that she prefers the echo-chamber that lets her shrilly ignore her own hypocrisy?

  71. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Just make sure that CarreonLibrary.com only points to actual Carreon sites, so that Inman can't make any profit from it. :)

  72. Wil says:

    So is Chuck's disappearance from social media the start of the Great Deletion? How long do you think until naderlibrary goes dark as well?

  73. Victor says:

    In the words of Tara, Paul Levy from Public Citizen is not only a corrupt lawyer, but a "corrupt fuck". Damn that's some harsh defamatory words if I ever seen it.

  74. Swindapa says:

    @Mike K

    Judging by her tone, "shit just got real". Perhaps she's Just now realized her husband isn't the only one on the planet that knows how to file a suit.

  75. Ken says:

    Point of order: I am confused by "die in Hell." Doesn't one die, and then go to Hell? Have the rules changed?

  76. Victor says:

    @Ken I think she's referring to a South Park episode with Mr. Garrison – "No, you go to hell, you go to hell and you DIE!"

  77. Kelly says:

    I have plenty of popcorn and am willing to share with you all.

    I can't even… seriously he has dug a hole for himself — before today– deep enough that I am surprised he's not discovered the Silurians or valid proof to dispute/backup Verne's version of the center of the Earth.

    How many ways can he be told to go frak himself before he gets it? This is three times in that many days, basically… what the heck could the rest of the week hold?

  78. Grifter says:

    @Kelly:

    In his defense, he's undoubtedly cramming as much crazy as he physically can in before the slow-moving behemoth of professional standards smashes him Hulk/Loki-style. I realized the yesterday that this whole thing has been going on what, barely a month?

  79. Andrew S. says:

    Tara is quickly becoming more and more unhinged as time goes by. We're getting into "It's time for the nice men in white coats carrying a straightjacket to come take you away" territory. Just wow.

  80. Margaret says:

    @Kelly: It's only Monday!!! Thank god there's a holiday in the middle of the week, or we might have 5 straight days of insanity!

  81. Ann says:

    @Ken – you're thinking of Jesus hell. She's talking about Buddhist Atheist Gnostic Oestian hell.

    It's different.

  82. Victor says:

    @Ken Probably funnier coming from Mr. Garrison himself

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIMrFpnfvyI

  83. Victor says:

    Damn almost thought the Carreon's really did bring Popehat to hell to die O.O

  84. mark says:

    Any generous soul will make the dockets of this case available somewhere, like RECAP? I would love to read Mr. Carreon's reply to this.

  85. zathr'as says:

    Somewhere, there is a asshat of a lawyer wondering where it all went so wrong.

    oh and tara's response is up to this. it's priceless. I should probably stop reading all the blogs of such horrible, vile, and pterodactyl loving lawyers. I won't, but I need to actually get things done in my free time.

  86. Jordan says:

    Charles is actually a good guy. I wish he would come back to us.

    I was just about to write an article about this – about how he is the most hated person on the internet, but he's done some good stuff. I figured he just made a few bad decisions like everyone does.

    And then this happened.

  87. Kelly says:

    @ Ken- She could be referring to Hades sort of 'hell' where there are different punishments dependent on your behavior topside. She could also be making a reference to Dante's seven levels of hell.

    @Grifter +10 bonus for the Hulk/Loki reference. Now, drawing that analogy out… which of the badass lawyers gets to be Hulk? Furthermore, do we get to deem the rest Cap, Thor, Iron Man etc?

    @Margaret- So true! I am almost pouty that the holiday will interrupt the circus.

  88. zathr'as says:

    @jordan

    I have heard that from many people. I would honestly love to hear his version, if he had some time to calm down. I just want to know how someone loses so much perspective that we get to this point.

  89. Chris R. says:

    Well, the game isn't over, and we're not dead yet, like most of the rest of you reading this thread.

    So some of the people reading her thread are dead. Probably from reading the thread, but still….

  90. Shannon Lynch says:

    @Chris

    Mrs. Carreon will use her husband's digital forensics to find all of us and send us to her religion's hell.

  91. Mike K says:

    So, how does she arrive at the two charities having corrupt lawyers?

    Are they corrupt because they haven't deigned to respond to her dashing knight in shining (black) armor yet?

  92. Roxy says:

    Clearly Tara's frustration level is at teenage PMS, grounded on her birthday, cell phone taken away, levels.

    Kind of makes me miss EZboard, how fun to sit down and write psychobabble to an audience of .. no one… for funsies….

  93. Mark says:

    She keeps rewriting her posts. I just refreshed that last page and I swear the first paragraph changed a lot.

    That speaks volumes about her (their?) state of mind.

  94. Marzipan says:

    I wonder what "mysoginistic hate speech" [sic] is on SarcasticCharles's blog. Is this a reference to the author's lampooning of Tara's increasingly rambling, raving posts? Because my read was that it was mostly a criticism of Charles.

    I was going to propose the term "dumble down" for what the Carreons were doing, but there's no way to metricate it elegantly. I mean, a quadruple dumble down just sounds odd ;)

  95. Kelly says:

    @ Mike K – That sounds about right, but now I have in my head. (We shall see if my coding worked…)

  96. Brian says:

    @Ken – Depends! If you're on a Dante-esque tour of Hell, you're not dead yet.

  97. Kristen says:

    I have to admit I'm old enough that it makes me feel a little warm and fuzzy inside to be called a kid; like how it feels to be carded at the store when getting beer.

    I was considering moving on to the next internet shiny thing. Yep, was getting bored of him… was.

  98. Victor says:

    0 registered users on NaderLibrary bulletinboard. It just occurred to me but isn't the point of an internet forum to allow people to speak their minds and create topics of discussion?

  99. Chris R. says:

    Agents,

    I find it humorous that it took her 6 days to figure out we were behind the court filing system being down.

    Omega Kodiak

  100. Dan Weber says:

    what CAN we do to fix a system that will allow endless headaches from the vindictive types who clearly live for this sort of torment?

    Any human endeavour is going to have human problems. It will take eternal vigilance, because as a matter of honor we need to let even the absolute creeps have access to the legal system.

    That said, we can make things a lot easier on the paladins with things like good anti-SLAPP laws. We should probably be a little more aggressive in disbarring lawyers. You shouldn't need to file massive amounts of porn to get suspended. IMHO, his bully tactics of "do you know how hard I can make this?" should suffice.

    I almost want Tara to be sued for what she writes on Nader Library

    On what grounds? It is, and should be, very hard to prosecute someone for words. For one, we would need to find someone that believes her crazy rants.

  101. Z says:

    @Victor If they did that, then those users may try to censor their free speech!!! We can't have that!!!

  102. Eric says:

    You know could someone actually ask Nader to talk to Carreon? From the writing of him and his wife they clearly idolize Nader. If Ralph Nader said, "stop being a dick," to Charlie here he might actually listen. It would be a quick and easy end to this whole mess.

  103. M. says:

    I'm with Hannah. While I have nothing against lawyers or the justice system in general, the litigiousness of our society has gone beyond excessive into plain fucking stupid, and some people really need to be whacked repeatedly with a lead-lined attaché case. Carreon needs to be shot into space, as there ain't room in this galaxy for the both of us, by which I mean the galaxy and his ego.

  104. Carrion the Censorian: Free speech… we hates it forever, we does!
    http://carlbussjaeger.blogspot.com/2012/07/carrion-censorian.html

    I wonder if this qualifies me to be one of Carrion's "John Doe"s.

  105. Joe says:

    Damn it all if I’m going to Hell to die I’m gonna have a drink Faust.

    http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/1473/slide1ed.jpg

    Seriously, I wish Tara would quit obsessing about me in her posts. First it was Charles and his goats now it’s Tara and her Moose or is it Meese?

  106. Brian says:

    @Dan Weber: Your comment, "We should probably be a little more aggressive in disbarring lawyers." Really strikes at the heart of things (at least as I see it), thus my question earlier.

    Perhaps I'm naive, but I figured that the legal profession would be concerned (at least in passing) with lawyers going off the rails (as Carreon has clearly done) in such a spectacular fashion and take steps to minimize the damage he's doing to the profession. Granted, it's early still, so the state bar may still do something, but after reading about Jack Thompson, I don't have a lot of hope that anything substantive will be done to curtail his activities.

  107. singersdd says:

    They have to have some psychotic disorder. Have to. Or they've taken way too many bad drugs. How many more people have to put the smack-down on them before they decide to shut up and go away? Bat-shit crazy just doesn't even begin to describe them any more.

    He threatens to sue, a winning lawyer says, "stop that," so he threatens some more, so they sue him first. I have a feeling it won't be a judgment they can include in their coming bankruptcy.

    Maybe this is all in hopes of money somehow. . .

  108. Victor says:

    @Dan: Can't the same ideas that Charles originally claimed FunnyJunk against the Oatmeal be applied to Nader Library seeing as how Tara takes pictures that you has no rights to and alters them to fit her mindset?

    I think the simple solution, find another person like Carreon and they can sue each other to oblivion so not to waste the public's time. It'll be an internet style Hatfield-McCoy feud

  109. Valerie says:

    Hum, I learned a new expression today: "Fuck you very much." Thanks Tara!

  110. Kelly says:

    @ Victor- It'll be an internet style Hatfield-McCoy feud Oh my… I think you are giving Tara ideas now. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to watch- from very far away- but still.

    I think the worst part of this whole sham is that people will use CC to "prove" that all lawyers are rotten and that simply is not true at all.

  111. Jess says:

    @Victor – that is not a bad idea. I seem to recall someone very early in this whole kerfuffle suggesting the same thing and having the opposing party be Crystal Cox. They could easily sue each other into bankruptcy and they both love to file pro se and make up reality and facts to suit their cases as they go along.

  112. Thorne says:

    @Chris R

    To be fair, all I did was ask what the red button did.
    Your answer, now in hindsight, was deliberately vague.

    Purple Monkey Dishwasher

  113. Dan Weber says:

    Can't the same ideas that Charles originally claimed

    No, because his ideas are bullshit. Just because Tara is married to Chas doesn't mean that Tara loses her free speech rights.

    I would like to see the Carreons face discipline for their claims that they can violate copyright just by claiming they are a library.

  114. Valerie says:

    @ Eric I sent him a quick email via his website (and given the legs on this story, I'm guessing other people have too) pointing out that his name was associated with the batshit. Given Tara Carreon's history with his campaign, he probably already knew and had deemed it wisest to just ignore the crazy. Even if he called them, she would just assume it was either an impostor or that evil doers were holding him hostage (see http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=701)

  115. Angela says:

    My new favorite line: "This guy truly is a monkey-spanking ass weasel." I hope it isn't trademarked or copywrited. I want to use that as often as possible.

    http://charles-carreon.com/2012/07/02/a-break-from-character-part-2/

  116. Kelly says:

    Thinking of the 'doing it for money' aspect… what if he is playing the long game? This is now a 'high profile' case. Connecting the dots, he could see it as something that is perfect for expose tv, movie, book etc deals. If, big IF there, but just following the dots here… If that were to happen, what sort of cut could he claim since the character of 'CC' would play a big role in any hypothetical deals? Would he claim his 'trademark' and thus demand a cut of profits involved in any future discussions of the topic?

  117. Victor says:

    @Dan No, because his ideas are bullshit

    Hahaha love the bluntness of that statement, definitely agree with that ,though if you say that to the man I'm sure he'll find some misinterpretations of the law to sue.

    I really hope their other site American Buddha loses in the lawsuit by the Penguin Group.

  118. Myk says:

    Didn't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already asked this: Did Carrion not claim he has to phone in his appearance in the CA court due to the cost involved and his lack of resources? If so, this would seem to refute his claim and suggests he is lying to at least one of the parties?

  119. Swindapa says:

    It just occurred to me while reading one of the letters CC wrote to PAL….

    I think he's starting to really crack, and the insanity is about to pour forth in abundence.

    Seriously, read the full letter. The parts about Nadar are much closer to the writings we've seen out Tara than Chas' more level headed legalese. "Pointy headed internet mavens" for example.

    Exhibit F:
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/Doe-v-Carreon-Complaint.pdf

  120. azteclady says:

    A brief note: Ann Branson's fundraising is $5.00 away from doubling its original goal, with four days to go. If a few Illuminati feel up to throwing a few dollars there, she could conceivably send each of the two charities the full thousand.

    And that not only would burn certain individuals censorious douchebaggy behinds–it would also be awesome.

  121. Dan Weber says:

    I now have a legal ethics question.

    Once I was working at a tech ompany, and we found out a competitor had stolen our stuff and was selling it. We consulted with a law firm, and they said "we will represent you, after we check all our branches to make sure we aren't already representing your opponent."

    Public Citizen, IIUC, is still currently working with Carreon on his copyright infringement case, since Chas seems to be playing a game of maximum delay. Are there any ethical problems with Public Citizen being on the other side of Chas in this case? Is it differnet for someone only providing "legal aid" instead of being "primary counsel"?

  122. @Dan: where are you seeing that PC is still working on that case?

  123. Valerie says:

    Man, I was slow on the uptake here. I didn't realize that Public Citizen was founded by the saintly Ralph Nader. Holy shit – the Carreons' heads must be exploding – their god is dead.

  124. Thorne says:

    @Kelly

    Here's the thing…

    In "fictionalizing" things, you can't copyright an idea (ie. boy meets girl and they fall in love); you can only copyright the way you present it with your own characters.
    As it relates to *this* story, I can't see any violation because you can't actually trademark idiocy. ;)

    (And, on an almost daily basis, (Up)Chuck and Terror continue to be prime examples of the old saw "You can't fix stupid." )

  125. @Dan: ah, Public Citizen filed an Amicus Curae brief in the case. That means trey represented themselves, not American Buddha, even if their interests were aligned. So Levy has no conflict.

  126. Kelly says:

    @ Thorne – As it relates to *this* story, I can't see any violation because you can't actually trademark idiocy. I thought so but…

    (And, on an almost daily basis, (Up)Chuck and Terror continue to be prime examples of the old saw "You can't fix stupid." ) That was what I was wondering about, more lawsuits holding up anything- as they tried to claim more infringement.

  127. Henry the Great says:

    What am I going to do with my free time when this all comes to a close? I have learned more about law in these past few weeks than I could have ever imagined.

  128. Star says:

    I'm curious about his trademarking of his own name. What happens to people who innocently happen to be named Charles Carreon, especially if they're in countries outside the US?

    This is honestly one of the things that's been boggling me since the beginning of this amazeballs saga.

  129. Nicholas Weaver says:

    And the case of Carreon where Public Citizen filed an amacus cure brief actually makes sense: Does Carrion have any significant connection with New York?

    If not, why should he be sued there, when big company could just as easily squish him in the copyright suit in Oregon?

  130. Marzipan says:

    @Henry the Great, I know! Hell, I even read Carreon's book, back when he was offering it to the Internet as a peace offering. In it, one can see the seeds of the monomaniacal focus, the disregard for apparent obstacles, and the willingness to consider all manner of potential avenues to make a case.

    For me, it's been a fascinating case study in the application of the law. I don't think I've ever done as much reading of actual legal material, and I've come to a new appreciation for the craft of legal documents.

  131. Victor says:

    I'm really surprised that the threat Charles Carreon made to Paul Levy aren't illegal. As a lawyer does he not have any morals or ethics? Really this guy gives all other lawyers a bad name with what his statements can be translated as "I can sue and re-sue your client, at anytime, anyplace when he/she least expects it and when they can't defend themselves"

  132. Allen C. says:

    It's kind of sad really at this point. One can assume the timeline is as follows:

    Chuckie is hard up for cash, he notices the year old Oatmeal post and approaches FJ. Says he'll make them a quick buck and of course get a fee as well. That goes horribly wrong.

    Chuckie's grip on reality starts to slip when he goes after the charities. Maybe he thinks it will get him an appearance fee from various media outlets or something.

    Chuckie tries the trust thing to get his fingers on all the money.

    Chuckie is systemically driven off the internet. He's not really even on Nader Library anymore and he holds the keys to the castle there (denying registrations). All that's left is his crazy wife fighting a rear guard action.

    Chuckie hits the landmine when he goes after the parody site and now PC has their gun sites on him.

    It's basically over now. I assume he'll get laughed out of court (if not chastised for wasting the court's time) later this week when he goes in against The Oatmeal. That removes any chance of him getting funds. That leaves him fighting solo against Public Citizen and possibly Oatmeal if they decide to take him to task. It's over, all that is left is taking out the trash and various parties deciding if they want to go for Chuckie's throat or just slap him around a little and move on.

  133. Brian says:

    As an aside, this whole sordid mess brings Ko-Ko's song, "As someday it may happen that a victim must be found" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado to mind.

  134. Jess says:

    Surely I cannot be the only one that sees how the charles-carreon the satirist masterfully drew Carreon the lawyer into his web by focusing on the weakness of Carreon's ego and then snapping the trap shut with the masterful stroke of a superbly crafted lawsuit.

    Satirist's Internet Aikido Foo is strong indeed. I hearby name him Yūdansha Master of Internet Smack Foo.

  135. Thorne says:

    @Brian

    That's odd.
    The song that's in *my* head is Avenue Q's 'The Internet is for Porn' because when I'm not reading about this nonsense, I'm…

    …uhh, never mind. DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT!

  136. Kelly says:

    The only song I think of at this point is Crazy Train…

  137. Matt Scott says:

    I really gotta stop working. I mean, I go to work and another round of Carreon craziness goes off, then I come home and have to spend 1-2 hours reading through comments and legal filings, and, of course, "message board" posts.

    In other news, I'm fairly certain that Tara's arguments are actually just constructed mad-libs style, and that she never actually intends there to be and legitimate argument behind her rants. That's the only way I can think about her posts without getting a massive headache (I have this problem where I have to figure out the logic behind someone's argument… It's not working so well here).

  138. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, place yer bets: Who wants to bet that Carreon's response to Doe v Carreon will include a fair bit of butthurt that Carreon's "confidential" email was revealed by Doe & Doe's lawyer in filing the case?

    Some tin-foil legal theory about attorney to attorney communications needing to be kept confidential, perhaps, or that because Paul said something that he would keep things confidential, this means Chuckles the Censor can let lose with his threats without worry about their distribution?

    Oh, and Carreon, if you are reading this… What am I saying, of course you are, Popehat is how you found out just how broken your original filing was which is why you amended it so quickly. Anyway.

    So here's some "Mysoginistic hate speech" [sic] from a certified "pointy-headed Internet maven" for you.

    There is no way that Inman's drawing referred to your mother. For we all know your mother prefers Polar bears, not kodiac, for her ursine trysts.

    (Hustler v Falwell, suck on it, Chuckles)

  139. Victor says:

    I can't say I feel any sympathy or remorse for any backlash that the Carreon's receive given the bully tactics that he continues despite the public agreement that he can be crowned Douchebag of 2012.

    Also re-reading the letter he wrote back to Paul, I don't know how he doesn't deserve disbarment for his lack of respect for a fellow lawyer defending First Amendment internet rights.

    Paul took the civil road to keep this matter private but in Charles reply he basically blasted him for standing up for his client and insulted basically all of Public Citizen along with the founder Ralph Nader who the Carreon family supposedly built their insane ideals and beliefs on.

    Really dragging in the Attorney General of California wasn't enough but including Ralph Nader in his latest tirades. Someone really needs to serve him along with his wife a truckload of humble pies.

  140. Brian says:

    @Thorne: Ha! Just make sure you don't offend CC and his better (?) half lest your predilections wind up aired in public. ;-)

    @Kelly: Another good selection!

  141. Kelly says:

    @ Nicholas Weaver: Placing my bet now that it goes down just how you think it will. I have popcorn at the ready, in fact.

    Also, (Hustler v Falwell, suck on it, Chuckles) Hee! I am ever so amused how often this case has been quoted in this case. It just seems so fitting given the them of the drawing.

  142. Kelly says:

    @ Brian- Thanks! It is a revolving door in my head Black Knight from Monty Python and Crazy Train. *shakes head* We should compile a playlist of songs fitting and then one of youtubes that fit as well. It would give us something to do until the next 'Frak you, CC' gets filed.

  143. Mike K says:

    Hmm… songs that fit. How about "If You're Going Through Hell"?

  144. Kelly says:

    @ Mike K- Nice one! Cee Loo Green also fits IMHO.

  145. Thorne says:

    @Brian

    I'm being careful not to. In fact, I'd just like to point out that my earlier reference to "(Up)Chuck and Terror" is in no way meant to resemble anyone living or dead.
    They're characters from my upcoming webseries "The Misadventures of (Up)Chuck and Terror: The Litigious Looneys".

    In the first chapter, (Up)Chuck tries to sue double rainbows for not knowing what they mean while Terror seeks to uncover the secret "speciest agenda" within the walls of Disney Animation since, while Goofy and Pluto are both clearly dogs, Goofy wears clothes, walks upright AND has the ability to talk yet is still presented as "the dumb one".

    Gonna have to build a mantle for all the awards I'll get for this series, huh? ;)

  146. Jack says:

    @Brian, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the reason that it seems so difficult for bad lawyers to get disbarred is that the States like to err on the side of protecting aggressive representation. Although, from what I've seen CC's behavior certainly seems like something that should result in disbarment, or at the very least strong discipline. At a minimum I wish the CA Bar would prevent him from bringing pro se lawsuits by requiring a member of the Bar in good standing to file them on his behalf.

  147. tanqtonic says:

    Carreon seems to get into trouble with the California bar:

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

    9/21/2006 Discipline w/actual suspension 05-J-04474

    Gotta love public records……..

  148. Brian says:

    @Thorne: I hope you've got a treatment in the works to shop around the networks. You'll definitely need some sort of display to house the awards that'll rack up.

  149. Brian says:

    @Jack: Hm, that's an interesting thought. I hadn't considered that. Nevertheless, you'd think that egregious examples of asshattery coupled with bug-fack crazy antics would result in a number of sharp, indrawn breaths and beetled brows amongst the senior people at the State Bar Association or something. Granted, I haven't an earthly how things work in the legal profession, so this is all mere wishful thinking on my part.

  150. FreddieA says:

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

  151. Chris says:

    @Matt,
    She also thinks Mark Lewis isn't Illuminati. Lol. I'll tell Mark at the next meeting when he brings the bean dip.

  152. Thorne says:

    @Brian

    Well, one can only hope about the awards.

    The magic happens in the second chapter once (Up)Chuck attempts to sue the universe on oxygen's behalf for being a "hydrogen-only club" while Terror waxes rhapsodically about a certain man from Nantucket ("It's public domain, bitches!") all the while 'Dumb and Dumber' plays on a video screen behind her head.

    Pulitzer? Emmy? Oscar? I'm a fame-whore. I'll take anything.

  153. tanqtonic says:

    Ken:

    first time reader; love your site as I have been reading tonite.

    I am a very experienced IP attorney, licensed in Texas and California and living in the Bay Area. And have noted a number of really severe problems with the Carreon Lanham Act claims. My registration has my throw down e-mail address. Would love to step up to your Pope-Bat-signal thingy…..

    Dont want to leave my pertinent info on the comments, so if you do respond, hit that throw down address.

  154. Mike K says:

    Another song that might fit, "Crazy Girl". I have no idea who in this case it could refer to, but it seems to fit somewhere…
    "People are Crazy" is good too.
    "I Wanna Do it All"
    "Smooth Criminal"
    "Kryptonite"
    "High School Never Ends"
    "There is no Arizona"
    "Oops!… I Did it Again"
    "Here's Your Sign" (they made a couple of music videos)
    "What Was I Thinkin'"
    "The River"
    "I Just Wanna Be Mad"
    "Friends in Low Places"
    "How Do You Like Me Now?!"
    "I Hate Everything"
    "5-1-5-0" (Dierks Bentley)
    "Don't Download This Song" (always funny to see the link next to the video saying "Download this song")

    Sorry, I'm sitting up waiting for something so I have time to think of random songs.

  155. Moo says:

    I am just so curious about how people end up like Charles and Tara. I can't imagine living in that state of paranoia. That is cynicism to the nth degree.
    The Carreon family seems to be incredibly loyal to each other and have their priorities straight in regards to that, but how they go about defending each other is outrageous. Tara creates a new reality just to justify what her husband is doing. I wonder if there is some cognitive dissonance between her insane rants and how she actually feels about the situation. And it seems that they both have the personality type where, if they see they might possibly be wrong, it's best to just change their views to reflect their actions. Not the other way around.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the Carreons might be orcs.

  156. Smorz says:

    @Kelly – 2 more songs for you:

    Brain Damage – Pink Floyd
    Basket Case – Green Day

  157. Xavier says:

    If you visit his American-Buddha website, you can see just how crazy the guy is.

  158. John C. Randolph says:

    That boy's about as sharp as the proverbial bowling ball.

    I haven't seen anybody work so hard at making people despise him since Sanford Wallace threw in the towel. Anyone taking bets on how long he'll keep it up?

    -jcr

  159. Tali says:

    As far as this playlist goes, we are forgetting a very fitting song (particularly given Mark K's suggestion of "Don't Download This Song") Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya" which seems to be Carreon's theme song.

  160. Kelly says:

    @ Mike K – I am loving the list! Especially "Here's your sign", that one makes me bust out laughing even thinking about it, let alone listening to it.

    @Smorz – Pink Floyd and Green Day, nice!

    Also, 'Get Thru This' by Art of Dying, Make it stop by Rise Against (bullying aspect clearly inherent), This is War by 30 Seconds to Mars, Bully by Shinedown, Monster you made by Pop Evil.

    @ Moo- Orcs… hee! That might explain it.

    [I need one of W Ross' disclaimers here so I don't become part of the Doe Hunt...]

    @ Brian- I would vote for you.

  161. Thorne says:

    @Moo

    I respectfully disagree.

    Orcs are Chaotic Evil while the Carreon's actions seem to fall a wee bit more along Chaotic Neutral lines.

    In MY opinion, of course. ;)
    (I'm just swimming in "geek cred" now…)

  162. just_wow says:

    I'm amazed by this whole thing. The Internet typically has a very short attention span. I just can't believe he doesn't want us to move on to our regularly scheduled programming. He keeps throwing fuel in to keep the Carreon Hate Machine running 24/7.

    The feces he's flung at Inman probably ruined his reputation with anyone who had access to Google, but Carreon probably still could've walked away relatively intact (maybe some sanctions, but I would put my money on not). The Charles-carreon.com case seems to be a big step in a new, much more sanctiony direction. He's no longer trying to convince anyone he's on a high-road, not even one of his own creation. I understood his response email to mean essentially 'Sure, you might have a bunch of facts and established law on your side, but here's ten ways I can be a complete jackhole just to screw your client." or to put it another way "I am not professional or ethical and I intend to abuse the legal system in the following ways."

    Please forward this comment to Ralph Nader.

  163. Chris R. says:

    I think Tara needs to listen to the song on this page:

    http://charles-carreon.com/recommended/

  164. Kelly says:

    @ Thorne- I think we need to define our line between Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral in regards to this matter so that we can decide Orc/not-Orc.

    @ Chris R. – Thanks, I nearly snorted coffee when I hit the 'play' on that song. Excuse me while I laugh, loudly. *grins*

  165. Moo says:

    Thorne,
    I suppose that the Carreons are not on the level of evil as the orcs we've seen in history. But orcs are created purely to do the biding of their master. Who knows what an orc would be like if directed by less evil force?

    The Ralph Nader equivalent of Suaron perhaps. Whatever that may be. It's a confusing thought.

    /end nerding

  166. AlphaCentauri says:

    As far as disbarring lawyers: It wouldn't prevent this. Charles doesn't need a license to represent himself. And once a lawyer, he can't unknow what he's learned, license or not. That Jonathan Lee Riches guy isn't a lawyer at all and he's a hot mess of vexatious litigation. You can prevent a lawyer from harming a client by it, but my impression is that a lawyer who betrays a client such as through misappropriation of funds runs much more risk of sanctions than one who represents a client in a frivolous suit.

    @Valerie: Tara didn't originate the phrase. I first heard it in the Lily Allen song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZuYwYxnL4

    @ Mike K: BB King's "Nobody Loves Me But My Mother (And She Could Be Jivin,' Too)"

  167. Allen says:

    It strikes me that this was his business model from the beginning. The fact that the defendant disagreed threw the model out of whack, but he insists the model works, by whatever means.

    My basic questions are threefold: how many attorneys use this model?; is this the state of civil redress in our courts?; what should we do? Because, this strikes me as counter to the idea of basic redress of a wrong.

  168. Grifter says:

    @AlphaCentauri:

    Lily Allen, for all her talents, didn't invent it either. It's been around for a long time, and is one of my father's standbys, next to "pigfucker".

  169. W Ross says:

    Never thought I'd see the day that Charles Carreon was actually backpedaling and playing defense. Fight on you magnificent doe-bastards… fight on.

    My favorite part of Tara's response is this whole section, so I'll go back to front:

    "But the fact is, there are a LOT of corrupt lawyers and judges."

    You're the experts!

    "I've seen a lot of them in my legal experience. In addition to the slimebags Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza at The Legal Satyricon, Indiegogo, Inman, The American Cancer Society, The American Wildlife Fund, and Public Citizen, all have corrupt lawyers working for them. Every lawyer who is associated with Matt Inman and his gang of thieves."

    A conspiracy that large would require more money than the Legion of Heaters ( :D )/Illuminati could afford.

    "I would advise that no one ever give another penny to any of these entities."

    Yeah, my mom is fighting stage three cancer, so I don't have a joke here. Go fuck yourself, telling people not to donate to the ACS. That is WAY more offensive to me than a picture of something's mom wanting to kickfuck a bear.

    "They took advantage of the court filing system being down for three days when Charles was trying to file the Temporary Restraining Order, a downage that I would not at all be surprised if it wasn't caused by Inman's gang of anonymous hackers, and the judge being on vacation, to end-run the TRO and transfer the money to Inman on Friday, even though they were served with the papers, and the papers were deemed filed as of Thursday."

    Run on, consider revising. Also, I want you to nail down the group you think is doing this cause so far you've blamed:

    Inman
    The Illuminati
    Ken
    The Nazi Party
    Occupy Wall Street
    Anonymous
    Cannibals
    Killer Clowns from Outer Space
    The Republicans
    Walt Disney
    Buddhist Demons
    Christianity
    Ann Bransom

    and on and on and one. You can't spear fish anymore, nail that shit down. "WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT IS WE'RE AFRAID OF!" And if hackers took down the legal system, that would be big news because it would also affect real lawsuits.

    So no, your husband is lazy and bad at lawyering and he didn't think of it till it was so late that he'd look like a moron.

    "Charles would NEVER dare to do such an outrageous act. So, if you want lawyers who will do that kind of thing, DON'T hire Charles Carreon."

    Don't worry, we won't. (Also Charles is doing such an act RIGHT FUCKING NOW you sassy dingbat.)

    "You know why those lawyers are in the positions they are?"

    Because they're better lawyers than Charles… zing.

    "To allow the money of honest donors to be stolen. Just like the lawyers in most of our government positions are there to make sure the government DOESN'T function as it was intended to, according to the laws that govern them."

    The money is only being held up by your husband and his ridiculous cowboy hat.

    "Well, the game isn't over,"

    Yes, it is.

    "and we're not dead yet, like most of the rest of you reading this thread."

    We don't want you dead. We want you two to stop using law like it's your own personal anger-spanking machine and to stop passive aggressively calling the legal waaammmbulance every time somebody says you two are stark raving bananers.

    "And to Public Citizen's lawyer Paul Levy: Fuck you very much for filing a lawsuit on behalf of a cybersquatter's right to cybersquat, you corrupt fuck."

    That's not cybersquating. Doe #1 has no intent of selling it, doesn't profit, is using it for a reasonable use considering the domain name and isn't doing what joeyramone.org is doing (oh yes, he went there.)

    "I hope all these corrupt lawyers die in hell."

    You can't die in hell, that's the point of it. You die, then you go there to live forever in everlasting torment. In fact, dying would be the best thing that could happen in hell.

    "But that doesn't mean that EVERY lawyer is corrupt."

    You know what Tara, I actually didn't believe that statement until after your husband took the pride train to hubris town. I really had some shitty, stereotypical ideas about how lawyers behaved, and what the bulk of them were like.

    Charles Carreon showed me I was wrong. When a lawyer acted in the way I attributed to lawyers, men of character stood up and slapped him in the face with their mighty peni of law. I was wrong about lawyers, and that's the best thing I can take away from all this.

    "There are plenty of good lawyers working for the public good."

    We know, your first paragraph lists a bunch of them.

    "It's nice to know who they are. One of them is Charles Carreon."

    Nobody protects you from all ills hypothetical, technical, theoretical and drummed up the way old Charlie does, but I wouldn't go so far as to say he works for the public good. Spending three years fighting for the right for his Death Eater of a wife to give peoples shit away for free isn't in the public good.

    "Even when the whole world is against you, you know when you're right."

    If only you did too. Again Occam's razor, Tara. If everyone around you seems crazy, just consider that it's more logical that YOU'RE crazy.

    "Don't drink water from the poisoned well."

    Good advice, that.

    "Who cares if the King drinks it? Better to do right than do evil. And to stand on your own goodness."

    Now if you'd only learn to follow your own teachings, Tara.

  170. Smorz says:

    I wonder if Charles filled out his "Butthurt Report Form" yet?

    http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1777/52232422.jpg

  171. mark99k says:

    Yknow, ya can stop a hideous creature like this in its tracks if ya just pour a big bucket o' water on em. I saw it in a movie once….

  172. deezerd says:

    @Kelly – I seem to recall that CC professes to have a thing for the Ramones. Who recorded a whole catalog full of appropriate titles:

    – Teenage Lobotomy
    – Beat On The Brat
    – Cretin Hop
    – I Wanna Be Well
    – Pinhead
    – I Wanna Be Sedated
    – Go Mental
    – I'm Against It
    – Bad Brain
    – Psycho Therapy
    – Mama's Boy
    – Danger Zone
    – Mental Hell

    The list could go on, but just the whole *Road To Ruin* LP alone would make the case beautifully. :)

  173. W Ross says:

    Oh $&% we forgot to post the Anthem lately.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZIEBZsV9hk

    Viva Le Resistance! May your children never be does…

  174. Chris says:

    This guy Mark Lewis is fucking awesome. He's coming to America to fight The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and The New York Post. It's like the second coming of Christ. Let's wish him all the best.

    W Ross, Mark has initiated the Christ Protocol, I don't remember anyone authorizing that.

  175. W Ross says:

    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/02/cartoonist.html

    Something Awful may need to throw up the Popehat signal, lol.

  176. W Ross says:

    @Chris Mark is a fucking loose cannon. This is why we didn't get those matter displacers, because we can't stay on fucking budget. We've barely got the Tuscon press against them and he's going full Christ Protocol.

    You never go full Christ Protocol.

    He really Carreoned this mission up.

  177. Thorne says:

    @W Ross

    "Sassy dingbat"…??

    I think "stunned cunt" is the more appropriate term you should be looking for. ;)

  178. theparsley says:

    @Moo – Folie à deux is a real thing. I am not qualified to diagnose strangers on the Internet, or in any other setting – just throwing the concept out there.

  179. Joe says:

    Well if you're looking for laughs. Trademark infringement under other circumstances (beer instead of bear) story below with pages 1 and 2 under each link respectively. Appropriate since it also includes a dinasaur.

    The backdrop: The San Antonio, Texas based Freetail Brewing Co. received a cease and desist letter from the Steelhead Brewing Co. (based out of Eugene, Oregon) demanding that they stop using “Hopasaurus Rex” as a name for one of their beers.

    Here is Freetail's response:

    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7141/6688402705_c69eefae87_b.jpg

    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6688403271_0e6cc36ed0_b.jpg

  180. charles says:

    Is there any way to pull Carreon and a certain litigious felon by the initials BK into a fight with each other? The result would likely be explosive.

  181. Stuart Brown says:

    Like so many others, your sharp and entertaining commentary on the Carreon/Oatmeal affair is what has drawn me to your blog; and like them I'm now stuck on it.
    Posts like this also (to an outsider not particularly familiar with the US justice system) are strangely double-edged: on the one hand, I despair of the apparent free reign to legal thuggery and bullying as practiced by Carreon; on the other I am warmed by the number of people from a profession not usually associated with altruism who seem ready to step up and work pro bono.
    Plus, we so need to get us a First Amendment here in the UK.

  182. Foster Wike says:

    @smorz
    while the form is wonderfull it would not be able to fit carreons needs as it apears hed be marking about 75 – 80% of it off as since the suit started hes been butt hurt in about ever internet venu

  183. GrimGhost says:

    Hey Upchuck and Terror–

    If you ever find yourself in Topeka, Kansas on a Sunday morning, go check out Westboro Baptist Church. They'd love to meet people like you.

  184. Gal says:

    So how much of the cost of Chuckie's frivolous lawsuit will be taken out of Claifornia taxpayers' money? That's what bothers me most about these suits that haven't a leg to stand on, if the defendent isn't intimidated they end up tying up valuable resources that should be used to resolve real cases, and waste public funds. Is there any way that CC can be made to bear all the legal fees in this case?

  185. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Weird Al: "Ill Sue Ya"

  186. Eric says:

    @Valerie Wow everyone is a Nazi to Tara Carreon. I was under the impression we won WWII. Apparently I have been misinformed about history.

  187. Katryna says:

    I honestly think that his wife might be manic.

    Disclaimer: I can't make a diagnosis because a) nobody can make a diagnosis without seeing a client one-on-one and b) I don't have enough formal education to make a diagnosis in any case (it takes a Master's degree and some clinical experience, if I'm not mistaken; all I have is an associate's, peer counseling experience, and a lot of research into my interests).

    Anyway . . .

    The first thing that came to my mind was pressured speech when I saw her forum. Pressured speech is basically very quick, verbose speech which seems to be motivated by a kind of "pressure" that the readers can sometimes get the feel of. She posts a lot. More significantly, she has kept this huge amount of speech up for nearly a full month now. It's normal, when someone is anxious, for them to engage in pressured speech for a little while. But after a while the person doing the talking gets tired and doesn't want to speak anymore. Not her, though. She appears to be driven to keep on writing and researching this one topic, day after day. She has also indicated that she doesn't only post to her forums. This only increases the probability that she is suffering from pressured speech.

    In her writing, she has a tendency to repeat lines word for word. For example, she keeps quoting you, Ken: "You're the army of Davids" over and over again. There's one post that I go over in a second where she repeats "DMCA NOTICE" over and over again. That's called logorrhea, and it's also a symptom of mania.

    Another thing that her writing also exhibits is "flight of ideas" or a lot of ideas in a short amount of time. There's one post in particular that I'm think of where she goes from calling her enemies "yellow" (in the sense of communist), to talking about Henry Ford, to Monsanto, to DMCA, to "yellow journalists" again, to Loki, to anarchists and fascists, to the "Publishing Industry", "copyright chickens", Bobby Ray Inman, Barack Obama (man without a past!), and finally to "Intelligence Agents". There's a reason why that sounds insane, and it's because it's a symptom of both schizophrenia and mania.

    There are a lot of other signs and symptoms I could get into along that line, but I think it's more important to note that aside from schizophasia she also seems to have delusions that there is a gigantic conspiracy against her husband composed of (as far as I can tell) the Illuminati, people named David (in general), David Wynn Miller (in particular), fascists, anarchists, Jared Loughner . . . and on and on and on, you get the idea. When it worsens, mania includes features of psychosis.

    She also meets the criteria for being harmed in social relationships, as pretty much nobody has been taking her posts seriously and they seem to carry a danger of harm to herself and her husband–at least professionally speaking.

    Most interestingly, there's a problem called folie imposée where someone who is extremely close to another person with a psychiatric disorder develops features of that disorder. But the disorder goes away once the two are separated. If this were true (and I'm not saying it is; all I have to go on is her writing and that might not be characteristic of her mental state), then it might be a good explanation for Charles's inflated sense of self-worth, his aggressiveness, and his feeling that he has basically enough resources to sue the majority of the internet. I mean, who has time for all that? Aside from someone having a manic episode, that is.

    She does sound like she really needs psychiatric help. Maybe she's pulling an elaborate joke. But if her speech is meant in all seriousness, then I would urge her to go in and get evaluated by a professional. This is not meant as an insult to her; I honestly feel for her if her writing is any indication of her mental state. She would be under an enormous amount of mental pressure, and that pressure would make her oppressively energetic. People who are in a full-blown manic episode can't sleep much, for example. That in conjunction with the internet basically blowing up at her husband would not be pleasant. Speaking as someone who has very occasionally and in a much more limited capacity been the object of critical internet scrutiny, sleeping is a relief in such a situation. In lieu of sleeping, the manic person has to discharge the energy in some way or risk a mental breakdown. Again, I'm not sure at all if she is manic, and she in fact probably is not, but in the event that I am right then she has my sympathy.

  188. Mike K says:

    "Don't build your own benefit on someone else's harm." (quoting Tara)

    Isn't that kind of the basis of the profession of a lawyer? Prosecutors are paid to help punish those that deserve it. That's bringing them harm. Defense attorneys make money because their client is threatened with punishment. Attorneys bringing a lawsuit are seeking to harm others (like Charles is doing). Attorneys defending against lawsuits are only being paid because someone is seeking to harm their clients and would normally be paid out of what is due to their clients.

    I mean some of those are stretches, and I have no problem with the idea of there being good lawyers, but doesn't her husband's profession fly in the face of her beliefs?

  189. SPQR says:

    Well, its good that Carreon is doing bankruptcy law research … its going to be something he'll be applying to his own circumstances very soon.

  190. Stuart says:

    Could Doe file an injunction of some kind to prevent him to attempting to sue further on the subject? I hope the judge reads that and fines the crap out of him.

  191. Mr. Weebles says:

    Why are so many lawyers assholes? I don't mean anyone on Popehat, as they are all wonderful human beings and stellar examples of the legal profession. I mean folks like this Carreon guy. Did graduating law school confer the title of douchebag di tutti douchebag on him?

    Working for LexisNexis for four years in the past led me to conclude that 74.37% of all attorneys are dicks,* as opposed to 52.87% of non-attorneys being total dicks. That's quite a statistical gap, in my opinion.

    So why do these guys act like this? Why do they threaten people with the full weight of the legal system over such stupid shit? Did their parents not hug them enough?

    * These figures represent years of statistical analysis using the "pull numbers out of my ass" method.

  192. Qwertz says:

    What is this I see? Motion to intervene by Gino Romano Carreon, plaintiff's estranged brother? With the following gems:

    MY BROTHER CHARLES & JONATHAN LEE RICHES PLAN TO SAME SEX MARRY ON THE STEPS OF SAN FRANSICO, AND ONCE MARRY, THEY ARE GOING TO GO ON A LITIGATION JIHAD AND FILE FRIVILOUS LAWSUITS, AS THEY BOTH GET THEIR KICKS & ROCKS FILING BOGUS LAWSUITS, LIKE THIS ONE.

    … BUT I ALSO FOUND A LETTER CARREON ADDRESSED TO HIS LOVER RICHES THAT IF HE WINS ANY DAMAGES IN THIS LAWSUIT HE IS GOING TO BUY HIM SELF A HAIR PIECE AND DONATE THE REST TO AL-QUAEDA…

    A most interesting development.

  193. Matt Scott says:

    I think the Avett Brother's "Paranoia" fits pretty well.

  194. Nate says:

    I'm so happy to see this and from such a kickass-looking lawyer (I wonder if it's weird litigating against a lawyer you used to be allied with). Take that CC and your bullyboy tactics. I hope they get a good judge who will uphold SC's first amendment rights.

    What's hilarious to me is that reading the exhibits, the inclusion of a Tara quote in one of censorious douchebag's satyrical diary looks to be a parody itself to anyone who hasn't witnessed her crazy rantings. So, does TC satirise herself?! lol.

    Now I need to read the rest of this post and the comments (which are always good for a laugh).

  195. W Ross says:

    http://ia700809.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256114/gov.uscourts.cand.256114.docket.html

    Haven't posted the Recap link in this thread. For all your PDF needs!

  196. Mike K says:

    Katryna, are there any good places to seek psychiatric help anonymously?

  197. W Ross says:

    @Gal, Qwertz OOH! They're adding new characters this season!

  198. Gal says:

    I think this guy thought "Hey, litigious insanity is my Shtick! No way in hell am I going to let these crazies out-crazy me!"

  199. Valerie says:

    Just read the latest on the second coming. Very disappointed to see so little new material. Just good old cut and paste. Not sure how pointing out Newscorps' corruption and the fact that some lawyers are good while others are bad really helps her hubby. But, I suppose its true, which is more than you can say about most of her batshit.

    @ all members of the brotherhood: the cat is mowing the lawn and the panda is asleep. Activate the doorknob. That is all.

  200. Katryna says:

    @Mike K: Well, there are various crises lines that might fit the bill. For example, there's a site that lists these possibilities:

    National Crisis Line : 888-SUICIDE
    National Youth Crisis Line: 800-999-9999
    Befrienders online (offers email support w/n 24hrs): www DOT befrienders DOT org
    Samaritans online (also has email): www DOT samaritans DOT org
    For peer support go to: www DOT suicide DOT SupportGroups DOT com

    But if you mean getting diagnosed and treated for a mental disorder, no, that pretty much can't be done anonymously. There are a lot of things clinicians look for when making a diagnosis that can only be found in a face-to-face interview. (That's part of why I included that disclaimer; it's honestly literally impossible to diagnose someone outside of a clinical setting. For one thing, the patient could be lying for some sort of personal gain, seeking drugs, or suffering from Münchausen syndrome.) However, patient-doctor confidentiality and HIPPA statutes would apply here, so anyone who seeks help cannot be outed for that by his or her physician or clinician. The patient can choose to disclose the fact of being in treatment and/or who is treating the patient, but that's not the same thing at all.

    Dunno if that answers your question or not. :)

  201. Jay says:

    Setting aside other matters, isn't there a major ethics problem with (7)-(10)? He's basically trying to wedge himself between his opponent and opposing counsel by telling opposing counsel that opposing counsel has to disclose its (concocted) limitations on representations to its client.

    It's obvious he's trying to get competent counsel off the case so the client will fold to his demands more easily. Isn't that sanctionable in and of itself?

  202. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, although Tara clearly appears to be BatShitCrazy, she's not doing anything yet that indicates that she is a candidate for 5150-ing (or the Arizona equivalent).

    Charles and Tara are clearly a danger to the career and future livelihood of Charles H Carreon, Douchebag Attorney and Dinosaur Fucker ™, there is no indication that they are dangerous to either themselves or others.

  203. Mike K says:

    Actually Katryna, that's pretty much what I expected. I just know that I feel more comfortable telling people online more about myself than I do people in person. It's also been on my mind more lately for some reason. I imagine if there was such a service that trolls would abuse it anyway. Chalk it up to wishful thinking I guess.

  204. Katryna says:

    @Mike K: That's understandable. Feeling awkward about talking to someone about your problems is a major barrier to treatment, especially for men (the whole "real men don't cry" phenomenon really contributes to this). Calling a crisis line or talking to someone via email is great and all, but it can't really replace actual treatment, unfortunately.

    I just got my Associate of Arts degree with an emphasis on psychology in January, and we had an entire class where we discussed barriers to treatment, and "patient shame" was one of the big ones. I'd love it if we could eliminate it, and so would a lot of clinicians.

  205. Katryna says:

    (Should be mentioned that when I say "your problems" I mean "your" in the collective sense, not in the personal sense. Probably would have been better to eliminate the second person there.)

  206. BearLoveGirl says:

    @ W Ross – my head exploded from your last cartoon idea! I'm better now though. There's too much imagery being slung around right now! Illuminati Nazi Disney buddhist killer clowns cannibal kids with bears and maybe a pterodactyl…!

    Thanks for posting the Donna Barstow thing. I may need to follow that for the lulz. Getting one's cartoons reposted so that others may talk about how much it sucks (or not) is part of the territory.

    Meanwhile, back on topic, I feel a bit sad for CC since a few people have said he used to be a nice and possibly sane guy. Tara… just scares me.

  207. Grifter says:

    @Dave: Whoa, that's big news!

  208. HeatherCat says:

    Hmm. There's a certain TMBG song that comes to mind when I think of people like them. Very recent one too… title could be controversial so I'm not typing it.

    You know, I never knew what a 5150 was other than a VH album – in Florida we call it the Baker Act.

  209. Dan Weber says:

    What am I going to do with my free time when this all comes to a close?

    There are a lot of other cases. You may have come to Popehat for Carreon, but we hope you stay for the long list of censorious douchebags. They're not always so obvious with the censors being such bullies — sometimes the censors will be on "your side" which makes it harder to stick to free-speech principles, but it's very important for us to defend speech rights even of people we don't like.

    I'm curious about his trademarking of his own name. What happens to people who innocently happen to be named Charles Carreon,

    Lots of people have trademarked their names. It's particularly special or even nefarious.

    It only applies to his own field of work. It does not save him from satire.

  210. Robert White says:

    @Mike K. – The color you are looking for is "bilirubin-yellow" colored glasses. (To save you the google etc., bilirubin is the byproduct that turns the skin yellow in jaundice, and turns the solid waste stream to its characteristic natural color.)

  211. mojo says:

    Ralph Nader?

    Seriously?

  212. Robert White says:

    @Jordan – Some people just play nice guys very well.

    As someone who was birthed of vileness, or at least something that turned vile over time, I know from where I speak.

    Part of true vitriol and waste is that it knows how to stump up support for its goals and the illusion of credibility for its positions. Only when the many people involved compare notes can an emotional manipulator and sociopath be revealed in their manipulations and disrectitude.

    As long as he was winning he was able to seem a good guy. Once he is observed under the duress of egoative (is that a word?) dissonance [e.g. losing, and being called on their practices, and suffering the slings and arrows of public revelation of previously successful tactics] does the strain reveal the person beneath the skim.

    For instance, the whole ten-point list is a "don't bet I wont do to you and your client what I always do to people", it's just that in his rage he revealed his normal actions all in one go. Sort of like spontaneous declaration "I will gut you like a fish and hide the body just like I did to all the other whores because that's all you whores ever deserve and nobody cares about you" barked out in a cheap exploitation drama.

    People really can be worse than anything you have ever seen on TV, and you can think you knew that person very well, right up to the reveal.

  213. SPQR says:

    Mr Weebles writes: "I don't mean anyone on Popehat, as they are all wonderful human beings and stellar examples of the legal profession. "

    I am offended at that vile calumny. I shall sue, I say.

  214. FloydPepper says:

    If I may add to the playlist:
    Where is My Mind? by the Pixies feels appropriate in those brief moments of calm right before CC decides to up the crazy to greater heights.

    Also: you all are my heroes. I've only commented once before, but I've read all the news stories and made these comment threads my go-to for the ride. I think I'll be sticking around Popehat for a long while.

    Lastly: A Jurassic Park quote comes to mind (dinosaur reference, anyone?) "I was overwhelmed by the power of this place; but I made a mistake, too. I didn't have enough respect for that power and it's out now."

    CC, meet the internet.

  215. Dan Weber says:

    Those ten points strike me as an undertext of every legal threat, but it's something that lawyers are never supposed to say out loud.

  216. Robert White says:

    @Nicholas Weaver – Given that he seems half weasel and half badger, I don't see how her actual preferences can run to the ursine at all.

    Sung as "shut your fucking face, weasel fucker…" — That song from South Park is so utilitarian.

  217. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Robert: Its his mother that has the ursine preference.

    Chuckles himself prefers velociraptors.

  218. Robert White says:

    Contrary to popular belief, Goofy wasn't a dog, he was an ass that morphed into an undisclosed species after being white-washed due to positive reception.

    That is, at least, Mickey's disclaimer given that, otherwise, he just has a penchant for keeping a retarded guy naked on a leash.

  219. Roxy says:

    One thing is clear about both of the Carrions, they are keyboard warriors. Both of them could benefit by just taking a minute, calming the fuck down, and then typing their crazy.

  220. Eric R. says:

    @HeatherCat – Down here in the Keys, when someone is involuntarily admitted under the Baker Act, we say they've been "bake racked." A wholly apt and descriptive homonym, in my humble opinion.

  221. Robert White says:

    He is neither chaotic neutral nor chaotic evil, he's "lawful good", a worshiper of a vengeful deity, and suffering from "wisdom damage" that has, at least once, reduced the relevant trait to zero (not to be a total gamer geek, but it's true). That is, he is practicing what he believes to be strictly orderly conduct in accordance with the dictates of his world view, but he's now lacks the ability to measure his conduct against external factors, particularly where prudence and restraint are involved.

    Chaotic Evil very specifically a willingness to expend the lives of others to promote and maintain options within the exigencies of the moment.

    Lawful Good is the dedication of ones own life to the principles of one's moral guide.

    CC simply has one incredibly fucked up sense of moral rectitude, so he is the embodiment of all that is wrong with any crusade, especially one that has been taken up and prosecuted in ones own name.

  222. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Robert: You're thinking too hard. He's "lawful butthurt".

  223. Robert White says:

    Please Note: "Cybersquatting" is a specific activity of buying up a domain and leaving it unused no intent other tan the intent to sell it later to a party you know would want it for normal business purposes.

    By definition, when you use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, and in this realm parody and ridicule are legitimate purposes, you are innocent of cybersquatting by definition.

    Just in case anybody cares…

  224. Sandy Yoost says:

    Just came over from Censoriousdouchbag to express my disquiet over the use of various nicknames for the Carreons.
    For Charles I have seen:
    Carrion
    Chuck
    Chuckles
    Charlie
    Chuckie
    UpChuck

    For Tara I have seen:
    Tarfeather
    Terror

    I think this is unnecessary and in fact counterproductive. This is actually the objectification and vilification that Mr. Carreon is claiming, and done by we who seem to feel superior to the Carreons. It makes us look bad, and I think we should start referring to them by their proper names. Point of fact, Satirical Charles does not use these terms, yet his commentary is all the more biting because of it.

    These two jokers don’t need our help to look like fools. And we shouldn’t be feeding them any ammunition.

  225. How has nobody suggested Harvey Danger's "Flagpole Sitta" yet?

    I want to publish zines
    and rage against machines…

  226. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I'm dissapointed that doe v carreon isn't up on Pacer yet…

  227. ShelbyC says:

    "Contrary to popular belief, Goofy wasn't a dog, he was an ass that morphed into an undisclosed species after being white-washed due to positive reception."

    Hard to believe Minnie threw her marriage away over that guy.

  228. f15sim says:

    @Nicholas Weaver
    Also, although Tara clearly appears to be BatShitCrazy, she's not doing anything yet that indicates that she is a candidate for 5150-ing (or the Arizona equivalent).

    I had NO idea that Arizona could turn a crazy person into an IBM PC! They should have gone with the 5160 though. Has no cassette port and has fixed disk support. :)

  229. Roxy says:

    @Nicholas, Haha, you are going to spend all your 4th of July drinking money on Pacer. Thank you!

    I keep checking to see if the response has been filed with the proof of disbursement by Inman, stupid time zones are against me.

  230. Wil says:

    Well I have two more for the playlist:

  231. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Roxy: I'm an overpaid geek, who lives in Napa… It would take a LOT of pacer time to exhaust my drinking money. :)

  232. Katryna says:

    "he's now lacks the ability to measure his conduct against external factors, particularly where prudence and restraint are involved."

    So he's suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Incompetent-People-Really-Have-No-Clue-Studies-2783375.php)

  233. Robert White says:

    @Sandy Yoost — It's wholly necessary, and promotes healthy digestion and a shiny coat.

    The fact of the matter is that deriding nicknames are used in place of vitriol when someone deserves vitriolic derision by their acts. Chuckles is a ass-hat cum-sucking waste of hydrogen and displacing the need to revile at length with merely dismissive nicknames is far more socially acceptable than benighting him with his full fucktardness at every interstitial mention of his accursed craptacularness would just be a waste of judicial resources.

    He's a moist accumulation from within the scrotal folds of the legal profession, and using its proper designation would make his citations of our words of him all too easy. So in part by keeping every mention of (T|C)C's existence properly couched within the terms of dismissive banter we effectively inoculate our prose against citation.

    Calling this censorious douche-nozzle things like hissy crissy is something of an immune response.

    Don't be an apologist, it doesn't work and it only serves to annoy the pig. 8-)

  234. @Nicholas: have you been able to get ECF to notify you via email of new postings? I cannot, for the life of me, get it to work. Instead, it just keeps trying to add new email addresses to my account, then… doesn't send anything to those email addresses.

  235. SPQR says:

    He's a moist accumulation from within the scrotal folds of the legal profession …

    That reminds me, I need to put talcum powder on the shopping list.

  236. Robert White says:

    Imagine it this way instead —

    "Clearly your honor, when the respondent Robert White referred to 'that ass-guzzling waste of foreskin' and 'chipper the wonder douche', it is impossible that he could be referring anyone other than my client. And the name Chuckles is insufficiently distinct from my client's actual identity to be considered parody."

    It's like sending a check to "Robert 'the molester' White" with a notation that the check must be endorsed exactly as addressed. That is, it's just funny, though not particularly high-brow… 8-)

  237. Alternative title for this post:

    Doe Hunter II: The Hunter Becomes the Hunted

  238. Valerie says:

    @ Robert Thank you – I tried to post a similar response and the eeeevvviiilllll Iluminati internet ate it.

    @ Sandy Yoost, I respectfully disagree.

    Basically, if you have spent years creating violent and pornographic political statements & calling everyone you dislike Nazis, cannibals, and murderers, you ought to expect a great big "right back at ya."

    Also, given that the free speech issue at the heart of all this is the right to offend, I find the use of contemptuous phrases entirely justified. The same first amendment that protects Tara's art, also protects my right to call her wacko and Inman's right to create a cartoon about a fornicating bear and a video about a murderous pterodactyl.

  239. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: No clue. I've never really played with Pacer much, so no clue what is supposed to work.

  240. Roxy says:

    @Nicholas: Well your geekdom is appreciated! Napa is lovely, too, jealous!

  241. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Sandy: As I posted on charles-carreon's site:

    At this point, I want Chuckles to experience the full Hustler v Falwell level of inane butt-hurt.

    Yes, its purile and juvenile. But it is constitutionally protected purile and juvenile, and thats the whole point. He can always wash down his butt-hurt with a glass of Campari…

    Especially since Charles Carreon ™, with his TRO, attempted to infringe on my personal free speech rights. Its not just abstract "gotta protect the 1st Amendment" (which I’m all for anyway), but I gave $50 to BearLove specifically because:

    1) Should Charles attempt to disrupt the delivery of the money, I could say that under his logic, I now have standing. But, unlike Charles, I won’t spend $350 to file a case over $50 (or $10 in Chuckles's case), so its only theoretical standing.

    2) I really really want to see the photograph, and wanted it to be as big a pile of money as possible.

    Charles’s TRO both effectively put words in my mouth, claiming to represent my interest as a contributor, AND, by attempting to disrupt the transfer of money, disrupting MY free speech rights in spending MY money on an art project I support.

    So the real Charles Carreon, Douchebag Attorney and Dinosaur Fucker ™ deserves the maximum legal contempt that court history and court cases allow.

  242. Sandy Yoost says:

    @Robert, @valerie
    I have no problem with "douchenozzle" or "scrotal folds," frankly. BTW Robert, you're vocabulary is admirable. Wish I could write like that.

    I'm old fashioned I guess. It's classier to say "Mr. Carreon is a douchenozzle, we all agree on that" than to say "Let's face it, Chuckles is a douchenozzle, we all agree on that." I prefer the way Satiric Charles does it.

    Why stoop to their level?

    Anyway, my opinion, your opinion. I'll just watch now.

  243. S. Weasel says:

    Oh, and may I take a moment to observe how refreshing it is to enjoy an internet scandal that is entirely apolitical (at least, when it touches on politics, the underlying philosophy is so balls-out nutty as to transcend labels).

    Hours of wholesome lulz for Left and Right!

  244. Valerie says:

    @ Sandy, feel free to jump in anytime – I can't speak for everyone, but I don't THINK anyone here would be terribly offended if you critiqued their postings & its good to hear from people with a different perspective (good lord do I sound like the teacher I am with that "different perspective" stuff :) )

    I get what you are saying about stooping to their level – I think in most cases, I would agree that you should ignore or remain icily calm & civil in the face of craziness & crassness.

    This case just goes so wildly over the line, I guess I feel like they need a taste of their own medicine. Also, I don't think we aren't quite down at their level – name-calling is not in the same league as tangling people in time consuming and expensive lawsuits.

    Again, I just respectful disagree with you – I do not believe you are a plotting, rabid, Nazi evildoer intent on killing me on your path to world domination. You seem like a nice, intelligent & thoughtful person who looks at the situation a bit differently, and that's cool :)

  245. Ann Bransom says:

    Speaking of purile and juvenile, this is what happens when I have to brush up on my javascript/XML parsing skills. I bring you:

    CARREON IPSUM

    http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/07/carreon-ipsum-something-while-you-wait.html

  246. Roxy says:

    @Ann: That. Is. Brilliant.

    I never could stomach her color scheme to bother reading her ramblings, now I can play on your site. :D

  247. Jonnelle says:

    @Ann – is that like the random Deepak Chopra quote generator?

    http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

  248. Valerie says:

    @ Ann You. Are. Awesome. Be careful, though Tara may start stealing content if she runs out of cray-cray.

  249. Ann Bransom says:

    @Jonnelle – yes. except crazier. I just made an XML table of parts of speech that Tara uses the most, and then parsed them into sentence templates I wrote myself that sound like crap she would say using Javascript.

    I had to brush up on my JQuery/XML parsing today for work, so I figured I'd at least do something fun with it. *Geek Calisthenics*.

  250. deezerd says:

    @Ann – Well played, ma'am. Well played. :D

  251. Robert White says:

    Actual Legal Question: Didn't Charles Carreon™, or Charles Carreon℠ or whatever, actually shoot himself in the foot by trademarking/servicemarking his name and identity?

    Doesn't a person have a higher degree of protection and recourse than a brand?

    By recasting himself as a brand, I would think, (IANAL), that he has promoted himself into the range where critique of service and stability of entity are "naturally germane" (to coin phrasing) to the discussion of a brand. When that brand is also a person, and where that person chose the creation of that brand by affirmative act, that person went further than simply transitioning to into a public figure. That person has now offered themselves to market, and as such, offered themselves to scrutiny and commentary commensurate to any commercial entity.

    So if Charles Carreon℠/™ is demonstrably unstable, less successful or functional than competing products/people in his domain (e.g. a demonstrably crappy lawyer), incapable of restraint (e.g. a histrionic douche-nozzle), unable to maintain his client confidences (e.g. by letting his legal secretary post about his work), ruled by rage instead of reason, unplesant to work with (like any noxious substance), untimely in action (late filings), and likely deliberately litigious without any attempt at timeliness (the ten-points letter; then such commentary and disapproval in a public setting is typical treatment for a public brand.

    Didn't he just set himself up for being roasted in all media by going not from person to public figure, but cutting straight through to "brand"?

    If there wasn't public exposure and therefore an expectation of public measure and, if approprate, censure, then what would be meat of a registration for service or trade marking. There is no "you can only say good things about this" mark offered by government as near as I can tell.

    I feel like I missed part of this observation, but again, IANAL.

    Maybe "you can not rape the willing"? There was something like that in one of the filings but it didn't use "rape". Well by branding himself wit that little ™ and refusing to leave the stage didn't he offer himself up for what may?

    Now there is just questions of truth to the observations, which is different than "don't talk about douche-club."

  252. Kelly says:

    I am going to have to compile the song list, though it is more like a soundtrack for a really long movie at this point!

    As to using names such as Chuckle and Terror… It is my humble opinion (and I am happy to have anyone disagree with me) that they deserve it. I am of the mindset that calling them as I see them is the easiest and less headache-inducing way to go. Does this outlook get me called a bitch often? Yes, and then I thank them for the compliment. Should I be more tactful? Probably, but why should I? If someone is being a douchenozzle, I will tell them so. If they are acting batshit crazy, I call them on it. I don't do well with bullies and CC + wife are most certainly bullies- his list O'10 drove that particular nail home.

    @Robert White- I agree with your 'Lawful Good' assessment. As an offside re: half-weasel/half badger…does this mean his behavior can be explained as 'normal honey badger behavior'?

    @Nicholas – Thank you for keeping us up to date. Good to know that your drinking money hasn't been used up, I wouldn't want anyone to suffer such a fate!

    @ Adam- Alternative title for this post: Doe Hunter II: The Hunter Becomes the Hunted Nice!

  253. Foster Wike says:

    i would say i wast hours upon hours on pope hat thanks to the debocial chuckie the wonder ass has started but honestly i thank you sir grad ass-hat of fucktard legal personal becuase i have learned more reading this blog about law than i ever would have other wise also i now have a new way to spend free time

  254. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Doe v Carreon is up in Pacer. It should appear in RECAP shortly.

  255. Nicholas Weaver says:

    RECAP link for Doe v Carreon docket. The files will come online shortly (I already fetched them).

    http://ia600801.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256701/gov.uscourts.cand.256701.docket.html

  256. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Raw files in RECAP. http://ia600801.us.archive.org/13/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256701/

    Who wants to bet also that Charles Carreon ™ is going to object needlessly to Paul Levy's pro hac vice request? Just Because He Can?

  257. Thorne says:

    In that vein…

    The third chapter of "(Up)Chuck and Terror" is shaping up to be a real corker as (Up)Chuck attempts to sue the Children's Television Workshop for airing an episode of 'Sesame Street' brought to you by the number '4' and the letter 'Q' while Terror runs around claiming that members of the Nazi Party were, and I quote, "Nazis".

  258. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Also, who wants to bet that Charles Carreon ™ is going to be butthurt over the choice of venue for this case, and try to claim that it should have been filed in Tucson?

  259. Luke says:

    @Ann – That's awesome! I wish I could replace my current lorus ipsum generator with that, it would make testing much more amusing!

  260. Look at that says:

    @Nicholas Weaver. I'm very slow on the uptake. Thank you for all the links you've provided for the cases. Rah! You!

  261. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ah, Charles is too late, the Pro Hac Vice motion has already been approved…

  262. Dave Markle says:

    It's not "douchetastically logarithmic". It's "douchetastically exponential".

    If you just wanted to solve for the power of his douchery you would use a douchetastic logarithm, but exponentiation is the neverending process of doubling and redoubling. Taking a logorithm means to find the power to which something is taken given a base.

  263. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I still bet he'll object, somehow, on some grounds, to Paul Levy.

    I'm expecting to read an entertaining (read, scrawled in red crayon) brief from Charles Carreon, Douchebag at Law ™, that will include such nuggets that because Chuckles contributes to Public Citizen, and that because Public Citizen has filed an amacus brief in Penguin v. American Buddha, and that because Ralph Nader's electro-rays told him to, and that Chuckles didn't have time to object to the Pro Hac Vice motion, any or all of these reasons should disqualify Paul Levy from being council for Doe.

  264. Jess says:

    Robert you may be onto something there RE person vs brand.

    Ann – love the Ipsum generator – sad thing is it makes more sense that Tara does.

  265. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and who wants to bet that Charles will pull a Kimberlin in his first filing and include the temporarily unprotected WHOIS information?

  266. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Actually, this brings up the Crazy Charles Legal Responses betting pool:

    Which one of these will occur first? (If in the same document, the one first in order of appearance)

    1) Carreon objects to Paul Levy's pro hac vice

    2) Carreon objects to Paul Levy due to a conflict of interest

    3) Carreon claims that the CA court is not the appropriate venue for Doe v Carreon, since he is not a resident of California

    4) Carreon includes Doe's WHOIS information in a public filing

    5) Carreon objects to IndieGoGo and Inman's distribution of the money at question, because they knew he was planning on (eventually) filing a TRO.

    6) Carreon objects to confidential information being included in Levy's filing, namely, the email where Carreon makes his threats.

    Oh, and if Chuckles uses ALL of these, well, I should go to law school, because this means I'm good at coming up with evil lawfare ideas which, even if they eventually fail, will cost the opposing party time and effort to deal with.

  267. Ken says:

    I love how the newer commenters expect me to have a grasp of basic math concepts.

  268. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Hey, I did the ObMathPedantic bit first!

  269. Susan says:

    My guess, #5 since it seems for the Carreons all lawsuits lead back to Inman.

  270. Eric R. says:

    @Nicholas – Hasn't Tara already done #5?

  271. Kelly says:

    @Nicholas- I am thinking all six wrapped up in one.

    @Ken- It just makes my head hurt. That is what I have stats programs for, right? Just spit the information back out and I need no idea how to do it by hand.

  272. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, from the latest filing in Doe v Inman:

    I hereby certify that I am causing a copy of this Entry of Appearance to be sent personally to defendant Charles E. Carreon, who has previously advised that he is retaining counsel but has not yet identified that counsel.

    I wonder what lucky man gets paid to defend Chuckles in court on this?

    Whoever it is, make sure that Carreon pays in cash: any sort of a contingency basis would not be a good strategy here.

    And on one hand, I hope Charles is able to retain competent council. Everyone deserves competent representation, even pro se censorous douchebags ™ who believe in writing threats to intimidate under the color of the legal system.

    OTOH, it will make Doe v Carreon very boring, as any competent council will go "Fold now, and if you are lucky, they might agree not to charge you lawyer fees."

  273. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Eric: I mean in actual, legal filings all written up all lawyerlike in Charles's Pro Se crayon.

  274. Ara Ararauna says:

    POR LA JUSTICIA !!!!!

    Oh my, I am so happy I will nibble at this cracker for hours just at the prospect of seeing Charlie sat at the dock with an huge Sisyphean rock over his shoulders *squaawk*

  275. Eric R. says:

    @Nicholas – Gotcha. In that case, I put 5 internets on #4. That just seems like the most fitting douchey move.

  276. Ann Bransom says:

    I'm not sure I can pinpoint a time in my life I've been more proud, than right now at this moment knowing that the headline of the first exhibit of that lawsuit reads "Bransom Owes Me Dinosaurs".

  277. Hannah says:

    Am I the only one who keeps waiting for 'Keep calm, don't Carreon' t-shirts to appear?

    Really appreciating the post quality and the comments – learning a lot about the American Legal system and that constitution thingy you guys have ;) (kidding, we're not completely ignorant outside the US as much as Tara likes to paint us that way)

    In the US, what are the (realistic) penalties if any, for wasting the courts time, or as other people have noted filing false statements (can't remember the term used, but about him supposedly not having any way to have known X, Y, Z)? Slap on the wrist? Fines? Nothing? Complaint and potential review by whatever legal associations you have?

  278. Roxy says:

    I am unable to click on the documents? Weirdddddd.

  279. Robert White says:

    Service marks protect the good will and reputation earned by businesses that have invested time, energy, and money in bringing quality services to the public. Service marks also encourage competition by requiring businesses to associate their marks with the quality of services they offer. … [paragraph 9, emphasis added.]

    Also clearly "℠" is correct, while "™" is not, since he has no apparent label attached and he, himself, is not a product offered for sale.

    Yea, I think we are good here. Charles Carreon℠ has offered his name as double-duty to both himself named and the collective symbol under which his the "quality of [his] services" are to be measured. Reliability, consistency, content, representations-of-self, and character — and so on — all go directly to reputation and quality.

    Publishing his crapola is just pure "free advertising" since it is quoted at length, in context, and verbatim we are covered by the ultimate defense of "literal truth".

  280. Connie says:

    I take it y'all have seen what Adam's brought to the table for our viewing pleasure?

    http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2012/07/02/the-oatmeal-case-gets-even-more-bizarre-enter-gino-romano-aka-johnathan-lee-riches

  281. @Connie: now that you've linked to my site without permission, and Ken hasn't immediately condemned it, I will now begin pillaging Ken's My Little Pony collection as damages for this grotesque infringement upon my trademark or copyright or something — anything!

    :)

  282. Jack says:

    @Connie, Yep saw that yesterday, hilarious stuff. Reading up on Jonathan Lee Riches was almost more fun than the slow motion car crash that is Carreon v Inman.

  283. Connie says:

    @Adam: Oh no! Now you're going to name ME as a co-defendant in a conspiracy with Ken and you'll go after my original 1980s male pony collection still sitting in my mom's garage rafters!

  284. just_wow says:

    As much as this paints an ugly picture of the American Legal system, it also highlights some hopeful features (at least for me). The fact that declaratory relief is a thing that exists is certainly good. Otherwise the Carreons of the world would be able to do… what he intended to do, which would be horrible.

    It's also a good sign that there are lawyers willing to throw in their time to help the people he's attempting to bully. Sure, after reading the documents it looks a lot like a windshield agreeing to fight a fly, not exactly difficult, but the windshield probably has other things it would like to do with its time.

  285. Valerie says:

    @ Hannah In what part of the world do you make your home? And if you are ONE OF US, have you received the purple handbook yet? If not, be sure to contact the pink zebra in your district :)

    Yeah, the US legal system has its faults, but as an American, I think we can be justly proud of the Bill of Rights, especially the 1'st amendment.

  286. perlhaqr says:

    Hannah: I thought about it, but I really don't have time to get sued. I have a life. It's not much of one, but god, reading the dispatches from Charles and Tara make me think it's not so bad.

    Hrmmmm.

    I'll make artwork if anyone wants to use it. Sounds like a good use of my July 4th holiday, during the part of the day it's too damned hot to be outside anyway. :)

  287. Ken says:

    Minor Update #4 in Chapter VII.

  288. Grifter says:

    Stepped away from the keyboard for a whiel, so it's a bit long after the post, but @Robert White, wouldn't you say CC is Lawful Evil? Using the rules for nefarious purpose?

  289. Berley says:

    Did CC just capitulate???? The docket has a new entry, but the corresponding filing isn't posted:

    NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Charles Carreon (Carreon, Charles) (Filed on 7/3/2012) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

  290. Berley says:

    I take that back. It's up now!

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

    Voluntary dismissal: http://ia600809.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256114/gov.uscourts.cand.256114.30.0.pdf

    Hmmm. I've never done anything with federal court, much less in California. Does this strengthen the defendants' inevitable motions for terms and sanctions and fees?

  291. deezerd says:

    Maybe CC is just taking a break to go use some Wisdom Plants:

    http://www.oestia.com/

  292. Valerie says:

    Oh no! Say it ain't so!

  293. deezerd says:

    @Valerie: Hear, hear. Every country has at least one or two things it got right, and the Bill of Rights is definitely ours. (Along with Johnny Cash.)

    Now, if I could find a way to blend that with Japanese personal hygiene, Indian food, the siesta, Czech beer and Turkish/Greek sunshine – why, I'd have God's country right there. :D

  294. Nick says:

    Test comment for Ken/David, please disregard

  295. Nick says:

    Test comment 3

  296. Robert White says:

    @Grifter: No. Many people misunderstand the chart. Evil is specifically about the willingness to expend lives or act wihtout consideration of same.

    In truth you were never enjoined from nefarious purpose in any alignment. For some of the good sections you have to do more mental gymnastics to reach true nefariousness.

    The best description is found at link below .vvvvvv

    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rules

  297. Robert White says:

    I don't think simply filing a paper that says "plaintiff dismisses this action" is legal or at least complete. (IANAL)

    A party can only _move_ to dismiss _their_ causes of action. Normally one might be let off the hook, but bringing issuing subpoena, issuing causes of action, filing motion practice, and then disappearing into the night before counter claims and affirmative defenses are filed would be far too easy a system to game by harassment. You could make a hobby of filing and dismissing left and right, always sure to get the motion to dismiss in before the other party could engage, but after the party had spent more money than your filing fee to secure and engage council.

    Plus he didn't specify "with prejudice" so, as written, he could just re-file the odd trademark bits.

    In short the SLAPP and rule 11 and expenses and just general responsive cruelty remain. And _I_ wouldn't _dare_ let him go without a "dismissed with prejudice" in there somewhere because I know he's a litigious douche-hat ass-bag.

    Again, IANAL.

  298. Robert White says:

    Oh lookie, you -can- do that harass and run, and it does dismiss without prejudice…

    41(a)(1)(B) Effect. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.

    So, actual lawyers, what of claims for attorney's fees and such?

    The later text of rule 41 seems to infer that you can only get costs if the censorious douchebag refiles at a later time.

    Then again, after claiming to secure council, he has again filed Pro Se. So apparently his "actual law-critter" may have told him to scuttle away while he still had skin.

    On the other hand, this isn't a proper motion since the word "motion" doesn't appear within the text, so he is on technically thin ice if someone want's to spit him really fast.

    Plus, he may run afoul of R.F. civ P. 66, since he sought to impose a charitable trust. 8-)

    Additionally, I could argue (IANAL), that the answer(s) to the TRO might qualify as "answers" in this section and so prevent a 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal since they had to provide answers as to whether the Ass-Hat's case was likely to succeed on the merits.

    Just saying (as a reasonable man, reading the plain text of the rule)…

  299. Robert White says:

    Could opposing council call Murum Aries Attigit because of the TRO?

  300. Robert White says:

    @deezerd — WTF vs Japanese personal hygiene… Are we talking about the same Japan? The one where a guy can whip out his dick and pee on cars as they drive by splashing everyone with urine. etc? Gues why you -always- take off your shoes when entering a house. Just sayin.

  301. You know, I'm really glad I started reading the comments when all this started. Nowhere else in the Internet could someone find a group of people that can casually throw around allusions to Jules Verne, Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Dungeons & Dragons, the Illuminati, and anything I've forgotten while discussing and learning/teaching about law. And add to that we always seemed to know what everyone else was talking about!

    I love this place, but not in a creepy kind of way that's gonna get me zapped from behind and asking "did I fall asleep?"

  302. Oops. And LoTR. Can't believe I forgot that…

  303. Thorne says:

    "What about Ray Bradbury?"

    "I'm aware of his work."

  304. Hannah says:

    @Valerie: A small no-name pair of islands famous for Hobbits and amazing scenery :) My handbook is admittedly in purple with white polka dots – damned zebras over here just have to do things differently!

    Certainly don't take what I said as commentary on the US legal system being broken – heck we just hit the headlines with our own certain legal screw up! No country is perfect, so I ain't throwing stones. Just curious as to how it works.

    @perlhaqr Hmm, would almost be worth manufacturing them overseas in some small random country ;).

  305. Hannah says:

    Link fail: should be http://bit.ly/AzjOQC

  306. W Ross – best wishes to your mother.

    Katryna – not relevant to your larger point, but "yellow journalism" has nothing to do with communism (unless stories using such tactics happen to relate to it).

  307. W Ross says:

    @theNuszAbides When you consider what a tenacious bastard I am, my mom taught it to me. Cancer doesn't stand a chance; my mom's going to kick it's ass.

    @RavingRambler We speak thieve's cant.

  308. AlphaCentauri says:

    @Sandy Yoost I do appreciate you jumping in here. I don't normally mock people like this, either, and I certainly don't support mocking the mentally ill. But since we're all potentially defendants here — there are still 98 Does to go — it's given us a delicious sense of community. As @S. Weasel pointed out, it's really nice to have people from all sides of the political spectrum able to interact on an issue without it becoming acrimonious. Plus, since Carreon is clearly taking his legal cues from this blog and its comments, throwing in some genuine craziness potentially makes it harder for the crazy Carreons to find the legitimate legal issues. Name calling is puerile, but if the Carreons find it offensive and think right thinking people ought to find it offensive, perhaps they will let that sink in deeply enough to take another look at what they have been posting about people on their websites. But DO keep contributing. This discussion has the potential to go into truly inappropriate territory, and since none of us are the type to support that, we appreciate someone willing to speak out and keep our better selves aware of our actions.

  309. @W Ross Ha! And now I need to buy another tie to finish my day in since I now have coke all over mine…

  310. perlhaqr says:

    Well, Hannah, here you go. Not my best result ever, I suppose I should have done it in a vector format instead of raster format. Oh well.

    http://i45.tinypic.com/f4joli.jpg

  311. @RavingRambler and World of Darkness – even more impressive from my perspective.

  312. Sarahw says:

    The answer i think is tort reform (though iam all for strong anti-slapp laws) but professional discipline or monitoring. He's a discredit to the profession IMO and he needs to be checked from him rampages.

  1. July 2, 2012

    [...] There are good, decent, people in this world. People who go day by day working jobs they don't like to support people they love. There are billionaire philanthropist who recognize other people's plights and choose to take action. There are unintended heroes who by chance save someones life. I believe the good outweighs the bad on any given day. I also believe that if we don't fight what we see as injustice, the bad goes on in the shadows happily unacknowledged. I am fortunate that good, decent and brilliant people have taken my defense so that I can shine a light on you. Thank you Paul Alan Levy, Cathy Gellis, and Kenneth P. White. Those people and anyone who stands up against censorship are my heroes. [...]

  2. July 2, 2012

    [...] his use of the domain name is not trademark infringement.  The Complaint (courtesy, again, of Popehat) includes correspondence with Carreon in which Carreon makes some astounding threats.  To me, [...]

  3. July 2, 2012

    [...] interesting turn arounds I've seen in a while. Read the update from Popehat on their site: http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/02/oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-viii-charles-carreon-gets-sued/comment-pa… Comment (0) – 07/2/12 by [...]

  4. July 3, 2012

    [...] actions did not violate trademark law.  Ars has its take here.  A good rundown of everything is here (via Popehat).  This who bizarre set of circumstances is leaving some to wonder whether Carreon [...]

  5. July 3, 2012

    [...] Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VIII: Charles Carreon Gets Sued, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Joins T… Everyone knows what you do when someone like Charlie the Censor sues you. You lawyer up. If you're very lucky, you have funds to hire a good lawyer, or you can get the backing of extraordinary advocates like those at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. [...]

  6. July 4, 2012

    [...] Monday, Ken at Popehat reminded readers that, while Charles Carreon's behaviour is indeed outrageous and ridiculous at once, [...]

  7. July 11, 2012

    [...] Charles Carreon Threatens to sue “some time” Original Source: Pope Hat Additionally: BoingBoing [...]