Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

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

PART 1 OF 3

378 Comments (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Steps In)

Ken • Jun 21, 2012 @11:00 am Incidentally, I say "near-perfect" only because he did not close with "snort my taint," for which I understand I am entitled to royalties.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 21, 2012 @11:10 am Go EFF!


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 21, 2012 @11:18 am Also, yay, this means since you won't need to be the attorney for anyone, you can continue to rip any future Carreon filings a new one, for our popcorn-laden entertainment!


Damon • Jun 21, 2012 @11:21 am @ Matthew Inman,EFF, and the folks helping defend him: burn them..burn them all and leave them nothing. They deserve it.


Jay Lee • Jun 21, 2012 @11:22 am Inman tells Carreon to go EFF himself!


Nibor • Jun 21, 2012 @11:23 am Thanks Ken, for a new post my scroll wheel finger is getting hurt, by scrolling down over all the comments (gigantium number of them) on the previous posts now I can start at the top again ;-)

And hoping that all the commenters move over here of course


HeatherCat • Jun 21, 2012 @11:29 am *APPLAUSE* And continued thanks to Ken and others for all they do.
I particularly like how Mr. Inman phrased it: "I have a right to express my opinion, whether Mr. Carreon likes it or not."
Yes, so do we all.


Robert C • Jun 21, 2012 @11:30 am It really does sound like he's talking about attorney-client communications. I've been wondering for a while what Funny Junk thinks about how their attorney has been handling this situation. While they're not involved in the suit he filed against Inman, it's still reflecting on them since the action arose out of their C&D letter. I can't imagine that they're happy about it. What are the ethics of a situation like this? Does Carreon have any duty to refrain from activities that make his client look bad?


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @11:30 am Yeah, he really threw Funnyjunk under the bus, didn't he?


Joe • Jun 21, 2012 @11:30 am Ken – not if Carreon trademarks it first :-)


Mike K • Jun 21, 2012 @11:31 am So I'm assuming the way Carreon described the exchange isn't exactly how it happened. My guess is he asked if those particular comics had been taken down (which they had), he got the answer he wanted, and proceeded without further questions.

Assuming something similar to that happened, can FJ now sue Carreon for defamation since he's claiming they misinformed him?
I'm just curious as such a suit probably would be neutral or positive for the reputation of FJ.


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @11:38 am The Guardian article was written by the same person as The Stranger article (although they are very different pieces) and both are presumably based on the phone conversation the author had with Carreon.

From the Guardian article:


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @11:39 am Oops! I messed up the quote, Should be:

"I did not know those links were there. According to my client, he didn't know about it and there was no way for him to discover it," said Carreon.


Ann Bransom • Jun 21, 2012 @11:41 am My prediction, from a PR standpoint, is that FunnyJunk coasts along until they see the new visitors to their site start to taper off and then they will take some kind of action or make a statement to churn it back up again. There is no reason for them to make a statement at this point. They are not under the microscope or holding the microscope.


Collin • Jun 21, 2012 @11:41 am typo:

"it's not year clear who is representing"

"not yet" or "not very" perhaps?


Nick • Jun 21, 2012 @11:42 am Ken, this is great work, but I have one question about your coverage of this incredible saga: why did you pick "oatmeal-v-funnyjunk" as a tag? Everyone knows this should be tagged as the "bearlove" saga.


Ann Bransom • Jun 21, 2012 @11:43 am There was no way to discover links on their own website?


Roxy • Jun 21, 2012 @11:44 am I really wouldn't expect Carreon to know anything about attorney-client privilege since he basically uses clipart and a microsoft template as letterhead. I'm glad that Inman is getting the help and resources of the legal community to put the smack down on this tool.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 21, 2012 @11:46 am @Ken — It's not an isolated slip-up, either, as he told the Guardian today:

FunnyJunk wouldn't return calls from the Guardian to tell us about its own policies, but Carreon has now effectively abandoned the threat of a FunnyJunk lawsuit, stating that he was misinformed by his client. His letter claimed that all the comics had been removed from FunnyJunk, but Inman pointed out dozens that were still there.
"I did not know those links were there. According to my client, he didn't know about it and there was no way for him to discover it," said Carreon, still smarting from a torrent of abusive mails from angry netizens.
A far cry from the requirement that attorneys keep client confidences "at every peril to himself or herself" — unless, of course, FunnyJunk consented to the disclosures. What motive they'd have in doing so is beyond me.

The fact that it makes FunnyJunk look bad suggests that he might not have their permission to make that disclosure.

Plus,


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 21, 2012 @11:49 am Pretend I had another point at the end of comment.


Ann Bransom • Jun 21, 2012 @11:58 am Funnyjunk.com is running off of a Linux server in the Netherlands. So all that content is most likely being dynamically generated out of a MySql database.

mysql> Select * From [Table Containing User Uploaded Entries] Where [The Title Column] LIKE '%Oatmeal%'

^^ seems like that would have been a reasonable place to start in making sure you're not hosting the content that you are accusing someone of lying about you hosting


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @11:59 am Ann, I actually feel bad for FunnyJunk at this point because so much traffic probably was directed at them the first day or two. Then suddenly Charles made this whole thing about himself and no one really spoke about FunnyJunk after that.


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:02 pm @Ann, the claim that they had no way to discover the comics is BS of course. Many of Inman's comics were promoted to the front page, and the search feature was available. Now it seems they have disabled search, at least for terms like oatmeal.


Link • Jun 21, 2012 @12:02 pm This case is an example of douchetwaddle asshattery at it's finest.


Ken • Jun 21, 2012 @12:03 pm I think everything on FunnyJunk is just tagged "hurrrlolfag," which makes it more challenging to search.


Sarahw • Jun 21, 2012 @12:06 pm So Carreon admits his demand letter was a screwup from the start, and indirectly concedes that Inman absolutely had some rational basis to strenuously object to its bogosity and publicly and hilariously refuse to comply.

So now, he rewards Inman and other parties concerned, for his own sloppy error, by finding new ways to demand improper things.

If I could have found the cartoons on FJ I'm sure FJ LLC and Carreon could have. So I'm not sure the "we had no way to know how bogus the demand was" excuse is very compelling.


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:10 pm It took me all of ten seconds to find this on funny junk: http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures ... L+do+this/


Roxy • Jun 21, 2012 @12:12 pm Snerk. You would think that FJ would be better policing their site for Oatmeal things right about now.


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:18 pm @Roxy, I really don't think they even try:
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures ... uth+korea/


HeatherCat • Jun 21, 2012 @12:24 pm I dunno… the original complaint of Mr. Inman was that his work was being copied WITHOUT credit to him. So, if they copy it but keep the signature/copyright or tag, I don't think he'd mind so much.
I mean the guy has admitted that an artist likes their work to be shared as much as possible, just so long as everyone knows who really created it.
and that's what it was all about in the beginning, if I'm not mistaken.


Robert C • Jun 21, 2012 @12:25 pm @Jack, @roxy FunnyJunk actually crippled their own search engine so that it doesn't work for certain terms, such as "Oatmeal" "XKCD," "Cyanide & Happiness" or other titles of webcomics.
http://changememe.com/2012/06/12/funnyj ... ch-engine/


Luke • Jun 21, 2012 @12:27 pm @Jerk: Which just gives The Oatmeal's initial blog post about FJ's tactics even more weight. That second one hasn't even been cropped.


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:27 pm @hearhercat, He may not mind (but who knows at this point), but my point was more that it would have been simple for the FJ admin to find these comics on his site, if he really wanted to.


GabrielHounds • Jun 21, 2012 @12:29 pm I can't wait to read the Chas Carreon / American Buddha illustrated version of the super secret motives of the real EFF.


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:32 pm @Luke, "@Jerk"!? That's defamation! I shall have to retain Mr Carrion's services!


Luke • Jun 21, 2012 @12:34 pm @Jack Doh. Co-worker was talking to me while typing and I had a freudian slip there.


Noah Callaway • Jun 21, 2012 @12:36 pm I completely agree that FunnyJunk's original demand for defamation was totally bogus and Carreon's further actions somehow manage to go several steps beyond that.

That being said, I think people severely underestimate the cost of policing user generated content. To partially block people from uploading comics you could prevent anything with "Oatmeal" in the title being uploaded. Ignoring the fact that this prevents people from uploading comics about oatmeal (which is annoying, and becomes a bigger problem as you block more words), you now probably need to police each comic by title.

Now you have to manually add every comic title that the Oatmeal produces (their entire back-catalog, plus monitoring going forward) to your black-list. Now you're pissing off more users who are triggering false-positives on your upload filter, _and_ you have to monitor the Oatmeal and keep updating this filter.

But wait! Now there's precedent. You filter the Oatmeal's comics, so now you need to filter Cyanide & Happiness. And if you do that for them, you need to filter XKCD, Penny-Arcade, SMBC, and hundreds more.

So now you're filtering on tens or hundreds of webcomic titles, and maybe thousands of individual comic titles. The only way to do this is to take a few weeks to set up automated systems to check RSS feeds for the comics and automatically add things to the filter.

Oh boy! Now you're in a world of false-positives hurt when XKCD posts a comic titled "funny", and your automated system unfortunately removes anything with the word "funny" in the title.

And this only covers webcomics. Good luck trying to remove other infringing material on your website.

It's actually a huge amount of work to police user-generated content on a web-platform. I'm not trying to validate any of the inappropriate demands based on the defamation claim in any way, but please don't assume that keeping user-generated content from infringing is trivial!


ben • Jun 21, 2012 @12:37 pm Well, it's not clear to me how FunnyJunk is even involved in this. Has it been established that FJ is actually Carreon's client? His initial demand was for $20,000 for *himself*, it seemed. His subsequent suits are "pro se". Is he actually working for FJ, or what?


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @12:39 pm @Luke, I would've guessed autocorrect. ( that's always my wife's excuse :p)


Nibor • Jun 21, 2012 @12:42 pm Hey the fundraiser made 208,000 and a bit

So that's (minus the 4% for IndieGoGo) 100,000 if it's split between the two charities, and reading all the comments that is the safest way for Inman to go, so he doesn't get in to trouble with someone I do not want to name, for this person is so engaged with those two charities, that he even has donated to this fundraiser, but he wants to force/ensure the split in equal parts and only to these two charities, as far as I can understand out of the ramblings by this not named person.

The unnamed person is unnamed because his name is copyrighted and I do not want to be sued for infringement.

By the way I’m not a lawyer and not even an US citizen so forgive me if I misinterpreted the (US) law or even misused the right words.


Grifter • Jun 21, 2012 @12:44 pm @Robert C:

Speaking of Cyanide and Happiness, today's comic seems pretty apropos:
http://www.explosm.net/comics/2836/


Dan Weber • Jun 21, 2012 @12:44 pm Today I learned a taint is worth $20,000.


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @12:51 pm @Dan Weber: Depends on the taint.


Jess • Jun 21, 2012 @12:58 pm Perhaps Carreon is pissed O-F-F at the E-F-F

http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/21/f-the-eff/


Dan Weber • Jun 21, 2012 @12:59 pm Someone pointed out on the Part IV thread:

FunnyJunk only registered its trademark on May 23rd, with Chas as the correspondent. This seems a lot like the Mattel issue, where he went out looking for a case. Register the trademark and then issue the threat letter complaining about violation of trademark.

(I believe FunnyJunk, for all its problems, deserves trademark protection and this should not be interpreted as critical of that right. I also think they deserve unregistered trademark protection before their registration date — just like Oatmeal deserves copyright protection before they register their copyright — although as our host would quickly point out merely criticizing FJ isn't a violation of their trademark.)


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @1:02 pm Re: registering FunnyJunk's trademark

It appears, does it not, as though Mr. Carreon both registered the FJ trademark and submitted their DCMA paperwork within a week or two before sending the demand letter.

While there's nothing wrong with that per se, and FJ should have a trademark and a DCMA filing, the timing is simply too suspicious.


Randall • Jun 21, 2012 @1:04 pm all this leads me to wonder: How did lawyers commit career suicide before the internet?


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @1:05 pm "Legal Avengers Assemble!"


Turk • Jun 21, 2012 @1:06 pm Advice to Carreon on a statement he should make:

"After speaking with FunnyJunk (and getting their permission to write this) we realize that my initial letter shouldn't have been sent. It appears that we had a miscommunication about what Oatmeal stuff was still on the site. Because we may have inadvertently exacerbated the situation that letter, I'm going to drop the suit that I just started. I don't want to be involved in a suit unless my own hands are 100% clean."


Leon • Jun 21, 2012 @1:07 pm You can pretty easily search Funnyjunk for Inman's works. They have a filter in place that changes "the Oatmeal" to "the fag" in user's posts. If you search for "the fag" (with quotes) his work comes right up. I would have to look through the comments again to verify it, but I believe that's how Inman found all of the links he posted in his initial response.


Roxy • Jun 21, 2012 @1:09 pm @Robert C, I noticed that right off the bat! Good thing my google-fu (and anyone else who is internet literate) is strong. ;)


Roxy • Jun 21, 2012 @1:27 pm @Noah: I don't disagree with you that user generated content is something that is nearly impossible and a huge amount of work to police. On the other hand, being an admin of such site, you should really already know the huge risk you are taking. In the case of FJ I don't think they realized the can of worms they were opening with this claim against The Oatmeal for damages.

While I am sure this isn't a special snowflake type of defamation complaint, any reasonable attorney should have advised their client of what some of the repercussions would be in store should they proceed with an actual lawsuit against Inman.

The fact that Carreon did not do a basic google search against his clients site to make sure that all copy written material had been removed, he also probably did not advise his client that user uploaded content would need to be heavily moderated to avoid countersuit or further legal action from The Oatmeal or other websites. Great job, Carreon!

Any real professional would have made sure that the complaint was actually valid and not leave his client vulnerable to countersuit and instead thought with his rage-reflex. Maybe his Goldline ambulance chase wasn't creating enough revenue for him to make his mortgage payment this month.

And in reference to FJ, obviously inexperienced admin probably got an email from Carrion and thought, "Cool, I'll get 67% of 20K if I let this guy write a letter. Seems legit."

Either way, one thing is certain, Carreon, vastly underestimated the ramifications which shows his very obvious inexperience.


SPQR • Jun 21, 2012 @1:28 pm The crippled search and the substitution for Oatmeal confirms FunnyJunk's bad faith rather brazenly.


Elly • Jun 21, 2012 @1:31 pm I just donated $25 to the EFF – and cited their support for Inman as the reason.

Thanks for posting the link, Ken!


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @1:33 pm http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/ ... meal-suit/

A new Forbes Article

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

Mentions of "Charles Carreon" speeding up too. (Doesn't help that https://twitter.com/#!/bybeautydamned is sparring rando trolls again, I'm really starting to think the Carreons are their own worst enemies.)


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @1:36 pm @Noah, one simple step that could greatly reduce copyright infringement on FJ would be to have a clearly communicated, and enforced, policy that prohibits it. If a user violates the policy, warn them and then ban them if they continue to violate said policy. They can also provide a simple method of reporting or flagging posts that violate copyright.

FJ may already do some of this, but I doubt it. If they do have a policy, they don't enforce it.


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @1:39 pm http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... s-carreon/ Yet ANOTHER interview

"“There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother.""

He's STILL saying that was about him and not Funnyjunk. Talks the twitter alot too.

Another techdirt article too, no lulzy comments so far but we all know what happens there.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201206 ... ount.shtml


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @1:39 pm Carreon's newest interview is a doosy.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... s-carreon/

Ann Bransom • Jun 21, 2012 @1:39 pm @Noah – I don't think anyone is trivializing the difficulty in policing user generated content on websites, including Inman himself. I think the point is that the amount of money being invested in newer technologies that automatically detect or red flag copyrighted materials needs to be proportionate to the amount of revenue your site is generating.

Look at the financials that were revealed about how much Matthew Inman is making from the limited advertising on his website, then imagine what the financials of an advertising laden sight like FunnyJunk must be. There is a huge span of content management options in terms of cost, time, and effort between code hacking to prevent certain keywords from being used and the video fingerprinting techonologies utilized by YouTube or technologies employed by iStockPhoto or Flickr. FunnyJunk needs to find an appropriate means of auditing the content users post to their site that is proportionate to the amount of visitors they get and the amount of revenue they are earning.

Or get out of the content aggregation business.

There is a difference between being guilty and being responsible.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @1:41 pm I love how he's trying to defend his American Buddha stuff

In court filings and on Twitter, Carreon makes much of the fact that he engages in "tempered speech," even on hot-button topics. He doesn't resort to name-calling like "dumbass." Instead, he writes, sings, and publishes amazingly offensive songs about "President Evil" (Bush), pornographic images of newspaper columnists he doesn't like, and wishes-for-waterboarding of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

"I am not a politician," he says sternly when asked about the apparent discrepancy. "I have not deceived anyone. I am not able to stand armies. It is entirely distinct. The grounds for engaging in savage satire of people who are murderers [is a] completely different situation. That’s like comparing touch football with warfare.”


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @1:43 pm @SPQR, it most definitely does. In fact, by actively thwarting searches for user uploads of Inman's work it appears that FJ admin is encouraging and protecting continued infringement so that he can continue to profit.

Douchebag move on his part.


John • Jun 21, 2012 @1:50 pm @Noah: If your business model exposes you to legal problems, fines, and punitive damages if it doesn't work just perfectly, perhaps it's a poor business model.

Allowing uploaded content is dangerous, even if it's just printed words. Accept the danger — including the possibility that you're going to get hurt really badly if you screw up — or find something else to do.


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @1:52 pm @Tali: OMG OMG OMG I think his interview broke my brain. For real.


Stuart • Jun 21, 2012 @1:56 pm In response to FJ didn't have an agent for DMCAs priors to may 25th which is just prior to his 20K demand:

Still, Carreon says it doesn't matter now. "[FunnyJunk] now [has] an agent,” he said. “If someone wants to make something of the fact that they didn’t have an agent, there’s nothing to be made of it. There you go. It’s a fact. There’s no legal claim that can be made on it whatsoever."

This makes me think of a kid trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.


Colin • Jun 21, 2012 @1:56 pm "The grounds for engaging in savage satire of people who are murderers [is a] completely different situation. That’s like comparing touch football with warfare.”

…or perhaps even like comparing being mocked on the internet with the nuclear attacks on Japan.


Ann Bransom • Jun 21, 2012 @2:01 pm I'm sure it's a legal term…

but "allegeable fact" broke my English major soul.


Valerie • Jun 21, 2012 @2:03 pm @Tali Silly, that's way different because they can "stand armies." By crudely photoshopping Bush / Rice porn Charles Carreon is heroically saving lives.

Now I was not aware that the conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (pictured between the erections at American Buddha) had a private army that she could "stand" to perpetrate evil and start wars, but I assume that must be true because the Carreons say so – and they would never distort facts to serve selfish ends.

Or maybe she is just part of the Hollywood Mafia-CIA-Bearlove conspiracy to persecute the Carreons because their ancestors were secret Spanish Jews. Either way, he is right and you are wrong (probably because you are part of the conspiracy).


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @2:06 pm http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/201 ... awsuit.php

SF Weekly picked it up.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @2:06 pm @Margaret I know! I still haven't finished reading the article, because between the crazy and my sinus infection, it is taking a lot for it to sink in.

I recently graduated with a BA in History, and my junior research project was to research a legal case in Ireland in the late 1800s involving a priest in a small town in Kilkenny Co who sued a bunch of people (including his curates, his Bishop, and the Cardinal) for slander/libel after he was told that he would not be allowed to have a group of nuns come to start a girl's school in his town. The priest's (a Fr. Robert O'Keeffe) writings and newspaper interviews are a similar crazy to Carreon's, and O'Keeffe ended up a broke, broken, jobless (he was removed not only from his position as parish priest, but also as chaplain of the local jail) and reviled. I think Carreon would do well to learn from O'Keeffe's story (which…shameless promotion of my mentor…is the subject of the book "The European Culture Wars in Ireland" by Colin Barr. He also has a shorter academic journal article on the story somewhere on the Internets ) as he is probably going to end up with a similar conclusion to his story.


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @2:07 pm Also LOL, the Techdirt account points right to Tara Carreon's Techdirt account. That's brilliant.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @2:09 pm @Valerie If I'm part of the conspiracy, then I sure hope I get named as one of the Does in his case (although I think he probably should have listed more than 100 Does, as I think there have been several thousand volunteers to take those positions)


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @2:10 pm @Tali: Oh, man, if you haven't read it all yet… the delights that await you!


Xenocles • Jun 21, 2012 @2:14 pm @ Noah: "It's actually a huge amount of work to police user-generated content on a web-platform."

Perhaps it's not such a good business plan, then. If FunnyJunk can't conduct itself ethically perhaps it should fold.


Xenocles • Jun 21, 2012 @2:15 pm John-

I should have read your comment first so I could just +1 it.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @2:21 pm @Margaret Finished it finally. The insanity astounds.

I think I might have found my calling, as a legal historian specializing in these sort of crazy litigations throughout history.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 21, 2012 @2:24 pm @Tali — I can kind of see his point that Twitter posts denigrating random people might hurt his "brand", and that inflammatory posts about public figures are distinguishable, but only if Twitter were considered in a vacuum. Mr. Carreon has been quite willing to use those same kind of ad hominem attacks against random people via his YouTube account.

Unless, of course, YouTube automatically adds "retard" to comments as a feature.

His rationale for connecting Inman to those accounts (that he replied to one quickly?) is bizarre.


Valerie • Jun 21, 2012 @2:25 pm @ Tali Yes, I do believe the waiting list to be named by this douchebag has gotten kind of long.

Personally, I would prefer a more lasting souvenir from this trip into crazy town – for instance an original Tara Camerron print of me on a box of oatmeal being seduced by a bear-o-dactyl while a psycho-santa plays the mandolin and shouts obscenities at a nefarious, black CIA helicopter. But that may just be me.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @2:28 pm @Adam
That would make sense if he was only going after public figures. But what about the journalist? Her reputation as a journalist could be hurt just as much as Carreon's as a lawyer. The only difference I see there is that he's copyrighted his name, while she hasn't.


Tali • Jun 21, 2012 @2:31 pm @Valerie

O.O

that. is. brilliant. I have amended my previous statement (as I am in Fl and the trip to court in CA is probably more than I can afford). THAT is how I want to be immortalized in this whole thing as well.

I am actually really quite disappointed that Tara hasn't tried to spread her crazy and defend her husband here.


Ken • Jun 21, 2012 @2:39 pm @Noah:
I don't doubt that it is resource-intensive. So imagine how hard it is for authors and artists to police such sites for their work being ripped off.

Also, it seems as if FunnyJunk (like other sites) is structured with the intent of inviting such stolen content. Could it exist without it?


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @2:47 pm Ars Technica's title of "The Internet's Most Hated Man" is sticking. He's gotta love that. (Previous title holder owned a revenge porn site, google it yourself and see!)


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @2:47 pm The mental gymnastics required for Carreon to rationalize and justify his own actions are mind boggling. It's scary to think about what sort of delusions must be rattling around in his head, especially with such a fragile ego.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 21, 2012 @2:50 pm <blockquoteI would've guessed autocorrect. ( that's always my wife's excuse :p)I dunno what she's telling you, but "You worthless fucker I want a divorce" isn't actually in the autocorrect system…


Jack • Jun 21, 2012 @3:01 pm @Scott, I'm pretty sure she has that one saved as a custom auto-complete.


Margaret • Jun 21, 2012 @3:01 pm Free speech for me, but not for thee!

"It's totally different!"


Scott Jacobs • Jun 21, 2012 @3:02 pm Replacing "I'll be home soon honey" I am certain…


Dan Weber • Jun 21, 2012 @3:27 pm It's a bitch to police the Internet for your stolen content. A game of infinite whack-a-mole. But FunnyJunk (until very recently) seems to have made even that game useless.


Devin • Jun 21, 2012 @3:37 pm Do we have any idea yet who actually owns funnyjunk?

What are the chances it's owned by someone in the Carreon family?


Matthew Cline • Jun 21, 2012 @3:40 pm If Carreon is the FunnyJunk owner then he isn't violating confidentiality, though he is being deceptive by referring to his "client".


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @3:52 pm I'm 99% sure that Carreon is NOT the FunnyJunk admin. He's been married to Tara this whole time, and though FunnyJunk's tech design is a horror show it's STILL better than American Buddha and Charles' websites. If he had access to even FunnyJunk level Internetz he'd have used them, and his sites would be at least as "good" as FunnyJunk. There's other reasons I'm pretty sure of this, but they involve too much speculation.


HeatherCat • Jun 21, 2012 @4:02 pm I can't believe he's the FJ admin either – if he WERE, then this would've happened much sooner. As fast as he trips himself responding to other things, one would tend to think he'd have at least taken to ranting online about the Oatmeal a year ago.


Gal • Jun 21, 2012 @4:03 pm I was all aboard the lol train, but upon reading the ars technica article I've just been overwhelmed by what a terrible, terrible human being Charles Treyf really is.

The level of hypocrisy, vanity, avarice, and smug superiority is staggering. He actually claims that his purpose in all this litigious nonsense is to protect well-meaning people from unscrupulous or simply misinformed characters who would misuse their funds, rather than just wasting the justice system's time to serve his bloated ego.

He is a vile, evil little man and I hope this endeavor proves to be so financially ruinous to him and his family he is forced to make ends meat by serving as Kathleen Parker's gimp.


Kevin • Jun 21, 2012 @4:16 pm Quick, Mr. Carreon, add Electronic Frontier Foundation to the lawsuit!


Ara Ararauna • Jun 21, 2012 @4:53 pm “This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to abuse the legal process to punish a critic,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “We're very glad to help Mr. Inman fight back.”

OMG, I think I've shed a tear after reading that answer. Bravo. I wish them the best of lucks in their quest to put that "delusions of grandeur" man on the place he belongs: back to mining stone in Siberia for a decade.


Ara Ararauna • Jun 21, 2012 @5:04 pm Ironically, the threat of the first lawsuit never materialized. Carreon admits he was misinformed: Before demanding the $20,000, which was based on FunnyJunk's "estimate of advertising losses sustained due to the taint of being accused of engaging in willful copyright infringement,"

OK, that made me to LOL so hard. So, by Bryan's point (FJ's admin), he lost plenty of money for his host of FJ because he lost all the income revenue that hosting and monetizing all the works of Mr. Inman represented. Sorry if it sounds confusing, but more or less it means that Mr. Inman's works mirrored in FJ represented a huge chunk of the revenue Bryan received by monetizing them.

So, who is in blame here?


Elliot • Jun 21, 2012 @5:07 pm Gal,
Nice use of the original meaning of "Treyf," as distinguished from the general usage of it to mean "unkosher."


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @5:28 pm @Ara,
I think he intended it to mean that The Oatmeal's calling FunnyJunk out as the second search result for Funny Junk is what lead to the loss of money, not the loss of content. However I am open to Charles Carreon's logic process being flawed.


Gal • Jun 21, 2012 @5:29 pm Thanks, Elliot.

I was sorta going for both. I… like puns.


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @5:36 pm Oh hell. If you search Charles Carreon on google the link below his website is popehat.com the following one is charles-carreon.com. Shit is getting real.


Jess • Jun 21, 2012 @5:37 pm Gal, even better use of the word "meat" as in "forced to make ends meat by serving as Kathleen Parker's gimp."

Bwah ha ha.


Tomas - University Place, WA • Jun 21, 2012 @5:50 pm I would expect that any site depending on user uploaded content should have as the very first rule that ANY content must be either the uploader's own original IP, or that the uploader has permission of the copyright holder(s) to publicly distribute the content.

Considering that in the United States (and per the Berne convention) IP is automatically copyrighted simply by existing, there really is very little gap (fair use, parody, etc.) in which an "aggregator site" can operate without problems.

(Of course, an aggregator site purposely blocking search for specific IP ownership clues should speak volumes about the ethics of their "business model.")

Then, of course, there is this particular vexatious twatwaffle and his bat-shit crazy wife for which there is no rational explanation or justification.

Perhaps it is something in their water…


joe • Jun 21, 2012 @5:56 pm Some interesting web stats. The Oatmeal by far is the more popular site but both the Oatmeal AND FunnyJunk saw a spike in web traffic over this kerfuffle. FunnyJunks traffic died down sortly after the initial publicity likely because 12 year old prepubecent teenagers have the attention span of a lightening bug, but The Oatmeals traffic continues to trend upwards as does Popehat. Especially given Carreons continued massive hole digging excavation.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4176/slide2ln.jpg


Ara Ararauna • Jun 21, 2012 @6:18 pm @Chris R. just hope Mr. Carreon doesn't sue this site for reiterative use of his trademarked name and for "…inciting people to think that Charles Carreon was always wrong, when in fact his almighty self is always right!".
Without The Oatmeal I would have never found this awesome site, I even made my gravatar just to lurk a little more openly and educate myself about the US's laws and lawyer dramas, if it can be called like that (I'm not sure, English is not my mother tongue). My drop my two-cents about certain subjects I know from witnessing certain dramas myself.

On the other hand (about things that must be spoken aloud, and to inform people that the owner of FJ has already a name and an address, Bryan Durel, who is not a relative to Carreon – they don't even belong to the same race at all), Bryan has an ego as big as planet Jupiter, and the gravity created by the mass of that ego fits perfectly when you ask why he was not able to find any of Inman's works on his own database, even at the point of crippling his own search-engine on his website, and filtering words like Oatmeal and Inman and changing them by "that fag" (in fact, if you also type "Richard Simons" it will be turned to "fag") to render any user unable to find Inman's works. Bryan is also diagnosed with HPD and it made it more obvious when he conscripted Mr. Carreon as lawyer without (apparently) telling his lawyer about all the "dubious deeds" this Bryan have made to more than a thousand of users and non-users of his website. I don't plan to defend Carreon just because Bryan framed him by hidding from him "sensible information" about his own daily activities on his website, but merely stating that they are birds of a feather (because Carreon also indulged himself in hidding, deleting and fabricating evidences based on the numerous contradictions that other people pointed out in different sites, like this one). In other words, Bryan is not a person that deserves to have a lawyer, even if the cops says that you have the right to one; well OK, he can have one, I respect the rights of everyone, but this guy doesn't deserve it… at all *sniffle*

Still outraged, I went on a saving spree, saving plenty of screenshots and saved barely almost all of Carreon's site for the sake of evidences in case he plans to take down his sorry site, including the one about his failed attempt at creating a religion around himself http://www.oestia.com/ <<< reposting because it is great example of how bipolar Mr. Carreon and wife can be if you leave them alone with a keyboard and too much hours reading L. Ron Hubbard's essays.


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @6:51 pm @Ara Ararauna, How dare you link me to that website. My eyes bleed.


Joe • Jun 21, 2012 @7:04 pm Chris R. – I have a project that I'd like to collaborate with you on. You can ask Ken for my email or reach out to me via my "lime popsicle" email address.


yundah • Jun 21, 2012 @7:08 pm My new favorite name for Carreon comes from CensoriousDouchebag http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/21/f-the-eff/ "he who shall not be satirized"


Look at that • Jun 21, 2012 @8:00 pm Lowering the Bar has a new post on topic:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/c ... ereof.html


AlphaCentauri • Jun 21, 2012 @8:07 pm With all the people downloading Carron's sites to keep a record, are they putting themselves at in a bad legal position by now having copies on their own hard drives of the pirated music that is hosted on AB?


Look at that • Jun 21, 2012 @8:15 pm I've a question, raised either here or elsewhere that's got me curious (I'm a total non-lawyer, but in one of my past lives, this question would be reasonable):

This lawsuit seems to be way out there. What if it were way out there on purpose? (as in crazy-like-a-fox?) What could be a positive outcome for he-who-shall-not-be-satirized?


Joe • Jun 21, 2012 @8:22 pm Not to be outdone, FunnyJunk’s users have now made “The Carreon Effect” Meme (see link below) the #1 Google link for that phrase.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures ... on+Effect/

So now the client (albeit via their users) is poking fun at their own lawyer. And boyo do their users have something to say about Carreon.

#2 to #1 – Newantdroid ONLINE (16 minutes ago) [-]
I don't think you understand, you retard.
This lawyer isn't suing The Oatmeal on the behalf of FunnyJunk.
Most of us disagree with his actions and donated spares to the charity.
The most he did was bring twats like you around who think we all have Admin's back.


Rob T. • Jun 21, 2012 @8:28 pm What seems pathetically obvious is that this is entirely a case of someone who has always wished they were funny taking an opportunity to hound someone who actually is.

I'm reminded of Lt. Hauk from "Good Morning, Vietnam."


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @8:31 pm Joe, you have mail.
Alpha, probably not unless you then mirror the site.


Spectrum • Jun 21, 2012 @8:45 pm I keep misreading FunnyJunk as FunkyJunk. Kind of funny considering this general balls-up.


T. J. Brumfield • Jun 21, 2012 @8:46 pm Ann, I'm already married (minor technicality) and you may be as well for all I can tell, but can we find a state where I can marry you?


mhm5 • Jun 21, 2012 @8:53 pm Couldn't help but notice that the Lowering the Bar article missed the bit about him donating to the campaign to create standing. Is that an ethics violation?


Scott Jacobs • Jun 21, 2012 @8:56 pm @ T.J. Brumfield – If TLC is accurate, your best best would be Nevada…


Myk • Jun 21, 2012 @9:00 pm tl;dr. Precis – Carreon's original complaint was about FunnyJunk's taint.


Jonathan • Jun 21, 2012 @9:13 pm Some of the things he claims in the ARS technica interview… I'm not sure he realises what he has gotten himself into. I for one am getting sick of his blatant hypocrisy. He is one of those people who feels they can bully anyone into doing what they want but as soon as someone snaps back they can't take it. I sympathize with you lawyers at the moment, as a dental student I abhor when a terrible dentist makes a fool of the lot of us.


Matt Scott • Jun 21, 2012 @9:18 pm Latest comment from Tara claims that Inman is the one posting his pictures on sites like Funnyjunk…

Meanwhile, Mr. Matt Inman posts his pictures everywhere on the Internet, magically making "THIEVES" everywhere he goes, according to his own sick morality, poor judgment and humongous power trip. He and his mob followers don't care about reason.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 21, 2012 @9:33 pm Mrs. Carreon also theorized:

There's something very bad going on here, and I don't know why I can't get a simple yes or no from ANYONE about whether Matt Robert Inman is related to Bobby Ray Inman. Apparently, every journalist in the world doesn't seem to think that knowing WHO Matt Inman is is important. He's a man without parents, brothers and sisters, or childhood friends. Sure, there's lots of famous people like that in the world!
She's stumbled onto the Great Plan. You guys remember The Plan, right? Take one of the Illuminati-Penguin-Mafia's most powerful members, a guy once nominated for Secretary of Defense and who now heads Blackwater Xe, put one of his distant relatives (with his personal history now erased! ::cackle, stroke black cat::) in charge of a cartoon website, and wait quietly for years for Mrs. Carreon's husband to send Matt Inman a demand letter about a lesser-known website called FunnyJunk. Then we use that to try to reset a blog password! The cover is perfect!

Drat! Who knew the Great Plan would fail because we forgot to give Matt a different last name?


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @9:36 pm @Matt Scott

"These Yellow Journalists want to give the Internet to Loki."

She's found us out!! PRAISE HIM! PRAISE HIM!

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... e/Loki.png


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @9:44 pm @Adam

Who told!? It must have been someone from IlluminatusCorp, because the people down in the FBI haven't leaked anything about "Project AppleButter" since she found out that everyone is related to high level Halliburton operatives, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Russians. Regardless, we're HOSED.

OK guys, I'm super serious now. Nobody talk about the secret plan. Now I know we all know we're CIA, and also simultaneously being paid by the Oatmeal, also- but Tara Carreon is getting wise. Tell the cloned Elvises, Psychic Bigfoot, and Cyber Condi to stand down!

We've been found out, people. We're in a level 31 "Code Blue" hold until further notice.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 21, 2012 @9:47 pm Quick, somebody put all these spill-the-beans comments in invisible text so that we don't get picked up on the Google!


Valerie • Jun 21, 2012 @10:19 pm "He (Inman) is a man without a past like Barak Obama." -Tara Carreon

So she's a 9/11 truther AND a birther. Anyone want to bet against her believing the moon landing was faked and that TuPac is living with Biggie on an island somewhere?

@W ross


Valerie • Jun 21, 2012 @10:22 pm Whoops. I meant to tell w. Ross that I heard his code 31 and must relay that the lion dances with the bear in the moonlight. Repeat: the lion dances with the bear. That is all.


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @10:24 pm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTeGoxBG4Mo

He also doesn't seem to like latino's.

"I'll show you what this burrito's for." – Charles Carreon, White Hat Internet Warrior


W Ross • Jun 21, 2012 @10:28 pm http://www.youtube.com/user/chascarreon

Here's Charles Carreon sockpuppeting his own Hater TV Videos. Yes, that's right, Charles Carreon, man who speaks out against the sock puppets of the world, is not against a little sock puppeting of his own when people disagree.

And you thought we'd never find out, you saucy little minx. We're the internet, we find out everything. (Scroll down to the Mark Levin thing, where he comments on his other "lofinikita" account.)


Valerie • Jun 21, 2012 @10:37 pm @W. Ross I'm pretty sure that that video is meant to be mocking the minuteman militia and the government for deamonizing Latinos. I point this out because I wouldn't want the litigious bastard to sue you for libel. I'm thinking of the verse after the one you quoted + the comment that he wrote that says"all your nativist warriors are mine."


Chris R. • Jun 21, 2012 @11:40 pm I am not sure if I see even a reason why she is so fixated on Bobby Ray Inman. I mean unless he's the guy who controls the demon satellites that cause people in cities to lose their nature given intelligence.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 22, 2012 @12:24 am Latest comment from Tara claims that Inman is the one posting his pictures on sites like Funnyjunk…
Well that's a delightfully easy-to-disprove comment.

Seriously, has one of these morons said something they can be sued for yet?


Ann • Jun 22, 2012 @12:25 am @T.J. – only if our union can be officiated by Hon. Edward M. Chen.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/califo ... 12/256114/


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @12:58 am More Tara Carreon. Now she wants us to come to our senses, we're the victims of peer pressure.

So far we've been:
The victims of peer pressure
The Oatmeal (and a VERY fast typer)
The CIA
People Paid by The Oatmeal
Juggalos
Yellow Journalists

Also, apparently the Buddhists ALSO -got trolled by Tara Carreon- targeted their family for unfair, Walt Disney-like destruction. Will we ever run out of new people she's started an Interfued with?

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... c753464bf9


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @1:00 am DAMN YOU FAILED STRIKEOUT! (Shakes fist.)


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @1:06 am http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&s ... 8j7j1.26.0…0.0.Igp8_GjJRoY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=a8708267f6810afa&biw=1368&bih=678

He's also secured the first spot when you search for "the internet's most hated man."


Gal • Jun 22, 2012 @1:24 am "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves"

Bwaaahahahaha.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @1:27 am You know what's really ironic? Charles Carreon talks about his super secret email addresses, but if you look for it his wife posts his Gmail address completely underacted.


Dredd • Jun 22, 2012 @1:39 am Actually when it comes to the copyright infringement, I would have been on FunnyJunk's side UNTIL they decided to sue for libel. Though I'd have them to be harsher on people who censor the source of their uploads.


Tom Trudeau • Jun 22, 2012 @2:25 am It's great to read this lively comment fest. Here's a handy overview of the five fates facing King Carreon…

Far in the future, when the kerfuffle has calmed and the dust has settled, there will be a panel of appellate judges that hands down the final ruling. King Carreon’s plaintive wail will face one of 5 responses. Bookies are taking bets and laying odds. Will it be 1) Abuse of Process, 2) Malicious Prosecution, 3) Frivolous Litigation, 4) Vexatious Litigation, or 5) Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. For the bonus round, place an additional bet on Disbarment. To help you plan your bet, we offer this crib sheet explaining the differences between the 5 twatwaffle types of asshat litigation. Don’t thank us. Thank Wikipedia.

http://dont-care-eon.tumblr.com/post/25 ... has-calmed


HM • Jun 22, 2012 @2:48 am I hope Oats will sue funnyjunk for both defamation and Copyright infringement. I think 20000 dollars+ legal fees (this lawyer deserves at least a giant meal at a super fancy restaurant and some to go hang out with Oats in Hawaii).

Maybe gather all the people funnyjunk stole content from(funnyjunk probably posts on his site himself) and clear that place up. They can also argue for Mr. junks' bullying by posting claims that artists are trying to shut him down and sending his ad viewers against them.

Nibor • Jun 22, 2012 @2:50 am Finally the Oatmeal has posted a new comic, the first since this all began and tweeted about another generous fundraiser for a good cause.

I wonder if the comic has something to do with the whole situation, or better said does he-who-must-not-be-named-due-to-copyright-issues can come up with any kind of connection to his situation.

I only found it a very very funny comic about a dog that does exactly that what the dog of my parents used to do, but my autistic mind messes satire, sarcasm and plain humour up, so I often do not get it at all.

And this redirecting attention to an (even more saddening) case, with a spontaneous fundraiser as a reaction. And this one even gets more successful than the bearlove campaign, it set out for $5,000, to send the bullied elderly woman on a well-earned vacation, and had already exceeded $250,000 yesterday
(I can’t post the correct amount at the moment, for IndieGoGo is updating their system as they say on their website)

Does anybody know if this is Mat Inman just being him useal good natured selfish self, trying to get on with “normal” live, or is he trying to get THE INTERNET’s attention redirected, in such a way that he uses the very very limited attention span of the average internet user, when they start reading this new thing, they completely forget the previous one, being something with love and a furry animal wasn’t it???

I don’t want to suggest that what he is doing is wrong, I even find it a stroke of genius or a stroke of kind heartiness and even admire him on/over? It. I could try to look into the things he has done until now, to know which of the two it is likely to be, but I just haven’t got a basement with oempaloempas like Ken has at my disposal, so I have to sleep, eat, drink and go to the toilet next to keeping up with this stuff and do so myself, which leaves me practically no time to research Mat’s past as well.

By the way, thanks you all for filling my day with all your writings and opinions, yes this is a genuine thanks, I don’t do satire, sarcasm or plain humour that well as I mentioned earlier.

(I try and will keep trying to, but will often fail miserably and I’m fine with that. :-) )

Now I’m going to try to include the links to the two thing I mentioned, maybe I get it right this time.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:07 pm

PART 2 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Steps In Cont'd.)

Nibor • Jun 22, 2012 @3:00 am Mannn I suck at this,

so you just have to copy an paste it your selfs:

My dog every time, comic by the Oatmeal at:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/my_dog

Story on the bullied elderly woman fundraiser, news story by Tory Floyd at:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-cl ... 40950.html


flip • Jun 22, 2012 @4:30 am @Noah Callaway • Jun 21, 2012 @12:36 pm

Great point that's getting lost in the discussion…


acard • Jun 22, 2012 @5:10 am Not sure if it's just me, but, The Oatmeal website is crashing I.E 8 everytime I click any cartoon. I was trying to look at "My Dog Every Time"
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/ ... my_dog.png)


Jay Lee • Jun 22, 2012 @5:50 am In reading the words of @charlescarreon and his various sockpuppets, it appears he is positioning himself to take credit for the funds raised by @oatmeal getting to the charities they were intended for in the first place. So when Matt follows through on the promise he made, Charles will swoop in and claim victory.


Valerie • Jun 22, 2012 @6:43 am I didn't mind when Tara Carreon accused me of being in an elaborate plot, but I am greatly offended that she doesn't seem to think that I (and most reasonable people) can conclude her husband is an asshat all by myself simply by looking at facts. I can also see she is batshit crazy by casually skimming her "art.". These are not genious level observations.

It must suck to go through life thinking everyone who disagrees with you is also out to get you personally (self fulfilling prophesy if your default response is to hysterically accuse critics of plotting your downfall for nefarious reasons).


Nibor • Jun 22, 2012 @6:49 am @Valerie, You did read your post back, before you clicked the submit comment ???

You realy, realy ??? mind what this person thinks or even says ?

Or did I lost the clou again?


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @6:50 am http://dockets.justia.com/docket/califo ... 12/256114/

Two new docs:

CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

And

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Edward M. Chen for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to the case. Signed by the Executive Committee on June 21, 2012. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2012)


Valerie • Jun 22, 2012 @7:08 am @Nibor No, I don't really care what Tara Carreon thinks about me (given that I am neither a player in the case, nor a legal expert, I assume she hasn't got a clue who I am, other than as a faceless part of the conspiracy she imagines).

I just meant to highlight the condescension inherent in her position – basically, unless you believe exactly what she does you are a mindless dupe and a victim of peer pressure. Facetiousness fail – my bad.


Nibor • Jun 22, 2012 @7:23 am @Valerie, so I lost the clue again and this time I'm relieved I did ;-)

The thought that she really could reach somebody, who looked to be in her right mind, was to terrifying to me.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @7:23 am http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201206 ... yway.shtml

"Carreon Admits His Original Threat Letter Was A Mistake, But Keeps On Digging Anyway"


V • Jun 22, 2012 @7:29 am Nibor, CC doesn't have copyright on his name, he has a trademark. I am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand trademark:
- you have to defend it or you risk losing it (which is not true of copyright, if I recall correctly).
- it's limited to a specific domain. In CC's case it's: Legal services
So I guess the imposter twitter account would have to have operated in the Legal services domain to be a trademark violation. I have no idea if claiming to be the lawyer CC is enough.


Kristen • Jun 22, 2012 @7:42 am @Nibor my impression from the new Oatmeal cartoon is that Inman is trying to get some semblance of normal life back by doing what he's always done. The dog cartoon is very like some of his other work, albeit his milder, less offend-y stuff. ;)

I'm not 100% sure of his motives for the blog post about the bus monitor (for I am not in his head) but I get the impression he is impressed/touched by the internet coming to the help of this woman who was very wronged as it has done for him (last I heard she had something over $300,000 donated so far for her vacation).

Hope that helps. My husband, son and one of my daughters have differing degrees of autism. Good for you for using your voice. Don't ever be embarrassed about missing the idiosyncratic points of humor and such; the world needs literal too. :)


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @7:46 am http://www.onlinemedialaw.com/

Yet ANOTHER Charles Carreon site, but this one could provide some tasty clues into how he things the law works Re The Interwebz.

@Nibor I'm on the spectrum too, don't sweat it. All brains are beautiful in the web's eyes :P


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @7:48 am http://www.onlinemedialaw.com/Information_Crime

"Meet a New Criminal — The Atavistic Geek

The dawn of widespread Internet communication heralded the beginning of a new day for fraud, forgery and larceny. A new criminal type has appeared to exploit the plethora of opportunities for theft and mischief — the atavistic geek. An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit. I prefer this description to “hackers,” because cracking codes and invading networks is actually some of the least common antisocial activity engaged in by atavistic geeks. The free range they are allowed on the Internet feeds their antisocial impulses in myriads of ways, rewarding them for their misdeeds with money, status, and often, entry into legitimate business.

This Ain’t Rocket Science

Atavistic geeks are not necessarily any smarter than your average car thief, and just like a car thief can remain fully employed because he knows how to steal cars and deliver them to his fence, atavistic geeks sometimes develop only the basic skills needed to know how to deceive people and deliver them to their boss for full and effective exploitation. Just like car thieves, they are expendable people, usually too morally uneducated to understand the harm they are causing or the risks they run. Of course, the atavistic geek faces much less of a likelihood of apprehension than the average car thief, leading me to say that anyone who commits crimes without a computer is simply running unnecessary risks. Nevertheless, their cleverness should not move us to admiration or pity – these people need real jobs."

I daresay I think this popped up in the search because it's got new content :). They just can't not talk, can they? Not for 24 hours can that little clan turn off the internet and just not fan the flames, lol.


Valerie • Jun 22, 2012 @7:59 am "An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit."

Um, would that include the social restraints that discourage extorting money from internet cartoonists, suing the universe because your feelings were hurt by the Interwebz, and general asshattedness?


Nibor • Jun 22, 2012 @8:06 am @Kristen @W Ross, thanks
I try not to advertise it too much, but sometimes it’s just better to hint at it, so people don’t misinterpret my motives, when I blunder (by the way I’m not ashamed or afraid to blunder).

And W Ross next time please tell us before you quote him that you do so, only after reading I clicked the link and found out you weren’t losing it.


Valerie • Jun 22, 2012 @8:08 am This seems to be the Judge who has just been assigned the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Chen He has a background with the ACLU.


Gal • Jun 22, 2012 @8:17 am @Valerie To paraphrase Scott Meyer – Tara Carreon's curse is that she only ever deals with people who, at that moment, are dealing with Tara Carreon.


apauld • Jun 22, 2012 @8:21 am Ken, even if Carreon wants to blame his client for misleading him, isn't it part of a lawyers job to do some research (due diligence) on the issues before sending out a letter demanding a remedy? Also, do you know anything about the sex.com case? If so, wasn't it basically a fraud case, or was it more involved? The reason I ask is that Carreon advertises himself as "Ashland lawyer concentrating in Internet-related legal and intellectual property issues," though he seems grasp little of either of those issues.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @8:33 am so now that Mr. Carreon is saying "opps my bad" on the original letter, and by his own warped logic is he not the one responsible for what has happened to and said about him due to his letter inciting Mr. Inman and thus Mr. Inman's fans to "attack" Mr. Carreon?


Kris • Jun 22, 2012 @8:40 am Or, what about the whole nature of this suit? From the interviews, he's raised the banner of "I'm working for YOU and everyone who's ever donated to a charity fundraiser, to make sure your money goes where you intend it to" when the case documents are listed as:

Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property – Trademark
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

I am not a lawyer nor have much interest in such things, but this is one thing I've been following since I first heard it. I'd love clarification on how these two separate ideals are one in the same. "I'm suing for this, but I MEAN that"?


Kris • Jun 22, 2012 @8:43 am And, as many others have pointed out, it's been stated that Inman was initially hoping to only get the $20,000 raised, and as per Carreon's own argument, the $180,000 more (outside of the $20,000 already pledged to the NWF and ACS) is "fair game" to be used as Inman sees fit… I'm not sure what grounds there are… I mean, "donating to charity" is one thing, "Outside of the money I've raised for sure going to these two, I'll donate the excess to another charity" type thing.

If that makes any sense…


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @8:54 am @Kris
That makes perfect sense to me the initial goal was 20K to NWF and ACS split 50/50 but after that he stated because of overflow he would add 2 more in my eyes that means as long as at least 10k is give to NWF and ACS respectively he has complied with his obligation as to which charities he donates the remainder that's for him to decide. Mind I am not a Lawyer and not sure if there is any legal obligation to only donate to the only the NWF and ACS due to the original fund raiser idea.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:02 am http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/ ... e-oatmeal/

New Forbes:

" He hopes that this can be a landmark case in figuring out some of the murkier parts of defamation, trademark infringement and internet law."

We hope so too, just with a vastly different outcome. >:D


Kris • Jun 22, 2012 @9:08 am @Foster
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I meant. I mean, even if he split the whole amount he's gotten (rounding down to $200,000 for easy maths) between four charities, each charity would get $50,000. (Less, due to the IndieGoGo service fee of 7%, of course, but still well over the 10k-to-both prior commitment.)

I'd just like to know where the law stood on that.

If technically Carreon is in the right, it seems to me more like a technicality, which is probably what Carreon wants in the end. "I can't get you for this but I GOT YOU ON THIS HAHAHAHA LOOK WHO'S THE WINNER WINNER I AM I AM!" And then he'd turn around and claim some sort of "hero" status because of it.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:10 am @Ross
The only land mark point i hope to see out of this case is that its the case that ends his career via disbarment or makes him take a long look at the sheer about of bat-shit crazy he has been spewing and changes himself.


Valerie • Jun 22, 2012 @9:15 am A landmark case? As long as we can call any outcome the Bearlove precedent.

As in,

Lawyer: "your honor, I believe you'll find that Bearlove allows us to…"

(I know that is probably not how a lawyer addresses a judge – too much law and order.)


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:18 am What I'm hoping for is a crash and burn that's so spectacular that it discourages other lawyers from behaving this way. Right now Charles Carreon is wasting California tax dollars on a personal vendetta/extortion attempt.

So I'm hoping to see him end up paying the defendants and courts costs, and hopefully at least slapped on the wrist by the bar. I write satire, and he's setting DANGEROUS precedent with this SLAPP case. If we're going to set a precedent, I want it to be "this ends VERY badly for the nuisance lawyer."


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:27 am @Ross
I'd hope for a lot more than a just a slap on the wrist if it goes before the bar considering her pervious acts of misconduct and the total over the top waste this case is.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:36 am http://networkedblogs.com/z4Xm9

"Right now the only thing that two genuine charitable fundraisers are having to compete with, is an asinine attorney forcing them to spend money that might go to help animals or cure cancer, and instead give it to other attornies who will have to use that money to teach Mr. Carreon how to read."

Best line. Nice article!


Ann Bransom • Jun 22, 2012 @9:38 am thanks, W Ross! Here's the direct link:

http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/06/delu ... rreon.html


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:48 am @Foster In my heart of hearts me too, but I suspect he's gotta go pretty far to get disbarred. Being a dickknob isn't illegal, it just will make you ridiculously unpopular.

I'd be thrilled if that happened, though. Whatever happens, at least it won't happen in the dark. Good or bad, everyone will see it.


Joe • Jun 22, 2012 @9:48 am Ann, that is a stellar write up- great job!


Ken • Jun 22, 2012 @9:50 am "Charles Carreon has eaten all the clothespins."

Magnificent.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:52 am @Ross & Ann
Great find the best part (at least to me) was this
“My haters have delusions of grandeur – they think 'they are the Internet' and their opinions matter to someone besides themselves.”

Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are a very real symptom of a mental disorder. If Charles Carreon were to seek professional help, and I believe he absolutely should, I am completely confident that any mental health professional would qualify starting one’s own religion, crusading against the “unwashed masses” with no support from anyone other than one’s own equally mentally disordered family members, and being legitimately surprised when corporations as large as Google do not personally respond to you or "pull the switch or click the box", as clear indicators of disordered thinking.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:53 am OK so weird thought. Here (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... carreon/2/) it says

"This was an issue that we noticed a year ago, and Carreon confirms its truth. He became FunnyJunk’s DMCA agent as of May 25, 2012 (after sending the wrong amount of money to the Copyright Office a few days earlier), just in time to send Inman a letter on June 2. Until that date, the site appears to have been ineligible for any DMCA "safe harbor" protection from infringement suits.

Still, Carreon says it doesn't matter now. "[FunnyJunk] now [has] an agent,” he said. “If someone wants to make something of the fact that they didn’t have an agent, there’s nothing to be made of it. There you go. It’s a fact. There’s no legal claim that can be made on it whatsoever. But you know, you always know that your adversary is scratching and having a problem when they’re looking at what we would call non-material, non-compliant stuff that would not be admissible as evidence.”"

Now he's FunnyJunk's DCMA agent, AND American Buddha's, but Tara Carreon has said NUMEROUS times that American Buddha doesn't really respect DCMA.

If he's the DCMA agent for two different sites that both infringe, can HE lose that designation? Because he's the agent for two clients who've shown to not actually follow the law.

Longshot, dunno. Not my best.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @10:02 am I was also wondering about him being their DCMA agent. He gained that position almost 1 year after the original post by Matt and removal request at which point had no DCMA agent which would mean they have no claim to "safe haven" (or whatever it is called) prior to the 25th of May so could Matt (or other artists) at actions against funny junk for images that were posted prior to the 25th due to lack of them meeting DCMA requirements?


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @10:04 am Also didn't notice that he contacted ArsTechnica to express the hurt that comes from the backside region:

"Update 2: Carreon wrote to Ars on Thursday afternoon: "You downplayed the problem of Internet charity fraud disingenuously, failing to note that the third link below, even though the first link below, about Tsunami charity fraud goes directly to the Washington Attorney General site. The problem is enormous, and minimizing the truth with a clever quip is not responsible, ethical journalism, but pandering to the mob: 'If you didn't believe this was one of the Internet's big problems, you are not alone).'""


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @10:10 am “There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."

at what point did any one state that funny junk had incestious relations with it's mother?
And does he still not understand the nobody said her mother fucked a bear?

this if from the Ars artical


BEG65 • Jun 22, 2012 @10:23 am @Noah Calloway: But there is no demand to take user content down. Inman himself complained about FJ's use of his material last year, but did not go to the point of trying to use DCMA to take the stuff down for pretty much the reasons you cite (plus the extensive amount of time it would have taken him). So he complained publicly, then let it be.

Then a year later (now), we get that batshit lawsuit and this followup one.

/pass the popcorn…


Look at that • Jun 22, 2012 @11:13 am Late last night, a question occurred to me:

Carreon is CA only (inactive Oregon),
if FJ is either (or both) Nevada/New York, and
Inman is Washington State:

Where is the legal standing for Carreon to write a threatening letter to Inman? Wouldn't a lawyer from Nevada, New York or Washington states have to do it?


Mike K • Jun 22, 2012 @11:49 am @Look at that
I thought of the same thing, but I'm guessing that letter writing has been relegated to being a non-lawyer task so that it's not practicing law.
Either that, or maybe because it would have been a federal case it didn't matter as long as he is a lawyer in one state.

I'm not sure on either thought, but it would suck for a corporation to have to have a lawyer in every state in order to write letters threatening people.


Ara Ararauna • Jun 22, 2012 @4:26 pm @Jay Lee – My thoughts precisely. I'm also believing that when the fund rising comes to an end and all the checks are sent to the individual charities (after being received as bills and arranged neatly for the Kodiak photo for Bryan), Charles will jump in and claim that Matt was cleverly forced to send the money to the charities because he donated to the fund and Matt had no other recourse that to reluctantly do as stated in his fund raising project.

In other words, Charles will cling to a red-hot nail if it is to make sure that his ego is not tarnished by defeat. Or something like that… *squawk*

Also @W Ross, thanks for all the lulzy links and posts. They are making my day.

For me an atavist is simply a person that thinks that we are still living in the XVIII century or something and acts and thinks like back in that era, but that I suppose is called "being an anachronistic person". In biology, it would be simply someone with Down Syndrome, so, what is Carreon refering to, to the biology approach or to the anachronistic one?

"An atavist refuses to acknowledge social restraints that prevent him from pursuing his exclusive personal benefit." <<< that describes the admin of FJ perfectly, in body and soul, why no one is noticing that Carreon seems to spit on his own client with that same rhetoric?

The lolcoaster must roll on.


Caleb • Jun 22, 2012 @5:37 pm Look at that @8:15 pm

This lawsuit seems to be way out there. What if it were way out there on purpose? (as in crazy-like-a-fox?) What could be a positive outcome for he-who-shall-not-be-satirized?
My guess? Advertising.

Think about it. If you are a butthurt censorious asshat, do you want a lawyer who is fair-minded, follows the rules of professional responsibility to a letter, and only represents colorable claims and arguments to the court?

Of course not!

You want a lawyer who will make the person mocking you pay, no matter what. You want a lawyer who will "find a law" that will hurt them in some way. You want a lawyer who knows how to stretch a claim, and how to make subtle misrepresentations to the court. You want a lawyer who will "go to the mat," no matter how much both the laws and the facts move against your case.

You want Charles Carreon.

Right now, we are all in agreement that this lawsuit destroys Carreon's reputation. (So there is such this as bad press!) But that assumes that everyone thinks like us.

I guarantee you that there is a certain (discreetly silent) percentage of the population who is watching this episode and taking notes. These are the people who want to inflict hurt on their enemies, regardless of the rule of law. They are the ones that see our institutions only as a means, and not as and end. And they are the ones Carreon is advertising to.

Carreon is (trying to) ride the wave here. Its a good time to be a censorious douchebag.Today, all it takes is a Vaughey in the right place to do the damage desired. Carreon might also be testing the waters. If he receives no significant repercussions (Rule 11 violation, adverse anti-SLAPP ruling, ect.) he'll know he can pursue this line of "work" with relative impunity.

So the outcome of this case will both determine the viability of roundabout censorious legal claims, and Carreon's willingness to carry them out. One hopes the courts are up to handling the task.

(I saw in a previous comment that the judge given the case is associated with the ACLU. I hope this reduces the 'Vaughey risk factor'. We'll see.)


Look at that • Jun 22, 2012 @5:48 pm @Caleb, thanks for the analysis. I can see if he's not punished, he'll be the go-to guy. Truly sad.


Rakiura • Jun 22, 2012 @7:24 pm I can't help but feel that someone who got their law degree from the bottom of a Fruit Loops box, and thought the 'bar' exam was taking a sustained beating with a metal rod, might have fared better than Mr. Carreon in this instance.


Ann • Jun 22, 2012 @7:30 pm San Jose Mercury News just published a terrible article about the situation, but it does contain some more interviews with Carreon & EFF.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2092 ... -following


Chris R. • Jun 22, 2012 @9:16 pm @Ann, that was a terrible article. Too bad it wasn't made before the satirical site did it's letter to the readers about bad reporting.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 22, 2012 @9:18 pm @Ann — Not sure what's so horrible about it (or why the Carreons are praising it as the first actual news article). The guy takes some of Carreon's claims at his word (e.g., the idea that Inman's drawing was directed at Carreon's mom*) but… am I missing something?

*I still don't get how people (especially Mr. Carreon) miss this. The letter was directed at FunnyJunk. It says "Your lawyer = A+" and then talks about "your mom" (I still can't believe this is an actual lawsuit). How can "your" simultaneously refer to two different people?


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:27 pm The sad thing is they think "the Internet" is different from "everyone." They don't realize that they're abhorrent to everyone, not just some 4chan like sub-strata of the Internet. They expect that there will be some news story that "gets it right" and then there will be this mass flood of public support that will rush in and validate them.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... b54e09b081

But yeah, Tara's posting again. They can't stay quiet for 24 hours. They literally cannot help themselves.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:28 pm (My favorite part was this line "The right answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not a lawsuit." cause now I know a thread poster's secret identity!)


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:30 pm @Adam at this point i believe Carreon is just making up claims as he goes because of this quote of his
“There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon said. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."

At no point to i recall any article or Mr. Inamn making remarks to suggest funny junk had incestuous relations with its mother nor that the mother depicted was his.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:33 pm @Ross
i kinda wanna join her forum to jsut tell her to stop and save grace then i sit back and laugh my ass off at the train weck.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:35 pm @Foster OK, so it's not just me! I've avoided signing up for it because I feel like that's too aggressive, but some part of me REALLY wants to talk this out. Been sorely tempted to click register, though.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 22, 2012 @9:38 pm @Foster and Ross — for some lols, check out the terms of service required to register for the site. They promise not to reveal information about you to any third parties unless… they don't like you, basically. You have to tell them why you're registering, and you have to promise that you're not a government or political agent.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:40 pm @Ross
I have mulled it over a few time but every time i read what shes writing i am afraid ill reply with some thing like this "just shut up for god sakes you making matters worse foe every one including making your self look like a freaking lunatic"


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:44 pm I feel like it's a honey trap. You get the sweet, sweet joy of interacting with Bellatrix Lestrange (oh yes, he did.)

But ten bucks says something in that stupid TOS makes you agree to something you can't help but violate when while trying to have a conversation with Drusilla from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @9:48 pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Group_(USA)_Inc._v._American_Buddha

This has a Wiki now, and it's connected to his main Wiki.


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:55 pm @Adam
I just read them and wow shes breaking her own tos on 3points


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @9:59 pm @ross
I belave that another case his site was sued over posting books from the Penguin group its a great find but id love to seen the out come


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @10:01 pm https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 7524444613

Here's a Tara Carreon fight you might not be familiar with. Here she explains how her and her husband operate in disturbingly plain language… (spoiler alert: They fight dirty and play aggressive ball.)


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @10:05 pm https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 613&type=1

And here's here making a strong identification with Anonymous… ironic that Carreon would talk about how abhorrent misuse of computers is and his wife's Facebook group would hang an Anonymous banner :P.


W Ross • Jun 22, 2012 @10:08 pm Could be just one time though so…

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set ... 613&type=1

OK 8 times. :D


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @10:15 pm She is freaking nuts on one site she posts there Buddhist, another atheist, another Jewish what is religion rule-let


n o 0 n e • Jun 22, 2012 @10:15 pm not truly relevant (or necessary)

http://doctorcatmd.com/wp-content/uploa ... olberg.jpg


Look at that • Jun 22, 2012 @10:34 pm A commenter called Battle_Pony on Ars Technica has found some interesting links. Copyrights for FJ and Carreon and a bitter encyclopediadramatica entry about FJ

Go to page 6 on the comments thread, and (at this writing) it's the last comment:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... mments-bar


Foster • Jun 22, 2012 @10:36 pm also gust a thout but a title for mr. carreon's next book "how to attack the 1st amendment as you use it as a sheild"


Margaret • Jun 22, 2012 @10:40 pm @Ann: That was a TERRIBLE article.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @1:58 am @Lookatthat

http://trademark.markify.com/trademark- ... reon/48414

Epic find. "A Friend With Weed is a Friend Indeed." LOL


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @2:00 am "Brandi Love" is a porn star. I just… this can't get funnier.

I'd love to hear why he needs that one.


Gal • Jun 23, 2012 @2:20 am @Adam Steinbaugh: You're missing several things:

"Caught up in the 56-year-old's lawsuit filed June 15 in San Francisco federal court are Matthew Inman, creator of the The Oatmeal; Indiegogo, a San Francisco website that helps people raise money online; and the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation. " Caught up, not named as defendants or anything. The Charities were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"Including the charities in the lawsuit has particularly enraged a legion of fans of The Oatmeal, already upset that Carreon brought an internet feud to the halls of justice." Because clearly, only fans of the Oatmeal could possibly be upset about this, and we're the only ones involved.

"Inman, who depicts himself as a pterodactyl who will "ptero-you a new (expletive)", includes a video of how he handles his enemies on his site.

"In his character as a carnivorous, prehistoric flying reptile that first rips the intestines out of a man's anus, then flogs him with his entrails, then steals a pineapple from a boy, tears his head off, flings it (at) a girl and knocks (her) head off, then grinds up the girl's head up in a wood-chipper, blends it with the pineapple, and drinks the grisly cocktail," Carreon explains in his lawsuit. He adds that Inman's followers embrace his "brutal ideology."" Do I really need to explain what's wrong here?

It's a terrible, slanted article. Sorry.


Nibor • Jun 23, 2012 @2:48 am I ask myself what would happen if IndieGoGo searches the donations and figure out which one is from cc and then just before closing the fundraiser send the money back to cc with a nice apology that it wasn't possible to include his donation to the fundraiser, and advise him if he wanted his money to go to the two intended charities he have to donate directly to them, for the participation in the bearlove fundraiser is regrettably no longer possible due to it has closed.

Would this not make the larger part of his lawsuit obsolete for he is no longer an part in the whole fundraiser, and/or is this legal to refund him, in other words is IndieGoGo allowed to do so?


AlphaCentauri • Jun 23, 2012 @3:00 am It appears that the 2165 Avenida Planeta address in Tucson is a private home, but also the address of the Maitreya School, where they have held public events:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent3.htm
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent2.htm

And Mr. Carreon represents the company with this trademark, which might explain a lot:
http://trademark.markify.com/trademarks ... d/85525535


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @4:54 am @Adam – it is poorly researched and based largely on Charles Carreon's version of what's going on. The part I find most egregious is this characterization that Matthew Inman uses the Pterodactly as an alter ego. Charles Carreon made the point first in his lawsuit and now this article states it as fact. As far as I know, the Pterodactly was just a comic he drew that was very popular, and so has been reincarnated a few times. The article makes Inman sound unhinged. At a minimum, they should have balanced that out with some of the nonsense that the Carreon's have spewed.

The Carreon's belief that something is fairly worded should be the yard stick by, which we measure how terrible an article is.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @5:24 am @Ann
While the article is mostly bull-shit it is the first article to have a statement from IndieGoGo
"As the largest crowdfunding platform operating in nearly 200 countries Indiegogo exists to provide crowdfunding opportunities worldwide," said Slava Rubin, the company's CEO and co-founder, in a released statement, "and a frivolous lawsuit doesn't change Indiegogo's commitment to this creative and popular campaign."

But beyond that and one other Quote form Inman's legal team the the article is crap.


Mike K • Jun 23, 2012 @5:33 am I'd say the bias in the article is more obvious in the summary.
Inman claimed he found some of his comics posted on Funny Junk

Really the article suffers from trying to be impartial by not making either side look clearly at fault. When even Carreon admits that the initial letter was wrong, it's bad to ignore things that both sides admit to.


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @5:44 am @Foster – IndieGoGo gave that quote in a press release 4 days ago.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphilli ... unding-is/


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @5:46 am @ann Wow i dont know how i missed that article my bad completly i retract my earlier statment that article is trash.


theNuszAbides • Jun 23, 2012 @8:31 am "THE PAIN!"

one finds oneself wanting to tip one's hat to the carreon sisters, recognizing the urge to defend the family 'honor' but emphasizing that not every criticism is indistinguishable from personal attack (it seems maria acknowledges others' mention of popehat's analyses – only enough to mock the name) – it would be so much more comfortable and elegant a gesture if it didn't have to be cut into tweet-portions.

one may even sympathize with numerous carreonesque political and spiritual positions (though marred by the supreme tackiness of, e.g., establishing a pro-enlightenment, pro-benevolence religion on a dot-COM site)… but one would first have to dismiss from one's mind the sad Wall-o'-Phail (their refusal to address – or to even indicate that they comprehend – pertinent inaccuracies and misinterpretations in their overwrought backlashes/'defense') which was one's introduction to their choices of personal expression…

if, however, one may* be pardoned for speculating sincerely but somewhat baselessly (i.e. knowing nigh-infinitely more about one's own psychedelic experiences than any which the carreons may have [had])… it would not surprise one to discover that C&T have had at least two** Trips/Vision Quests/what-have-you together, and that their persecution complexes [on this phrase, one is aware that the speculation is in larger and more-indicated company] have been built up around the best and worst aspects of those experiences, embellished by their American Buddha… works and/or further application of controlled substances. while such a blend could contribute to the character-building of delightful party hosts, hip camp/rehab counselors and/or cult leadersspiritual guidance specialists, there is always the risk that participating in the Grand Conspiracy of "hippie-drug" users sends even a duo positively dripping with internet law, library science and philosophy[TM] down the slippery slope of Speshulsnoflakitis. ("shhh, baby… listen to our hearts, not to the clank-whirr of the NSA-issue Dreamstealer next door!")

…that, or they are in the Try-Too-Hard school of ~clean living~ (don't you know Ashcroft 'cracked down on' LSD production merely so he could spike it all with nanotrackers and mind control juice?)

* and even if one may not!
** one 'good', one 'bad'


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @9:02 am @Ann & Foster, I tweeted the author of that article to let him know I felt his article was crap.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @9:08 am A small victory — the author updated the article to note that Inman was referring to FJ's mom, not Carreon's.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @9:17 am The key, I think, is not Inman's annotations on Carreon's initial letter, which (to be fair) could conceivably be read to refer to Carreon's mother, if one were hyper-sensitive to "your mom" jokes on the internet.

Rather, Inman's description of the fundraiser on the IndieGoGo page removes any lingering possibility (emphasis added):

Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother.
That page, of course, is attached to Carreon's complaint as his own exhibit.

This doesn't even reach Hustler v. Falwell levels of butthurt. At least in that case, the drawing was actually of Falwell's mom.


Mike K • Jun 23, 2012 @9:23 am To me it seems somewhat dishonest to rewrite the article without at least adding mention to what was changed.
The latest version seems to correct most of the points that were wrong and I'd probably consider it fair if I hadn't read the original


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @9:28 am @Mike — they're publishing a print correction, which I would imagine will also appear on the website at some point.


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @9:45 am Sweet, the power of criticism.


Jonathan • Jun 23, 2012 @9:51 am Hi Ken, I thought this might be relevant:

http://www.american-buddha.com/wanted-p ... nman10.jpg

It is something that was posted in a link by TaraCarreon (I think it is actually the real Tara Carreon but I can't be sure) on Techdirt. Basically, how the hell can he justify suing Inman over that bear picture if he puts up bullshit like this on his website (not to mention the other stuff there) and his wife walks around running her mouth off at anyone who disagrees in the slightest. I have always believed that while I am not religious, that is all the more reason to treat people with common human decency and respect because if we don't, who will? The fact that there are people who seem to find enjoyment from spiting others disgusts me. I really hope that Carreon finally decides to drop this debacle for his own sake, I really do but if he doesn't then I am not ashamed to say I will not be sorry when he gets his just desserts.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:00 am @All Poor Chas. They were putting all their eggs on that article (Tara even put it up on "Wild in the streets!")

I love how every point they liked so much was attributed to (mildly) slipshod research- and they're going to be corrected out.

That's like giving someone a sliver of hope, then yanking it away so you can taste their delicious and salty tears.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:02 am "It appears that the 2165 Avenida Planeta address in Tucson is a private home, but also the address of the Maitreya School, where they have held public events:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent3.htm
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.offlineevent2.htm"

At this point I think it's ok to call them "Cult Meetings."


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:09 am https://twitter.com/#!/mgafni The author's tweets, where you can see that he got basically just Carreon's side (he probably talked to all lawyers and spokespeople, so he got the sanitized "we're not going into the muddy, dirty stuff" version.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @10:10 am @Chris R. – Thank you i would have but honestly i am still refusing to make a Twitter account.

As for revisions i am happy to see that the author is open to criticism and is willing to fix their mistakes.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @10:11 am Now taking bets on which shadowy group this conspiracy is getting blamed on.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @10:14 am @Adam – i don't think he has blamed the Free Masons yet


Kryss LaBryn • Jun 23, 2012 @10:44 am Oh my god. I just had the weirdest thought.

Okay, you know how FunnyJunk kind of responded to the original C&D, and took some stuff down, but left loads up, and that was it for almost a year, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, Matt gets this demand for $20,000 from this lawyer, *made out to that lawyer*?

Do– do we know that Carreon is, in fact, working for FunnyJunk?

We haven't heard anything from FunnyJunk at all in all this. Meanwhile, we have a lawyer demanding payouts addressed to him, instead of being made out to his client; violating apparent client confidences; taking personal offense at a caricature *obviously* aimed at the owner of the FJ website rather than its lawyer; and then he not only goes and files a suit *on his own behalf* against Matt for stuff that is strictly between him and FJ, he goes and sues the NWF and ACS as well. And then writes a weird little rap song about it (seriously, dude? You're voluntarily associating yourself with Cortez? He was an asshole, man). And posts that on the net.

Meanwhile, if he was legitimately working for FJ, you'd think FJ would have fired his ass and would be back-pedalling wildly to disassociate himself from that madman. And possibly filing suit against Carreon himself for acting so severely against his interests when he was representing FJ.

So why haven't we heard anything from FJ himself? Has there been any mention of all this on his website? A brief search there myself turns up nothing about "Oatmeal", "Inman", nor "Carreon". And I don't see any mention of it there. Does he even know all this is going on?

I am beginning to suspect that Carreon took it upon himself to use that prior disagreement between FJ and the Oatmeal to try and basically blackmail Matt into giving him $20,000 by misrepresenting himself as the legitimate legal counsel for FJ, when possibly, FJ not only has absolutely nothing to do with all this whatsoever, but isn't even aware that his own name is being dragged through the muck on Carreon's coattails.

It *would* explain the apparent possible breach of lawyer-client confidentiality and why Carreon filed suit in his own name instead of FJ's. And why he demanded the money be sent to him instead of to his client, *c/o* him. Because seriously, what kind of a lawyer who is representing someone else goes and gets all offended that it is *his* mother being made fun of, and goes and not only writes but *publishes online* stupid snarky little rap songs about his client's case?

Do we have any proof at *all* that Carreon is, in fact, working with FJ? Or that FJ is in the slightest aware of what's going on here?


Gal • Jun 23, 2012 @10:44 am Can any article that doesn't point out the glaring and obvious falsehoods in Carreon's account really be considered unbiased? Gafni has been made aware that some of the claims he himself reported were harebrained, but instead of calling bullshit he simply removed them. I understand he doesn't want to seem biased, but if he's omitting facts in order to achieve that, he simply isn't doing his job.


Peachkins • Jun 23, 2012 @10:45 am For those of you who were talking about the latest news article, there have evidently been some major changes to it. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the original article, but based on the comments I've seen here it appears that the most egregious error- stating the pterodactyl comic is an accurate representation of Inman and how he deals with his enemies- has been completely taken out of the new version. No mention of pterodactyls anywhere. Here's the article for anyone who missed it:

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_2092 ... -following

I still giggle thinking about images of coded and illustrated pterodactyls being shown in an actual court document.


Peachkins • Jun 23, 2012 @10:50 am Gal- that is completely true. I would have preferred to see an edit at the bottom of the article as opposed to a total re-do. At least then people could see exactly what had changed and why.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @11:35 am http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x ... es-Website

LOL, so the now by the author confirmed as wrong story is going up on the AP. Matthias Gafni totally Carreoned that right up.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @11:36 am http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/22/458293 ... tmeal.html

Here also.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @12:39 pm http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201206 ... week.shtml

New Techdirt Article.

Best part: "The whole situation is freaking mind boggling, and so puerile it's irresistible. And while wildly entertaining, it's also terribly ugly and it's sad, and I truly wish Carreon had not taken this path. If he hasn't already, he's going to wind up jackin' it in San Diego, metaphorically speaking."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbSJET3DiX8 Related.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 23, 2012 @2:20 pm Not sure where FJ is on all of this. He/she/they are aware of Carreon's letter, as they are being much more studious at removing Oatmeal content from FJ as quickly as anyone links to it. And they haven't denied involvement in the current debacle, so I suspect they did let Carreon talk them into letting him write a letter for them.

I suspect he has since retained a real lawyer who gave him useful advice: "Keep the infringing stuff off your website, delete the homophobic crap, don't comment publicly, and let me get you out of this mess while Carreon pursues his goal of reputational self-immolation."


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @2:43 pm @Look at that @W Ross, Re: the Carreon trademark page that you posted,

Those aren't necessarily his trademarks those are trademarks he's the "correspondent on," he was the lawyer that filed the applications for his clients and is the point of contact for renewals or conflicts. He doesn't own the porn star or weed trademark (though that would be hilarious).


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @3:08 pm @Jack Gotcha. Makes sense. New Comics Beat story, also. More of the stories are starting to put together all the hundreds of threads of this masterpiece of fail.

http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/06/23/oa ... -involved/

(Also, I declare us now and forever more, Popehat's Legion of Haters. >:D)


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @4:01 pm The latest paranoid allegations are that one of the commentators here is being paid by Inman and is will be added as a defendant to the lawsuit if she keeps criticizing. I'm reposting the comment here with Ann's permission:

This is one of the little lying bitches working for Matt Inman, if it's true her name is "Ann," and she's really a girl. "She's" very active on his behalf. I wonder how much he's paying "her." Actually, the person who first threatened was STStone. The "threat" she's referring to "family members" having made is this joke I made back to him that Charles would be subpoenaeing his harddrive to prove that he was a media mole, when he threatened to call Sony Pictures to complain about my Labyrinth screenplay post. "Ann" wants to make it the cause of a Crusade. Poor, little, fearful Ann who is afraid of being named as a DOES. Well, if she keeps it up, it could happen! We found out that the person impersonating Charles at Charles-Carreon.com is actually a girl. Is it perhaps "Ann"? If so, "Ann" is definitely going to get sued. She can count on it. But she won't be named as a DOES, rather as a named defendant.
This is reaching absolutely absurd levels of censorious douchebaggery.


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @4:15 pm @W Ross, We need official 'Legion of Haters' t-shirts. For the shirt graphic, I picture an army of people riding bears and wearing pope hats.

@Adam, I'm jealous that Ann is getting more of momma Carreon's attention than I am. :( I've emailed just about every publisher and media producer whose works she's infringing on her websites. Soon it won't be just Penguin that's suing them.


Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @4:17 pm @Ann (if that is your real name) – I'd take it as an honor that you have been officially slimed by the Carreon clan. Perhaps you will soon have your very own Tara Carreon original to put on the mantle.

Meeting criticism with threats of meritless legal action does seem to be a family specialty.


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @4:27 pm Now I know what Matthew Inman must have felt like. He's just having an average evening at home, making sushi with his lady and some friends, and then boom. You've been served.

I'm sitting here feeding my baby spinach ravioli and then, boom, someone just threatens my constitutional rights and tries to intimidate me. It's surreal.

There are a lot of things that poor, little, fearful Ann is afraid of.

The Carreons do not make the list.


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @4:37 pm @Ann, You're right not to worry, they're full of hot air. If he went after you or any other commenters or bloggers he'd be on even shakier legal ground than he already is. That would also make it pretty clear to the Bar that he views the law as a club that he can use to bully people for personal gain and to settle grudges.


Tomas - University Place, WA • Jun 23, 2012 @4:38 pm A schizophrenic vexatious twatwaffle indeed. *sigh*

It seems Charles was extremely fortunate in finding his true soulmate – his bat-shit crazy wife – but it's a shame about the kids. :(


Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @5:14 pm Tara has proposed a name to use instead of "legion of haters." She recommends "cannibal kids."

Oh, and the conspiracy hates dolphins.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 6&start=20


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @5:21 pm @Jack – that doesn't seem to have stopped him before.

@Valerie – Cannibal Kids has a nice ring to it. You really can't go wrong with alliteration.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @5:25 pm For the record, I love dolphins. Cats make better pets, though.


Tomas - University Place, WA • Jun 23, 2012 @5:29 pm Heh. I'm 66 this year – can I still be one of the Cannibal Kids? Huh? Huh? :D


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @5:29 pm @Valerie, I don't even bother to look at their websites now that I've emailed links to the owners of all of the copyrights violated by their "library". Tara Carreon's bat-shit crazy rantings aren't worth taking the time to read. You can bet that Inman's legal team are recording every once of her web-crazy to show the Judge.

Acknowledging her nonsense only feeds the crazy, and that woman appears to be very mentally ill.


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @5:31 pm Also, she's probably recording the IP address of every computer that visits her servers, just so Chuckie can subpoena ISPs (chuckle).


Tomas - University Place, WA • Jun 23, 2012 @5:32 pm Hey! Wait a minute! I can't be one of the Cannibal Kids. I don't accept that the Carreons and I belong to the same species…
:P


Jack • Jun 23, 2012 @5:37 pm I've changed my gravatar, just so that they know I'm part of the great conspiracy.


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @5:41 pm @Adam – I don't hate dolphins, but I don't want one to touch me. They're a little too gang rapey for me.


Mike K • Jun 23, 2012 @5:55 pm Well I can't imagine hating the dolphins. They are the second most intelligent species on the planet, just above humans.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @6:10 pm @Ann – im a lil jelous you get to be mocked by the great crazy ones

but Cannibal Kids sounds great but can we sent shirts to the Carreons that read "Biggest train wreck of 2012"

Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @6:14 pm @ Jack You're probably right about her mental state. Implying that the creator of Lil' Abner was involved in John Lennon's death would seem to clinch that.

It would be easier to be sympathetic if these two weren't trying to injure so many innocent people and set a dangerous legal precedent. But you're right – its probably not sporting to feed the crazy and they seem impervious to social censure.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 23, 2012 @6:22 pm I wondered whether Ann was singled out because of her careful review of evidence on various websites, or because she clearly has some familiarity with the inner workings of web hosting. Or maybe because she's an English major and the Carreon's have declared war on the language. But it appears it's because she had the temerity to speak truth to powerful craziness. Tara Carreon does not like to be challenged in direct conversation. God help her neighbors.


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @6:28 pm *Blush*


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @6:34 pm BREAKING: Oatmeal cartoons blamed for public tolerance of dolphin concentration camps. Developing . . .


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @6:41 pm @Adam
Don't tell the Correons they will be in support of putting species that have higher mental capacities in to concentration camps and try to sue the world for letting them free.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @6:44 pm I kinda like the "Legion of Haters" thing too. I'd wear the shirt. :)


SPQR • Jun 23, 2012 @6:47 pm Well I can't imagine hating the dolphins. They are the second most intelligent species on the planet, just above humans.

I can't think of a better reason to hate them.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @6:51 pm Also, @Tara Carreon

My name is Will Ross, and I'm a satirist of little note. I am not afraid of your threats, however. I have done nothing but report, aggregate, and pass information around.

If you want to pick a fight with a Satirist you're certainly welcome to, but I will drink your milkshake.

Will Ross
XXOOXXOOXXOO


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @6:54 pm @Ross

Tera (mockinly): My milkshake bring all the boys to the yard and there like its better than yours


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @6:57 pm LOL. She was yelling at us, then she got bored and was more interested in the other thing she was talking about… so she decided to just talk about that instead.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @6:59 pm wait she has things to do besides rant crazy online i thought that was her species form of feeding
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:08 pm

PART 3 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VI: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Steps In cONT'D.)

Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @7:27 pm Would Ralph Nader have a case against them for associating his name with their batshit? I mean I don't know what his opinion is about their site, but would he have legal recourse if he didn't want his name associated with photoshopped penises? Just curious.


Ann • Jun 23, 2012 @7:42 pm @Valerie – I don't know what Ralph Nader thinks personally, but his campaign staff was less than thrilled with her…um…devotion.

http://naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/ ... afc07b5553


Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @8:06 pm @ Ann Um, wow.


Foster • Jun 23, 2012 @8:08 pm well the ralph nader compaign will be more detramented by her support then helped she should support who she wants to loose


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @8:55 pm Tara's Law = Conversations will START at a Nazi reference, and inevitably end in a reference to Walt Disney.


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @9:09 pm Best line from Tara ever "I've been disturbed for some time now," how appropriate.


Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @9:39 pm The Nader stuff actually makes me feel kind of bad for her. He is obviously someone she idolizes and lionizes, yet she simply can't stop herself from alienating his campaign because she is incapable of responding to critics (defined as anyone who has an idea even slightly different from her own) with anything other than a vulgar screed and the inevitable adding of their names to the great conspiracy. If she could figure out how to reasonably disagree with other people, she'd be much better off. Instead, its foot-bullet after foot-bullet.

The fact that she attributes Nader's silence towards her as a result of the "mafia" that surrounds him is kind of psychological self-defense against the realization that her hero is not exactly who she thinks he should be and does not share her entire agenda and may not even value her *ahem* efforts to promote his campaign. I think that kind of revelation would be something akin to the death of God for her. :(


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:06 pm I don't feel bad for Tara Carreon. She is choosing to speak, and she is choosing to speak publicly. She is choosing to say inflammatory things.

She has a LONG history (5+ incidents) of flame war and trolling. She went to no less than three websites to start trouble, and calls people out (again, publicly.) She's threatened at least two people with Lawsuits.

As for if she's mentally ill, then she needs to get some help. But nobody is going to Tara Carreon's house and saying "hey, come talk to us." Tara Carreon is popping up places, starting fights, then when she LOSES those verbal fights she runs off and plays the wounded victim.

So I refuse to feel sorry. If she doesn't want to lose verbal/fact fights, she ought not start them. The quickest way for her to limit the number of people in arguments with her is to not engage- which she refuses to do.


Valerie • Jun 23, 2012 @10:24 pm In my new gravatar pic, you can see my cat standing on my shoulders and watching what I type. He is paid by inman to make sure I am fulfilling my duty to the grand illuminanti by making jokes and comments that mock the penis art ralphnader library. If I stop typing, the cat wil latch onto my head and then…. the bearo-dactyl comes…… And I weep

And since we are dealing with crazy careeons, the stuff I wrote directly above is not true. The CIA is writing the checks – Inman just leant them the bears- o-dactyl.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:29 pm http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/affiliate- ... marketing/

New article, and a damn good one.


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:40 pm http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/affiliate- ... marketing/

Good new article.


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @10:42 pm Lol. Charles Carreon is freaking John Lennon. http://imgur.com/JHriw


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @10:52 pm Also here is an image of Tara accusing Ann of being a first a man, then a female author of charles-carreon.com. She can't even decide in one post the gender of a person. I blurred the face so you can share it with others. http://imgur.com/L9xKo


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @10:59 pm http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/affiliate- ... marketing/

New article


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @11:15 pm Lol. Carreon is going to get hit by the ASPCA lmao. http://www.thepummelo.com/2012/06/charl ... 8769117282


W Ross • Jun 23, 2012 @11:23 pm http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/affiliate- ... marketing/

New article. Check it.

@Chris R I think(?) that's a satire site. It's so dry it's hard to tell.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @11:27 pm Er — note that the ASPCA story is satirical. Definitely had me confused as to what the hell kind of legal theory they'd have to use to support that.


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @11:42 pm Noted, didn't read the giant image on top.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 23, 2012 @11:50 pm Happens to the best of us. I just learned that the name of this website has to do with hating the Pope.


Chris R. • Jun 23, 2012 @11:52 pm Why else would you steal the man's hat? J/K didn't realize it myself.


Jonathan • Jun 23, 2012 @11:59 pm @Ann

I'm fairly sure "Charles Carreon" validates that it IS possible to go wrong with alliteration. Suppose he screwed that one up for us too…


Just sayin'... • Jun 24, 2012 @12:17 am Does anyone else find http://www.oestia.com/ more than a little ironical, given a certain post on facebook (referenced earlier in this thread):
"Occupy Tucson 'For the record: I have no respect for Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism or Luciferism. Does that make me an anti-semite. No. It makes me an atheist. Which I proudly lay claim to. Religion is the cause of all the trouble in the world. Give me a world without religion so I can live in peace!'
October 9, 2011 at 4:45pm · Like"

She's an atheist, who starts her own religion?


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @12:22 am Wow…just when I thought this couldn't get any stupider. I'm truly sorry Ann, if you do end up in court over what you've said (if for no other reason than the headache that I'm sure it will involve, as you are obviously in your legal right to say everything you've said, even if you really are the person behind charles-carreon.com)
You know the Carreons have taken this too far when my husband begs me not to "be careful" with the comments I post, and asked me not to write a blog post comparing Carreon to Robert O'Keeffe (see one of my earlier posts) out of fear that they will sue me for threatening him or something by insinuating that he will end up dying alone, broke and defeated (which is what happened to O'Keeffe…he died of natural causes, sever years after loosing his last case, BTW)


BearLoveGirl • Jun 24, 2012 @12:27 am @W Ross and @Jack
Here, this is for you, from Jack's idea. This is a gift for W Ross, Jack, and Ken, and other members of the Legion to use for whatever you want, should you want to use it. :D

And no, I'm not Inman. I'm not sure how to prove it, but I'm not.


BearLoveGirl • Jun 24, 2012 @12:27 am Aw crap, I forgot to close my href tag thing. Sorry!


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @5:51 am For the record, I am not behind any of the parody accounts, but I fully support the right of anyone to parody or satire a public figure as long as they make it clear that it is parody and satire. Ironically, that includes Tara Carreon. If she wants to draw penises on people's faces or call me a "lying little bitch" that is her opinion and she has a right to express it without fear of litigation, as long as it is clear that it is her opinion and she doesn't infringe on any copyrights in the process.

@Tali – yeah I posted the Nader link on my Facebook page and when my husband got home I got the usual, "Luccccccccyyyyyy."

He learned a long time ago, that telling me not to do something is the equivalent of a double dog dare. Poor guy! ;)


Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @6:40 am @ W Ross. I get what you're saying about how they keep picking fights, but I think Tara's world is colored by shit-covered glasses and she can't remove them. She sees boogiemen literally everywhere, and I don't think she can turn it off. Everywhere she looks, she sees evidence of an existential threat that must be met with full force.

She doesn't believe in mainstream religions, which is fine, but the elevation of Nader to an untouchable demiGod and the way she describes her husband a s some kind of saintly John Lennon reminds me of how old USSR, after outlawing Orthodoxy, had to create a substitute cult of personality, complete with a waxy-dead Lenin to admire. This kind of thing gives some people meaning in life. Many people need faith in something, complete with rituals and saints. (Stalin, for instance, is now a popular icon among religious people in Russia. Never mind that he suppressed the church and killed all those people) Even without formal religion and God, people need to feel like part of something big and important – usually this just gets siphoned off into sports fandom, a political campaign, or some similar, harmless, activity. And then sometimes it doesn't.

Lately I've experienced a more benign situation with my boyfriend's mother. Lets just say she has some interesting theories about catholics & jews (in her mind jews are still mad about the Holocaust and take every opportunity to injure Germans. Catholics just suck).

The crazy on the cake is that she believes both groups are working together with the sinister children of her half brother to steal her house or something. In this conspiracy, I am the catholic temptress that will steal her darling son and make catholic devil-span babies with him. And after many happy years of marriage, the catholic devil-spawn will inherit the money and "the Jews" have their revenge. and… .

Fortunately, my would be mother in law has poor computer skills (although the IRS and FBI have received some wonderful rambling letters). delusions only annoy those around her. You can try to logically argue that her theory is fucking nuts, but that's water off a duck's back. As this crazy is contained and deemed not to be a threat to itself or others, it is mainly tolerated and corrected (although the IRS and FBI have received some wonderful rambling letters). Her loving family has asked her to see a shrink, but she will not. I'm guessing, Tara won't either. Both she and my prospective mother in law would likely benefit from some psych care and drugs, but that seems unlikely because undoubtedly the doctors are part of the great "THEM" that stalks their daily lives.

The hypocracy and friviolous law suits are outrageous and make me very angry, but, I am really beginning to believe that Tara Carreon's perception on reality is so screwed up that she literally cannot end the self-destruct sequence herself. That's the part I feel bad about. It must be a wretched little world to live in.


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @6:44 am @Ann you might not be behind any parody account, but I see you haven't confirmed or denied any knowledge or participation in the illuminati. So I will take your silence as implicit confirmation that you are a high ranking member of the so called enlightened.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 24, 2012 @6:53 am Ann: If Mr Carreon does send a subpoena or a request for deposition your way…

a) Make sure that Ken's "Meet and Confer" letter closes with "snort my taint". :) And waive attorney/client privilege so he can post it…

b) It might be something the state Bar would highly disprove of: Using subpoenas to harass third parties solely because they are online critics of you and your wife's behavior, especially combined with Tara's threats to "You'll need a protective order to keep your porn stash secret" to other posters, certainly paint a picture of someone who should not be licensed to practice law.


Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @7:13 am @ Chris R Quiet, you fool! There's no illuminati. Shhhhhhh! :(

Although, our secret society does need a cool t-shirt logo… I vote for "legion of haters" with the graphic art described by @ Jack. "Cannibal Kids" has a nice ring to it, but I think most of us are not kids. There is nothing sadder than an aging cowboy hipster wannabe passing himself off as some kind of kid.
http://www.american-buddha.com/arizonakid.toc.htm


Nibor • Jun 24, 2012 @7:15 am @Ann, Somehow I doubt the "poor" guy disagrees with you that he is ;-)


Nibor • Jun 24, 2012 @7:16 am Sorry I meant agrees with you :-(


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @7:38 am @Jack can I use your gravatar too?


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @7:57 am @Nicholas – I am pretty confident this is an empty attempt to "scare" me into shutting up. I have made all my commentary completely in the open, and I stand behind each and every point I've made. They have no proof whatsoever that I've done anything, but criticize them, because none exists.

Here's where I am struggling. I don't care about her personal remarks about me (calling me a bitch, a liar, accusing me of getting paid by Inman, etc). That is her opinion, and, frankly, I have been called worse.

Where I get heated is the threat of suit. When my family and others, for example @Tali's, start making remarks like "be careful", "please don't post that", etc, isn't that exactly what we are mad about? We should not have to be afraid to speak the truth as we see it or share our opinions, and this man being licensed to practice law is the source of that fear in this circumstance. That's what makes me feel like i should get all letter writey.

I don't know. Where's the line?


Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @8:37 am @ Ann I think sometimes the crazy and nastiness overshadows the key points:

He wants to set a precedent that may destroy crowd sourcing sites like indiegogo, which do a lot of good in the world http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... nding.html.

He wants to set a precedent that major charities like the WWF have to police and be held responsible for every single bake sale fundraiser held in their name.

Most significantly, Charles Carreon wants to rape the first amendment while you watch. By setting a precedent that restricts satirical speech on the internet, he wants his foes to shut up or pay the price, and if that opens up a freedom destroying can of worms, so be it.

Charles' lousy raps & Tara's penis art are a really a non issue (except insofar as they highlight the need for better mental health care in the US and provide a textbook example of epic hypocrisy).

What makes these buffoons dangerous people is their desire to undermine the first amendment to extort money from the gullible and silence any one who would try to say "Hay, stop doing that, it makes you look an asshat punching a dolphin."

Thank goodness for the pope hat lawyers and others who have offered pro-bono services to people targeted by these litigious bastards. They really should have golden legion of hate t shirts.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @9:20 am http://www.dailytech.com/Website+Funny+ ... e25004.htm

Yet another poorly researched/written article about the case. Not as bad as the one from yesterday, but there are several glaring errors (like FunnyJunk is suing Inman, Inman is running American Buddah, and Inman created a charity to raise the funds)

I posted in the comments what I feel needed to be corrected. It will be interesting to see if the author changes anything


Jack • Jun 24, 2012 @9:34 am @bearlovegirl That, is a thing of beauty.

@Chris R, go for it.


theNuszAbides • Jun 24, 2012 @9:39 am @Tali – augh, so depressing to think that the 'Telephone Game'/'whisper down the lane'/etc. Effect is just as applicable to a chain of having unchanging text that can be referred to repeatedly, as apparently-not-so-distinct from inflection/memory degradation in 'pure' unrecorded verbal transfers.


Jack • Jun 24, 2012 @9:39 am For what it's worth, I think it's entirely possible that the Carrions have created the parody blog and twitter accounts just to make them appear like they're the victims. Think about it, he donated to the charities just so that he would have standing to sue, and we haven't heard a thing about any actual subpoenas; because why would he want to subpoena proof that he's the actual culprit?


Dan Weber • Jun 24, 2012 @9:44 am isn't that exactly what we are mad about?

This is a major talking point of our hosts. The use of (threats of) lawsuits to shut people up is what makes someone a censorious douchebag.


Jack • Jun 24, 2012 @9:58 am I sincerely hope that no one is actually self-censoring out of concern that they'll be sued. He's a blowhard, and he's been thoroughly exposed as such by his own words and deeds. If you self-censor, even one little bit, you hand that censorious fuckwad a small victory. Screw that, let him read what the world truly thinks of him, and let him stew in his pitiful soup of delusion and microphallic rage. If he doesn't like our opinions, he can stop visiting sites like this and STFU.


Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @10:15 am @ Jack Well said.


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @10:31 am I'm not suggesting self censorship. I'm quite certain I lack the gene for that anyway (as my parents will both lament).

I'm asking if it makes me a hypocrite, if I write a letter to the California (Arizona? Oregon? Where are we again?) bar about Carreon effectively threatening me with a lawsuit, by allowing his wife to do so on a website he owns and to which he contributes?

My complaint is not the personal attacks (Although, I do wish she had at least linked to my blog! Ha!). My complaint is the that the ramifications of the "If you don't shut up, you're going to be a named defendant" threats are that others might self censor.

I don't want to be accused of hypocrisy or being butthurt myself, though, and muddy what the issues here really are.


Jack • Jun 24, 2012 @10:37 am @Ann, I was thinking about doing the same thing. I'm not sure if the Bar would actually care, but it might be worth a try. Maybe if it's brought to their attention, they'll actually do something about this abuse of the courts and the use of legal threats to attempt to silence critics.

I was also thinking that it might be worth starting an online petition to send to the CA Bar, and see if we can't get their attention with a few thousand signatures. Public outcry certainly got George Zimmerman charged and indicted, maybe it can also get the Bar to review Carreon's behavior.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @11:24 am I think, at least in my case, the reason why my husband wants me to be careful of what I say is not directly the threat of a lawsuit or the possibility of loosing (which he knows is very small). I think its more what the ramifications of it could be in our life. He knows as well as I do, that should I (or Ann, or anyone else in who comments/blogs about it) be named in the suit that Popehat will get us the pro bono help we need. But even with that, the hassle of the whole thing could have a serious effect on our lives. I'm pregnant (due any day now), we are planning on moving halfway across the country in another month or so in search of better work (thus also implying we don't have a lot of money), and I'm not exactly always of good health. I think his concern is just that it would be one more thing I'd have to deal with, and I respect that. That is why I am considering not writing my long analysis post, but I haven't decided yet. It would be out of respect for my husband, not out of a fear for those bullying douchebags. If I was still single and care-free (or at least not a mom) I wouldn't even think twice about what I posted where. But I feel that my first duty is to take care of my family, and if that means self-censoring, then that is what I have to do.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 24, 2012 @11:24 am @Jack, while the motivation is there (to have created the fake Twitter account and website), I don't think any of the Carreons appear to have enough mental capacity to write the comment. Effective satire requires significant intelligence and an ability to understand other people's points of view. And it's hard for people to effectively satirize a position they legitimately believe, especially if they're batshit crazy.


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @11:29 am @Tali – those are very real fears and exactly why his litigiouness and fear mongering abuses of his position as an attorney are so egregious. You have to think about your family first.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @11:47 am @Ann exactly. And my personality is such that I usually would be more than happy to be defiant and keep acting within my rights (I'm currently involved in another, not wholly different issue, where one of the managers at the store my husband works at (but not for, he works for a sub-contracted company) and I worked at until I resigned to for health reasons in the last 3 months of my pregnancy has told me that I am only allowed in the store if I am actively shopping because I "spend too much time there" and "everyone knows [me] because [I] used to work there." The store is a block away from the hospital, and we only have 1 car, so occasionally if I don't want to sit at starbucks all day, I'll spend some time in the store (usually just until my husband's lunch break, but sometimes the whole shift). I know they don't have a right to do that, so I still stay there, daring the manager to throw me out).
I'm not one to be bullied, but I do have other people besides myself to worry about now. I sure hope the Carreons are stopped, and soon, so that the web can go back to being the place of free expression (and wantonly calling people you disagree with "fags" or something) that it has always been. People like Carreon and Kimberlin need to be taught a lesson in free speech.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @12:00 pm So can someone tell me if this rebuttal makes any sense?

In my comment on the DailyTech article (pointing out the errors in the article. I suppose I should also email the author, but I'm in my second day of early labor only have so much energy) I say the following:

The next commenter counters by saying the following:
I think, for the most part this commenter agrees with my analysis as a whole (the previous quote excluded), but I'm not sure
I'm just trying to understand how on earth Carreon could be still acting on behalf of FunnyJunk in this lawsuit, where he is representing himself and seeking damages for himself, not FunnyJunk. Yes he mentions FJ as a client in the complaint, but I don't think that his claims of "FJ lied to me" (which the commenter does in their response to me) proves that this whole thing is still about FJ.

Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @12:01 pm @ Tali Congratulations on your upcoming arrival :)

This is exactly why these folks need naming and shaming (and hopefully a judicial ass kicking). Good old Chuck has a power that most of us don't – his lawyer will work for free and is available 24/7 to work on his vendetta case (although I hear he sux).

If I threaten to sue you because you caused me butthurt, it would obviously be a hollow threat – I'd need to pay a lawyer, take time off work to come to court, and generally disrupt my life. When a professional lawyer decides to press the same meritless claim, he can punish you without bothering to wait for a judge or jury to find fault.

Look out for your family & your own health. Your analysis would be an awesome read, but these bozos are set on self-destruct anyway. If they actually named a poster from this site or any other, they would just make their case even more obviously absurd.

Oh, and for the record, Al Capp died more than a year before John Lennon. Whatever you think of Capp (kind of a jerk in his old age, IMHO), it is highly unlikely his ghost shot John Lennon.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @12:02 pm GAH! I fail and HTML tags. I say this
"Aside from the first letter Mr. Carreon sent Inman, his actions have been his own, not on behalf of FunnyJunk. The title on the official case paperwork is "Charles Carreon v Matt Inman, et al." not FunnyJunk. Carreon was listed as attorney pro se (meaning he is representing himself). In fact, aside from Carreon sending the letter on behalf of FunnyJunk, FunnyJunk has been completely silent during this whole thing. So to say that Inman's response "Outraged FunnyJunk's owners and Mr Carreon" is not only inaccurate, but unfair to FunnyJunk to implicate them in Mr Carreons crusade."

They respond with this:
"Carreon isn't operating on his own, his client is hiding on purpose. Carreon's own words, which FunnyJunk doesn't deny."

This part of the previous post was not supposed to be in block quotes:
I think, for the most part this commenter agrees with my analysis as a whole (the previous quote excluded), but I'm not sure
I'm just trying to understand how on earth Carreon could be still acting on behalf of FunnyJunk in this lawsuit, where he is representing himself and seeking damages for himself, not FunnyJunk. Yes he mentions FJ as a client in the complaint, but I don't think that his claims of "FJ lied to me" (which the commenter does in their response to me) proves that this whole thing is still about FJ.

Sorry about that >.<


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @12:11 pm @Valerie

Thank you! :) We are, at this point, impatiently awaiting our baby's arrival (I'm getting VERY uncomfortable as he is VERY low, and causing literal butthurt (from hemorrhoids) on top of the contractions and general discomfort)

I completely agree. Most people will threaten legal action, but few have the time or money to actually pursue a suit, a lawyer on the other hand can get his work pro bono and devote all the time in the world to it. Legal bullying is the worst kind of bullying. I really do hope that the CA Bar will take a serious look at his actions and at least reprimand him, if not disbar him.


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @12:21 pm @Tali – Congrats!! I remember all too well those last weeks. Brutal.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 24, 2012 @12:24 pm Carreon's got to have a lot of time on his hands, too. It's hard to imagine any other clients retaining him. And his insistence that large companies like Mattel retain him as their attorney just because he emailed them smacks of desperation, craziness, or both.


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @12:30 pm Out of curiosity, does anyone know what came of him sueing the guy he represented in the sex.com case?

http://m.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/03/42328


C • Jun 24, 2012 @12:43 pm In 2002, the fee arrangement was ruled void because it was 'not clear what the 15% encompassed. http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/stories/edt0419b.shtml


Gal • Jun 24, 2012 @12:47 pm @Tali – perhaps one of us can act as a mouthpiece? I'm sure most of us, or whoever runs censoriousdouchebag would be willing to post on behalf of "a person who shall remain namelss."


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @12:50 pm @Gal @Tali @Ann,

Saw this just now. http://charles-carreon.com/be-heard/


Ann • Jun 24, 2012 @12:53 pm Carreon said his relationship with Kremen soured after the domain name was returned on summary judgment and Kremen took over operations of sex.com. Carreon, who said he was acting as sex.com's in-house counsel, said he and Kremen clashed about the site's content. Carreon said he wanted to remove obscenity.
Yeah. I'm sure that's exactly what happened.


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @12:54 pm @Ann yeah what sort of porn does sex.com have if it's worse than Bush / Condolezza stuff his wife did?


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @12:56 pm “I was affected by the image of people cowering in fear who were unable to rally themselves until one person did three things — they had a badge, they had skill and they had the courage to use it. And they ended up the hero. And that has always been the role that I have enjoyed playing,” Carreon said.
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/monica-gu ... backfired/

WTF?


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @1:00 pm We know what the townspeople think: Carreon is a nuisance, shooting blanks.
Now that is the best quote ever.


Gal • Jun 24, 2012 @1:15 pm He wanted to remove obscenity from sex.com? What next, removing cats from lolcats.com?


alexa-blue • Jun 24, 2012 @1:27 pm Googling the sordid details of Kremen and Carreon's relationship gives funny results. Funny, and at this point, familiar. A warm blanket of weird.

Having been introduced to one another by Kremen's girlfriend, who was also Carreon's ex-girlfriend at law school, the relationship became more incestuous when Kremen started dating Carreon's daughter, Ana, who he had brought in to help on the case. The two friends also started taking alot of drugs together – something that Kremen claims led to Carreon's making vital mistakes in the case.
When Carreon attempted to bring incense sticks into court and was prevented from doing so, Kremen realised he needed a different lawyer to prosecute the case
http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/ ... arreon.htm

Such was his impact that Kremen pulled Idell into other work for him, including fighting Charles Carreon's case against Kremen, which led at one point to Carreon's wife attacking Idell in the courtroom. Idell pulled in Wagstaffe and then continued as co-attorney in the case.
http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/ ... -idell.htm

NB: looked only quickly and could not verify from any other sources.


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @1:44 pm This guy made my day: https://twitter.com/#!/charlie_carrion


AlphaCentauri • Jun 24, 2012 @1:59 pm From Carreon's online resume:

"Mazursky, Schwartz & Angelo

During 1990-1993, I was a litigation associate at the plaintiff-side powerhouse lawfirm founded by superstar lawyers Chuck Mazursky, Arnie Schwartz and Chris Angelo. From Chuck, I learned the power of storytelling, charisma, and unimpeachable honesty. From Arnie, I learned the importance of preparation, brevity, and unwavering commitment to the client’s cause. From Chris, I learned that the key to success is anticipating and negating every eventuality that could lead to the destruction of your case. The three years during which I had the privilege of working with these remarkable gentlemen of the bar were the most formative of my career, and to them I owe my ability to make my way as an independent advocate."

Wow, talk about damning with faint praise.


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @2:09 pm @AlphaCentauri, Yeah Chuck must feel real good about being Charles' mentor on honesty x.x


Jess • Jun 24, 2012 @3:05 pm @Chris R. – Apparently the lesson from Chris didn't stick to well eihter.

^ ^
0 0
-


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @3:14 pm They should sue him for defamation.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 24, 2012 @3:27 pm "They should sue him for defamation."

You have to wonder, "Where are they now, and why isn't he with them?" There may be a settlement agreement that prevents them from commenting on his statement.


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @4:28 pm When Carreon attempted to bring incense sticks into court and was prevented from doing so, Kremen realised he needed a different lawyer to prosecute the case. A lawyer Kremen had brought in to fight Cohen's trademark claims, Richard Idell, recommended a star prosecutor, James Wagstaffe.
http://www.sexdotcom.info/story/people/ ... arreon.htm


Foster • Jun 24, 2012 @8:09 pm @alphacentauri – i bet there hiding faraway form anything Carreon gets near leagley speaking

@alexa-blue – the him on drugs thing does not suprise me one bet i wonder if hes on anyhtign for this case too


W Ross • Jun 24, 2012 @8:28 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 56b91b119f

Tara is drawing again, and has just dropped the "N" bomb, lol.


Foster • Jun 24, 2012 @8:46 pm @ross _ mabey im missing somethign but in this quote

"If Matt Inman had been working for the Pentagon during World War II, and had Disney's job, this is how he might have misogynistically portrayed Germany — as a fat, stupid, lustful woman to be hated and reviled — in "Hitler's Children: Education for Death; The Making of the Nazi."

Which is to say, that Matt Inman could have easily done Disney's job.

Have you seen Matt Inman's depiction of Canadians as pet animals?

This is also how Matt Inman's friends portray me in their hate emails to Charles.

If you want to get people to hate something, you gotta get 'em to hate it as a woman. Because woman is the nigger of the world."

is she saying that matt would have been in supprt of nazi germany and he thinks women are a subclass of person?


Chris R. • Jun 24, 2012 @8:49 pm @W Ross, wow. I want to quote it, but my copy and paste won't got near that sentence.


moo • Jun 24, 2012 @9:12 pm That woman is a nut. Who knows what she's trying to insinuate…


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 24, 2012 @9:17 pm Ann: If you don't have an attorney in your corner, or if you have an attorney you have to pay for, a subpoena is a pain. A big, EXPENSIVE pain.

But if you have a good attorney paid for, or pro bono (e.g. the EFF, or Ken, who'd you have in about a nanosecond), its rather an interesting experience.

Not to mention, if they were absolutely insanely foolish enough to sue you, or even to include you in a subpoena, then its pretty clear they are using the legal system for personal revenge, which is a big No No for the California State Bar (which is the only one Carreon is currently licensed at…)


Thorne • Jun 24, 2012 @9:55 pm And now she thinks SHE'S John Lennon, too?!

Can't wait for the "bigger than Jesus" quote now.

Yikes.


Valerie • Jun 24, 2012 @10:15 pm Sooooo – in this analogy, Inman is Walt Disney writing anti-Nazi propaganda. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make Carreon Hitler (or at least a Nazi)?


W Ross • Jun 24, 2012 @10:34 pm Maria Carreon and Ana Carreon are dramaing too. http://twitter.com/#!/bybeautydamned and http://twitter.com/#!/passion_lib

Must be a full moon.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @10:39 pm This is interesting…
http://www.dailytech.com/Website+Funny+ ... e25004.htm

My comment on this article pointing out some errors in the article has been hidden for low ratings (I'm currently at a -1, while the person who quasi-rebuts me is at a +2). Have I accidentally stumbled into a group of Carreon supporters?

On the plus side, the author of the article corrected the part where he said Inman ran American Buddah. He didn't change any of the other errors I pointed out, though (such as the fact that Carreon is representing himself, not FJ in the suit)


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @10:40 pm @Valerie That seems like the logical conclusion. Although I doubt Tara sees it that way, but of course I'd never accuse her of being logical.


W Ross • Jun 24, 2012 @10:44 pm The daughters are going batshit on people on the twitter.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @10:56 pm @W Ross

https://twitter.com/passion_lib/status/ ... 7129398274

wow…that's all I can say…


W Ross • Jun 24, 2012 @11:04 pm Yep. It's sad when you have to secretly warn people "ZOMG, don't provoke them, they're nuttier than you can possibly imagine." But if they're threatening lawsuits you can't be too careful.


Tali • Jun 24, 2012 @11:07 pm Yeah, I've stayed away from them for that very reason.

And even though I know impotent has two meanings, every time she accused someone of being impotent, I couldn't help but think "wow, accusing them of being infertile because they disagree with you…that's real mature"


Foster • Jun 24, 2012 @11:33 pm makes you wonder what if some further back there family tree would have been impotent


Thorne • Jun 24, 2012 @11:35 pm "Defending my family's honor"…???

Seriously, I imagine all the bluster they could collectively muster would only be as effective as when Chief Wiggum said "No, no… dig UP, stupid."


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @12:13 am https://twitter.com/#!/moniguzman

A second pro-Carreon article writer now considering a rewrite. You can't spin the truth in the digital age.


Gal • Jun 25, 2012 @3:24 am Based on her tweets it seems Monica Guzman genuinely believes that there's some danger of Carreon's lawsuit coming to something, and didn't really understand Inman's gesture in the first place.


Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @3:30 am New loyal reader here, brought in by this ongoing story.

I have a "what if" scenario I'd like to throw out there and hear what the more knowledgeable people here have to say about it.

Obviously, Carreon's motives and the way he's gone about EVERYTHING in this matter deserves to get smacked (SLAPPED) down hard, dismissed, long before this ever reaches the jury trial he's demanding.

My thoughts are these:
He donated just for standing to sue. He is but 1 of 14,000+ donators to the charity drive. By suing "pro se" could he be opening himself up to a counter suit (or class action suit) from the 14,000+ other donators to the cause? The donation drive ends tonight. I assume his lawsuit will put any payout on hold until his case is decided one way or another which could drag out for awhile. I believe the first hearing is scheduled for September? What can the masses of other donors do to see that the payments go out as THEY see fit? What if the 14,000+ other donors are HAPPY to see Inman add the new charities and don't feel their donation is being wrongfully redirected.

These are questions I've not seen pop up anywhere yet, but should be answered. Carreon is overreaching on so many levels, at the expense of so many people who probably trust and will agree with Inman to do the right thing whatever he decides, so long as it all goes to charity.

Due to donations being by credit card only and my lack of, I didn't donate, but I might be one who would want to pursue some of this if I did.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @5:59 am That's the problem in the blogosphere, isn't it? Everyone wants to be a writer; no one wants to read. It's not like it would have required a lot of research to find all sides of the story spelled out in detail.

I heard about a publisher that won't consider a submitted manuscript unless the author can name one book he/she has purchased recently.


Noah Callaway • Jun 25, 2012 @8:51 am @Roxy
I agree with all of your points! Again, I'm very firmly in the "Oatmeal supporter" camp when it comes to this whole…debacle. The original letter was wrong from a moral point of view, and (in this specific instance) from a PR point of view.

The subsequent Carreon rampange is…well…entertaining for those of us not yet caught in the crossfire.

That said, I have nuanced views about the original debate about how to effectively police UGC. I certainly think The Oatmeal was not wrong to write a post musing his actions, or to complain about his material on FunnyJunk. However, many people in these comments were saying FJ should "just" block his work. I wanted to point out how that trivialized a huge amount of work.


Noah Callaway • Jun 25, 2012 @9:07 am @Ann Bransom

“There is a huge span of content management options in terms of cost, time, and effort between code hacking to prevent certain keywords from being used and the video fingerprinting techonologies utilized by YouTube or technologies employed by iStockPhoto or Flickr.”

While I agree that there are options available (and I outlined some in my original post), I think some of the options are very bad and some of them are huge amounts of work. When I say "huge amounts of work", I don't mean 1 person is working 80+ hour weeks. I mean Google is still trying (and failing) to solve this problem for YouTube.

Frankly, every automated system will generate false-positives. Each false positive could mean a lost-user (because you accidentally censored his oatmeal comic which was about Quaker Oats), or manual work (to look into and resolve a complaint).

Unfortunately, the simpler the automated content-recognition system (i.e. "I won't let anyone post titles with Oatmeal!") the more false positives are generated, and the easier they are to circumvent:

“I'll title this post… "The MealOat!" Bwahahahaha!”

“Or get out of the content aggregation business.”

This is where I disagree. Yes, they should be putting effort into stopping infringing UGC. I think how much work is a fair debate to have. However, to say they shouldn't be content aggregators because this isn't a solved problem is to say that YouTube shouldn't have existed; that craigslist shouldn't have existed; that vimeo shouldn't have existed. All of these companies received significant complaints at their outset that they didn't do enough to police UGC.

I'm not saying FJ rises to the level of innovation offered by those other companies, but I want to caution painting with this "shut it down if it can't police content" brush. It often paints things that people don't think are innovative and awesome until much later.

“There is a difference between being guilty and being responsible.”

I agree. FJ may or may not have committed any copyright infringement (probably depending on how the DMCA-agent argument works out). I think they have a moral responsibility to police UGC to some amount; I think the debate in terms of moral responsibility is a huge grey area and was being overlooked.


Noah Callaway • Jun 25, 2012 @9:27 am @Ken

Hi Ken! Your blog is totally awesome-sauce! I came here watching the Carreon-v-Internet trainwreck, and am totally hooked.

I don't doubt that it is resource-intensive. So imagine how hard it is for authors and artists to police such sites for their work being ripped off.
I agree. It's a sticky problem. There are thousands (millions?) more users than there are policemen. I don't think we can shutter the UGC content-aggregation business model because of this though. It's given us many important and useful tools on the internets (Youtube, Vimeo, craigslist).

I'm sure there are some bad-actors in the content-aggregation world (FJ may be one, I really don't know enough about it. I still haven't been to their site after all this). If we trivialize the work required for the bad-actors to police their websites, it's going to have huge knock-on effects into the good-actors of the content-aggregation world.

Like I said, it's a sticky problem. I don't have the answers, but I think there's a good debate about it in here that was being skipped over with the non-solution of: FJ should "simply" remove all of The Oatmeal's comics.

Also, it seems as if FunnyJunk (like other sites) is structured with the intent of inviting such stolen content. Could it exist without it?
I think this is a very reasonable question. The only thing that makes me squeamish about the question is it's the same one that was leveled by the [RI|MP]AA at YouTube and Vimeo. It's the question that gets asked about most UGC platforms in their inception.

I don't know whether FunnyJunk could survive without infringing content. I do know other sites with similar business models (hosting user uploaded funny images) exist without a huge problem of infringing material (so far as I know). See http://www.quickmeme.com for one example.

Again, in it's execution maybe FJ needed the infringing material. I'm just trying to temper the UGC portion of the debate, because I don't think the business model needs infringing material. At the same time there will always be infringing material on every website that hosts UGC content… What's the solution?


Valerie • Jun 25, 2012 @9:39 am I wouldn't worry about news articles that seem to spin the story in Carreon's favor. As long as it isn't libel, there's no law against spin (and God help cable news if their was). Carreon has a right to say his piece (ironically a right he'd deny to Inman et al).

I'm all for pointing out factual errors to the reporters of inaccurate stories, but in practical terms, what matters most is the judge. He is this guy and he seems to have his oars in the water and a history working for the ACLU (not an organization that takes kindly to squashing free speech). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_M._Chen

As for the daughters, they were raised by Charles and Tara. Naturally, they love their parents and its got to be hard when the internet points out your parents crazy and general asshattery, especially when you've been brought up to think the world is against you and your dad wears a white hat. Pity them and let them be.


Foster • Jun 25, 2012 @10:08 am @Noah Funny junk existed in a much better state long ago where the site was green and a lot of the content was user made and posted (most of this content oddly is now missing) not rips form other sited it was much more enjoyable back then and was policed I saw may infringing items removed quickly and there weren't many then and the site seemed to thrive then the ads came and well you may or may not have seen the results. so they in theory could have continued without infringing on content but it seems that the traffic from such content was to alluring .


Tomas - University Place, WA • Jun 25, 2012 @11:19 am @Smorz

I would hate to see Matt Inman split the total collections to more than the original two charities, because at least a good portion of those 14,000+ who donated did so with the understanding that they were donating to those two charities and doing ANYTHING else with the money, no matter how nice, breaks the original promise/contract with those who donated with that understanding, and actually gives the Carrreon Eaters some real traction by that breach.

I sincerely hope that Matt's lawyers have strongly cautioned him not to make any changes to what he initially said he would do with the money.

Beyond that, I believe I'd truly enjoy a good solid suit against the litigious twatwaffle for his attempt to divert or delay the giving of the monies to charity.

As always, IANAL,
Tom


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @2:02 pm Worrying about how to find infringing content assumes it's in Inman's best interest not to have it mirrored anywhere. Since his site makes money with reprints instead of ads, the best way to have settled it would have been for FJ to make sure that all of Inman's content linked to the originals and included mention that reprints were for sale. Inman might even have created an affiliate program to reward those who uploaded his content and brought traffic to his site. It could all have been win-win.

As things were, it was two young web entrepreneurs lobbing puerile insults — until the lawyer got involved and spoiled everything. The feud probably helped everyone's traffic and didn't cost anyone any money.


flip • Jun 25, 2012 @3:53 pm @Noah Callaway and @Ann

I think there's also something missing from this equation of copyright policing vs. getting out of content aggregation. And that is the users. The biggest problem I've seen from people plagiarising is that the ones who are doing it are ignorant of copyright, can't see why it's important, don't care that it's illegal, don't understand that it takes real money from real people, and continue doing it even after being told it's wrong. The fact of the matter is that content aggregators make it easier to share stolen content; but these people might just do it anyway on their own forums/blogs/whatever if those aggregators didn't exist. The issue goes deeper than the people who are in charge of policing. It is about the need to educate the public more about what copyright is, why it's useful, and why it should be respected.

As someone who has had to waste time reporting infringment on my own works on the net, I can attest to the difficulty of tracking down anything and then having it removed. It wastes my time: but I also understand that staff on website payroll do not have an infinite archive or knowledge of every created work in existence. It's just as bad on their end to track down infringements, especially when they can't ask for documentation every time someone uploads something.

In this case I can't blame FJ for not picking it up immediately: but once notified they certainly acted the douche by changing titles and searches instead of just hunting out the stuff and deleting it and reprimanding users for further uploads.

@AlphaCentauri

There is a blurry area where sharing content helps raise your profile and encourages people to buy from you. Yes, it's good marketing. However, plagiarised content can also damage your profile (ie. FunnyJunk users now avoid The Oatmeal at all costs due to the suit) plus takes away your ability to raise money from advertising as the ads are on someone else's site. A link-back or credit is usually great; but some artists don't actually want their stuff to be shared in this way at all. Some prefer it if the image is not stolen and re-hosted, but instead people are encouraged to link directly to the artist's website. The problem in all this is that people think re-hosting attributed stuff is ok: but it's not. It's entirely up to the person's policy on how much of their copyright to enforce. This is why Creative Commons has a series of different licences to chose from. The best policy in all things is if you want to share something, either link directly to it from the person's website; or get permission for hosting it (unless otherwise clearly specified by the person on their site).

In general you're right a compromise can be made. But as I point out above, the lack of education and the complexity of the law makes users think giving attribution is all that's needed to have permission. And that's not how it works of course.

For many artists who share photos (or anything else) on the net, that aren't comic creators, it's actually not in their best interest to have them shared elsewhere. In a lot of cases these are photos from their portfolios, that then get re-used on other sites with no permission or attribution – or are incorrectly attributed. This is one of the reasons why getting users to understand what copyrights are about is important. The whole thing is far too complicated to simply announce that any re-use is good publicity.

IANAL, but I've done a lot of research on copyright issues for artists.


theNuszAbides • Jun 25, 2012 @4:28 pm tara's n-bomb was merely another john[&yoko] reference. not that attribution is her specialty, or anything.


Valerie • Jun 25, 2012 @4:36 pm @ alphacenturi I think you are mostly right, although I'd point out that, puerile or not, Inman didn't bring in a lawyer – funnyjunk did. Not sure how involved they were in the decision to send the letter, but the onus is on them for involving Mr. Carreon (I am guessing they did not vet him very much).

It also will cost Inman time, energy, and stress to deal with this, so while he might get more traffic in the short term, he is paying a price.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @4:45 pm @Valerie, yes, we agree, once a lawyer became involved it changed things entirely. I suspect FJ was approached by CC and was told that he could write one letter and they'd be able to split $20K. It's possible one or both parties to the email exchange wasn't completely sober at the time.


T. J. Brumfield • Jun 25, 2012 @5:24 pm Funny Junk filed under Spork You, LLC in Baton Rogue, LA in 2003.

They've filed a corporation in Deleware called "The Company Corporation" in Deleware through CSC Corporation Service Company, who specifically provides a service of setting up Deleware corporations for people out of state.

They list funnyjunkw@yahoo.com as the email address, which is tied to Bryan Durel, who also filed for Funny Junk, LLC.

He filed Funny Junk, LLC in 2011 in Nevada, listing an address in New York City. Both the LA and NY addresses are rented mailboxes in UPS Stores. The phone number listed is the fax for the UPS Store.

9618 Jefferson Hwy #375
city/state : Baton Rouge LA
country/zip : US 70809
email : funnyjunkw@yahoo.com
phone : +1 225 289 2834

Bryan Durel is an Information Security Consultant and a DBA. I suspect he knows to search his site for content. The fact that he changed the search results on copyrighted content.

9618 Jefferson Hwy #375
city/state : Baton Rouge LA
country/zip : US 70809
email : funnyjunkw@yahoo.com
phone : +1 225 289 2834

This just opened up a huge rabbit hole of finding content and information. I'm now finding personal profiles of his and a bunch more. Please allow me to be very clear. I hope Bryan Durel sees his day in court for breaking the law. I do not in any way advocate harassing him.

I'm simply pointing out that information accessible by a simple Google search is accessible by a simple Google search. Durel has gone out of his way to keep his name private in this matter, perhaps because he knows he is willingly breaking copyright law and directly profiting from it. But he can't completely hide that.


Valerie • Jun 25, 2012 @10:47 pm Oh Jesus Christ! Satire. Is. Legal.

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

Luckily, unlike the actual frontier, internet lynching does not involve extrajudicial hanging & torture. Having compared themselves to murdered jews in Nazi Germany, apparently the Carreons are now also just like the 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites who were lynched between 1882 and 1968. Yes – being signed up for porn sites and having tons of pizzas delivered sucks, but it is not the equivalent of being gassed, whipped, burned alive, or hung from a tree.

Nobody deserves to have ANY of these things happen to them & I don't suggest that anyone torment the Carreons in childish, counterproductive ways, but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept that these actions are in any way equivalent.

Highlighting their hypocritical BS on as many internet forums as possible, however, is both legal and legitimate, and, if you ask me, fucking patriotic.

What makes me (and I think many others) very, very angry is the fact that this guy is simultaneously trying to subvert free speech and make as many people as possible suffer out of simple butthurt & ego.

I am a social studies teacher who worked for 4 years in the poorest district in my state (massive budget cuts = laid off, hence past tense). So many of my students considered our legal system an arbitrary joke where powerful people (like someone with a license to practice law) can win just by inconveniencing others without the time or money to fight criminal or civil charges.

Time and again, I've cajoled them not to lose heart and faith in "the system." Crap like this makes it a lot harder to make that case. Inman is lucky that he #1 has the money to hire a competent lawyer & #2 has a platform to rally support & attract groups like the EFF.

I'm not an anonymous critic. My name is Valerie O'Gilain and I live in New Hampshire. I taught at Stratford Public School before they were forced to get rid of the high school. Sue away if I've "lynched" you by pointing out the obvious.

*http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=896&start=40 – Unlike Funnyjunk's users, I always cite my sources.


Jonathan • Jun 27, 2012 @4:20 am http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... t-give-up/

What the hell is this? Doesn't he know when to give up. Now he wants HALF the money that was originally intended to go to charity. He has no moral high ground at all. I hope this gets laughed out of court because if it doesn't I will have lost all faith in the legal system.


V • Jun 27, 2012 @4:30 am @Jonathan
The arstechnica article got it wrong. The amended complaint says he wants the two charities to get 50% each.


6.
Disbursing fifty-percent (50%) of the Charitable Fund to the National Wildlife
Foundation;
7.
Disbursing fifty-percent (50%) of the Charitable Fund to the American Cancer
Society;

Megan • Jul 19, 2012 @12:18 pm I feel the need to add my two cents to this feed. First, dolphins are cute, and very smart, but they rape people, all the time. I'm not making that up I've done my research. So I guess I'm perpetuating the stereotype of us Cannibal Kids hating dolphins. Also, I'm all for immature antics thrown the way of people who deserve them. That being said, anyone who has a few bucks laying around and knows the Carreons' address, or where to find it, should check out the website http://www.poopsenders.com Its totally legal, completely anonymous (Not even a "well-connected" lawyer could track it down), and I believe that their reaction and sure-to-follow press release would just be incredibly awesome. Just throwing that out there;) Normally, I don't judge people that I don't know or have never talked to. But since I have emailed Carreon and received replies from him confirming that he is, indeed, utterly ludicrous and childish in his words and behavior, I think it is acceptable. Like there wasn't already enough evience on the internet that displays just how awful of a person he is. I sincerely hope that lots of poopm comes his way, because he sure as hell deserves it. Good day all:)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:12 pm

PART 1 OF 3

352 Comments (Update: Charles Carreon Files First Amended Complaint)

Richard • Jun 25, 2012 @7:31 am I can't stop reading that as "First Amendment Complaint."

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


TJIC • Jun 25, 2012 @7:36 am What is it that you tell your clients all the time?

Something like

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

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


Spodula • Jun 25, 2012 @7:43 am Even I can poke holes in that.

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

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


John • Jun 25, 2012 @7:46 am They must be having a sale on shovels at Carreon's neighborhood Lowe's. The hole keeps getting deeper.


strech • Jun 25, 2012 @7:50 am I wonder what the Attorney General of California will think about being dragged into this. Also, I don't think this bit of comedy was in the original complaint:

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

Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @7:53 am 39. By making the foregoing bolded statement, Inman and Indiegogo jointly misappropriated the popularity of the NWF and ACS as reputable charitable organizations, lead donors to believe that donations to the Bear Love campaign would go exclusively to the NWF and ACS, and lead donors to believe that donations to the Bear Love campaign would be tax-deductible.
I can get why he could have a point re:the whole portion going to NWF & ACS (although, I'm fairly certain when you accept the ToS upon donating, you are forewarned of Indiegogo's 4-9% take), but nowhere does Carreon show anything even close to Inman & Indiegogo implying that such donations would be tax deductible. He simply makes the claim and assumes it's a prima facie statement.

43…There is no such thing as a “philanthropic, kind-
spirited way” to say “F*ck off.” There is only one way to say it, and one purpose for saying it, and that purpose cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.
I hereby request the internet find as many ways and purposes of saying "fuck off" as possible. Also, since Carreon states in 39 that the fundraiser is not tax-exempt, why does he claim it is tax-exempt here?

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


Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @8:04 am I am somewhat concerned that Carreon has altered a significant portion of the language used in the complaint. I wonder how much of that stems from reading through the comments here and in other fora. For instance, Carreon has removed the false statement that the woman seducing the bear was meant to be his mother, now simply stating that such an image exists and is captioned with "this is a picture of your mom seducing a bear" (thereby implying, but not stating, that it is meant to be Carreon's mom).

Plaintiff never experienced any such invasions of his privacy and quiet enjoyment before the Bear Love campaign.
Woot! propter hoc ergo post hoc fallacy for the win! Maybe it wasn't the Bear Love campaign, but because your complete douchebaginess was revealed to the world?

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:06 am Wow! "IndiGoGo is responsible because this campaign is doing harm to me and therefore violates their terms of service"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @8:07 am err… post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy*
Sorry for the dumbs. It's early.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:08 am A question: Given the amended complaint dropped a lot of the provably false statements, how does that affect the Rule 11 motion?


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:10 am Oh….so now it's all about making sure that the poor donors (who are too thick to know how the indiegogo system works etc, -obviously) don't lose their tax deductions for their donations and preventing Matt Inman from getting their tax deduction.

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

Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:13 am Ahhahahaha so, clearly I didn't do the quote thing right. This is the section I was trying to quote:

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



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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:14 am Also, I'm surprised he can still say he's a donor: Wouldn't IndyGoGo have dropped him from the contribution roll by now?


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:15 am Spodula, my thoughts exactly. Let's get everyone's hate on and make charitable organisations' day! (But don't forget to give them notice 10 days before and register your intention to fundraise for them) :P


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:17 am Finally, couldn't IndyGoGo give Carreon a big F-U by being the one to photograph the money, then send it directly to the charities? "All these points are moot, have a nice day, enjoy the SLAPP suit and Rule 11 motion, thanks, bye".


alexa-blue • Jun 25, 2012 @8:20 am For Inman to receive tax benefits for the donation, would he not have to first claim the money as taxable income (thereby offsetting the "unjust enrichment)?


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:24 am Can a bunch of other donors get together a class action and sue CC for claiming falsely that he represents their interests and that they weren't so stupid to believe the things he thinks they did?


W. Ian Blanton • Jun 25, 2012 @8:36 am What's funnier is that there currently a multimillion dollar a year charity that was started pretty much as a way to say "fuck off" in a kind-hearted, philanthropic way.
I'm speaking of course, of "Child's Play", started by the never foul-mouthed gents at Penny Arcade.


desconhecido • Jun 25, 2012 @8:36 am I believe alexa-blue is correct. The money which Inman receives from Indiegogo is income to Inman. That needs to be reported as income. The donations will be deductible.

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:36 am Nate: I just gave $50 to gain standing for that one. After all, thats logic that works for Carreon. :) Tortious interference anyone?

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


Rand Bell • Jun 25, 2012 @8:37 am "65. Plaintiff and the other Bear Love campaign donors have been cheated out of their reasonable expectation that their donations to the NWF and the ACS would be tax deductible."

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:37 am desconhecido: That can all be bypassed probably by having IndieGoGo photograph the cash and then route the money directly, which would probably be a good idea for everyone on a CYA basis anyway.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @8:47 am Although, hey, Paragraph 55 counts as a falsehood, since Carrreon either knows or should knows that Inman can not reduce his net tax burden in this manner, since in order for the amount to be deductible, it would have to be reported as income, which means that, at best, this would not increase Inman's taxes, but thanks to limitations on the fractions of deductibility of charatible contributions + AMT rules, the only change to Inman's tax burden would be an increase in his taxes.

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:47 am 59. Plaintiff contributed to the Bear Love campaign with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS, and did not intend to benefit any other unnamed charity, or to appoint Inman the selector of what charities should benefit from his largesse.1

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

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @8:50 am I feel like we should've figured out a way to block the cray cray family from viewing popehat, we've clearly given him clues on how to amend his wording. I didn't read the initial complaint in full but so far I'm thinking the first amendment seems very different in tone to that. IANAL so, is that the usual thing to do?


Matthew Cline • Jun 25, 2012 @9:07 am Wait, Wait, I thought that FunnyJunk/Carreon had dropped the lawsuit.


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @9:15 am 70. After inducing donors to make donations to the Bear Love campaign, Inman induced donors to make purchases at TheOatmeal.com, exploiting the “halo effect” of his purported affiliation with the NWF and the ACS. Those purchases were therefore ill-gotten gains, subject to disgorgement.

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


Ricker • Jun 25, 2012 @9:15 am Regarding the tax deductibility of the donation, the Indigogo FAQ specifically states that donations are not tax deductible unless the fundraiser is a registered charity. Inman is probably not a charity and probably is liable for any taxes on the income. I agree that when Inman makes his donations he should be able to benefit from a tax deduction.


desconhecido • Jun 25, 2012 @9:16 am Nicholas, I don't think that a person can divert income like that and thereby avoid considering it income.

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

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


Joe • Jun 25, 2012 @9:19 am 43…”There is no such thing as a “philanthropic, kind-spirited way” to say “F*ck off.” There is only one way to say it, and one purpose for saying it, and that purpose cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.”

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

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

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @9:19 am I see "Modelista" has been named as Doe 1 behind the fake twitter account.


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @9:26 am Interesting:

79. Inman promptly took advantage of Modelista’s fake tweets by himself tweeting:
a. Matthew Inman @Oatmeal: “It’s interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet’s nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well.”
I for one had assumed that tweet was related to CC trying to get the fundraiser shut down and the law suit. He certainly hasn't provided a time stamp of when that was tweeted so who's to say what it's related to.


HeatherCat • Jun 25, 2012 @9:36 am So, what if anything can we donors to the BearLove campaign do – I mean is there anything written we can submit or some petition to sign that we do not want to be represented by this jerk because we do not believe in the accusations he's making?


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @9:45 am http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood

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

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

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

LOL.


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @9:58 am @W Ross, and I bet he'd find a way to take a fee for managing that trust too. Is it possible to move the 'charitable fund' while it is the focus of this kind of legal pile of poo?

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @9:58 am @Nate If Oatmeal didn't @ or Retweet it I can't see how he could possibly connect the two things. But even if he did, SO WHAT. He's allowed to mock- Carreon's argument is that every insult, joke, etc thrown his way either incites people to commit crimes against him or IS a crime against his trademark.

No. In America we have a right to dissent, even colorfully, dramatically, or unpopularly. Carreon's wife is taking advantage of that right now http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... c6de72cdc7 by threatening to sue a regular commenter, and yet all of the things she's done in this thread that are MORE incendiary than anything the Oatmeal does is considered absolutely fine.

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

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

So who's inciting here, really?


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @10:04 am @W Ross Yup, just because it was tweeted after someone else tweeted something while pretending to be him doesn't make the two related. In fact, he didn't even state whom he was talking about (of course we can infer, but still). And even then, if you can't take it then he shouldn't dish it out. I'm assuming that his postings on his sites and youtube vids would be admissible by Doe1's attorney as proof that he hasn't damaged his reputation in anyway that CC himself has.

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @10:17 am Or some choice favorites here:

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

"You guys are Internet terrorists. Do you work for the FBI, like Anonymous? Doing hits on the good guys? You're no better than a lynch mob for the KKK. "Continuing to lash out" — you guys sound like the Mafia. "You're just not getting it, but we're going to teach you a lesson," said a guy who just called on the phone from China."
"Aw, 'comon. The FBI would NEVER take away Inman's site. They work for him! Ha ha ha ha ha."
"Matt Inman talks about a lot of cartoonists he emulates, but he's no Gary Larson! He reminds me more than anything of Al Capp, and I'm pretty sure he was part of the conspiracy to kill John Lennon."
(Note: She's not suggesting the Oatmeal was part of the conspiracy to kill John Lennon, she's just bad at teh grammarz. Not incitey or defamatory on purpose, just funny.)
"Since when did you become a copyright chicken hawk? You probably still have MP3s and movies on your hard drive that you got through illegal file-sharing on Napster, Kaaza, and Pirate Bay, you hypocrite. Better delete all of them right now before Charles subpoenas them to prove that you're a media mole."
"***** REPOST FOR RETARD *****"
"For all of that illegal content on your hard drive. You'll have to seek a protective order to keep your porn stash private. What's your preference — het, gay, bi, BDSM?"
"Like I say, lawsuits are Charles' department. Which do you like better? Don't try to change the subject." (in regards to their porn preference. Note, she does in the middle say she's joking, but a joke about suing into a "which type of outlandish porn do you enjoy" is pretty aggressive.
"WANTED FOR IMPERSONATING A CHARITY: MATT INMAN
$100,000 REWARD
(Balloon 1: "Fight Cancer")
(Balloon 2: "Love Bears")" <- so a bounty isn't incitement?
"Mike Masnick Retard Wannabe Lawyer Writer ejaculates: "Carreon tries to claim that these images actually incite Inman's followers into action:
'Inman’s followers are by and large technologically savvy young people eager to follow the latest trend, who embrace Inman’s brutal ideology of tearing you a new asshole.' "
""No reason whatsoever?" Why are you so retarded? You can't read? You don't think the public's donations should go to the charities they wanted them to go to? You think donation and fund-raising should be a free-for-all? You're an idiot, pure and simple. You can't see beyond your own dick."

And so on and so forth.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @10:19 am Yeah, I donated to the campaign, right off the bat, before Carreon filed his cray cray lawsuit. I'm just a casual (not even that ardent) fan of the Oatmeal, and also, of telling people to fuck off philanthropically.

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

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

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

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

tl;dr

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @10:20 am Wow. I just got to page 30 (prayer for relief 8) and it seems he wants ALL ongoing campaigns on Indiegogo to be halted and the funds held in charitable trust, not just this one, until the site register as charitable fundraiser. Does that include the poor person he cited who's raising funds for an organ transplant?

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @10:24 am Also, I'd like to submit the term "Doe Hunt" to the Lexicon of Internet Law:

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

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


V • Jun 25, 2012 @10:24 am @Nate
That quoted tweet from Inman followed 11 minutes after Inman quoting a message from CC's website (contact page) "Due to security attacks instigated by [..]". I think there's a very good chance that's what Inman was referring to.


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @10:31 am echoing @Nicholas Weaver:

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @10:37 am @V. That would make sense too. It's hard to know without a clear timeline for everything else that happened. Inman could probably even argue that it's not even related to CC. It just goes to show that you can make any information 'fit' what you want when taken out of context. Well, you can if you're a douchebag like CC. ;)

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


Nathan • Jun 25, 2012 @10:44 am W. Ross, your "Doe hunt" is genius. Genius!


Josh M. • Jun 25, 2012 @10:44 am @W Ross:

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


Jess • Jun 25, 2012 @10:55 am @W. Ross – I like the hoodie – it makes you look totally evil.

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

http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/24/m ... /#comments


theNuszAbides • Jun 25, 2012 @11:19 am my best friend led me to Popehat and you led me to PACER. one awesome turn deserves another! i regret only that i have so little to give…


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @11:20 am Oh, on Pacer: If you use Pacer with Firefox, install the RECAP Firefox Extension. This handy extension shows when RECAP has a copy of the document in the Internet archive (saving you the fees associated with downloading it), and allows you to contribute when you download something to save others money in the future.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @11:21 am This is one that's not related to anything, just part of the general weirdness. The lawsuit says…

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

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

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

WEIRD.


nlp • Jun 25, 2012 @11:27 am W Ross, I suspect that the "death cult" she mentions was some form of standard Christian religion. She was probably brought up in it, and converted when she left college.


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @11:28 am @W Ross

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @11:28 am This, however is related:

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

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

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

Stop all future fundraising from the Citizens of California.

"A finding that the infringements by Does 1 – 100 were willful, and/or that Plaintiff’s recovery is inadequate based on Defendants’ profits; wherefore treble damages are warranted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)"

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

"E. A finding that this is an exceptional case, and that an award to Plaintiff of its full costs and reasonable attorney’s fees is therefore warranted pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1117;"

To pay him for filing a Butthurt lawsuit.

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

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

"Ordering the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society to affirmatively require written contracts with all commercial fundraisers in the State of California, and to police the activities of fundraisers in order to prevent future abuses, false advertising, and
unfair practices; "

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

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

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


Nate • Jun 25, 2012 @11:32 am He will be kicking puppies & kittens next!


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @11:34 am Speaking of Fun With RECAP:

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


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @11:45 am Doe Hunting is already being used on http://charles-carreon.com — W Ross for the win.


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @11:50 am @nate If he gets his way, (on the ordering Indiegogo to cease any charitable fundraising) he already does

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @11:53 am http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/c ... l-odd.html

Lowering the Bar weighs in.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 25, 2012 @11:56 am Wholly speculative here, as I know next to nothing about tax liability or potential deductions:

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

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


Leif Goude • Jun 25, 2012 @11:56 am I wonder how the lady trying to raise 5k for her kidney transplant travel costs appreciates being entered into evidence? Hopefully the site enjoys many of the less high profile fundraisers being successful as a result.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @12:08 pm Oh, and it seems that "Filing, then amending within 10 days" is now a Carreon MO as well.


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @12:11 pm @Nicholas Weaver, you forgot: then reading at "popehat" and "lowering the bar" what he has done wrong, in the middle


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @12:12 pm @Nibor, exactly. Do you think that even if some of these people don't meet their goal that they'll or the people who donated will be upset with indiegogo's TOS? I don't. If I donate to some lady who needs kidney's I'll just be happy she gets someone to help her.


Peachkins • Jun 25, 2012 @12:25 pm From the amended complaint:

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @12:26 pm Nibor: If Carreon took our advice, he would have walked away two weeks ago. It would have blown over a week ago, and all the unsavory insanity, business dealings, etc, would be forgotten rather than tied by Google to Charles Carreon, Douchebag Attorney ™.

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


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @12:34 pm @Peachkins:

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


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @12:42 pm @ Chris R. when I would be one of the donors, I would have read the terms and would fully willingly give my donation, in the knowledge that it could end up used differently, but from my end it is the gesture that I have made, that counts and yes that includes a fee for IndieGoGo.
When I want to send a check directly to the cause, then my bank would take a fee for that too, so I don’t mind as long as it is a reasonable amount and 4% sounds reasonable, as well the use of the 9% as long as the target is not reached to activate the initiator to do more to get the cause/fundraiser under attention of the masses.
And when the goal is not reached (and it’s a flex funding) then even the amount reached is like “every (little) thing helps”.
But if cc got his way far less fundraisers for a (good)cause would get started, and the billions (wishful thinking) that will be spent in the future, by the Internet community will end up with Apple or Amazon and not Jan(e) Doe or Max and Felix who would have been saved, but of one butthurt batshit lawyer (I believe I will get a subpoena from cc now in another case ) they will have to fend for themselves or with a lot less funds.
If he gets his way it a grief day for you guys, dolls and annimals over there on the other side of the pond.


Dan Weber • Jun 25, 2012 @12:46 pm Holy crackers, that attempt to subpoena the process server really is abusive. here at recap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is abominable.


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @12:50 pm @Nicholas Weaver, I didn’t say he would be open to advice, just to correct many of the most obvious mistakes in de first draft with a lot of help from the Internets, he understands so good, ahumm :-)


V • Jun 25, 2012 @12:56 pm @Margaret
I think that's what the discovery process is for. As I understand it that's when parties can go fishing in other people's records to try to prove whatever they claim or disprove the other party.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @12:58 pm Well, if he's reading this, at this point, I'm pretty sure he counts as a public figure, so we could always have a Hustler Magazine v Falwell contest. :)

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


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @1:05 pm O Nicholas, there you can get a subpoena for.

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

For as I understand he as taken a new case


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @1:32 pm I didn't donate through BearLove or buy anything from Oatmeal. But if I had, it would not have been due to a halo effect from those charities either way. If I wanted to donate, I would have done so directly. If I had donated through BearLove, it would have been SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of saying eff off to CC, regardless of the charity involved.

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


Jack • Jun 25, 2012 @1:38 pm @Nicholas Weaver, he counted as a public figure before this case nonsense ever began. He self promotes constantly, and is a published author.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @1:52 pm Nibor: If Carreon is foolish enough to subpoena me, he's welcome to try.

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

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

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


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @2:03 pm Sorry but I was refering to the "batman case" and your use of the frase "batshit insanity" and than linking to
http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/25/told-you-so/
To make cc even more ridicoulus
Sorry I'm not so good in humor and sometimes I seem not to get it delivered right, my fault :-(


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 25, 2012 @2:04 pm Ah. Well, you see, "Batshit Insane" is a term of art, in the upcoming DSM-5. :)


Nibor • Jun 25, 2012 @2:07 pm Ahh and my asperger is tippelde out for it ;-)


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @2:16 pm @Nibor, However I agree with Batman that referring to bats and a Carreon in the same phrase is offensive to all bats, Batmen and Batwomen (including minors i.e. boys/girls), and to all bat lovers, watchers, and farmers.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @2:22 pm "Insane" is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis.

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


Mike K • Jun 25, 2012 @2:52 pm If he dropped the points totally unrelated to the charity and brought them up in an appropriate venue, I think he'd be at least halfway to a reasonable case.


nlp • Jun 25, 2012 @2:59 pm Matt Scott

P.S. whoever signed him up for the Olive Garden Newsletter… well, that's pretty awesome.
I think the Mormons offering to come over with a free book was funnier.

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


Jon • Jun 25, 2012 @3:02 pm "On information and belief, Inman has stated that the Charitable Organization defendants approve of
the Bear Love campaign, which further brings the ACS and the NWF into disrepute in the minds
of right-thinking prospective donors."

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @3:15 pm "Oh, and it seems that "Filing, then amending within 10 days" is now a Carreon MO as well."

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


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @3:44 pm @Jon:

"right-thinking prospective donors" …?

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

Seriously, this guy! WTH?


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @4:11 pm http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... t-give-up/ New ArsTechnica article.


Sharon Price • Jun 25, 2012 @4:13 pm I noticed a couple of posts which indicate the contributions to the "BearLove Good. Cancer Bad" fund is income to Inman and/or in order for it to be deductible it would have to be claimed as income first. Not sure that would be the case. Could it be a gift under IRC Sec. 102 (excluded from income)? On the IRS website a gift is defined as any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration is not received in return. The intention of the giver is what matters – existence of friendship or non-existence of a business relationship. Inman offered no rewards or perks on Indiegogo's website (other than the good feeling of combating douchebaggery, but Inman actually does not offer this, it just happens to be the result) so it does not appear he is selling goods or services. I did find where Joanne Clark, Esq. said the money raised for Karen Klein (bus monitor) would not be taxable because it is a gift (by each of the donors). In that same article Slava Rubin (CEO and founder of IndieGoGo) said he could not give tax advice concerning her possible tax consequences, but that the donors would not be able to write-off their donations because her fund was not an official non-profit.


Ann • Jun 25, 2012 @4:24 pm @W Ross – hey, check it out! The lying little bitch got her comment called out as one of the editor's picks.

Oops.


Matthew • Jun 25, 2012 @4:34 pm I love how Charles finds some random other fundraiser that gets less in donations than bearlovegood, but fails to point out that there are fundraisers that have made EVEN MORE money than bearlovegood. For example, http://www.indiegogo.com/loveforkarenhklein. All examples mentioned are worthy causes. I don't know how Mr. Carreon thinks he can take things out of context without any statistics or evidence and make a case.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @4:38 pm You know "The Lying Bitch" is totally your supervillain name now.


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @4:39 pm The cannibal kids leader, lying bitch. Loving it. Tara is good at calling people names they can really attach to.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @4:44 pm https://twitter.com/charlescarreon

Twitter abandoned.


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @4:45 pm @Matthew, it's easy. Just claim that if his trademark wasn't attached to Bear Love, then it'd make only 2 dollars.


Stazzi • Jun 25, 2012 @4:51 pm I apologize if this sounds stupid but as a Paralegal who worked as a Legal Secretary for many years I have a question.

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

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

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

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


William C • Jun 25, 2012 @5:01 pm I just noticed the complaint no longer states

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

William C • Jun 25, 2012 @5:01 pm Wow that didnt work -.-
This is what I was trying to quote:

"62. As noted above, Doe1 or Inman proliferated Plaintiff’s email address via a fake tweet made
by “@Charles_Carreon.com.” Plaintiff had not posted the chas@charlescarreon.com email
address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations. (The
email address appears on legal papers in PACER filings in cases where required by the rules of
this and other U.S. District Courts; however, these filings are viewable only by PACER users.
The email address was also used in the Whois registration database for various websites Plaintiff
has registered for his benefit, and as by the authorized registrant/agent of various legal clients.)
Inman or persons incited by Inman also proliferated the email address and Plaintiff’s home
address on social networking websites, again for the malicious purpose of enabling
cybervandalism."


Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @5:16 pm CC just donated again ($10) an hour ago to the Bearlove fundraiser.



Ann • Jun 25, 2012 @5:16 pm WHOA. What is with Twitter abandonment?


Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @5:20 pm Sorry, link didn't work.



Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @5:23 pm @Ann
Update to the new Ars story…

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


Scott Jacobs • Jun 25, 2012 @5:25 pm Update: Carreon wrote to Ars in an e-mail on Monday afternoon: "I'm killing my Twitter account, so anyone who tweets under my name is an impostor."
MURDERER!!!!!


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @5:29 pm @Ann He's initiating code "DFE" I'll bet. (Delete FUCKING EVERYTHING.) If you see any good stuff make sure to take screenies, cause at the end of a good fail there's always a pullback that starts slow and ends with a mad dash to delete every trace of anything they've ever done from the Internet.

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


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @5:30 pm @Smorz, Oh for a second I thought he was going to claim hacking.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 25, 2012 @5:34 pm Anyone happen to grab a copy of the @charlescarreon Twitter feed before he yanked it? There's a particular tweet I'm interested in.


Jason • Jun 25, 2012 @5:38 pm You could probably ask twitter to recover the account as evidence. You'd have to do it in an official capacity though.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 25, 2012 @5:40 pm Adam – Try snapbird.org or Topsy.com


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @5:55 pm He can't prosecute "Doe #1" AKA bringing in his own Twitter records without redaction (is that a word) so he's got to have them (or he's abandoning his Doe Hunt, but I doubt it.)

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

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @5:56 pm (*"AKA Charles_Carreon without." My tablet ate some words.)


Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @6:01 pm Any of his tweets that were retweeted or responded to can still be found through a @charlescarreon search on Twitter itself.


SPQR • Jun 25, 2012 @6:02 pm " … these filings are viewable only by PACER users. "

Comedy gold. Its a public record, Carrion. What a twit.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:13 pm

PART 2 OF 3 (Update: Charles Carreon Files First Amended Complaint Cont'd.)

Smorz • Jun 25, 2012 @6:10 pm Never mind my last comment. It worked for a few moments now it's not.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 25, 2012 @6:11 pm SPQR, please tell me what you just quoted…


desconhecido • Jun 25, 2012 @6:20 pm Sharon Price says it might be a gift to Inman rather than reportable income. Could be, but it would be my guess that the IRS would try to treat it as income. That's my guess, though. No special knowledge about the issue here.


Namio • Jun 25, 2012 @6:21 pm I'm not a lawyer, and I had to read through the complaint very slowly in order to understand it fully, but even I know that trying to claim, "THIS IS GOING TO RUIN CHARITABLE GIVING FOREVER, YOU GUYS!" is NOT a valid legal argument.


Kevin • Jun 25, 2012 @6:33 pm Does any of this have anything to do with FunnyJunk anymore? So the FJ owner can just sit back and enjoy as Carreon goes on a personal campaign against Inman?


Tom • Jun 25, 2012 @6:33 pm Nevermind the fact that it's hasn't happened yet – and he would be suing based on a hypothetical future state – can you actually sue some one for tax evasion? I thought that was the point of the IRS, and if you found an issue you reported it to them.

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


Jon • Jun 25, 2012 @6:35 pm Not a tax guy, but I would think (for an amount this large) that IndieGoGo would issue a 1099 to Matt, and then Matt can issue one (or whatever the appropriate mechanism is) to the charities so that it balances to zero on Matt's taxes? I would be very surprised to find this endeavor was not completely tax neutral for him.


Margaret • Jun 25, 2012 @6:36 pm @Namio:

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

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


William Sutton • Jun 25, 2012 @7:22 pm Did I understand that right? The original analysis, IIRC, was that only the CA AG had the right to decide to prosecute charities for not filing the appropriate paperwork at the appropriate time, so now Mr. Carreon is trying to bootstrap the AG in by joining her as a defendant? I'm not an attorney, just an IT guy involved in the technical side of lit support, but somehow I just don't think the law works that way…


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @7:26 pm @William Sutton, yes. He also did not realize this until this weekend when the internet google searched the law and then made fun of him. He's an A+ lawyer.


nlp • Jun 25, 2012 @8:31 pm I didn't see anything relating to an emergency injunction. Does anyone know if he filed one? Because the campaign is supposed to end in a few hours, and presumably the funds will be sent to the two charities. And since that will undercut the whole first claim for relief, I'm surprised he didn't file one.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @8:43 pm @nlp That's why I think they should forgo any photo, and just whisk the funds right to the Charities, before Carreon can get his grubby little paws on them. A judge seems less likely to go to two charities for givsies-backsies than someone who's just holding the funds.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @8:46 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... fcaf915aa2

Ohhhh Tara's gettin feisty again!

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


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @8:53 pm He lied again in this by omitting the "take a picture of it" part of the plan so that it looks like Inman's plan is chartable instead of a plan to get us to send money to him to say fuck-you funnyjunk, with the money -then- going to the charities as a waste product.

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

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


Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @8:55 pm Oh please let me be sued! Please! Pretty please!


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @8:56 pm CC says the donations were "Fueled by irrational hatred".

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @9:15 pm Looks like Charles Carreon has an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry now too, lol. That makes it an official Internet Drama.


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @9:23 pm I also like in the filing where he claims he could be arrested for child porn because of the fake accounts on Tube8. I mean that must be a giant slap in the face for the F.B.I. I bet they just get email addresses and raid whoever they're attached to. No biggie. We just need an email address and a battering ram guys.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 25, 2012 @9:24 pm @William C:

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

Another fake tweet disclosed Plaintiff’s private email address, so cybervandals could sign him up to random websites and send him hate-emails
Hadn't he already acknowledged elsewhere that the email address wasn't private, after people pointed out how ridiculous that assertion was?


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @9:26 pm @Matt Scott: I think you meant "post hoc ergo propter hoc", not the other way around. e.g. "It happened after, therefore it was caused by", which is a classic failure of reasoning.

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

Just Saying… 8-)


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 25, 2012 @9:26 pm @Chris R — yeah, because the FBI won't subpoena the IP address when it subpoenas the user information.


BearLoveGirl • Jun 25, 2012 @9:27 pm How are donations "fueled by irrational hatred?" *facepalms*

It wasn't hatred until the batshit douchetacular started.

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 25, 2012 @9:31 pm Cybervandalism is the act of invading, trespassing upon, and damaging the personal digital property of another, invading a person’s privacy, and entangling them involuntarily in embarrassing, harassing, commercial and social transactions without their consent that expose them to further damage and, as alleged hereinbelow, even the risk of criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
This is a tort only in Carreon's imagination. Seriously. No court in the United States recognizes this as a claim.

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


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @9:37 pm @Nicholas Weaver: He didn't actually drop the conspiracy complaint, he hid it in the text without using the word. There is a whole assertion about acting in concert, as empoyer/employee, with full knowledge, etc ad nausium. That is, CC tried to "paper over" the absurdity by requiring all 100 Does, Inman, Indegogo, and both charities to function with one brain after, presumably, having a big meeting and cross-chartering all their actions.

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

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

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


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @9:46 pm The fund isn't "charitable". Period. The money goes to Inman. He has promised to give all the money he gets to Two (now maybe four?) charities, but that promise is on his word. It might be breach after-the-fact if he -didn't- but even on the Indigogo site the beneficiary of the fund raiser is Inman.

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

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

I have no problem with any of this.

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

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


Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @9:47 pm @Robert White, yup, I caught my mistake just after I posted and made a comment about it.


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @9:50 pm @Robert I like the cut of your jib. Cool argument.

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

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

(Am I in the ballpark?)


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @9:52 pm (Damn, I ee cummingsed that up. Hope you can translate that out of robot.)


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @10:01 pm Hooooly shit. She's posting again!

Twitter hasn't even answered Charles' last take-down notice for a false Charles Carreon account. At this point, all he can say is "No one claiming to be Charles Carreon on Twitter is him."
And now there are two false Charles Carreon websites. And we're going to have to sue them all. There are a lot of people just dying to be sued on this one. If you don't have a lawyer in the family, I would recommend you start getting concerned about this now. For yourself, friends, loved-ones, and fellow-citizens. This is a lynching on the Internet frontier.
http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 8e0c4ea583

WHAT IS THE SECOND FAKE CARREON WEBSITE?!?!


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @10:02 pm Never mind got it: CharlesCarrion.com


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @10:02 pm If all of this action CC claims is against CC, wouldn't all of this action be "aimed at" Arizona not California since CC lives in Tuscon?

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

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

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

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

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


Matt Scott • Jun 25, 2012 @10:16 pm Given the fact that he's publicly stated that he will no longer have a twitter presence, he can't really go after (future) twitter accounts on the grounds of confusion any longer (as there is no authentic Charles Carreon account with which one could confuse the satire accounts).

He's pretty dumb.


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @10:21 pm @Matt, that is if he were rational.


Henry the Great • Jun 25, 2012 @10:27 pm The crazy lady is at it again… mad about the image on charlescarrion.com. I find the irony about this hilarious… didn't anyone tell her don't dish it out if you can't take it?


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @10:29 pm @Matt Scott: yep, I saw your post right after your post, right after my post. 8-)

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @10:31 pm "And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling Internet!!!"


Robert White • Jun 25, 2012 @10:44 pm You know CC has opined that he must include the California AG because such person must be involved to "modify or terminate" a trust.

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

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

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

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


AlphaCentauri • Jun 25, 2012 @10:45 pm "Inman’s methods of fundraising will make true generosity an antiquated, outmoded reason for giving, and donating to satisfy spiteful motives, fueled by venomous Internet postings, will supplant the wholesome impulse to benefit others."

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


Chris R. • Jun 25, 2012 @10:46 pm @W Ross, you slay me.


Just sayin'... • Jun 25, 2012 @11:08 pm From new ars technica article:
“Plaintiff never experienced any such invasions of his privacy and quiet enjoyment before the Bear Love campaign.”

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


harrison • Jun 25, 2012 @11:28 pm Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a law enthusiast.

Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that each defendant named herein, including those named as Does, is and at all relevant times mentioned was, the agent, servant, co-conspirator, advertiser, and/or employee of each of the other Defendants and, in doing the things alleged herein, was acting in the course and scope and with the knowledge of each of the other named Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that each Defendant named herein aided and abetted the others by authorizing and/or ratifying the acts herein alleged.
This is great. Everyone on the Internet is part of a massive conspiracy against Charles Carreon. Just incredibly, massively dumb.

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

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


W Ross • Jun 25, 2012 @11:55 pm http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood?c=comments

Last 5 minutes!


Scott Jacobs • Jun 25, 2012 @11:56 pm I find the reaction to CC to be completely rational, constructive and not so much "hatred" as a pronounced "fuck off" that many of us have oft wanted to send to persons like himself when we encounter them.
I think "disdain" would be a far more accurate word… :)


Nibor • Jun 26, 2012 @12:58 am He probably will claim lost of revenues, because he had to close his twitter account for nobody would take him serious (of course not because of himself, but due to the cyber bulling by those "fake" twitter accounts)

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


Robert White • Jun 26, 2012 @2:13 am Wasn't he required to file a motion for -permission- to file an amended complaint?


alexa-blue • Jun 26, 2012 @5:33 am @AlphaCentauri – I suspect Carreon would say that at least the Vice Principal consented to be there.*

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

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


John • Jun 26, 2012 @5:54 am I would just like to point out this:

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... c&start=50

And this:

http://demonsit.blogspot.com/2008/09/re ... -body.html

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


Matt F. • Jun 26, 2012 @6:14 am It's hard to understand why someone might go to what the vast majority consider an untenable position but that is what Mr. Carreon has done. While we're all enjoying watching his very public decent into madness perhaps its time to let these antics slip into the background.

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


Jack • Jun 26, 2012 @7:35 am @AlphaCentauri, What I don't understand about Chuckle's logic regarding the motivation for giving is why does it even matter? Since when does the state regulate fiscal transactions based upon whether or not the motives of either party were "spiteful"?

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

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


Joe • Jun 26, 2012 @8:12 am I somehow seriously doubt someone suffering from cancer who receives assistance from ACS is going to care about whether someone donated out of "spite".

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


Jason • Jun 26, 2012 @8:17 am He can't possibly have much of a case. Honestly, at this point, I think any reasonable judge would say that he's done more to damage his own reputation that Oatmeal fans would have if they HAD been deliberately incited.


SamuraiKnitter • Jun 26, 2012 @8:39 am All right, up front, I know nothing of California charitable organization laws. That said, I have one big question.

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


Jason • Jun 26, 2012 @8:42 am I don't think even Carreon would be that-
Nope, wait…
I…
Hmm.


Nibor • Jun 26, 2012 @8:47 am He will likely try.

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


V • Jun 26, 2012 @8:50 am @Robert White
According to some how-to website there usually is a period in which automatic amendments are possible. I have not yet been able to find anything official regarding how long that would be in Northern District of California.
(I did find a document for NY, that says you only get 1 without filing a motion for permission.)
I also found a Pro Se Handbook for the Northern District of California that says


A defendant must respond to an amended complaint either:
1. Within the time remaining to respond to the original complaint, OR
2. Within 14 days after being served with the amended complaint,
whichever period is later.
I'd guess the period to file an amended complaint (without motion for permission) is probably similar to those 14 days. Maybe 14 days from the original complaint and/or similar to NY (just one), to prevent amendment after amendment.


Reese • Jun 26, 2012 @9:00 am Usually the one free amended complaint comes before the defendant(s) have had the opportunity to file their answer. After that, it is on motion, or stipulation between the parties. Judges are fairly lenient in granting (one, maybe two) amended complaints so long as it is early in the process, there hasn't been too much discovery conducted yet, and the complaint doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the charges.

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

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


V • Jun 26, 2012 @9:02 am Oops. forgot this part from that Pro Se Handbook


a defendant must file a
written response to the complaint WITHIN 21 DAYS
So probably similar to that time period, rather than 14 days.


Jack • Jun 26, 2012 @9:03 am @SamuraiKnitter Given that CC doesn't have standing to sue under the law, and that he donated just in an attempt to give himself standing to sue, and that neither Inman or IndieGoGo would be considered "commercial fundraisers" under the law, it's highly unlikely that there's a snowball's chance in hell that there will be a charitable trust set up.

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


Joe • Jun 26, 2012 @9:05 am @samuriaknitter – that is exactly what Carreon is trying to do. Get himself appointed trustee – so he can “supposedly" make sure the funds go where they are supposed to. Given that at one time he suspended for spending client money he obtained in a settlement for personal use, it's a bit like putting the cat in charge of the canary. Or as W. Ross hypothesized, “he must have rent due”.


Foster • Jun 26, 2012 @9:21 am @Stazzi – I would love to hear more on your point its raises many questions. one I have is would not his wife/secretary treating people with a law suit be the equivalent of him making the treat himself in a legal caspisty?


Foster • Jun 26, 2012 @10:01 am also I have been wondering if he is having or has had one of those moments your doing something and realize how fucking stupid it is but decide to keep at it thinking it's too late to turn back….. Also at what point in the suit is it too late for him to say "OOOPS… my bad I was being a total vindictive assfuck sorry, I am going to just leave now" and avoid any real legal or disciplinary actions?


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @10:32 am Ars has a new article about to Tara discussing the awesomeness that is the Nader Library Pterodactyl Killer Thread.


Grifter • Jun 26, 2012 @11:02 am Matt, that article's pretty kind to her, all things considered.


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @11:04 am Grifter- yeah, I felt like they were pretty respectable to her, too. They do a decent job of showing what she says and engendering some charitable understanding of why she could be saying it.


SamuraiKnitter • Jun 26, 2012 @11:21 am @Jason

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


William C • Jun 26, 2012 @11:30 am @Ann
Not sure if you came across this yet

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 6&start=20

Look at the fifth post.


Beth • Jun 26, 2012 @11:33 am The latest Ars Technica article is definitely an interesting take on the situation. I feel it glosses over a critical point, though. In the last section, it seems to treat lawyerly involvement as a natural extension of dispute. That's exactly the problem. Tara can rant and name-call all she wants. So can FunnyJunk. Sending extortionary cease & desist letters, threatening subpoenas, and filing lawsuits is an entirely different story.


theNuszAbides • Jun 26, 2012 @11:49 am "this is a lynching on the internet frontier"??
i can actually parse the government agent noise, and wannabe-savage-critiques of public figures, but what is this "this" to which she refers?

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

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

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

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

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


William C • Jun 26, 2012 @11:54 am http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... -scumbags/

They wrote an article on his wife now lmao


Grifter • Jun 26, 2012 @11:56 am theNuszAbides, it's not all just golf courses out here…we also have meth labs!


theNuszAbides • Jun 26, 2012 @11:58 am there i go, over'think'ing again. of course i'd already forgotten her invoking the kkk right off the bat. so she really is painting the oestian cyberhomestead as… old-timey courts-savvy crypto-jew-negroes?… and teh Inmanian Army as the classic jackbooted pointy-hatted kkknazi art-stompers. yummy.


theNuszAbides • Jun 26, 2012 @12:01 pm @Grifter – my apologies for, in my haste, neglecting the glorious regional fauna and infrastructure. willing to adhere to internets-court judgment ASAP.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 26, 2012 @12:30 pm A question for Ken…

The post that William C refers to…

How many possibly defamatory comments can YOU count?


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @12:37 pm @SamuraiKnitter He'll have to try. His wife is paranoid and he's a narcissist, so nobody on Team Carreon would ever trust that much money to be controlled by someone who's not him.

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

We know she has sticky fingers ;)


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @12:38 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... b0b71d7bba

Also, our lord and master is pleased.

HAIL SANTA!


Ann Bransom • Jun 26, 2012 @12:42 pm Question…. why does it say "pisacca" on the devil's underwear?


Grifter • Jun 26, 2012 @12:47 pm Ann, I assume it's a reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishacha


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @12:48 pm @Ann I don't have a fucking clue. I googled it and it's a town in Peru, but they don't seem to make Satan Drawers.

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

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @12:49 pm @Grifter

DAMN YOU! YOU RUINED MY UNSOLVED MYSTERY.

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


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @12:56 pm Okay to make it clear I am not a Pishacha but I do admire their veracity. I think we could rehabilitate their image and make them good things. Like little underworld helpers, Santa's helpers with long teeth.


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @12:58 pm Actually Pschacha can inflict insanity unto their victims, maybe that's what Tara is telling us. She's possessed?


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @1:05 pm I think we need our phantom cartoonist to return, and turn the popehat wearing people into: a cia agent, a klansman, a mobster, a nazi, a demon, a Guy Fawkes, and an Occupy protester blazing a J., a killer clown, a Pishacha, etc

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

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


C • Jun 26, 2012 @1:26 pm @ W Ross Don't forget Loki, apparently we yellow paper journalists are giving the internet to him.


C • Jun 26, 2012 @1:32 pm Yellow Journalists* I misquoted, which hopefully doesn't lead to being served for libel.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @2:05 pm http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... -scumbags/

ArsTechnica weighs in on Tara.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @2:08 pm http://adamsteinbaugh.com/2012/06/26/di ... s-carreon/

WOAH!


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @2:18 pm @ W Ross:

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @2:25 pm http://charles-carreon.com/2012/06/26/a ... ong-to-me/

There's the letter, looks real to me.


Mike K • Jun 26, 2012 @2:37 pm That's highly disturbing. There's not even a slight veiling of the threat in that letter (unlike the one to The Oatmeal). It specifically tells them to give him a name to sue or they will be named. (both lies apparently…)


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @2:47 pm I like that the website author posted it and is not backing down. That takes some balls, and besides all the awesome lulz that twitter account/site provided, he did it in the face of actual peril.

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

So, ya know (pope) hats off.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @2:56 pm Look, ma! Someone read my blog! :)

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

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


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @2:58 pm Interesting that Register.com disclosed the identity information, but did not "shut down" the charles-carreon.com site as requested by the esteemed Mr. Carreon.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @3:04 pm @Margaret: that's because Carreon told them he'd let them off the hook if they revealed the register's identity.

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

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


Ann • Jun 26, 2012 @3:13 pm Oh, did I forget to tell you guys my imposter vagina was served with papers earlier today? The jig is up! I am Spartacus!


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @3:21 pm Impostor Vagina(R) Ann Bransom 2012. People put your hands together.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @3:24 pm Ann, you are my Goddamned hero.


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @3:25 pm @Ann:

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


Ann • Jun 26, 2012 @3:28 pm @W Ross – if "Ann" is my real name

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


Ken • Jun 26, 2012 @3:29 pm You know, if I were a better man, I could read "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community" without bursting into laughter.


Mir • Jun 26, 2012 @3:29 pm I just realized that the intensely long, name-calling rant that Tara posted contains several lines from one of the Marc Randazza quotes in the original Popehat post.

Holy fucking shitballs inside a burning biplane careening toward the Statue of Liberty, Captain! I hope that the reporter merely got the story wrong, because if not, that's more fucked up than a rhino raping a chinchilla while dressed up in unicorns' undergarments.
Which makes me wonder if she's just listing names other people have called them over the last few weeks. If so, it's sad she doesn't have a cooler head and better communication skills, because a sane-sounding post explaining that might actually have gotten her some sympathy.

Not much, given everything else. But a little.

*eats more popcorn*


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @3:30 pm "The Entity Formerly Known as Ann" it is, then!


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @3:30 pm Now, now, Ken, I'm sure it must have been incense for them.


Peachkins • Jun 26, 2012 @3:32 pm With what has happened with register.com, this whole thing has seriously become scary.

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @3:42 pm Harrassed people = People upset by speech that follows them.
The Carreon Clan = People upset by speech they seek out, that they could easily avoid.

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

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


John Hawkinson • Jun 26, 2012 @3:46 pm "If you are interested in a particular federal case, you can get a PACER account and sign up for automatic email notifications each time a document is filed in the case."
Umm, no you can't.
At least not usually.
Only CM/ECF accounts can sign up for notifications (not PACER accounts), and the decision to grant CM/ECF accounts for non-filers (e.g. press) is a local decision that is up to each and every district court (or circuit court). Most of them do not permit it. And most of the handful that do so only offer such accounts to accreditted members of the press/media.

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

Or did I misinterpret you?


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @3:53 pm http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... the-fight/

Ars has another piece out.


Ken • Jun 26, 2012 @3:55 pm John:

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @3:58 pm Love Ars' coverage so far. They have to be banking too, cause there's always about three of the stories in their most read at any time.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @4:01 pm ( this is how I feel after the first lawlsuit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhv-xZgdy-0 )


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @4:04 pm @W Ross:

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

Perfect.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @4:05 pm [.... not that I'm advocating people getting shot. Far from it. [I can't believe I need to post this disclaimer.]]


John Hawkinson • Jun 26, 2012 @4:15 pm Hmm. All the places I have ever tried have had policies. Wasn't aware that some places don't. Anyway, the NDCA — at issue here — does.</blockquote]
Wow, thanks Ken, and kudos to the Northern District. (I'm in Massachusetts so my interests tend to be a bit more east-cost focused, but out of the ~20 districts that I've looked into this in, only the NDCA and CA1 have said they grant ECF accounts to members of the general public.)
For anyone looking, the NDCA calls it the Special Mailing Group and the reg. process is at the above link.
By way of example, the Central District of California is one of the better districts, in that they do offer non-filer accounts, but they only offer them to media, and even there it's somewhat of a challenge to actually get one, because they don't get many requests and not many people there seem to know how to actually set one up. (I think, in December, they told me they had issued five or so accounts total.)

W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @4:15 pm Admit it, it's starting to feel that (Internet) serious. He's going balls to the wall, and the precedents he sets if he wins (he won't) will FUCK satarists, critics, pundits, and citizens.

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

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


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @4:20 pm In the immortal words of Martin Lawrence:

Shit just got real.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:13 pm

PART 3 OF 3 (Update: Charles Carreon Files First Amended Complaint Cont'd.)

W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @5:08 pm http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update

Oatmeal update!

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


Jack • Jun 26, 2012 @5:19 pm From the Oatmeal:
"Carreon has provided notice that he intends to ask the court for a restraining order which will stop the transfer of funds from Indiegogo. If we can't get that silly bullshit dismissed, the money could be held up for days, weeks or months. Assuming we can, I should have the money in about a week."

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


Joe • Jun 26, 2012 @5:28 pm I am seriously disappointed that Register.com disclosed the info. It's clear to anyone but an absolute moron that it was a parody site.

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

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



W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @5:35 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 75667d1866

Tara is going rapid fire now…


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @5:37 pm "Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:39 am Post subject:
And the Matt Inman Mafia got our local paper, The Tucson Weekly, to repeat the same old lies about our client Funnyjunk removing Inman's attribution from his pictures — Funnyjunk NEVER did that — and that we're suing The American Cancer Society for a bad purpose, instead of a good purpose, which is to make sure they get the money, and not Matt Inman. Matt Inman has REFUSED several times to relinquish control of the fund either to the Court or to Indigogo, after Charles made requests for him to do so. He's a game-player, this little Matt Inman. He thinks he's going to get his hands on a big pot of money."

Translation: We want that money SOOOOOOOO BAD!


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @5:39 pm I'm pretty sure when he gets to court people are going to stare at him in awe of his craziness level and think to themselves:



Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @5:45 pm @W Ross, I like how FunnyJunk is "our" client. So if she is employed by her husband, wouldn't her legal threats be binding to him?


Jess • Jun 26, 2012 @5:47 pm "He's a game-player, this little Matt Inman. He thinks he's going to get his hands on a big pot of money."

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

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @5:48 pm http://www.american-buddha.com/tids.htm

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

wut.


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @5:53 pm @ Jess

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

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

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


HeatherCat • Jun 26, 2012 @5:57 pm So…. they're suing the charity, so now the charity will need to spend more than they would actually get from Mr. Inman so they can keep counsel against this suit, in order to make sure they receive money…

did I get that right??


Ara Ararauna • Jun 26, 2012 @6:02 pm "Carreon has provided notice that he intends to ask the court for a restraining order which will stop the transfer of funds from Indiegogo. If we can't get that silly bullshit dismissed, the money could be held up for days, weeks or months. Assuming we can, I should have the money in about a week."

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

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

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @6:04 pm @HeatherCat: yeah. And Inman/IndieGoGo will have to raise more money to pay Carreon's attorneys' fees. Unless Carreon has the chutzpah to ask that the charities pay his fees.

I mean, assuming it ever got that far.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @6:07 pm "This is a nazi-communist-fascist-right-wing argument."

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

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

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

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

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


Ara Ararauna • Jun 26, 2012 @6:09 pm http://www.american-buddha.com/tids.htm

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

*calls Spanish Inquisition to seize that witch'ttorney*

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


Jess • Jun 26, 2012 @6:11 pm @Margaret – I hope Inman rolls around in it. I hope he takes a pic of himself naked rolling around in it, blows it up to 6 x 6 and mails it to Carreon to hang on his wall.

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


Ara Ararauna • Jun 26, 2012 @6:13 pm @Valerie – Wow, that reply is a srss mother reply. Will mirror because it is worth 10.000 and has over 110% of reason.


HeatherCat • Jun 26, 2012 @6:19 pm @Jess – I dare say that I would buy that pic too. And for the reasons it stands for, I think my boyfriend would be cool if I prominently displayed it on the desk here. ;)


HeatherCat • Jun 26, 2012 @6:22 pm @Val – applause and +1,000! You've just expressed my own thoughts so succinctly… well, probably a LOT of our thoughts.


Dan Weber • Jun 26, 2012 @6:28 pm Matt Inman has REFUSED several times to relinquish control of the fund either to the Court or to Indigogo, after Charles made requests for him to do so.

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

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @6:29 pm @Ara Ara Yeah, I figured with all the "EVERYONE IS TALKING FROM HIDING" it's better to just throw my face up there and say "No, we're really not." Then I hid half of it with a hoodie cause it kinda made me look like a Wizard.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @6:36 pm @ W. Ross I think the hood makes you look more like the head of the thieves guild in Skyrim – or, if you want to be more sinister, the Dark Brotherhood. (Why yes, I am dork for saying that).

Attention Carreons: Fus Ro Dah!


Kristen • Jun 26, 2012 @6:51 pm @Dan Weber no, they're suing the charities for a *good* reason. It's okay to sue charities (apparently?) if you are just sure that some bad man is going to do something bad with their (sorta, but not really) money*… maybe. You just can't sue charities for a *bad* reason.

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


Ara Ararauna • Jun 26, 2012 @7:00 pm Reading this http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... the-fight/

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

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


Grifter • Jun 26, 2012 @7:10 pm @Valerie:
The Communism/Fascism thing is an annoyance of mine, as well, but now I have the perfect response:

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

Thanks!


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @7:14 pm @Valarie It's nerdier than that… it's an N7 hoodie.


Ara Ararauna • Jun 26, 2012 @7:19 pm AOletsgo | about 2 hours ago
Since Carreon's online escapades are themselves batshit crazy, the batshit crazy things said on the parody website are, perhaps, themselves indistinguishable from his trademarked brand of censorious douchebaggery, lending force to Mr. Carreon's otherwise spurious infringement allegations. In other words, if you are already a parody of yourself, does another parody not create a likelihood of consumer confusion?

Wanted to share, it's full of funny.


Look at that • Jun 26, 2012 @7:37 pm From Arstechnica

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

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

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


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @7:50 pm @ Grifter Glad I could be of service :)

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

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

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


SPQR • Jun 26, 2012 @7:52 pm Valerie, nothing that has been filed disappears.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @7:53 pm @Valerie: no, the original complaint is still part of the record, but it's more or less irrelevant to the court.


Look at that • Jun 26, 2012 @8:10 pm Sorry about the link. I put this in mainly for the lawyers out there who may be reading this site. I know 'nuttin 'bout law, service marks, trade marks and copyrights. But, I suspect a service mark is way diff than a trademark or copyright.

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


moo • Jun 26, 2012 @8:18 pm [I don't know how to do fancy quote boxes :/ ]

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

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

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

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


Look at that • Jun 26, 2012 @8:20 pm Washington Post. Looks like they may have talked to Inman "I want to see bears being fed snacks"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/com ... -with-220k–next-the-money-shot/2012/06/26/gJQAw9p13V_blog.html


SPQR • Jun 26, 2012 @8:21 pm Look at that – to simplify, a service mark is a trademark.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @8:21 pm So if a lawyer like Chas dashes off a half-assed complaint but then amends it there's no penalty for having initially gone of half cocked and made ill considered and inaccurate assertions?


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @8:32 pm I am glad that Charles has retained an attorney, hopefully one less subject to legal rage. Who knows.


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @8:38 pm Whoa, the new picture on http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 75667d1866 with the "as if" just gave me flashbacks to the 80's.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @8:50 pm @ Chris R Two questions:

#1 Why is Inman wearing nail polish?

#2 Who the hell is Sue Hunt?


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @8:52 pm @Valerie: she's a nephew of Doe Hunt


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @8:55 pm @Adam LOL x.x
@Valerie – she apparently is a contributor to american buddha and has done Carreon portraits etc. http://susanhuntart.com/category/family-portraits/

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


Nate • Jun 26, 2012 @8:55 pm @Valerie: The artist behind this:
http://susanhuntart.com/family-portraits/charles/


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @8:55 pm Er, niece? Sure.


Margaret • Jun 26, 2012 @8:55 pm @Chris R:

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


Moo • Jun 26, 2012 @9:02 pm Susan Hunt really captured Carreon's molten troll complexion. Is it supposed to look like his forehead bubbleth over?


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @9:03 pm @Margaret: "Carreon told Ars on Tuesday, adding that he had retained counsel in Phoenix"


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @9:14 pm Miravlix | Smack-Fu Master, in training reply6 minutes ago
New Poster
I will never understand why America glorify bullying and bad behavior against another person. It's fine to be upset with Charles action, but the guy IS STAYING WITHIN THE LAW with his actions, so lying, bullying and criminal activity to harm the person is way out of line. The people attacking Charles outside legal or sober reporting on the situation is cyber terrorists.
I wonder if that's Tara. The first time poster thing kinda made me think it was…


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @9:14 pm Sorry. Link: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... uote#reply


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @9:19 pm @ChrisR- Probably not, the writing style is different (and I don't just mean the complete lack of cray cray).


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @9:20 pm @Chris R. I also wondered that.


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @9:20 pm err… just caught the last sentence of the quoted comment (re: cyberterrorist). I still don't think it's her, but I take back my lack of cray cray statement.


lfox • Jun 26, 2012 @9:26 pm @w ross- just offer punch and pie, more will come out of the folds if you do


lfox • Jun 26, 2012 @9:28 pm all 14406 individuals that donated (not related to CC), should join in on a civil suit against him for trying to impede the process and act on our behalf without our request. We all knew what we were getting in to, which is exactly WHY the internet has donated almost a quarter mil- to say "F U" to the same individual claiming to speak on our behalf. No one wants him representing us. I want my money photo (duck tales style), and then off with the money to the charities.


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @9:36 pm The main reasons I thought she might be were:
A) Read most people's replies and they are referring to him as Carreon, this person refers to him as Charles
B)New account
C)Cyberterorrist statement.

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


Look at that • Jun 26, 2012 @9:42 pm I too wondered about the Miravlex post; sounds a little off.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 26, 2012 @10:14 pm So, er, my lil blog post is on the second or third page of Reddit, and apparently getting posted to a local law school's newspaper. And so goes the Streissand Effect. Again.

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


Ann • Jun 26, 2012 @10:17 pm Read Inman's update.

Filled with rage.

Wrote another blog post.

Would appreciate your donations.


Jack • Jun 26, 2012 @10:39 pm Miravlix appears to be a guy in Denmark, named Steen. He may be aquatinted with the Carreons as I've found evidence that he's been the admin on at least one server that's physically located in AZ. He also appears to have some interests that parallel TC's. I'd say there's about a 50-60% chance he's a sock-puppet.


Jack • Jun 26, 2012 @10:40 pm *Acquainted (typing on phone)


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @10:48 pm So Ann has started something: http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/06/deli ... -been.html

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


Look at that • Jun 26, 2012 @10:49 pm Go Ann!

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


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @10:50 pm I spend a lot of time looking at Matt Inman's face in my photoshop projects.
Tara Carreon's latest post is sounding a lot like one of Censorious Douchebag's satirical articles.

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

In Tibetan Buddhism, there's this cool idea of the wisdom hag that every man needs in order to get enlightened. I'm a wisdom hag, but nobody believes it, ha ha ha. Like Phil Dick said, "a person knows what they are." I offered once to be an upcoming-important kid's wisdom hag. He arrogantly turned me down. His loss, not mine!
She really can't get away from her absolute belief that everything she does is absolutely right and just, can she? It's sad, her complete lack of self-reflection.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:07 pm Nobody hurts Ann's Vagina's feelings. That's 50 Shades of Not OK.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @11:07 pm @ Matt How much does "wisdom hag" pay? I'm looking for a job.


Smorz • Jun 26, 2012 @11:17 pm @lfox – all 14406 individuals that donated (not related to CC), should join in on a civil suit against him for trying to impede the process…

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

"The Empire Internet Strikes Back"

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


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @11:20 pm @smorz, Couldn't we file friend of the court briefs?


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:21 pm https://twitter.com/annbransom/status/2 ... 0137753602

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


Smorz • Jun 26, 2012 @11:26 pm @Chris R – I had thought of that but I'm 2,000 miles away. Not sure how to go about it from such a distance.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @11:33 pm Holy illuminati, masonic, mafia, CIA collaboration, Batman! She has the cojones to call someone else paranoid!

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

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

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

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


Jon • Jun 26, 2012 @11:35 pm @smorz

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


Matt Scott • Jun 26, 2012 @11:36 pm @Valerie- I'd totes recommend you for the position, considering I've seen you properly use Death of God and a few other philosophical concepts that most people utterly eff up.


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:43 pm "I am going to be glad to finally leave this realm. Next lifetime, maybe I'll do better! This is a sad realm we live in. "

O.o


Chris R. • Jun 26, 2012 @11:50 pm @W Ross, I think her husband should stop suing people, read her forum, and get her help immediately.


Tali • Jun 26, 2012 @11:50 pm Holy Crap! I leave the internet for 2 days and this whole thing gets crazier than even I would have imagined.

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


W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:52 pm @Chris R Yeah, that's mildly troubling. If it's the only one, whatever, but if she does it again she might be a danger to herself and we gotta call somebody.


Valerie • Jun 26, 2012 @11:59 pm "People are by and large ignorant cowards. No wonder the fascist right-wingers feel superior. At least, they are men and women of action! And I admire that. I could only hope that they similarly will admire my superior state of mind. Let's get together and think superiorly…"

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

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


Smorz • Jun 27, 2012 @12:03 am @Jon

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

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

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


Smorz • Jun 27, 2012 @12:09 am @Ann – Love what you did:) Bravo!


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @12:16 am What Charles has done to his reputation on Twitter:

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

On Google:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&o ... 0j9j5.14.0…0.0.NPdjm5y8LmY&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e757a35b73c411c2&biw=1440&bih=809

On Bing:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=charles+ca ... &sp=-1&sk=

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


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @1:23 am I don’t know if this it possible or legal but:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Foster • Jun 27, 2012 @3:06 am @Nibor
I honestly think Carreon would still not accept Matt doing anything but the fist plan with 2 beneficiaries even if the NFW and ACS consent to a 4 way spit I think he'd try legal action on matt and all four charities then


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @3:38 am I'm trying to say that Matt gives it to ACS and NFW 50/50 so he complies with all that is going on.

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


Grifter • Jun 27, 2012 @7:01 am Nibor, while technically an option, I doubt that NWF or ACS would be up for that; it puts them too firmly in league with TEH EVUL OHTMEEL!!, and I'm sure they don't want to be involved at all except in terms of cashing the check.


Grifter • Jun 27, 2012 @7:03 am Also? I'm actually offended that TC quoted PKD. He may have gone a little loony in the end there, but I don't think he'd have ever been behind "hey, let's sue some charities!"


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 27, 2012 @8:08 am Question: The registrar.com letter was clearly "Do this or I'll sue you", but with the "I'll sue you" on grounds that, well, Carreon either knows or should know is false: the registrar is protected from these claims.

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


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @9:34 am @ W Ross I notice more people who speak foreign languages commenting on Charles Carreon on twitter etc.

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


Chris R. • Jun 27, 2012 @9:54 am @Valerie, he's big in Australia too apparently.


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @10:26 am I don't condone animal abuse, but this seems like a legitimate reason to punch a dolphin in the face.

http://gma.yahoo.com/rogue-dolphin-alon ... -132602544–abc-news-pets.html


Chris R. • Jun 27, 2012 @10:29 am @Valerine, wow… even his pod was like "this guy's a jerk" and abandoned him. Carreon Dolphin!


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @11:06 am You know, if Indiegogo just did the transfer right away, the problem would be long gone. That the transfer "typically" takes four days doesn't mean you cannot have your glasses in about an hour… 8-)


lfox • Jun 27, 2012 @11:07 am @smorz- well i'm about 3,000 miles away but would still join in. I dont want my money messed with; i'd sooner cancel my credit card and mail matt a personal check than risk CC get his grubby hands on it. this is all kinds of wrong, and wonder if any of the legally apt individuals here have the where withal to tell us if it's possible. I want to stand up and say "I love the oatmeal, bears, and smite cancer- and CC doesn't speak for me."


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @11:10 am I
CLAIM
BRAGGING
RIGHTS
FOR
SAYING
THIS
HERE
FIRST
(I think)

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

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

Just Sayin…


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @11:11 am I think we should all take a picture of some of our own cash and send it to CC with a copy of the bearlove picture, and donate that cash to something…


Ann Bransom • Jun 27, 2012 @11:14 am donate it here!!

http://www.indiegogo.com/WhatMightHaveBeen


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 27, 2012 @11:18 am Just to note — Marc Randazza commented on my blog post to say I'm wrong. I think he's (mostly) right: the ICANN rules basically force Register.com's hand on this one. Not that it shifts any blame from Mr. Carreon for using that to unmask a critic, but it certainly diminishes (if not eliminates) Register.com's culpability.


V • Jun 27, 2012 @11:24 am @Robert White
Sorry, I think someone beat you to it, depending on your definition of HERE.


Chris R. • Jun 27, 2012 @11:31 am Ann I got your fundraiser on the default from page of the Oatmeal's latest blog section's comments.


Chris R. • Jun 27, 2012 @11:31 am from = front // Don't know what happened there.


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @11:42 am @ Robert :) It almost goes without saying. The general tone that radiates from the Carreon clan is that without their continued martyrdom for all that is good and pure we would be all be wandering through a hellish, zombie infested wasteland.


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @11:45 am @Adam Yeah, I don't blame Register. It's not their job to protect the entire Internet. If they had, they'd be heroes, but not doing so doesn't make them villains.


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @12:33 pm @ valarie can you give me the link to that tweet, I am Dutch so I could look at it if it is, also most of the other languages used over here in Europe I can pinpoint for you if you really want to know :-)


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @12:37 pm @Ann over 50% already you’re going strong here.

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

Go get em ;-)


Ann Bransom • Jun 27, 2012 @12:38 pm I'm just tickled someone besides me donated!!!! lol


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @12:43 pm @ Nibor I clicked on it – google says its Dutch, but here it is anyway: https://twitter.com/#!/hmblank

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


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @12:53 pm @Valerie, Yep that's my lovely Dutch language :-)
And a nice touch, in the article to whichthe last tweet refers, TC is called a fishwife, this is a Dutch saying which means a woman that is jellying (originally on a market in trying to sell fish) but has really noting to say.

@Ann, if you ever doubted us :-(


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @12:55 pm @ Nibor Yeah, when I hit google translate I did wonder if fishwife was Dutch for asshat. :)


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @12:55 pm @Ann: Not being you, I would have set up the site to donate to two charities and one despicable organization, all unnamed, with only like 0.5% (e.g. one half of one percent) going to the despicable organization.

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


Daniel Hagan • Jun 27, 2012 @12:57 pm FYI, this post isn't in the outmeal_v_funnyjunk tag on your blog…


Wondering • Jun 27, 2012 @1:01 pm I wish in his latest post that Inman hadn't felt forced into saying that Carreon was getting a small victory. I hate seeing a bully get any sort of victory, no matter how small.

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

Carreon would get no victory in that case.


Look at that • Jun 27, 2012 @1:02 pm Fishwife is an old insult describing a loud, obstreperous woman. In fact, fishwives were instrumental in the French revolution.


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @1:05 pm @ look at that As a teacher, I must commend your excellent use of the word obstreperous.


Ken • Jun 27, 2012 @1:18 pm @Daniel: Thanks, fixed.


Nibor • Jun 27, 2012 @1:21 pm Mann, my English sucks, I wanted to say something like that, but had no idea how to put it this clear (thanks “Look at that” for it)

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


Margaret • Jun 27, 2012 @1:49 pm @Wondering:

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

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


Henry the Great • Jun 27, 2012 @2:00 pm @ Margaret:
I think as long as Inman does what he says he s going to do (to which I had no doubt from the begining) as long as he has receipts and a paper trail…. Carreon can't possibly claim he took anything even is there is a 3% credit card fee.


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @3:08 pm @WilW Tweeted/FBed/Blogged about him. And tomorrow he becomes the front page article on Encyclopedia Dramatica for two days.


AlphaCentauri • Jun 27, 2012 @3:51 pm Register.com didn't cave on this one. They just followed the rules. The whole idea of proxy registration for domain names is on somewhat shaky regulatory grounds. "Generic TLD" domains, like .com, have to have public registration information. Domains by Proxy can make it hard for spammers to harvest your information, but when it starts being used to hide the real owner of a domain in a legal dispute, ICANN would consider them out of compliance with their domain registration agreement.

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


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @3:57 pm @AlpahCentauri in other words, all the legal threats were beside the point and he could have just asked nicely.

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


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @5:04 pm http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/ ... -disputes/

New Forbes Article.


Mike K • Jun 27, 2012 @5:04 pm @ann I read one (so far) of your older pre-Carreon blogs and left a comment because it touched me, and wanted you to know :)

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


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @5:49 pm (In accordance with the protocols, there is a new Charles Carreon article. If you notice comments here have dried up, it's because we're there.

There is here: http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/27/the-o ... -bay-area/

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


Smorz • Jun 27, 2012 @8:52 pm @lfox – I share your feelings and agree with you completely but it appears you and I are alone here on that topic. Perhaps an email to the EFF would better provide some answers. I don't know.


Cassy Foesch • Jun 27, 2012 @10:15 pm In his Prayer for Relief, Paragraph E, CC prays for attorney's fees. Except that "the Supreme Court has held that where a statute permits attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the attorney who prevails in a case brought under a federal statute as a pro se litigant is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees."

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:05 am Casey: That's GREAT.

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


Mike • Jun 29, 2012 @9:42 am The thing I find fascinating about this right now is that according to http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/win- ... d=13970862 , carreon has said that he only served the original notice after funnyjunk told him all of the oatmeal's comics were removed, and would not have done so if they were not. Think about this for a minute…..This means that he had to have known that all of the Oatmeal's claims in the blog post about funnyjunk were basically correct and truthful and that he filed suit anyway, simply because he/his client did not like what was truthfully being said. That sounds like a textbook SLAPP suit very much deserving an anti-SLAPP suit to me. Anyone more knowedgeable know anything more on this?


Mike • Jun 29, 2012 @9:45 am whoops, that was never actually filed as a lawsuit, only a notice was sent — so I imagine my above post does not apply. Feel free to ignore me! needless to say I'm not a laywer. :|


Rand Bell • Jun 29, 2012 @1:06 pm Yup – that's just douchebaggery.

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

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

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


V • Jul 3, 2012 @2:53 am I think CC contradicts himself a little regarding the fake CC twitter account. In his Amended Complaint he states:

79. Inman promptly took advantage of [fake CC]’s fake tweets by himself tweeting:
a. Matthew Inman @Oatmeal: “It’s interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet’s nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well.”
However, his Exhibit E shows that the first tweet from fake CC was in reply to Oatmeal's hornet's nest tweet.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:16 pm

PART 1 OF 2

276 Comments (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk: Request For Pro Bono Help In Bay Area)

Ann Bransom • Jun 27, 2012 @1:40 pm *Popcorn*


Peter H • Jun 27, 2012 @1:41 pm Ken,

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

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


JDDrew • Jun 27, 2012 @2:04 pm Ann -

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


Barron Barnett • Jun 27, 2012 @2:08 pm My god, this just keeps getting more entertaining. I'm not going to speculate on who, but I will say I am reasonably confident I am going to fall over laughing *in the good way* when I find out.

Seriously for an internet drama, this is funny*.

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

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


Jordan • Jun 27, 2012 @2:12 pm Why can't these things happen in Pennsylvania or New Jersey???


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 27, 2012 @2:15 pm @Jordan: because Rakofsky has saturated the market on Internet crazy litigants in that quadrant of the country.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 27, 2012 @2:16 pm Pitty, IANAL…

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 27, 2012 @2:19 pm Oh, and for those too cheap to have a Pacer account, this has geeky enough appeal that its showing up on RECAP as it goes along:

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


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @2:33 pm And the digging continues…


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @2:35 pm @ Nicolas The text is also up on the Nader Library site.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 6&start=50


Kris • Jun 27, 2012 @2:45 pm Shit just got real.

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

Thank you, Ken. This is amazing work.


FloydPepper • Jun 27, 2012 @2:45 pm Anyone know anything about the Hon. Edward M. Chen? Looks like he has been assigned to the case.


Barb Chestnut • Jun 27, 2012 @3:22 pm Given the obvious parallel, which Popehat has already pointed out, to the Rakofsky case, I think "speculation" is entirely to tentative a word for the bleedin' obvious.

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

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


perlhaqr • Jun 27, 2012 @3:47 pm *claps hands, giggles*


Connie • Jun 27, 2012 @4:59 pm Oh lordy. This is a trainwreck of epic proportions… Can't wait for the next installment.


Valerie • Jun 27, 2012 @5:08 pm @ FloydPepper Chen is in Wikipedia. He seems sane and used to work for the ACLU, so I suspect he will not take kindly to attempts to subvert the first amendment.

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


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @5:43 pm VIVA LE RESISTANCE!



Ann • Jun 27, 2012 @6:01 pm @JDDrew – SHARESIES!!!


Ann • Jun 27, 2012 @6:09 pm P.S. @Ken – I'm happy to try and help from a technology standpoint if needed. Now that I'm running my own IndieGoGo campaign, I'm seeing exactly how it works from the campaign operator's perspective. I've got some thoughts/questions pertaining to the Bear Love situation, but I don't feel comfortable verbalizing them just yet.


V • Jun 27, 2012 @6:47 pm @Valerie
not a lawyer type, but there was some initial conference scheduled for 9/19/2012 and the document describing the assignment of judge Edward M. Chen did not specify any particular dates. (So I assume 9/19 is still unchanged.)


Juniper • Jun 27, 2012 @7:24 pm I've been at counsel's table all week at the CAND court right down the hall from Judge Chen… but, alas, I'm only a 3L. Someday… someday that popehat signal will be for me. Someday, after I sleep off this trial, that is. Sleep still exists somewhere, right?


Piper • Jun 27, 2012 @8:48 pm Sent a note off to a friend who may be a possibility, and who's sense of snark rivals Ken's. I don't know if I may have just created a world-threatening chain snark reaction or not…


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @9:24 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... a36fcd0b5a

The new Tara Carreon Joint. The Oatmeal as Cash Jesus.


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @9:33 pm http://dockets.justia.com/docket/califo ... 12/256114/

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


Narad • Jun 27, 2012 @9:38 pm The text is also up on the Nader Library site.
The digression into Lamaism was… odd.


Margaret • Jun 27, 2012 @9:56 pm All three appear to be worth 1.5 Charles Carreons

I think you're selling them a bit short.


W Ross • Jun 27, 2012 @10:09 pm Note that the Nader Library thread is being edited. Yesterday I possted this, regarding it:

W Ross • Jun 26, 2012 @11:43 pm

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

O.o


Today it reads:

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

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

So HI TARA! XOXOXOXOXOX


Matt Scott • Jun 27, 2012 @10:28 pm I'm disappointed that she didn't accept my registration for the Nader Lib bulletin board. (I had no intent of going on and being a douchebag, but I did want to challenge her on a few points.)

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


Robert White • Jun 27, 2012 @11:17 pm @W Ross: In law and the internet, the CC is an entropic measurement, a degenerate unit if you will, that describdes the decay of an uncertain legal position under the vectored quantity of self-serving off-gassing from a polar moronatron.

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

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


Foster • Jun 27, 2012 @11:32 pm @Robert White – that my good sir was an epic post


Chris R. • Jun 27, 2012 @11:37 pm @Matt Scott, I don't really see many people posting before or after this all, so I doubt she lets many people join.


Kristen • Jun 28, 2012 @5:22 am @matt Scott @Chris R. Does anybody else post there other than Tara and he-who's-name-shall-not-be-spoken(TM)? I've only seen the two of them commenting (at naderlibrary).


Mike K • Jun 28, 2012 @6:30 am Well, when I attempted to sign up (haven't been accepted or heard either way) I saw that Tara had something like 76.6% of the posts and I think Charles had 4% (not nearly as sure on his) so other people have posted, probably back when it was first set up and they talked about Nader :)


jeff • Jun 28, 2012 @7:00 am http://www.quickmeme.com/Charles-Carreon/?upcoming


Josh M. • Jun 28, 2012 @7:08 am @Robert White:

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:28 am Hey, for someone with access to Arizona's court records, this one might be entertaining to look up:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizon ... 39/579782/

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:31 am OK, whoohoo, I can get this one too…

Lets see about uploading things into RECAP


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:36 am HAHAHAH. Chucky got his Prius reposessed, and responded by suing Toyota because they failed, by his claim, to properly validate the debt etc….

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:41 am For those who want to look at THIS case without paying, as I download items:
http://ia600403.us.archive.org/34/items ... ocket.html


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:42 am Or:
http://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.azd.579782


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:45 am Oh, typical Carreon sloppiness: He never attached his exhibits to his first complaint!


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:46 am Oh, and he likes ammending when Pro Se, he did it in this one too…


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @7:47 am Oh, and in ammending, he added "I was Butthurt because the Prius didn't get the mileage you guys claimed!" Wow… Ahh, Charles, when in doubt, Go CRAZY!!!


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @8:14 am HAHAHAHAHAH… Toyota pulled out "Hey, since you are an attorney liscened elsewhere, you have to follow professional conduct, oh, and Rule 11, BEYOTCH!"

And, also, Hey, Chuck likes misquoting law in his pro se complaints: "FCDPA doesn't apply to loan servicers and financers, only third party debt collectors"… http://archive.org/download/gov.uscourt ... 2.15.0.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mike K • Jun 28, 2012 @8:28 am According to that amended complaint he thought it was fair to return a used car that was almost 5 years old for all of his money back… That would take a lot of misbehavior on the part of the dealer to get anywhere close to justifying.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @8:31 am Mike K: Not only that, but for 5 years, he never thought that the prius's gas mileage was an actionable problem until, ohh, whoops…

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


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @9:20 am Oh wow.


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @9:56 am How in the heck does one get repossessed in freaking year five? Did you not have four years warning to work out a budget?


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @10:03 am Bonus: This is yet another case of Carreon "I'm wrong, but doubling-down anyway"

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 2.13.1.pdf

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

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @10:04 am Robert: Because Carreon wasn't prompt on paying, missed a payment, didn't realize this, then went double-or-nothing on "its toyota's fault" and stopped paying altogether.


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @10:18 am Side Note: As a Prius Owner I have never been disappointed by my 42.7mpg (It used to be 44.2 but then they changed the headlight system, long story omitted). I know its not "the numbers claimed" but not being an idiot, and being fully aware that the dead-flat idealized course *required* *by* *law* on which the automakers prove themselves doesn't exist in real life, I have been quite satisfied.

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

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

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


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @10:23 am Of course it's a goddamned Prius.

LOL.


Mike K • Jun 28, 2012 @10:23 am In all fairness to his mileage complaint, I'm pretty sure they've changed the rules on how that can be calculated since then. Then again, every notice tends to indicate that those are under ideal conditions and people shouldn't expect to receive mileage that good. Also, don't the notices also typically list city and highway mpgs, at least at some point before the paperwork is done?


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @10:23 am Also, where did he get "The salesman claimed 60 MPG" from?

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


SPQR • Jun 28, 2012 @10:38 am The displays of basic incompetence by Carreon just keep rolling in.


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @10:51 am (TLDR Wild ass theory.) They're broke. Not paying four car payments is not something someone who can afford those car payments would do. It actually explains a lot. Car payments aren't like credit cards or whatever, they're more like a light bill or mortgage.

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

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

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

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


ShelbyC • Jun 28, 2012 @10:53 am Perhaps someone can answer a question for me: Carreon appears to live in Tuscon, but doesn't appear to be licensed in Arizona. Arizona doesn't have a UPL statute, but the Arizona Supreme court claims to be able to regulate UPL there anyway. Is Carreon engaging in UPL by representing clients like FJ in Arizona? Does he have to commute to California or Oregon?


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @10:54 am W Ross: I don't agree.

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @10:56 am ShelbyC: He files in CA when its for other people, so that's not a problem. If anything required in-person, he'd have to fly to Oakland.

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


ShelbyC • Jun 28, 2012 @11:09 am Well, according to the AZ state bar here:
http://www.azbar.org/ethics/unauthorizedpracticeoflaw

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

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

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


Valerie • Jun 28, 2012 @11:16 am So he is a serial litigious douchebag.


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @11:20 am @Valerie, yeah he just had only picked on people who could easily defend themselves before now. No one feels bad for Toyota when they get sued. It's when you go for litigious douchebag to litigious douchebag bully censor, that you really get people's attention. Double Down Carreon, as he's known.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @11:25 am ShelbyC: Ohh, interesting. He does seem to make it clear that he practices in Arizona, then:

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @11:28 am Also here, he makes it quite plain that he practices law and his location is Tucson:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-car ... _mSplash=1


Rand Bell • Jun 28, 2012 @11:33 am Correct me if I'm wrong but practicing in another state is usually just fine as long as you have also have local co-council.

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @11:41 am Hmm, what's Charles's middle name? There are two cases where CHARLES HERNAN CARREON was a defendant in Tuscon, once a traffic ticket for not having his insurance, and once for disorderly conduct. Both dismissed, but the disorderly conduct one took a bit of arguing presumably.

Case Number: J-1007-CR-20110447

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @11:42 am Randal: he's a:

Sole practicioner with boutique Intellectual Property transactional and litigation practice.
So who's his local council if he's giving advice from his office in Arizona?


Rand Bell • Jun 28, 2012 @11:47 am I have no idea. But assuming he is registered with the Federal court I think IP law would typically be covered at the Federal level. Certainly anything with registered TM and SM issues are likely to end up there. And he could always engage co-council when needed if it was in state court.

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

http://ia600809.us.archive.org/8/items/ ... ocket.html


keddren • Jun 28, 2012 @1:27 pm @Rand Bell: I don't know if it's every state, but I remember Jack Thompson had to file a Pro Hac Vice application to represent a client in Alabama.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 28, 2012 @1:43 pm @Rand: It's generally OK for a lawyer to temporarily represent someone in another state (in which the lawyer isn't licensed) when it arose out of representation in another state. A lawyer can even seek temporary admission ("pro hac vice") to another state's court, but it gets sketchy if the lawyer does so repeatedly.

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

(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
(1) Except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law;
Mr. Carreon's website notes:

My company is Online Media Law, PLLC, based in historic Tucson, Arizona. I am currently licensed to practice in the courts of California, and consult on Federal issues in various venues.
Arizona's rule is based on the ABA Model Rule 5.5, the commentary of which notes, in part:

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

1. May an out-of-state lawyer, not admitted in Arizona but residing in Arizona, practice law limited to the law of his home-licensed jurisdictions? No.
No person shall practice law in this state or represent in any way that he or she may practice law in this state unless the person is an active member of the state bar or that person's conduct comes within the exemptions to Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31 including exemption 27 permitting legal services as set out in Arizona's multi jurisdictional practice rules at ER 5.5. Until s/he is admitted to practice law in Arizona, an out-of-state lawyer is a non-lawyer in Arizona and as such can only engage in conduct permitted by the exemptions to Rule 31 or the multi-jurisdictional practice rules at ER 5.5. The multijurisdictional practice rule ER 5.5(c) addresses the practice by attorneys who are in Arizona temporarily. The rules at ER 5.5 do not address and cannot be
extended to permit the practice of law by an out-of-state lawyer permanently residing in Arizona unless the lawyer is in-house counsel.
Consistent with the Supremacy Clause and preemption doctrine, Rule 31 exemptions and MJP rules at ER 5.5 permit out-of-state lawyers to practice federal law as authorized by federal law and rules. The Supremacy Clause does not extend to laws of other states. Neither the exceptions to Rule 31 nor the MJP rules at ER 5.5 permit the out-of-state lawyer to engage in the practice of law of the out-of-state lawyer's jurisdiction while s/he resides in Arizona.
Rule 31(a)(2)(A) defines the "Practice of law" as providing legal advice or services to or for another… " The rules do not limit the term "practice of law" to Arizona law. ER 5.5(d)(2) assumes the practice of law is not limited to Arizona law. The multijurisdictional rule carves out a "safe harbor" in 5.5(d) for practice of law by an out-of-state lawyer stating the "lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction … may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that … are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction." The rule permits that lawyer to provide legal services authorized by federal law and the law of Arizona, and does not permit the out-of-state lawyer to provide legal services authorized by another state's jurisdiction. One can not extend the authorization to engage in the practice of federal law to an authorization to engage in the practice of the out-of-state lawyer's state of admission.
Lastly, under California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1-300(B), it is a disciplinary breach to practice law in another jurisdiction where doing so would break the regulations of that jurisdiction, and the California State Bar can discipline members who do so.

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 28, 2012 @2:35 pm Another thing: the New York Court of Appeal (New York's highest court) was similarly confused about Mr. Carreon's admissions, listing him as:

Online Media Law, PLLC (Charles H. Carreon, of the Arizona bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
This appears to have been the court's error, as Mr. Carreon's pro hac vice application lists being licensed in only California and Oregon (though it uses the Arizona address).


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 28, 2012 @2:44 pm And a sidenote: with pro hac vice admissions, you have to get a current member of that state's bar to recommend your temporary admission. The attorney moving for Mr. Carreon's pro hac vice admission in the New York case wrote:

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @2:51 pm Adam: Remember, until Carreon v Bears, Cancers, and AboFrakenEverybody, Carreon actually had a good reputation in 1st Amendment circles.

So having such an invitation makes sense.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 28, 2012 @3:04 pm Of course. I just think the spectacular fall from grace is sad.


Jess • Jun 28, 2012 @3:11 pm @Ann – I just contributed to your worthwhile cause. I also think the Charles Carreon parody site is a work of genius. All of the people putting themselves out there, bringing this content to us, adding very insightful, interesting, and quite hilarious viewpoints are superstars in my opinion.


Ann • Jun 28, 2012 @3:42 pm @Jess – thank you thank you thank you!!! I can't believe how close we are to the $1000 goal. Only $140 left!

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


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @3:55 pm @Adam, it's rather easy to be a proponent of free expression when no one is expressing their negative opinions about you publicly. It's easy to enjoy the level of free expression he and his wife have and not think about the flip side. Maybe he's just become more sensitive over time, maybe he isn't as gritty as he thought he was.


Look at that • Jun 28, 2012 @4:02 pm This thread

http://www.cynical-c.com/2012/06/28/peo ... /#comments


Joe • Jun 28, 2012 @4:24 pm W. Ross, Nicohlas, others – without saying something I should not I can only say that CC is NOT in an enviable financial position. As a "superstar first ammendment attorney" he doesn't make spit.


Look at that • Jun 28, 2012 @4:50 pm Oh whups! The cynical-c was for the Khan Kontest! Surry! *turns red with embarrassment*


Ann • Jun 28, 2012 @4:53 pm @Joe – yeah, I've been doing my own investigating into the C's financials. It's not pretty.


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @5:08 pm @Joe I had a feeling. That style of payment drop off is indicative of "the money done run out."

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


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @5:08 pm Sex.com case "just a fluke". Film at eleven.


Ann • Jun 28, 2012 @5:13 pm @robert – What I've read indicates that Carreon offered his legal services on sex.com for $100/hr (I charge more than that for my services for God's sakes), in exchange for a gentlemen's agreement that he would be given a percentage of the ad rev after the case was over. Then the client only paid him that percentage for a couple of months and then stopped. Carreon sued the client and lost.

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


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @5:17 pm Yep, and all the Trademark stuff he does for other people, and other cases… there's not much, especially not recently. The theoretical value of his damaged career (in court) may LITERALLY be more valuble than the real thing, making his self destruction completely sensible if he thinks he can win.

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


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @5:18 pm (And let me put on the standard disclaimer, NOTE I SAID HIS CAREER is worth more dead to him. I don't want to be "that's my mother!"ed into your doe hunt.)


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @5:36 pm @W Ross, king of the disclaimers on these threads.


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @5:40 pm It seems of all things, Charles Carreon is a man of great pride, who has refused to ask for help or accept it. In better circumstances that'd be an admirable quality.


Margaret • Jun 28, 2012 @5:41 pm @Ann

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


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @5:44 pm @Chris R They're like litigation condoms; they make the thread less intense and pleasurable, but they stop unwanted litigation and Satirically Transmitted Subpoenas.


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @5:51 pm @W Ross. ZING! Also a note on what I last said, they of course do say, pride cometh before the fall.


Look at that • Jun 28, 2012 @5:52 pm I literally failed the one law course I took, but I did learn that if it isn't in print, it doesn't exist. I've been a fanatic about contracts ever since.


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @6:05 pm It's worse than that: "Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." is the original quote.

Carreon has copious supplies of both.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @6:11 pm $100/hr? Wow, thats a cheap lawyer. I guess ya gets what you pay for…

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @6:24 pm W Ross: Actually, we can estimate that to some degree. How many cases on Pacer is he listed as attorney in the past 4 years? The CA equivalent?

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

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


Ann • Jun 28, 2012 @6:27 pm Comment Condom: $100/hour is just what I read in an article about the sex.com case, but that doesn't mean that is necessarily accurate!!!


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @6:37 pm @Look at that: All agreements are verbal (using words); and Oral Agreements (using the mouth, e.g. not written) -are- enforceable, but they remain very hard to prove if they are disclaimed by any party. Way more of contract law hinges on credibility than you might expect.

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


Look at that • Jun 28, 2012 @6:46 pm @ Robert White *sad face* not often, I hope.


W Ross • Jun 28, 2012 @6:48 pm http://www.indiegogo.com/WhatMightHaveBeen?c=pledges

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

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


Ann • Jun 28, 2012 @7:00 pm Right???!! I can't believe it.

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


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @7:10 pm @Ann, I don't think campaigns started -after- his complaint can be subject to the complaint.

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


n o 0 n e • Jun 28, 2012 @7:16 pm a little late to the party posting this, but how would carreons suit effect this charity drive::

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

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

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


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @7:36 pm Nah, that's not actually a charity, it's a knee-jerk communal guilt complex playing out as a public recompense to a private individual.


Valerie • Jun 28, 2012 @7:38 pm I just a quite civil exchange with one of caRreonS daughter on twitter I pointed out that many of us are angry that we can see our selves receiving such letter and being unable to afford a lawyer to advises Us and to have no way to respond from the extortionate attempt. Her response was reasoned and respectful
, so there is hope for the family after all.


Angela • Jun 28, 2012 @8:09 pm Now there is a copy of the requested restraining order on their site.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 17a79f2965


Ken • Jun 28, 2012 @8:21 pm Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 28, 2012 @8:34 pm Absent this being a class action, can Carreon even attempt to restrain more than whatever sum he donated?

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


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @8:34 pm @Ken, I think at this point, he means the harms to his ego if he doesn't get to take full credit for the money making it to the charities.


Chris R. • Jun 28, 2012 @8:35 pm harm not harms :(


Aaron Mason • Jun 28, 2012 @8:35 pm Is this supposed to be tagged with the rest of the Oatmeal vs Carreon saga?


Mike K • Jun 28, 2012 @8:49 pm @ann The $100/hour rate was what was originally paid. As part of the result of his lawsuit against his former client they doubled it. (from what I read somewhere, which I can't recall a location for due to reading too much random stuff)


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 28, 2012 @8:59 pm Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable.
Of course, that won't stop Carreon: He's shown in the past his reaction to being wrong is to double-down… I look forward to reading his objection to being pointed out how he's wrong on this. Well, it should be funny reading.

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

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

But the talk of his finances actually has me worried.

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

Hey, we're gonna crush your claims, and you know it. But our counter-claim is rock solid: you missed a payment, and then just stopped paying before you filed this silly suit. So settle now and either pay off or forfeit the car, or don't, in which case all our legal costs in our counterclaim get tacked onto the bill you owe us, we take the car, AND keep coming after you for all our legal costs. You did read the contract you signed, didn't you? Yes? Good.
And yes, we know, we won't come out ahead if we try to collect on all the legal fees for our counterclaim because well, blood and stones and all that, except we'll make an example of you. This will help us persuade future pro se plaintiffs to actually pay attention to, you know, the law and contracts and stuff.
'Kay, thanks.
Yet if Carreon at this point is trending towards the judgement-proof financial event horizon, how much is "We can SLAPP you silly" or court sanctions going to work to dissuade him?


Robert White • Jun 28, 2012 @9:06 pm @Chris R. You were correct the first time. It's plural. "Harms". Each personality and persona will take different damage based on individual resistances and D.R. particularly since they are of diverse alignment.

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


AlphaCentauri • Jun 28, 2012 @10:20 pm "Typically preliminary injunctive relief is only available for irreparable harm — and harm that can be remedied with money is by definition not irreparable."

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


Robert White • Jun 29, 2012 @12:41 am I'm also pretty sure, from looking at both the text and writings, that he had to split his dump-stat between CHA and WIS. Either that or he totally botched his rolls during character gen.

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


raphidae • Jun 29, 2012 @6:08 am Don't forget to share http://www.carreon.info ;)


AwesomeFreddie • Jun 29, 2012 @6:43 am On another article (I can't remember which one) there was a link to court documents from where Tara Carreon had debt collectors serving her due to non-payment of a Citibank credit card, and she (represented by the Great Chuck) sued them saying they did it wrong.


AwesomeFreddie • Jun 29, 2012 @6:59 am These aren't the links I originally saw, but:
https://mariokenny.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/fdcpa/

and

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @7:34 am More fun from the Oregon courts:
U.S. District Court
District of Oregon (Medford (1))
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-03084-CO
Carreon v Miller

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

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

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

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 2.26.0.pdf

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

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

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 2.18.0.pdf

However, the court notes that if the legal bases for a future filing will be identical, the wizardry of word processing and modern data storage should make defendants' task of refiling their motion in a subsequent proceeding quite easy.
Unfortunately, the oakland CA court PACER is down, so its only Fun in Oregon for this go-round of things into RECAP.

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @7:35 am AwesomeFreddie: That was this case:
http://ia700501.us.archive.org/0/items/ ... ocket.html


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @7:45 am Oh, and I think the Carreon v Seidberg reply included the "Are you sure you want to double-double-down" with

In the event the undersigned learn during discovery that this matter was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the undersigned will seek recovery of their reasonable attorney fees as allowed by 15 USC Sec 1692k(3) against the Plaintiffs and each of them.
Oh, and one of the attachments is the filing in state court BEFORE carreon nuisance suit was filed. "Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. vs Tara L Carreon and John Doe, Spouse". Someone with Arizona court records access, it might be amusing to throw those online too.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 17.7.0.pdf

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 17.7.2.pdf

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


Valerie • Jun 29, 2012 @9:00 am Meh – between unemployment, bank tomfoolery and the credit crunch, tons of people have had conflict with debt collectors as of late, and there have been some fairly egregious attempts to squeeze blood from stones – For instance this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 49896.html

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @9:02 am Oh, reading through the Citibank answer:

Your undersigned deny that Ms Carren was not served. Your undersigned affirmatively assert that Ms Carreon was in fact personally served at her usual pace of abode.
This also explains why the Carreons went after the process server with an abusive subpoena: Basically Carreon's paragraph 20 was a possible rule 11 violation and a key point of Carreon's court case, and CitiBank made it clear that, if Carreon was going to double-double-down, CitiBank would respond in kind.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 29, 2012 @9:13 am @Nicholas:

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @9:17 am Valerie: I disagree, because this is important in understanding Carreon's tactics as a Pro Se litigant…

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

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @9:18 am Adam: Yeah. And the basic complaint was attached as an exhibit to the Citibank response anyway, so thats now in RECAP. Kinda boring, actually.


Nibor • Jun 29, 2012 @9:28 am As I stated before IANAL, when I was listening to the webcast from Ken I could not help to think of a little thread that was happening here, about the illegalness of CC doing legal activities from his home (in another state).

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @9:29 am Oh, and he gets less sympathy from me for getting over his head in debt, since he and Tara declared chapter 13 back in 1994 (discharged in 1998):

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

Charles Hernan Carreon & Tara Lyn Carreon

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

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

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


Valerie • Jun 29, 2012 @10:08 am @ Nicholas Ah – I see your point about the pattern of pro se abuse & the misuse of supeonas. I also didn't realize he had a chapter 13 in his past.

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

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

Spencer • Jun 29, 2012 @12:35 pm @Nibor,

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

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


theNuszAbides • Jun 29, 2012 @1:06 pm "I've got some thoughts/questions pertaining to the Bear Love situation, but I don't feel comfortable verbalizing them just yet." -Ann

nominated for #1 remark to take out of context.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @1:37 pm Oh, and cases filed by Carreon as an attorney or party since 2010:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @1:37 pm Oh, thats federal filing, BTW, not state of california.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @1:49 pm Arden V Castell, for people's viewing pleasure:
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/21/items ... ocket.html

And I need to stop spending money on Pacer….


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @1:55 pm Ah, what happened is the plaintiff got arrested for aleged theft, the case was rather botched and eventually dismissed, and Carreon (who was apparently also the guy's criminal defense attorney) and the plaintiff sued everyone involved: The company that runs the carts, the detective who did the arrest, etc.


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @2:10 pm I think the case is summed up in the argument for summary judgement by the other side (which the judge granted):

The issue in this case is whether two detectives who observe plaintiff for more than two hours pocketing money earmarked for his employer have probable cause to detain that individual, and when the District Attorney opts not to continue a criminal prosecution for embezzlement, is the lead detective liable for violation of that individual’s Federal Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Defendant and moving party Frank Kastell submits that the answer is “no”, and he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
But giving Carreon credit here: He's a pretty staunch advocate if he's actually advocating for someone else, and he'll use every loophole, mistake, or issue he can find (in this case, the DA was very slow at producing a video which Carreon claims is exculpatory but others would actually find incriminating, which is why the DA seems to have dropped the case)


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 29, 2012 @4:20 pm Hey, is there any way to find out if Gary Arden is related to Charles Carreon? Although Carreon used to be criminal law, he hadn't practiced it in decades, which makes it strange to see him defending a client in San Francisco (from his office in Tucson).

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


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @6:38 pm http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 48831298f0

Holy shit, Tara is posting all sorts of stuff about Inman's parents etc.


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @6:42 pm So his dad is a hot head, his mom is a tarot reader, and he's a uber successful cartoonist/SEO person. There might be hope for the Carreon kids after all.


Ann • Jun 29, 2012 @6:43 pm When are we going to see the request for dismissal? It's time to put this shit to bed. :(


Rand Bell • Jun 29, 2012 @7:46 pm Hopefully not until the legal smackdown is of epic proportions.

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 29, 2012 @7:51 pm @Ann — gonna be a bit. If the defendants are waiving service, they'll have about two months to respond. I don't imagine they'll wait nearly that long (and CA's anti-SLAPP has a smaller window), but the first actual skirmish will be over Carreon's quest for a restraining order. I'd expect that'll happen next week.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 29, 2012 @8:01 pm @Chris R.

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

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

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

She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:17 pm

PART 2 OF 2 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk: Request For Pro Bono Help In Bay Area Cont'd.)

AlphaCentauri • Jun 29, 2012 @8:07 pm It looks like she's just finding every mention of the name "Inman" on the internet. She may have paid for a background check to get his parents' names, or she may just be guessing that, too. It's not a common name, but it may also be the kind of name people ended up with when they tried to anglicize Eastern European names. Multiple different family names could have ended up as "Inman."


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @8:33 pm I just want to know how here theory of Matthew Inman being "a man without parents" reconciles with her now listing his parent's on her board?


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @8:37 pm Also Ann Inman's website has a very Matthew Inman style to it.


Moo • Jun 29, 2012 @8:47 pm It's really disgusting that she's trying to drag his parents into this. I guess crazy doesn't see when they're going to far. He hasn't been personally attacking any members of the family.

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


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @9:05 pm Why does she hate Marc Randazza so much? He was one of the only people who originally tried to stand up for her husband.


Hughhh • Jun 29, 2012 @9:16 pm @Chris R. The Carreons are probably most disappointed with Marc because he was originally on the "good side" and has switched, whereas the rest of us were evil to begin with.

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


Matt Scott • Jun 29, 2012 @9:24 pm Your son is conducting a public lynching of our entire famly on the Internet. He appears to be extremely psychologically disturbed. Doesn't it worry you that he draws the pictures he draws? Do you ever think he might go out and murder someone with such callous attitudes towards human life?
Definitive example of irony, much?


Kris • Jun 29, 2012 @10:08 pm Her insanity is astounding. She has fixated to the nth degree on Inman, and everything having to do with him, even if only superficially. It's absolutely absurd. There just has to be an underlying mental illness here. I'd love to see some psychiatrists weigh in.


ShelbyC • Jun 29, 2012 @10:10 pm Holy fuck she's a nasty little cunt.


Mike K • Jun 29, 2012 @10:13 pm How many emails like that would it take to convince a reasonable judge to grant a restraining order against Tara to prevent her from contacting and trying to disturb Mathew's family?

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 29, 2012 @10:25 pm @Mike K: difficult to establish harassment based on someone contacting your friends, family, etc. That's actually a good thing, because otherwise people can abuse harassment restraining orders as a means of censoring people (and instead of having to go through proving defamation). If someone does harass friends/family members, those people can apply for their own restraining orders.

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 29, 2012 @10:27 pm Then there's this other William Inman who was just convicted of murdering his wife. And his father's name is "William," too. Lots of freekin' William Inmans in the world. I wonder if there's any relation here to Matt Inman. I ask because according to Matt Inman's theory of life, any association between persons among whom one is allegedly guilty of some crime convicts the whole bunch.
I've forwarded this to the editors of Merriam Webster as a proposed example of 'projection'.


Moo • Jun 29, 2012 @10:59 pm That woman needs some serious help.


Mike K • Jun 29, 2012 @11:29 pm On the bright side, people like her remind me of one of the benefits of having a common name. According to howmanyofme.com, there are 56 people with my last name and one of the two most common permutations of my first name in the US. As far as finding my family, there are almost 4000 people in the country with my last name. Out of those people, less than 2 dozen know me and out of those only my immediately family knows how to contact me without contacting my parents first.

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


Chris R. • Jun 29, 2012 @11:49 pm Every time I am reading Nader Library, I feel like I am staring at a bad car accident, and I don't have a phone to call for help.


Nibor • Jun 29, 2012 @11:59 pm Somehow I think that she also read this comments for this new bat crazy behavior started and she refers to it when the digging in their old court casses started and because she can't attack the posters (canibalkids) so her mind goes critical and she has to lash out. So she lashes out at the only target she can imagin and that is Inman but he is not enough so she goes after the ones that are close to him.

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


Nibor • Jun 30, 2012 @12:08 am On mental people, and most of the time I can find their logic, not seldom totaly different from normal logic, but I can follow what is happening

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

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

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


Nibor • Jun 30, 2012 @12:10 am Is responceable for her actions

And again those fat fingers of mine


dex • Jun 30, 2012 @12:15 am Poor Tara. She had thought of herself as a poet, prior to Inman. She had thought of herself as a philosopher, prior to Inman. She had thought of herself as cool; hip; young at heart; progressive; charismatic; intellectual; likable; strong and independent; internet savvy; interesting. Then Inman came along! In twenty-four hours her whole happy fantasy poofed. A vulgar cartoonist revealed her, a vulgar cartoon.


dex • Jun 30, 2012 @12:33 am @Nibor

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


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @12:36 am "Supposedly, Bobby Ray Inman's father owned a gas station, whatever that means. "

I think it means he owned a gas station.


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @12:54 am The way her mind works is utterly fascinating. She is incapable of recognizing that while she and her husband immediately took to bashing Inman on the internet, his mother (do we know that is actually his mother?) did not write ANYTHING even commenting on the case.

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

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

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


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @12:58 am It's all a cover.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @1:04 am Wow. Now we have Jared Loughner. 3 more posts until a Genghis Khan reference. Over under anyone?


Thomas • Jun 30, 2012 @5:39 am I never thought Tara's Nader Library comments could get more insane…that is, until I took a peek today. It baffles me that she is quick to point the finger at others, saying they are "deeply disturbed," but fails to see it in her self. I'd say there must be some deep-rooted psychological issues at work here, and it's getting borderline scary. I now fully understand what may have turned a once-respected lawyer into what he is seen as today.

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


Matt Scott • Jun 30, 2012 @7:11 am … Does she not understand that telling a civil rights era (well… just after, but founded by civil rights era leaders) group that "entire family is being brutally lyinched [sic]," when, in fact, your family faces no such threat of an actual execution at the hands of a mob, is about the most idiotic and insensitive thing you could do? (Maybe a notch under suing charities)

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

this is a quote from an article she quoted and emphasized in her postBut MacNab, who I’ve known and respected for years, says Loughner’s weird references to “literacy” and “grammar” which mystify me, are Sovereign markers to her. “Sovereigns have their own set of complex cultural references and vocabulary, which they think that outsiders are just too stupid to understand,’’ she explains on her web site.
Her entire point re:Inman's grammar comics, misses the point that the articles she quotes are trying to make, which is that Loughner had a strange linguistic system, the use of which, he believed, would undermine the government. Inman, on the other hand, is not delving into some esoteric linguistic system, he's trying to get people to use (at least in a prescriptivist sense) language properly.

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

Matt Scott • Jun 30, 2012 @7:13 am Oops, forgot to add my commentary to that last quote.

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @7:23 am the tl:dnr for Charles reading this: Walk away now, you still have a chance.

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

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

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

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

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

But Carreon can still walk away.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @7:26 am I think, fairly representative of the Carreon's preferred modus operandi for the world: it could go wrong, ergo it will go wrong and we should stop it before it does go wrong.
That does seem to run through Carreon's filings as well. And also in his filings is very much "There is no coincidence, its always a conspiracy".


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @7:27 am Oh, and its amusing that Tara is literally fixated on the Oatmeal grammar comics.

:)


Nibor • Jun 30, 2012 @7:27 am @dex I agree and think she is a very troubled woman (to put politely) and that she could survive and not branded an madwoman, because she wasn't opposed or analysed to the degree she is now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @7:33 am Thomas: No. Tara's behavior is harmless. Crazy, but harmless.

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

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


Nibor • Jun 30, 2012 @7:37 am :-) :-) :-) And no I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it. :-) :-) :-)


AlphaCentauri • Jun 30, 2012 @8:34 am @Nibor, I think your analysis is probably quite close to accurate.

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


Nate • Jun 30, 2012 @8:37 am Reading her crazy ramblings is astounding. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic the way she's projecting her crazy. First she says looking at Inman's photo, he's clearly paranoid (seriously, you've spent how long photoshopping him?) and now she's insinuating that he's a murderer in the waiting (because comics can't just be comics), and not satisfied with that, she's calling his mother crazy. She's also ignoring the fact that it looks like 2 of the 3 cases against his (alleged/supposed/guessed at) father were dismissed (IANAL so I might be reading that wrong). And on top of that…they're all nazis because they come from Europe and all Europeans are nazis! Wow, just…wow!

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


Mark • Jun 30, 2012 @9:04 am Her ramblings are so over-the-top crazy that sometimes I wonder if she's not doing some sort of reverse-trolling: I wonder how many drive-by trolls are just sending nasty stuff to them for the lulz. Maybe she thinks that responding on the same level will "teach them a lesson"?

Other than that, she seems a profoundly disturbed woman.


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @9:31 am I'm guessing that part of her reason for her bringing Oats' parents into this, rather than, say, going after one of people on these forums whose full names are known (and who are actually the people vocally criticizing her & posting records of Charles' legal history) is that the last time she tried going toe to toe with Ann (aka the "Lying Little Bitch") it resulted in yet another successful Carreon = asshat fundraiser (nicely done, Ann :) ).

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

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

Tara, please google foot-bullet.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @10:19 am @Valerie, I agree that she believes this is a proxy war somehow with 2 distinct sides (hers and everyone else). Your explanation comes from a rational mind, which is to say, can never be truly correct in explaining her actual thought process. What she fails to recognize is that there are many sides to this situation. Here are a few I can think of:

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

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


Margaret • Jun 30, 2012 @10:31 am @Mike K

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

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


Kristen • Jun 30, 2012 @12:11 pm It's sad. She is sounding more and more unhinged every day. My anger that she has decided to go after his family (albeit in an extremely feeble fashion) is tempered by my concern for her mental state. This woman is sick. I truly hope she gets the help she obviously needs.

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


dex • Jun 30, 2012 @12:23 pm @Nibor

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


Joe • Jun 30, 2012 @12:57 pm Tara had posted “The people attacking Charles outside legal or sober reporting on the situation is cyber terrorists.”

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


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @1:17 pm Joe I don't think you're using the right substance to even come close to their state of mind.


Angela • Jun 30, 2012 @1:26 pm Wow. Just wow.

"I'm on to you Illuminati Popehat bastards!" from the Nader site.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 3c3ae145c9


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @1:30 pm @Angela, O.M.G. She knows. EVERYONE MOVE TO THE SECRET BACKUP BOARDS!


Kristen • Jun 30, 2012 @1:39 pm @Angela Holy… wow!


Matt Scott • Jun 30, 2012 @1:48 pm It's all you, Chris. You've outed us with your gravatar. CODE ZEBRA. REPEAT CODE ZEBRA.


Kristen • Jun 30, 2012 @2:10 pm I just showed my husband the link from Angela above. He simply said: "you're a loony" in a British accent :)

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


Thorne • Jun 30, 2012 @2:27 pm No, Matt, 'Zebra' was LAST week…

Mumble the dog-faced banana patch!


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @2:27 pm Matt, I apologize, I thought by claiming I was Illuminati no one would believe I was since we… obviously a logical error. I submit myself to the all seeing eye for judgement.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @2:48 pm And now she's attributing posts by Patrick to Ken in order to demonstrate his allegiance to the Illuminati. It's gonna be a long summer.


Robert White • Jun 30, 2012 @2:49 pm Damnit @Matt Scott — I just finished setting up OCELOT TANGO WATERMELON, you just can not expect me to code ZEBRA -again- so soon. At the least you need to DELTA PLATE before you can ZEBRA anyway.

Have you -not- received the new handbook?


dex • Jun 30, 2012 @2:50 pm I spent twenty minutes browsing the Nader Library before bed last night, and afterward dreamed I was playing Settlers of Catan with Charles and Tara in costume and speaking pseudo-Shakespearean English.


Robert White • Jun 30, 2012 @2:50 pm @Adam Steinbaugh — well at least the Illuminati cover is still working.


Mark • Jun 30, 2012 @2:51 pm Folks, always remember to KEEP THE LASAGNA FLYING!


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @2:58 pm My favorite Tara quote today.

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

AlphaCentauri • Jun 30, 2012 @3:21 pm CHARLES CARREON VS. THE ILLUMINATI
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No.: CV-12-3112-EMC
You know how this all looks to those of us not living in California, of course?


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @3:27 pm I wonder if she's heard back from the SPLC. My guess is they are sensible enough to either ignore or fob her off with some polite thanks for your letter, but go away.


Joe • Jun 30, 2012 @3:45 pm Chris R., Angela – Oh double shit, Tara has immortalized me on her rant-blog. Interesting which comments she chooses to re-post.

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

Carreontortion

Car-re-on-tor-tion

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


Ken • Jun 30, 2012 @4:14 pm Why is it that crazy people can never distinguish different bloggers?


Robert White • Jun 30, 2012 @4:24 pm @AlphaCentauri – You forget… -none- of the parties to the case live in California either.


Robert White • Jun 30, 2012 @4:27 pm Carreonterpretation – The judicious exclusion of pivotal words or sections of statutes or precident in an attempt to make them appear relevant to a matter.


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @4:48 pm Wow. Ken, you lucky bastard – she's dedicated a strange movie "vignette" to you.

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


Jess • Jun 30, 2012 @4:53 pm Robert – I think we should start a dictionary – that is now the fourth Carreon definition folks have come up with.

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

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


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @5:10 pm Just read Tara contacting Oatmeals mom. As an "employee" of Charles (shes his legal secretary) isn't that wildly unpopular.


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @5:11 pm Improper. (Tablet decided it wanted another word.)


desconhecido • Jun 30, 2012 @5:16 pm Jess

Apparently, Tara is not the only loon around.


Jess • Jun 30, 2012 @5:34 pm @desconhecido – what can I say? That's what happens when you spend too much time reading her site. You fall into the vortex.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @5:44 pm @Valerie, why does she always type out the words in the screen capture? Anyone have a clue?


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @5:46 pm I'm dissapointed that I'm not part of the conspiracy, because if I'm part of the conspiracy, then PACER is part of the conspiracy for revealing all their other issues about the Carreons' ummm, interesting legal practice, sketchy finances, and pro se antics…


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @5:53 pm @Ken, It's because crazy doesn't see people as individuals, crazy sees people as conspiracies. So by being in any relation to the conspiracy you become a single entity in their point of view.


Narad • Jun 30, 2012 @5:55 pm Mumble the dog-faced banana patch!
Ahem.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @5:55 pm Nicholas, I think you fall under the "Discordian Pope" clause of the conspiracy. So rest assured, you have not been forgotten.


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @6:04 pm @ Chris R I don't know why she always rewrites the screen captures. Why does she think photoshopping penises on people strikes a blow for freedom?

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


SPQR • Jun 30, 2012 @6:15 pm If they know he's represented, it is an ethical violation.


Narad • Jun 30, 2012 @6:25 pm She really dropped a letter from the ceiling stitch with this one:

I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd.
Case History
Kootenai
Pay attention, madam.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @6:38 pm Carreon's application for a TRO will be up shortly at the RECAP page for the case.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @6:42 pm Carreon donated a hefty $10 to the campaign on June 14. That's 2.8% of what it cost him to file the lawsuit.


C-chan • Jun 30, 2012 @7:01 pm @Chris R: I'll go for the technological answer and say screenreaders. Programs for the blind can't see the photos, but they can read the text.

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


John • Jun 30, 2012 @7:09 pm So, this TRO could be avoided had Charles read the following Indiegogo support link?

http://support.indiegogo.com/entries/20 ... deductible

Frivolous indeed.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @7:12 pm From the TRO, page 9, lines 21-22


His enthusiasm for the project caused him to claim the endorsement of non-profit entities without their permission
I don't recall Inmann ever claiming the endorsement of the charities…

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


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @7:14 pm And that's just what jumped out at me from glancing very quickly at the document…


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @7:15 pm I'm sorry, I should have been more specific… That was from the "MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES"


Dan Weber • Jun 30, 2012 @7:36 pm Reading that reminds me of what a douchebag this guy is.

27. Inman’s desire to exercise ownership and possession of the Charitable Fund for purposes of a publicity stunt is the only thing delaying the transfer of the funds to NWF and ACS.
STOP PISSING ON MY LEG AND TELLING ME IT'S RAINING.


Mike K • Jun 30, 2012 @7:49 pm If Indiegogo were able to prove that Carreon had read all the various terms like it not being a tax deductible donation and what their fees were going to be, would Carreon lose standing to sue since he isn't representing anyone that wasn't aware of those facts? I mean it's assumption on my part, but I'm fairly certain that he researched to find at least some way to sue before he 'donated' and if that's the case Indiegogo could possibly have the records indicating he visited those pages.


Ann • Jun 30, 2012 @7:56 pm Just got a random comment on my blog from a "friend" of Charles who hasn't seen him in a number of years, but is apparently a support of CC and his family. Too tired to even process and respond right now.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @8:01 pm Carreon implies (at a minimum) to the court that he thought his $10 donation was going to be split between the charities. He made that donation at 9PM on June 14. He filed the lawsuit the very next day, alleging that people were being mislead by the fee taken out by IndieGoGo.

So, no, he didn't think that.


Dan Weber • Jun 30, 2012 @8:01 pm but I'm fairly certain that he researched to find at least some way to sue before he 'donated' and

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

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

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


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @8:03 pm Now I – being a po' – did not donate, but I was wondering if someone who did could answer a question…

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


Eric • Jun 30, 2012 @8:03 pm @Mike K – Does it even matter if Charles didn't read the terms of service before donating? IndieGoGo provided clear terms of service on their website. Is it their fault that Charles chose not to read the terms of service before making his donation? Of course, I'm not a lawyer so I may be way off base, but it seems to me that IndieGoGo can't be blamed for Charles willfully remaining ignorant of the donation mechanism they were providing.


Dan Weber • Jun 30, 2012 @8:05 pm If I give $5 directly to a charity via a credit card, they don't get all of it. The CC vendor will ding the merchant a little bit, even though it looks to me like I donated $5. I'm pretty sure this ain't fraud.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @8:07 pm @Scott Jacobs: No. It's just prominently in the FAQ.

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


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @8:17 pm I'm surprised he didn't donate $9.99 just to argue semantics over where the rounded cent went.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @8:40 pm B&PC 17510.3, which Carreon cites, appears to govern the disclosures required in this situation. (How one would display a card over the internet, though, is beyond me.)

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

(b) Knowing and willful noncompliance by any individual volunteer who receives no compensation of any type from or in connection with a solicitation by any charitable organization shall subject the solicitor or seller to the penalties of the law.
So, Carreon would have to demonstrate that his failure to make those disclosures was knowing and willful. More importantly, Carreon's theory that Inman is earning compensation by way of a tax write-off would swallow the rule, and would make most of the language superfluous: anyone who raises money for a charitable cause could get a tax write-off and could conceivably violate this law (if the knowing/willful part were proved).

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


Dan Weber • Jun 30, 2012 @8:50 pm Does that really make it go away? I think the distinction between donating to a guy who gives to a charity and directly to the charity is real.

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


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @8:54 pm @ Ann The guy linked to a blog URL that doesn't seem unhinged. He is quite a passionate liberal, by the looks of it, but seems rational from what I saw (I'm a liberal too, so I'm not taking a pot shot). He even has an entry satirizing conspiracy theories. For that reason alone, I doubt it is one of the Carreons. Also, he didn't call anyone a Nazi.

http://www.littleaustralia.blogspot.com ... ts-to.html


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @8:55 pm Tara has changed the name of the thread to name us. She knows of the involvement of the Illuninatus (though not yet Dick Cheney, the Order of the Wolf and Dragon, or Alpha Division. Per Wizard Protocol I want agents running full data scrubbers and prepare for hot evac.

Meet in Crawford Texas for further instructions.

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


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @8:56 pm @Dan: I agree. I also think that argument is bolstered by the fact that a large number of people donated while Inman said that he was considering adding more charities to the list — people weren't donating to the charities (they had no idea what the charities were!), but to Inman's renouncement of Carreon/FunnyJunk with the added benefit that the money would help some unknown organizations.


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @9:01 pm @ W. Ross Oh, have the Weeping Angles been called in? We don't want any trouble with the Doctor…


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @9:05 pm Agents,

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


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @9:06 pm God damnit, W Ross, we have told you before, DO NOT MENTION THE GRAND WATER BUFFALO!!!


Ann • Jun 30, 2012 @9:07 pm @Valerie – agreed. I suspect he just hasn't read much into the "behind the scenes" stuff to fully appreciate the magnitude of douchebaggery happening here. I hope he really is a friend, and I hope that he can reach out and maybe talk some sense into the Carreons. If one of my friends was engaging in this behavior, I would stage a serious intervention and I would hope they would do the same for me.


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @9:15 pm If you're on mission Excelsior Lee, move on. The NSA has garbage and sewage collecting and drug testing/analysis down already. Move all free resources to operation Bad Proud under the Penguin/Toyota front companies.

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

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


Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @9:16 pm @ Ann Thinking about the response Marc Randazza (elevated, along with Ken, to high ranking Illuminati) got when he tried to talk them down, I wouldn't hold out much hope of penetrating the crazy.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @9:18 pm THE RED BIRD FLIES AT DAWN. THE RED BIRD FLIES AT DAWN. EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE MISSION IS DEAD. DELETE EVERYTHING. I REPEAT, EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT PROJECT PENGUIN IS DEA [end transmission]


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @9:20 pm (If she's going to live in a fantasy world, it should at least be well written.)


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @9:23 pm - .- .-. .- / -.- -. — .– … / .. – / .. … / ..- …


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @9:31 pm .– . / — ..- … – / .- … … ..- — . / – …. .- – / .- .-.. .-.. / .- –. . -. – … / .- .-. . / -.-. — — .–. .-. — — .. … . -.. / ..- -. .-.. . … … / … .–. . -.-. .. ..-. .. -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -.– / …. — -. — .-. . -.. / -… -.– / – …. . / . .-.. -.. . .-.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @9:40 pm I really hate it when you people do that. I spent a long time forcing myself to forget Morse Code.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @9:46 pm .– …. .- – / -.. — / -.– — ..- / — . .- -. / -.– — ..- / .–. . — .–. .-.. .


AlphaCentauri • Jun 30, 2012 @9:50 pm Some of our transmissions are leaking out. They're being propagated in vibrations in dental fillings and household wiring. We need to switch to new frequencies.


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @10:13 pm 01010100011000010111001001100001001011000010000001111001011011110111010100100000011010000110111101101110011001010111001101110100011011000111100100100000011011100110010101100101011001000010000001110100011011110010000001100111011001010111010000100000011100110110111101101101011001010010000001101000011001010110110001110000001011000010000001100010011001010110001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000111100101101111011101010010011101110010011001010010000001101000011000010111011001101001011011100110011100100000011000010010000001110000011000010111001001100001011011100110111101101001011001000010000001100101011100000110100101110011011011110110010001100101001011100010000001010011011001010111001001101001011011110111010101110011011011000111100100101100001000000100111101100011011000110110000101101101011100110010000001010010011000010111101001101111011100100010000001110011011000010111100101110011001000000111100101101111011101010111001000100000011001100110000101101101011010010110110001111001001000000110100101110011001000000111011101110010011011110110111001100111001000000110100001100101011100100110010100101101001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100111011100110010000001100001001000000110110101110101011000110110100000100000011011010110111101110010011001010010000001101100011010010110101101100101011011000111100100100000011001010111100001110000011011000110000101101110011000010111010001101001011011110110111000100000011101000110100001100001011011100010000001100001001000000011000100110101001100000011000000110000001000000111000001100101011011110111000001101100011001010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011101110110111101110010011010110110100101101110011001110010000001110100011011110110011101100101011101000110100001100101011100100010000001110100011011110010000001100101011011010110001001100001011100100110000101110011011100110010000001111001011011110111010101110010001000000110011001100001011011010110100101101100011110010010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000110010001100101011001010111000000100000011001000110111101110111011011100010000001001001001000000111010001101000011010010110111001101011001000000111100101101111011101010010000001101011011011100110111101110111001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100000011000100111010101110100001000000111100101101111011101010010011101110110011001010010000001100101011011100110011101100001011001110110010101100100001000000110001001110101011101000010000001100011011000010110111000100111011101000010000001100100011010010111001101100101011011100110011101100001011001110110010100101110001000000100100100100111011011010010000001101110011011110111010000100000011101110110100101101100011011000110100101101110011001110010000001110100011011110010000001100011011011110110010001100100011011000110010100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110111101110010001000000110010101101110011000010110001001101100011001010010000001111001011011110111010100100000011010010110111000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001100100011001010110110001110101011100110110100101101111011011100010110000100000011100110110111100100000010010010010011101101101001000000110111001101111011101000010000001100011011010000110000101101110011001110110100101101110011001110010000001100001011011100111100101110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001001001001000000110010001101111001000000110100101101110001000000111010001101000011001010111001101100101001000000111010001101000011100100110010101100001011001000111001100101100001000000110001001110101011101000010000001000011010011110100111001010011010010010100010001000101010100100010000001110100011010000110000101110100001000000111001101101111011011010110010101110100011010000110100101101110011001110010000001101101011010010110011101101000011101000010000001100010011001010010000001110111011100100110111101101110011001110010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000111001101100101011001010010000001100001001000000110010001101111011000110111010001101111011100100010111000100000010100000110110001100101011000010111001101100101001011000010000001110011011001010110010101101011001000000110100001100101011011000111000000101110001000000010110101010111011010010110110001101100001000000101001001101111011100110111001100101110


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @10:22 pm Acknowledged.


Thorne • Jun 30, 2012 @10:23 pm Shit, I just ran out of tin foil…

I'm vulnerable here, people! VULNERABLE!!


Nicholas Weaver • Jun 30, 2012 @10:26 pm Wow, I think Carreon, dissatisfied with sticking his cock in a hornet's nest, just stuck his head in the bear trap….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @10:28 pm There is one thing we've been dancing around here and I think it needs to be said plainly:

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

Discuss.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @10:31 pm W Ross, you just blew my mind, man.

My mind, it is blown.


W Ross • Jun 30, 2012 @10:39 pm I know, right? Try not to see that shit now.


Smorz • Jun 30, 2012 @10:45 pm CC donated again in the closing 8 hours of the Bearlove campaign. Saw his name before I donated. I've got a screen cap if I can get a link here to work…

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



Valerie • Jun 30, 2012 @10:58 pm @ W. Ross. OMG! – Its always SUNNY. In other words it illuminates. And how would you describe people who illuminate? Illuminati! Dear God, it all makes sense now. Scratch Texas, we need to head to Paddy's Pub in Philly. The Master must have been sending us a secret message through the gang's hijinks. We were blind not to see it.

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


Smorz • Jun 30, 2012 @10:58 pm Carreon implies (at a minimum) to the court that he thought his $10 donation was going to be split between the charities. He made that donation at 9PM on June 14. He filed the lawsuit the very next day, alleging that people were being mislead by the fee taken out by IndieGoGo.

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


Drew • Jun 30, 2012 @11:02 pm I find it interesting that he admitted in his sworn declaration that his offices are in Arizona and that he sent a demand letter to a resident of the State of Washington. His exhibits show that the letter was for a corporation that appears to be registered in Nevada to a resident of New York. Yet he is only licensed in California.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @11:19 pm A shoot and a miss.


Scott Jacobs • Jun 30, 2012 @11:20 pm Looking at the mocking of Tara here, and I just gotta say…

I fucking love this blog.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @11:21 pm @Drew, he was threatening a federal lawsuit which only requires him to be licensed in one state.


Chris R. • Jun 30, 2012 @11:23 pm @Adam, magnificent.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @11:32 pm Also, if you believe this Reddit poster, Carreon emailed him and said:

Please find attached a copy of the Complaint. As you will see, it doesn't accuse Mr. Inman of defamation, or seek damages for emotional distress or reputational injury. It does not ask the Court to shut down the Bear Love campaign, or to compel Indiegogo or Inman to alter their Internet speech by one syllable. Since my name is Trademarked, I seek an injunction against people using it to post false posts in my name on Twitter, and to sign me up for free porn using my email address. Seems reasonable. I do not seek to get damages from the charities, but rather guarantee them receipt of all the money that is raised by the campaign.
My policy goal is to strike a blow against false, misleading, unregistered charitable fundraising, and the use of charitable fundraising for purposes inconsistent with charitable goals, such as making any person, anywhere, the focus of a Netwar campaign.
I'll note that Carreon described part of his case as dealing with "Netwar" when I corresponded with him over Twitter.

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


Matt Scott • Jun 30, 2012 @11:45 pm Quoting Carreon's Declaration:

Inman thus informed 14,406 donors to the Bear Love campaign that his decision not to divide the money four ways was the result of a compromise that I forced upon him. This is not true. There has been no compromise, for if there had been, Inman would have relinquished his assertion of control over the Charitable Fund, and Indiegogo would be directing the funds to the putative beneficiaries of the Bear Love campaign — ACS and NWF. Instead, Inman is insisting upon retaining his role as the intermediary.
Ignoring the fact that Inman never stated he had engaged in any sort of compromise (beyond the tacit claim of such according to his statement, "if Carreon wanted a victory he got one" [or whatever, it was something like that]), Carreon really doesn't seem to get the meaning on the concept of compromise.

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

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

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


Narad • Jul 1, 2012 @12:17 am This "Atomic Luciferians" piece by Tara is a real piece of oh-shit-we're-out-of-clonazepam-again. I think I'm starting to get the Blavatsky-Nazi connection (viz., she thinks Heinrich Harrer was a Theosophist or something, and, well, Aleister Crowley was a mountaineer too, so… well, I'm sure it all comes together somewhere).

When you see the word "optical," you know you're looking at the Illuminati. They are obsessed with optics and eyes (especially in pyramids).
The best part, at least from my perspective, is that I'm actually waiting for checks for some "jobs" done in service of a certain large pointy-headed North American optical concern. Cue Ed Sanders. You're way behind the curve, Tara. Don't worry, though: holograms are all a trick done with mirrors. Really.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @12:45 am http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/30/the-o ... -a-motion/

It continues….


Scott Jacobs • Jul 1, 2012 @1:52 am It continues
Like a terrible, terrible, hilarious train wreck…


Paul • Jul 2, 2012 @2:26 pm Wow… That Tara is seriously scary… She totally reminds me of my ex-gf stalker… That coo-coo for coco puffs whack job is the reason my wife and I don't have social network pages… I suspect Tara might just stalk Inman for the rest of her life (much like the EX who is still stalking me and it has been for 9+ years)…

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

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

Or you can see it here on youtube…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQu_0GIZ ... r_embedded

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

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

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

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


Paul • Jul 2, 2012 @4:25 pm Hmm.. Aparently… Tara likes to post under the nick AmbuFortunaZapataGaudi … And she has been batshit crazy for quite some time… If you care to take a peek at the psycho behind the curtain, google that nick and see what she has been writing when she thinks she is anonymous…
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:20 pm

PART 1 OF 3

335 Comments (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 30, 2012 @11:47 pm Hey meow, this Popehat reader had to get a JD before being able to comprehend Frequently Asked Questions.


Swindapa • Jun 30, 2012 @11:56 pm "I learned of it via a PACER email and considered starting a post immediately, then considered the likely consequences if I started typing the standard for preliminary injunctions into my iPhone in the middle of date night, and reconsidered."

Wise. Very wise.


Rakiura • Jul 1, 2012 @12:19 am Sometimes you do the thing, and after you do the thing, you have that moment where you think

"was that the right thing?"

and you realise that maybe it wsan't the right thing, and instead of just putting you hand up and saying

"That wasn't the right thing to do, my bad. I'm sorry. lets forget that ever happened"

which would lead people to forget it, and maybe conclude you were a little foolish. You instead say

"screw it, I'll make my thing the right thing by trying to convincing everyone else they are wrong about the thing"

but what really happens is that even if you are even a little bit right about a small part of the thing, nobody really cares; cause they've already concluded that you are an idiot. And the hardest thing is convincing someone you're not an idiot, when you keep behaving like one.


Shkspr • Jul 1, 2012 @12:24 am So Carreon is suing Indiegogo to make sure that Matt can't take the picture of the money before the charities receive it? He is aware that money has no soul, right? That you can't steal it's essence by taking a photograph of it?


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @12:30 am @Shkspr: Yeah, pretty much. But to do that, he has to suggest that Inman is going to run off with the money, take his own personal kickback from it, or give it to a "charity" (Carreon's quotes, not mine) that he's connected to.

Because otherwise his argument boils down to "he'll take a picture with it and might get a tax deduction (but I don't know much about tax deductions)!" (Seriously, he admits he doesn't know — but it's pretty much the basis of his case.)


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @12:33 am Legion of Heaters assemble!

Give us your snarky, needy masses, lolling to satire free.

FOR THE ILLUMINATI!!!


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @12:33 am *haters

You RUINED IT tablet.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @12:43 am Damn it Ken, the destiny meeting is next Saturday. Stop mixing things up.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @12:46 am I really Carreoned my entrance into this chapter. :'(


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @12:51 am We should have decoder rings.


G Thompson • Jul 1, 2012 @12:57 am @W Ross "really Carreoned my entrance into this chapter. :'("

Heaters gunna Heat!

*runs*


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @1:11 am Autocorrect can such my bells. :D


dex • Jul 1, 2012 @1:21 am For me, more maddening than pathetic. I mean it's pathetic — without question Chas Carreon is captial P Pathetic — but if he's really saying he'll let the whole thing drop so long as Inman doesn't get to take a picture, I'm seeing red.


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @1:25 am Must I continue to explain the coded messages from our master? As W Ross has clearly relayed, Heaters must assemble!

Heat creates flames. Flames create light. Light illuminates. Illuminates = Illuminati. Attention all CKHC (Canibal Kid Hell Children) – We must assemble in Colorado to implement operation dolphin punch protocol Omega before the wild fires are contained! Time is quickly running out & it is our only hope.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @1:26 am @Chris — you didn't get your decoder rings?

So *that's* how they've been intercepting our communications…


jonnosan • Jul 1, 2012 @1:28 am If Matt Inman just gives Charles Carreon his $10 back, does that mean the rest of us can receive the thing that we paid our money for (i.e. the knowledge that Matt Inman has taken a photo of the pile of cash and sent it to FunnyJunk with the drawing of FJ's mother)?


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @1:30 am Sorry guys but still using codes (like zebra) and Morse, from which handbook are you working from the 1st and 2dn World War ???

Every well informed Illuminati knows we are using these now

to spread our subliminal messages and spread the marching orders to our brethren.

Sorry if the picture goes bogus just wanted to try if I can get those HTML codes right for a change, here is the link to the new code


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @1:31 am Sorry tried to get a picture in the post but it doesn't seem to work damm. :-(


Scott Jacobs • Jul 1, 2012 @1:45 am Or perhaps he realized that a 96% return to the charities is vastly better than the cut charities usually get from fundraising conducted in their name under the statutory scheme he seeks to impose upon IndieGoGo and Mr. Inman.
This really does suggest far more self-awareness that ol' Chucky is capable of…


AwesomeFreddie • Jul 1, 2012 @1:47 am As I stated elsewhere, I begin to wonder if Chuckie's reason behind having the money sent directly to the charities and not Inman , is that as a contributor he can then sue Inman for NOT fulfilling the terms of the campaign – no photo of Inman with the money means he didn't do what he said he would in return for the donations.


Scott Jacobs • Jul 1, 2012 @1:49 am At this point (actually, I suspect it was at least around the time he amended his filing) Chucky has decided that the "only way out is through", and is just gonna push this forward until he gets mocked in open court by a judge that would rather be hearing a case about a homeless war veteran camping out in abandoned VA buildings and not returning hospital gowns.

Chucky set upon a course. He realized it might not be the best course, but his pride will not let him back down and so he's just going to power through to whatever ruinous conclusion the fates (and our Benevolent Illuminated Masters) have in store for him.


Geeves • Jul 1, 2012 @1:53 am Since the Bearlove campaign was based on the premise that the money would be photographed for the express purpose of embarrassing FunnyJunk and Carreon, couldn't the contributors get together and file a class action suit against Carreon for interfering with how they expressly meant to use their money?


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @2:00 am @AwesomeFreddie — I think Carreon filing a subsequent lawsuit alleging breach of contract for failure to take the picture would be precluded. You can't take positions later on that clearly contradict your earlier position.

But I think that might open up Inman to breach of contract claims (though the argument would be that the original contract was illegal because Inman said such terrible things that they're prohibited under state law, so there was no contract to sue upon.)

Which leads me to another point: how can Carreon assert the rights of other people without making this a class action? Is it just the nature of unfair competition claims? Otherwise, Carreon's only real interest is in seeing that his $10 doesn't appear in a picture.


dex • Jul 1, 2012 @2:12 am Love how solicitous he is about that whopping ten bucks he donated to the Bear Love campaign. It was his last ten bucks. Tara needed that money to buy more bat's blood for her lipstick. Charles needed it for some new photographs of him grinning awkwardly in some random context because he doesn't have enough of those. They both needed it to buy crayons and construction paper for poetry night. But instead he donated it because in the end the opportunity for a tax write-off was too wonderful to pass by–he really needed that tax write-off. He and Tara spent weeks trying to decide how to spend that ten dollars and at last decided to donate it to Bear Love for the tax write-off, but guess what? Matthew Inman came along and just fucked everything to hell.


Smorz • Jul 1, 2012 @2:59 am @Adam – Which leads me to another point: how can Carreon assert the rights of other people without making this a class action?

This has been raised by me and others before, but never addressed.

Otherwise, Carreon's only real interest is in seeing that his $10 doesn't appear in a picture.

It's at least $20.

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

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


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @3:09 am @Smorz don't you think the second one is a joke from somebody, because CC made the first one anonymous and it looks to me that it is not in his interest to do so otherwise.

When donating on IndieGoGo you can easily donate under whatever name you want, so besides an actual notification from IndieGoGO that it was CC anybody could have made that donation.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @3:15 am I would like to point out that this drive is -not- a charity drive, its an art project. Donors donated so that Matt could (1) take a picture, (2) mail it to funnyjunk along with a drawing, and -then- (3) send the money on to two charities.

It was couched openly and clearly as a "philanthropic fuck off" with the "fuck off" in the largest typeface and brightest color on the page.

Any characterization of this as a -charity- fund-raiser is patently false on its face.


jonnosan • Jul 1, 2012 @3:25 am I would happily sign up for a class action against Charles Carreon to restrain him from interferring with my donation to Matt Inman for the purpose of telling FunnyJunk to philanthropically fuck-off


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @3:28 am @Robert:

It's an interesting take, but I don't think it takes Inman's project out of the realm of charitable fundraisers. For example, people who run or walk in fundraising marathons are asking people to give them money for their efforts, but that doesn't mean the contributors are funding their running so much as the cause behind it. But those donors might still be annoyed if the runner subsequently doesn't run.

Or if somebody trips them so they can't run.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @3:32 am To all of US: if you haven't yet received your US handbook you may be one of THEM and if you know anybody who's US handbook differs from your own US handbook then you should not tell them about the differences because either you or they may actually be one of THEM and not one of US at all. If you are not sure if you are US or THEM then you are THEM. If you would like to be one of US, you should find one of US and tell them you are one of THEM and ask them if they will sponsor you as one of US to become one of US.

Note that if you are one of THEM and you receive an US handbook you should locate one of US and hand them your US handbook.

If you are one of them, a THEM handbook is available. It is printed by US and is distinct from the US handbook that we send to those who erroneously believe themselves to be one of US.

If you believe you were supposed to be one of US but have received a THEM handbook this may not be an error. Copies of the THEM handbook are being sent to representative samples of US so that they can spot THEM more easily and tell US about THEM and how well they are following their instructions.

If you want to be one of THEM but you are in fact one of US, do not panic, you need do nothing as your desire to be one of THEM makes you one of THEM according to THEM and it makes you unfit to be one of US according to US so you are already THEM and need to tell US to stop sending you your US handbook immediately.

It is also vitally important that, should you receive a YOU handbook, you burn it immediately. You are not YOU as none of YOU are on the US and THEM mailing lists except in an advisory capacity, and those of YOU who are on the lists for US or THEM or US and THEM know who YOU are and so know to ignore this message from US.

Thank you for your attention.

Fnord!


Smorz • Jul 1, 2012 @3:33 am @Nibor – Maybe. I guess only IndieGoGo could say for sure. I've never donated there before or even heard of the site before this fiasco.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @3:49 am @Adam – Those who donated for the picture and the "fuck off" have as much right to the proceeds of their donation as those who donated to benefit bears and slow cancer.

Anybody who wanted to benefit bears or slow cancer were always and continuously able to donate to the separate charities separately.

Therefore those who gave to the bearlove campaign are likely participating in the "art project" of the "fuck off" as a primary motivator, with the knowledge that the charitable part is a side effect at the least and a co-equal proposition at the median.

As someone who doesn't donate through marathons I can not speak to whether there is a "sweat your balls off or they don't get the cash" contingent to the average run-for-cause fund raising effort.

I can, however, safely bet that almost all contributors to the project see the act of responding to an extortionist with "I'm gonna get the money you asked for, prove it, and then direct it somewhere else just so you know how serious my fuck off really is", is, in fact, high art worth supporting.


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @3:49 am @Robert White, after reading your post for the 6th time, I've got just one question am I still I ?????????


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @4:00 am @Smoz, I did take another look at your screenshot and I'm sure it is not a named donation by CC himself, if you look everybody who donates under their own name are in red (linked to their profile) only the ones that are made anonymous and those that are made in the name of somebody else are black (they are not linked to a profile)


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @4:02 am BTW: Matt Inman never claimed he would be -in- the photograph, he claimed he would -take- the photograph. He even depicts himself as holding and behind the camera in the illustration of his intended action.

Carreon states that Matt's intent is "so he can cash it and pose for his
photograph alongside a stack of U.S. currency".

Now Matt never said whether he would be in the picture or not, and I have no opinion as to whether it would be funnier if he were in, or not in, the picture.

But the fact that Carreon is being all "lawyeresque" and still getting all these details wrong is telling as to how much of all this is in CCs head.

Either that or he is "painting with a dirty brush" to try to recast events, statements, and proposals in a biased way. That is, "posing with a lot of cash" is one thing that serves the ego, while "taking a picture of cash CC and funnyjunk cannot have, so fuck off" is a completely different thing.

But CC is a sucky lawyer if he cannot tell these core details apart.

He is just a sucky human if he is choosing to make these alterations and misrepresentations "by accident".


Smorz • Jul 1, 2012 @4:03 am @Nibor – OK, you're right. I just donated to Ann's fundraiser and was able to do the same thing. If the name is in black lettering, it's not the actual donor.

http://tinypic.com/r/2620ax0/6


Happy • Jul 1, 2012 @4:03 am If courts start requiring people to behave in a sober and responsible manner, that will ruin everything. EVERYTHING!


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @4:03 am @Nibor – you are not authorized to know that information at this time, which you would know if you consulted your appropriate handbook.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @4:12 am @Robert: I definitely agree. I do think the analogy still holds, though: most of the people donating to a runner are friends of the runner trying to support their friend — whatever the charitable cause is largely irrelevant to them. Only a minority of sponsors are donating simply because of the cause.

It's just that Inman has a lot of friends.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @4:16 am Late Announcement: We have received many complaints that received handbooks just seem to be long lists of names and telephone number, with, in some cases, a large section of small business advertisements listed by business category.

If you can not be troubled to locate, maintain, and use your decoders in a responsible manner, we will be forced to remove you from the handbook service all together.


ShelbyC • Jul 1, 2012 @4:23 am Is it ethical to donate to a fund whose purpose is to tell your client to Fuck Off in response to your demand letter? ISTM there has to be a conflict there somewhere.


Capt Dingleberry • Jul 1, 2012 @4:42 am Are you Popehats brother?


S. Weasel • Jul 1, 2012 @5:06 am Ohhhh, Mrs Carreon's site is full of crazy. The kind that may be interesting to observe from a great height, but you wouldn't want to get any on you.


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @5:07 am @Robert White and where leaves that those blocks that I was ordered to use ?

And I know that you not allowed to answer that, and I should look in my handbook, but your post got me confused #-/


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @5:10 am I seem just not to get those HTML codes right :-(

https://p8evfa.bay.livefilestore.com/y1 ... jpg?psid=1


Rakiura • Jul 1, 2012 @5:52 am @ShelbyC

If you worry yourself with Chucks ethics, you'll laugh till you cry, then cry yourself to sleep.


Kristen • Jul 1, 2012 @5:55 am @Robert White I run marathons although I've never personally been involved in fundraising for one. A friend I run with is very involved in fundraising. She collects money for the marathon and it is a very big incentive to actually finish the race for those who donated. The people who donate expect a diligent effort made to train properly and run the race (six months hard work!) If there is an injury or illness the general idea is the person isn't required to kill themselves just to crawl over the finish line but to do their best. The money goes to the named charity regardless. It's the effort, not the outcome that's being sponsored.

I'm sure one *could* try to sue an injured runner for not finishing a race but it'd be a total asshole move.

If, however, someone raised money for a marathon and didn't register for the race; that's a big no, no. In my mind Inman taking his money picture is akin to signing the registration blank, it's what people donated to see.

On a totally unrelated note: Remind me to never let the Carreon's sponser me for a marathon. D:


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @6:05 am @Kristen — You miss the real turning of the screw. It's not just that Inman must take the picture, but that once it is sent to CC, CC must give that picture of money to FunnyJunk.

Imagine the burn. CC promised FJ like $20k but instead he will be legally require to hand/give/mail his client a picture of the money that he couldn't get, or touch, or influence.

This is a masterstroke in the art of "fuck off". It's downright un-manning of CC before his clients. There is no wonder CC is enraged.

"I know I said there'd be money… um… well here's a -picture- of money anyway… oh and a drawing of your mom trying to seduce a bear… What do you think of my job performance?"

Effing Ingenious.


Kristen • Jul 1, 2012 @6:06 am @Adam you're right, it's friends supporting the effort. I don't think the money going to charity is the main concern for those who donate, it's just gravy.

The reason, of course, being, if a person wanted to donate to a specific charity they wouldn't go about it in such a round about way; they'd just send a check to the charity directly instead of waiting for somebody to run 26.2 miles first.


Kristen • Jul 1, 2012 @6:11 am @Robert

I know, that is effing hilarious! At least Carreon has eased all our consciences in the matter; nobody has to worry whether or not he deserved it, he earned every bit of embarrassment he gets.

Pure, unapologetic schadenfreude.


TomB • Jul 1, 2012 @6:12 am I somehow got distracted.

For something truly scary, hit the "distracted" link and then look at that whole thread.

Tara Carreon talks to herself for NINE PAGES. That's ninety posts about Matt Inman in what can only be described as "batshit crazy" style. I've only seen those kind of stream of (un?)conscious crap on moon landing hoax and, well, illuminati sites.

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... sc&start=0


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 1, 2012 @6:20 am I still want to know if this now gives me standing to file an objection, as a third party who would be damaged by Carreon's restraining order?

As one of the donors (and 5x a bigger doner than Carreon), I donated with the expressed intent of seeing Inman take the photograph AND for the purpose of gaining standing in a manner identical to Charles Carreon, as "donate then sue" was something I inferred as a Carreon strategy in the day between his public disclosure of his donation and the filing of his lawsuit, and I'd really like the court to know this.

I also object to the idea that a lawyer who's only licensed to the Bar in the state of California, who's federal practice, outside of Pro Se cases, is almost exclusively restricted to Northern California, should be able to just "phone it in".


Rakiura • Jul 1, 2012 @6:22 am @TomB

Did you see the bit where she compared Chuck to John Lennon? She does know that John didn't do anything to piss anyone off right? (except for maybe Paul, George and Ringo)

I mean Chuck and FJ first INSTIGATED the 'hate campaign' by seeking damages on an issue 12 months old. That is some hardcore freaky deaky insane genius to subliminally convince Funnyjunk to seek damages by complaining about the inadequacy of the DCMA law, knowing ahead of time that Chuck and FJ would take the bait and set the wheels of conspiracy in motion. What if it's not Matt that did it, but Chuck seeking to take himself down?! This is a case for the ILLUMINATI!


Matt Scott • Jul 1, 2012 @6:36 am Authentication code Charlie Hotel Alpha Sierra India Sierra Novemeber Uniform Tango Sierra.

I've received a direct transmission from Bobby Ray Inman. He wishes to congratulate us on leaving his name out of our coded transmissions in this, our super secret forum of secrecy and superbness, as well as keeping on the down low the fact that Matt Inman is really Bobby's clone so that Bobby can live forever.

Bobby also relays that the Money Photograph is utterly essential to propagating our subliminal messaging so that we can control the unwashed masses of our overlord's cloned persona. Further look for the hidden messages in the bottom-lefthand corner, the upper-righthand corner, and the mid-bottom. Depending on which edition of the handbook you are working from, our next target will be on page vii, 9, XI, 15, or blue (for those still working from our kindergarten training manuals).

Whatever we do, we must stop Tara from uncovering our shadowy organization that we work so hard to remain absolutely hidden, while at the same time controlling every bastion of power in the entire world and 99.66(repeating, of course)% of all of humanity (damn those people who know that we control everything), because we have so much to fear if we are publicly unmasked (you know, from everyone who now willingly submits to us… oh screw it, I don't understand the logic behind why we remain in the shadows either, but it's our job to ensure that we continue to do so).

Task number two is to ensure that photo gets published so that we can send both our subliminal mind control message and our hidden message to all our operatives in the field.

Remember, no desert until you reconcile your opposites!


Alex • Jul 1, 2012 @6:44 am The main reason I donated a small amount was to see a public post of the picture with Matt Inman and the money. The fact that he will pass the funds on to those two particular charities is great, but to be honest, any two or four or ten charities he'd nominate would be fine with me.

In fact I thought it a great idea that Inman wanted to split the total amount up between more than two charities.

I don't care about the tax stuff, but I'm really pissed off that CC now tries to destroy the primary reason for why I contributed.


Matt Scott • Jul 1, 2012 @6:49 am No dessert either.

That's right, stay way from deserts AND dessert. I didn't make a typo!


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 1, 2012 @6:55 am Oh, and again, a public offer.

Tara, I know you are reading this: please relay this to Charles.

The maximum amount of harm that Charles Carreon can suffer as a result of his $10 donation being "misappropriated" is that $10 doesn't go to the two charities, and he loses the tax deductibility that he mistakenly believed he had for some reason.

I will make Carreon whole on this issue: Should Inman not complete the donation process, I will personally donate $5 to each charity in his name.

And in any case, should Charles Carreon certify that he does itemize deductions and tells me his marginal tax rate (both federal and whichever state he actually declares his income in for the practice of law as a lawyer licensed only in California), and that nobody else has given Charles Carreon money to make him whole on this issue, I will personally reimburse him for the lost value of a $10 tax deduction.


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 1, 2012 @7:02 am Oh, and to quote Kenneth Seidberg, someone needs to remind Charles that

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

Thorne • Jul 1, 2012 @7:20 am @Nicholas

"(and 5x a bigger boner than Carreon)"…

I GOTTA stop speedreading.


Dave • Jul 1, 2012 @7:24 am Is there any way for the other donors to send in a bunch of little friend of the court briefs saying basically "this guy doesn't represent my interests"?


V • Jul 1, 2012 @7:46 am @Dave
@Nicholas Weaver
(non-lawyer perspective) I don't think 1 person of 14,000 will be able to help prevent the restraining order. The lawyer will almost certainly be able to come up with the argument that Carreon is one of the few (if any) to have misunderstood the campaign's purpose and its tax status. (And probably more arguments.)
If the case does proceed further, then maybe they'll need to prove that. Perhaps using Indiegogo's records, perhaps using volunteer testimonies or perhaps the court will allow "friend of the court" opinions from people such as yourself at that point.
From what I've read about the amicus curiae/friend of the court concept so far, they don't always allow them and they may take exception to being bombarded by 14,000 such letters.


Adam • Jul 1, 2012 @7:54 am Can someone tell me if Carreon deleted his twitter, or if he just block blocked my @CCTranslated account?


Christina • Jul 1, 2012 @8:17 am I've been following this since Dear Author mentioned it, and there's a question that's been nagging me almost from the start –

What if the bank won't allow Inman to physically withdraw the total amount — whether due to policy or the fact that they just don't have that amount on hand? Would a picture of the certified cashiers checks made out to the two charities be sufficient?

I can just imagine the look on the poor teller's face when he tells her, "I would like withdraw $200,000 in small bills. Thanks."


nlp • Jul 1, 2012 @8:21 am Setting aside the whole "my wife and I took so many drugs during the sixties and seventies that little pieces of our brains are now frying and disappearing" problem, wouldn't Carreon have been better off suing on BEHALF of the charities and the Attorney General of California? He could claim that all he wanted was to make sure that they got the money donated on their behalf, and he wouldn't have been laughed at for trying to sue two large charities for reasons no one can quite understand.

Also, I never got a handbook. (However, given their general attitude toward mail, it's entirely possible that the problem lies with my local post office. Please advise).


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 1, 2012 @8:39 am V: True.

But if any lawyer involved wishes it, I will provide a declaration to the effect of any or all of the following (and I will write it myself, so said lawyers don't need to waste any time. I have a template so it will even be formatted right for the federal court.):

1) One of the two reasons I donated to the BearLove campaign was specifically for the creation of a photograph designed to publicly humiliate, in a proper, 1st Amendment compliant manner, Carreon's Client and Carreon because of their ridiculous demand letter.

Carreon's attempt is thus about a prior restraint on my right to free speech, namely, providing money as a visual resource for Inman to create a photograph which expresses the ridiculous of Carreon's initial complaint on behalf of his (former?) client FunnyJunk.

Frankly speaking, I don't care beyond that if the money is used to give bears cancer.

2) The other reason I donated was specifically to gain standing to object should Carreon attempt to limit my speech, based on Carreon's own behavior in donating as a way of finding SOME way to sue Inman et al. (thus its a way to introduce into evidence right then and there of Carreon's attempt to manufacture standing, since I specifically modeled my donation on his public behavior up to the point of his donation).

3) That as a non lawyer, with only access to a PACER account, I could see a pattern of Carreon's willingness to abuse the legal process, although since such acts have not been correlated by any court, he has yet to be sanctioned.

Combined with the public statements of his spouse and (presumably still current) employee in public, have reasonable cause to worry that he may attempt to serve me with an abusive subpoena.

4) That I have now publicly offered, in a place where Carreon's spouse is known to read it, to make Charles Carreon whole for any monetary damage due to his $10 not being directed to the two charities, and any loss due to his inability to deduct $10 from his taxes.

I have not contacted Carreon privately with this offer, since he might mistakenly view my kind-hearted offer to ensure that his $10 is not wasted as harassment.


Kristen • Jul 1, 2012 @8:49 am @Christina in his latest update Inman said his bank has agreed to issue the funds in $20 bills for a picture before sending the money to ACS and NWF.


Nibor • Jul 1, 2012 @9:01 am @Adam yes he closed his account and all tweets where removed

@Christina, I'm fairly sure that I read somewher that Inman's bank was in on it and was providing the amount in $20 bills.


ShelbyC • Jul 1, 2012 @9:02 am And would he really be allowed to attend the hearing by telephone? Nobody forced him to file in the ND California, right? Can you file by fax in any court, and then say, oh, it would be too expensive to fly there for the hearing?


HeatherCat • Jul 1, 2012 @9:06 am Holy hell, I actually have a few drinks and crash at 11pm last night, wake up like NOW, and I miss a LOT!!

Um, I still have a handbook I shared with my ex from 2001. I'm sure some of the provisions and definitions have changed, but for the most part the rituals are the same – right?

@V – that's why I was asking about a petition last week for the donors to sign maybe. I'm still not sure what's right and proper in that venue.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @9:10 am I just met you!
And this is crazy!
But here's a lawsuit…
Pay me maybe?

All the other does…
They don't evaaaaade me.
So here's a lolsuit…
Pay me maybe?


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @9:19 am Just remember my enlightened brethren. As the master has said.
"Zealots often carry the day."
-Bobby Ray Inman


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 1, 2012 @9:26 am ShelbyC: Even moreso, he's only licensed to practice in CA, not Arizona, AND he venue shopped it to be in California, AND of the federal cases he works, Northern District is where he works, so it shouldn't be the court's problem that he choses to live in Tucson (presumably where he pays less tax) than the Bay Area where any in-court practice he conducts takes place.


TomB • Jul 1, 2012 @10:15 am BTW Ken, you missed the last "eeeevil Illuminati" "secret" meeting.

And it was your turn to bring the donuts.

Kissinger was SO pissed. He sulked the entire time. Even when we agreed to let Germany annex Greece!

You might want to sent Henry an apology, like a nice fruitbasket, or an unconscious Ron Paul with a pentagram carved in his chest*.

*NB: To all the people reading this who have lost their senses of humor in a horrible childhood-decapitated-clown accident, this is only a joke. Nobody here want Ron Paul kidnapped and tortured by the Illuminati.

….but the Kissinger stuff was real.


Roxy • Jul 1, 2012 @11:02 am Thanks to Katie Holmes filing for divorce, I think I've finally nailed down the Carreon's crazy. They behave like Scientologists. This is probably why I can't, for the life of me, figure out where they get off on all of the post lawsuit cartoons/songs/incoherent ramblings.


theNuszAbides • Jul 1, 2012 @11:12 am dex: "Tara needed that money to buy more bat's blood for her lipstick."

i love you.

Ken – the {fnord} awards committee has short-listed you for – if recordkeeping has it right – your 23rd Selfless Unbillable Warrior Effigy Of [REDACTED]. we would like to shake your hand in the prescribed manner.


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @11:18 am A quick prayer for us to keep this commenting section as free of circle-jerking as possible, Ms. Carreon's irrational ramblings notwithstanding.

Although I freely admit that I'm guilty of it–it's too tempting. :)


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @11:36 am New Ars: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... ove-money/


Mike • Jul 1, 2012 @11:51 am A few turns of civ 5 always turns into hundreds for me….


perlhaqr • Jul 1, 2012 @11:53 am Therefore those who gave to the bearlove campaign are likely participating in the "art project" of the "fuck off" as a primary motivator, with the knowledge that the charitable part is a side effect at the least and a co-equal proposition at the median.

It's true. I donated explicitly because it was part of a huge "Fuck off" to a serrated enema nozzle of a lawyer and his mendacious ass weasel of a client.

I mean, I'm happy enough that the money is ultimately going to go to the ACS and NWF, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if there wasn't the initial "Fuck off" involved. Actually, I think I didn't even actually feel compelled to donate until the lawsuit had been filed. At that point, it was pretty much a moral imperative that I throw in a 20.

So, good for you, Matt Inman, you managed to figure out how to mobilize pathological misanthropy for a good cause. :D


Roxy • Jul 1, 2012 @11:55 am "Court records also reveal that a case management conference has been set for a federal courtroom in San Francisco on September 21, 2012. The tenacious Arizona attorney also reports that spending $1,000 to travel from Tucson, Arizona, to San Francisco would “impose a substantial hardship on me.” As such, Carreon wishes to “appear telephonically.”"

So, he has ten bucks to create a pissing match, but can't get in his car and drive to the fight he started? Awesome.


Scott Jacobs • Jul 1, 2012 @12:07 pm The judge should tell him "Tough shit – you started this, you filed it here on purpose, so either show up or I'm tossing the entire thing."


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @12:17 pm From the Ars Article:

"Carreon's latest filing was written to Inman’s attorney, Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle-based tech lawyer who has previously been a contributor at Ars. In that, Carreon added he was willing to settle the entire case if Inman would “disclaim all interest.”"

IANAL – what does disclaiming all interest mean? Is that simply his asshat move to try to prevent Inman from taking the photo?


Marzipan • Jul 1, 2012 @12:20 pm After rereading Carreon's complaints, I agree with Ken that Carreon's line of reasoning for describing Inman and Indiegogo isn't explicitly spelled out. If I try to complete Carreon's argument for him, he could state something like this after quoting Cal. Govt. Code § 12599(a):

"Because Inman sought to receive funds solicited for the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation, he acted as a commercial fundraiser under § 12599(a)(2). Furthermore, because Indiegogo received and controlled funds solicited for the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation, it acted as a commercial fundraiser under § 12599(a)(2)."

But it seems to me this justification would fall down under scrutiny. Inman didn't receive any direct compensation for his fundraising activities, even though he was raising funds for these specific charities, so he wasn't a "commercial" fundraiser. Conversely, Indiegogo didn't solicit donations for either of the two charities; rather, it just provided a platform to channel funds to Inman, even though they received the money, so it wasn't a commercial "fundraiser".

Also, if I take seriously Carreon's claim that "irreparable harm" would be caused by letting Inman have access to the money, what could possibly be that harm? That is, what harm would be committed that monetary damages alone couldn't repair? I submit that it's the taking of the picture of the money raised and sending the money to Funnyjunk's admin. Unfortunately, this is exactly the good or service that many donors to the campaign wanted (as pointed out in these comments), and it's the only benefit one would expect in lieu of donating directly to the charities themselves for the tax exemptions.

Thus, Carreon demonstrates that he's trying to prevent his own butthurt from spreading at the expense of the only ostensible benefit for those donating to the campaign!


Justin D. Jacobson • Jul 1, 2012 @12:25 pm Aside from everything else, he wouldn't have standing to request an injunction on behalf of other donors, who he is not representing.


Jess • Jul 1, 2012 @12:26 pm Roxy – what car? Do you mean the Prius? Didn't someone on a prior thread mentioned it got repoed?


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @12:28 pm The only way to make this "fuck off" better is if the court orders CC to attend the photograpy session so as to insure the picture isn't stock footage and to ensure that the picture is of the -actual- donation.

I mean I don't want to hear that the bank just piled up an equivalent sum and only Carreon is really honest enough to ensure that the real bills are a true member of the money stream.

So CC simply -must- be there to witness and countersign all the receipts. He is, after all, the self appointed overseer of all that is right an correct.

If necessary he should appear in the picture holding a sign that reads "I hereby certify that this is the actual bearlove money and that none of it is going to my, Charles Carreon or my client FunnyJunk."

It is his duty as an officer of the court.


Marzipan • Jul 1, 2012 @12:28 pm I should have noted that as § 12599(i)(4) and (5) explicitly lay out payment terms for the "commercial fundraiser"'s compensation. Inasmuch as the only direct compensation Inman is getting from this in Carreon's framework is a tax donation is the tax deduction for the sum of his donation, I don't think that would be considered compensation either via fixed fee or percentage.

So many idiocies, so little desire to help Carreon amend his complaints any more than I apparently already have.

Oh yeah. IANAL.


Marzipan • Jul 1, 2012 @12:31 pm @Robert White, furthermore, I believe that Carreon should be forced to fly out to San Francisco and bear said witness in the judge's chambers. Such authentication cannot be reasonably approximated using teleconferencing, telephonication, or any other way in which one might be tele-phony.

I mean, he filed the suit in California, so he should have ample funds after his state income tax savings (for living in AZ instead of CA) to accomplish his purpose, right?


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @12:34 pm As a matter of fact, Carreon needs must count and certify the entire sum both before and after the photograph to make sure that Inman doesn't divert any of it to pay his handbook printing fees.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @12:40 pm Inman then needs to film Carreon during both sessions of bill-counting, and make sure that Carreon is strip-searched before and after each occurance so as to ensure that no legitimate bills are substituted for bills from other, less legitimate sources.

Perhaps Carreon needs to be naked at the time, like you do when you hire people to work your cocaine/hash operation, since they may be tempted to skim valuable product, only in this case Inman is exercising his legitimate legal interest in preventing Carreon from diverting funds to support or justify his causes of action.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @12:41 pm @Marzipan: that's my reading, too. The legislature never intended that potential tax benefits would qualify as compensation, or pretty much anyone who collects money from others for a fundraiser would fall under this statute, which would wind up discouraging people from running charitable fundraisers.

(I, also, am still not a lawyer.)

As for Carreon appearing telephonically, that's pretty common. But you can bet opposing counsel is looking at that and thinking that Carreon can't afford to litigate this forever, no matter how much his heart is in it.


Mike K • Jul 1, 2012 @12:44 pm Perhaps a fair compromise on the appearing by telephone part would be to postpone hearings until one of Carreon's other cases is being heard in the state (within the next couple of months). Then it wouldn't be an undue burden because he would be required to be there for his paying clients. The fact that he doesn't have any paying clients that he would be required to go to the only area where he's allowed to practice law would be besides the point of the compromise.

On the other hand, considering that my family could and did drive to vacations 36 hours away when I was a child, I can with confidence say that he could drive to California from Arizona and back on less than $100 unless he has a vehicle with horrible gas mileage. He could also sleep in his vehicle at a rest area for free, or at a discount motel pretty cheap. For the amount he stated he must have been milking his clients to get nice travel and hotels.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @12:49 pm Well, since Carreon should be finding himself needing to flee Arizona as soon as the Arizona bar figures out he's practicing in that state without a license, there is no reason for him -not- to flee to the district of Northern California in the name of economic efficiency.

Of course since he'll lose his license in California and Oregon when he is sanctioned in Arizona, there may be no point to moving, so I could be wrong.

Does anybody know if anybody drew the attention of the Arizona Bar Association to Carreon's practice yet?


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @12:53 pm Side Note: While the question of whether this instant case is proper practice "in" federal court in the state of California or Arizona, or not, may be a valid question; the FJ Demand Letter and FJ's retention of CC, -never- touched any district in California or Oregon, and was therefore inarguably an act of CC practicing law in and from the state of Arizona.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @12:59 pm @Mike: interesting idea, but the point of filing for a TRO is that the moving party believes that court action is required immediately to prevent an irreparable harm, and that the potential harm is so great that the moving party would be justified in making its argument even if the opposing parties can't show up for the hearing.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @1:38 pm If he's going to file in California, he needs to go there to do the frickin case. It's ridiculous that someone can file out of their home state to choose their favored venue, but then want to basically Skype into the state who's tax dollars they're wasting.

If you want to steal money from the California legal system, the least you can do is show up.


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @1:52 pm Oh boy, here we go again this this time the crazy gun is aimed at Dan Gibson of the Tuscon Weekly:

"Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject:

After referencing Longer & language again, she

"It is a very serious business when these guys send out another call to the Tucson Whackos to act in their interest, when we already know that this has resulted in many deaths in Tucson. Are the Illuminati crazies calling for another massacre in Tucson, perhaps of the Charles Carreon family?

These people are dangerous, and Dan Gibson of the Tucson Weekly has a lot of guilt on his shoulders for trying to magnetize another hate response in Tucson. This guy should be fired right now!"

Nobody in the media should be allowed to support a hate campaign against anyone. And yet, look at all those who are on board in this case. Every one of them guilty, guilty, guilty."

So basically Dan Gibson is responsible for a massacre in Tuscon that has not yet occurred (and, of course, will not occur). Can Gibson sue her for preemptive defamation?


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @2:10 pm She posted the same rant about Gibson on the Tuscon Weekly website.


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @2:13 pm Yeah Valerie – just like "Matt Inman is one of a gang of people who promote the same type of ideas that inspired Jared Loughner to try and kill Gabrielle Giffords."

Seriously, the mental gymnastics that woman has to go through to tie together a conspiracy. All I can say is whackadoodle doo.

On another note her ramblings and weird website design remind me a bit of Crystal Cox.


V • Jul 1, 2012 @2:21 pm Valerie wrote:
Is that simply his [..] move to try to prevent Inman from taking the photo?
I think so, yes.

From the 2nd 'attachment' to CCs application for a TRO:
I and the other donors had a right to have our donations go to ACS and NWF, and nowhere else. The simple answer seemed to be for Inman to simply relinquish any authority over the Charitable Fund, and allow Indiegogo to direct the money to ACS and NWF. Accordingly, on Friday June 22nd, I sent a letter to Mr. Balasubramani as an email attachment, asking him if Inman would disclaim all interest in the Charitable Fund as part of a settlement.
So the "disclaim all interest" is to allow Indiegogo to send the money to the charities directly.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @2:21 pm I dare someone to respond in morse code.


Mark Lyon • Jul 1, 2012 @2:22 pm Would it be useful for other donors to provide affidavits outlining exactly what we believed when participating in the Bear Love campaign?

I personally donated $11 on June 11 with the intent that (1) my money would be photographed at the end of the campaign, along with the money contributed by other donors, (2) that the photograph of the funds and cartoon would be sent to FunnyJunk and its censorious douchebag of an attorney, (3) that the donations (less IndieGoGo's fees) would not personally profit TheOatmeal and would be given by him as donations to certain charities.

I would be deeply saddened if the promised photographing and mailing did not take place before the funds are transmitted to the charities. This step was a significant contributing factor to my desire to participate in the campaign.

I was clearly aware of IndieGoGo's fee structure before donating and expected that a small portion of my donation would be paid to IndieGoGo for their services. At no time did I desire, expect, anticipate – nor was I promised – that my donation would be tax-deductible. At no time did I labor under belief that the Bear Love Campaign was sponsored or approved by any entity other than TheOatmeal.

I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Inman will perform the promised actions with the donated funds and look forward to seeing the photograph he sends to FunnyJunk once the funds are in his possession.

I also hope that Mr. Carreon one day receives the assistance of the mental health professionals that he clearly needs.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon: Popehat.com, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:21 pm

PART 2 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion Cont'd.)

Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @2:35 pm @ Adam Interesting that in the Tuscon Weekly post she had the sense to tone it down to "Illuminati type philosophy" instead of "Illuminati crazies." She also removed the "guilty, guilty, guilty" part.

Still looks nuts, but she is trying to modify her message a bit for those outside Nader Library viewers. So a shred of logic exists in there somewhere.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @2:36 pm Anyone like the Adam Weishaupt reference?


Ken • Jul 1, 2012 @2:40 pm IndieGoGo has filed an opposition. Details to follow in an update to this post.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @2:41 pm Well now she's linking Ken's "Army of Davids" with David-Wynn Miller:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 331dd97311


Kelly • Jul 1, 2012 @2:54 pm Just how broke are they? I keep thinking that nothing about this case will surprise me…and then it does. It really does sound like his whole goal here is to keep himself from having to hand over the picture(s).

Also, I think I have the old handbook… it will still work, right?


Gal • Jul 1, 2012 @3:03 pm As for Carreon appearing telephonically, that's pretty common. But you can bet opposing counsel is looking at that and thinking that Carreon can't afford to litigate this forever, no matter how much his heart is in it.
Adam raises an interesting point. I wonder if this whole thing started out because the Carreons are strapped for cash? Remember it all started with Joey the Lemur charlie the Censor trying to milk money in FJ's name over a blog post that was almost a year old.


Gal • Jul 1, 2012 @3:04 pm Damn, strike tag didn't work.


Allen • Jul 1, 2012 @3:07 pm You know Charles keeps redefining asshat. I'm thinking a whole new approach is needed, so I'm suggesting the Asshat Value, or AHV. It's like doubling down but exponetially.

AHV =2^N where for most of us we hover between 0 and 1 depending on our general natures. When you start to approach N=2 you are definitely eyeing the paste. At N=2 to 4 you are well into the now famous "paste zone."

So let me try to quantify Charle's AHV.

Write letter to Oatmeal, N=2.
New butthurt upon Oatmeal response N=3.
Sue charities, N=4.
Involve the CA AG, N=5.
New restraining order on charities, N=6.

That's a total AHV of 64, can he go higher, I wait with bated breath.


Thomas • Jul 1, 2012 @3:12 pm According to IndieGoGo's response, it seems like they already transferred what money they had in their possession (~$100k) to the charities – at Inman's request. From what they claim, all of CC's money is already in the hands of the charities, apparently rendering his complaint moot.

It's looking less and less like Inman gets the chance to take his picture. I call that a real shame and disappointment, all at the hands of a butthurt, litigious fool.


Ken • Jul 1, 2012 @3:15 pm Update up.


V • Jul 1, 2012 @3:23 pm Thanks for the update, Ken.


Kelly • Jul 1, 2012 @3:42 pm Thanks for the update, Ken.

[Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just considering the validity of becoming one.]

Am I the only one amused by this? Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon's declaration and respectfully requests that they be stricken.

I read it as a 'he is an idiot, please make him stop. Now, or yesterday, or weeks ago…we don't care when, just make it stop.'

Leaving aside the question whether Carreon’s self-serving ten-dollar donation to the BearLove campaign, made solely in an attempt to contrive a standing argument for this lawsuit, permits Carreon to claim any sort of harm flowing from these events, there certainly isn’t and never was any irreparable harm.

Basically, what everyone here has been asking, right? 'Can he do this since it is clear he made the donation so he could file this lawsuit?'

To put it another way I translated to: Let me put it in tiny words for you CC…

I really like the slick way they basically said 'Fuck you' over and again and in such creative ways.


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @3:53 pm I love these statements from Indiegogo. Under issues to be decided:

“and that the public interest favors an injunction?”

I think we’ve seen they don’t.

The best sentence by far from Indiegogo:

“The simple reason for that is that there never was an emergency here, or any serious threat to anyone or anything. Carreon’s application is gamesmanship.”

Then again back to the tax situation:

““Inman personally donates the money to NWF and ACS, he will be unjustly enriched by receiving a large tax write-off that should properly be allocated pro-rata to the 14,406 small donors who contributed to the Charitable Fund.” (Declaration of
Charles Carreon (“Carreon Decl.”) at ¶ 28.) Carreon does not present himself as an expert on tax law, or cite to any authority in the tax code for either of the assertions in that statement.”

First, no where on any site was there a declaration that the donation WAS tax exempt. I did not assume it was tax exempt when I donated. Also, Carreon clearly has no understanding of the Federal income tax rules on charitable donations. The specific designation of the exempt type of the organization will impact the limitation of the deduction each year. For instance, contributions to a church can be as much as 50% of Adjusted Gross Income with some modifications. Other charities can be limited to 30%, 20%, etc. However, if someone is receiving money that will be forwarding to a tax exempt charity, they would include that money in their income for the year (because they are not a tax exempt organization). Inman can only deduct any qualifying contributions (up to the "contribution limit" for that charity) as a charitable contribution and this would not include the 4% retained by Indiegogo. The reality is Inman is likely to be penalized, not enriched by any tax write off as he will be limited in what he can write off thereby increasing his adjusted gross income and therefore increasing his tax rate.


Thomas • Jul 1, 2012 @3:53 pm Partial victory aside, I'd be soiling myself if I were CC reading this. These lawyers appear to have significantly better understanding of the law, the legal process, and reality. Gems like "…to the extent the claim is intelligible…" are a real kicker, too.

To what extent can CC be held liable (if and when he loses) in wasting the time of all parties involved? The effort wasted by the 7+ attorneys that have to deal with this surely has to be worth a mint.


RavingRambler • Jul 1, 2012 @3:55 pm @Thomas, I think he's still got some of the money, so there's hope for a picture yet.

2. IndieGoGo explains that it was only ever in possession of about half of the money anyway — the half contributed by credit card. If you contribute at IndieGoGo through PayPal, the money goes directly to the person who started the campaign (here, Mr. Inman.) If you contribute through a credit card, the money goes to IndieGoGo. IndieGoGo gives its estimate of how much was left after fees.


Dan Smart • Jul 1, 2012 @3:58 pm Just to be clear, because people seem to misunderstand the "deduction" that Matt Inman will get for this charity donation: it is not as carrion suggests income, it offsets the tax he will have to pay on the $220K. Matt will be lucky to break even on the the transaction.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @4:04 pm @Thomas: Carreon could get hit with Rule 11 sanctions for filing a lawsuit for improper purposes, or he could get hit with attorneys' fees if there's a successful SLAPP motion to strike by Inman and friends.

If that happens, it won't be pretty. And I'd wager that Carreon's poetry about Inman, coupled with Tara Carreon's ravings about "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman" get dragged in to demonstrate the motive behind the suit.


Mike K • Jul 1, 2012 @4:08 pm In all fairness, Inman may have enough in his own bank account to withdraw for the purposes of a picture anyway. It's not like he loses that money forever, since it goes right back into the bank vault after the picture until any checks on it clear. He could also do as others have suggested and use $1 bills to make the money look bigger which would make up for there being about half as much money.

Any idea why the charities haven't yet made an appearance? Are they possibly hoping to get by without having to file something making Carreon look like an idiot similar to Indiegogo's opposition?


Margaret • Jul 1, 2012 @4:12 pm OMG I read the whole thing.

Indiegogo's lawyers are as gifted at saying "Fuck you" in legalese as The Oatmeal is at saying it in vulgar cartoon language.


Gal • Jul 1, 2012 @4:12 pm I'm disappointed. final outcome – Inman or anyone else in his position threatened with such a suit will (at best) respond with a rote letter next time something like this happens (and it will happen,) and not air it in public,because it isn't worth the hassle. Carreon will face no repercussions whatsoever and continue to do his revolting business as usual once this blows over. Funnyjunk don't even have to wait for anything to blow over.

Carreon was stupid and unprofessional and insane, and he'll win a small victory because nobody wants to deal with his shit more than they absolutely must. Fuck.


Beth • Jul 1, 2012 @4:14 pm "Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon's declaration and respectfully requests that they be stricken."
Is there a specific legal meaning to "incompetent" in this context? Because in plain English, I think that would only leave the headers and page numbers.


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @4:15 pm The way this is going, I think the word “carreoned” will soon become part of the standard legal lexicon as being synonymous to flattened, crushed, squashed, and trampled into legal oblivion.

OK all you Secret Illuminate Army of David’s – if you have misplaced your secret decoder ring this image
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/slide1sel.jpg/
may help you recognize it as you plow through that shoebox of old embarrassing college pictures showing you falling off the frat house balcony after trying to light a bottle-rocket sticking out of some drunk guys ass.

And here is a picture of the Secret Code Book http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7876/slide1b.jpg
– Sorry you can’t use it to hold up the coffee table anymore – SHIT’S GETTIN SERIOUS.


Grifter • Jul 1, 2012 @4:16 pm Jeeze, I work 1 twenty-four-hour shift and I miss all the good stuff.

He needs to file something else, just so I can feel on the cutting edge again!

"Charles Carreon now sues reality for 20k in damages, stating he demands immediate injunction due to the irreparable harm of things not being like he'd like them to be"


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @4:21 pm Wow – just read the document. Jesus, Carreon's butt must hurt after that spanking!


Spencer • Jul 1, 2012 @4:34 pm It has been fun watching the mad scramble going on: "Must comb internets for additional does. Must only read portions of statutes, but never in context, and no legal authorities. Must rope in Attorney General to get standing since donating 20 bucks didn't work. Oh crap, must try to get a TRO then prelim injunction so the case doesn't become moot when the money all gets given to charity like they said they were going to do the whole time." It seems to produce an anti-checklist of how to figure out if you are ready to move forward with legal action.


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @4:43 pm @Beth: when they say "incompetent", they're referring to whether Carreon, if called as a witness, would be qualified to testify as to particular matters. For example, his declaration (if I recall correctly) refers to tax implications, but Carreon's own exhibits have him saying that he isn't a tax expert. Thus, he wouldn't be qualified to testify as an expert as to the tax implications, and his statements should be disregarded.


Ghost • Jul 1, 2012 @4:58 pm Wait wait wait… The charities were to fight cancer and help bears?? Dammit! I thought it was to fight bears and help cancer!

I want my money back.

I hate bears.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @5:02 pm Where is the latest?

I wonder if the bank, which prepared the money for the photograph, will let him use the material cash as an act of good will?

Hopefully Inman has access to at least $20k to take a picture.

Given that the money was scheduled to transfer tomorrow (Monday) by my possibly wrong count, the early transfer is a shame. The court could have delayed in the name of prudence and there would have been a horse and barn situation.

I am sad.

If nothing else, we should all collect the "cash" from our old monopoly sets and whatnot and (if Inman would be so honored) offer it to Inman to gather up and photograph, or forward directly to CC and FJ.

Or something. /sadness…


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @5:07 pm I love how CC missed Paypal completely!


KronWeld • Jul 1, 2012 @5:08 pm The wackiness continues, I wouldn't be surprised if CC files an emergency request to force the two charities to give back the money so it can go into a protected trust, that he manages (taking a fair % for managing the trust), so he can be sure that the money is distrubuted to the charities. I mean, we don't really know if the charities got the money or how much till it is varified my CC hisself. Right? That is why he is doing this, to be sure the money is distrubuted correctly.


Tootie • Jul 1, 2012 @5:15 pm I have watched this whole thing transpire for the past few weeks, and at one point last week, I even worried that Charlie didn't understand the full ramifications of his actions and emailed him asking him to stop. We exchanged a few emails and he was very cordial.
But, as I watch and read what he and his wife are doing, I can only wonder what these two idiots are thinking. (Also, I am so happy that they found each other, so as to spare any other human being the pain of being with a lone loony-tune.)
Now, crazy Tara on her naderlibrary.com domain is looking for more ways to attack Matt. She's way worried about his grammar comics and the pain brought on by your and you're. That not being enough of an attack today, she's gone through public documents to bring his family into the fray.
I can only wonder, how does she make a living? Why does she have so much time on her hands?
And finally, why do they have so many domain names? Is that her job: kvetching, bitching, and whining on the internet?
Thanks for your great work on this Ken. It has brought me great joy reading all of your posts about this subject. I have also enjoyed the many other posts on this web-site about other subjects.


Marzipan • Jul 1, 2012 @5:16 pm Wow. Just. Wow. It's fascinating to judge my own emotional and cognitive reactions after reading Carreon's pleadings vs. the responses. Carreon's have the "feel" of something I could try to tackle in all my non-lawyerly goodness, though I'd be heavily taxed to put together a cogent legal argument. Nevertheless, it's fun to try as an intellectual exercise.

However, the most recent documents are nicely organized, annotated, and draw from all manner of federal, state, and case law. Upon trying to think of answers to their responses, I had a sense of dread and despair wash over me. I don't feel like I'd be remotely capable of responding to the level of detail and the depth they showed, and I'm not compelled even to try.

In short, Carreon's filings feel like those of an advanced amateur, whereas the responses feel like the masterwork of consummate professionals whose time and labor deserve to be richly compensated. I suspect such compensation will eventually come from Carreon's pockets – would another Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing allow him to dodge financial responsibility?


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @5:19 pm (After learning to scroll up…)

No wait, this is even better than I imagined. Half the money was never at suit. The picture still gets taken abet of half the money which is still more than 5x the original demand.

And CC is -proven- an even -worse- lawyer than was already in evidence.

Several times I mentioned that CC seemed incapable of tracking the simple details of the case whilst paraphrasing positions and mis-stating law and precedent. He has now -proved- to god and country that he is incapable of understanding even simple contract terms.

His complete lack of understanding of the whole pay-pal thing, and the core layout of the mechanics of the campiegn is memorialized completely by this "missing" of the path more than half of the money took.

Would -you- hire a lawyer who can famously claim that he can successfully figure out "almost half of even the simplest terms and contracts involved in any of your legal affairs"?

So now the definition of a Carreon must be amended to put a big old 1/2 in front of all the terms and a few sqrt()s in there as well.


RavingRambler • Jul 1, 2012 @5:35 pm OK, not sure if this is entirely correct, because I couldn't find it anywhere in intelligible English at irs.gov but I got the following from WiseGeek:

The burden of the gift tax is carried by the giver of the gift, not by the recipient, and the recipient generally does not have to pay anything. There are some exclusions, however, to allow people to give without paying taxes on a fair amount of worth each year. For example, there is a basic exemption, under which an individual can, as of 2009, freely give up to $13,000 US Dollars (USD); similarly, a couple could give up to $26,000 USD without having to pay taxes on it. Other gifts that are exempt from this tax include gifts one gives to one’s legal spouse, gifts given to charity organizations, or gifts in the form of payment for medical or educational services for a person.
Generally speaking, the recipient of a gift is excluded from paying taxes on that gift. The IRS allows most gift income to remain as untaxable income, although there are some notable exceptions. Gift income which comes from an employer to an employee, for example, is still considered taxable income, and must be claimed. This similarly goes for gifts given on the behalf of an employer to an employee, or gifts given from an employer to someone on behalf of the employee. There are a few special cases in which this gift income may remain exempt from taxation, but they are rare.
So it looks to me like this is completely tax-neutral for Inman. He isn't required to claim it as income since it's from a number of individual contributors, presumably none of whom went over the limit, and since charitable deductions are capped as a percentage of income, the cap would presumably be even lower than we thought. Of course, he may have never considered the tax implications of this whole adventure to begin with and may be dodging a huge bullet by accident.

Or I could be completely wrong, in which case you are welcome for the entertainment. ;-)


Orville • Jul 1, 2012 @5:40 pm Charles Carreon is truly an innovative legal thinker. Unburdened by such trivial concerns as precedent, understanding, finances or logic he boldly forges new paths into the judicial wilderness.

It is a shame that, on his journey, he missed the large signs declaring "Danger! Minefield ahead!".

Not because he is likely to (metaphorically) blow his own feet off with this stunt. Everything I have read makes me believe his career should be crippled. No, the shame is other people have been forced to spend more than the price of a plane flight to the court house to defend themselves against a man who thinks the best way to avoid a case of butt-hurt is to sit on a larger dildo.


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @5:44 pm Oh, and CC needs to add to his resume that he is fully qualified to "act almost not too late to preserve his clients interests in any cause of action with a prepublished time-line".


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @5:51 pm Do we know whether CC's contribution was made by Credit Card or PayPal? The delicious irony of it, if it were made by PayPal is profound, since his standing then would never have touched Indiegogo at all.

If it was made by Credit Card, then CC always had a remedy far easier than to bring suit, by recalling his contribution through his card processor.


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @5:58 pm Well, this "evidence" provided by our favorite looney might explain why Charles' filing is so very, um, special:

"Maria explains that no facts are ever discussed in a so called Court because Lawyers go to school for six years to learn how to write documents that never ever use facts…"

Also, "There's no way that Charles Carreon is "the elite."" – I think we can all agree on that point.

And look out legal illuminati! She's on to your hatred of farm animals! Couldn't just leave it at the dolphins, could you.

"Maria explains that when a Judge takes his Oath of Office the meaning is not what we believe it is. The same is true of a Lawyers Oath….
Interestingly the word America when broken down using this syntax means this:

‘A’ – means no
‘merci’ – means mercy
‘ca’ – means sheep

Therefore the word America means – No mercy for the Sheep. Do you think that this was an accident?"


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @6:01 pm @Robert

It was by Credit Card or Debit Card. You can find the proof on Exhibit C here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.20.3.pdf


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @6:19 pm Goodness gracious! Now we have the response from Inman's lawyers. I never thought I would be thrilled to read court documents.


perlhaqr • Jul 1, 2012 @6:22 pm Carreon, my wayward son,
you're a piece of clueless chum.
Lay your dopey head to rest,
don't you cry no more.


alexa-blue • Jul 1, 2012 @6:24 pm A couple of the commenters at Ars say that the money Inman receives is gift money and not taxable. The TRO response from Indiegogo states that the money is income. I don't particularly care (except insofar as being able to write off crowd-sourced charity donations is a great incentive to start crowd-sourced charity drives), but would prefer Carreon to be wrong on this for mostly childish reasons. Anyone with better authority who can comment?


Robert White • Jul 1, 2012 @6:24 pm Re Tara and the various Judicial and Lawyerly oaths…

Didn't her husband take one of those oaths?
As she is his legal secretary, is she representing to us that when -he- took that oath, that's what -he- believed the oath to mean?

E.g. Do we now know that CC's oath was to show now mercy to sheep?

Does mercy include the customary use of lubricant? /doh


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @6:27 pm @RavingRambler – the last paragraph of my post here on Jul 1, 2012 @3:53 pm described how the proceeds would be treated if they were distributed to Inman – what I forgot to mention is that it was a direct quote from my CPA – a former IRS puke. Bottom line – no tax benefit to Inman so Carreon's argument on this piece is also a moot point.


alexa-blue • Jul 1, 2012 @6:32 pm Silly me to have not read through the comments thoroughly. Thanks Joe and RavingRambler.


nlp • Jul 1, 2012 @6:39 pm I wonder what would happen if lots of people stuck one dollar bills in envelopes and mailed them to Charles Carreon, with instructions to send half to NFW and the other half to ACS.

And to keep the third half for himself.


RavingRambler • Jul 1, 2012 @6:45 pm @Joe Oops! I was reading too fast the first time and missed some of it. The part I wasn't clear on was of it actually counted as income, but I guess it does. Yikes.


Bertrand • Jul 1, 2012 @6:48 pm I thought I read somewhere that Carreon had retained an attorney in Arizona, but the declaration still identifies him as counsel pro se.


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @6:48 pm I love this.

Mr. Inman refuses to be thwarted, and has taken a photo of the appropriate amount of his own money. (Inman Decl. at ¶ 38). Nevertheless, the demand shows the true nature of Mr. Carreon’s
Application for a TRO.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @7:09 pm Apparently Indiegogo has some pretty awesome/snarky lawyers themselves.


Josh D • Jul 1, 2012 @7:20 pm Line of the opposition, "Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon’s declaration and respectfully requests that
they be stricken."


Kris • Jul 1, 2012 @7:21 pm Mark –

Where are the documents from Inman's side? I'm dying of curiosity over here!

And ditto to the point of "never so excited to read legal documents in my life". I'm right there with you, bud. I've never read a legal document before this debacle. This is one glorious ride.


Mark • Jul 1, 2012 @7:27 pm @Kris

They are all online courtesy of the RECAP project, hosted at Archive.org.

The direct link is http://ia600809.us.archive.org/8/items/ ... ocket.html


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @7:30 pm https://www.eff.org/node/71119 – Inman response!


Mike K • Jul 1, 2012 @7:33 pm Called him using his own money for the picture. B)

I find it sad that despite the genius of Inman's lawyers' response that a simple typo mars it (hey, I'm a bit of a perfectionist). "… Mr. Inman planed…"


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @7:37 pm As Frosty the Snowman has been going through my head since I read the words "Charlie the Censor," I have created this atrocity.

Charlie the Censor,
Was a foolish little troll,
He sent some threats, just to pay some debts,
Then the shit began to roll!

Oh, Charlie the Censor,
Was a white-hat so they say,
He made his name on sex.com
But sane he could not stay!

There must have been some bath salts in that
Old ass hat he found.
For when he placed it on his head,
He began shit to expound!

Oh, Charlie the Censor,
Was as a proud as he could be,
As the lawyers say he could work pro se,
Not just for you and me!

Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, look at Charlie go,
Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, writin' 'bout shit he don't know.

For Charlie the Censor,
Thought it all was just a scam,
So he said I'll sue & make a big to-do,
Till I reveal their evil plan.

Down to the courthouse,
With a law suit in his care,
Running here and there all around the square,
Yellin' my mom didn't do a bear!

He wandered through the streets of town,
Right past the Oatmeal's block,
And he only doubled down when the web began to mock!

For Charlie the Censor,
No censure could he bear,
So he said I'll sue till my face turns blue,
And Tara will shout some swears!

Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, look at Charlie go
Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, talkin' 'bout shit he don't know.


SPQR • Jul 1, 2012 @7:55 pm IndieGoGo's opposition was well done. And the contrast between the competently written opposition and the crayon version moving papers of Carreon could not be more stark.

This is the stupidity of people like Carreon. From now on, any one thinking of hiring him who does a simple Google search will find that "Carreon's legal skills have been mocked on the Internet in very great detail.

Carreon, you see that? You will be mocked for many Internet generations to come.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @7:57 pm Lol http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 331dd97311

Now she's on Party Gorilla, my favorite Inman comic of all time. It really gets our secret message across efficiently.


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @8:05 pm RE the EFF's motion to dismiss the TRO. First paragraph and it's a doozey as follows:

INTRODUCTION:
Plaintiff Charles Carreon’s application for a temporary restraining order (“Application”) is notable as much for its lack of context as its lack of merit. This case is not about false advertising or the laws regulating commercial fundraisers. This case, and this Application, is nothing more than Mr. Carreon’s blatant – and baseless – attempt to retaliate against a critic with whom he is engaged in a very public dispute.

Why I do believe Venkat and the EFF just told Carreon to F off.


Chris R. • Jul 1, 2012 @8:07 pm Joe I am pretty sure they are laying the groundwork for something even more special.


ShelbyC • Jul 1, 2012 @8:08 pm "Just to be clear, because people seem to misunderstand the "deduction" that Matt Inman will get for this charity donation: it is not as carrion suggests income, it offsets the tax he will have to pay on the $220K. Matt will be lucky to break even on the the transaction."

Not a tax expert, obviously, but how the 220K get treated? It doesn't seem like it would count as income, because he's not free to spend it how he wants, he has to give it to the charities. But if it does, wouldn't it be a tax-free gift, non-taxable, in which case Carreon would be correct about Inhman getting the tax-deduction? (Not that I have a problem with that outcome)


Margaret • Jul 1, 2012 @8:13 pm Doozy of a quote from Inman's lawyers' letter:

"one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric"

I may have to remember that.


Kelly • Jul 1, 2012 @8:24 pm @ Chris R. – Thank you for the link!
@Valerie- I am laughing so much. I call +5 bonus for the 'bath salts' reference.

I am still reading, but I did get a laugh when they pointed out that "it is hard to think of a party less appropriate to sue on behalf of the funders."


Joe • Jul 1, 2012 @8:37 pm I like Valerie's "lyrics". Bet the EFF does too.

@Chris – agreed – I am sure there is more to come. I believe we are about to witness one of the biggest internet legal smack downs of all time.

@ShelbyC – Carrreon is incorrect about Inman receiving any benefit in the form of a large tax writeoff. Specifics of why addressed in prior posts on this thread.


Striker • Jul 1, 2012 @8:40 pm You'd have to think that Carreon's career would be over now. Apart from the fact that he's disgraced himself as a human, his legal work has more holes in it than a pair of fishnets.


Valerie • Jul 1, 2012 @8:52 pm @striker Yeah, the difference in quality between his filings and everyone else's is striking, even to a non-lawyer. On the other hand, he has a law license and is willing to sue anyone on any flimsy pretext, so he may be able to service a select cliental of fellow litigious bastards.


Swindapa • Jul 1, 2012 @9:04 pm Sooo… Carreon has filed his complaint, and filed for a TRO. Indiegogo has filed a response. Matt Inman has filed a response through the EFF.

Now, can a lawyer type please explain what happens next? Does it go before a judge and get argued, or does the judge just read the filings and make a ruling? What are the next few steps in the process, and what's the timeline?

Thanks in advance…


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @9:34 pm Ahh the best time off my night… when Tara finds the box of wine.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @9:36 pm *of

Apparently I found some too.


Anita • Jul 1, 2012 @9:43 pm Valerie earlier quoted Tara Carreon (please excuse my nonexistent knowledge of html quoting):

"Interestingly the word America when broken down using this syntax means this:

‘A’ – means no
‘merci’ – means mercy
‘ca’ – means sheep

Therefore the word America means – No mercy for the Sheep. Do you think that this was an accident?"

Is it completely pedantic of me to point out that this definition of the word 'America' necessitates the letter 'C' being used twice and the transposition of the the 'I' and 'C' in order to get the word 'merci'?

Using her syntax (in which I'm not sure how 'ca' becomes 'sheep,' but why let that stop me?), the following would be more accurate:

A = No
meri = mere
ca = sheep

So America equals No Mere Sheep. Quite a difference!


Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 1, 2012 @9:45 pm @Swindapa: sometime soon, this'll go before the judge. It depends on what the judge's policies are for hearing ex parte motions like this. I'd wager tomorrow or Tuesday, though I seem to recall that the judge's calendar has time for law and motion hearings later in the week.

Carreon will dial it in (ahem) and appear via telephone call. The defendants' lawyers will probably appear in person. Then the judge will make a ruling and we'll find out what it is pretty quickly.


desconhecido • Jul 1, 2012 @9:56 pm It's nice to see the defendants' responses so far. Particularly the EFF response which emphasizes that Carrion's suit is motivated by his desire to punish Inman for subjecting Carrion to humiliation and ridicule.

Unfortunately, what we don't see is FunnyJunk paying any price for its role in this whole thing. It was FJ who kicked this whole thing off by hiring Carreon to write the original threatening letter to Inman. It was FJ who initiated this whole thing by running a website by which FJ profited from the pirated work of Inman, work which FJ "practically stole."

FunnyJunk hosted Inman material for over a year — probably knowingly. FJ modified aspects of its website so that searching for Inman's content would be more difficult. There is strong reason to believe that FJ, or parties with FJ's encouragement modified Inman's content to remove identifying features/logos so that a) the content would be more difficult to identify to substantiate demand for removal and b)to make FJ's claim that it was unaware of the infringing material.

Apparently, FJ displayed Inman's content for a good long time, on the order of a year, without complying with the requirements of the DMCA. Perhaps some of that content had been inclucled in material that was registered with the copyright office which would open the door for significant enhanced damages. Perhaps FJ can be smoked out and placed in the public eye right next to Carreon in that picture with the improperly displayed American flag.


McNugget • Jul 1, 2012 @10:41 pm I agree with desconhecido. I think it will be lame and unfortunate and *unfair* (though nothing about this whole kerfuffle has been altogether fair, yet) if FunnyJunk just slides away like they had nothing to do with all this. They havent issued a statement or an apology or an explanation- I think they are just ignoring it and hoping everyone forgets they were involved. And sadly that cowardly "stance" seems to be working.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @11:07 pm Funnyjunk is like the evil wizard that unleashed the dragon. I don't think anyone's forgotten the admin, but we gotta defeat the endboss first, since it's the one attacking offensively at the moment.


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @11:31 pm Tara's reading Popehat comment threads again and blogging you know where.I hope we get a new cartoon and original content instead of the reposting/film bullshit she's done lately. I remember the Nader Library when it was good; she's jumped the shark lately. Her creative spark must have died.

More OC, Tara. You've become the FunnyJunk of your own content.


Rakiura • Jul 1, 2012 @11:34 pm Could FJ fire CC and then sue against all the advertising they are about to lose, if they haven't already, from being connected from CC's crusade against reality? If Inman 'cost' them 20k, I shudder to think what CC is costing them.

Also, does anyone else feel like CC has tried to scrapbook together a version of the law where he might be right? It seems light on paste to hold it all together.


Rakiura • Jul 1, 2012 @11:39 pm @McNugget

I think FJ is doing precisely the right thing. They are following a "Better to say nothing and have people think you're an idiot than open it and remove all doubt" policy.

The only thing that does surprise me is that they haven't publically distanced themselves from what CC is doing since the demand letter. None of it is done by them, or on their behalf, I expected they would go to great lengths to make sure everyone knew this.


Look at that • Jul 1, 2012 @11:41 pm The bond, the bond!


W Ross • Jul 1, 2012 @11:49 pm 37,000 views of that thread. I think that's why she can't stop. For better or for worse, this many people have never cared to listen to her in her life, and never will again. If she wasn't so nasty I'd find that really sad.


W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @12:08 am @Chris
@Joe

You've been named by Tara! Congrats!


Swindapa • Jul 2, 2012 @12:18 am @Adam

Thanks for that – only been to court twice, both times for traffic tickets. Momma raised me to stay on the right side of the law


Daniel • Jul 2, 2012 @12:25 am @Mark

Because had Carreon involved Paypal, eBay (Paypal's owner) would have ground ol' Chuckles into dust.


Kris_Shannon • Jul 2, 2012 @12:26 am From Inman's declaration:

The final amount of fund funds raised was $220,024.00. This is almost exactly 11 times the original goal of $20,000.
I was trying for exactly 11 times but some other bastards sniped me at the last moment :(


Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @12:40 am @W Ross, another Chris who wanted to hack the Carreon's and from what I can tell hasn't returned since he got told off by Joe and Ken. She can't see my comments because of my gravatar, it uses the all seeing eye to block her mind.


Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @12:41 am AND HOW DOES SHE KNOW ABOUT THE ASSASSINS!?


AMC • Jul 2, 2012 @12:51 am Inman is getting around the photo problem by withdrawing ~200k of his own money and posing with that. The roughly half of the charity money that came via PayPal went into his account, and the roughly half that came via credit card payments were held by Indiegogo, which disbursed them directly to the charities. So we'll get a picture with the full amount of [different] money, even if it was taken after the charities had received what was raised.


theNuszAbides • Jul 2, 2012 @2:18 am Chris R., i adored the WashingtonWeishaupt reference. and don't forget how that recent Alamut PR plan "backfired". it's hardly more than a global-media chaff-dispenser at this point – she only knows what she thinks (T)hey^$1 want hidden…


Gal • Jul 2, 2012 @3:31 am @W Ross: I'm fairly certain that FunnyJunk is more like the naive demonologist (a pimple faced one who was trying for a succubus, obviously) who was tricked by the demon into breaking the circle.

There's very little doubt in my mind, from the timeline involving the original complaint, the threatening letter, and the DMCA compliance that Charlie contacted FJ, and not the other way around.


Joe • Jul 2, 2012 @3:32 am @Ross – ah yes the honor of being singled out by the dingbat. The irony of fact the "other" Chris's idiotic comments are also immortalized on her site is not lost on me. He's probably wishing he could walk that post back right about now – that is if he has a consience.


S. Weasel • Jul 2, 2012 @4:15 am There's more to the naderlibrary site than that one forum, in case you haven't bothered poking around. There's several years' worth of word salad from the both of them. Lord knows how those two crazy kids found each other.

And by "crazy" read "borderline schitz" throughout.


Jess • Jul 2, 2012 @4:31 am Oh the hypocrisy of Tara’s blog. Anyone else noticed how she decries the posting of Chucky’s email and the emails they have gotten from people and then turns around herself and writes an email to Inman’s mother AND posts that email WITH Inmans mothers email address on her site even though Inmans mother has not gotten involved in this publicly or written about it publicly.


Thomas • Jul 2, 2012 @4:44 am From Inman's own declaration: "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."

So Charlie still gets told off, and he has no merit for his claim. Win-win!


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @5:08 am So Charles filed a TRO that he knew was already moot when it was filed? Because, knowing the timeline, he waited until the 11th hour but by then the court's submission site had crashed.

The only thing I'm disappointed in is that neither Inman nor IndieGoGo sent him a $10 bill.


Trond M. • Jul 2, 2012 @5:34 am The only thing I'm disappointed in is that neither Inman nor IndieGoGo sent him a $10 bill.
Nooooo! Inman must frame that $10 bill together with a picture of Carreon and the drawing of the bearseducing mother.


CTrees • Jul 2, 2012 @5:43 am @desconhecido: FJ actually still hosts a lot of Inman's material. They removed the specific items Inman linked to, but certainly not everything. Currently it seems that FJ disabled their search ENTIRELY (a humor site which returns no results for "cats" seems unlikely), but using Google to search the site? All FJ is doing right now is making it harder to suss out the infringing, stolen content.


Docrailgun • Jul 2, 2012 @5:48 am I'm not certain that we actually know much about Funnyjunk. Is FJ owned or run by CC (though I think we would see the site's name more if he did own it). If not, did they actually ever hire CC or did he just respond to Inman's post 'on their behalf'? Even if they did hire him did they do so after he notified them that he was filing a lawsuit on their behalf and he would act as their agent? Do they even know what he is doing? Does it not seem more likely that they told him to stop bothering them and not use their name anymore.
It would seem to me (and this could easily be resolved by FJ revealing the information on the timing of various communications with CC) that we are not hearing anything more about FJ because the original CC letter to Inman was a borderline scam, since it never mentioned any money for Funnyjunk. But that is my opinion (please note that, Tara) and the truth can easily be proven if FJ is willing to speak up.
Desconhecido wrote:
"Unfortunately, what we don't see is FunnyJunk paying any price for its role in this whole thing. It was FJ who kicked this whole thing off by hiring Carreon to write the original threatening letter to Inman. It was FJ who initiated this whole thing by running a website by which FJ profited from the pirated work of Inman, work which FJ "practically stole."


Do not carry on, carreon • Jul 2, 2012 @5:58 am TCarreon quotes scripture and claims that "god" wrote the bible (it's always been man-written), but doesn't understand the reference to "army of Davids".
Instead she quotes a completely unrelated source and tries to combine the two.

She doesn't see that that's a reference to David vs Goliath?

http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_bo ... 8355#18355

This is one bat-shit-insane woman.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 18744
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Charles Carreon, Tara Carreon, and Family

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest