PART 2 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part IV: Charles Carreon Sues Everybody Cont'd.)
LookingGlass • Jun 18, 2012 @9:18 am Is there a legal reason why the National Wildlife Federation and American Cancer Society are given as defendants but not identified in the Parties section of the filing or is that just evidence of sloppiness in the creation of the filing?
Agent V • Jun 18, 2012 @9:45 am Charles and Dino M. Zaffina ought create a support club for delusional whiney b!tches.
Nicholas Weaver • Jun 18, 2012 @9:57 am Oh, hey, ross, thanks!
That Carreon site shows him specifically advocating mass internet-directed emailing to get someone to change his behavior, in the first post tagged "legal rage". Someone should archive the whole site before Carreon drops it down the memory hole!
Pornographers Infringe Emily Trademark and Mattel Is Silent — How Swell Is That?
I can’t seem to get Michael Moore’s interest, but if some other people, like angry moms, started filling his inbox with complaints, it might make a difference.
This is due to what appears to be a silent treatment response from Mattel from his first attempt to solicit business from Mattel by an email which stated
I practice in the field of domain law, and it recently came to my attention that the EmilyDoll.com website that is sitting atop the Google ranking for the search "Emily+Doll".. {sick of typing, since he just did an image capture}
The email image
And a subsequent email which instead began (IMO, a bit more threateningly) with
I am now pursuing this matter as a legal journalist…
with a bunch of obnoxious questions.
From his petulant posting beyond it, its probable Mattel just ignored him as a crank. Given the 2000-odd comments since August 2009 are spam-bot, we can tell how successful this was…
At this point, not only do I believe that Saul Goodman is a better attorney than this guy, I now believe that Saul Goodman has better character as an attorney than this guy.
Ken • Jun 18, 2012 @9:57 am Started a Twitter hashtag game: #charlescarreonnewcareers
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @9:59 am "There is no better site on the internet for simultaneously teaching and entertaining about the legal system."
…save for Popehat.
Ken • Jun 18, 2012 @10:02 am You guys who keep coming up with the examples of falsehood and hypocrisy just rock. You're the Army of Davids.
Do me a favor — whenever you find a good web page showing an inconsistent statement, or an item that shows hypocrisy, take a screenshot or print it to pdf in case he memory-holes it.
Reed • Jun 18, 2012 @10:05 am Paragraph 50: "Plaintiff makes it a practice to engage in tempered speech even on matters of heated debate."
Indeed….
Charles Carreon • Jun 18, 2012 @10:13 am Lol wow, I can't believe the @charles_carreon twitter user made it into the lawsuit. I ran that account until it got suspended. It was fun while it lasted. You can now find me on @charles_carron
Grifter • Jun 18, 2012 @10:14 am Ohh, that ragingblog is a fun place!
The irony of this title:
"New York Times Financial Columnist Shows Dreadful Lack of Common Sense"
I'm sorely tempted to try to find his local info and attempt an in-person interview. But I'm concerned; if he lets me do it, will I catch crazy?
Alaina • Jun 18, 2012 @10:14 am
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... undraiser/ShelbyC • Jun 18, 2012 @10:20 am So he manufactured standing by contributing, say, $1, to the fundraiser? Would he lose standing if the Oatmeal gave him his dollar back? What if I sent him a dollar on the Oatmeal's behalf?
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @10:23 am @Ken If popehat can work for free, so can we! I'm a satirist and this is bad precedent, so I'm happy to help move information around.
"50. The fake tweets from @Charles_Carreon were abrasive and provoking to other Twitter users, and engendered immediate negative responses, having the effect of intensifying public hostility toward Plaintiff, and causing him irreparable harm in the marketplace for legal services. Plaintiff makes it a practice to engage in tempered speech even on matters of heated debate, and
does not sling insults like “dumbass” and “idiot.” Nor was it Plaintiff’s attempt to use his Twitter account @charlescarreon to engage in verbal combat with other Twitter users."
Provably untrue. He may not on Twitter, but the shops, poems, and his own writings (linked elsewhere in this post and comments) shows he does engage in exactly that type of speech that is equally offensive, outragous, and are even fricken cartoons.
(for example
http://www.american-buddha.com/chas.scribble.49.htm )
Also, if you want to wander the stuff of his on american buddha, click the link below and it'll generate the search automatically. Picking through it little by little, but everything he accuses others of doing he seems to do regularly.
(Note that it will make your brain melt both from bad design, general craziness, and poor keening. Long term exposure to Tara Carreon's wrting has also been known to cause flame wars, intercrazies, and typists finger.)
Charles Carreon articles at american budha:
http://www.american-buddha.com/search/? ... Carreon%22Daniel Hagan • Jun 18, 2012 @10:33 am Anyone know where FunnyJunk LLC is registered? I couldn't find it in CA, WA, OR, LA (D&B hit, but no record), or FL (domain registrar address). Seems odd that when it came time to sue, FJ isn't a plaintiff…
L'lee • Jun 18, 2012 @10:35 am Ok, I can't be the only one whose seen the irony in the similarity of his last name to carrion – the sustenance of wolves, vultures and jackals, can I?
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @10:39 am Sarahw raises an interesting question. Has anyone identified who owns FunnyJunk?
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @10:41 am "made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS"
It is clear he donated solely for the purpose of suing. This is evident by the fact that he previously unsuccessfully tried to shut down the campaign and thusly prevent these charities from receiving money. How can he with a straight face say that he is trying to support the two charities he is actively suing?
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @10:46 am The WHOIS information for FunnyJunk, CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com are all privacy protected. However, FunnyJunk.com isn't hosted by a US server and doesn't use the same privacy protection company that CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com use.
CharlesCarreon.com and American-Buddha.com do use the same privacy protection company, but are hosted by two different companies.
http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/funnyjunk.comhttp://www.ip-adress.com/whois/charlescarreon.comhttp://www.ip-adress.com/whois/american-buddha.comRichard • Jun 18, 2012 @10:53 am Would this work as an archive in case Carreon memoryholes his website?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... buddha.comjoe • Jun 18, 2012 @10:53 am I've no idea if it was the real Tara Carreon who posted to Forbes 3 days ago as folllows:
"Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason that Matt Inman is so popular is because he appeals to the degenerate forces which have made all of our lives so miserable in this world? i.e., the rapists, looters, and warmongers who love nothing more than seeing a hipster sadistically put into a woodchipper, a baby being kicked, or a woman being ridiculed?"
If it was her I find her comment about The Oatmeal quite hypocritical considering she seems to have no issuess ridiculing other famous women on her American Budda website by photo shopping their faces to create false pictures with naked mens genitals or womens breasts.
http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.kathleenturner.htmhttp://www.american-buddha.com/mondocannibafeast2.htmMike • Jun 18, 2012 @10:56 am I noticed in there that he is requesting a jury. How far can he go to exclude jurors? I have a hard time imagining there being enough people without bias (against him or for the various defendants) to even have a fair jury.
Couldn't Indiegogo just claim truthfully that they are raising money for Inman and not any charity, making it his duty to meet any requirements of fundraising in his location and not where Indiegogo is located? I know that wouldn't be the hilarious result people want to see of the lawyer losing horribly, but still would be interesting.
This stuff makes me think I must be a lot more naive than I thought. It's already gone way beyond where I would have thought logic, common sense, and morality would have allowed it.
Sarahw • Jun 18, 2012 @10:58 am Mr. Clean Hands needs some better soap. Meanwhile I just found out bears can COUNT the number of times Funnyjunk, LLC's mom importunes them for love.
LookingGlass • Jun 18, 2012 @11:06 am There's a FunnyJunk incorporated in Nevada:
"FunnyJunk, LLC"
Managing Member for that LLC is one Bryan Durel of New York.
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @11:06 am That groundswell is happening. His name is generating 200 new mentions an hour in Google. Mashable just picked it up.
http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/funnyjun ... indiegogo/W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @11:23 am
http://www.american-buddha.com/ambu.dig ... leteer.htm"Internet censorship is just the latest outbreak of a disease that government always suffers from — wanting to control what people can say," says Carreon, "We are shining a light on a problem that no one in Ashland knew about — the existence of a censor inside of the City who could, and did, turn off websites for totally improper reasons. In the case of American Buddha, it was a complaint from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who was the subject of a risque cartoon that was posted on the American Buddha website
http://www.american-buddha.com, In other cases, we don't know what the reasons were, but the websites were turned off."
So he hated it, but he also learned how to do it and then did it to others? But here's the really interesting thing. He seems to have a long history of letting his wife (who's appeared in some really disturbing comments mentioned in other threads that seem legit based on her writings) do his dirty work for him.
As he was posting highminded rhetoric, she was posting photoshopped pictures of the woman in question getting orally gangbanged. (VERY NSFW
http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.kathleenturner.htm ).
Now in theory no matter how crazy the wife is she should be off limits, EXCEPT… his POINT in this whole thing is Mathew Inman incited third parties to do his dirty work while he kept his hands clean. So it's semi-related, at least to know what to expect next.
Cass • Jun 18, 2012 @11:29 am Wait. Wha??
First Carreon insinuates WWII was caused by Walt Disney (@chad alan, I was wondering if anyone else would say it…)
And then #38 in his lawsuit states that he, himself, is a contributor to the BearLove campaign, ("…Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign…") I don't want him doing on thing on my behalf or bewhole. So can I sue him for misrepresentation since I didn't authorize him to include me?
I, like many others, thought this whole thing would keep me entertained for a few days, and then *poof*. This is one time I am glad to admit I was wrong….
Insane • Jun 18, 2012 @11:36 am This whole thing is completely mind blowing. This is like on of those '40's farce movies where Carry Grant's actions and words are completely misconstrued. And the butthurt people incite all kinds of mayhem over nothing. The only thing that really bothers me is the only girl in this one is from the bear love campaign. I feel sorry for Inman since the hero always gets the girl in the end.
I would like to think that maybe Carreon is some sort of white knight fundraising genius that is willingly falling on his sword to bring in beaucoup bucks for NWF and ACS and that no one is really so stupid to actually sue as a result of not being able to comprehend that a comedian does comedy. Perhaps if the former were the case he would be the hero and get the girl in the end, instead of Inman.
Kendie • Jun 18, 2012 @11:36 am @Mike regarding a jury selection, this carnival of events is not as well known outside the online-comics/internet law circles. Most of my friends are avid consumers of news and memes, but have not heard of this. Imagine jury selection of mostly 40+ year olds, and I doubt anyone would have heard of it, and might be swayed by the childish vulgarity of theOatmeal's drawings (which I'm a huge fan of) and they also might believe the drivel flowing from Carreon's beak.
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @11:38 am
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/carreonThe Oatmeal has responded. Very cool, very noble. The #*$&storm is following right behind, though.
https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/ ... %20carreonO.O
Ann Bransom • Jun 18, 2012 @11:42 am I decided to get some perspective on the situation from my own counsel. My six year old niece. I feel that her perspective on the matter is pretty cut and dry.
http://blog.annbransom.com/2012/06/bear ... arles.htmlIn other news, I can't believe this week.
Seriously.
And it takes a lot to surprise me anymore.
I know that Pope Hat and Lowering the Bar are not going to provide too much commentary on the suit that has been filed so that Inman's attorney can do his job, but come on guys. Scale of 1-10. What are the chances of this thing actually going to court?
L. Hutz • Jun 18, 2012 @11:43 am Would this work as an archive in case Carreon memoryholes his website?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... buddha.comFor a little while, but not as permanent as web.archive.org (which has american-buddha.com's robots.txt file blocks). And whoever runs American Buddha could take the pages down and request that Google delete the cached versions.
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @11:46 am LookingGlass – the address Bryan Durel is using is a rented mailbox at a UPS store.
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @11:54 am
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/214786887666249728Charles Carreon's fail is so big it's now DDOSing sites with the power of it's own awesomeness.
Sarahw • Jun 18, 2012 @11:57 am I was just going to post that you can look up the Nevada llc info; Carreon isn't listed as an officer or agent or anything.
If the managning member has changed, the latest report on that is due at the end of this month (June 30).
N
Diana Lee • Jun 18, 2012 @11:57 am I'm so glad you guys have his back. This is just ridiculous. Even a totally frivolous lawsuit like this one can cost the defendants a lot of money to make it go away.
Sarahw • Jun 18, 2012 @11:57 am I was just going to post that you can look up the Nevada llc info; Carreon isn't listed as an officer or agent or anything.
If the managning member has changed, the latest report on that is due at the end of this month (June 30).
Jayson Elliot • Jun 18, 2012 @11:58 am In terms of archiving Carreon's sites, there are tools for Mac, PC, and Linux that will download and archive entire sites intact:
Mac:
http://www.sitesucker.us/PC or Linux:
http://www.httrack.com/A question for any lawyers—what would constitute legitimate evidence that an archive or screenshot is real, and the pages haven't been altered?
Scott Jacobs • Jun 18, 2012 @12:00 pm The Oatmeal's response was very good. My favorite part?
Hugs and sexy bear kisses,
It's like a massive, dildo-shaped "FUCK YOU", only funnier.
Ann Bransom • Jun 18, 2012 @12:03 pm oh look, Ken. You got a love letter on Techdirt:
Posted on: Jun 18th, 2012 @ 11:59am by TaraCarreon
I really hope that Ken at Popehat (why is he the Pope's hat?)volunteers to represent Matt Inman pro bono. It'll be so much easier for us to win, then.
Kristi • Jun 18, 2012 @12:04 pm The whole situation is a mess, but it's really a sad day when someone would include two charities in their lawsuit. I mean, how does one look at themselves in the mirror thinking "I'm suing charities that help wildlife and people with cancer. I'm just awesome like that."
Nicholas Weaver • Jun 18, 2012 @12:08 pm On a page by page examination, Carreon's website version appears to match the official one from lowering the bar.
Thus for those wanting to cut & paste goodies from Carreon's complaint where he seems to commit false statements, gross hypocracy, and other such nuggets of joy, use Carreon's web page copy since thats in PDF text form.
grumpasaurus • Jun 18, 2012 @12:08 pm pst… it's "IndyGoGo does too," not "IndyGoGo does to."
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @12:15 pm @Ann Yep, that's the exact kind of behavior I was talking about. Search for "Tara Carreon" or "TaraCarreon" and links in the last week and you can her popping up tons of places doing exactly what he claims is so egregious.
jess • Jun 18, 2012 @12:17 pm Ann – nice post from your year old niece. Sometimes the youngsters know right from wrong and how to play nice with others better than the adults.
On another note, no way to know for sure if that was TaraCarreon on TechDirt but if it was I would pay to see that showdown.
Margaret • Jun 18, 2012 @12:22 pm Not a lawyer (or even a blogger), just a casual fan of the Oatmeal who's finding the whole situation fascinating, and enjoying how informative and understandable Popehat's posts are.
I just have to say, yes to everything else that's been said, but also: How does a guy who is associated with an Internet post containing a photo of some woman's head (a real person whom he apparently dislikes for some reason), Photoshopped with dicks pointing at her mouth, claim he has some kind of MORAL HIGH GROUND?? The mind, she boggles.
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @12:27 pm Ken, I have a question.
Assuming this does qualify as a SLAPP lawsuit, could Carreon be on the hook for the legal fees of Inman, the NWF, the ACS, IndyGoGo, AND 100+ Does? That would be one hefty bill.
Sarah • Jun 18, 2012 @12:30 pm @guest
"Surely there should be limits to testing the limits of sheer idiocy."
Do you mean we should pass laws?
I'm pretty sure that would result in an entire court system filled with equally entertaining cases!!
@jeremy
That's the *truly* important issue here.
Matthew Miller • Jun 18, 2012 @12:30 pm Charles Carreon wrote a rap song about his battle with "The Oatmeal"
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.don ... mother.htmW Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @12:36 pm
http://www.techdirt.com/user/taracarreonThe Taracarreon TechDirt article comments (may be some useful information in there.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201206 ... nman.shtml/|\_ In the article (view "threaded")
Jonathan Corbett • Jun 18, 2012 @12:40 pm My open letter to Carreon (to his
chas@charlescarreon.com e-mail address):
Hi Chas,
Just saw your suit against, among others, the National Wildlife Federation and American Cancer Society. You’re going to sue NWF and the Cancer Society? Really?
First of all, you have no standing to sue those organizations and the fundraising platform, which should be obvious. Second, your remaining claims are frivolous against anyone but Does 1 – 100. Any use of your “trademark” was clearly not done to provide legal services and clearly constituted fair use, and you have no evidence to show that Inman attempted to incite anyone.
In short, congratulations on making a name for himself as the man who sues charities, legitimate and lawful Internet content publishers, and anyone else who doesn’t bow to you. As a human being, you should know better, but as a lawyer, your conduct has departed frmo the minimum professional standards requried by you. I will be filing a formal complaint with the California Bar regarding your conduct.
Yours,
Jonathan Corbett
LonePaladin • Jun 18, 2012 @12:47 pm Here's a good one:
37. Inman’s stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign to the NWF and the ACS, presumably splitting that amount between the two Charitable Defendants.
Actually, he stated that he was going to take a picture of the money he got, then send half to each charity. He didn't say "$10,000 each" or something like that, just that each would get half.
Eponymous Coward • Jun 18, 2012 @12:48 pm Having just read some of the complaint what struck me as odd is that on line 38 Carreon claims to have been a contributor to the Bear Love Good fundraiser. This makes no sense to me unless he did it so that he can make a claim against it as a stakeholder in the charity drive. This gets truly stranger by the minute…
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @12:52 pm he claims that his personal confidential email wasn't available on the internet, yet anyone that can do a Google search could have easily found it. For example, I found this post which includes his "private" email address
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... ZGb4nStPugT-Willard • Jun 18, 2012 @12:54 pm This is why we can't have nice things on the internet.
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @12:54 pm …and his email also appears here:
http://www.naderlibrary.com/commonreaderbPREF.htmand here (in his own press release):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/ ... RN20090827Curtis • Jun 18, 2012 @12:56 pm Perhaps a nudge to the left of this situation, but Megaupload owner, Kim Dotcom, is currently under US Federal investigation (and be held by *New Zealand* authorities for US "crimes") for copyright violations identical to FunnyJunk. Kim Dotcom's house was raided by a swat team, all his computers were seized, hundred's of millions of dollars were frozen, and he was initially thrown in jail for weeks without bail…
Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 18, 2012 @1:04 pm Jack: nice catch. I took it one step further and used the search tool on the American Buddha website. That purportedly private email address appears at least 23 times on that website.
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @1:11 pm Woah… from that Tara Carreon Techdirt link. It might be worth it to find out if that's her, since she's threatening people with nuisance lawsuits:
——
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TaraCarreon (profile), Jun 17th, 2012 @ 4:59pm
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
insightful funny report
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
STStone, Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:04pm
Subpoena me for what — saying things you don't like?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
insightful funny report
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TaraCarreon (profile), Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:17pm
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?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
insightful funny report
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
STStone, Jun 17th, 2012 @ 5:20pm
What law does he plan to subpoena me under? I haven't…
…wait. Did you just vaguely threaten to try and out me to the general public using a subpoena and use that as a tool to embarass and humiliate me?
WOW. You, darling, have sunk lower than your husband.
mojo • Jun 18, 2012 @1:15 pm 90% of lawyers give the other 10% a bad name.
Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 18, 2012 @1:22 pm W Ross: one of her subsequent posts says she's "JK" and that Charles Carreon would NEVER abuse the legal system like that. I'm still not sure whether it's actually her or, if it is her, how it's relevant.
Anarcoplayba • Jun 18, 2012 @1:24 pm Hia, good afternoon to everyone.
I'm a brazilian lawyer who also works with trademarks and litigation and I can only be sad that some people (everywhere) seems to truly corrupt their own legal system and right's protections.
My best wishes for the Oatmeal and all of you who voluntereed yourselves in the defense of not only a website, but also free speech and the right to not be so serious.
MJ • Jun 18, 2012 @1:30 pm Considering how butthurt Charlie is about the comic of the super sexy mom & bear, he wasn't shy about drawing a comic of his own which I thik clearly shows intent for bodily harm against Matt Inman (represented by the Pterodactyl) –
http://www.american-buddha.com/poet.don ... mother.htm – also, rap.
Jeff Dover • Jun 18, 2012 @1:35 pm Charles Carreon has been a bad boy.
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulle ... pline.htmlKeith A • Jun 18, 2012 @1:37 pm Funny thing is- Carreon has already tried to use these same tactics in his defense of the Emily Doll trademark:
http://www.ragingblog.com/2009/05/porno ... l-is-that/I guess it must be different when those same tactics are used against you!
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @1:38 pm MJ Nice find.
I think it's hilarious that he thinks that the oatmeal's cartoon was about his mom when the oatmeal stated clearly that the cartoon was aimed at the FJ admin's mother. Unless of course "chas" is actually the admin of FJ, which would explain a lot.
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @1:43 pm Carreon isn't listed as an agent or managing member of FunnyJunk LLC on the Nevada Secretary of State website, so there goes that theory.
Vinnie • Jun 18, 2012 @1:47 pm Carreon's statements are fallacious and don't deserve the negligible bandwidth it takes to host them. According to Carreon, Inman is guilty of the following:
1) encouraged people to hack his website
2) "brute force" his WordPress installation
3) in turn, he had to change his password.
4) encouraged people to violate my trademark
5) violated my twitter name
Inman never said anything referring to, implying, or suggesting the hacking of anyone's website.
What did he do specifically or encourage people to do to his WordPress, to his "trademark" or Twitter name?
Nothing.
Why? Because most of Inman's readers possess the minute level of Internet savvy it takes to Google someone's name and find some contact information. He never came close to encouraging or soliciting any kind of retaliatory action from his readers, and instead redirected his energy and resources into fundraising for charitable causes. It was completely within Inman's rights to make it known what had happened, and to defend himself in the public eye.
To say that Carreon is grabbing at straws is like saying teenage girls should exercise more prudence with the pictures they upload. Perhaps Carreon should himself find a lawyer.
Oh, and he thinks he had to change a password. I have no words for that statement.
I hope Inman and the whole lot countersues with defamation charges and earns even more money to donate to charity.
Pablo • Jun 18, 2012 @1:48 pm People should try and take a crack at username and password for:
Edited to add: no they fucking shouldn't. Can you read? Take that shit somewhere else, asswipe.
joe • Jun 18, 2012 @1:50 pm
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @1:51 pm Jeff Dover,
The California bar lists him as being disciplined in 2006 and suspended but it looks like he was punished for the same thing Oregon punished him for
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/127139Note that his "private" email address is publicly available on the CA State bar website.
Fletcher • Jun 18, 2012 @1:55 pm I am playing armchair lawyer here, but reading the complaint leaves me with some questions. As I follow the story, my understanding is that Matthew Inman, DBA the Oatmeal, has started a fundraiser to do two things: create a photo of $20,000 to send to Charles Carreon, and then purportedly to donate that money to charity. However, at no point either through the blog at oatmeal.com, nor through the indiegogo site have I seen any implication that Inman represents anything but his business, which is not a charity. As I understand sites like kickstarter and indiegogo, they exist so people like me can give money to other people. I see no contracts that say they have to use the money as I see fit, and in this particular case the money is stated to be directed towards Inman taking a picture and then giving $20,000 to two charities. After that first 20k was raised, I saw no implied promise that Inman couldn't just pocket the difference. Since Carreon was not one of the people who donated in the first hour, how does he even see the possibility of a claim? He gave money to a for-profit business, with a promise that a small portion raised would go to two non-profits, but without claiming to even be raising money directly for them. The primary purpose appears to be to raise cash to take a photograph, which would seem to complete the terms of the implied contract. Is Carreon perhaps illiterate? Or just someone who believes lawyer jokes?
Nikropht • Jun 18, 2012 @1:57 pm This guy and his wife are total asshats. His wife took a pic of a well known Washington post writer and photshopped it onto porn. When she asked them kindly to stop they did not. So she went the legal route.
Whole thing is here
http://www.american-buddha.com/ambuvs.city.toc.htmAlso for interested parties. The Carreon's home address and phone is posted in those links on their own website.
SamuraiKnitter • Jun 18, 2012 @1:59 pm It's not just – potentially – Carrion's wife. Someone claiming to be his daughter spent the weekend roaming Twitter and randomly calling to task people who were criticizing "her father".
I'm not including the Twitter user name, on the chance it's NOT his daughter but someone else stirring the pot. And also, even with all else, I still hesitate to drag someone's child into a mess, even an adult child apparently begging to be dragged in.
If he REALLY wants to put on the act that he finds this internet shaming so horrible, shouldn't he rein in his own family from doing essentially the same thing? Would their behavior be admissible in court, if this ever got that far? Or is it all just a really big cluster F at this stage?
Anarcoplayba • Jun 18, 2012 @2:02 pm Not really:
http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood?c=activityMatthew Inman posted an announcement 5 days ago
One other note: a lot of people have been asking what I plan to do with the extra money we raised over the initial $20,000. 100% of it is going to charity. I’m going to add 2 more charities to the list, in addition to the ACS and the NWF.
joe • Jun 18, 2012 @2:03 pm Ken may post a reminder and The Oatmeal also said “And to anyone else who is reading this: it goes without saying, but stop harassing Carreon. Be lawful and civil in your interactions with him. If you want to help, go donate.”
Poking fun at Carreon on various blogs and outing his lies = OK.
Posting his home address, contacting him personally, flooding his personal email with nasty grams, or suggesting hacking any of his accounts = not OK.
Remember – we should be the good guys
Nicholas Weaver • Jun 18, 2012 @2:13 pm Keith: It wasn't a trademark "defense", it rather appears to be the petulant response of an ambulance chaser who's attempt to drum up businsess for himself failed miserably, so instead he wanted to encourage people to email-bomb his would be client!
Anita • Jun 18, 2012 @2:16 pm So why would FunnyJunk have hired Carreon to send that original letter to The Oatmeal a full year after their original scrape? Why is it happening now (opposed to a year ago)?
And if one of Carreon's problems with The Oatmeal is that he called him derogatory names (e.g. douchebag), then isn't his behavior proving out that opinion? Someone needs to protect this man from himself.
Jack • Jun 18, 2012 @2:25 pm I really hope that this nonsense results in disciplinary action for Carreon. At the very least he made a false statement in his filing. Doesn't that count as misconduct?
Dave • Jun 18, 2012 @2:31 pm I see his website now comes up on "Web Of Trust" as having a bad reputation!
Adam • Jun 18, 2012 @2:44 pm Anyone else find it fitting that Carreon sounds like carrion?
Kit • Jun 18, 2012 @3:18 pm I know many people have pointed it out before this, but here is the actual quote, written right in the description of the charity, where Inman states that the cartoon of the bearloving mother is directed at the owner FunnyJunk:
"Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother. I'm going to try and raise $20,000 and instead send it to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. "
So… what am I missing? How can Carreon include that cartoon in his lawsuit on his own behalf?
William C • Jun 18, 2012 @3:25 pm If one were to search for Charles Carreon here,
http://calbar.ca.gov/They would find all of his information.
This information is readily available to the public, I wonder if he himself was aware of that?
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @3:40 pm [Kanye]
"Yo, Charles, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Paul Christoforo had one of the best Internet meltdowns of all time! One of the best Internet meltdowns of all time!"
[/Kanye]
Kelly • Jun 18, 2012 @3:43 pm Was a huge fan of yours after the Ecologica Malibu fiasco over at Regretsy. When I saw this start with the Oatmeal, I instalty thought of you. (The Popehat signal went up!) Loving your updates and insights, and I'm thrilled to see you offer your help, Ken. You're a freaking legend! I just hope this internet nutjob eventually figures out when to stop.
Huh, would you look at that? • Jun 18, 2012 @3:48 pm While looking at this:
Kit • Jun 18, 2012 @3:18 pm
I know many people have pointed it out before this, but here is the actual quote, written right in the description of the charity, where Inman states that the cartoon of the bearloving mother is directed at the owner FunnyJunk:
"Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother. I'm going to try and raise $20,000 and instead send it to the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. "
So… what am I missing? How can Carreon include that cartoon in his lawsuit on his own behalf?
It suddenly occurred to me: What if this is a freudian slip of the largest magnitude?
jess • Jun 18, 2012 @4:17 pm Thorne – Joe pointed the thing in III of this series at
http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/15/the-o ... -internet/ @ 9:11pm. It does indeed remind me of the Christoforo – Penny Arcade silliness. Christoforo, Ratkofsky, and Stephens are all startingly similar in their petulant pursuit of "fix my internet butt hurt ego". Part of me wants to tell them to put on their big boy pants. Sadly it appears they are all incapable of listening.
Chris • Jun 18, 2012 @4:22 pm joe • Jun 18, 2012 @2:03 pm
"Poking fun at Carreon on various blogs and outing his lies = OK.
Posting his home address, contacting him personally, flooding his personal email with nasty grams, or suggesting hacking any of his accounts = not OK.
Remember – we should be the good guys"
Joe, first off there is no "WE". Second fuck you for trying to be my moral compass. I'll do what I damn well want to, and if writing him a letter doesn't help the cause I don't give a shit. I don't exist for the cause as you have determined the "good guys" to represent.
You may be trying to help but you are being a censorious asshat yourself.
VPJ • Jun 18, 2012 @4:23 pm overtly petulant-entitled-crazypants.
That would be a good name for a rock band. Or an annual award. The Annual Popehat Overtly Petulant Crazypants Awards. Hrmmmmm…
Ken • Jun 18, 2012 @4:33 pm Joe, first off there is no "WE". Second fuck you for trying to be my moral compass. I'll do what I damn well want to, and if writing him a letter doesn't help the cause I don't give a shit. I don't exist for the cause as you have determined the "good guys" to represent.
You may be trying to help but you are being a censorious asshat yourself.
Chris:
You're free to let your moral compass spin any way it wants. But if you really think saying "don't be a dick, and don't engage in criminal conduct, and don't engage in conduct that helps Carreon and hurts his critics" is being a censorious asshat, then I think you don't grasp the message of these posts or this site.
Jason • Jun 18, 2012 @4:37 pm This guy is digging so furiously he's going to hit escape velocity soon.
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @4:38 pm Funniest thing about Rakofsky is that, shortly, the new meme should be…
"You never go full Carreon."
…and he'll find himself forgotten. Relatively speaking, of course.
Cass • Jun 18, 2012 @4:42 pm If you ever get good and truly bored, Carreon's own blog posts make for some insightful reading. As in, he has filed this same lawsuit, from the other side, and lost. Old dogs/new tricks.
http://verbalassassin.com/2012/06/18/oatmeal_and_army/William C • Jun 18, 2012 @4:48 pm Marc Randazza(he was mentioned in the edits of Part 1, a friend of Carreon) has posted about the who fiasco:
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/06/1 ... hew-inman/He sums it up quite nicely, "Carreon just made himself a meme — and not in a good way. This will not end well for him. I just want to say that I tried. I really tried to get him to come to his senses. I tried really really hard. "
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @4:49 pm And if you're bored and suddenly find the urge to end it all, Google 'Subterranean Meltdown' for the WORST. POETRY. EVER.
"You never go full Carreon."
"Which one?"
"Does it really matter?"
Chris • Jun 18, 2012 @4:57 pm Ken,
As I said in the comments from the last post. I'm not fond of the criminal or illegal labels.
I grasp the point all too well.
What I don't like is when ANYONE tries to tell me how to behave. And especially when they represent the "right side" or the "good guys".
And I would suggest that if Carreon v. Oatmeal is on such shaky ground that a letter or an email calling this guy a cunt is going to sway the whole thing, then it's a lot more precarious than I had originally thought.
And if that isn't the case (and I don't think it is) then telling people not to do the things which are completely legal because it might hurt a third party's perceived good guy status, well that is being a censorious douche.
Jim C • Jun 18, 2012 @5:01 pm Jack @1:43pm: Nevada is home to a lot of shell corporations and Professional Corporate Officers of Record — basically, they collect a fee for filing incorporation papers and maintaining a mail drop (forwarding the received mail on to the next layer of the shell). Lots of "XXXX Y Avenue, Suite ZZZ" addresses map to UPS Stores (formerly Mail Boxes, Etc.) and the like in strip malls, with the "Suite" being the box number.
My hunch is that FunnyJunk, LLC, if that's in fact the same company, is using a similar arrangement. For reference, here's of someone running on the fringes of the law using Nevada-based shell companies.
Ken • Jun 18, 2012 @5:02 pm And if that isn't the case (and I don't think it is) then telling people not to do the things which are completely legal because it might hurt a third party's perceived good guy status, well that is being a censorious douche.
Not unless you have thin skin — Charles-Carreon-level thin skin — about having your conduct criticized.
Being threatened with a lawsuit, or sued, or threatened with arrest, or fired — those are censorship. But Wil Wheaton is not a censor when he says "Don't Be A Dick."
Criticism is not censorship.
SPQR • Jun 18, 2012 @5:06 pm Hear, hear, Ken. And urging people to uphold a community's standards are part of building community.
Jim C • Jun 18, 2012 @5:11 pm Let's try this again with proper HTML: Here's an example of someone using Nevada-based shell corporations to aid in running around in the grey areas of the law.
Chris • Jun 18, 2012 @5:11 pm Joe wasn't criticizing Ken. He was Directing. I live by that golden rule thing. I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. As a corollary, I don't do to others as I don't want done to me: I don't direct nor take direction.
SPQR,
I didn't realize when I starting believing in my God given right to speech I became part of a community that needed policing.
Courtney Milan • Jun 18, 2012 @5:12 pm Just want to point out what you probably already know:
The primary complaint (and the only thing in here that might have a vague wave of a hand towards legal relevance) is Carreon's claim that Inman et al failed to comply with California's charitable fundraising regulations.
Except that, since Carreon is apparently in asshat mode, he didn't bother to read the statute. It took me five seconds to determine that the statute in question doesn't create a private right of action. It says:
Cal. Gov. Code 12598. (a) The primary responsibility for supervising charitable trusts in California, for ensuring compliance with trusts and articles of incorporation, and for protection of assets held by charitable trusts and public benefit corporations, resides in the
Attorney General.
And also:
Cal. Gov. Code 12591. Nothing in this article shall impair or restrict the jurisdiction of any court with respect to any of the matters covered by it, except that no court shall have jurisdiction to modify or terminate any trust of property for charitable purposes unless the Attorney General is a party to the proceedings.
In other words, private parties can't sue to enforce the statute under which Carreon is suing.
SPQR • Jun 18, 2012 @5:13 pm Chris, you made Wil Wheaton sad.
Erwin Felling • Jun 18, 2012 @5:15 pm Anyone else feel the utter ANGER and DISILLUSIONMENT (not to mention the absolute sense of bewilderment I had after visiting) that radiates from american-buddha.com??
Wow.
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @5:20 pm @ Chris…
It's not about "policing"; it's about exercising good judgment.
As Ken stated, criticism is not censorship.
Wanna send him Carreon an e-mail expressing your opinion that he's a cunt? Knock yourself out.
It's a not-so-fine-line crossed when someone sends an e-mail that says something like "I hope you die in a fire. And I hope I'm the one holding the matches, fucker."
That helps no-one and we'd all be fools not to believe some douchebags did just that trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak of the Internet.
Brett • Jun 18, 2012 @5:23 pm "Hi, I'm Charles Carreon, welcome to Jackass!"
Chris • Jun 18, 2012 @5:30 pm @Thorne,
Good judgement IS NOT directed. It is something you either have or you don't. And nudging me and anyone else in such a way as Joe did above and Ken did in part III is wrong.
And your right, it is a very BROAD line between calling someone out and threatening them.
And I doubt anyone who reads this blog with any regularity does any of the threatening nonsense. That's why the direction is so reprehensible. It's nudging from good intentions, which is where all censorious douches start.
JohnJ • Jun 18, 2012 @5:30 pm Also not to be a copyright hawk but considering american-buddha.com directly hosts and disseminates copyrighted music, shouldn't we send a couple of investigatory requests to the RIAA?
Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 18, 2012 @5:46 pm Yeah, telling me that I shouldn't do something is wrong! Now excuse me while I tell Carreon he shouldn't do something.
RandomOnlooker • Jun 18, 2012 @5:59 pm @JohnJ
At least two people over on techdirt are doing the same thing. I can't see any harm in it in any case. After all, if they're really on the right side of the law contacting the *AA's won't mean anything.
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @6:03 pm Y'know, it seems to me the only other person who failed this miserably every step of the way while never once doubting in his ability (or lack thereof) was Ed Wood.
I don't see this going the way of 'Plan 9', though.
No, twenty years from now, I can see this becoming another 'Rocky Horror', with people staging dramatic readings of Carreon's 45-page complaint while audience members shout sarcastic lines.
T. J. Brumfield • Jun 18, 2012 @6:06 pm The really weird thing is that Carreon claims it is legal for him to provide direct downloads of unlicensed copyrighted music. How does that work?
Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @6:11 pm By the way…
If someone grabbed a copy of his sex.com book off his website and then uploaded it to FunnyJunk, would the Internet collapse in a black hole of irony??
Food for thought.
Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 18, 2012 @6:12 pm TJ: American Buddha argues that because they label themselves a "library", it's fair use. The Second Circuit last year rejected Carreon's argument that the site wasn't subject to jurisdiction in New York. I don't know what the status of the case is after that.
W Ross • Jun 18, 2012 @6:17 pm @Chris You're totally Carreoning thing out of proportion here!
Also @CharlesCarreon is now going through and answering Tweets. *headdesk*
https://twitter.com/#!/charlescarreonDan Weber • Jun 18, 2012 @6:21 pm telling people not to do the things which are completely legal
There has to be a gap between what's legal and what's socially acceptable. People don't have to tolerate things merely because they are legal. I have to be able to say "that is a scummy thing that you do, even though it is legal and should remain legal."
Carreon claims it is legal for him to provide direct downloads of unlicensed copyrighted music. How does that work?
He has a novel interpretation of the law, that he can just say the magic words "I'm a li-berry" and that makes it not a copyright violation.
I get the feeling that he's been skating by on this by dealing with tiny fish in tiny ponds, but now that the legal community at large has seen it, it will come under scrutiny for once and collapse.
Adam Steinbaugh • Jun 18, 2012 @6:24 pm Yeah, Carreon says whoever is satirically impersonating him is going to be a defendant, and is going to reveal their identity via subpoena. Apparently getting Twitter to nix the account isn't enough to stop the oh-so-great damage. Whoever that is might want to get ahold of Ken.
Sam Gleske • Jun 18, 2012 @6:27 pm I would like to add that "chas@charlescarreon.com" is easily found on the internet with a single google search, "*@charlescarreon.com site:whois.domaintools.com" without quotes.
His claim that only privileged persons had access to this address is bogus from his statement in #62 of the redacted filing. The second link of that search renders the email address…
http://whois.domaintools.com/ethicslawyers.comAlong, with what appears to be a business address but could also be his personal as I have no way of knowing. The point is his claim is, "How can people find information on the internet that I posted on the internet?" Kind of a dumb argument if you ask me.
Pretty weak.
Joe • Jun 18, 2012 @6:29 pm Ken, SPQR Thorn, thank you for your comments.
Chris. First I have no idea why you would believe my comment was directed specifically at you. Second, I will say that anyone posting on this board since November of last year when I first found this site is well aware the last thing I do is try to “tell” anyone else what to do –I doubt the scurvy lot of them would listen anyway. Third, I know better than to try to “direct” traffic in Ken’s living room – he doesn’t require my help. Forth, if you think "such direction is so reprehensible and that it is nudging from good intentions, which is where all censorious douches start", then I wonder if you have really been paying attention to Ken’s prior posts. Fifth, I understand and appreciate the effort and time Ken, Patrick, and David put into this site and I enjoy participating in the Popehat community. Unfortunately there have been times in the past where Ken has had to strike commenters because they stepped over the line – perhaps you were unaware of that. If the community becomes too troublesome because Ken has to continually police it for idiots that encourage or promote seriously stupid things that border on inciting illegal actions (as a prior poster on this very thread did in fact do), then my fear would be someday Ken decides it is too much trouble and “poof” no more Popehat. I would miss my daily dose of Popehat and I have to tell you I really hate it when people try to fuck that up for me.
Chris – your comment “Good judgment IS NOT directed. It is something you either have or you don't. And nudging me and anyone else in such a way as Joe did above and Ken did in part III is wrong.” Indeed Chris, good judgment shouldn’t need to be directed but apparently in your case it does, because if you have such a serious problem with my “comment” which BTW is the same EXACT stance on the situation as The Oatmeal, AND you’re going to sit here and tell Ken he is wrong and argue with him about it then I would say you are showing a very serious lack of good judgment. Seriously, what makes you telling me what I can or cannot say any better? While you’re at it why don’t you zip The Oatmeal a note telling him what a censorious douche he is for trying to tell people to behave and see how that goes over with him.
Cameron Brydges • Jun 18, 2012 @7:33 pm Wow. He's pretty much taken himself past the point of no return with this whole situation, now. There's no way he can gracefully get out of this, even though he'd still be best to just drop it now and save whatever face he can.
He's pretty much cemented himself as this decade's Jack Thompson (the guy who essentially blamed all modern violence on video games, and specifically "Grand Theft Auto").
Chris R. • Jun 18, 2012 @8:25 pm Chris, I don't think asking people to be civil is censorship. I think suing someone because they weren't is.
jess • Jun 18, 2012 @8:39 pm Thorne • Jun 18, 2012 @6:11 pm
Dude that is a seriously funny ass comment. Thanks for the laugh. I also agree with your comments to Chris RE his reply to Joe.
Chris – you may not realize this but is a blog “community” not Twitter. This is Ken’s blog– HE decides what you get to say here whether you like being told what to do or not. If you don’t like his policy or his “requests” for how people conduct themselves on this blog then I don't know – - – - perhaps you need to decide if this is the place for you. Have to say calling the blog owner wrong in this situation——– not real high on my list of demonstrating "good judgment".
Jonathan • Jun 18, 2012 @9:08 pm I might not live in America, nor am I a lawyer, blogger or anything of the like. Still, this is providing me with a source of nearly unending amusement.
This is lifted directly from the IndieGoGo page: "Instead of mailing the owner of FunnyJunk the money, I'm going to send the above drawing of his mother."
I would have thought reading comprehension was an important thing as a lawyer, I might be mistaken on that in this case. Inman clearly states the owner of FunnyJunk, not Charle's Look-At-Me-I'm-A-Pretentious-Douche Carreon. So Carreon, I heard you liked carrion so we put some in your carry-on so you can carry on.
On a related note, while I do abhor what Carreon is doing, I still think that we should observe some modicum of civility in how we deal with this. I don't exactly think that email hacking/personal attacks via email or mail/website hacking are going to achieve anything other than drive him into some sort of lawsuit against the internet and puppies. Instead, channel it constructively!
Bearlove Good, Cancer Bad, Carreon Worse.
yundah • Jun 18, 2012 @9:09 pm It's summer and television offerings are at the nadir but I don't care. We have the evolving singularity that is Carreon preparing to fall in on himself. I feel badly for Matt Inman. I love The Oatmeal and I think he is brilliantly funny. He should not have to put up with this idiocy. I also agree with Popehat that it is ridiculous that these types of suits can be filed. We do need to develop rules that allow the courts to hammer idiots who file frivolous suits.
Someone above made a comment worrying about "bear love" losing its luster as one read through the complaint. I started imagining the clerk and judge reading this stuff, then a hearing or two where Bear Love, or even better, the Motherf*****g Pterodactyl gets talked about, over and over, and decided that that just might be a good day to be a judge.
joe • Jun 18, 2012 @9:47 pm @ Chris R. – thank you – I can see by both your Avatar and your comment that you likely know I was referring to the "other Chris" in my last post "-)
Mike • Jun 18, 2012 @10:16 pm This is a PICTURE of the ACTUAL LAWYER from his OWN WEBSITE Pretending to Commit SUICIDE!
http://www.american-buddha.com/chasflag4.jpgMike • Jun 18, 2012 @10:17 pm LOOK! The Lawyer may be a Copyright Infringer on his OWN SITE!
https://plus.google.com/u/0/10353332611 ... riD18SEsvFChurles Curreon • Jun 18, 2012 @10:23 pm "Charitable organizations operating in California must approve all written contracts for fundraising on their behalf."
Neither of those charities is located in California.