Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:56 pm

105 Comments (In Which I Offer Apologies)

JP • Aug 3, 2013 @4:51 pm Wait…what? You going soft in your old age?

Michael Hawkins • Aug 3, 2013 @4:57 pm I feel conflicted about being called a raper by Carreon.

Ben • Aug 3, 2013 @4:59 pm Oh, their website's a charming play on the idea of rape. How classy.

Anyone who seeks to use the idea of rape as a tool of rhetoric, and in doing so weakens its proper use, has dragged any credibility they might have had with me out into the street and brutally executed it.

Not that the man – in the loosest possible meaning of the term here – had much to begin with, so I imagine this wouldn't trouble him much. But still, really? How low can you sink?

Adam Steinbaugh • Aug 3, 2013 @5:06 pm Man, I'm not listed as a raper even ONCE, not even vis-a-vis Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan, and David Blade (Superlawyer).

I'd try harder, but I don't know if I have the time, given that job that I apparently don't have.

(I seem to recall that Carreon's "rapeutationist" page listed my current job. I may be wrong. But it also looks like it's been updated to note that I externed for a firm that later briefly represented one of the Prenda characters. I feel like I might have mentioned that before…).

BaronLurk • Aug 3, 2013 @5:06 pm Thank goodness he feels (by omission) that The Prendanistas and Captain Pastetaster were justifiably mentioned.

SKT • Aug 3, 2013 @5:07 pm Waiting for someone to godwin this post. I'm not gonna do it.

Marc J. Randazza • Aug 3, 2013 @5:11 pm ALL YOUR RAPEUTATIONS ARE BELONG TO US!!!

Delvan Neville • Aug 3, 2013 @5:22 pm @BaronLurk: He actually speaks out against Prenda on the page Adam linked, specifically as a means to try to paint Adam in a bad light.

Adam worked for a little while at a firm that represents truly bad lawyers, like the Prenda Law Group fellas, whose conduct seemed so clearly criminal to Judge Otis D. Wright III that he referred these bad lawyers to the U.S. Attorney for investigation in a sanctions order. Adam scrounges around for praise from Ken Popehat White, and what good does it do him?

Matthew Cline • Aug 3, 2013 @5:26 pm Links to some of what Carreon is referring to:

Thomas Menino

Arizona legislature

Connecticut legislature

Chief of Police of the City of Berkeley

Meghan McCain

JDM • Aug 3, 2013 @5:31 pm Thought experiment:

If you object to the claims someone is making about people on the internet, then how would repeating them all help anything? Isn't that just one more site that now contains the claims (and associated names) that you find so objectionable.

On the other hand, if you've been awar from popehat for a while, Charles prepares a quite decent summary.

barry • Aug 3, 2013 @5:37 pm He probably meant 'rapiers'.

Bill • Aug 3, 2013 @5:47 pm At first glance I thought Rapper, not Raper. The thought of Ken bustin' a rhyme with Clark Beat Boxing in the background brought the LULZ, but then I saw it was just one P and the fun vanished.

Brian Tannebaum • Aug 3, 2013 @5:47 pm Thank you for leaving out that I was also listed as a raper.

Bill • Aug 3, 2013 @5:49 pm @Adam – if Ken ever forms the Rap Posse I envisioned a few minutes ago – he'd be well served to have you as his hype man, or perhaps even assisting Clark with the Beat Boxing.

Bill • Aug 3, 2013 @5:51 pm I thought I could get long winded and 'all over the place' – Jeeezus what is wrong with Carreon. He spent more time on that post then like, it took to write 50 internets worth of stuff. Dude needs help.

Lizard • Aug 3, 2013 @6:04 pm OK, for a little sense of perspective… I've spent all day today (and will spend all day tomorrow) finishing up my kickstarted pulp SF novel, which features, among other things, green-furred gorilla people, rat-lizards with trained riding snakes, and giant flying jellyfish used as transport by raiding parties against ships on a frictionless, solid, sea (all of this played 100% straight, BTW — this is not a parody), so keep in mind that this is the world my head is in 10-12 hours a day, these days, that you may fully understand when I say, in reference to Cameron's page, "WHAT DA FUQ DID I JUST READ???????", that I am not easily rattled by the bizarre or the incomprehensible. Cameron transcends all works of mere mundane creativity. This page is a glimpse into Lovecraftian depths of mad incoherence. Take 10d10 SAN loss and call me in the morning.

Pablo • Aug 3, 2013 @6:16 pm You victimized Mumbles Menino? And he's still standing? That's weak, dude.

Careless • Aug 3, 2013 @6:19 pm Weird stuff

Sharon • Aug 3, 2013 @6:21 pm I'm more impressed by victimizing a fictional character.

That takes some serious alt-worlding.

Jack B. • Aug 3, 2013 @6:32 pm Ken,

Just so you know, we don't give a damn about your bad rapeutation.

granny weatherwax • Aug 3, 2013 @6:33 pm Oh dear, he's not well, is he. After reading through a bit of that I'd give it six months before he starts posting stuff like you get on the timecube site

Mark C. • Aug 3, 2013 @6:37 pm Well, this is, after all the same people that uncovered Ken's secret Illuminati side via an amazing show of investigative skills.

Mark Draughn (Windypundit) • Aug 3, 2013 @6:43 pm The list skips from Donatelli to Electronic Frontiers Foundation, and then from Williams to Zaretsky…I feel like such a failure. I've said lots of terrible things about people: Scott Andringa, Tanya Treadway, Jim Pasco, Joe Arpaio, the Lima Ohio SWAT team, Carmen Ortiz — heck, I even said Arpaio he was like Hitler! — but just because I never got around to saying anything bad about Charles Carreon, I get left off his list of internet badasses.

Fuck you, Charles Carreon!

(It's worth a try.)

Allen Garvin • Aug 3, 2013 @7:04 pm My, Carreon has been blogging a lot in the past month or so. There's an entire retrospective on the whole Oatmeal thing. And a bunch of posts about his rapeutationists (is that the right word?):

They know the truth — one guy like Carreon is more dangerous than a thousand Obamas.
Which would you rather fight, one Obama-sized Carreon, or a thousand Carreon-sized Obamas?

barry • Aug 3, 2013 @7:31 pm By the power of Greyskull (the prophecy has been fulfilled (they shall be nuttier than Titor)).
I got here late and missed the early rounds of the Carreon saga, and had to read the "victims of popehat reign of terror" introduction paragraph a few times to figure out if it was satire, if he Was he making fun of David Wynn Miller or not, I had never heard of Miller before (the genesis of Truth language was when he "turned Hawaii into a verb"). But Carreon did use the phrase 'sovereign individual' earlier in the paragraph, so I'm now assuming he meant it.

And the self-heroic epic poem "The Tale of William Popehat Hearst" kind of confirms it.

[spoiler alert: it ends like this]

At this Popehat Hearst broke into tears,
Pulled a dagger from his boot
And plunged it in his chest
Crying, “Tell that bastard Carreon,
He made me do it.”
Hearst, you've got one (more) nutjob crazy mortal enemy there !

Ken White • Aug 3, 2013 @7:55 pm What really bothers me is that Carreon hasn't put Malshandir on there, either in his Elf or angry German incarnation.

Aaron • Aug 3, 2013 @8:19 pm I'll see if I can send him a tip, Ken.

Also, of note:

as shown in the chart on this page, he thinks Satirical David Blade and Takedown Hammer David Blade are the same (imaginary) person. I wonder if he'll ever realize they're different imaginary people.

Jeff Gamso • Aug 3, 2013 @9:02 pm I'm with Windy, cut to the quick that I didn't make the list.

Hell, Rakofsky's listed as a victim of your rapiness and he didn't even sue you.

satiricaltakedownlawyer • Aug 3, 2013 @9:08 pm @Aaron

Don't worry I have emailed him to inform him of his mistake (its pretty ridiculous for me to be both a raputationalist and a victim) and to tell him how honored I am to be listed as a raputationalist.

His reply:



Tali McPike • Aug 3, 2013 @9:11 pm @Adam
Considering he hates you almost as much as he hates Ken, I'm really surprised you aren't listed as a raper

Digi • Aug 3, 2013 @9:14 pm I'm so confused. Granted, that's a common state of being for me, but usually I can accept that state of being, and move on. Not this time. I can't quite comprehend what I am looking at. Is this a list of…the people 'popehat' has blogged on? I'd assume he really means the people Ken has blogged about, but the title indicates that the page is about the reputations that 'popehat' has raped. Uh. Okay then.

But…what on earth is this supposed to prove? Presumably, he wants to show how 'popehat' has been horribly marring the reputations of dozens of people, saying unwarranted and untrue things. I don't see that though. Its a gibberish of…quotes? I guess? And a VERY brief description on who these people are. There's zero context. And no attempt at actually refuting anything being said. It looks less like a table of marred reputations, and more like a summation of terrible people.

And then there's the giant chunk of Plato at the end of it all.

Jack B. • Aug 3, 2013 @9:15 pm Ken, this is what you get for complaining about the sorry caliber of arch-nemeses you have. Now Charles Carreon is going to team up with Joseph Rakofsky, Crystal Cox, David Blade, Marc Stephens, et al and form The League of Butthurt.

Joe Pullen • Aug 3, 2013 @9:16 pm What no mention of launching badgers at my face? Mr. Carreon must be slipping.

Jeremy H • Aug 3, 2013 @9:33 pm Gotta give him props. He did include a "snort my taint" reference in the Connecticut blurb.

nhrpolitic13 • Aug 3, 2013 @10:04 pm Oh look, the scroll of honor is even laid out like a statement of UMFs and everything – it must be legit! How cute!

pjcamp • Aug 3, 2013 @10:11 pm You probably killed Kenny too.

You bastard!

azteclady • Aug 3, 2013 @10:33 pm You may want to do a screen capture or two of that, before he decides is in his best interests to delete and deny.

Also, JackB, this is priceless:

Ken, this is what you get for complaining about the sorry caliber of arch-nemeses you have. Now Charles Carreon is going to team up with Joseph Rakofsky, Crystal Cox, David Blade, Marc Stephens, et al and form The League of Butthurt.
Thank you.

Anony Mouse • Aug 3, 2013 @11:11 pm Haven't you (or a cob) talked shit about PZ Myers, too? Does that make him a frenemy?

Michael Donnelly • Aug 3, 2013 @11:26 pm If brevity's a sin, then Charles Carreon is a fucking angel. That's all I can say after watching it zip by like an Xbox 360 EULA. Whee!

Jesse • Aug 3, 2013 @11:31 pm Holy crap that website is a trip. It's like lost pages from the script of American Psycho.

Tom • Aug 3, 2013 @11:37 pm @Anony Mouse

He's talked shit, agreed, and done both in the same post.

James Pope • Aug 4, 2013 @12:05 am Bless his heart…

He certainly doesn't know how to write effectively, does he? I mean, he's all over the place. It all sort of reads like the ramblings of a meth head or something. It's not cool, stay in school Mr. Carreon!

Salty • Aug 4, 2013 @12:16 am I just skimmed through a few of the posts on that blog.

They are for the most part incredibly boring, mercilessly long-winded, and entirely devoid on anything resembling a point. Well, except for the gist of most of them being "I don't like 'x'!" where is one of;
The internet
"People on social media"

I wasn't impressed. But then I read the words "Free Speech Mafia".

Charles Carreon just made my day.

Publius • Aug 4, 2013 @12:39 am Somewhat amusingly Carreon's "American Buddha" site is currently down; it redirects to a page asserting that the server went down on 27 July, that it will cost $2,500 to fix, and that the site will remain offline until the site's users donate enough money to cover the bill.

Carreon does, however, have enough money to keep this new "rapeutation" site online.

I find myself wondering what Siddhārtha Gautama would think about the sort of prioritization this suggests.

JonCB • Aug 4, 2013 @2:43 am Is your middle name really Popehat?

(sorry, I had to ask)

[REDACTED] • Aug 4, 2013 @3:25 am Now this makes me wish I'd started commenting here months ago.

Rich Fiscus • Aug 4, 2013 @3:43 am Until he apologizes for that offense against cogent thought and web design he really shouldn't be pointing any middle fingers.

James Burkhardt • Aug 4, 2013 @4:26 am Can't believe no one commented on his evidence of DDOS attacks. Aside from lacking key information of WHEN these attacks occured and TIME ELAPSED, he apparently claims the hackers hitting his computer used, amongst other things, Firefox 4.5 on a windows 98 machine.

skruuball • Aug 4, 2013 @5:31 am I read this blog sporadically. I quite literally almost choked on my coffee when I read the word "twunt".


Lewis Baumstark • Aug 4, 2013 @7:13 am He certainly doesn't know how to write effectively, does he? I mean, he's all over the place. It all sort of reads like the ramblings of a meth head or something. It's not cool, stay in school Mr. Carreon!
I was thinking the same thing. And this guy is a lawyer, one who has had (credit where due) some real success in his profession. My impression as a non-lawyer is that written communication skills are a must for success as a lawyer. Does he just shut down that part of his brain when he goes on these rants?

Kurt Wall • Aug 4, 2013 @7:16 am Gracious. What a spew. What exactly was that? My ADD kicked in too soon maybe? It read, and I use that word loosely, like the dude loaded a cannon with words, shot it at his blawg, and posted it. Whatever he's taking, he needs a lot more or a lot less.

Marc J. Randazza • Aug 4, 2013 @7:36 am Oh the humanity:

Tam • Aug 4, 2013 @7:53 am Ben,

"Anyone who seeks to use the idea of rape as a tool of rhetoric, and in doing so weakens its proper use, has dragged any credibility they might have had with me out into the street and brutally executed it."

So, trivializing rape by using it as a metaphor is bad but trivializing homicide by using it as a metaphor (in the same sentence!) is okay?

These evolving social norms confuse the fuck outta me.

JWH • Aug 4, 2013 @8:03 am Maybe I'm just dumb … but what the hell is Carreon talking about? His writing just seems incoherent. I can't get much aside from the fact that he really hates Ken.

Rich Fiscus • Aug 4, 2013 @8:32 am @Ben: Anyone who seeks to use the idea of rape as a tool of rhetoric, and in doing so weakens its proper use, has dragged any credibility they might have had with me out into the street and brutally executed it.

Rape has been a tool of rhetoric for a long time and I don't take it any less seriously in a literal context today than I did 10 or 20 years ago. Do you?

Mark • Aug 4, 2013 @8:46 am I think these guys have apparently thought they were the last bastion of sanity, enlightenment, and civility in the West World. The degree of symbiotic self-involvement reaches Mark David Chapman levels of crazy.

Shane • Aug 4, 2013 @8:52 am I have only one description that fits Charles Carrion. Batshit MoonHowler Crazy

grouch • Aug 4, 2013 @9:23 am
Oh the humanity:

Posting that link in public is wanton, malicious, deliberate mental mangling. Studies show that it can lead to incoherent babbleationess with avarice aforethought and diarrhea.
You shall hear from my lawyer, sir!

PubDef • Aug 4, 2013 @10:23 am Okay, now I understand this guy. If you read far enough down the page, you'll find this:

"Our courts became foreign jurisdictions, admiralty courts displaced to dry land, under a corrupted and altered flag."

He's one of those people.

Tam • Aug 4, 2013 @11:17 am PubDef,

Yeah, I'm actually a little disappointed that under the glorious crazy is a generic fringe-on-the-courtroom-flag kook.

Pedant • Aug 4, 2013 @11:29 am Well, I've resisted writing a comment for many (too many) years, but the Carreon comments have irked me into activity. No where on Carreon's site has he mentioned Chicago bus tickets. Nor ponies. Nor the various law suits I have read about.

Moreover, as a former resident of Boston, I can see anything wrong with kicking mumbles Menino as hard as possible.

And that's "Hedley"!

Adam Steinbaugh • Aug 4, 2013 @11:43 am Does anyone have any magic spells to suggest to ward off Ken's army of PRZs? Carreon wants to hear your suggestions.

Lizard • Aug 4, 2013 @11:55 am I want to be a made man in the Free Speech Mafia.

"So. Pretty nice racket in censorship and bullying you got here. But, ya see, me and the boys, see, we got our own little racket. Protection racket. We protect people's free speech. Guy you're tryin' to shut up, well, he's one of our customers. His speech is, what you might call, protected. And when we promise to protect someone's speech, then, their speech *gets* protected. You get it? So, when you try goin' after speech that's protected, it looks like you don't take us seriously. That's disrespectful. We don't like bein' disrespected, do we, boys?"

wgering • Aug 4, 2013 @11:58 am @Ken: I think you may be suffering from dysphasia, unless "sincerely apologize to" has become slang for "invite to snort my taint."

Bill • Aug 4, 2013 @12:11 pm @SatyricalTakedownLawyer – The only SDB I'm familiar with is Stupid Dumb Bitch? I looked it up and there's a few others apparently – any idea which he was referring to?

babaganusz • Aug 4, 2013 @1:08 pm oh fuck, did Conquistador-blooded Malshandir accidentally the whole thing?

babaganusz • Aug 4, 2013 @1:09 pm I want to be a made man in the Free Speech Mafia.
"nice expressions you got 'ere… we wouldn't want anyfing to 'appen to 'em…"

Tali McPike • Aug 4, 2013 @1:14 pm @Bill
I imaging the "SDB" stands for Satirical David Blade

babaganusz • Aug 4, 2013 @1:15 pm He spent more time on that post then like, it took to write 50 internets worth of stuff. Dude needs help.
wouldn't be surprised to find it was ghost-posted by the wife.

grouch • Aug 4, 2013 @1:20 pm The tone of Mr. White's post and the comments it has inspired may cause some people to doubt Mr. Carreon's veracity. It just so happens that the Prenda Law Open Thread ... en-thread/ included some information relevant to this just a few days ago.

see Nicholas Weaver ... nt-1087279 ... ocket.html

and Typenschild Delete ... nt-1087349 ... 7.54.1.pdf

The latter document provides an interesting background.

Vidiot • Aug 4, 2013 @1:51 pm Nice. My IP address at work (a large news TV network) is blacklisted from accessing the site.

LW • Aug 4, 2013 @2:09 pm I thought "SDB" was Self-Defeating Behavior: you're a villain and your own victim.

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 4, 2013 @2:31 pm Of course, however, Charles has other work he should be doing rather than ranting online.

Like writing a declaration explaining why his law practice isn't unlicensed practice of law. He also needs to find a new attorney in Oregon, because apparently the one currently representing him wants to run away, run away!!! from the Charles and Tara Crazy Show.

Perhaps Craigslist? It works for Prenda…

Mark • Aug 4, 2013 @3:21 pm The fun never ends: Chucles and Tara are the founders of a religion with a 5-billion year plan.

Check this out: wherein you'll find gems like this:

While we haven’t researched the statistics, and we wouldn’t trust them if we had, let us simply speculate that church-affiliated people enjoy higher rates of employment, lower rates of alcoholism and substance abuse, lowered feelings of alienation, and a general sense of well-adaptedness as compared with their faithless opposite numbers.

Bill • Aug 4, 2013 @3:28 pm @babaganusz I'm more inclined to think it was an AI program aimed at simulating monkeys randomly hitting keys on a keyboard for some theoretical period of time. Whatever it is, it seems like a cry for help ;-)

@Tali – Ahh, makes sense – thx

onehsancare • Aug 4, 2013 @4:53 pm @Nicholas Weaver: Thanks a lot. Here I am at work on a beautiful Sunday, and you provide me with a link to a case which should be free of nuttiness, having very good lawyers on both sides. But nooooo . . . four and a half months and 59 docket entries later, they can't even get an amended complaint filed or Carreon denied approval to appear as a lawyer!

We do learn, though, that Tara Carreon's blog was used against the plaintiff's lawyer. He says: "Applicant [Carreon] does not mention, however, his wife’s blog, which in mid-June, 2013, directed an ad hominem attack against this counsel, in the instant matter, and later savagely pilloried Recouvreur himself, posting a photo of Recouvreur’s wife, stating that 'One can’t help but visualize sexual violence between them' and after describing where plaintiff Recouvreur lives and advising readers to 'look this guy up,' posted an identifying photo of the Recouvreurs’ nine-year-old son, followed two weeks ago with another photo of the nine-year-old with a cartoon bubble in which he tells his father 'I just tore my teacher a new asshole;' yet another blog in which polar bears eat the nine-year-old, depicted again with an identifying photo; and yet another blog addressing the nine-year-old’s testicles."

Ick. Now I need to shower before I can finish the work I came in two hours ago to do!

Analee • Aug 4, 2013 @5:21 pm The League of Butthurt might need some of this:

Analee • Aug 4, 2013 @5:21 pm BAH! It didn't post le picture right!

Uh, a little help s'il vous plait? How do I image code here?

Laura K • Aug 4, 2013 @5:26 pm You know…that time River tries to 'fix' Shepherd Book's bible makes more sense than that website.

Lizard • Aug 4, 2013 @5:52 pm River Tam is a telepathic super-genius ninja assassin who lives in a spaceship.

Still more of a believable character than Charles Carreon.

JimBob • Aug 4, 2013 @6:56 pm You know, he might be Charles Carreon, douchebag extraordinaire, but perhaps we're jumping to conclusions a little too quickly, here.

I suppose, in defense of the shit-eating-crazy bastard, we could point out that branding Ken a "rapeutationist" falls very squarely into the "more speech" category of responses to disagreement, which is something that Ken frequently (and eloquently) advocates on this blog.

And, as Ken has pointed out in the past, "more speech" does not necessarily imply "more cogent speech" or "speech worth giving a damn about". And Carreon has absolutely helped out in that regard as well, making his screeds damn-near incoherent in content and garishly unreadable in presentation– so that few readers will feel compelled to take him seriously.

Ken, maybe this is Chucky's way of letting you know that he has come around to your way of thinking. Perhaps this is a sign that your ideas have finally won him over.

Lizard • Aug 4, 2013 @7:08 pm JimBob: I suspect Charles Carreon is projecting his own inability to accept or ignore any criticism onto Ken, and hopes/assumes Ken will sue him, so he can jump up and down and scream "I told you so! I told you so!" and feel properly victimized and oppressed.

Ed • Aug 4, 2013 @7:09 pm You obviously need to be on the Group "W" bench with the other father rapers.

babaganusz • Aug 4, 2013 @9:27 pm JimBob: i hope you are well sustained, in tribute to your "in-just-the-right-light"ing design.

Lizard: if C. "conquistadorhead" and T. "jiltedbynader" Carreon can even combine their [drug?AZ?law?nader?oestia?]-addled forces to muster the craft necessary to manipulate Ken into overreacting, they've done a brain-soothingly thorough job of giving… any other impression.

Anony Mouse • Aug 4, 2013 @11:17 pm Thanks Mark, for reminding us that no matter how nutty Charles is, he ain't got nothin' on his wife.

Seth • Aug 5, 2013 @3:12 am Airing of grievances fails without any mention of Big Porn.

Robert White • Aug 5, 2013 @4:47 am I highly recommend "John Dies At The End", though it does have a little penis and potty humour elements that sometimes slam the moment into literary brick wall. (Book or Movie, though the two are highly divergent for practical reasons.)

I mention this because early in the work "David", the main character and narrator calls a priest and in that conversation asks the priest what it is like to go mad. The priest, "Father Shellnut" says:

"Well, they never know they're ill, do they? I mean, you can't diagnose yourself with the same organ that has the disease, just like you can't see your own eyeball. I suppose you just feel regular, and the rest of the world seems to go crazy around you."

Whenever a Carreon speaks I think of this sad, terrible version of reality they are slipping into with all earnestness.


Robert White • Aug 5, 2013 @4:58 am Well who would want little, or flaccid porn and what could it possibly accomplish?

Ebeth • Aug 5, 2013 @8:20 am I tried to read that Rapeutation post. Really, I did. What has me scratching my head (other than the obvious) is: Was Carreon just feeling irrelevant and forgotten? Is he sad that the internet was beginning to forget him?

Darryl • Aug 5, 2013 @8:37 am I see nothing on his website where he admits he was ordered to pay attorney's fees to Inman. You would think that if something was sooooo frivolous, the court would not have ordered him to pay attorney's fees. When will we see that little tidbit on his "personal diary" on the website?

Gunnutmegger • Aug 5, 2013 @8:48 am The CT legislature deserves to be terrorized. ... economies/

Let me know where to contribute to the ongoing infliction of terror on these crapweasels.

En Passant • Aug 5, 2013 @9:12 am Ken White wrote Aug 3, 2013 @7:55 pm:

What really bothers me is that Carreon hasn't put Malshandir on there, either in his Elf or angry German incarnation.
Because he doesn't want to risk violating the trademark on your new soothing ointment.

He just contemplated the tyrannizing that a gang of intarnetz rapers could do if he gave them an opening like that.

John Thinkishness • Aug 5, 2013 @10:43 am If this was ever made into a movie, the tagline would either be "The ramblings of the self deluded" or "The man who was a legend in his own mind".

Or maybe it will be just shot as the sequel to "Tree of Life".

Regardless, this is the funniest thing I've read all morning. I especially like the fake enlightenment/zen bits where he claims to be completely above the fray, while throwing out passive-aggressive accusations against those that he thinks are against him.

Now back to work.

BaronLurk • Aug 5, 2013 @11:53 am Isn't The League of Butthurt a reserved name by the Prendanista's for one of their next LLCs?

John Anderson • Aug 6, 2013 @7:32 am The butthurt is strong in this one…

Caleb • Aug 6, 2013 @12:14 pm Obvious symptoms of mental illness aside, Carreon's post to which Adam linked has probably the most metal description of the Popehat signal in action I've read:

Popehat’s Reddit Zombies (PRZs) take up the cry. “Popehat is here! Popehat is here!” The sound of verbal knives unsheathing resounds like ten-thousand cavalrymen drawing their sabers before the attack. Popehat fires the first cannon-blast and there’s a mighty shout, a charge, and the melee begins. Truth is the first victim of this war, and soon the most energetic, most witless PRZs move with storm-trooper speed, and their waves of obloquy push virulent threads pulsing with lies to the top spots on Google overnight. The Free Speech Mafia responds to the Popehat signal, the pro bono defenders of nasty talk mount their armored vehicles, and the victim wakes to find himself in occupied territory. Outside his windows, weird siege machines are being rolled into place.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war! Ken, you need to invest in a Napoleonic commander's uniform.

Ryan • Aug 6, 2013 @12:46 pm I am stunned that Carreon willingly is affiliating himself with the content of that website. If there were ever a way to commit career and character suicide on the Internet, I think he just mastered it.


Allen • Aug 6, 2013 @1:00 pm Maybe something is wrong with me but I loved reading Carreon's posts. I actually read all of them. He strikes me as quite an intelligent person, but with a definite skew from the normal.

Hi my name is Allen and I'm a gawker. I just can't help myself from watching trainwrecks.

barry • Aug 6, 2013 @5:57 pm @JWH

what the hell is Carreon talking about? His writing just seems incoherent. I can't get much aside from the fact that he really hates Ken.
There is also a bit of "I'm smart and everyone else is dumb" going on there.
eg on juries in "The Spirit of Surrender" he says:

They’re doing more real brainwork than they’ve done in years. They want to deliver a verdict.

I was the prosecutor who at first went over the heads of the juries..
Saying things that nobody else could follow might have made him think the problem was theirs.

Dave • Aug 6, 2013 @11:17 pm I for one would like to thank Mr Carreon for providing such an excellent table of some of Ken's greatest 'hits'. While you can browse through Popehat and enjoy the posts, I haven't come across such a wonderful omnibus of the best bits consolidated on a single page before.

JT • Aug 7, 2013 @6:51 am @Publius

RE: The crash of American Buddha's server

Though my Sanskrit is a little rusty, I believe the appropriate response translates as "karma is a bitch."

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 7, 2013 @11:58 am Also, mark your calendar's. Charles Carreon's "No I shouldn't have to pay Paul Levy" reply brief is due on August 21st.

The problem Charles faces: the best way he could have avoided this mess was to claim "I was a douchebag but not an extraordinary douchebag".

Yet his behavior with regard to dragging things out, including discovery, a third party subpoena to Ken, and other such actions seemingly intended to only vex and annoy, is going to make it really hard for Charles to make the case on appeal.

So break out the popcorn, I expect Vintage Carreon Legal Analysis.

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 7, 2013 @12:00 pm If there were ever a way to commit career and character suicide on the Internet, I think he just mastered it.
Charles didn't have much of a career before the Oatmeal letter blew up in his face. How can you kill what was already dead?

LT • Aug 7, 2013 @2:20 pm Carreon may be a bit too busy to answer. Apparently the lawyer he had in the Penguin case has, according to the minutes of the Aug. 1st meeting, decided to cut his losses and run like hell.

A smart move, all things considered. Carreon keeps digging himself deeper into his pile of pig shit expecting to hit a gold mine- all he's going to hit is a pocket of methane.

LT • Aug 7, 2013 @2:22 pm Ah, crap, that was supposed to go in the open letter post. Ah well.
Site Admin
Posts: 31753
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:58 pm

121 Comments (An Open Letter To Charles Carreon)

bonez565 • Aug 7, 2013 @12:39 pm Yes please! This would be amazing!

Lizard • Aug 7, 2013 @12:40 pm Dibs on "Carreon will insist this is another form of harassment, as no matter how self-evidently rational, correct, and brilliant his posts are, your deluded and brainwashed army of free speech mafia zombies will attack it, and him" in the pool.

tmitsss • Aug 7, 2013 @12:40 pm Definition of GAUNTLET
1: a glove worn with medieval armor to protect the hand

2: any of various protective gloves used especially in industry

3: an open challenge (as to combat) —used in phrases like throw down the gauntlet

Exodor • Aug 7, 2013 @12:43 pm I'm going to need ALL THE POPCORN.

Stephen • Aug 7, 2013 @12:46 pm So is the Moderator selling the popcorn, or do I have to bring my own?

John Ammon • Aug 7, 2013 @12:46 pm You sir, are a gentleman.

"You tell 'em Steve-Dave!"

Brian Tannebaum • Aug 7, 2013 @12:48 pm I never understood the "open letter" thing. If the letter is written for everyone to see, isn't it by definition a….OK never mind, I'm just being an asshole.

Dan • Aug 7, 2013 @12:50 pm Set up a very modest pay wall for the debate and you wouldn't need another Amazon click-through for ten years.

Duncan Byers • Aug 7, 2013 @12:50 pm My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Dirkmaster • Aug 7, 2013 @12:53 pm Trying to hold a rational conversation with a slobbering madman does nothing to change the madman's views. It is a waste of time. You reveal what everyone already knows, that the madman is not rational.

mmmwright • Aug 7, 2013 @12:53 pm Oh, I'm IN! Running to begin popping some corn now. I want to be ready for this smackdown!

Anonymous Coward • Aug 7, 2013 @1:13 pm I'll submit my prediction for what's about to happen – Carreon will waffle, weasel, and squirm around in every direction to avoid getting into this debate. He'll call it a sham, claim that you'll cheat on the terms and/or have a biased moderator to edit his words, say that you'll use your fanbase to spread lies about what's being said, etc. Doubtless, he'll be extremely reluctant to even enter into negotiation for terms, and he'll draw out even any pre-negotiations as long as possible.

He'll say that you're afraid to debate him honestly and openly, in spite of all facts. He'll say that you're afraid of what he's proposing – that it's so self evidently right that you're attacking it in terror. If you can manage to get him to agree to even negotiate terms, CC will weasel, renegotiate endlessly, and leave himself several outs and loopholes in any agreement. During all of this prolonged process, if you lose your cool or slip up even once he'll immediately declare that you're doing all of this in bad faith, declare victory, and run away.

If he starts losing during the debate, he'll say that you've violated the letter or spirit of the rules and declare victory as he runs away to his website. Actually getting him to go the full three rounds will be at best unlikely, no matter what you manage to do.

Or maybe he's a good but deluded sort, and he'll go along with everything honestly. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, and we'll see an honestly done debate that leaves both parties feeling like they've had a fair say.

I'm betting that this will take a lot more dedication to see through than you think, Ken, and I hope that you have the time, energy, and inclination to see it done. Good luck.

Scote • Aug 7, 2013 @1:13 pm " 1. We will each pick one nominee…"
I think the more apt term might be "seconds." :-)

JWH • Aug 7, 2013 @1:14 pm Winner gets a pony?

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 7, 2013 @1:15 pm Ken, be kind to Charles…

He really should be working, after all, he needs to explain to the appeals court why he wasn't an extraordinary douchebag in the Satirical Charles case, and he has to explain to the court in Oregon why practicing law out of his office in Tucson for the past 2 years hasn't violated the Arizona Bar's Unlicensed Practice of Law regulations.

I suspect this is really a plot to distract Charles from the much-needed work he needs to complete in the next couple of weeks. You really are oppressing him…

John • Aug 7, 2013 @1:15 pm "7. The moderator can be empowered to delete personal attacks, or not, at your option."

I might go so far as to add 7.5:

"If deleted attacks are allowed to be removed at your option, a wholly unedited version of the conversation shall be made available X days after the completion of the debate."

Kilroy • Aug 7, 2013 @1:15 pm Never argue with an idiot; he will bring you down to his level and win from experience.

Jens Fiederer • Aug 7, 2013 @1:16 pm "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

– Heinlein

John • Aug 7, 2013 @1:17 pm (or, you know, 'If personal attacks are allowed….' if I could manage to fast as think as I type.)

Dangerboy • Aug 7, 2013 @1:24 pm Lizard beat me to it. But if this does happen, I so wanna see it. Because I am a brainwashed zombie, after all. I just crave my brains in a readable format.

JT • Aug 7, 2013 @1:25 pm You mean a real debate? With rules and everything? I sorta like the blogwars instead. It's more fun when the opposition shows up uninvited in the comment threads. But go ahead with your grown-up, rational discourse, if that's what makes you happy. [Envisioning let-down on the order of the Palin/Biden debate....]

ChrisTS • Aug 7, 2013 @1:29 pm Can someone tell what, if anything happened to Craig Britten and the other dude?

Bill • Aug 7, 2013 @1:35 pm I wish Intrade would take bets on this..

Union Blue Val • Aug 7, 2013 @1:38 pm You know, Charles really is the gift that keeps on giving. Bless his heart, its been over a year and the "internet lawyer" still doesn't understand the Streisand Effect and the perils of continually poking at men in Popehats with blogs.

Michael Donnelly • Aug 7, 2013 @1:43 pm Ah, nothing more than a complex method of saying "back up your statements", constructed with enough humor value to entertain your readers. But, still, logic is not the appropriate tool to use when attempting to solve this lock.

Full disclosure: I was entertained.

Swimmy • Aug 7, 2013 @1:57 pm I doubt Carreon will accept. Not because he's "afraid"–he's shown no sign at all that he fears further damage to his reputation, if anything he seems to be seeking it. But as a fundamental trait of his character, Carreon does not believe in the spirit of a debate: "Speech should be met with counterspeech." Carreon instead believes that speech he doesn't like should be met with legal bullying. Why should he agree to a debate when he thinks a better way to settle disagreements is through unconstitutional legal pressure?

Have any of the major feminist blogs been made aware of "rapeutation"? Carreon's casual comparison of a traumatic event that frequently causes PTSD with people calling you a douchebag on a blog is sure to be popular with Jezebel and Shakesville writers. If Carreon thinks Ken was vicious. . .

David • Aug 7, 2013 @2:10 pm You don't make trouble, Ken, but you poke it with a stick when you come across it in the woods.

Al • Aug 7, 2013 @2:23 pm Do it, Charles. There's absolutely no way you'll end up looking like a fool so what do you have to loose?

Unless, of course, you're chicken. You're not chicken are you, Charles?

Ryan • Aug 7, 2013 @2:25 pm I heard a new "arguing on the Internet" adage the other day that may apply to any 'debate' with Mr. Carreon:

Arguing on the Internet is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. No matter how well-thought-out and executed your moves, sooner or later the pigeon is going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around like it won.

Words to live by, I think. I admire what Ken's trying to do, but I think he's just setting himself up for [more?] grey hair and/or hair loss [after he tears it out].

Darryl • Aug 7, 2013 @2:26 pm Is that THIS Charles H. Carreon?

grouch • Aug 7, 2013 @2:27 pm I predict nothing more than the sound of crickets.

Union Blue Val • Aug 7, 2013 @2:39 pm Oh, and I am so happy I haven't looked at the Rapeutation page in months…

Here I'd thought the fun was over, only to click on the link and discover a diary that's not actually a diary, replete with photos of Charles in odd poses and funny hats (from my gravatar, you can see that I also like funny hats).

Here is Charlie – posing by his pool / "cantina," at his desk, with his gee-tar… and comparing himself to "Zumbi do Paumares and Ganga Zumba" who led a Brazilian slave / maroon uprising.

Um, yeah… Because if anything is similar to the threat / pain of being taken and held as a slave on a sugar plantation in colonial Brazil, its the threat / pain of being an American lawyer who is butthurt from the Streisand Effect he brought on himself.

You hang tough, Charlie boy. I'm sure that somewhere, Ganga Zumba is weeping for you.

Please God, let him say yes to the debate… (popcorn popping).

David • Aug 7, 2013 @2:58 pm I'd have to say that In light of this letter, Occam's Razor tells us that Ken has recently purchased stock in Big Popcorn.

Warren Vita • Aug 7, 2013 @3:16 pm What are the odds that Charles will pick David Blade as his nominee? I hear that guy's a pretty good lawyer…

Capt Dingleberry • Aug 7, 2013 @3:17 pm @ Lizard:

If I were a betting man/women/thingy, then yeah, hammer…nail…head…

Bob Brown • Aug 7, 2013 @3:20 pm Others have put forth this idea in different words, but here in the South we say, "Never rassle with a pig. You get all dirty and the pig likes it."

Dan Weber • Aug 7, 2013 @3:23 pm Yeah, the best case scenario is that you look awesome and Chuck looks like a goof. But that's the situation right now.

Salty • Aug 7, 2013 @3:32 pm As a totally interested spectator and consumer of popcorn, I would like to volunteer myself as a candidate for said moderator should this challenge be taken up.

naught_for_naught • Aug 7, 2013 @3:52 pm In the voice of Jessie Pinkman, "Yeah, Mr. White — going all Lincoln-Douglas and shit."

John Ammon • Aug 7, 2013 @3:54 pm
John Ammon • Aug 7, 2013 @3:55 pm WHY NO IMAGES!!!

Capt Dingleberry • Aug 7, 2013 @4:04 pm @ Al:

Nicely done but your effort does luck subtlety, somehow. Let's see…

Oi Charlie, better put your debating slippers on or the pony will get it!

barry • Aug 7, 2013 @4:12 pm If Don King was still alive (oh yeah, he might be) this would be; "Grudge Match in the Web Patch" or "Slog in the Blog", and he'd have the popcorn monopoly, and people would wait for months to see it if actually happened.

Ann • Aug 7, 2013 @4:53 pm Hadn't thought about Charles or Rapeutation in a lonnnnng time. Glad to see Tara still enjoys making art out of my face.

Looking forward to your…um…reasoned discussion with him.

Ollie • Aug 7, 2013 @4:55 pm @Ann, off topic, but you haven't posted anything new in a long time. I miss the insightful things you had to say! After the chuckles and oatmeal debacle I've been checking regularly. Have you stopped blogging?

Ann • Aug 7, 2013 @5:02 pm Thanks, Ollie. I had to take a sanity break after getting so much hate mail on some of my posts. You know. In lieu of doing rigorous research on all my critics in order to compile an entire website about how butthurt I was over getting hate mail. ;)

Ollie • Aug 7, 2013 @5:12 pm Well, just remember, there are usually a lot more people supporting you than there are criticising you. The ones criticising you are just more likely to act like assholes and be loud and obnoxious about it. I hope you start writing again soon, because you have a lot of really good things to say.

Steve Simmons • Aug 7, 2013 @5:51 pm Carreon will never accept. A moderator means he can't spew.

wgering • Aug 7, 2013 @5:54 pm 2. The moderator will choose where online to post our respective input in the debate.

Ken Hamer • Aug 7, 2013 @5:59 pm I think a "rain of terriers" more likely.

Trebuchet • Aug 7, 2013 @6:02 pm Carreon's most likely responses:
1. Ignore the gauntlet completely, or…
2. File a lawsuit!

Somehow I predict the latter.

Off Topic: I've been unbanned at last! Thank you David. (Ken's IT guy, I guess.)

Tice with a J • Aug 7, 2013 @6:23 pm I'm glad to see that Charles Carreon has decided to try combating speech with more speech, but I am dismayed to see that he is referencing rape in a manner both cavalier and persistent. Also, this DIRA business is a terrible idea. It amounts to a limit on speech because that speech might incite…more speech. I hope Mr. Carreon agrees to this debate, because I want to see this bad idea fully exposed and cross-examined, so that it will wither like a vampire in the sun.

M. Alan Thomas II • Aug 7, 2013 @6:30 pm Carreon's known for continually digging himself in deeper. Hard to predict how he'll jump, I think.

barry • Aug 7, 2013 @6:53 pm "Submitted: the tort of Distributed Internet Reputational Attack, as proposed by Mr. Carreon, cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment as interpreted by modern courts, nor with the value of freedom of expression."
Interesting example (and trying to sound unbiassed in the hope of scoring a ticket to the big event if they are limited)..

This looks like there are two elements; the reputational attack element, and the distributive element.
I don't see any free-speech-mafia problems with the first bit. A 'reputational attack' is defamation, and where the free-speech line is drawn on that doesn't have to change with the number of people doing it. What speech is already protected can stay protected for a DIRA

The 'distributed' aspect is trickier, it sounds similar to 'conspiracy', but not quite. (it might fit the Assange idea of conspiracy, but that doesn't count). Would "I thought it was just me" be a defense?. Sometimes I skip over a few comments in a blog. Would there have to be an assumption that people commenting on a blog have read all the previous comments before they post? (or any of it? or even the blog itself?).

If someone comments; "ha ha, I agree!", is that enough to make them part of it? Lumping what a lot of people say together won't work because they won't all be saying the same thing. And it wouldn't be any less complicated than going after everyone individually anyway.

But (ignoring the whole free will problem) if a DIRA is like a DDOS/zombie attack, and only the zombie-king being counted responsible, that sounds like ordinary defamation except having supporters now making it worse, with extra punishment for being logical and/or popular.
And if someone thrashes their own reputation, and people find it amusing or outrageous enough to pile on, doesn't that make them the zombie-king ?

Ryan Voots • Aug 7, 2013 @7:06 pm There's a place next door to me where I can get some 50 pound bags of kernels and some oil. Anyone got a kettle we can use for the popcorn?

Mike G. • Aug 7, 2013 @7:12 pm I'm not a fan of popcorn, but I will bring a loaf of Rye bread, a jar of Peanut Butter and a bunch of Bananas.

G Joubedt • Aug 7, 2013 @7:20 pm For a lawyer holding himself out as practicing internet law he seems incredibly ignorant of how the internet works and has worked for the 20 years I've been online.

SharonA • Aug 7, 2013 @8:17 pm I'd like to see the debate. I'd even moderate it, and commit to posting Ken & Charles' statements and responses unedited. Not that you'd have any shortage of volunteers.

Looking forward to learning stuff here … I'd be reading such a debate for the education more than the entertainment :) That's actually why, if it were my vote, I'd want to see it without comments in the actual debate thread until the question is closed. The pile-on from the readers could very easily obscure the points of the debaters ;)

Ah well, enough dreaming, back to work …

azteclady • Aug 7, 2013 @8:38 pm Dirkmaster:

Trying to hold a rational conversation with a slobbering madman does nothing to change the madman's views. It is a waste of time. You reveal what everyone already knows, that the madman is not rational.
I beg to differ.

It is not a waste of time if it provides infinite entertainment for the masses.

And with all the popcorn and other assorted snacks sold around the world, Ken is actually stimulating the economy. Win, whichever way you look at it.

IgnatzEsq • Aug 7, 2013 @9:04 pm I hate to say it, but I think Mark Bennett's ten rules apply here.

Rule 1: "If you don’t have to deal with a crazy per­son, don’t." ... ality.html

Analee • Aug 7, 2013 @9:24 pm I can make grilled cheese sandwiches for those who want dinner before their popcorn! (And who, you know, actually LIKE grilled cheese sandwiches.)

Alan Bleiweiss • Aug 7, 2013 @10:15 pm If this new DIRA thing becomes law, wouldn't Tara Carreon be subject of the first lawsuit? I mean do the fifty voices in her head count as "distributed"?

Alan Bleiweiss • Aug 7, 2013 @10:18 pm As a follow-up additional question:

If DIRA becomes law, and then Carreon posts shit about Ken, wouldn't Carreon be a target of such a lawsuit since his attacks are "distributed" across the interwebs?

Jules • Aug 7, 2013 @10:26 pm Uh-oh, Ken's bored…

Black Betty • Aug 7, 2013 @10:36 pm Analee,

I LOVE grilled cheese sandwiches. I'll take 4!

AlphaCentauri • Aug 7, 2013 @10:41 pm We need to have a protected forum for non-combatants, where we can decide which words and phrases will be the signal to drink a shot …

Tice with a J • Aug 7, 2013 @11:03 pm I hate to contradict advice that has been useful to me (while I've not heard of Mark Bennett before, his 10 rules are an excellent summation of guidance I've received from many others), but I must state that there is one great benefit of dealing with a crazy person: exposing the madness.

See, people may not realize that a given person is unhinged, or foolish, or mean or hypocritical or any number of bad traits that you'd prefer to know about someone before associating with them. People can keep certain aspects of themselves hidden, perhaps not well hidden but well enough that you might not notice if you're not careful. As long as this trait goes unexposed, they pose a hidden threat to everyone who might befriend them or work with them.

But if you bring this trait out into the open and let it shine for the world to see, then at last everyone has the knowledge they need to assess this person and determine if they're worth the trouble.

Ken has laid out a fair challenge to Charles. This speaks well of what sort of person Ken is. How Charles responds to the challenge will tell us more about what sort of person Charles is (of course, his "Rapeutation" site already tells us a lot about what sort of person he is, so perhaps the challenge is unnecessary at this point).

AlphaCentauri • Aug 7, 2013 @11:26 pm Carreon isn't some random psycho standing on the corner shouting at passing cars. He's a fellow attorney, and Ken is treating him as such by offering a venue for him to make use of the skills he was trained for. The question is whether Carreon's wacky web site is the unfortunate result of a stubborn person digging himself deeper and deeper as things went on, or whether Carreon no longer has the mental capability he once had.

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 8, 2013 @5:16 am don't see any free-speech-mafia problems with the first bit. A 'reputational attack' is defamation, and where the free-speech line is drawn on that doesn't have to change with the number of people doing it. What speech is already protected can stay protected for a DIRA
The problem is, that speech that makes up a "DIRA" IS protected, since otherwise there would be no need for the DIRA (someone should backronym DERPY for the same idea) "tort", you just sue under existing libel laws and precident.

Thus DIRA can only exist as a new tort to sue when existing libel laws don't apply, thus its fundamental incompatibility with 1st amendment principles.

Stephen • Aug 8, 2013 @5:34 am Off Topic: I've been unbanned at last! Thank you David. (Ken's IT guy, I guess.)

Ohhh, he's not going to like that. :D

He's a blogger here as well – generally on topics of art history.

Mark • Aug 8, 2013 @6:36 am Easily the most fascinatingly long, complete, and complex "Come at me bro" I've ever seen in written form. Bravo!

Jag • Aug 8, 2013 @7:22 am @Nicholas Weaver: the tort of Distributed Electronic Reputational Provocation.

JT • Aug 8, 2013 @7:26 am Side topic: reading through previous Carreon lawsuits and found these. WTH?? Trolling the court? ... 4.26.0.pdf ... 4.27.0.pdf

Christopher Jorgensen • Aug 8, 2013 @7:32 am I never understood the open letter thing either. Put a stamp on this bad boy and mail it to him.

I can't tell if this post is an honest attempt at engagement, a taunt of the mentally ill, satire, or a proposed popularity contest. You have to know he's not going to take you up on this. You might as well have proposed flintlocks at and told him your seconds will call on his in the morning.

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 8, 2013 @7:39 am @Jag…

Very cool. But don't forget the tort of "Distributed Electronic Reputational Provocation, Yo!"

mcinsand • Aug 8, 2013 @8:07 am This does leave the little guy in a tough spot. He has to either put up or participate in showing his lack of standing. If he comes back at you, he has to have his facts straight, or he will be helping to further dismantle his reputation. If he ignores the challenge, then he is effectively acknowledging that he just doesn't have the goods… which will also help to further dismantle his reputation.

Which will be the lesser loss?

JT • Aug 8, 2013 @8:11 am I interpret DIRA as ICHAS, which is I Can Has Acronym Syndrome. We have an epidemic of it in academia.

mcinsand • Aug 8, 2013 @8:31 am Where I have been in industry, the project acronym gets way too much attention. I have been in rush projects where there would be a long meeting to come up with the acronym, taking time away from getting actual work done.

Dan Weber • Aug 8, 2013 @9:06 am JT: that guy is someone separate who saw that this case was getting some attention and decided to inject his own crazy.

The president gets sued hundreds or thousands of times a year by crazy people. This is one of those crazy people. Like SMTP, the court system has very poor controls on people injecting whatever they want into it.

Dirkmaster • Aug 8, 2013 @9:28 am azteclady

"It is not a waste of time if it provides infinite entertainment for the masses."
Perhaps, but Charles' venom is disturbing enough to lessen's it's entertainment value.

Tice with a J

"exposing the madness."
That website isn't good enough for you?

[Fixed markup -D@P]

Dirkmaster • Aug 8, 2013 @9:33 am Well, my first attempt at quotes is an unmitigated disaster. I humbly beg forgiveness.

I was TRYING to tell Azteclady that the entertainment value of Carreon is diminished due to his vitriol.

And I was trying to reply to Tice with a J that we don't need to expose the madness because Charles' website makes it painfully obvious to the most casual observer that he's a nutcase of the first order.

Again, sorry for the sloppy code above.

robert • Aug 8, 2013 @9:46 am Please give Charles another chance, as he's in difficult situation related to freedom of speech court case in New York.

It is possible that he learned his lessons from dealing with us, and may be trying to be a better Internet citizen.

Darryl • Aug 8, 2013 @10:06 am Poor Ken. Tara Carreon evidently believes he should just "SHUT UP!"


(Well, at least their survivor bulletin board has five members).

Darryl • Aug 8, 2013 @10:07 am OK, technically "shunned", but you get the point.

sorrykb • Aug 8, 2013 @10:17 am @Nicholas Weaver and Jag:
"Distributed Electronic Reputational Provocation, on the Internet"
It's like HADOPI, only with more derp.

Aonghus • Aug 8, 2013 @10:52 am Am I the only one who's hear a crowd chant "Two men enter, One man leaves!"?

Union Blue Val • Aug 8, 2013 @10:58 am Well, I just checked out the raputation survivors' board, and "as the Native Americans would say, and she is beautiful."

That kind of quote is what pisses me off most about Charles Carreon and his ilk. They are exactly the kind of posers that constantly throw in bland, irrelevant references to historically oppressed groups in order to give their own banal ramblings the appearance of depth.

Worse still, they appropriate truly horrific experiences of others to give expression to their butthurt. I mean Charles actually has the cojones to compare himself to rape survivors, Brazilian slaves, and victims of the Nazis. That's fucked up.

On that note, I would love to see Ken destroy Charlie's "raputation" in a debate.

JT • Aug 8, 2013 @11:58 am @Dan

I think the second one (#27) is more troll than crazy.

SharonA • Aug 8, 2013 @12:07 pm Please don't scare Charles off from the debate.

I honestly want to hear his analysis and explanation.

ZarroTsu • Aug 8, 2013 @12:18 pm I propose the debate takes place on Objection.

Oh yes.

JT • Aug 8, 2013 @12:21 pm @Union

Add to that Abu Ghraib torture victims. It's there, the first reply to Charles, written by Tara. My favorite trope in their whole oeuvre is "Those stupid Nazi asshole bastards really hurt us with all their name calling."

James Pollock • Aug 8, 2013 @12:30 pm "Thus DIRA can only exist as a new tort to sue when existing libel laws don't apply, thus its fundamental incompatibility with 1st amendment principles."
This does not follow.
First off, DIRA sounds closer to incitement than to defamation, so it's probably closer to the tort of interference in business relationship than to libel, and nobody, to my knowledge, has argued that awarding damages for tortious interference in business relationship is categorically barred by the first amendment.
Second, the first amendment limits Congress. It does not limit private parties. The first amendment almost certainly prevents DIRA from becoming recognized as a criminal offense; being recognized as a tort is a different question.

Ken White • Aug 8, 2013 @1:33 pm Second, the first amendment limits Congress. It does not limit private parties. The first amendment almost certainly prevents DIRA from becoming recognized as a criminal offense; being recognized as a tort is a different question.
James, this is quite misleading. The First Amendment applies to private causes of action like defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. The reason — among others — is that the state (in the form of the court system) is enforcing these private causes of action.

But the entire body of defamation law is premised on the First Amendment applying to private causes of action, and it would apply equally to this cause of action.

Darryl • Aug 8, 2013 @1:46 pm @James–I know that at least here in Texas you cannot prove tortious interference with business relationships unless you show conduct that is "independently tortious." Merely speaking about someone, or giving your opinoin about them, would not be independently tortious, therefore no tortious interference claim would lie.

Lucius • Aug 8, 2013 @2:48 pm I've never seen Charles Carreon's name in a positive context, and this offer could change that if he is up to it. He may seem odd, or even insane, but does express himself well. To raise his reputation, all he has to do to win is to make intelligent arguments sharply focussed on the topic at hand.

Whether Ken also makes good arguments is irrelevant. Charles would forever be able to point to a respectable showing making coherent arguments against a worthy adversary. He posts all the negative things said about him on his website. With a respectable showing, he could now post a very positive display of himself for a change. Either way, he would be free to use it with whatever spin he cares to add later.

Given Charles Carreon's present status, he has everything to gain and little to lose by engaging in the debate. This is an event to be embraced, not avoided.

barry • Aug 8, 2013 @5:17 pm Thus DIRA can only exist as a new tort to sue when existing libel laws don't apply
Yep, I think I get it now (having since read his legal analysis" (sometimes guessing just isn't enough)). Defamation is only #1 of 8. It's a lot more extreme than I had assumed. And #4 about the third party emails would be a nasty law.

I am still a bit confused if he means the individual posts would have to be unlawful or not. At first he says the speech has to "provoke unlawful conduct",but later he says " I don’t think the underlying acts all have to be independently unlawful to make IDIRA actionable.". Maybe 'some' unlawful acts will make the others unlawful too?) of course I have no idea what "underlying" means now either.

(But he can get a pass on being a few Henrys late in his 'foreseeabililty' example. There were way too many Henrys.)

Union Blue Val • Aug 8, 2013 @6:27 pm I'd like to see the debate, but Charles will never agree. For the record, I think the current laws regarding slander etc. give us all adequate protection, but I would be interested in hearing a coherent argument for expansion of said laws (IANAL).

Look at Chuckie's favored modes of expression – none of them involve a reasonable exchange of ideas under a commonly accepted set of rules moderated by someone more neutral than his batshit wife. When he is upset, he writes bad songs or poetry about his foes. That doesn't translate into Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Also, by his own definition, he is ALWAYS the victim if you disagree with him. You can't enter a reasoned discussion with that assumption. I would give him a fair hearing provided he could resist comparing himself to someone at Auschwitz or on a sugar plantation for the duration (which seems unlikely). I look forward to seeing his response to Ken.

Dr. Wu • Aug 8, 2013 @8:41 pm Ken White, 15 yard penalty, unsportsmanlike conduct. Attempting to incite a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Gabe • Aug 8, 2013 @11:30 pm Against my better judgment, I actually read through some of that website, and I have to admit, it somewhat changed my opinion of this. He seems to accept that he lost the battle against the Oatmeal, except for some craziness about Inman actually donating the money. He also feels like his reputation has been ruined and it is almost like the DIRA nonsense is his imagined way to fix this. Reading this doesn't really invoke the same sense of schadenfreude and anger like the people at Prenda or some of the other people who abuse the legal system. He comes across as an unhappy, angry, incompetent lunatic who genuinely feels that a bunch of people just started to gang up on him. Of course, his opinions and rhetoric are still ridiculous and his songs are still hilarious, but I honestly feel somewhat bad for the guy and I'm not sure having a well-respected first amendment lawyer thrash him in a debate would help out. It would truly be the equivalent of Usain Bolt running 100 meters against Honey Boo Boo, though I admire your work against SLAPPs wherever they occur and look forward to this debate if it happens. Some amount of mildly guilty schadenfreude is good for the heart.

Nate • Aug 9, 2013 @3:27 am This would be epic, except, even if he did accept, I can't imagine getting beyond 'deciding on a moderator' because no matter who Ken chooses as a nominee Charlie is almost certain to choose Tararrara and…well, do I really have to spell out the batshit insanity that would come from that? Isn't everyone who isn't in their camp part of the Illuminati (etc drivel)? And, well, who exactly is in their camp?

(didn't read all the comments so I dunno if someone already pointed that out)

ZarroTsu • Aug 9, 2013 @5:16 am @Nate

Ken might have to prepare himself for a debate made entirely through poorly Photoshopped celebrity porn?

Dan Irving • Aug 9, 2013 @5:26 am "… army of free speech mafia zombies …"

Do we get shirts?

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 9, 2013 @5:41 am @Barry: The problem is Charles is just not a very bright lawyer. He's good at writing blustery threat letters but not much beyond that.

He has a crazy theory that if you call yourself a library, you have a DMCA exception that allows you to post anything you want for anyone to download on the Internet. This is the crazy theory that he eventually wants to test in Penguin v American Buddha, but he's (not even yet) pro hac vice, and since local council is also responsible for arguments made by pro hac vice attorneys, he's having big problem finding local council in Oregon.

The current American Buddha lawyer wants to quit due to "conflicts with the client", probably due being asked to file ridiculous legal BS seemingly ghostwritten by Charles like the change of venue motion [1] (AB is an Oregon corporation, Oregon is the proper venue) and the upcoming "DMCA library exception" which would not only get laughed out of court, but would probably generate a sanctions motion.

And once thing we've learned from Prenda recruits is the magic words "Joint and severalble liability". I doubt Mr Johnson wants to be on the receiving end of such a sanction's motion.

Similarly, his DERP tort only makes sense if it violates the 1st amendment protections on speech, because if any speech in the DERPY attack is unprotected, you can go after that using existing libel/defamation laws, and the initiator you can go after if its true incitement.

[1] Metadata on Docket #10, the "motion for defense costs" and 21 "motion to transfer action" both says it was written by "chaz", and also #10's demand is identical to a motion submitted in New York,

Union Blue Val • Aug 9, 2013 @8:38 am @ Gabe In terms of feeling bad for Charles, the thing is the the guy isn't just incompetent, he is a bully who uses his law license to harass people who may not have the means to defend against a frivolous lawsuit.

Remember, he didn't just go after Inman and write crazy songs about psycho Santa. He also sent a bullying letter to a someone who started a parody website (which is most definitely protected speech). Luckily the popehat signal went up and, moreover, Public Citizen stepped in, but Chaz deserves pretty much everything he's gotten thrown at him, whether he understands it or not.

I'd also like to hear how he reconciles his own censorious propositions with the extremely broad interpretation of free speech / fair use that he and Tara advocate in Penguin v. American Buddha (and for that matter, look at all the raputation that goes on at American Buddha!). I would love to hear the mental contortions that allow him to advocate a change in the law that his own wife violates on a routine basis.

JT • Aug 9, 2013 @9:46 am @union

"I would love to hear the mental contortions that allow him to advocate a change in the law that his own wife violates on a routine basis."

I worked with someone who was one such bully before. My guess is that it's "splitting," seeing the world in terms of black and white.

In the mind of this type of bully, the evil people deserve bad treatment and the good people don't. That's as far as the contortions need to go to create the actions we're seeing. As the saying goes, "free speech for me, but not for thee." This kind of person doesn't understand his or her own bullying as bullying, but as a fight for the good side and against evil.

When I read through the Carreons' sites and Charles's interviews and filings I see a very black and white view of the world. There are good people and bad. Good people deserve defending and rights, bad people don't. Add to this that Carreon is defending his client (i.e. himself) vigorously, maybe seeing himself as an innovator, and the result is he's pushing false rhetoric a lot, bending the truth to the point that it's broken.

I've witnessed highly intelligent people devolve into cognitive dissonance and obvious hypocrisy, especially when attacked. In what I've seen, there is usually some mental sophistication in defining good and evil, but no awareness of the consequences of defining the world in such a divided way, and no sophistication in applying one's worldview. In my personal example, this person filled a blog with vitriol against all sorts of people encountered at work, including violent fantasies, but reported a "hate crime" to the police when somebody wrote a pretty tame insult on this person's office door. This person eventually resigned in true martyr fashion, proclaiming to be a victim of all the assholes at work who conspired to silence a provocateur. (In truth, we can all barely conspire to agree what day of the week to have a meeting, or what the snacks should be.)

From what I've seen, no one turns more vitriolic when attacked to the degree that those with the black/white worldview do. Such a view is both comforting and frightening to those who hold it: comforting in that bad things happen for a reason (because of evil people) and frightening because the evil people all seem to be against you. (Thus, according to Charles, Inman was responsible for all the cyber snarkiness that he encountered during the lawsuit.) And I've also seen that such people are the least likely to change, employing the failure-to-discomfirm logical fallacy to a high degree.

I think that double standards on a small scale are human nature. Most people chuckle at an unfair joke against someone they really don't like, but would get riled up a the same kind of joke against someone they do like. For the Carreons, this tendency is turned up to eleven. And they think the bad people should never be allowed to make jokes at all. Because that would be encouraging evil. In that way, they are fundamentalists, and their religion is the right to criticize, which is only available to the elect.

Mark • Aug 9, 2013 @10:03 am Charles (or Tara, you never know) has already made clear what (s)he thinks of Ken, right there on the "Reign of Terror" page.

Ken Popehat White will not be able to make heads or tails out of the foregoing discussion. He will be stumped. His mind, and those of his true followers, will just lock up and decline to process the information.

Ken White • Aug 9, 2013 @10:14 am Off Topic: I've been unbanned at last! Thank you David. (Ken's IT guy, I guess.)
David is not my IT guy. I am David's marketing guy.

David • Aug 9, 2013 @10:38 am It all started when I bullied Ken. Ever since then, he has done my bidding.

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 9, 2013 @1:46 pm Oh, for those who want to see the quality of Charles's laywering (although filed under another name, the metadata says "chas")

His request for change of venue: ... 7.25.0.pdf

Penguin's response: ... 7.34.0.pdf

Charles's reply (which basically ignores everything Penguin said): ... 7.42.0.pdf

Gabe • Aug 9, 2013 @4:19 pm @Union Blue Val

That's a good point. I haven't been a target of this sort of lawsuit so I can't really appreciate how damaging they are. I guess I was feeling more sympathetic than I normally would be because he lost resoundingly (thankfully). Still, censorious thuggery must be discouraged and he has no one to blame but himself.

It would be funny to see him try to justify his "ideas" about speech, but I have a hunch that the mental gymnastics of this particular pompous idiot are beyond the reckoning of us mere mortals.

barry • Aug 9, 2013 @6:44 pm @Sharon A

Please don't scare Charles off from the debate.I honestly want to hear his analysis and explanation.
Me too, I figured starting without him might help.

My suggestion for "where" is a 3-blogs solution. The original question & response posts on an agreed neutral site, and mirrored on both Popehat and Rapeutation, with seperate comment threads on each. I think that Popehat has a larger readership than Rapeutation (on a simple Google search, by 66:1), and he might accept the opportunity to balance out the numbers a little with a megawebshow like this.

But I'm not holding out much hope of the Malshandir sponsorship.

If the whole thing falls through, my second choice would be to see a debate on "Is sovereign-citizenship real?" I'm fairly new to the concept, and it seems nutty enough, and apparently has hundreds of thousands of supporters (some of whom might not even be nuts).

Anony Mouse • Aug 10, 2013 @2:19 am " He also feels like his reputation has been ruined and it is almost like the DIRA nonsense is his imagined way to fix this."

Except he did the damage himself. DERPI won't prevent him from being an ass in public, and it won't stop his disturbingly unhinged wife.

James Pollock • Aug 11, 2013 @8:29 am "you can go after that using existing libel/defamation laws, and the initiator you can go after if its true incitement."

Can you provide a statutory or case law reference for this proposition? "Incitement to defamation" wasn't covered in any class I took. Incitement to violence is not protected (although the borderline's in retreat and has been for some time) but incitement to defamation has probably not been explored much, if at all.

david • Aug 12, 2013 @6:17 am _tumbleweed_

Nicholas weaver • Aug 12, 2013 @9:25 am IANAL, but isn't there already precedent that inciting someone to commit (*generic*) tort does impose some liability on the inciter?

If so, DERP is really unnecessary.

barry • Aug 12, 2013 @9:52 am Charles is right to be cautious of the challenge. Ken has a head start with his own version of this proposed new tort: INTERNET MOBBING

perlhaqr • Aug 12, 2013 @4:14 pm Union Blue Val: When he is upset, he writes bad songs or poetry about his foes.

This was gut-busting, sinus-explodingly hilarious when I misread it the first time as "toes".

"Ten little piggies
like winter's discontentment,
sink into the mud.

Nine pigs of white now,
branches bare of foliage
are all that remain.

Eight oinking pink sows
seeking autumn's last truffle,
they root through the muck.


No piglets are left.
Perhaps in springtime's blossom
they will come again."

Nicholas Weaver • Aug 14, 2013 @7:26 am Well, American Buddha now has a new attorney in Oregon, Todd Bofferding, who seems to run a 1-man criminal defense shop up in Hood River. (As opposed to his previous attorney, who's specialty seems to be medical malpractice).

I wonder if Todd is going to be more cooperative than Derek Johnson in signing his name to Charles's legal insights.

And I wonder if either Todd or Charles are going to strip the metadata on Charles's future filings? Nope, both documents concerning the change have "chas" as the author…

V • Aug 14, 2013 @8:36 am Nicholas, does the author field change when a 2nd person, like Bofferding for example, edits the document?

Union Blue Val • Aug 21, 2013 @9:45 am Woah – I cruised over to American Buddha for some light lunchtime reading and it seems their server is down (and they'd like people "prove their love" by buying them better service).

But, have no fear, popcorn eaters, some of the crazy has moved to , including strange art that very wrongly uses photos of the child and wife of the Carreon's nemesis to attack him. That actually pissed me off more than the routine rambling cray-cray made me laugh.

At least her web page design is much improved.

LT • Sep 19, 2013 @8:22 am An update: Penguin v. Carreon is still plugging along despite Chuckles losing his lawyer, and I get the feeling the judge in the case is very, very happy that he found a loophole that lets him say 'fuck this shit', because the whole case is being transferred from Oregon to Arizona.

I hope they go on a field trip to the actual Chuckles and Tara Comedy Club/'Library'. It's probably some bookshelves they threw together in their basement.
Site Admin
Posts: 31753
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Charles Carreon, Tara Carreon, and Family

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest