Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:22 pm

PART 3 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion Cont'd.)

Stuart • Jul 2, 2012 @6:21 am @Docrailgun

CC became FJs DMCA agent just a day or so before sending the letter. Prior to this FJ had no DMCA agent, which apparently is required for safe harbor laws. CC himself mentioned this in an interview saying that now that he was the DMCA agent FJ couldn't be busted for prior acts.

I think a lot of people here are correct in that CC solicited FJ and now FJ is trying to stay under the radar.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:34 am Good morning, agents, I greet you with the sign of the all seeing eye.

@ Anita You know, I missed that the first time through. So apparently our noble predecessors in the Vast Conspiracy made a slight spelling error. We really should be living in Americca. Now, since that is true, and Mecca also ends with cca, Al Queda must be involved somewhere. I will consult Bin Laden in his hideout at Castle Greyskull and get back to you on that.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 am @ Adam So after the judge puts this motion to bed later this week, will the case move forward? I am assuming he can't just throw the whole thing out since this hearing only relates to the emergency motion.

After that hearing, what are the chances of this whole thing moving forward? Anyone think Charlie will realize he really should drop the whole thing?

John Eddy • Jul 2, 2012 @6:41 am "he'll probably try to sue PayPal next"

I foresee wanting to ask you for the winning Powerball numbers on Wednesday next….

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:42 am @ S Weasel Have you looked at American Buddha and her Mondo Bizzaro art? Some of that makes the Nader Library look like Plato.

ShelbyC • Jul 2, 2012 @6:48 am "Anyone think Charlie will realize he really should drop the whole thing?"

Yes, I think he'll declare victory, claim he prevented the Oatmeal from embezzelling the money, and drop the lawsuit.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:01 am Here is hoping that either IndieGoGo or Inman's laywers make it a point to take Carreon to the cleaners: filing both an anti-SLAPP motion, motion for sanctions against Carreon, and motions to recover attorneys fees.

Because this would be a bad precedent if some Pro Se crazy can, by spending $350 in court filing (oh, and $10, musn't forget the $10), tie up thousands of dollars worth of legal time in a vain attempt to stifle a critic without punishment.

Carreon had plenty of chances just to walk away. At this point, he should be destroyed in court.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:10 am Oh, and an amusing thought. I won't do it because it seems rather harassy-ish to me, and nobody else should either. DO NOT DO THE FOLLOWING.

But the thought is good for a chuckle, so I have to post it:

Carreon didn't just send a C&D letter. He used a process server, in a deliberate attempt to intimidate in his $20K "extortion" [1] letter.

It would be amusing to create an IndieGoGo fundraiser for "Repay Charles": raise money to hire a process server to deliver to Charles Carreon a crisp, new, $10 bill and a letter stating:

Here is the $10 you donated to the Bearlove Good, Cancer Bad campaign, returned to you. Now you have no grounds to sue.
Signed: -the Internet
[1] Litigation condom: Not legally extortion. But many would consider it extortion.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:13 am So two observations, Tara, since I know you are a big fan of this blog:

Quote: "Regarding this accusation that Charles is a "censorious douchebag," Inman's gang has made clear what they consider "censorious" — having any morals at all! To NOT BE censorious means to express the opinion that anyone can do whatever they feel like doing, including murder."

#1 By stating that people who speak freely in a way you do not like have no morals, you sound like Jerry Falwell & the Moral Majority that campaigned for the censorship of media that promoted an "anti-family" agenda. You do realize that, in there view, much of the content of your websites would fall under this heading under their belief system, no?

#2 Yes, that is exactly what to "NOT BE censorious" means. We punish actions in the US, not thoughts. This is why Ted Nugent is not in jail for implying he would shoot President Obama if he was re-elected. That is why the loathsome KKK & neo-Nazis can tell people to prepare for a race war. And, finally, it is why you can publish a picture of Ann Coulter's severed medusa head on a plate that says "You'll get yours, bitch!"

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:13 am ** their view, not there view D'oh!

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:28 am WTF: ... 4.22.8.pdf

Does this mean that Chuckles the Censor is attaching King Kong attacking a Pterodactyl images to his emails to other attorneys in this manner?!?!?!/

SPQR • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 am The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons.

Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @7:49 am That's assumes his malpractice suits against himself doesn't take precedence.

Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @7:51 am ^Fail grammar. Need to go read me some more Oatmeal.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:58 am Oh, and I've officially spent WAY WAY WAY too much money (~$50 now) on PACER digging up Chuckles the Censor's old cases and throwing them into RECAP.

I hope that its money well spent: by showing Charles's willingness to play fast & loose, and to repeatedly abuse the legal process, that THIS time, the other side will finally succeed in forcing Charles to pay for the costs.

McNugget • Jul 2, 2012 @8:05 am I also have a problem with CC being Funnyjunk"s DMCA agent. Is it realistic to expect any artist to be comfortable notifying CC that they want their work removed from Funnyjunk after seeing what happened to Inman?

Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @8:19 am @Nicholas — I'd be more than happy to contribute to your PACER -> RECAP activities.

If only there was a interweb tool to let crowds contribute to a fund… :)

Wizerp • Jul 2, 2012 @8:25 am @Nicholas Wait, wait. That ( ... 4.22.8.pdf) can't be legit – it's signed by a "Chalres Carreon". Someone call Charles!

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @8:40 am As earlier commenters have mentioned about Charles Carreon's practice such as with Mattel, I'm starting to believe FunnyJunk had no inkling of what he was planning on doing and to his insanity. The initial demand letter by CC may have been a result of him trolling websites looking for an easy buck or two, saw an old "defamatory" blog post on Inman's site and thought hey easy money! Let's see if I can rope in FunnyJunk the nameless client and get their buy-in to threaten Inman for $20,000.

If he really needed the money, he should have just put up a charity fundraiser for himself through IndieGoGo's site and just cry for help instead of this insane litigation that I believe will ultimately bankrupt himself and his family and tarnish what little reputation he had. Really this is just as crazy as that disbarred DC court judge suing a family dry cleaner for millions of dollars for losing his limited edition business suit pants. =__=

Darryl Mott Jr. • Jul 2, 2012 @8:48 am In gambling, when you're on a losing streak and are in the hole, you have two options. You can either double-down and risk more money to win back what you lost, or you can cut your losses and try again another day. However, there's a saying in gambling…"The House always wins", which makes the smart move the cut-and-run.

Charlie chose…poorly.

Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @8:57 am @Everyone — FJ has suffered negative harm (a.k.a. "windfall profit") in this case.

They have no interest in CC's public pursuit of his private jihad, so they have nothing to lose.

They have their loyal fan base, left untouched.

They have had all our page views tacked on to their advertisement counters, for a net income boost.

They have the kind of -legitimate- link-to(s) from real pages, such as this, to raise their overall search relevance for years to come.

If there are ads on Tara and Chuck's site then they are likewise enriched.

[ASIDE: I do hope that in the SLAPP and Rule 11 actions, that the lawyers lay claim to the various Carreon web properties (domain names _and_ content) as "valuable assets" so that all this linking can not be used as unjust enrichment for the Carreon clan. Plus it's extra funny if batshit woman has to start her rants from scratch while the original nonsense gets immortalized. No spoilative deleting there CC, your sites are now material evidence!]

The EFF and Inman need to make sure they take TC's and CC's toys before they go home.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @8:59 am Randal: Nah… Its money well spent if it helps in any way the sanctions, anti-SLAPP motion, or anything else that the defendants' attorneys use to rain down the Wrath on Charles.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @9:00 am Wizerp: Yeah. Its SUPPOSED to be signed by "Chuckles the Insane Pro Se Litigant Clown ™"

HeatherCat • Jul 2, 2012 @9:05 am @SPQR – I agree that this will likely bankrupt them… which reminds me: they've filed for bankruptcy before, right?
Are they still in that timeframe where they can't file again? Or was it quite a while ago?
Not that it matters much, I'm just curious how low the bottom is.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @9:12 am Is there a rule against sending opposing counsel batshit crazy artwork?

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @9:20 am The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons


Looking back, it's little surprise that Chas would be unable to secure a bond for the TRO, assuming he even knew he needed one.

Nate • Jul 2, 2012 @9:20 am Just enjoyed reading the responses from Indiegogo & Matt Inman's lawyers. What a joy to read they were. And how giggleworthy that they're using Carreon's own evidence against him. It was also smile inducing (and I may have added an "exxxxxcellent") at the fact the money (at least the credit card share) had already been transferred before the TRO was filed. And then there was a moment of…oh god, is he gonna sue pay pal now?! lol.

This case continues to intrigue me and even more than that, I'm enjoying the intelligent and snarky analysis you're all providing.

I've just one complaint…I spent the night with crazy dreams about the Iluminati and I've run out of tinfoil to block the signals. And since I don't know if I'm THEM or US I'm clearly a THEM but my handbook came and isn't yellow, so what the hell does that make me?!

Tara's rantings & conspiracy theories are hilarious and tragic in equal measure. I've just seen her stuff based on Ken's quote from one of the earlier threads:

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.
Which she's apparently thinking way too deeply about what David is being referred to and attributing to David Wynn Miller (I don't even know who that is, is he in the handbook?). When everyone knows Ken's talking about the other David ;). Shush, don't tip her off, she hasn't figured out yet that our lord high ovine is really David Duchovny.

I wasn't sure whether to lol at the America thing, is she intentionally dyslexic? I imagine she happily manipulated the letters to suit her own purpose. In fact, I never know whether to lol or not at what she writes because mental delusions can happen to anyone after all, but damn, I've never had so much enjoyment from watching it happen before. :/

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @9:24 am HeatherCat: Their bankruptcy was discharged in 98 or so IIRC.

The problem they are going to face however:

1) Bankruptcy is much more painful now thanks to "reforms" passed by Congress. It isn't debtors prison, but its trending towards that way.

2) I don't know the answer, but sanctions from the SLAPP suit and others may not be considered normal debts, but there MAY be difficulty in discharging them through bankruptcy since they are not just normal debts, but fines imposed due to willful acts.

It depends on how petty and vindictive Inman and IndieGoGo's lawyers feel like being. Hopefully, they will be no more nor less vindictive and petty than Carreon…

Vince • Jul 2, 2012 @9:30 am I don't believe for a minute that Carreon doesn't know that every move he makes digs him deeper into his hole. What I think he hasn't caught on to is just how big the shovel is.

dinatural • Jul 2, 2012 @9:31 am Following this epic saga soap-opera since the beginning and was linked to Popehat from BoingBoing. I wanted to ask to lawyers who follow on this site. I'm sure being a lawyer, you get regular pretty boring lawsuits about some debts, or some percentages not understood in a contract etc, but lawsuits like this must seem really fun to do, I'm imagining giddy lawyers behind their desks laughing uncontrollably while writing the responses to this supposed law-knowledgeable man, and speaking jargon amongst themselves to make even more fun of him. I must not be that far away ;)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @9:37 am @Valerie: yeah, this'll continue until someone moves to dismiss or SLAPP-strike. Or Carreon decides to pack it in and go home.

Anyone able to get ECF to email them with alerts? I cannot for the life of me get it to work.

Josh D • Jul 2, 2012 @9:57 am To those who were asking about Chuckles relationship to FunnyJunk:

I recall reading a while back that FJ hired CC to go over their operational procedures to ensure that they were complying with applicable laws (which explains why he became listed as the DCMA agent). While he was researching them he came across the blog post by Matt "Awesome" Inman and recommended to FJ that they take action. The results of this recommendation are, well, I think we all know pretty well.

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:04 am To the new: Welcome new Carreonheads one and all.

You've fallen into an endless rabbithole of turbo lulz and insanity, and we're glad to have you here in the Illuminati! So whether you came from Ars or Boing Boing, ED or the Wiki, Forbes or Lowering the Bar, gather round and pull out your popcorn, because with the Carreons the show absolutely never ends.

Welcome to the Internet's weirdest obsession. It's like birdwatching but for law trolls!

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:11 am @ W Ross Sadly, I think its more akin to watching NASCAR for the accidents…

Susan • Jul 2, 2012 @10:13 am W Ross
Yes master, your wish is my command. I love popcorn.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @10:14 am Wait, I thought everyone watched NASCAR for the high speed left turns. You mean some people actually watch to see horrific accidents? :O

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @10:14 am Accidents were the only reason I ever watched NASCAR…

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:22 am Any theories as to why she keeps referring to critics as kids or children? Is it just an attempt to be patronizing or does she seriously think that most of the people posting here are teenagers?

I mean, I'm in my mid-30s, so I will take it as a compliment, just like when the nice man at the bar asks for ID, but it does seem kind of odd given that so much of her venom has focused on this particular blog (run by lawyers & read by people who have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and an interest in free speech issues).

Just another mystery to ponder…

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:23 am OK so with the influx of new folks, all the new stuff, and to keep these threads from getting too long, I'm finally building the links library. I'll link it in just a few, and then I'll currate any links people throw in the comments with a line or two about what it is.

There are like 100's of articles, briefs, pages etc to sift through when you get addicted to this case, and we need some semiorganized list. Link in like 10.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:25 am @ Wil Then you will most certainly love watching the Carreons fire foot-bullet after foot bullet.

Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @10:28 am "It depends on how petty and vindictive Inman and IndieGoGo's lawyers feel like being. Hopefully, they will be no more nor less vindictive and petty than Carreon…"

TBQH I wouldn't view it as vindictive or petty.

Newton's Law: Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. He was well aware of what the consequence of his power-abuse could bring (presumably). He's already laying the ground work of being too broke to even travel for the hearing (lol @ 1K for one night in Cali) so I'm sure he'll start providing all sorts of proof that he's broke and cannot pay the other parties should he be fined.

So, if he has no money in the bank, then his websites/house/bicycle are fair game if you ask me.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't his abuse of the legal system for his personal vendetta be an issue to take to the bar? How can someone continue to practice law if they are proven to behave this way?

… It also gives me great pleasure that any future client of Carrions with half a brain will google his name and then run far, far away.

/me in before paypal and newton are added to the suit.

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:43 am ... brary.html

OK so that's going to be the links storehouse. I have about an hour I can work on it now, then I'll do a lot tonight. Don't clog comments ehre with suggestions, do that over there, but don't talk abou the case over there, do it over here. That should keep the comments there filled with just shit I got to change.

This should eventually make it so newbies don't have to sift 3000 comments to get the whole story. Won't be much OC there, but I want to collect the jargon, links, etc and organize them as we find stuff to increase our overall speed.

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @10:53 am It won't be petty for their lawyers to make sure that Carreon faces the just consequences for his actions.

For every case of a censorious douchebag that Ken brings to our attention, there are 10 more we never see because the victim meekly complies, not wanting to bother with a lawsuit, even a bogus one.

The law provides remedies for these abuses of the legal system for a reason. If the ones we notice receive sanctions from the court system, the ones we don't see will be more likely to see the light of day.

I notice that Exhibit G of Inman's response includes the Forbes article, where Carreon is bragging that he'll "find something" wrong with which to sue Inman on the evening of the 14th. That's the same time he made the donation and then pretended the next day to have been tricked. Neither Inman's nor IndieGoGo's lawyers pointed that out now, but I suspect it will come into play for the SLAPP portion of this farce.

Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:07 am @W Ross- I was contemplating building a library myself, complete w/ articles on the topic, the filings, and every bit of goodness available. I'm working 60+ hrs a week right now, so I dunno how quickly I'd be able to get such a beast up, but I'd recommend using Omeka (it's like wordpress for libraries/museums/other stuff), it'd be perfect for archiving all this junk.

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:09 am @Matt Using what I know how to use with the space I got. It might not be pretty but it'll work, lol.

Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:11 am @W Ross- I completely understand. :)

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @11:47 am @Valerie, she refers to us as "children" and "kids" because since we are mere genetic clones we may look and act our ages, we are all really only 7 years old. She figured us out.

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:50 am @Matt However, Blogger is now getting rapey with the line spacing, so it might not work well for this. Damn you when you're right. I'll fool with it later tonight.

Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:57 am @W Ross, if you do go that way, I'll help out in any way I can. I've built a site with Omeka before.

Reese • Jul 2, 2012 @11:58 am This whole thing feels like the court system version of suicide-by-cop. He is too far in to get out unscathed, so, he is going out guns a blazing, filing amended complaints right and left, digging himself deeper and deeper into this mess, and all we can do it watch, slack-jawed, saying to ourselves that this can't really be real.

@ Chris
– — – .. — -. / – — / -.. .. … — .. … … / -… .- … . -.. / — -. / .–. .-.. .- .. -. – .. ..-. ..-. / -… . .. -. –. / .- -. / .. -.. .. — -

dares based on Morse Code will not be left unchallenged.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @12:00 pm I don't mind being called a kid. I'm the youngest person where I work. I've also always understood kids better (kids make sense, adults are just weird, especially all y'all). The exception being that I always got along better with teachers in high school and college than people my own age.

desconhecido • Jul 2, 2012 @12:17 pm There is something called "tortious interference," which basically means wrongful interference with a contract. Indiegogo and Inman established what appears to be a perfectly fine contract between them. Carreon filed a frivolous lawsuit against Indiegogo and offered to withdraw his suit if Indiegogo uinilaterally broke its contract with Inman. Then, Carreon bragged about that in one of his filings.

I'm pretty sure that if a normal, sane, non-lawyer person tried to interfere in the contractual relationship between Indiegogo and Inman in a manner similar to Carreon's that a suit for tortious interference might be called for. Is there something about Carreon's status as a pro-se litigant which exempts him from liability for interfering with others' contracts?

SteveW • Jul 2, 2012 @12:24 pm So, what with all these "Illuminati" concerns of clan Carreon, has anybody notified Steve Jackson Games? There's got to be a marketing opportunity for them in this.

desconhecido • Jul 2, 2012 @12:27 pm I know that the issue of Carreon being licensed only in California has been raised several times already, but I was just wondering if it would be considered "practice of law" to hire a process server to serve papers on a third party. As applied to our current train wreck: if Carreon hires a process server in Washington State to serve papers on Inman on behalf of FJ, is Carreon practicing law in Washington State? Would a lawyer under these circumstances be expected to hire a Washington attorney as "local counsel", or whatever it would be called? Is an inquiry with the Washington State bar in order?

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @12:45 pm @ Mike I don't mind being called a kid, per se, my parents call me and my 40 year old significant other "the kids." With Tara, however, I do wonder what part of the conspiracy this designation reinforces. Also, I am a high school teacher, so we should get along fine :P .


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @12:53 pm Putting the links and stuff in one place:
Carreon involved cases on RECAP:

3:12-cv-03112-EMC Carreon v. Inman et al: ... ocket.html

Why we so love this guy (NOT).

Carreon's bankruptcy:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District of Oregon
Bankruptcy Petition #: 94-60117-fra13
Charles Hernan Carreon and Tara Lyn Carreon
Filed 1/13/1994
Discharged 12/22/1997 ... ocket.html

(may work)

Oregon cases

6:01-cv-03073-TC Carreon v. Jackson County et al

The order (document 20 in RECAP) is a smackdown on Carreon, and shows some of the games he plays, especially footnote #2. Most of the documents exist only in hardcopy however. ... ocket.html

1:00-cv-03084-CO Carreon v. Miller : ... ocket.html

Amost all hardcopy. Charles folded at the last minute, and it seems to be related to the other Oregon case.

3:00-cv-00235-ST Cohen v. Carreon et al

Nothing of note in RECAP, but it looks to be Carreon on the receiving end of a nuisance suit

Carreon's Pro Se games more recently in Arizona:

4:10-cv-00182-FRZ-DTF Carreon v. Seidberg Law Offices, P.C. et al ... ocket.html

Carreon attempts to sue Citibank's lawyers after his wife ignored the default judgement in Arizona. Features a choice warning for Carreon from the other lawyer.

4:11-cv-00039-FRZ Carreon v. Toyota Financial Services Corporation et al ... ocket.html

Carreon misses payment on his Prius, gets mad, stops paying altogether, Toyota starts to repo, he sues…

3:10-cv-00436-NC Arden v. Kastell et al ... ocket.html

This is perhaps the most interesting, a nuisance lawsuit where Carreon was first the guy's defense attorney in a criminal manner, and then went and sued the cops etc who arrested him. (Both strangly outside Carreon's normal trademark/contract practice)

Typical Carreon misread-of-evidence and ignore-the-law, but in service of someone else. I wonder if Carreon is related to Gary Arden?

1:09-cv-00528 Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha ... ocket.html

Witness the powwwah of Carreon's effectively Pro Se defense… This is "oh, we are a library" lunacy…

I'm going through PACER now to add items to it…

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @12:55 pm Oh, as far as I can tell, Penguin v American Buddha hasn't yet proceeded past Chuckles motion fight over "no jurisdiction in new york"

Jane • Jul 2, 2012 @12:56 pm This quote of CC's may explain some of his mindset considering he was just 12 years old in 1968:
"In 1968 I ran away from home and started doing blotter and windowpane with my pals. By sixteen my mind was hammered thin as gold foil, and I began trying to reassemble my understanding of the world."

Jeff • Jul 2, 2012 @1:06 pm Has anyone seen todays Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller? Coincidence?

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @1:08 pm I would say it's more a convention in her own mind. She sees herself as being more intelligent than everyone else and that makes them kids to her. Alternatively, she could just think of herself as so old that everyone else is a kid by virtue of being younger than her.

Valerie, as long as you're not like the two or three teachers I hated (just thought of another one in middle school for a fourth) we could probably get along. To put that in perspective, I probably had close to two dozen different teachers in high school (don't feel like counting and I took as many classes as possible). The weird thing in that to me is that even the teachers I didn't like liked me and thought I was a great student (my deception was masterful).

My parents still refer to me as their 'baby'. Personally, I try to avoid referring to people as kids unless they actually are children, but I'm just that nice a person. ;) I don't even swear, out loud…

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:12 pm Oh, one more of Chuckle's purported web sites (thanks Penguin, I didn't know about this one):

And the Charles Carreon essay collection: ... m#loggedin

Basically, I think Penguin made a strategic mistake: The Carreons will fight every little procedural nit because they can't fight on the law front (the legal arguments are, well, delusional). If Penguin dismissed the NY case and moved it to Oregon or New Mexico, they would have crushed Chuckles' wife by now.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @1:23 pm Given the quality of Carreon's pro se filings, it's being charitable to accuse him of "practicing law" in any jurisdiction. If he loses his license in CA, it would just mean that when he files pro se nuisance suits in the future, he can't drag any clueless clients down with him.

As far as FJ, as long as they maintain CC as their agent for DMCA complaints, they aren't doing anything to distance themselves from him. It just appears that way because they're keeping quiet like a good client should, in contrast to the way their attorney and his family are behaving.

NB: The America/sheep reference shows she's on to us. The other David is a smokescreen. King David was a shepherd, after all. But it also shows their communication code:
Carreon =
Car= a vehicle, and we know what happened to the Prius
REO= repossessed real estate
n= unknown, as in who's going to own the car and the house when the SLAPP motion is filed?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:29 pm OK, Crazy begets CRAZY: ... 4.26.0.pdf ... 4.27.0.pdf

I wonder if the courts are going to need a Wikipedia-like edit lock?!?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:31 pm Ha, I get it. Someone uploaded a bogus case report to PACER.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:32 pm err, to RECAP I mean.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:35 pm Oh wait, that might be real then pulled on PACER? Looking at the real PACER interface, I see a "Gino Romano" pro se movant.

But ?her? two filings are in RECAP but not PACER.

Ann Bransom • Jul 2, 2012 @1:47 pm WTF O_O

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:47 pm If those two motions were actually filed, could it cause problems for Inman's team? Has the court system ever had to deal with Anon-style trolling before?

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:49 pm Apparently, it is a new thing with "Gino Romano": ... /80121.htm

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:51 pm Sorry…wise I could delete the last comment. It is an *old* thing with this guy:

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @1:54 pm @ Nicholas Weaver.

First, WTF on a cracker!

Second, "thats why we are stranged"?

Third, one lists his residence as Philly and the other Brooklyn.

I don't even know what to say to this. It looks real…but…

I think I need more popcorn…and beer, perhaps LOTS of beer.

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @1:57 pm I should clarify: Looks real as in, looks as if they were actually filed. Nothing more.

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @2:02 pm ... 4.23.1.pdf

I'm assuming this is a direct order from the Judge in the case that Carreon's motion for restraining order is DENIED?

What will Carreon do now that he's been given a vulgar as well as a professional smack down in writing?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:04 pm Victor: No. The standard routine for orders is both sides write what they think the judge SHOULD sign, and then the judge signs the one he wants.

Thus this is the EFF's proposed "Go away, Carreon" order.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @2:05 pm Victor, that looks like something that was drawn up by defense attorneys so that the judge literally just has to sign a paper. You can see a similar proposed order written by Carreon for the TRO.

I feel like y'all need to be let in on some great music, so here are three excellent songs appropriate for all ages. B) ... DiSYp_51iY

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @2:05 pm @Victor: It doesn't have the judge's signature on it. It appears one of Mr. Inman's lawyers filed that and is saying, "Look, all you have to do is sign this!" Which the judge surely will.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:07 pm Wil: I think (or at least hope) the courts have a procedure for a quick "Go away" motion for such obvious crazy.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:08 pm For contrast, this is Carreon's proposed order: ... 4.20.4.pdf

which I doubt the judge will sign.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @2:09 pm Dammit, Weaver, you spotted those at the same time I did. haha. Looks like we have a new contender for craziest participant in this saga.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:13 pm Of course, Carreon's proposed order is already moot, since it was ONLY

PENDING HEARING on the above Order to Show Cause, Indiegogo is HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from disbursing the Charitable Fund, or any portion thereof to Inman.
Since IndieGoGo already sent it to the NWF and ACS, its moot. As a bonus, even if the restraining order was in force, Indiegogo could still just send the money onto the NWF and ACS. The hearing would be about

Indiegogo, Inc. (“Indiegogo”) should not be restrained and enjoined pending trial from transferring the $220,014 now in the possession of Indiegogo, Inc. (the “Charitable Fund”) to Matthew Inman (“Inman”), or to any other person or entity,
So suck on it Chuckles: Even if you filed in time AND got the judge to sign it, your little restraining order would have had no effect beyond wasting the time and effort of defense attorneys dealing with a frivolous motion, because you forgot the "any other person or entity" in your proposed order.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:13 pm Adam: Since when I check pacer itself, that UberCrazy doesn't show up, I suspect the court just dropped it already as obvious nonsense, but someone running RECAP got it in time…

Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @2:19 pm #Proposed Orders: It really should read "The law is apparently unknown to you. Go away, file no more, and muzzle your harridan."

Lawyers usually file "proposed" motions so that the court has the option to just sign and forget. Lawyers cannot say "You have failed. DIAF" so in general, the shorter the proposed motion chosen, the greater the slap-down. Sort of like the difference between being struck by a tawse instead of a car antena.

mojo • Jul 2, 2012 @2:19 pm And not ONE use of the word "taint"!

Wondering • Jul 2, 2012 @2:21 pm I continue to be amused that Indiegogo's and Inman's lawyers properly call it the "BearLove" campaign, but Carreon refers to it as the "Bear Love" campaign, with a space between the words.

I don't know why this amuses me. Maybe I have an unhealthy obsession with grammar?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:31 pm Adam: I bet you were the one who ensured that Johnathan Lee Riches's weirdness got into Recap. If so, thanks!


Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @2:32 pm @US and @THEM: the receient yellow handbook posting has been determined to be a hoax. The text pages of your handbook should be predominantly white, with an optional thin blue, and a furhter optional yellow section. If the handbook you received has all pages in yellow, you may be a target for termination by THOSE IN THE KNOW ALREADY, or TIT'KA. Should any form of TIT contact or write about you, whether you are US or THEM, just mention it in a public forum, preferably with a hyperlink to the obvious mention, and agents will be dispatched pro-actively.

ASIDE: if you are unaware of your DARKNET status, rest assured that all viable and members of the so-called Illuminatis front organization(s) are being promoted as needed. Check your gas and electric bills for any mention of BTU's. Those billed for BTUs instead of Ergs are likliy on the watch list and not suitable for US status unless you know you are YOU, in which case the BTU designation is provided for plausible denyability when interacting with TIT'Kas or any other form of TIT, GIT, or TOOL.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @2:32 pm Does Tara's picture on the naderlibrary forum make anyone else think that the person in it is crazy? I mean crazy as in trying to reach through the computer and repeatedly stab you kind of crazy. I don't watch many horror movies, but something about the picture keeps making me think that.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:20 pm Maybe we should buy stock in Orville Redenbacher ... EMI.htm/qx

June 21, 2012
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:32 pm Here's one going back to 2010, when he was an inmate in Lexington Federal Medical Center, a prison where he apparently did not have access to a typewriter: ... t-Appeal-1

He helpfully includes a diagram of the erectile dysfunction he's suffering from Martha Stewart giving him an STD. (It looks like he traced it rather than drawing it freehand.)

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @3:35 pm Judge Chen has spoken. Inman must deliver proof that he sent the final two checks to the charities… Somehow I don't like this. ... 4.28.0.pdf

I almost makes me think that if Inman doesn't provide proof (which he will, of course, I imagine), the TRO would be accepted by the Judge. :/

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @3:38 pm @Mark: Wow. UNCOOL.

That's wide of the mark of "Get thee gone, Charles Carreon."

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:39 pm He's got his own wikipedia page, though more about the suits he's filed than about who he is:

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:42 pm And from one of the Wikipedia references, information about what he did to get into prison:

Jonathan Lee Riches of Holiday, Fla., was a pro. Before his arrest, law enforcement officers watched as he walked into two banks pretending to be a tourist and got $7,000 in advances on credit cards.
He had fake driver's licenses, made from Texas and New Jersey templates, and before he went in to speak to tellers, he sat in his car and memorized the personal information of the person he was pretending to be.
To wire himself money, Merchant said, Riches defeated Western Union's security by convincing phone companies that he was a repairman and had to have all phone calls to his victims forwarded to another number for two hours. The Western Union verification calls went to his cell phone, and he smoothly confirmed his false identity.

Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @3:52 pm I would think that you could forget sending a check to the charity and wire transfer the funds and still meet the judges deadline. I think the judge just wants to make sure all bases are covered before laying the smack down.

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @3:53 pm I almost makes me think that if Inman doesn't provide proof (which he will, of course, I imagine), the TRO would be accepted by the Judge. :/

I don't think so. There were several problems with the TRO request, any single one of which would sink it.

However, Inman made a claim that would moot the entire TRO. The judge is asking for proof. I expect that, once Inman submits that proof, the judge will confirm it is tossed out. It is much easier for the judge to say "the TRO is denied because the activity already occurred" than to attempt to engage Chas on the merits of the law. IANAL but this seems just about appeal-proof.

Thomas • Jul 2, 2012 @3:57 pm @ Mark

Hmmm, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem to blow CC off like I thought the judge would.

What difference would producing the checks make? Indiegogo never had the money the judge is questioning the first place. Whether he sends it or not seems, to me, irrelevant to what the TRO requests.

I'm baffled at how the first request for proof of anything in this case falls on Inman.

Mark Lyon • Jul 2, 2012 @3:58 pm I would also note, your honor, that no proof of the photograph has been provided either.

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:10 pm @Thomas

Actually the money was collected on two forms of payment: credit card (sent to Indiegogo) and Paypal (sent to Inman). Indiegogo sent their part directly to the charities. Funny that the Judge didn't request proof from Indiegogo, by the way.

Paypal donations were sent directly to Inman, hence all this.

Maybe the Judge is indeed trying to get the fastest way of dismissing this TRO by following this technicality.

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:12 pm Also, I think the photo will appear in due course… It HAS to. That the whole point of all this nonsense, after all. :)

Ken • Jul 2, 2012 @4:13 pm A policy of judicial restraint would encourage a judge to rule on the narrowest basis possible and to avoid ruling on any unnecessary issue. Mootness achieves that.

S. Weasel • Jul 2, 2012 @4:16 pm Oh, Mike K, you want to see the cray-zee move? Do you wish to hear it speak? Have a YouTube.

I'm hoping that's poetry and not just stream of consciousness.

Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @4:20 pm @Thomas: I think that providing proof would also eliminate all doubt that Inman planned to keep any portion of the money, which, I would think, would set up the excellent countersuit. At that point not only is his complaint moot, but also, entirely baseless.

I may follow too much tumblr but I would have loved a .gif of Inman with a bowl of oatmeal on top of said cash dancing and smacking it's hypothetical ass. ;)

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @4:22 pm I think "mootness" is a word that should be used in sentences a LOT more…

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @4:24 pm It seems that the judge is taking the CEO of Indiegogo's sworn statement that that portion of the money was transferred at face value (I don't recall seeing actual checks/wire transfers/receipt statements from the charities in the Indiegogo evidence), but he is not taking Inman's sworn statement that Inman sent the checks as sufficient.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @4:27 pm Mr. Weasel, I resent that she had one of the Matrix movies playing behind her in that clip. I also agree with one of the top comments regarding vogons.

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:34 pm Maybe the Judge asked Inman only, and not Indiegogo, because Inman was the subject of CC's TRO? After all Indiegogo was never accused by CC of not wanting to distribute the funds collected.

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @4:37 pm Au contraire: Indiegogo is the subject of the TRO. Charles wanted to restrain them from disbursing money to Inman. He just didn't realize that half-ish of the money was never under Indiegogo's control anyway. Indiegogo did not, in fact, disburse any money to Inman. However, Inman was still, however temporarily, in possession of some of the money, despite Charles' best efforts.

Wondering • Jul 2, 2012 @4:45 pm Has Inman's portion gone to the charities yet? The paperwork says he sent the checks to his lawyers for them to give to the charities, but the paperwork doesn't seem to say they've distributed those checks to the charities yet. Maybe that's why the judge is asking.

Drew • Jul 2, 2012 @4:47 pm In his filings, Inman stated that he gave the checks to his lawyer to forward on to the charities, but nobody said outright that the money had been sent.

raphidae • Jul 2, 2012 @4:47 pm Truer by every step he takes: (where's my cease-and-desist?)

ShelbyC • Jul 2, 2012 @4:52 pm @Ken: "A policy of judicial restraint would encourage a judge to rule on the narrowest basis possible and to avoid ruling on any unnecessary issue. Mootness achieves that."

Isn't mootness a jurisdictional question, which must be resolved before the judge can consider the merits? The judge couldn't consider the merits at all without finding that the request is not moot.

Matt Westcott • Jul 2, 2012 @4:54 pm Wouldn't it be the sweetest justice of all if they could concoct some scenario whereby the proof is submitted to the Judge in the form of a photograph of the two checks accompanied by Inman's drawing of… you get the idea.

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @4:56 pm Thanks everyone for clearing that up. I've never been involved with dealing with courts and lawyers and only have Law & Order as part of my education. This whole ordeal and the information I'm getting from this blog definitely makes learning about laws fun =)

It boggles the mind how one lawyer who can't even say he has his own firm can tie up the courts with so much nonsense. Does it cost nothing to file paperwork and revisions after revisions to courts for this individual??

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:57 pm We do a declaration from Indiegogo's counsel (Mr. Tangri) stating that "consisent with its terms of service, Indiegogo yesterday transferred the balance of the Bear Love Campaign proceeds." (Exhibit H to Tangri declaration).

I wonder if these were deemed sufficient proof by the Judge.

Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @5:03 pm IMPORTANT: Don't judge the judge… Particularly when dealing with ass-hats a good (smart) judge will dot every i and cross every t possible to prevent appeal and any/all other avenues for shenanigans.

The judge may want to have proof that the issue is completely out of reach of the ass-hat -and- the court. Said prof allowing all opinions to issue with words like "has" instead of words like "shall" or "will".

For instance we have mentioned that CC may now seek to involve PayPal, and we have seen CC and TC issues subpoena against lawyers and process servers.

If the court can have before it -proof- that the entire matter is completely resolved it can even go so far as to rule sua sponte that the entire case is moot and therefore immediately dismissed with prejudice.

So don't judge the judge in your imaginations, you don't know what the rulings will look like until they issue.

Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @5:06 pm Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

Shameless Plug: if you like my writing, click my name, read, and send commentary email. (It's not a blog, there are no adverts, its just the desperate attention seeking of a would-be author. OR its a clever Illuminatis ploy to harvest your ip addresses for handbook updates. 8-)

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @5:07 pm Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Just kidding. :)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @5:09 pm Also, Inman's declaration is that "My lawyers have the checks ready to send", probably because his lawyers advised him to not actually send the money until the judge says its OK.

This is the judge saying, quite directly "send the money, because it makes Chuckles's complaint moot".

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @5:09 pm @Robert White: Your point, I am taking it.

Boyd • Jul 2, 2012 @7:33 pm There I was on Saturday night, reading the first paragraph of your post, and said, "Civ V has an X-pac? Where have I been?" Off I went to Steam, got it all running, and I've finally come back to finish reading the rest of your post.

Nah, I'm not ashamed. Guys in their mid-50s do crazy stuff all the time. Ahem.

CCChicago • Jul 2, 2012 @8:20 pm In this case, what proof would meet Judge Chen's standard to find the TRO issue moot? If counsel for Inman was holding the checks, and they sent them registered mail right after receiving the latest order, would that suffice even though the checks were mailed after the TRO request has been filed?

Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @8:34 pm Given that the proof of the payment from Indiegogo was a formal deposition/statement to that effect, I should think (IANAL) that a formal statement from Inman's laywer that at such and such a place and time payment in the form of check was sent by them to (charities) would be sufficient.

This isn't a "I doubt you are going to do it, so prove it" kind of situation, its a "please prove that the money is with the charities so I can kill this whole stupid SLAPP" kind of thing.

Dont Panic: The wheels of justice turn slowly but the grind exceedingly fine (if memory of the quote is correct).

Keith Ealanta • Jul 2, 2012 @9:01 pm Oh how I'd like some anti-stone-throwing laws – that meant that if you attempted to sue, you opened your house to examination for similar classes of offences. Of course any such law would need to be carefully balanced, but it'd be great if these big organisations could be examined for copyright breaches when they sue an individual for copying a song, and the likes of Funny Junk had to demonstrate tha they were not worse offenders when sueing others for beach of copyright.

CCChicago • Jul 2, 2012 @9:21 pm Thank you, Robert.

I agree with you and have no doubt that this is a "shut this idiot up please for all of us concerned" scenario.

I guess I asked the question because it just seems odd from a civil procedure standpoint that a judge would basically tell the adverse party to go ahead and perform whatever action is necessary for the filing to become moot.

(fair warning: I did go to law school, but never took the bar or practiced, and I've probably forgotten 99% of what I've learned by now, so I'm almost certainly completely confused.)

Llachlan • Jul 2, 2012 @9:44 pm I have lost sooo much of my long weekend to reading these briefs, but the one thing that made me laugh the most was that Mr. Romano actually got his filed before Carreon – he might be crazy but he apparently has his litigious s**t together…

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @10:52 pm If I were Inman, I would want to make sure the money from the credit card companies was definitely in my possession before writing a check on my own bank account. Perhaps he is having his lawyers keep the money in escrow until the time period for a chargeback has passed?

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @10:53 pm oops, I meant Paypal. Paypal if anything has a reputation for more aggressive chargeback policies against merchants than credit card companies do.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @1:34 am True, but usually only if one of the two parties of the exchange ask for it. So unless all the CC partisans were actually smart enough to use PayPal and then reverse teh charges, it isn't likely much of an exposure.

Kendie • Jul 3, 2012 @8:15 am I love the Judge's order! It's essentially saying "Inman, get the money to the charities now, so I can dismiss this nonsense."

Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @3:35 pm Minor update #4: Inman's response to court order.

CCChicago • Jul 3, 2012 @4:05 pm Carreon filed for dismissal? ... 4.30.0.pdf

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @4:18 pm Just like that.

Llachlan • Jul 3, 2012 @6:32 pm I don't think they should grant the dismissal, but I suppose they have no choice – it would have been nice to see him have to shell out for the money everyone else has had to spend dealing with him.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:53 pm ... =1&theater

30,000 likes on Facebook for that photo already. Yikes…

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:54 pm ... 22304?lite

MSNBC has picked it up. This is reviralling, lol.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:57 pm ... -of-money/

Tech Crunch has picked it up too…

And boing boing… ... to-lawyer/

And the SPI…
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:25 pm


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

Ann • Jul 2, 2012 @3:10 pm FREEEEEEEEEDDDDOOOOMMMMM!!!!!


Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @3:18 pm Every time you think "Well, that's all the crazy he's got", he's got just a little more.

Marzipan • Jul 2, 2012 @3:20 pm Apparently, Carreon is intending to tie himself up for quite some time. With the resources that will be necessary to litigate on all these fronts, I'm not sure how he'll find time for paying work in the near future.

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

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

Off to read the latest roadside Carreon.

Orville • Jul 2, 2012 @3:20 pm Looks like there is even more good entertainment coming to my hometown. I'll have to see about getting some time off to watch the fireworks.

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

Hannah • Jul 2, 2012 @3:22 pm At first this whole thing was funny. Then it was hilarious. Then it was pants-shittingly hilarious. Now it's past the point of being funny, and is just goddamn annoying.

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @3:22 pm There are some pronoun issues in the post…Carreon calls Doe a "she", while you call Doe "Mr." and "he", Ken…while I know you're trying to preserve privacy, it might make sense to make your pronouns agree?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @3:26 pm Wow. Carreon threatened to rummage up some rationale that somebody, somewhere was 'profiting' off of the domain name by saying that Inman would be 'ratifying' the domain if Inman didn't ask to stop linking to the Oatmeal. That's right — Inman is profiting somehow because sites he doesn't control link to his website, and one of those viewers might eventually buy something from Inman.

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

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @3:32 pm I am now going to ask everyone I email to forward them to Ralph Nader…

Wren • Jul 2, 2012 @3:33 pm I just…wow. I'm beginning to think that Carreon really does have some serious mental health issues going on that need to be addressed. I'm glad that this seems to be bringing light to some of the processes of law that are less moral than they should be, but I also think the man needs some serious help.

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @3:33 pm "I will be using digital forensics to establish actual trademark damages"

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

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

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @3:37 pm The Nader part makes sense. He agreed to keep the communication confidential, so, technically he cannot complain to Nader himself without voiding that promise.

HeatherCat • Jul 2, 2012 @3:39 pm ZOMG, you can't even blink on this site!

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @3:41 pm Mr. Carreon also demanded that Paul Alan Levy convey Mr. Carreon's disquiet about this case, and Public Citizen's involvement in it, to Ralph Nader


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

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

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

Connie • Jul 2, 2012 @3:42 pm “
Oh lordy. He's threatening them with eventual lawsuit and litigation which never ends? Sounds about par the course…

Michael K. • Jul 2, 2012 @3:50 pm Ten points? TEN?! Any villain worth his third-act monologue knows you never go past three. Now I'm gonna have to report him to the Guild.

V • Jul 2, 2012 @3:53 pm @Grifter
At some point, before (temporarily) disclosed the domain info, CC and his wife thought it was a woman that ran the parody site.
CCs email that Ken talks about is dated June 23rd, while Register disclosed information around the 26th.

Nicholas weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @3:57 pm It's exponential, not logarithmic


V • Jul 2, 2012 @4:00 pm @Dan Weber
The offer to keep things confidential is referenced on a blog post by Paul Alan Levy. See the link above with the words "Read Paul's post about it here"

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @4:01 pm The name on the domain registration during the fleeting interval when it was public is a male name.

Yar Kramer • Jul 2, 2012 @4:04 pm I've never posted here before, and I've been kind of just sitting back and watching this, but:

… the law offers a remedy to the bold.
You lawyer up, and you take it to him.
Looks like it's not just the bold, but also the italicized! :D

Noah Callaway • Jul 2, 2012 @4:08 pm Ken, your point that this should more be about a rally-cry to fix a broken system than "oh look Charles Carreon is a jerk" is well-taken.

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

HeatherCat • Jul 2, 2012 @4:14 pm I agree with Noah Calloway here – what CAN we do to fix a system that will allow endless headaches from the vindictive types who clearly live for this sort of torment?

VPJ • Jul 2, 2012 @4:19 pm I saw PAL arguing with another first amendment badass (whom we all know) on M Doe's website. Not surprised he took the case and ran with it. *waves pompoms* I know which horse I'm backing.

Seerak • Jul 2, 2012 @4:20 pm Looks like it's not just the bold, but also the italicized! :D

The Bold and the Italicized

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

Or a government scandal.

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @4:22 pm I await Tara's moderate, thoughtful and concise legal analysis of this situation.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @4:22 pm Paul Alan Levy weighs in here.

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

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:29 pm 7. [...] I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.

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

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @4:30 pm @Chris R

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

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


Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @4:34 pm @Thorne, I like google searching all the relevant claims she makes. It's like learning through insanity. Most the references she makes I wouldn't ever end up finding on my own.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @4:37 pm To Cathy Gellis: A lawyer this kickass deserves free booze… :)

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

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

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @4:39 pm I dig the "learning through insanity" part.
It just gets a little dangerous when you try and take the references and try to draw the correlation to each other estimating her 'logic'.

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


V • Jul 2, 2012 @4:43 pm @Grifter
and the Doe v Carreon complaint states

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

Hannah • Jul 2, 2012 @4:46 pm @Dan Weber

When I read about Carreon, I feel more like this:

Cigars • Jul 2, 2012 @4:47 pm I watched as Jeff Merkey, pro se, attacked Al Petrofsky in the SCOfacts case when SCO was spewing about Linux. There's also the Jonathan Riches escapades…

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

Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @4:53 pm Just when I don't think that this could possibly get more crazy a whole new can of crazy opens up and joins the party. This is, by far, the most amazing story on all of the internets. More unpredictable than imagechan and far more entertaining.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @4:58 pm Oh, chuckles…

that a judgement that recites the domain name was obtained by fraud upon the registrar, in the form of a misrepresentation that she did not know of my trademark upon the name, might well be non-dischargeable in bankrupcy.
Now, Chuckles, you aren't a bankruptcy attorney, but you and Tara have already gone through the process once. Well, you went through the easy version. Its now a fair bit less pleasant [1].

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

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

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @5:01 pm Oh, and an open offer to all the lawyers working on Ptering Carreon a new one…

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

raphidae • Jul 2, 2012 @5:03 pm Truer by every step he takes: (where's my cease-and-desist?)

Budgy • Jul 2, 2012 @5:07 pm Wow…. just wow!

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

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

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

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @5:12 pm @Thorne, oh I never try to interpret her thought process, just want to see what facts she is trying to distort into her internal narrative.

Adam Raymer • Jul 2, 2012 @5:16 pm If this happened in Canada, there would be disciplinary hearings, and possible disbarment… Why can't this be Canada?


Joe • Jul 2, 2012 @5:18 pm Good lord – I go to work for a few hours – you know at a real job unlike you schlubs :-) and when I come back the entire world is turned upside down. Am beginning to think my Avatar is appropriate and not just because the missus thinks I'm a clueless moose.

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

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @5:21 pm I'm impressed that he didn't take the warning letter sent to him the same way he expects people to take his threat letters. This is just, incredible.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 2, 2012 @5:21 pm I almost want Tara to be sued for what she writes on Nader Library. Just for the pure fact I can see him defend his wife highlighting the pure hypocracy with the John Doe and Inman debacle he is in now.

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @5:22 pm Ok, so I bunked off to enjoy dinner and an argument with my significant other for a couple of hours, and Charlie manages to find yet another way to double-quintuple-sextuple-down again? Like Chris R., I eagerly await Tara's reasoned opinion.

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

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

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

Agent URANA$HT signing off…

Matthew Cline • Jul 2, 2012 @5:23 pm Could you upload the memorandum to the complaint which lists the relevant laws?

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @5:23 pm @Adam Rayner: If this was Canada, couldn't he have whined to the "human rights commission" and gotten all these mean things taken down? ... ontroversy

Nick • Jul 2, 2012 @5:25 pm Grrr…still can't post comments

Nick • Jul 2, 2012 @5:26 pm There is a sick part of me that would love to see this go to trial, just to see how much the crazy gets cranked up.

Swindapa • Jul 2, 2012 @5:30 pm The Carreons LOVE Nadar. Nadar's staffers smelled the crazy over the Internet well in advance of this case, and banned Tara from the Nadar Facebook page. Her letter to Nadar is well worth the read. It's hilarious and pitiful and full of pathos and everything, especially if you go back a page and see what she was banned FOR. ... 1&start=10

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

Jess • Jul 2, 2012 @5:34 pm Satirical Charles is my hero.

I hope he continues to carry on. ;-)

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @5:35 pm Looks like the self proclaimed protector of free speech on the internet lawyer Carreon has completely pulled away from all social media as his official Twitter and Google+ is nowhere to be found.

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

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @5:36 pm You know, this is actually good information for me. Without any knowledge of the law I would have assumed that I had to wait for someone to sue me. Of course, I also thought that it was a requirement to seek out a settlement in a reasonable timeframe after learning of infringement rather than waiting several years so the person could rack up imaginary damages.

V • Jul 2, 2012 @5:37 pm This saga is doing wonders for my vocabulary; first gravamen, now vituperative.

EH • Jul 2, 2012 @5:38 pm Yet more Orly Taitz. What wound up shutting her up, just boredom? I don't recall it being any one, lightning bolt from the sky type thing.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @5:43 pm The Carreons LOVE Nadar. Nadar's staffers smelled the crazy over the Internet well in advance of this case, and banned Tara from the Nadar Facebook page. Her letter to Nadar is well worth the read. It's hilarious and pitiful and full of pathos and everything, especially if you go back a page and see what she was banned FOR. ... 1&start=10
Wow, I bet there are a lot of Nader donors who are silently thanking whatever deity they worship that his campaign had the good sense not to send her their contact information.

Interesting that they consider "" a trademark infringement but run a site called ""

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @5:46 pm @AlphaCentauri: is still available. Just sayin'.

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

Neil • Jul 2, 2012 @5:48 pm You know, this could all just be a big ole publicity stunt by Carreon. Sure, it'll tarnish his reputation. But, at the end of the day, his name will be "out there," and he'll have a firm reputation as someone who's maybe a little off his rocker, but doesn't back down. That might drum up some business for him.

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

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @5:50 pm As a lay-person, I'm curious about one thing. What is the likelihood of Mr Carreon being censured or even struck off for unethical behavior?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @5:54 pm @Brian: it's possible, but unlikely at this point. It took years of frivolous lawsuits before Jack Thompson got booted.

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

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @6:04 pm @Adam: What a pity. I had vague hopes that retribution for this sort of thuggery and nonsense would consist of a swift, messy, and painful object lesson involving lawyers forming a hollow square round Mr Carreon and snipping the buttons off his three piece suit.

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @6:04 pm @Adam:

But isn't he practicing again?

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

Z • Jul 2, 2012 @6:06 pm Just out of curiosity, How many people can sue Tara for defamation of character? I know she posts on a public venue, so if someone were to search names, now they will see "Matthew Inman, young Hitler" and the like.

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

Sunhawk • Jul 2, 2012 @6:16 pm … I need popcorn. Lots of it. This is just such a glorious twist to the saga that I have a desire to spectate.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @6:17 pm Wow. Tara's response is up. She seems to be looking at issues through some kind of glasses that are other than rose colored.

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @6:20 pm I think CC doesn't have a ways to go to match up to Thompson's ass-dickering. All these defense lawyers combined can definitely put him into so much litigation that he'll wish he wasn't a lawyer. Probably even compel the State Bar to see he is in the business just for himself rather than the defense of the public. What ever happened to his client, FunnyJunk? Is he still putting their interest above his own, if ever?

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

Adam Raymer • Jul 2, 2012 @6:22 pm @Grifter:

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

Ann • Jul 2, 2012 @6:23 pm I see Tara believes in hell now. Also, despite having 2 weeks to file, the illuminati taking advantage of the filing system being down for 3 days…

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

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @6:25 pm @Mike: My god…. the whole internet is against them! We need to hold a charity event so they can raise money to fight back against slimebags like Ken and Marc and just about every lawyer associated with Inman and his gang of thieves who declared an internet jihad!

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @6:26 pm I wonder why Tara doesn't try to post here?

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

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @6:27 pm Just make sure that only points to actual Carreon sites, so that Inman can't make any profit from it. :)

Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @6:28 pm So is Chuck's disappearance from social media the start of the Great Deletion? How long do you think until naderlibrary goes dark as well?

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @6:30 pm In the words of Tara, Paul Levy from Public Citizen is not only a corrupt lawyer, but a "corrupt fuck". Damn that's some harsh defamatory words if I ever seen it.

Swindapa • Jul 2, 2012 @6:32 pm @Mike K

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

Ken • Jul 2, 2012 @6:34 pm Point of order: I am confused by "die in Hell." Doesn't one die, and then go to Hell? Have the rules changed?

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @6:35 pm @Ken I think she's referring to a South Park episode with Mr. Garrison – "No, you go to hell, you go to hell and you DIE!"

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @6:36 pm I have plenty of popcorn and am willing to share with you all.

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

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

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 pm @Kelly:

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

Andrew S. • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 pm Tara is quickly becoming more and more unhinged as time goes by. We're getting into "It's time for the nice men in white coats carrying a straightjacket to come take you away" territory. Just wow.

Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 pm @Kelly: It's only Monday!!! Thank god there's a holiday in the middle of the week, or we might have 5 straight days of insanity!

Ann • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 pm @Ken – you're thinking of Jesus hell. She's talking about Buddhist Atheist Gnostic Oestian hell.

It's different.

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @6:40 pm @Ken Probably funnier coming from Mr. Garrison himself

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @7:02 pm Damn almost thought the Carreon's really did bring Popehat to hell to die O.O

mark • Jul 2, 2012 @7:03 pm Any generous soul will make the dockets of this case available somewhere, like RECAP? I would love to read Mr. Carreon's reply to this.

zathr'as • Jul 2, 2012 @7:05 pm Somewhere, there is a asshat of a lawyer wondering where it all went so wrong.

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

Jordan • Jul 2, 2012 @7:08 pm Charles is actually a good guy. I wish he would come back to us.

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

And then this happened.

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @7:08 pm @ Ken- She could be referring to Hades sort of 'hell' where there are different punishments dependent on your behavior topside. She could also be making a reference to Dante's seven levels of hell.

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

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

zathr'as • Jul 2, 2012 @7:12 pm @jordan

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

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @7:16 pm Well, the game isn't over, and we're not dead yet, like most of the rest of you reading this thread.
So some of the people reading her thread are dead. Probably from reading the thread, but still….

Shannon Lynch • Jul 2, 2012 @7:18 pm @Chris

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

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @7:21 pm So, how does she arrive at the two charities having corrupt lawyers?

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

Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @7:21 pm Clearly Tara's frustration level is at teenage PMS, grounded on her birthday, cell phone taken away, levels.

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

Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @7:23 pm She keeps rewriting her posts. I just refreshed that last page and I swear the first paragraph changed a lot.

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

Marzipan • Jul 2, 2012 @7:24 pm I wonder what "mysoginistic hate speech" [sic] is on SarcasticCharles's blog. Is this a reference to the author's lampooning of Tara's increasingly rambling, raving posts? Because my read was that it was mostly a criticism of Charles.

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

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @7:24 pm @ Mike K – That sounds about right, but now I have in my head. (We shall see if my coding worked…)

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @7:24 pm @Ken – Depends! If you're on a Dante-esque tour of Hell, you're not dead yet.

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @7:25 pm Grr! That scene!

Kristen • Jul 2, 2012 @7:30 pm I have to admit I'm old enough that it makes me feel a little warm and fuzzy inside to be called a kid; like how it feels to be carded at the store when getting beer.

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

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @7:34 pm 0 registered users on NaderLibrary bulletinboard. It just occurred to me but isn't the point of an internet forum to allow people to speak their minds and create topics of discussion?

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @7:34 pm Agents,

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

Omega Kodiak

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @7:35 pm what CAN we do to fix a system that will allow endless headaches from the vindictive types who clearly live for this sort of torment?

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

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

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

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

Z • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 pm @Victor If they did that, then those users may try to censor their free speech!!! We can't have that!!!

Eric • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 pm You know could someone actually ask Nader to talk to Carreon? From the writing of him and his wife they clearly idolize Nader. If Ralph Nader said, "stop being a dick," to Charlie here he might actually listen. It would be a quick and easy end to this whole mess.

M. • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 pm I'm with Hannah. While I have nothing against lawyers or the justice system in general, the litigiousness of our society has gone beyond excessive into plain fucking stupid, and some people really need to be whacked repeatedly with a lead-lined attaché case. Carreon needs to be shot into space, as there ain't room in this galaxy for the both of us, by which I mean the galaxy and his ego.

Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 pm Carrion the Censorian: Free speech… we hates it forever, we does! ... orian.html

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

Joe • Jul 2, 2012 @7:40 pm Damn it all if I’m going to Hell to die I’m gonna have a drink Faust.

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

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @7:42 pm @Dan Weber: Your comment, "We should probably be a little more aggressive in disbarring lawyers." Really strikes at the heart of things (at least as I see it), thus my question earlier.

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

singersdd • Jul 2, 2012 @7:44 pm They have to have some psychotic disorder. Have to. Or they've taken way too many bad drugs. How many more people have to put the smack-down on them before they decide to shut up and go away? Bat-shit crazy just doesn't even begin to describe them any more.

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

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

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @7:45 pm @Dan: Can't the same ideas that Charles originally claimed FunnyJunk against the Oatmeal be applied to Nader Library seeing as how Tara takes pictures that you has no rights to and alters them to fit her mindset?

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

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:46 pm Hum, I learned a new expression today: "Fuck you very much." Thanks Tara!

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @7:48 pm @ Victor- It'll be an internet style Hatfield-McCoy feud Oh my… I think you are giving Tara ideas now. Not that it wouldn't be interesting to watch- from very far away- but still.

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

Jess • Jul 2, 2012 @7:48 pm @Victor – that is not a bad idea. I seem to recall someone very early in this whole kerfuffle suggesting the same thing and having the opposing party be Crystal Cox. They could easily sue each other into bankruptcy and they both love to file pro se and make up reality and facts to suit their cases as they go along.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @7:49 pm @Chris R

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

Purple Monkey Dishwasher

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @7:52 pm Can't the same ideas that Charles originally claimed

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

I would like to see the Carreons face discipline for their claims that they can violate copyright just by claiming they are a library.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:25 pm

PART 2 OF 3 (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VIII: Charles Carreon Gets Sued, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Joins The Fray Cont'd.)

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:53 pm @ Eric I sent him a quick email via his website (and given the legs on this story, I'm guessing other people have too) pointing out that his name was associated with the batshit. Given Tara Carreon's history with his campaign, he probably already knew and had deemed it wisest to just ignore the crazy. Even if he called them, she would just assume it was either an impostor or that evil doers were holding him hostage (see ... .php?t=701)

Angela • Jul 2, 2012 @7:58 pm My new favorite line: "This guy truly is a monkey-spanking ass weasel." I hope it isn't trademarked or copywrited. I want to use that as often as possible. ... er-part-2/

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @8:00 pm Thinking of the 'doing it for money' aspect… what if he is playing the long game? This is now a 'high profile' case. Connecting the dots, he could see it as something that is perfect for expose tv, movie, book etc deals. If, big IF there, but just following the dots here… If that were to happen, what sort of cut could he claim since the character of 'CC' would play a big role in any hypothetical deals? Would he claim his 'trademark' and thus demand a cut of profits involved in any future discussions of the topic?

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @8:01 pm @Dan No, because his ideas are bullshit

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

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

Myk • Jul 2, 2012 @8:03 pm Didn't read all the comments, so forgive me if someone has already asked this: Did Carrion not claim he has to phone in his appearance in the CA court due to the cost involved and his lack of resources? If so, this would seem to refute his claim and suggests he is lying to at least one of the parties?

Swindapa • Jul 2, 2012 @8:03 pm It just occurred to me while reading one of the letters CC wrote to PAL….

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

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

Exhibit F: ... plaint.pdf

azteclady • Jul 2, 2012 @8:04 pm A brief note: Ann Branson's fundraising is $5.00 away from doubling its original goal, with four days to go. If a few Illuminati feel up to throwing a few dollars there, she could conceivably send each of the two charities the full thousand.

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

Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @8:09 pm I now have a legal ethics question.

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

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

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @8:11 pm @Dan: where are you seeing that PC is still working on that case?

Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @8:12 pm Man, I was slow on the uptake here. I didn't realize that Public Citizen was founded by the saintly Ralph Nader. Holy shit – the Carreons' heads must be exploding – their god is dead.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @8:13 pm @Kelly

Here's the thing…

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

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

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @8:15 pm @Dan: ah, Public Citizen filed an Amicus Curae brief in the case. That means trey represented themselves, not American Buddha, even if their interests were aligned. So Levy has no conflict.

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @8:17 pm @ Thorne – As it relates to *this* story, I can't see any violation because you can't actually trademark idiocy. I thought so but…

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

Henry the Great • Jul 2, 2012 @8:18 pm What am I going to do with my free time when this all comes to a close? I have learned more about law in these past few weeks than I could have ever imagined.

Star • Jul 2, 2012 @8:26 pm I'm curious about his trademarking of his own name. What happens to people who innocently happen to be named Charles Carreon, especially if they're in countries outside the US?

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @8:27 pm And the case of Carreon where Public Citizen filed an amacus cure brief actually makes sense: Does Carrion have any significant connection with New York?

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

Marzipan • Jul 2, 2012 @8:27 pm @Henry the Great, I know! Hell, I even read Carreon's book, back when he was offering it to the Internet as a peace offering. In it, one can see the seeds of the monomaniacal focus, the disregard for apparent obstacles, and the willingness to consider all manner of potential avenues to make a case.

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

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @8:32 pm I'm really surprised that the threat Charles Carreon made to Paul Levy aren't illegal. As a lawyer does he not have any morals or ethics? Really this guy gives all other lawyers a bad name with what his statements can be translated as "I can sue and re-sue your client, at anytime, anyplace when he/she least expects it and when they can't defend themselves"

Allen C. • Jul 2, 2012 @8:40 pm It's kind of sad really at this point. One can assume the timeline is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @8:41 pm As an aside, this whole sordid mess brings Ko-Ko's song, "As someday it may happen that a victim must be found" from Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado to mind.

Jess • Jul 2, 2012 @8:45 pm Surely I cannot be the only one that sees how the charles-carreon the satirist masterfully drew Carreon the lawyer into his web by focusing on the weakness of Carreon's ego and then snapping the trap shut with the masterful stroke of a superbly crafted lawsuit.

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

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @8:47 pm @Brian

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

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

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @8:51 pm The only song I think of at this point is Crazy Train…

Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @8:53 pm I really gotta stop working. I mean, I go to work and another round of Carreon craziness goes off, then I come home and have to spend 1-2 hours reading through comments and legal filings, and, of course, "message board" posts.

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @8:55 pm Hey, place yer bets: Who wants to bet that Carreon's response to Doe v Carreon will include a fair bit of butthurt that Carreon's "confidential" email was revealed by Doe & Doe's lawyer in filing the case?

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

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

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

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

(Hustler v Falwell, suck on it, Chuckles)

Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @8:57 pm I can't say I feel any sympathy or remorse for any backlash that the Carreon's receive given the bully tactics that he continues despite the public agreement that he can be crowned Douchebag of 2012.

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

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

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

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @8:58 pm @Thorne: Ha! Just make sure you don't offend CC and his better (?) half lest your predilections wind up aired in public. ;-)

@Kelly: Another good selection!

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @8:59 pm @ Nicholas Weaver: Placing my bet now that it goes down just how you think it will. I have popcorn at the ready, in fact.

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

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @9:01 pm @ Brian- Thanks! It is a revolving door in my head Black Knight from Monty Python and Crazy Train. *shakes head* We should compile a playlist of songs fitting and then one of youtubes that fit as well. It would give us something to do until the next 'Frak you, CC' gets filed.

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @9:05 pm Hmm… songs that fit. How about "If You're Going Through Hell"?

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @9:07 pm @ Mike K- Nice one! Cee Loo Green also fits IMHO.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @9:11 pm @Brian

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

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

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

Jack • Jul 2, 2012 @9:17 pm @Brian, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the reason that it seems so difficult for bad lawyers to get disbarred is that the States like to err on the side of protecting aggressive representation. Although, from what I've seen CC's behavior certainly seems like something that should result in disbarment, or at the very least strong discipline. At a minimum I wish the CA Bar would prevent him from bringing pro se lawsuits by requiring a member of the Bar in good standing to file them on his behalf.

tanqtonic • Jul 2, 2012 @9:19 pm Carreon seems to get into trouble with the California bar:

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

Gotta love public records……..

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @9:21 pm @Thorne: I hope you've got a treatment in the works to shop around the networks. You'll definitely need some sort of display to house the awards that'll rack up.

Brian • Jul 2, 2012 @9:29 pm @Jack: Hm, that's an interesting thought. I hadn't considered that. Nevertheless, you'd think that egregious examples of asshattery coupled with bug-fack crazy antics would result in a number of sharp, indrawn breaths and beetled brows amongst the senior people at the State Bar Association or something. Granted, I haven't an earthly how things work in the legal profession, so this is all mere wishful thinking on my part.

FreddieA • Jul 2, 2012 @9:37 pm BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Chris • Jul 2, 2012 @9:51 pm @Matt,
She also thinks Mark Lewis isn't Illuminati. Lol. I'll tell Mark at the next meeting when he brings the bean dip.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @9:51 pm @Brian

Well, one can only hope about the awards.

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

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

tanqtonic • Jul 2, 2012 @9:53 pm Ken:

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

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

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

Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @9:55 pm Another song that might fit, "Crazy Girl". I have no idea who in this case it could refer to, but it seems to fit somewhere…
"People are Crazy" is good too.
"I Wanna Do it All"
"Smooth Criminal"
"High School Never Ends"
"There is no Arizona"
"Oops!… I Did it Again"
"Here's Your Sign" (they made a couple of music videos)
"What Was I Thinkin'"
"The River"
"I Just Wanna Be Mad"
"Friends in Low Places"
"How Do You Like Me Now?!"
"I Hate Everything"
"5-1-5-0" (Dierks Bentley)
"Don't Download This Song" (always funny to see the link next to the video saying "Download this song")

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

Moo • Jul 2, 2012 @9:59 pm I am just so curious about how people end up like Charles and Tara. I can't imagine living in that state of paranoia. That is cynicism to the nth degree.
The Carreon family seems to be incredibly loyal to each other and have their priorities straight in regards to that, but how they go about defending each other is outrageous. Tara creates a new reality just to justify what her husband is doing. I wonder if there is some cognitive dissonance between her insane rants and how she actually feels about the situation. And it seems that they both have the personality type where, if they see they might possibly be wrong, it's best to just change their views to reflect their actions. Not the other way around.

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

Smorz • Jul 2, 2012 @10:00 pm @Kelly – 2 more songs for you:

Brain Damage – Pink Floyd
Basket Case – Green Day

Xavier • Jul 2, 2012 @10:07 pm If you visit his American-Buddha website, you can see just how crazy the guy is.

John C. Randolph • Jul 2, 2012 @10:10 pm That boy's about as sharp as the proverbial bowling ball.

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


Tali • Jul 2, 2012 @10:12 pm As far as this playlist goes, we are forgetting a very fitting song (particularly given Mark K's suggestion of "Don't Download This Song") Weird Al's "I'll Sue Ya" which seems to be Carreon's theme song.

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @10:13 pm @ Mike K – I am loving the list! Especially "Here's your sign", that one makes me bust out laughing even thinking about it, let alone listening to it.

@Smorz – Pink Floyd and Green Day, nice!

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

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

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

@ Brian- I would vote for you.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @10:17 pm @Moo

I respectfully disagree.

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

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

just_wow • Jul 2, 2012 @10:21 pm I'm amazed by this whole thing. The Internet typically has a very short attention span. I just can't believe he doesn't want us to move on to our regularly scheduled programming. He keeps throwing fuel in to keep the Carreon Hate Machine running 24/7.

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

Please forward this comment to Ralph Nader.

Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @10:22 pm I think Tara needs to listen to the song on this page:

Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @10:25 pm @ Thorne- I think we need to define our line between Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral in regards to this matter so that we can decide Orc/not-Orc.

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

Moo • Jul 2, 2012 @10:27 pm Thorne,
I suppose that the Carreons are not on the level of evil as the orcs we've seen in history. But orcs are created purely to do the biding of their master. Who knows what an orc would be like if directed by less evil force?

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

/end nerding

AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @10:41 pm As far as disbarring lawyers: It wouldn't prevent this. Charles doesn't need a license to represent himself. And once a lawyer, he can't unknow what he's learned, license or not. That Jonathan Lee Riches guy isn't a lawyer at all and he's a hot mess of vexatious litigation. You can prevent a lawyer from harming a client by it, but my impression is that a lawyer who betrays a client such as through misappropriation of funds runs much more risk of sanctions than one who represents a client in a frivolous suit.

@Valerie: Tara didn't originate the phrase. I first heard it in the Lily Allen song

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

Allen • Jul 2, 2012 @10:47 pm It strikes me that this was his business model from the beginning. The fact that the defendant disagreed threw the model out of whack, but he insists the model works, by whatever means.

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

Grifter • Jul 2, 2012 @10:49 pm @AlphaCentauri:

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

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:50 pm Never thought I'd see the day that Charles Carreon was actually backpedaling and playing defense. Fight on you magnificent doe-bastards… fight on.

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

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

You're the experts!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Illuminati
The Nazi Party
Occupy Wall Street
Killer Clowns from Outer Space
The Republicans
Walt Disney
Buddhist Demons
Ann Bransom

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

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

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

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

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

Because they're better lawyers than Charles… zing.

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

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

"Well, the game isn't over,"

Yes, it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good advice, that.

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

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

Smorz • Jul 2, 2012 @10:52 pm I wonder if Charles filled out his "Butthurt Report Form" yet?

mark99k • Jul 2, 2012 @11:00 pm Yknow, ya can stop a hideous creature like this in its tracks if ya just pour a big bucket o' water on em. I saw it in a movie once….

deezerd • Jul 2, 2012 @11:06 pm @Kelly – I seem to recall that CC professes to have a thing for the Ramones. Who recorded a whole catalog full of appropriate titles:

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

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

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:10 pm Oh $&% we forgot to post the Anthem lately.

Viva Le Resistance! May your children never be does…

Chris • Jul 2, 2012 @11:23 pm This guy Mark Lewis is fucking awesome. He's coming to America to fight The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and The New York Post. It's like the second coming of Christ. Let's wish him all the best.
W Ross, Mark has initiated the Christ Protocol, I don't remember anyone authorizing that.

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:25 pm

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

W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:30 pm @Chris Mark is a fucking loose cannon. This is why we didn't get those matter displacers, because we can't stay on fucking budget. We've barely got the Tuscon press against them and he's going full Christ Protocol.

You never go full Christ Protocol.

He really Carreoned this mission up.

Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @11:48 pm @W Ross

"Sassy dingbat"…??

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

theparsley • Jul 3, 2012 @12:28 am @Moo – Folie à deux is a real thing. I am not qualified to diagnose strangers on the Internet, or in any other setting – just throwing the concept out there.

Joe • Jul 3, 2012 @12:36 am Well if you're looking for laughs. Trademark infringement under other circumstances (beer instead of bear) story below with pages 1 and 2 under each link respectively. Appropriate since it also includes a dinasaur.

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

Here is Freetail's response: ... ae87_b.jpg ... 6ed0_b.jpg

charles • Jul 3, 2012 @2:04 am Is there any way to pull Carreon and a certain litigious felon by the initials BK into a fight with each other? The result would likely be explosive.

Stuart Brown • Jul 3, 2012 @2:58 am Like so many others, your sharp and entertaining commentary on the Carreon/Oatmeal affair is what has drawn me to your blog; and like them I'm now stuck on it.
Posts like this also (to an outsider not particularly familiar with the US justice system) are strangely double-edged: on the one hand, I despair of the apparent free reign to legal thuggery and bullying as practiced by Carreon; on the other I am warmed by the number of people from a profession not usually associated with altruism who seem ready to step up and work pro bono.
Plus, we so need to get us a First Amendment here in the UK.

Foster Wike • Jul 3, 2012 @2:59 am @smorz
while the form is wonderfull it would not be able to fit carreons needs as it apears hed be marking about 75 – 80% of it off as since the suit started hes been butt hurt in about ever internet venu

GrimGhost • Jul 3, 2012 @3:14 am Hey Upchuck and Terror–

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

Gal • Jul 3, 2012 @4:16 am So how much of the cost of Chuckie's frivolous lawsuit will be taken out of Claifornia taxpayers' money? That's what bothers me most about these suits that haven't a leg to stand on, if the defendent isn't intimidated they end up tying up valuable resources that should be used to resolve real cases, and waste public funds. Is there any way that CC can be made to bear all the legal fees in this case?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:21 am Weird Al: "Ill Sue Ya"

Eric • Jul 3, 2012 @4:29 am @Valerie Wow everyone is a Nazi to Tara Carreon. I was under the impression we won WWII. Apparently I have been misinformed about history.

Katryna • Jul 3, 2012 @5:22 am I honestly think that his wife might be manic.

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

Anyway . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @5:25 am "Don't build your own benefit on someone else's harm." (quoting Tara)

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

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

SPQR • Jul 3, 2012 @5:49 am Well, its good that Carreon is doing bankruptcy law research … its going to be something he'll be applying to his own circumstances very soon.

Stuart • Jul 3, 2012 @5:56 am Could Doe file an injunction of some kind to prevent him to attempting to sue further on the subject? I hope the judge reads that and fines the crap out of him.

Mr. Weebles • Jul 3, 2012 @6:02 am Why are so many lawyers assholes? I don't mean anyone on Popehat, as they are all wonderful human beings and stellar examples of the legal profession. I mean folks like this Carreon guy. Did graduating law school confer the title of douchebag di tutti douchebag on him?

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

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

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

Qwertz • Jul 3, 2012 @6:05 am What is this I see? Motion to intervene by Gino Romano Carreon, plaintiff's estranged brother? With the following gems:

A most interesting development.

Matt Scott • Jul 3, 2012 @6:05 am I think the Avett Brother's "Paranoia" fits pretty well.

Nate • Jul 3, 2012 @6:05 am I'm so happy to see this and from such a kickass-looking lawyer (I wonder if it's weird litigating against a lawyer you used to be allied with). Take that CC and your bullyboy tactics. I hope they get a good judge who will uphold SC's first amendment rights.

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

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

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @6:17 am ... ocket.html

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

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @6:40 am Katryna, are there any good places to seek psychiatric help anonymously?

Gal • Jul 3, 2012 @6:42 am @Qwertz: Adam Steinbaugh has your back: ... ee-riches/

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @6:44 am @Gal, Qwertz OOH! They're adding new characters this season!

Gal • Jul 3, 2012 @7:04 am I think this guy thought "Hey, litigious insanity is my Shtick! No way in hell am I going to let these crazies out-crazy me!"
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:26 pm

PART 3 OF 3 (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VIII: Charles Carreon Gets Sued, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen Joins The Fray Cont'd)

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @7:04 am Just read the latest on the second coming. Very disappointed to see so little new material. Just good old cut and paste. Not sure how pointing out Newscorps' corruption and the fact that some lawyers are good while others are bad really helps her hubby. But, I suppose its true, which is more than you can say about most of her batshit.

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

Katryna • Jul 3, 2012 @7:06 am @Mike K: Well, there are various crises lines that might fit the bill. For example, there's a site that lists these possibilities:

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

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

Dunno if that answers your question or not. :)

Jay • Jul 3, 2012 @7:12 am Setting aside other matters, isn't there a major ethics problem with (7)-(10)? He's basically trying to wedge himself between his opponent and opposing counsel by telling opposing counsel that opposing counsel has to disclose its (concocted) limitations on representations to its client.

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @7:12 am Also, although Tara clearly appears to be BatShitCrazy, she's not doing anything yet that indicates that she is a candidate for 5150-ing (or the Arizona equivalent).

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

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @7:16 am Actually Katryna, that's pretty much what I expected. I just know that I feel more comfortable telling people online more about myself than I do people in person. It's also been on my mind more lately for some reason. I imagine if there was such a service that trolls would abuse it anyway. Chalk it up to wishful thinking I guess.

Katryna • Jul 3, 2012 @7:37 am @Mike K: That's understandable. Feeling awkward about talking to someone about your problems is a major barrier to treatment, especially for men (the whole "real men don't cry" phenomenon really contributes to this). Calling a crisis line or talking to someone via email is great and all, but it can't really replace actual treatment, unfortunately.

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

Katryna • Jul 3, 2012 @7:50 am (Should be mentioned that when I say "your problems" I mean "your" in the collective sense, not in the personal sense. Probably would have been better to eliminate the second person there.)

BearLoveGirl • Jul 3, 2012 @7:51 am @ W Ross – my head exploded from your last cartoon idea! I'm better now though. There's too much imagery being slung around right now! Illuminati Nazi Disney buddhist killer clowns cannibal kids with bears and maybe a pterodactyl…!

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

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

Dave • Jul 3, 2012 @7:53 am @Grifter

Section 13's been repealed, so he's outta luck: ... h-was-won/

Grifter • Jul 3, 2012 @8:39 am @Dave: Whoa, that's big news!

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @8:42 am Hmm. There's a certain TMBG song that comes to mind when I think of people like them. Very recent one too… title could be controversial so I'm not typing it.

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

Dan Weber • Jul 3, 2012 @8:48 am What am I going to do with my free time when this all comes to a close?

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

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

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

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

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @9:09 am @Mike K. – The color you are looking for is "bilirubin-yellow" colored glasses. (To save you the google etc., bilirubin is the byproduct that turns the skin yellow in jaundice, and turns the solid waste stream to its characteristic natural color.)

mojo • Jul 3, 2012 @9:23 am Ralph Nader?


Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @9:23 am @Jordan – Some people just play nice guys very well.

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

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

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

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

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

SPQR • Jul 3, 2012 @9:30 am Mr Weebles writes: "I don't mean anyone on Popehat, as they are all wonderful human beings and stellar examples of the legal profession. "

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

FloydPepper • Jul 3, 2012 @9:36 am If I may add to the playlist:
Where is My Mind? by the Pixies feels appropriate in those brief moments of calm right before CC decides to up the crazy to greater heights.

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

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

CC, meet the internet.

Dan Weber • Jul 3, 2012 @9:36 am Those ten points strike me as an undertext of every legal threat, but it's something that lawyers are never supposed to say out loud.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @9:40 am @Nicholas Weaver – Given that he seems half weasel and half badger, I don't see how her actual preferences can run to the ursine at all.

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @9:44 am Robert: Its his mother that has the ursine preference.

Chuckles himself prefers velociraptors.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @9:44 am Contrary to popular belief, Goofy wasn't a dog, he was an ass that morphed into an undisclosed species after being white-washed due to positive reception.

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

Roxy • Jul 3, 2012 @9:50 am One thing is clear about both of the Carrions, they are keyboard warriors. Both of them could benefit by just taking a minute, calming the fuck down, and then typing their crazy.

Eric R. • Jul 3, 2012 @9:52 am @HeatherCat – Down here in the Keys, when someone is involuntarily admitted under the Baker Act, we say they've been "bake racked." A wholly apt and descriptive homonym, in my humble opinion.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @9:58 am He is neither chaotic neutral nor chaotic evil, he's "lawful good", a worshiper of a vengeful deity, and suffering from "wisdom damage" that has, at least once, reduced the relevant trait to zero (not to be a total gamer geek, but it's true). That is, he is practicing what he believes to be strictly orderly conduct in accordance with the dictates of his world view, but he's now lacks the ability to measure his conduct against external factors, particularly where prudence and restraint are involved.

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

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

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @10:04 am Robert: You're thinking too hard. He's "lawful butthurt".

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @10:06 am Please Note: "Cybersquatting" is a specific activity of buying up a domain and leaving it unused no intent other tan the intent to sell it later to a party you know would want it for normal business purposes.

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

Just in case anybody cares…

Sandy Yoost • Jul 3, 2012 @10:07 am Just came over from Censoriousdouchbag to express my disquiet over the use of various nicknames for the Carreons.
For Charles I have seen:

For Tara I have seen:

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

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

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @10:08 am How has nobody suggested Harvey Danger's "Flagpole Sitta" yet?

I want to publish zines
and rage against machines…

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @10:11 am I'm dissapointed that doe v carreon isn't up on Pacer yet…

ShelbyC • Jul 3, 2012 @10:11 am "Contrary to popular belief, Goofy wasn't a dog, he was an ass that morphed into an undisclosed species after being white-washed due to positive reception."

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

f15sim • Jul 3, 2012 @10:39 am @Nicholas Weaver
Also, although Tara clearly appears to be BatShitCrazy, she's not doing anything yet that indicates that she is a candidate for 5150-ing (or the Arizona equivalent).

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

Roxy • Jul 3, 2012 @10:43 am @Nicholas, Haha, you are going to spend all your 4th of July drinking money on Pacer. Thank you!

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

Wil • Jul 3, 2012 @10:52 am Well I have two more for the playlist:

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @10:53 am Roxy: I'm an overpaid geek, who lives in Napa… It would take a LOT of pacer time to exhaust my drinking money. :)

Katryna • Jul 3, 2012 @11:01 am "he's now lacks the ability to measure his conduct against external factors, particularly where prudence and restraint are involved."

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

( ... 783375.php)

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @11:01 am @Sandy Yoost — It's wholly necessary, and promotes healthy digestion and a shiny coat.

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

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

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

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

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @11:03 am @Nicholas: have you been able to get ECF to notify you via email of new postings? I cannot, for the life of me, get it to work. Instead, it just keeps trying to add new email addresses to my account, then… doesn't send anything to those email addresses.

SPQR • Jul 3, 2012 @11:07 am He's a moist accumulation from within the scrotal folds of the legal profession …

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

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @11:13 am Imagine it this way instead –

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

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

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @11:18 am Alternative title for this post:

Doe Hunter II: The Hunter Becomes the Hunted

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @11:22 am @ Robert Thank you – I tried to post a similar response and the eeeevvviiilllll Iluminati internet ate it.

@ Sandy Yoost, I respectfully disagree.

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

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @11:29 am Adam: No clue. I've never really played with Pacer much, so no clue what is supposed to work.

Roxy • Jul 3, 2012 @11:32 am @Nicholas: Well your geekdom is appreciated! Napa is lovely, too, jealous!

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @11:33 am Sandy: As I posted on charles-carreon's site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandy Yoost • Jul 3, 2012 @11:36 am @Robert, @valerie
I have no problem with "douchenozzle" or "scrotal folds," frankly. BTW Robert, you're vocabulary is admirable. Wish I could write like that.

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

Why stoop to their level?

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

S. Weasel • Jul 3, 2012 @11:44 am Oh, and may I take a moment to observe how refreshing it is to enjoy an internet scandal that is entirely apolitical (at least, when it touches on politics, the underlying philosophy is so balls-out nutty as to transcend labels).

Hours of wholesome lulz for Left and Right!

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @11:56 am @ Sandy, feel free to jump in anytime – I can't speak for everyone, but I don't THINK anyone here would be terribly offended if you critiqued their postings & its good to hear from people with a different perspective (good lord do I sound like the teacher I am with that "different perspective" stuff :) )

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

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

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

Ann Bransom • Jul 3, 2012 @11:56 am Speaking of purile and juvenile, this is what happens when I have to brush up on my javascript/XML parsing skills. I bring you:

CARREON IPSUM ... -wait.html

Roxy • Jul 3, 2012 @12:00 pm @Ann: That. Is. Brilliant.

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

Jonnelle • Jul 3, 2012 @12:12 pm @Ann – is that like the random Deepak Chopra quote generator?

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @12:14 pm @ Ann You. Are. Awesome. Be careful, though Tara may start stealing content if she runs out of cray-cray.

Ann Bransom • Jul 3, 2012 @12:16 pm @Jonnelle – yes. except crazier. I just made an XML table of parts of speech that Tara uses the most, and then parsed them into sentence templates I wrote myself that sound like crap she would say using Javascript.

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

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @12:18 pm @Ann – Well played, ma'am. Well played. :D

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @12:20 pm Actual Legal Question: Didn't Charles Carreon™, or Charles Carreon℠ or whatever, actually shoot himself in the foot by trademarking/servicemarking his name and identity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @12:21 pm I am going to have to compile the song list, though it is more like a soundtrack for a really long movie at this point!

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

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

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

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

Foster Wike • Jul 3, 2012 @12:26 pm i would say i wast hours upon hours on pope hat thanks to the debocial chuckie the wonder ass has started but honestly i thank you sir grad ass-hat of fucktard legal personal becuase i have learned more reading this blog about law than i ever would have other wise also i now have a new way to spend free time

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @12:33 pm Doe v Carreon is up in Pacer. It should appear in RECAP shortly.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @12:35 pm RECAP link for Doe v Carreon docket. The files will come online shortly (I already fetched them). ... ocket.html

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @12:38 pm Raw files in RECAP. ... nd.256701/

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

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @12:39 pm In that vein…

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @12:40 pm Also, who wants to bet that Charles Carreon ™ is going to be butthurt over the choice of venue for this case, and try to claim that it should have been filed in Tucson?

Luke • Jul 3, 2012 @12:56 pm @Ann – That's awesome! I wish I could replace my current lorus ipsum generator with that, it would make testing much more amusing!

Look at that • Jul 3, 2012 @1:02 pm @Nicholas Weaver. I'm very slow on the uptake. Thank you for all the links you've provided for the cases. Rah! You!

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:06 pm Ah, Charles is too late, the Pro Hac Vice motion has already been approved…

Dave Markle • Jul 3, 2012 @1:09 pm It's not "douchetastically logarithmic". It's "douchetastically exponential".

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:11 pm I still bet he'll object, somehow, on some grounds, to Paul Levy.

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

Jess • Jul 3, 2012 @1:26 pm Robert you may be onto something there RE person vs brand.

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:27 pm Oh, and who wants to bet that Charles will pull a Kimberlin in his first filing and include the temporarily unprotected WHOIS information?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:39 pm Actually, this brings up the Crazy Charles Legal Responses betting pool:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @1:40 pm I love how the newer commenters expect me to have a grasp of basic math concepts.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:46 pm Hey, I did the ObMathPedantic bit first!

Susan • Jul 3, 2012 @1:50 pm My guess, #5 since it seems for the Carreons all lawsuits lead back to Inman.

Eric R. • Jul 3, 2012 @1:51 pm @Nicholas – Hasn't Tara already done #5?

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @1:55 pm @Nicholas- I am thinking all six wrapped up in one.

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:56 pm Oh, from the latest filing in Doe v Inman:

I hereby certify that I am causing a copy of this Entry of Appearance to be sent personally to defendant Charles E. Carreon, who has previously advised that he is retaining counsel but has not yet identified that counsel.
I wonder what lucky man gets paid to defend Chuckles in court on this?

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

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

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

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @1:57 pm Eric: I mean in actual, legal filings all written up all lawyerlike in Charles's Pro Se crayon.

Ara Ararauna • Jul 3, 2012 @1:57 pm POR LA JUSTICIA !!!!!

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

Eric R. • Jul 3, 2012 @2:00 pm @Nicholas – Gotcha. In that case, I put 5 internets on #4. That just seems like the most fitting douchey move.

Ann Bransom • Jul 3, 2012 @2:02 pm I'm not sure I can pinpoint a time in my life I've been more proud, than right now at this moment knowing that the headline of the first exhibit of that lawsuit reads "Bransom Owes Me Dinosaurs".

Hannah • Jul 3, 2012 @2:05 pm Am I the only one who keeps waiting for 'Keep calm, don't Carreon' t-shirts to appear?

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

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

Roxy • Jul 3, 2012 @2:16 pm I am unable to click on the documents? Weirdddddd.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @2:27 pm Service marks protect the good will and reputation earned by businesses that have invested time, energy, and money in bringing quality services to the public. Service marks also encourage competition by requiring businesses to associate their marks with the quality of services they offer. … [paragraph 9, emphasis added.]

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

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

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

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @2:28 pm blockquote citation fail: previous is from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... ervicemark

Connie • Jul 3, 2012 @2:29 pm I take it y'all have seen what Adam's brought to the table for our viewing pleasure? ... lee-riches

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @2:36 pm @Connie: now that you've linked to my site without permission, and Ken hasn't immediately condemned it, I will now begin pillaging Ken's My Little Pony collection as damages for this grotesque infringement upon my trademark or copyright or something — anything!


Jack • Jul 3, 2012 @2:38 pm @Connie, Yep saw that yesterday, hilarious stuff. Reading up on Jonathan Lee Riches was almost more fun than the slow motion car crash that is Carreon v Inman.

Connie • Jul 3, 2012 @2:41 pm @Adam: Oh no! Now you're going to name ME as a co-defendant in a conspiracy with Ken and you'll go after my original 1980s male pony collection still sitting in my mom's garage rafters!

just_wow • Jul 3, 2012 @2:47 pm As much as this paints an ugly picture of the American Legal system, it also highlights some hopeful features (at least for me). The fact that declaratory relief is a thing that exists is certainly good. Otherwise the Carreons of the world would be able to do… what he intended to do, which would be horrible.

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

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @3:16 pm @ Hannah In what part of the world do you make your home? And if you are ONE OF US, have you received the purple handbook yet? If not, be sure to contact the pink zebra in your district :)

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

perlhaqr • Jul 3, 2012 @3:29 pm Hannah: I thought about it, but I really don't have time to get sued. I have a life. It's not much of one, but god, reading the dispatches from Charles and Tara make me think it's not so bad.


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

Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @3:41 pm Minor Update #4 in Chapter VII.

Grifter • Jul 3, 2012 @3:53 pm Stepped away from the keyboard for a whiel, so it's a bit long after the post, but @Robert White, wouldn't you say CC is Lawful Evil? Using the rules for nefarious purpose?

Berley • Jul 3, 2012 @4:00 pm Did CC just capitulate???? The docket has a new entry, but the corresponding filing isn't posted:

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

Berley • Jul 3, 2012 @4:18 pm I take that back. It's up now!

Docket: ... ocket.html

Voluntary dismissal: ... 4.30.0.pdf

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

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @4:18 pm Maybe CC is just taking a break to go use some Wisdom Plants:

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @4:26 pm Oh no! Say it ain't so!

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @4:31 pm @Valerie: Hear, hear. Every country has at least one or two things it got right, and the Bill of Rights is definitely ours. (Along with Johnny Cash.)

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

Nick • Jul 3, 2012 @4:41 pm Test comment for Ken/David, please disregard

Nick • Jul 3, 2012 @4:44 pm Test comment 3

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:06 pm @Grifter: No. Many people misunderstand the chart. Evil is specifically about the willingness to expend lives or act wihtout consideration of same.

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

The best description is found at link below .vvvvvv ... onal-rules

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:15 pm I don't think simply filing a paper that says "plaintiff dismisses this action" is legal or at least complete. (IANAL)

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

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

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

Again, IANAL.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:35 pm Oh lookie, you -can- do that harass and run, and it does dismiss without prejudice…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:37 pm Could opposing council call Murum Aries Attigit because of the TRO?

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:43 pm @deezerd — WTF vs Japanese personal hygiene… Are we talking about the same Japan? The one where a guy can whip out his dick and pee on cars as they drive by splashing everyone with urine. etc? Gues why you -always- take off your shoes when entering a house. Just sayin.

RavingRambler • Jul 3, 2012 @7:42 pm You know, I'm really glad I started reading the comments when all this started. Nowhere else in the Internet could someone find a group of people that can casually throw around allusions to Jules Verne, Doctor Who, Battlestar Galactica, Dungeons & Dragons, the Illuminati, and anything I've forgotten while discussing and learning/teaching about law. And add to that we always seemed to know what everyone else was talking about!

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

RavingRambler • Jul 3, 2012 @8:02 pm Oops. And LoTR. Can't believe I forgot that…

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @10:03 pm "What about Ray Bradbury?"

"I'm aware of his work."

Hannah • Jul 4, 2012 @12:03 am @Valerie: A small no-name pair of islands famous for Hobbits and amazing scenery :) My handbook is admittedly in purple with white polka dots – damned zebras over here just have to do things differently!

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

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

Hannah • Jul 4, 2012 @12:05 am Link fail: should be

theNuszAbides • Jul 4, 2012 @8:08 am W Ross – best wishes to your mother.

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

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @8:28 am @theNuszAbides When you consider what a tenacious bastard I am, my mom taught it to me. Cancer doesn't stand a chance; my mom's going to kick it's ass.

@RavingRambler We speak thieve's cant.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 4, 2012 @8:30 am @Sandy Yoost I do appreciate you jumping in here. I don't normally mock people like this, either, and I certainly don't support mocking the mentally ill. But since we're all potentially defendants here — there are still 98 Does to go — it's given us a delicious sense of community. As @S. Weasel pointed out, it's really nice to have people from all sides of the political spectrum able to interact on an issue without it becoming acrimonious. Plus, since Carreon is clearly taking his legal cues from this blog and its comments, throwing in some genuine craziness potentially makes it harder for the crazy Carreons to find the legitimate legal issues. Name calling is puerile, but if the Carreons find it offensive and think right thinking people ought to find it offensive, perhaps they will let that sink in deeply enough to take another look at what they have been posting about people on their websites. But DO keep contributing. This discussion has the potential to go into truly inappropriate territory, and since none of us are the type to support that, we appreciate someone willing to speak out and keep our better selves aware of our actions.

RavingRambler • Jul 4, 2012 @10:00 am @W Ross Ha! And now I need to buy another tie to finish my day in since I now have coke all over mine…

perlhaqr • Jul 4, 2012 @2:27 pm Well, Hannah, here you go. Not my best result ever, I suppose I should have done it in a vector format instead of raster format. Oh well.

theNuszAbides • Jul 5, 2012 @8:13 am @RavingRambler and World of Darkness – even more impressive from my perspective.

Sarahw • Jul 5, 2012 @10:24 am The answer i think is tort reform (though iam all for strong anti-slapp laws) but professional discipline or monitoring. He's a discredit to the profession IMO and he needs to be checked from him rampages.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:30 pm


521 Comments (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Chapter IX: Charles Carreon Dismisses His Lawsuit)

d-day • Jul 3, 2012 @4:12 pm typo in #4 – you mean "Mr. Carreon" not Inman, yes?

Al Parrott • Jul 3, 2012 @4:12 pm Your point 4, as reads: "4. Mr. Inman could walk away from this particular set of opponents." Believe you meant Mr. Carreon.

Collin • Jul 3, 2012 @4:12 pm tiny typo: "too length" -> "too lengthy"

bigger typo: "4. Mr. Inman could walk away" -> "4. Mr. Carreon could walk away"

Scott Jacobs • Jul 3, 2012 @4:12 pm 4. Mr. Inman could walk away from this particular set of opponents.
Surely you mean Mr. Carreon

Sem • Jul 3, 2012 @4:13 pm "Mr. Inman could walk away from this particular set of opponents. But somehow I doubt he will I predict that he will crow that he achieved a victory by "forcing" Mr. Inman and IndieGoGo to handle the charitable contributions differently than they otherwise would have."


Scott Jacobs • Jul 3, 2012 @4:13 pm I love that we all raced to correct poor old Mr. Popehat.

Maybe Adam Steinbaugh could help grandpa out here or something?

Joe • Jul 3, 2012 @4:14 pm First smart thing I've seen Carreon do so far. Why do I suspect it will be his last? If he were really smart he would drop the suit against Doe as well.

No doubt he will crow a victory thinking he has somehow forced Inman to do what Inman was going to do all along.

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @4:14 pm Clearly he needs to focus on the meanie Satirical Charles now. Too much multi-tasking!

Eric • Jul 3, 2012 @4:14 pm And a glimmer of common sense is shown. I wonder what made CC decide to finally back out.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 3, 2012 @4:15 pm Also, is there anything the court can do to prevent Charlie the Censor from re-filing? Can the court say "no, no dismissal for you"?

Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @4:17 pm GET OFF MY PORCH.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:17 pm @Scott Jacobs: at least he's faster than the hamster

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:19 pm @Scott Jacobs: No, not in Federal court. You get one dismissal as of right. If you file and dismiss again, the court can order it dismissed with prejudice. California state courts aren't as kind.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @4:19 pm Sooooo… how does he explain this to Tara?

Hannah • Jul 3, 2012 @4:19 pm I hope this is the end…

…but I fear something far, far worse is yet to come o_o

Any word from the oh-so-enlightening Tara yet?

William McAleese • Jul 3, 2012 @4:20 pm Maybe he got a call from the bar association. Unlikely, but it's a nice thought. More likely, he sobered up.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:20 pm @Ken: what about anti-SLAPP? I seem to recall that there's a way to still bring the motion (or a new lawsuit) so that vexatious plaintiffs can't file suit and then dismiss in order to duck that remedy.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 3, 2012 @4:21 pm God, Tara's "spin" on this is going to be fucking comedy GOLD.

Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @4:22 pm @Adam:

at least he's faster than the hamster
That's just the plucky attitude you'll need taking the bar and then seeking a job in this market.

what about anti-SLAPP? I seem to recall that there's a way to still bring the motion (or a new lawsuit) so that vexatious plaintiffs can't file suit and then dismiss in order to duck that remedy.
You're thinking of the rule that you can't dismiss voluntarily in state court once the defense has filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Here, no motion is filed, and it's doubtful that the rule applies in federal court.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @4:22 pm why do I think he's just going to wait for all of this to blow over and then go after The Oatmeal again, much as he threatened to do to satirical charles? Wait until the EFF no longer supports Inman and BAM here comes chapter X of this madness, maybe a year or 3 down the road.

Mike • Jul 3, 2012 @4:23 pm @Chris: He'll probably tell his S&M mate that spies/FBI/aliens/whatever made him do it. Then she can rant on some more about everything under the sun, post some more copyright-violating screen captures of films, and generally babble away.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:24 pm @Ken: there are jobs?

theparsley • Jul 3, 2012 @4:24 pm I wonder if someone's trying to break free of the folie à deux…

Victor • Jul 3, 2012 @4:25 pm I still want to see that picture of cash and woman seducing bear picture along with the notice that Carreon has received it and forwarded it to Funnyjunk.

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @4:26 pm So which "corrupt" lawyer finally convinced him to dismiss? This should be interesting to hear the spin on this as his tale is likely to conflict with… well… everyone else's.

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @4:27 pm Noooooooooo! What will we do for entertainment?

Seriously, though, the suit against "censorious douchebag" is even more worrisome. It doesn't have the flourish of suing actual charities, but to some, it might seem less ridiculous, and therefore…. approaching reasonable. Which it is not.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:28 pm Ken, questions:

1) Can Inman pull a Doe and fire back, to make sure Carreon doesn't undismiss? Since Carreon has threatened others with "I won't sue now, maby, but I may sue 3 years from now when your pro bono attorneys have gone away", forcing some sort of response from Carreon might be a very good idea.

2) Can Inman & IndieGoGo attempt to gain legal fees anyway, since they had to deal with the @)(*#@ TRO request?

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @4:30 pm @margaret
I think that its association with the oatmeal suit will make sure it keeps the same level of attention and is just as or more successful than what happened for matt, the charities and indiegogo

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:32 pm Now, now, there's still entertainment to be had. Doe v. Carreon has the potential to set some good precedent, which is probably why Levy took the case — in addition, of course, to the necessity of ensuring that Doe doesn't have to live with the threat of a potential lawsuit for the next several years, when our attention span has drifted onto whatever comical litigious folly next captures it.

Short of capitulating or settling with Doe, Carreon can't voluntarily dismiss that.

And we still have no idea whether this is a tactical move to refile later/elsewhere, or whether it's a genuine "hey, I screwed up" coming-to-Jesus moment on the part of Carreon.

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @4:32 pm My thoughts are
1. No resources to fully take this on when there's no way to win it.
2. Especially when he's now being sued and will need to deal with that now.

But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button. Wonder what Inman's going to post later on this?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:32 pm And ohh, if #3 is correct, I hope that either Inman, IndieGoGo, NWF, or ACS, or hell, our CA Attorney general, still file for Rule 11 sanctions.

Somebody should, just on principle, make sure that Carreon pays an actual, monetary cost for bringing then dismissing a baseless suit. He's done that before in Oregon and gotten away with it in Federal court, and may have in state court.

Eric R. • Jul 3, 2012 @4:32 pm @Margaret – Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't CC only threaten censorious douchebag? CD executed a pre-emptive strike by filing against CC. IANAL, but it seems like CD's case is much more likely to succeed than anything CC might bring forth.

singersdd • Jul 3, 2012 @4:33 pm I think it's a positive step toward Carreon coming to his senses. Maybe. As another commenter said, though, he'll probably take credit for Matt Inman doing what he always said he would: giving the money to charity. Carreon is still out of touch with reality.

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @4:33 pm But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button.

And there's the phrase of the day!

Connie • Jul 3, 2012 @4:37 pm At least Doe vs Carreon will still provide us with Tara madness and more baffling 'Seriously?! I mean, seriously?!" reactions. Yay for Inman.

Al Parrott • Jul 3, 2012 @4:37 pm I wonder what Charles is going to do for work now? I mean, who would hire him to argue any case for them, in any court? Unless he sets up shop in some dirt-mall storefront doing ambulance chasing or something… Better start socking away some money for ads, Charles, and buying up daytime TV airtime.

Valerie • Jul 3, 2012 @4:38 pm So is the madness over? I am both relieved and disappointed. Will the Charles-Carreon suit contiue?

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @4:39 pm What and anticlimactic ending. (If it is.) And just what the hell am I supposed to do with that half-pallet of unpopped Jolly Time sitting out on the deck? ;)

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @4:40 pm "Cooter?" Really?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:40 pm Adam: I suspect it might be come to Jesus.

Carreon did state he was retaining council to Levy in Doe v Carreon, and any outside attorney worth his salt will tell Carreon to "settle now, and you MIGHT be nice and they won't charge you attorneys fees".

And such council would also advice Carreon to drop Carreon v Inman now, before opposing council drops a Rule 11 motion, an anti-SLAPP motion, or other such nugget of pain into the docket.

So if he actually started talking to someone else yesterday, this might be a legitimate come to Jesus moment, and, by the 6th, we may be devoid of entertainment on this front, unless either IndieGoGo, Inman, Levy, Doe, NWF, or ACS want to get their pound of flesh before Carreon slinks back to his strip-mall office.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @4:41 pm Have you been hurt at work? Did you get maliciously injured by improper conditions at a supermarket? Call Charles Carreon! Even if your lawsuit is meritless he can carry on until they pay!

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @4:42 pm Can we still expect to hear the Judge's opinion on this? Or it will be something to the extent of "case dismissed as requested"?

Wren • Jul 3, 2012 @4:45 pm Mmmn, I would worry about him bringing it back to court at a future date, yes, as he's stated in documents that he has no problem with waiting until he thinks someone is unprotected. Honestly, I was hoping to see some Anti-SLAPPing going on, and possible disbarment so that he can't go after people less able to defend themselves.

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @4:47 pm @deezerd – well, I dunno about you, but I'm taking my popcorn outside to watch the fireworks downtown tonight. Let Freedom Ring! (and pop, boom, sparkle too)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:49 pm @Nicholas: I dunno if he said he was retaining counsel in that case — he said he had the resources to, but I dunno. He did state somewhere, though, that he had retained counsel in Arizona to deal with the Inman case, but nobody ever filed an appearance and I hadn't heard anything else of it since. They probably knew how to use the Google and didn't want to be formally associated with it.

I have my doubts that this isn't tactical. If he really wanted to show that it wasn't, he could have dismissed with prejudice.

Not that I think it's impossible, but color me skeptical.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:50 pm Chris: The problem is, there's competition for that in the desert southwest.

I suspect its going to be "duck down, low profile" for a long time. He's going to have a hard time writing extortive legal letters for people, so he'd do better sticking to trademark filings, corporate disputes, etc.

He also should probably file for admission to the Arizona bar: living in Arizona but only practicing law in California might very well catch the eye of sauron, err, the FTB, or the Arizona State Bar now.

Getting ahead of that problem will make his life easier, because although MOST of the Internet is going to go "ohh shiny" and wander onto something else, he pissed off enough people that there are probably plenty of little nuggets of paper-hell that got dropped into various state bar disciplinary committees' inboxes.

Also, once he gets admission to the Arizona bar, he can easily go back to criminal defense work. These sorts of antics work better when

a: The other side doesn't take it personal, because it doesn't really matter all that much to them and

b: Someone else is paying you by the hour

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @4:51 pm Maybe he just wants to re-amend the complaint and he already used up his freebie.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @4:52 pm Wow, it might be over. No word from Tara, and normally she'd be screaming like a lunatic over on the Nader Library. I can't imagine she'd be quiet without being told "be quiet, we need for this to go away now."

Still, this doesn't preclude a creepy sequel.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:53 pm @Nicholas: on the other hand, he did dismiss with prejudice, which I take to mean no settlement was reached, so that might be some indication that it's a true white flag moment.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:53 pm Adam: This was from Levy's most recent filing in Doe v Carreon on how it was serviced.

I hereby certify that I am causing a copy of this Entry of Appearance to be sent personally to defendant Charles E. Carreon, who has previously advised that he is retaining counsel but has not yet identified that counsel.
So Carreon did tell Levy that he was retaining council for Doe v Carreon. Which means if Carreon actually got around to talking with his attorney, Carreon's attorney might have scared him straight.

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @4:54 pm I don't know Adam, dismissing with prejudice when you don't have to sounds like folding when you can simply check. I'm rather hoping that he realized that all the opposing briefs were correct and he had absolutely no standing to sue and just hasn't bothered to think what the world might think (he hasn't to this point).

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @4:54 pm Adam: Where did you see with prejudice on the dismissal request?

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @4:55 pm @HeatherCat – Of course. How could I forget? … Pop, boom, sparkle, and buckets o' butter.

Maybe I'll have a one-day only July 4th popcorn stand for charity (a la Inman). Proceeds toward shipping Mr. Carreon his own pallet of Preparation H.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:56 pm @Chris: Or he doesn't like the judge.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:56 pm @Nicholas: er, sorry, without prejudice.

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @4:58 pm I will say that I'm fairly impressed that it took him two weeks to finally *blink*.

Up next: Entrant in Poughkeepsie Staring Contest.

Dude's a ringer. ;)

GrimGhost • Jul 3, 2012 @4:58 pm Hello, did someone hide gay porno mags in your locker after you stole his lunch money? Did you stuff a dork into a locker and now he's hacked your Facebook page? I'm Charles Carreon(tm), and I know your pain! Bullies and douchebags have legal rights too! Call me, Charles Carreon(tm) at 1-800-FKINMAN. My wife has twenty-three personalities available to answer the phone anytime, 24/7.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @4:59 pm @Nicholas: I think Levy's thing was a bit of calling-Carreon's-bluff. If Carreon subsequently appeared pro se, it would give a bit of an indication that his overall threats were meritless and intended to intimidate Doe into folding.

Laura K • Jul 3, 2012 @4:59 pm Not a Lawyer but as a historian and literary/theology geek I NEVER underestimate the possibility of nuclear-charbroiled fcknt douchebaggery in the motives of a specimen like CC. Gawd though did these posts teach me a lot. Thanks Ken et al!

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @5:00 pm Oh, and as much as I'd love to see one of the attorneys go for the pound of Carreon's flesh on the way out the door, it really doesn't seem worth it unless Carreon was given a Murum aries attigit type warning.

So I think we will see Carreon quickly capitulate in Doe v Carreon, and then ah well, its all over, no more dinosaur fun, which will allow Charles and Tara to keep ranting to themselves in peace.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @5:00 pm In the end, bitching about one parody Twitter account spawned 13 times as many. Sociologists, there's your smoking gun on the Streisand Effect.!/search/users/%22 ... Carreon%22

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @5:02 pm Am I reading Rule 41 correctly? It appears that, because Carreon is voluntarily dismissing (without prejudice), if he re-files the same case, he would have to pay the defendants' cost of the previous filing? (Per (d)(1)?)

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @5:04 pm It is a little frustrating that one individual can waste so many man-hours and simply dismiss the whole thing without any explanation or consequence.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @5:07 pm Adam: Could be calling Carreon's bluff, you're right. Or he might have actually talked to someone.

But something caused Carreon to finally fold [1].

And I suspect, based on the Carreon v Those Foolish Enough To Lend Him Money cases, that someone explained to Carreon just how much monetary hurt he was looking at when he loses, and that because he'd be paying the other side's legal fees when he loses, all the silly Carreon games only hurt Carreon when the bill is settled.

It wouldn't actually surprise me if it was Levy who did it: By filing Doe v Carreon, all the Carreon butt-hurt complaints get destroyed in court, and Carreon picks up the tab for Levy's time.

[1] Carreon, playing 5 card stud, wasn't even a four-flusher, but a two-flusher…

Patches • Jul 3, 2012 @5:08 pm @HeatherCat "But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button." I assume you're a Mac user …

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @5:13 pm @Mark

That's just human nature kicking in. Everybody wants to see the bad guy get punished in the end.

I'm looking at this as still getting what we want because all Carreon's actions can do right now, at best, is calm the hornet's nest.
And this is a nest with a LONG… FUCKING… MEMORY. ;)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @5:13 pm Ken: I actually hope he won't try something like this in the future. Mostly because his name is now poison to Google: Anyone who receives one of Carreon's future threats who searches for Carreon will quickly fine all this lovely stuff.

Its quite unlike 10 years ago, where his abusive lawsuits against the County see him emerging without sanctions. But now, not only is there a pattern, but its a known and searchable pattern.

deezerd • Jul 3, 2012 @5:15 pm Realistically, does Carreon have any similar option for a minimallly-painful exit from Doe's suit? Other than 1) offering to settle, or 2) boarding up the windows and waiting for the storm to blow over?

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @5:16 pm I just can't see Carreon giving this up all of the sudden. Is there any way Inman can pursue this so that he doesnt constantly have to worry about another lawsuit?

azteclady • Jul 3, 2012 @5:17 pm It would bother me, a lot, if he can get off without some sort of penalty or sanction. Whether or not Inman could/can afford it, he had to get a lawyer to respond to that original, baseless demand.

And that's even before the actual suit.

What's to stop asshat lawyers from doing this to other people, who likely won't have Inman's resources and sang froid?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @5:18 pm Thorn: Actually, its both very short and very long.

If he capitulates on Doe v Carreon, and if one of the defense attorneys in Carreon v Everybody doesn't want to go for the pound of flesh, the active Internet will generally forget about him by Monday.

What problem he'll face is now his name is associated with this abusive lawsuit MO, because on the passive Internet, this stuff will stay up for years.

Which means the "Process Server Shakedown Racket" is far less effective for him, and a different area of the law (or retirement) would be advisable.

The other problem is any things put in motion (e.g. complaints to the CA and AZ state bar, CA FTB) that may have inertia. He kept the attention of the Internet for too long, long enough that somebody could have started something that, quietly, behind the scenes, will make Carreon's life miserable for months to come.

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @5:18 pm Oh, and all things being equal, I honestly believe I'd pay good money to see Tara go all "Rage Quit video" over this dismissal. ;)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @5:22 pm deezerd: He can. Quite easily in fact.

All he has to do is offer to settle, immediately. All but the issue of attorneys fees is clear cut "He's gonna lose" anyway, and attorneys fees just go up the longer it takes for him to capitulate.

I bet that if Charles settles over the holiday weekend, he can probably get away with "Agreed, and here's the $350 in court costs you incurred".

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @5:22 pm That's exactly what I was talking about, Nicholas…

If he pops up down the road pulling the same kind of shit again, all it'd take is for the victim to reach out online, Monty Python "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"-style and the Illuminati will rise again. ;)

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @5:24 pm Hey @Nicholas – I think I'd like to supplement your discretionary fund by procuring some of that wine you speak of.
I could definitely use some good stuff to imbibe when the next round surely comes forth in this saga.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @5:24 pm Aaaaaaand the American Cancer Society's attorneys make an appearance.

Al Parrott • Jul 3, 2012 @5:25 pm One happy thought that hasn't really been addressed yet: This should legally clear the way for all the money to go to NWF and ACS, correct?

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @5:28 pm @Al Parrott, all the money has gone to them and now there is no real threat of it going any where else.

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @5:28 pm Holy shit, I want to read what the ACS has to say about this.

azteclady • Jul 3, 2012 @5:28 pm @ Adam: What? where?

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @5:29 pm The money's already sent to the charities – he didn't successfully impede that transaction, and Inman's filed 'proof' with the court.

Patches • Jul 3, 2012 @5:30 pm @Al Parrott: THAT ALREADY HAPPENED. Inman's counsel has declared in court documents that the checks have been sent by mail.

Note that as the money has now all left Inman's/his counsel's possession, huge sections of Carreon's suit are now moot: in particular that whole part about Inman being able to run off with the cash.

Ken: I am interested in knowing, is this it? Will there be a response from the judge/court?

Al Parrott • Jul 3, 2012 @5:30 pm Excellent. Now I want to see the picture of Matt sitting on a head-high pile of twenties. At least that part of this whole circus has gone very, very well.

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @5:33 pm I see that EFF has a nice post on their site regarding this.

"This was nothing more than a meritless attempt to punish Inman for calling attention to his legal bullying. We called him out on this in our briefs, so it's no surprise that Carreon was left with no choice but to dismiss."
Brilliantly and simply put.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @5:35 pm ACS' attorney just filed a notice of appearance. Nothing substantive.

And the judge in Doe v. Carreon just referred that case to judge Chen, who was overseeing Carreon v. Everyone, to determine whether the cases should be combined under Chen. I'm not sure what effect Carreon's voluntary dismissal will have on that.

It'd be funny if Carreon were dismissing because he didn't like Chen, then Chen retains Doe v. Carreon — and any subsequent Federal case Carreon files (against Inman, etc.) gets referred back to Chen because he's overseeing Doe v. Carreon.

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @5:41 pm Because all this without prejudice bullshit, I wonder if Inman will avoid making any comments on this case after it is officially dismissed.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @5:42 pm How much of the law business is just messing with paperwork, anyway? I'd be tempted to call my hypothetical firm "Dead Tree Legal Services."

Patches • Jul 3, 2012 @5:49 pm @Mark: "I wonder if Inman will avoid making any comments on this case after it is officially dismissed." There is no reason why he shouldn't comment on it. After all, the case directly involved him. And if he chooses to draw a comic of Judge Chen ripping off Carreon's head with his teeth and spitting it out right in front of Tara, then so be it. Matt Inman, I hope you're reading this (so I can sue you for stealing my intellectual property of course).

Here's a bit of fun for the Doe v. Carreon suit.

Wondering • Jul 3, 2012 @5:51 pm @Adam, I was also wondering if Carreon just didn't like the judge, and maybe wants to file again later — after the suit with Satirical Charles is over — in hopes to get a different judge. Perhaps one who didn't used to work for the ACLU.

If Carreon comes out and brags he got Inman to do what he wanted and send all the money to the charities, then I will believe he won't sue again. At least not Inman. Perhaps he'll still go after the Does.

If he doesn't come out and brag, I will worry he's just lying in wait to sue later, like he threatened to do to Satirical Charles.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:52 pm I pointed this out in the prior thread, but since parties had to respond to the TRO, isn't that Murum Aries Attigit, e.g. isn't it too late for a 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and now it needs to be at least 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) if the other parties want to recover costs and fees and such?

Plus doesn't he have to -move- to dismiss instead of simply declaring it?

Notice that he is Pro Se again, so whatever law critter he found to take his case clearly told him to scuttle back under his rock.

The question is, should he be allowed to do so, and if not can he be touched?

If not, then this is a huge hole in federal civil procedure as a person could file and serve people pro se, and then engage an opponents lawyers in talks and such, and then amend, and then talk again, and then quit. Lather Rinse Repeat. Thereby letting a litigious ass-hat force you to spend far more than he without ever being able to get justice.

Note that the same rule says that this dismissal is _without_ prejudice. While it's hard to re-file it isn't impossible for a censorious douchebag to do so.

This seems broken.

Patches • Jul 3, 2012 @5:57 pm I JUST REALISED! Everyone here is overlooking the obvious! Carreon was scared away by Gino Romano's motion to intervene!

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @5:58 pm Inman should _immediately_ file the same thing Doe filed in the state of California so that Carreon cannot bring up the state-level causes of action on service mark infringement etc in that other court.

IANAL; but damn, I know how these evil people (e.g. the ass-hats not the lawyers) think having been raised by vile crazy person.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @5:59 pm @Patches: "Gino Romano" would've dismissed the case before Carreon did. For America.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @6:01 pm @M. — just to reign pendant, "cooter" is slang for turtle and was so long before the whole sex context thing. Heck Cooter was the nickname of, well, Cooter on Dukes of Hazard on American prime time in the seventies, so its sexual connotation has to be fairly recent. Heck google "cooter festival" for a laugh (if the story is still there 8-).

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @6:02 pm I am still waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop. I am too cynical to believe that he just said 'oops, my bad. I quit.' It wasn't even a rage quit or anything. As others have mentioned, what are the odds of him going at Inman at a state level now?

GrimGhost • Jul 3, 2012 @6:04 pm IANAL, so this might be a stupid question to law people, but–

If CC was practicing law in Arizona (without a license), how would the relevant authorities find this out and prove it?

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @6:05 pm In favor of the TRO being M.A.A, the parties who responded had to research the claims, such as they were, in order to demonstrate that ass-hat was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his case.

The commentary on rule 41 addresses the research expense as the reasoning behind the limit on a.1.A.i etc.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @6:09 pm @Robert White: Ah, the more you know! I had quite the near spit-take up there.

azteclady • Jul 3, 2012 @6:10 pm Robert White: which, in plain English, means…?

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @6:10 pm Any of those ways of keeping the case going would depend on the defendants wanting it to continue.

My guess is that Inman doesn't care, his attorneys would probably prefer money but will do what's best for Inman, Indiegogo may want to go for blood, and the charities would probably rather not be seen as that petty (even if they'd prefer the money too).

SPQR • Jul 3, 2012 @6:12 pm ** plucks lute **

Brave brave Sir Carreon, bravely ran away …

Frost • Jul 3, 2012 @6:17 pm [GLaDOS voice:]

"This was a triumph.
I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.
Carreon Lawsuits
We sue who we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead."

Victor • Jul 3, 2012 @6:17 pm Still see this popping up on his website – Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled.

I say what's left of the carrion feeder is easy pickings for any countersuit.

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @6:22 pm a vexatious serial litigant who is either crazy or some sort of performance artist

Why can't it be both? I THINK IT'S BOTH.

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @6:22 pm I have to admit, that fake filing purporting to be by Inman is hilarious.

Myk • Jul 3, 2012 @6:23 pm EFF: "…We called him out on this in our briefs, so it's no surprise that Carreon was left with no choice but to dismiss"

Is it just me, or does the image of EFF turning up in their underwear (briefs = underpants, for those confused) fit quite nicely, if not disturbingly, with the overall tone of Chuckles' approach?

Margaret • Jul 3, 2012 @6:23 pm And let me add: Carreon has brought vexatious serial litigants out like moths to the crazy flame! Truly, he is the light. (Of crazy.)

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @6:24 pm anyone else find the "inman" filing completely hilariou?
more importantly, does anyone actually believe it was him?

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @6:28 pm @azteclady – (IANAL) but…

If I were Inman I would argue that Carreon cannot just up and quit because by forcing the parties to "respond to the Temporary Restraining Order" (by dint of filing it) the parties -have- responded to the suit.

Having made that argument I would offer instead a 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties, that says the dismissal is "with prejudice" so that Carreon can not ever bring this up again in any court as a cause of action.

My plain reading is that a volentary dismissal needs to be "before the other party responds" which they have done, and the commentary at the bottom of the page includes (in the 1949 commentary):

[In referring to summary judgment motions] Since such a motion may require even more research and preparation than the answer itself, there is good reason why the service of the motion, like that of the answer, should prevent a voluntary dismissal by the adversary without court approval.

Well temporary restraining orders aren't free of their responsive burden on the respondents, and that expense has been paid by several parties already.

I don't think forcing Carreon to add "with prejudice" to his dismissal is any hardship on him in recompense for the expense paid by all other parties.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @6:31 pm Robert, I think that is the best scenario to end this thing that I've seen since the idea of Carreon never filing suit to begin with.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @6:32 pm Granted the claims were so bizzare and improper that having -them- gone, with or without prejudice, wouldn't really apply to any other irrational claims made by Carreon in the future.

It would just be nice to not just have the box closed, but have the box locked and the key destroyed.

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @6:33 pm Okay the alleged Inman lawsuit seems to have the same bad SPaG as the other one attributed to the serial litigant. That being said, what are the odds of CC attempting to use this against Inman?

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @6:34 pm @Ollie – indeed, so the second best outcome — given our lack of a time machine and a means to kill Hitler, as it were — would be a scenario in which Carreon does not bring suit -again-.

Amanda • Jul 3, 2012 @6:35 pm The address listed under Inman's signature is for a 7-11 in D.C.

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @6:40 pm @Kelly, Tara might use this in her rants, but I doubt Charles is stupid enough to try to claim such an obvious fake is legit. It's not like his name is Orly.

azteclady • Jul 3, 2012 @6:40 pm @ Robert White: Thank you!

And yes, locking and then burying the box as far out of Charles Carreon's reach as possible would be best. Mind you, I really don't want the box destroyed–let it serve as an example to others thinking of filing frivolous suits.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @6:41 pm @Amanda, see proof that Inman is Illuminati. 7-11 is our secret code for Gamma Protocol.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @6:45 pm @Robert White
who said anything about lack of time machine?

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @6:47 pm @ Mike K- Lets hope not. Neither seem to be firing with all cylinders during this whole process and he did accuse Inman of shutting down his site, having an army of people harass him, etc… My concern was that this faux lawsuit would fit right in with the rest of the outrageous claims. Example: "Matt Inman told (Doe whatever # he is on) to file this false lawsuit against me to further harass me."

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @6:49 pm @ Robert White- *gapes* Dr Who told me that all of that happened- the time machine and killing Hitler. Surely BBC wouldn't steer me wrong, would it?

Carlos • Jul 3, 2012 @6:50 pm Oatmeal is a damned liar! Where's the pic of the money? :p :p
Glad it went well, let's hope he won't try again and that the Satirical Charles may achieve success too!

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @6:52 pm If he were to accuse Inman of having someone else file a fake lawsuit as harassment, I'm pretty sure that Charles would be guilty of actual defamation rather than the stuff he's been accusing others of so far.

Amanda • Jul 3, 2012 @7:02 pm @Chris Now I know, and knowing is half the battle. (Also, I believe your secret code is now compromised).

Jordan • Jul 3, 2012 @7:03 pm I have to admit, I laughed.

Definitely not a good idea, but I laughed.

Berley • Jul 3, 2012 @7:19 pm @ Ollie — shhh. You're going to get yourself kicked out of the Illuminati. And you don't want that to happen.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 3, 2012 @7:20 pm I know nothing about Jonathan Lee Riches other than what we all read in the last couple days. But I don't believe he is serious about the conspiracies he claims in his lawsuits.

We've all gotten the random emails with paranoid ravings. (Or at least those of us who filter our spam ourselves have.) The stuff is like Tara's stuff. Real delusional ravings aren't random stream of consciousness. They may be "pressured" — ideas rushing ahead of the ability to express them — but there is a logic. It's just not based on reality. Paranoids aren't stupid; they just lack the ability to judge which things are really related and which are mere coincidence.

Riches doesn't have an obsession with any particular person or organization. He doesn't weave a coherent conspiracy theory with unexplained loose ends; his ravings don't hang together at all. He files against anyone in the news and gets lots of attention. In contrast, we hear that he was very slick at scamming people in person and just started this nonsense when he was in prison, winning himself a place in a hospital prison. Could someone with a mind that totally disorganized have fooled anyone?

Maybe he is a performance artist who decided to pursue his craft while in prison. But if I were federal law enforcement agents, I would be suspicious he has some scam going on, and that the vexatious litigation is both a diversion to distract attention from illegal activities and a scheme to allow him to claim insanity if he is caught.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:31 pm

PART 2 OF 4 (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Chapter IX: Charles Carreon Dismisses His Lawsuit Cont'd.)

Dan Weber • Jul 3, 2012 @7:21 pm Oh dear Lord, I hurt from laughing.

Knowing that this joker was just getting himself deeper in hot soup with every word made it that much more salacious.

It's probably a giant distraction from the free speech issues so I shouldn't laugh.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @7:25 pm oh uhhh right that was a typo. it should have been rhyme machine. like the carreons!!! oops wait nevermind….
don't worry, illuminati secrets are safe with me

Jess • Jul 3, 2012 @7:28 pm This seems so anti-climatic ,but I almost feel like I'm at one of those movies where they kill the bad guy at the end but suddenly he freakishly comes alive and tries to kill the hero at the last minute. Somehow it feels like it's not over just yet and we're going to see another freakish jack in the box moment.

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 3, 2012 @7:33 pm The "oatmeal stains" after "everything" swelled are rather a nice touch, I think.

But what exactly do you suppose is meant by an "offshore swiss bank account"?

Grifter • Jul 3, 2012 @7:34 pm Can someone explain to me a good reason that litigants are allowed to dismiss their own cases without prejudice, or an example where it would be in the service of justice to allow it? I don't understand why he's allowed to do it (well, I understand the rules allow it, but I don't get the logic of the rules).

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @7:34 pm @Ollie — we do NOT discuss the time machine or its usage — should it exist — in open channel.

Seriously people read the handbook damnit…

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @7:37 pm Don't mention the handbook shhhhhh!!!!! talk about giving out illuminati secrets…..

Kevin • Jul 3, 2012 @7:39 pm Somehow, the mere theory that Carreon is just waiting for all the support and passion to blow over before refiling his charges sounds too plausible.

Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @7:48 pm @Grifter – in a normal circumstance, the court doesn't want to dissuade normally not-irrational people from realizing they are making a mistake of circumstance or passion and withdrawing.

Basically, in normal usage, this is the "my bad, sorry for being a dick, never mind" rule.

But in normal usage the plaintiff isn't a vile contentious douche-hat ass-bag as proven by public distraction.

The idea is if you can get the guy to take his ball and go home before the horns are locked and the opponent can engage counter complaints then its a good for everyone.

The limit means, normally, that you don't get to force the other side to show their hand and -then- get a free, non-binding quitsies. Once you get to see the other guys hand, letting you quit so that you maybe refile with other arguments isn't fair so there is a limit there.

Thing is, in the responses to the TRO, Carreon got to look at the other guy's hand without paying. That's normally a no-no.

But, again, IANAL.

Grifter • Jul 3, 2012 @8:00 pm @Robert White:

But what I don't understand is why there isn't prejudice in the dismissal; not sanctions, but definitely an official "this case was a mistake". Are there more consequences than I am aware of of the "with prejudice" aspect?

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @8:08 pm ... eal-et-al/


Amanda • Jul 3, 2012 @8:12 pm Why do I suddenly feel like screaming "IT"S A TRAP!!!!!!!!!"?

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @8:13 pm @Amanda
You win today by making the star wars reference
Unless some trekie can fin something clever to throw in here…..

Tali • Jul 3, 2012 @8:23 pm So something that has me wondering about Jonathan Lee Riches if he did file that pro se complaint, is how does that (as well as the Geno Romano Carreon thing he filed) play into the fact that he has a court order banning him from filing under any alias without the court's permission? Does that order only apply to Michigan courts, since its where the order originated from (hence why he can file on the Carreon case in CA, and now this one in AZ), and will that play at all into any punishments he might receive from filing in Inman's name?

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @8:26 pm From Ars:

When asked whether the EFF would pursue compensation for legal fees and attorney costs, Opsahl said stopped short of saying the dismissal of charges would bring an end to the whole debacle. “I'd have to talk to my client, can't make an absolute statement on what or next step would be.” I am hoping that this means they are going to nail his butt to the wall.

But if the defendants pursued attorney's fees, the attention might be worth it for Charles Carreon. After asking for comment on his voluntary dismissal of charges, Carreon lilted over the phone, "I'm famous, I'm notorious." Which, from the looks of it, is exactly what he wants. Oh good gods, is he saying what I think he is? Was this really just a way to get his name out there?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @8:29 pm "I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate," he said, commenting on litigation.

So, no come-to-Jesus moment. He got Inman to do what Inman was going to do anyway, and never has to face being proven wrong about anything, ever.

And let's not forget that this was all mounted in a purported defense of people being defrauded — not just by Inman, but by Indiegogo. If that had really been the motivation, he wouldn't have dismissed. You hear that, white-hat? You sold out the "public" you claimed to be riding in to protect (who didn't need or want your help in the first place), then declared victory and rode off into the sunset when the big guns came out.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @8:30 pm It should be noted that this is about the time of night when Tara starts liveblogging/drawing in MS Paint. She should have a lot to say tonight (if Charles hasn't strengthened his Hand of Pimping +1 vs Witches. It's nearly the Fourth of July, so fireworks WOULD be appropriate.

Hrm… it all wrapped up on the Fourth of July. How appropriate.

Happy Fourth of July/Fuck Censorship Day, everyone.

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @8:33 pm "Unless some trekie can fin something clever to throw in here….."

Errand of Mercy (1967):

Captain James T. Kirk: Well, Commander, I guess that takes care of the war. Obviously, the Organians aren't going to let us fight.

Kor: A shame, Captain. It would have been glorious.

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @8:34 pm @ W Ross: if Charles hasn't strengthened his Hand of Pimping +1 vs Witches. Hey now, legit witches might complain at the association with the batshit crazy lady. (kidding, mostly)

It will be interesting to see if she is quiet or not.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @8:35 pm @Kelly Please replace witches with hags.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @8:35 pm So he's infamous for crying like a baby about the internet, not accomplishing anything through his legal prowess, having a batshit crazy wife, and getting out lawyered at every turn, and making his clients look terrible. I am so glad he's happy with the outcome.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @8:35 pm @Thorne ok that may just win the night.

Ollie • Jul 3, 2012 @8:36 pm I think he's just trying to pretend this is how he wanted it to go so he feels smart and spites us all. what a prick.

Rand Bell • Jul 3, 2012 @8:39 pm I have to ask since it was my first thought and I haven't seen anything from Chuckles yet — is this real? Can someone game the electronic filing system to fake a dismissal? Or are there pretty strong safeguards against such a thing? Call me a skeptic but it seems very un-Carreon like to come to his senses.

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @8:41 pm @ W Ross- *grins* That works. Though, you probably got higher on her list of evil… wait should that now be considered a badge of honor, making her list o'evildoers I mean?

Marzipan • Jul 3, 2012 @8:41 pm @Frost, I LOL'd. Belatedly but fervently. So does this mean that the suit was a lie?

In light of Ken's dictum, I also propose the Carreon ratio as the ratio of threats to specifics in a lawsuit. The higher the Carreon ratio, the more likely the suit is filed with the intent of being a censorious douchebag thug instead of a valid legal complaint.

Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @8:41 pm What a strange article on Ars, though. Did Carreon only throw pseudo-witty one liners as comments?

"Mission Accomplished," "I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate," "I'm famous, I'm notorious."

*douche chills*

Thorne • Jul 3, 2012 @8:44 pm Methinks he's been spending too much time around the Underpants Gnomes:

Step One: Dismiss Lawsuit
Step Two: ?????
Step Three: PROFIT

Rand Bell • Jul 3, 2012 @8:44 pm n/m – just read the Ars article. "mission accomplished" indeed.

Harper • Jul 3, 2012 @8:49 pm Nobody seems to be talking about SLAPP (CCP 425.16 etc.). I wonder why not.

Marzipan • Jul 3, 2012 @8:51 pm Here's my entry into the Carreon quote of the night.

From the Devil's Advocate: "Lose? I don't lose! I win! I WIN! I'm a lawyer! That's my job, that's what I do!"

Ryan • Jul 3, 2012 @8:51 pm I still think this was just one truly truly outrageous (albeit poorly constructed) attempt by CC to get his name in lights. I would bet he knew all along where the point of no return was and planned on bailing right before the cage door shut. The only thing he didn't count on was Satrical Charles turning the table, so I suspect he'll cave on that case in very short order. Of course saying he planned this would imply he thought this all through, which would again imply rational thought, so there's the hole in my argument right there.
As for Inman, I'd be very surprised if he pursued this any further. Right out of the gate he said "I just want to make comics". Even attempting to get "with prejudice" added to it would take up more of his time I'm sure he'd rather spend elsewhere. Inman knows he'd win; CC knows he'd lose.
There's no Carreon vs. Goliath fable ending here.
I think it's time to pack up the popcorn folks. Keep a box of Junior Mints handy for the Doe v Carreon case, but the main event is over.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @8:51 pm @Kelly I never made her list. I fly under the radar, like a… uh… fly under a radar. That's OK though, cause I'm pretty sure a lot of her rage is sexual.

@Chris A man on a sinking ship will be happy with a desert island I guess.

@Ollie The RIAA, Penguin, or any number of other people will have their wicked ways with Charles Carreon, so don't think he got off scott free. Plus he has to live with Tara, so he's already in a kind of hell. The books will self-balance as long as they stay together.

Marzipan • Jul 3, 2012 @8:52 pm Here's my entry into the Carreon quote of the night.

From the Devil's Advocate: "Lose? I don't lose! I win! I WIN! I'm a lawyer! That's my job, that's what I do!"

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @8:54 pm

/|\_ Related.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @8:57 pm!/search/realtime/ ... Carreon%22

Holy shit. Look how fast "Charles Carreon" is moving on Twitter. It'll never be enough to trend, but that's still a LOT of mentions per hour.


Nicholas Weaver • Jul 3, 2012 @8:59 pm THe more I think about it, the more I think is that the EFF and Inman are not going to quite let this lie, namely, since they did do the replies on the TRO, they need to force Carreon to change it to dismiss with prejudice.

Especially since Carreon has threatened people with "I'll sue you, perhaps, not now but three years from now, when you no longer have a pro bono lawyer…"

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @8:59 pm @ W Ross- so you're like one of the human looking Cylons then? Well played! Ewwww, I did not need to think of her rage that way.

Also, geek quote, though it is BSG not Trek, so I don't know if it counts. It seems fitting as they were talking about Baltar who is almost as strange as CC has been in this case…almost.

Roslin: He's an odd one, isn't he?
Billy: Cuckoo

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @9:02 pm Anyone want to Photoshop Carreon into the old aircraft carrier pic for great justice?

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @9:03 pm "Whatever is wrong with you… is no little thing." (expect some of you will guess the movie pretty quick without an explanation)

It's annoying that he's claiming victory, but since almost everyone involved predicted that he would, it's at least not a surprise.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @9:05 pm (Wish me luck finding a pic that's actually of him and not a slime mold or goatse.)

Smorz • Jul 3, 2012 @9:08 pm @W Ross Did I hear fireworks? Yay!! ... /index.htm

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @9:08 pm

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @9:09 pm ... opped?lite

New MSNBC story. Google mentions of "Charles Carreon" in the last hour up to 200. This is the end of the line, but who knows what they might throw in right at the end, so I'm sticking around past the credits (probably Nick Fury.)

@Kelly I'll take that. You pick your geek Rouge/Infiltrator archetype and I'll roll with it. I'm easy that way.

@Nicholas Weaver I agree. I worry that this is yet another strategy. I hope if he does attack again the person knows not to lose their shit, and to come find some help. I'm pretty sure most of us are ready to fight this asshat's bullshit to the grave as long as we can do it in our spare time, so a silent victim is really his only way to do any more damage.

Amanda • Jul 3, 2012 @9:11 pm It is highly illogical that I have initiated a geek-out on a (mostly) law blog.

T.Stark • Jul 3, 2012 @9:14 pm "Charles Carreon Batshit Crazy" comes back with 516 results in Google.
"Charles Carreon douchebag" comes back with 22,000+ results.
You are indeed, famous. I'm sure your Mother would be proud.

dex • Jul 3, 2012 @9:15 pm There's no way of getting satisfaction with a narcissistic personality like Carreon. He will always weasel out of the shit he starts at the last second, and claim victory.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @9:16 pm Carreon ended his interview, looking into Tara's eyes and said:

"Worlds are conquered, galaxies destroyed…but a woman is always a woman."
– James T. Kirk

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @9:23 pm @ W Ross- Oh now Nick Fury entering this debacle would be priceless. I am a Trekkie of course, but a bigger BSG geek.

@Amanda- Nah, I think most of us are geeks here and we like to let the geek show as often as possible.

@Nicholas Weaver- I think this is another strategy. Though I agree with W Ross, I would like to think that anyone else that faces this will actually ask for help and everyone will jump in to do just that.

@ Chris- That link made me laugh aloud. Also loving the Kirk quote.

@ T. Stark- thanks for the stats. He really needs to learn that infamous is not always a good thing. Sadly, I think he missed that day of class.

just_wow • Jul 3, 2012 @9:27 pm The best thing about the lawsuit filed in the name of Inman is that the events described in Dennys are not far fetched.

Mike K • Jul 3, 2012 @9:29 pm Chris, that quote reminds me of these song lyrics: "He was a boy. She was a girl. Can I make this any more obvious?" (Sk8er Boi for those of you too young to have heard it and those of you so old to have ignored it :p)

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @9:41 pm ... arreon.png

Apologies for the quality; I'm an editor, not a graphic artist.

HeatherCat • Jul 3, 2012 @9:47 pm @Mike K, unfortunately I know of Ms. Avril's, um, "work". Can't really say I was ever a fan. But being in that later Gen-X demographic with a love for music and pop culture I have to keep up on these things for trivia night ;)

And it's late on the east coast, I'm tired. Been one helluva show tonight, that's for sure.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @9:50 pm @M He really looks like a proto-nosferatu, doesn't he? :D

@Kelly Captain Kirk could have gotten a lot more done if he wasn't banging everyone he met. He was the John Edwards of Sci Fi. Trek is OK but I prefer Firefly/Dr. Who. I want to solve problems with my brain or viscous punching, space-diplomacy is for the birds.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @9:52 pm @W Ross: I don't have any particular vitriol for him (other than standard dislike of troll douchecanoes), but my first thought was "what a pan-poser."

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @9:52 pm @M, lol.

Kelly • Jul 3, 2012 @9:56 pm @M LMAO!

@ W Ross – So true! YAY! Another Firefly & Who fan! Also, I call bonus points for the "proto-nosferatu" which explained it so much better than… oh dear gods, he looks rather Gollum-like, which was my first thought.

@ Mike K- I have a teenage daughter, I recognized the song right off.

dex • Jul 3, 2012 @9:58 pm @M, love the pic. Spread it around. Send it to Tara; it deserves a place in the N Library.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @10:02 pm @dex That's not a bad idea. I literally have no money, so if they sue me, i can just tie them up in court for years for the lulz. Any excuse to get dressed up.

simcop2387 • Jul 3, 2012 @10:03 pm Has anyone else noticed that some of tara's forum posts are in the future? There's stuff in there from thursday already on other threads. ... &start=100

Gal • Jul 3, 2012 @10:06 pm It really bothers me that a lawyer can bluff his way through so many double-downs, and not actually put anything in the pot.

So Carreon's reputation is tarnished, great. How many other lawyers are there who make a living out of bullying people with the threat merit-less litigation?

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @10:07 pm @simcop Those say June.

Matt Scott • Jul 3, 2012 @10:08 pm @simcop2387 errr… that's Thursday, JUNE 7. Not July.

simcop2387 • Jul 3, 2012 @10:08 pm Ok, I'm too dang tired then. I apologize.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @10:10 pm Seattle Times ... c-dropped/

Boing Boing ... n-acc.html

Forbes ... e-oatmeal/

A lot of people covering it.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @10:11 pm @simcop No worries, it's late. Bunch of articles out (they'll pop up when my comment comes out of moderation, assuming Ken is up late, otherwise Forbes, Boing Boing, Seattle Times.)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @10:14 pm @M: can I repost your image?

Random Encounter • Jul 3, 2012 @10:21 pm @W Ross Nosferatu? I suspect Gangrel instead.

W Ross • Jul 3, 2012 @10:23 pm @Random Encounter

When he desperately wishes he was a Brujah.

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @10:28 pm @Adam Steinbaugh: Would you link me when you do, please?

M. • Jul 3, 2012 @10:29 pm (post the link here, that is, not link to my beauty blog that no one outside of a very specific demographic gives two damns about)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @10:56 pm @M. As you wish!

dex • Jul 3, 2012 @11:18 pm M., easily my favorite Carreon meme so far.

Chris • Jul 3, 2012 @11:40 pm Hey when did they change the banner of the nader library? I guess I've been scrolling down looking for new post and didn't notice the Carreon double middle fingers in the air? Or is that new?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 3, 2012 @11:51 pm @Chris: that's new. Prepare for some awesome cognitive dissonance.

Chris • Jul 4, 2012 @12:02 am Oh okay. Figured it was directed at us Illuminati.

M. • Jul 4, 2012 @12:16 am Dang, I didn't realize Chris meant the "double middle fingers" in the air literally. Stay classy, Charles.

@dex – Thanks! Some days the jokes really do write themselves.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 4, 2012 @12:19 am Who says we didn't do it? mwahahAHAHAHA

Scott Jacobs • Jul 4, 2012 @12:29 am The multitude of WoD references disgust me…

Especially when everyone knows the Carreons are Malkavians…

M. • Jul 4, 2012 @12:48 am Oh good, now I can't even use quotes properly.

dex • Jul 4, 2012 @12:55 am Hilarious letter from Tara to R. Nader back in the day. (Sorry; not savvy enough to link. Sorry also if this is a repost.) ... 1&start=10

Esp. love the description of the two fundraisers she and Charles threw for Nader, which attracted exactly one (apparently homeless) guest apiece. God, to have been a fly on the wall at those gatherings. Other highlights include a hypocritical defense of free speech, withering charges of out of touch-ness, and loving mention of riotous internet debate.

Kris • Jul 4, 2012 @1:13 am What happened to the Trademark Infringement? You know, the thing he quoted as was the purpose of the suit, until he remolded the pile of reek into a "I'm fighting for the public re: charity donations"?

I was initially of the mind that Inman could take the high road and be like, "You got your ass handed to you, legally speaking, so I'm going to leave it at that" and let it go. But now since this douchenozzle is claiming "The only reason Inman did what he was going to do anyway is because I stepped in", I really hope that this guy gets some serious legal hurt thrown his way.

What a douche.

dex • Jul 4, 2012 @1:16 am It's worth reading the posts that lead up to Tara's Nader email as well. Genuinely funny, with Tara quoting e.g. an administrator of the Nader Facebook page asking her politely to perhaps not comment quite so often, and Tara taking it as fascist suppression, etc.

jj • Jul 4, 2012 @2:05 am Given his otherwise obnoxious threats to "Doe", one could construe his dismissal as part of his previously stated strategy, could one not? Or is this not so? I don't know. Mathematics is much clearer than law.

Jonathan • Jul 4, 2012 @2:19 am Damn, I suppose it was fun while it lasted. *Shelves popcorn* I was really looking forward to seeing him thrown out of court.

n o 0 n e • Jul 4, 2012 @2:25 am sorry, the walking dead is playing both seasons most nights here in japan, so i couldn't resist.

gomen nasai. . .

AwesomeFreddie • Jul 4, 2012 @3:17 am So much for my fun *sigh*

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @3:21 am Actually, the double middle finer appears to have something to do with the Fourth of July:

Brian Paone • Jul 4, 2012 @5:19 am "3. Based on some quick research, it appears to me that Mr. Carreon's voluntary dismissal of the action does not preclude Mr. Inman from seeking attorney fees and costs under the Lanham Act. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394–95 (1990). That doesn't mean that Mr. Inman will, or should, seek fees, for practical reasons too lengthy to discuss in this post."


…a rage-charity fundraiser for the ages?

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @6:13 am Well not completely over yet. Carreon may have dropped his suit against Inman but he never filed a suit against Doe. Doe filed against Carreon. The next question will be can Doe get Carrreon to capitulate on his threats of indeterminant future litigation against Doe or will Doe have to proceed and grind Carreon into the dust from whence he came.

Mark Lyon • Jul 4, 2012 @6:37 am It may be far less from over.

#32: Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 12-cv-03435. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 7/3/12. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012) (Entered: 07/03/2012) ... 4.32.0.pdf

That may point out to the judge the earlier threats of delayed action, forcing either a dismissal with prejudice or even more comedy.

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @6:40 am Good one Mark. I suspect Doe is about to school Charles in some real lawyering.

Jeff • Jul 4, 2012 @6:41 am Ken, if you check the address in the purported Inman filing, it's Mitchell's Hall on George Washington University's campus in DC.

Chris • Jul 4, 2012 @6:45 am @dex, yeah the Carreon Nader parties sound like a blast. I'm sure even the homeless guy that showed up was like "these people are nucking futs!" Could you imagine? You see a flyer for a political event and you're like "yeah I should go!" Only to show up and have Tara Carreon staring at you with her best "It" grin? No thanks.

Nibor • Jul 4, 2012 @6:54 am A “little” thought on the situation:
As far as I can follow it, FFE and possible IndieGoGo wrote CC some letters, in which they explain to him, why he wouldn’t possible win his case, probably doing so in in lawyer language and this must somehow made an appeal/click/connection to CC´s lawyer part of his brain.
This would planted a seed that could bypass his ego and/or other half (not as in brain but as in man and wife), for is was using “logical lawyer reasoning and words” the only thing he actual understands with his intelligence.
Note: For I found many comments/evidence of him being stubborn, foolish, narcissistic, sometimes plain mad, but he is an intelligent man, misguided maybe but intelligent never the less.
Because this made him reasoning with his “mad” parts. Finally he got the message, that he couldn’t win and that it would possible harm him dearly in the process, so an/the survival mode was engaged (maybe willingly and knowingly but more likely he wasn’t aware of it himself)
This mode/mind-set made him look for a way out and I guess this was around the time when he came up with the TRO, for it would force the hands of the others.
Until now the letters could be dismissed ( for they weren’t real, only actual court documents are real).
He knows when confronted with a TRO they have to react and show him (and the judge) at least a part of their cards.
After having contacted IndieGoGo he knows the money is already gone, probably in the letters from FFE he has been told that the photo also is already taken, so the TRO helps him by accentuating the “all money to charity” part. He is shifting( in his head) the attention away from all the bogus/lost parts of his initial filing and as much as possible direct the attention to the part that he can consider (probably unconsciously) as his doing and as a win.
Then when the reactions roll in and confirm that the money is gone, also the lawyers are making minced meat out of his original complaint in “real” (official court documents).
And also is he confronted with a case against him, put to him in the only language he understands not obscured/distorted by his misled ego and significant other half.
Now the reality kicks in, he has to survive, with the least of damages, so he goes for voluntarily dropping the case, just before a judge speaks (on the TRO part) so he actually does not lose.
Now I am going in a part that I don’t know if it’s legally correct:
Because the case is dropped before the other parties show hands (they showed it in the TRO case but not in the actual case itself) he still can get out without going to court. (possible compensations can’t be claimed) as would be impossible after the other parties had counter sued (anti-SLAPP?) or filed their defence.
So in his mind he has shifted attention to the part that is safe, he sees this is accomplished, he pulls out and he untimely wins. Bzinga (for he hasn’t lost the case so it’s a win)
The other case in which HE is sued is not related to this win and will be dealt with from now on
That other thingy is gone now and he is safe again, by settling out of court, which I think he will try to do, when he realises he will lose if he continues (don’t forget he is still in contact with reality as much as possible for him from that other thingy).
Also is in his mind his beloved Nader is involved, or at least his company and even CC hasn’t the guts to go against his holy “man-god” .
But if it is settled out of court again he survives without losing so he wins, a double Bzinga.
If only J.Doe agrees to a settlement.

Note to J.Doe: Please don’t :-) , otherwise I really will have too much time on my hand and I will have to find/search another hobby.

But this is only a "little" tought of me ;-)

Thomas • Jul 4, 2012 @6:56 am So Nader Library's banner image has been replaced with Charles at home, giving the finger in a Joey Ramone shirt. This seems to scream, with no subtlety, that he's bizarrely claiming victory and giving us all a big FU…

Nibor • Jul 4, 2012 @7:10 am @Thomas, Valerie found out that the fingers are related to something else

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @3:21 am

Actually, the double middle finer appears to have something to do with the Fourth of July:

Roxy • Jul 4, 2012 @7:54 am To quote inception, I am disappoint.

I still don't know what he thought he was going to accomplish here. :/ I do, however, know by looking up past bar punishments on lawyers he would have walked away with a slap on the wrist at most. :/

Roxy • Jul 4, 2012 @7:56 am Also, I realllllllllly hope Inman draws a graphic to go along with the bogus lawsuit.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @8:25 am @Nibor Nice find.

Charles Carreon is 1/64th Cherrosqua Injun, and 1/75th Spanglish Tanquistador… He's TOTALLY not white. There's nothing more urban than a litigator from Oregon.

"When cute Mexicanas are flirting
Red blooded chamacos must play
It's true we don't do much computing
You don't make Mexicanos that way."

Maybe if you spent less time hag-bagging and more time computing you'd know the things a person ought not do on the Internet, though. Just a thought.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @8:26 am "You deride us for tanning so darkly
While you hide from the sun like a freak."

Yes, you're a rich golden brown.

Fuck you • Jul 4, 2012 @9:12 am Fuck you

FlounderFather • Jul 4, 2012 @9:13 am Well #grimghost … The phone number you posted belongs to a watch dealer in Cour DeLane Idaho … Please folks, don't call it unless you need a watch. Though they could make money selling a novelty one with an overweight trailer trash woman as the second hand chasing a bear minute hand …

Robert White • Jul 4, 2012 @9:21 am RE: Doe vs Carreon, I don't think he -can- "settle that out of court" as the point of the suit is to get the court to say that Carreon's threats barred.

RE: Carreon vs Innman, section 41 says that those dismissals have some sort of future weight as it they were findings of fact or some such. IANAL so I didn't understand. My worry is the servicemark nonsense which can come back under rules in some state; composted with the weird vagueness of the original clams being so unclear as to allow this dismissal to not apply to all sorts of similar but differently worded things.

To some extent I think Inman needs to join with Doe for the "this douch-canoe just cant sue us for trademark and servicemark nonsense, ever, after threatening barratry/lawfare" finding from the court.

IANAL, so this is all lay-reading.

Robert White • Jul 4, 2012 @9:33 am @W Ross — something that no good racist would ever admit, but that history reveals with certitude: There is no such thing as "white" for all practical purposes.

Between the ability of arbitrary members of various blood lines to "pass for white" (which most youngsters don't even know is a thing now days); and the fact that Europe was invaded from every direction in every generation; "being white" is being a mongrel in great depth.

The two reasons that "white people" covered the earth are (1) having come from everywhere, we had immunities in our genes to all the local diseases from everywhere, and (2) we were so used to land changing hands by force that our idea that "if you can take it, god meant it just for you" (a.k.a. "might makes right" a.k.a. "manifest destiny") let us get well past the enlightenment and into the age of ocean voyaging, without balkanizing.

The only thing we lacked was the "native american" blood lines, and so an ingrained resistance to syphilis, and we are fixing that now.

Having been in school through that time when integration became normal, and having been raised in so-cal by completely race-agnostic parents I totally didn't appreciate the experience at the time, then I moved to maryland at 12 and was all WTF?

To this date when I see a muddled crowd of "white" people, especially on TV, with their various hair and eye colors barking about "the purity of the white race" I have to suppress a laugh in the name of my own safety.

I am pretty sure that's why racists go to the skin-headed. If you cut off all that hair, the absurdity of "racial purity" is easier to hide from, and the cognitive dissonance is minimized.

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:36 am A treat for the 4th of July. After listening to Charles sing about chili peppers and how Mexican he is, you can read this and learn a little history:

"A plaque in front of the Santa Barbara Courthouse, placed by the Daughters of the American Revolution commemorates de Anza’s arrival at the location on July 4, 1776. Thus, my relatives were busy settling the west coast for the King of Spain, while the Mayflower descendants were telling George the First to piss off."

He is only 2 Georges off.

And if you don't believe he is a genuine certified minority, there is this:

"I have lots of experience with prejudice, even though most people think I’m “white.” In Mexico, I was called a “gringo,” and treated badly. In Washington D.C., I was called a “honky” by black people. Innumerable “white people” have asked me what I “am.” When I answer, “I’m a Mexican,” they often reject the idea, telling me “Oh no, you’re Spanish.” To which I respond that once the Mexicans and Spaniards got in bed together, it got hard to tell. In the blood of my family, there are many people called Native Americans – two hundred years in the desert will erode a lot of race purity – but my Mom, whose own mother was obviously a tiny woman of indigenous origins, never thought of herself as “an Indian.” Blindness is in the eye of the beholder."

Fight the power, Charles, fight the power.

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @9:36 am Couple of key points to remember that will be interesting as this saga continues – because it is indeed not over yet.

(1.) Carreon sued Inman – FunnyJunk did not sue Inman. FunnyJunk walks away unscathed, their only cost being Carreon’s original representation fees and a good bit of internet bad will which will soon be forgotten because their audience has the attention span of a lightening bug. FunnyJunk has benefited by enjoying a temporary bump in website traffic and potentially revenue. Most likely scenario – Carreon approached FunnyJunk convincing them he could get $20K out of Inman with a 40% cut to himself (so as W. Ross said, he could make rent). Although FunnyJunk has not announced anything it is highly likely they dropped Carreon as their representation which would explain why Carreon filed personally against Inman – most likely due to his butt-hurt feelings of being made to look like a fool and the loss of his perceived entitlement to 40% of a baseless lawsuit for $20K.

(2.) Although Carreons suit against Inman was dismissed without prejudice, Doe’s lawyers have filed a referral of Doe’s case to the same judge on Carreon’s original suit against Inman. I’m not a lawyer but I have to wonder if this will ultimately change Carreon’s case against Inman to being dismissed “with” prejudice as Mark noted thereby closing the avenue of Carreon refilling this against Inman in the future.

(3.) Regardless, the referral was a master stroke by Doe’s lawyers in the case Doe has filed against Inman. If that case proceeds, it helps demonstrate a pattern of vexatious litigation and abuse of process by Carreon. Keep in mind Carreon has not yet replied to Doe’s case. If he has, I’ve not seen it yet. I hope Doe will not drop his case until Carreon capitulates 100% and agrees to all of Doe’s demands. If the referral is upheld, and I suspect it will be, and Carreon does not come to mutual agreement with Doe, I predict the case will go badly for Carreon. I see no way out for Carreon on this one and I think he is finally about to get skewered good and proper.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 4, 2012 @9:39 am Charles CAN settle Doe v Carreon out of court. All he has to do is agree to the terms of relief that the suit seeks. I

bet he will, he'd be stupid not to, and his sudden "Me Bad" in Carreon v Everybody shows that althouh he's a reprehensible bully and a censorous asshat, he's not entirely devoid of intelligence.

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 4, 2012 @9:46 am @M – Stay Classy, Charles.

Doesn't that imply that he has already BEEN classy at some point along the way? ;-)

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @9:58 am Nicholas – agreed as long as he has come to the realization he can't win that case. I don't think he is stupid, just stubborn and lacking the ability to see other people may be smarter and a few moves ahead of his game. I do not think he counted on Doe suing him and this likely took him by surprise.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:32 pm

PART 3 OF 4 (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Chapter IX: Charles Carreon Dismisses His Lawsuit Cont'd.)

Llachlan • Jul 4, 2012 @10:23 am I'm confused. How is it possible that Carreon can dismiss? The other parties answered, the Judge answered, and in ... 4.32.0.pdf a second judge became involved.

What exactly does 'answer' mean in this context (as a Canadian novelist I have, I think, a fairly good grasp of American law, but I am by no means up to speed on some of the issues raised in this particular suit)?

Ken • Jul 4, 2012 @10:28 am Llachlan, in this context "answer" means a specific pleading that admits or denies the allegations in the complaint. It doesn't mean any filing whatsoever.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @10:55 am @Fuck You

Hey Tara, how goes? Love you too!


Moo • Jul 4, 2012 @11:26 am The last part of the Ars article is interesting…where he mentions that he's famous.
Was that the point of it all along? To get his name out? Or was it attempt at a save. Like "I'm not really that huge of a douchebag…I just really want my name in the lights!"

Moo • Jul 4, 2012 @11:30 am Also…I wonder if he means "Mission Accomplished" with a Bush flair?

As in…this will keep going on until you lose all expectation for it to end…

Nate • Jul 4, 2012 @11:52 am Ah Chuckles, you might have stood a chance that we'd believe you'd dismissed because you'd achieved what you wanted to, if you hadn't said in one of your interviews (and in your complaint) that you wanted to change the way charitable contributions through sites like Indiegogo worked (indeed one of the prayers for relief involved halting all the current campaigns) and subjecting them to what you perceived was the way the California law worked.

I do hope that Inman's lawyers advise him to not leave it at this without getting it "with prejudice" and getting fees. Do they have to agree with the dismissal since they had to submit for the TRO? Or does just the judge have to sign off on it? If he gets the dismissal as it stands, I wonder if Inman can enjoin with Doe for declaratory relief.

Nate • Jul 4, 2012 @11:53 am Also, how is it that all the fun stuff seems to happen while I'm in bed? lol.

Llachlan • Jul 4, 2012 @12:08 pm @Ken – but doesn't the filing by Indiegogo (and the EFF) count as denying the complaint? Or is it the fact that the action being sought was a TRO, and hence doesn't really contain a complaint? And thank you for taking the time to reply earlier.

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @12:11 pm @Nate – well – isn't that where all the fun stuff is supposed to happen?

Ann • Jul 4, 2012 @12:11 pm As many predicted, Charles Carreon has claimed victory, ACTUALLY SAYING, "Mission Accomplished". ... eal-et-al/

Also updated the Nader Library header.

Nate • Jul 4, 2012 @12:15 pm Annnd apparently I should have refreshed since this morning. Ken answered the questions with regards the TRO answering and I see the Doe case was passed to Judge Chen. This could still be popcornworthy.

Off to bed now, wondering what I'll wake up to in the morning lol.

Nate • Jul 4, 2012 @12:18 pm @Joe lol, sadly not on a work night (partners' not mine, since I'm a kept man) ;) lol.

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @12:22 pm Any chance Inman can take further legal action, since Charlie is basically accusing him of planning to criminally defraud people with this "Mission Accomplished" bull shit (predictable, but galling).

I really hate to think of this asshole doing a victory lap for a fictional act of heroism & facing no substantial repercussions for abusing his license & giving some decent people a whole lot of undeserved trouble.

Has anyone photoshopped his head on flyboy Bush yet? Because that really needs to happen and be sent along to the Nader Library so Tara can stick a penis on it.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @12:52 pm ... OFJULY.mp3


Stuart • Jul 4, 2012 @1:04 pm @WRoss: Sounds like someone needs a history lesson with that song. I mean it was the Spanish that claimed that area not Columbus.

Chris • Jul 4, 2012 @1:06 pm @W Ross, I can't even begin to describe that mp3.

Chris R. • Jul 4, 2012 @1:10 pm Just noticed this browser had me down as Chris and the other as Chris R. I had switched to Chris R. after the other guy wanted to hack naderlibrary. So back to this name.

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @1:24 pm @ Stewart Well, he also thinks that Americans are celebrating their independence from George I today. (just two Georges short of being correct!).

And he thinks the federalist papers were written in secret during the revolution to keep them out of British hands (just half a decade, one war, and one independent nation away from being correct!).

He is also a civil rights legend, having stared down viscous racism for decades! He has been called "gringo" in Mexico and "honkey" in DC and he has even been called "white" by other white people!

Clearly a well informed and self-effacing member of the California Bar.

Stuart • Jul 4, 2012 @1:37 pm I really hope Inman makes sure to get it dismissed with prejudice and recovers legal fees. I usually don't like to kick em when they are down but CC has it coming since he's laying there saying how he won. He needs to be shown he did not win and made to admit it.

dex • Jul 4, 2012 @2:08 pm Chas is also quite a mover and shaker in political circles, having hosted two fundraisers for Ralph Nader that unfortunately didn't raise any funds because no one came. It was just Chas and Tara sitting at a table littered with patriotic confetti wheezing into noisemakers and thinking dark thoughts about fascistic communists.

Snowydew • Jul 4, 2012 @2:29 pm I did a quick google check and figured out the person posing as Inman in this weird lawsuit you mentioned is most likely a Student at George Washington University, according to the address given.

Jon • Jul 4, 2012 @2:52 pm I think the only person here who didn't lose out is Carreon:
1. Oats didn't take the picture with the money (using his own money isn't the same) as I think was the only real purpose of the lawsuit
2. The next DB who wants to extort money knowns Carreon is now famous for following through on threats to grind the defendant down (how many people will see a letter for nut-job carreon and pay to not go down this path?
3. Oats, Indiegogo and the charities had to pay (or use up a pro-bono resource) to defend against this.

For the cost of a few filing fees his site saw a spike in traffic (as did FJ I'm sure) to his website, and he now has "marketed" as an unreasonable attorney who is better settled with than faced to millions.

I beg whoever can bring the anti-SLAPP against him does, and that the defendants seek to recoup their legal fees.

Joe Pullen • Jul 4, 2012 @3:17 pm Not to worry Chris R. – we know our illuminate brethern by the secret handshake and the zebra protocol. If you're managing your image via Gravatar you can change the name there and it will populate to all your current and prior posts.

Robert White • Jul 4, 2012 @3:54 pm Okay, yes, Doe v. Carreon could settle, but if he's a big of a lawfare douche as we know him to be, and as he has threatened to be, the settlement wouldn't be worth the paperwork it was written on.

The settlement being a private thing, would be subject to contract law (I think, again IANAL) in terms of interpretation etc. and so would not bear the weight of a true finding of the court.

So ass-hat could just violate it later, claim it was for a different or more limited set of facts, and then fight out the tort when Doe complained.

Courts don't mind contract disputes all that much, but they hate it when you play games and misrepresent prior judgments.

I'd go for the ruling. If Carreon decides to play nice, let him stipulate the facts and then let Doe have his just and binding ruling.

Jay Lee • Jul 4, 2012 @5:19 pm Mission Accomplished!

Jay Lee • Jul 4, 2012 @5:40 pm Let's try that again ... .701420222

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @6:04 pm @ Jay Lee Excellent work, Agent Orange, the Master will be pleased…

M. • Jul 4, 2012 @6:27 pm @Jay Lee: Yours has far better comedic value than mine. I think it's the fact that he looks like a poseur dumbfuck instead of just looking like a stereotypical pedophile, as in the more lawyerly photo.

Ann • Jul 4, 2012 @7:20 pm I think Inman is pissed off, and I predict that he does not quietly abide the dismissed suit and "Mission Accomplished" crap. I'd feel the same way.

T. J. Brumfield • Jul 4, 2012 @7:26 pm I do think it is interesting that the RIAA has gone after some small offenders with only an IP address. There is very clear evidence that Carreon is hosting copyrighted songs and books on his site. He doesn't hide the fact.

He does have one pending lawsuit from Penguin Books I believe about hosting books illegally on his site, but shouldn't the RIAA peg him as well? Or are the RIAA only interested in bullying people who can't afford lawyers?

Jay Lee • Jul 4, 2012 @7:41 pm Tara's silence was short lived.

"We're making the video, "Psycho Santa," right now. It's going to be interesting. We're coming onto your playground, evil children. Going to one-up-you. It'll probably be another day or two. There is so much you can do when you make a video." ... 021194e127

Kris • Jul 4, 2012 @7:44 pm You know, rereading Inman's blog post just after the closing of the fundraiser, Inman was a bit ambiguous about the photograph of the money. He states simply, "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." While the initial response letter on TheOatmeal states, "I'll take a photo of the raised money", it still could be interpreted both ways. Either a.) the actual money from the fundraiser, or b.) the equivalent raised money.

Money is money.

This makes it even funnier in a very snarky way that Douchebag sued in the first place (regarding the money, anyway). This could have been Inman's plan all along (not even touching the money from the fundraiser, but taking photos of *other* money equivalent to the raised amount).

Narad • Jul 4, 2012 @7:48 pm I did a quick google check and figured out the person posing as Inman in this weird lawsuit you mentioned is most likely a Student at George Washington University, according to the address given.
Yes. As everyone knows, a pro se complaint with a fake name always includes the correct street address.

Narad • Jul 4, 2012 @7:56 pm In fact, that's two comments with the same odd observation, isn't it?

M. • Jul 4, 2012 @8:04 pm She sounds deranged.

Dan Weber • Jul 4, 2012 @8:15 pm TJ, my standing theory (that I've said a few times) is that no one noticed Penguin v Chas because Chas flew under their radar. The attention that he claims he wanted is going to turn out to be unwanted pretty soon.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @8:34 pm I knew they wouldn't leave us. They have Internet Stockholm Syndrome now, and only seek to entertain and delight us with their antics!

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 4, 2012 @8:35 pm If the plan was to trade in a legal career for YouTube ad revenue, then, yes, mission accomplished.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 4, 2012 @8:42 pm If you run your law practice out of your home, and you have a wife who can't stop posting things on the internet, you don't have much of a legal career anyway.

She also said that that previous problem with the misappropriated client funds was due to her actions rather than his. Maybe his failure to get licensed in the state where they live is purposeful.

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @8:47 pm The video will be pulled or muted within 48 hours due to infringement. These are the Carreons we're talking about; they'll use copywrited stuff, the the video will get pulled. Then the Carreons will sue You-Tube.

This is the Prophecy of the Illuminati, and so it will come to pass within two fortnight's, probably.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 4, 2012 @8:50 pm @AlphaCentauri: not sure what her actions would have been to do render her (and not Charles Carreon) liable — it wasn't her name and signature on the checks.

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @8:55 pm Thank God! I thought the Carreons had forsaken us! I am literally on the edge of my seat (well, the edge of a playground bouncy horse, or swing, or something) waiting with baited breath to enjoy "Psycho Santa" and see how she one-ups our eeevvviiilll plot to rule the world using only the power of cray-cray & the sweet gift of music (Giggling excitedly).

Roxy • Jul 4, 2012 @9:01 pm

Psycho Santa already exists. ;)

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:02 pm She seems to have re-written her advertisement for "Psycho Santa." It will not just be any video, oh no, it will be an "intelligent video" because "there is so much you can do when you make a video":

"We're making the video, "Psycho Santa," right now. It's going to be interesting. We're coming onto your playground, evil children. We're going to make an intelligent video. It's not like there are very many out there. Thank God for the ones that are there. It'll probably be another day or two. There is so much you can do when you make a video."
Its like waiting for Christmas morning!

W Ross • Jul 4, 2012 @9:07 pm Called that shit. We aren't even past the title and it's already derivitive. Wonder which Ramones song he uses in it.

Ollie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:15 pm The illuminati will take care of the video. Youtube will take it down for "copyright infringement"….. hehehe always 1 step ahead

Bill H • Jul 4, 2012 @9:24 pm Carreon, my wayward son,
There'll peace when you are done
Lay your oddball suit to rest,
Don't you sue no more

Masquerading as a man with a butthurt,
I thought I could sling a little law dirt
But if I claim to be a wise man,
It surely means that I don't know.

All the wild claims and the odd positions,
I still wouldn't clarify my true intentions
And as I spin my story ever wider,
I ignore the voices as they say!!

Carreon, my wayward son,
There'll peace when you are done
Lay your oddball suit to rest,
Don't you sue no more

Apologies to Kansas

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:29 pm Here is Chuckles preemptive strike against copyright hawks who might tear down his wife's masterpiece:

Creativity vs Copyright:

Highlights: the sheer fucking irony + Chas preforms some Shakespeare, uses the phrase "ass-shakers," and discusses Puff Daddy.

If you want to read Charles' words of wisdom instead of seeing him blandly recite them in front of some miscellaneous crap in his house, you can go to this page. Be warned, Charles, the accomplished lawyer, has not yet mastered the paragraph. ... .php?t=859

I really hope the production values on Psycho Santa will be better than this crap.

Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:36 pm Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:29 pm

Here is Chuckles preemptive strike against copyright hawks who might tear down his wife's masterpiece:

Creativity vs Copyright (links to video on Youtube): ... .php?t=859

Highlights: the sheer fucking irony + Chas preforms some Shakespeare, uses the phrase "ass-shakers," and discusses Puff Daddy.

If you want to read Charles' words of wisdom instead of seeing him blandly recite them in front of some miscellaneous crap in his house, the script is also on this page. Be warned, however, Charles, the accomplished lawyer, has not yet mastered the paragraph.

I really hope the production values on Psycho Santa will be better than this crap.

Your comment is awaiting moderation

Henry the Great • Jul 4, 2012 @10:12 pm Hopefully their video editing skills are better than their design sense…

With the amount of popcorn I have consumed through this saga, I hope I can get a deal with weight watchers…. call it the 'Douchebag Discount'

Chris R. • Jul 5, 2012 @12:26 am I hope it's an action movie!

Chris R. • Jul 5, 2012 @12:30 am I forgot what section of the handbook dealt with youtube videos….

Dan Weber • Jul 5, 2012 @1:24 am While the initial response letter on TheOatmeal states, "I'll take a photo of the raised money", it still could be interpreted both ways. Either a.) the actual money from the fundraiser, or b.) the equivalent raised money.

Money is the ultimate fungible good. One dollar is as good as any other dollar.

StillNoCouch • Jul 5, 2012 @5:18 am Two quick things:

1) RE Inman's photo: I do hope he sends publishes and sends it with the following caveats:

1a) That he send him a simple color print-out of a "Right-Click, save-as", unsigned version.
1b) That he offers (for a modest fee to cover postage and/or charitable donation to charity), signed copies

I would sort of expect that if Inman actually sent an original photo to this Douchebag, that it would eventually show up on eBay. Bear Love Good, Cancer and allowing this Douchebag make any money Bad.

2) Response to the TRO seems like a response to me. Carreon can't dismiss his own lawsuit. Does he believe he is the judge in this case (and effectively the judge in the Doe case as well) ?

My feeble, 'non-lawyer' brain seems to suggest that this isn't over until Judge Chen says it's over. I hope that Inman and his team go after (and get) FULL compensation for fees.

This has been a very educational series — as much as entertaining.

Thanks to Ken@Popehat, Kevin@LoweringTheBar, World+Dog@ArsTechnica … even Elie@AboveTheLaw for all of the wonderful write-ups and analysis.

Thanks also to the EFF and Venkat Balasubramani for some intelligent insights.

@Ann above: Will you marry me ?

AlphaCentauri • Jul 5, 2012 @5:40 am @Adam Steinbaugh, not sure, just saying what she said. Maybe she directed crazy vibrations his way while he slept. More likely, as his administrative assistant, she would write checks for all the bills for him to sign, and he, being a trusting husband/employer, signed without questioning.

That's how lots of embezzlement occurs, when people hire friends and relatives and stop asking questions.

ThatDCGuy • Jul 5, 2012 @7:32 am Is it possible we are all victims of the worlds greatest troll? I mean this whole Saga is just so illogical I can't imagine anyone believing it would work out in their favor.

Ollie • Jul 5, 2012 @8:04 am @thatDCguy, you might just be right
Someone should edit carreon's wikipedia page so it mentions him as "world's greatest troll".

Connie • Jul 5, 2012 @8:25 am In order to handle his new found 'fame', Charles Carreon should team up with social media expert Paul Christoforo. I think Ocean Marketing would be a perfect agency to represent him!

Elliot • Jul 5, 2012 @9:05 am @Connie: That's "Ocean Marketting." And I think Carreon would do better by hiring Joseph Rakofsky as his lawyer.

Elliot • Jul 5, 2012 @9:15 am @StillNoCouch: Carreon has the right at this point to drop his suit, without the judge's approval, because the defendants have not filed an "Answer" in the technical sense (see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(a), 8(b), 12(a, b). For example, if a plaintiff serves a Complaint and the defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff can voluntarily discontinue at that point. The defendants can, however, still pursue a motion for sanctions, although most judges will not sanction a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed. The defendants' lawyers may call up Carreon and offer to waive any sanctions motion in exchange for Carreon agreeing to make his dismissal with prejudice, though that assumes some rationality on Carreon's part.

W Ross • Jul 5, 2012 @9:26 am ... er-poll-2/

Voted for Charles Carreon, lol.

W Ross • Jul 5, 2012 @9:28 am Wait, wait, wait. So am I to understand that Charles Carreon doesn't believe in copywrite at all? So he'd have absolutely no problem with me remixing his song?

Mike K • Jul 5, 2012 @9:47 am While he doesn't think copyrights should exist, he's a lawyer that appears to only care about himself. My conclusion based on that is that he would probably have a problem with someone using his intellectual property without his permission if for no other reason than because he could try to make money off of suing over it (he'd also have a problem with the way you would choose to do it, but ya know what I mean).

Chris R. • Jul 5, 2012 @9:53 am @W Ross, he doesn't believe in copyright but he is will to threaten a DMCA takedown notice against his parody site. So…

T. J. Brumfield • Jul 5, 2012 @10:54 am Some have come forward to defend Carreon saying he is normally a good guy and a defender of the 1st Amendment. Some have speculated if his apparent descent into madness is a recent event, or why he'd argue the opposite of what he has argued in the past. Are we seeing one moment in a man's life and judging him unfairly compared to his entire life?

I'd say no. We've been examining his websites. We've read his Vogon-esque poetry and seen his videos. The truth is, he's been unhinged at least as long as he has been posting online. And as far back as we can tell, he's been a bully. He loves ripping into people. He doesn't attack arguments, he attacks people. He's vile and vindictive.

Holding the 1st Amendment up as a banner has only been a pretense for him to lash out at others in much the same way Fred Phelps argues that all Americans should die and that he hates the country, but it doesn't apply to him as an American. He is a saint who should be protected by the laws of the country he loathes.

What really gets me is that as best I can tell, Carreon was set off by misinterpreting Inman's attack on FunnyJunk's mother. (I also know that someone posted the name of FunnyJunk's owner last year on the Oatmeal Facebook page. It is possible Inman has known the entire time his name and opted to not expose him publicly because he is being the better man).

When it was explained to Carreon that he made a simple mistake and that his mother was never threatened, Carreon didn't shift gears or stand down. He repeated time after time that this was about his mother. He opted to live in a delusion rather than accept the reality that everyone else could see.

I wonder how effective he is as a lawyer with such tactics.

E. McKinney • Jul 5, 2012 @12:15 pm A quick perspective check on the kind of people we're all spending time and energy on (not that the american buddha links are insufficient):

Mike K • Jul 5, 2012 @12:28 pm I still say something about that picture makes me think of some kind serial killer, but I didn't realize either of the Carreons were truthers. I will admit it's kind of fun watching videos on YouTube talking about the various conspiracies responsible for what happened to the towers, but the idea of a conspiracy on that scale is somewhat beyond belief for me.

Mark • Jul 5, 2012 @12:56 pm With all these acronyms I'm a little lost. Is CC a CD and when he dresses up he goes by Tara?

W Ross • Jul 5, 2012 @1:23 pm

Look what the Klout algorithm determined Maria Carreon's #1 topic was.

Accidental Math Win.

W Ross • Jul 5, 2012 @1:37 pm

And Charles, not quite as lulzy but it's funny that there's a Klout profile stuck in time even though he deleted the original.

Jon • Jul 5, 2012 @1:51 pm I wonder if Carreon will sue FJ when his material makes its way onto the site without permission or compensation…

Robert White • Jul 5, 2012 @5:58 pm @W. Ross — "Copyright" not "Copywrite". Presuming you speak of the granted right to control the reproduction, e.g. copying, of your original works, and so "copy-rights" shrunk to one word.

I don't believe in Copywrite either, I hate advertising and marketing.

[Def: Copywriting is the act of writing copy (text) for the purpose of advertising or marketing a product, business, person, opinion or idea.]

W Ross • Jul 5, 2012 @7:14 pm I see what you did there!

Chris R. • Jul 5, 2012 @10:06 pm @W Ross, lol dementia.

cfoesch • Jul 6, 2012 @10:41 am … dude, I've tried to look at anything from Tara, but it's all this weird surreal word salad… I think it shows a profound lack of thought coherence, and … well, I just can't read any of it, because my mind just cannot follow it.

It's like she's talking gibberish or something. Has anyone ever examined her for schizophrenia?

John Ammon • Jul 6, 2012 @11:48 am Well, we knew it wasn't over, but wow, he's really pulling his douche card now.

ShelbyC • Jul 6, 2012 @1:14 pm So he admits that his purpose in filing the lawsuit was to supress Inman's and the donors' speech, preventing Inman from taking a picture of the money as a "Fuck You" to him and his client. Sounds like an improper purpose to me. Seems like he's itching for Rule 11 sanctions to me.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 6, 2012 @3:12 pm Carreon got nothing for his efforts except a long-lasting internet record as a tragically incompetent attorney who is interested in promoting himself even when it undermines his client's case. My response to anything he says now is filed under, "Don't feed the troll."

W Ross • Jul 6, 2012 @4:00 pm ... ent-856940

This one is worth the popcorn so far. She's live tweeting up an anti first amendment storm up to and including "I'll sue you in england!"

W Ross • Jul 6, 2012 @7:17 pm ... &start=100

"And this collage that I did of Kathleen Parker, one person posting at Ken's Popehat site, described as Kathleen Parker getting gangbanged. She's not getting gangbanged. I would never do that to a woman, not even one I hate. Here, Kathleen's totally in control, grabbing two penises, which symbolize UNCHECKED MILITARISM and CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT, and taking her "pleasure" from them, the penises and her pleasure functioning as sexual puns. Is it so far out to symbolize these political realities as penises? Come on! Rockets, guns, the military are all about penises. We can't fucking get away from the damn things. The Priapus people just can't stand me criticizing their principle object of worship! So much of the trouble in our world comes down to the Priapus people."

You're right, I bet she felt beautiful and empowered from your artwork, Tara.

Chris R. • Jul 6, 2012 @8:37 pm W Ross, she has entered protocol sigma, where as she feels the need to justify everything to us. Within weeks maybe days, she will have come full circle and be one of us. Tara will be a fine initiate.

FloydPepper • Jul 6, 2012 @8:41 pm The crazy is wayyy too much on that site, @W Ross.

She started referencing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (one of the best sci fi series of all time, IMO), and I had to close the window.

“Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?” -Arthur, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Mike K • Jul 6, 2012 @9:22 pm I was kind of wondering how she missed that the point of how that missile incident was described was for humo(u)r. I mean it's obvious (at least to me), but I can honestly say after reading the entire trilogy (just the 5 books, never heard the radio versions) that there is definitely a lot of humorous violence. For instance, all the other times that the bowl of petunias dies (hilarious taken all together).

Soma • Jul 7, 2012 @1:13 am I spotted at least 20 typos in Carreon's one-page filing, but my favorite was how he signed the filing "Attorney for Pro Se for Plaintiff." Typos aside, what a wonderful oxymoron to sum up the whole LOLsuit.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @5:42 am

The video is out… O.o

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @5:42 am (Warning, it's tone deaf nightmare that may be worse than "Friday".)

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @5:48 am

He's calling for new laws? O.o

Mark • Jul 7, 2012 @6:12 am Wow, looks like we're going to be entertained for quite some time, it seems.

I really want one person, just one non-family-related person, to move forward and publicly defend them—without resorting to the "he is/was a nice guy but seems to be having some sort of psychotic breakdown at the moment" apology, of course.

Ann • Jul 7, 2012 @6:13 am I don't know what's more disturbing. The video itself, or my two year old dancing to it. In other news, I now have that song in my head. I will go open a vein now.

Ann • Jul 7, 2012 @6:16 am @Mark – there's a guy in the comments section of my blog who has been defending him.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @6:44 am It's sub ICP's "Miracles". Charles is likely tone deaf, because he's not doing the punk thing; he's definitely TRYING to sing.

Now we know what all the shitty Tuscon fanzine art was for.

Charles, you're a better lawyer than you are a musician, and I mean that sincerely.

Nibor • Jul 7, 2012 @6:48 am On the bottom there is a link to:

I guess they will us this one now and stop on "Nader Lib."

Gosh, Where is my popcorn, hmmm I am out, I will go to chips than.

Nibor • Jul 7, 2012 @6:50 am I'm still not getting those HTML Codes right :-( :

"A Distributed Internet Reputation Attack or, What You're Left With After You've Suffered One

A First-Person Case Study: The FunnyJunk-Oatmeal-Carreon-Inman Affair

Cast of Characters
Inman and
Ars Technica
Marc Randazza
The Fake Tweeters
The Cybersquatters
The DOS Attacker and Assorted Rapeutationists
The Digital Mob

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @7:06 am ... an-affair/

Found it. Good eye, Nibor.

Ann • Jul 7, 2012 @7:09 am At least the new site doesn't make my eyeballs bleed like yellow on red.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @7:15 am Yeah. The blue at the top is pretty aggressive and it's hyper minimalist, but that's because they're too old to computer and were probably really stoned when they made it on their Commodore 64 in the 30 minutes before their Osteia orgy.

Eric R. • Jul 7, 2012 @7:16 am If I'm understanding his "legal analysis" (and believe me, the thought of understanding CC is quite disturbing in itself), he seems to be saying, "I did something stupid, and people had the outrageous gall to talk about it and make fun of me for it. We need to change the laws so they can't talk about me or make fun of me anymore."

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @7:21 am OK so play the first four seconds of the video with the volume on max. Why is he subliminally adding "Up your shaft. Up your shaft. Up your shaft." To this video?

Nibor • Jul 7, 2012 @7:35 am Looking at the source code, actualy expecting a ASCII dick or something, but it is actual a basic theme from Worldpress: Dark Temptaion theme by
So not even original on that one altough like the name specaly if that shaft thing from W Ross is true.

@ Catirical Charles , I know you read this thread too, nice new look but damn why the serif font, it takes me twice as long to read it (my detailed auti view gets the better of me)

By the way, that is probable why I saw the "next" link at the bottom, but she or he is edditing it as we type because it has changed form the first time is looked at it.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 7, 2012 @8:41 am Isn't that illegal?

Matthew • Jul 7, 2012 @9:20 am I think there is some legal prohibition on elements that can be considered subliminal in advertising, but I don't think there's any other restriction. Which is quite correct but there's no such thing as subliminal influence – it's made up guff. For more, see this account of the Judas Priest trial: ... testimony/

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @9:34 am I like the Bobby Ray Inman in the old fashioned dive suit. Favorite part ever. In all reality I was actual disappointed with the production quality. Like they had 3 full days to work on that shit. No wonder he can't lawyer for shit.

Valerie • Jul 7, 2012 @10:16 am I bet a lot of people who go to "" will be expecting something very different.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 7, 2012 @10:18 am 1. Sue person you believe is responsible for screwing up your reputation
2. Include new invented tort of "cybervandalism" in your Complaint
3. Amend your Complaint to do ???
4. Dismiss entire lawsuit, declaring victory
5. Allege that person you were suing is liable for a second invented tort.

Somehow, I think Step 5 should have come before Step 4, but that's just me.

Nibor • Jul 7, 2012 @10:27 am @Adam You are thinking as an (will be) lawyer, that is where you go wrong.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @10:28 am

Nate • Jul 7, 2012 @10:53 am Srsly? This is how CC chooses to try and turn this shit around? Wow!

Carreon sickens me, now the shit storm has died down on him he comes up with rapeutation. I guess we shouldn't expect anything else from people like that (with a wife who throws around the term nazi in a way that shows she has no real concept of what that means or what they actually did). As a rape survivor I take exception at his implication that what's happened to his reputation by his own actions comes anywhere close to rape! If I thought he was a douche before he's just dropped himself to a whole new level.

I hope he's continued to be treated with the contempt he deserves. Ugh!

Valerie • Jul 7, 2012 @10:56 am Well, I just watched it and all I can say is Futurerama went there first and better.

Best clip I could find. :(

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @11:02 am @Charles I podcast and do audio drama for a (kinda) living.

Your mic is distorted. Whatever else is awful with this video, take a step back from the mic and buy a pop filter. Your plosive P's and sillibate S'es are RIDICULOUS.

It's a microphone, not a dick. You don't have to put the damn thing inside your mouth.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @3:14 pm So I guess if someone picks on me online I can make up a word using "rape" to silence my critics right? "YOU CANT TELL ME I ASKED TO BE RAPEUTATIONED! WTF!?!?!?!'

Anglave • Jul 7, 2012 @3:36 pm I've been wading through the "Nader Library" and hadn't come across this snippet before. I thought it was wild enough to warrant repeating.

"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. So if they ARE related, then Matt Inman is guilty of murder. He's obviously guilty of all his father's crimes of resisting arrest and reckless driving, and his mother's psychic insanity. Maybe we should just go off on a wild speculation like Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza constantly do, and say the murderer William Inman and Matt Inman are related, without any evidence whatsoever. That would be fair according to the rules set out by Matt Inman and his Internet gang of thugs. Hell, I think I see a huge resemblance between this William Inman and other men from Matt Inman's family. And I don't know why I shouldn't make the same kind of unsubstantiated accusations that the neocons are always making, like that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase Nigerian yellowcake and had weapons of mass destruction. If it can work for them, and these similarly neocon bullshit Internet tech magazines like TechDirt, ArsTechnica, and Popehat, then why not for me?

Probably because I don't say it with complete, ignorant, dogmatic conviction like they do."

–Tara Carreon

Eric R. • Jul 7, 2012 @5:03 pm Just noticed that "Psycho Santa" is a HaterTV production. How appropriate.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @7:46 pm ... 63a366d3b1

This one may have slipped by you because Tara went in with a late edit. That one paragraph + dicks pick has now ballooned to:

"This collage that I did of Kathleen Parker has been the subject of a lot of Inman gang conversation. They've gone through our entire ouevre, Charles and mine, to find every bit of potentially incriminating evidence against us, all at the urging of the disreputable and competing Internet lawyers Ken at Popehat, Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon, and sadistic "artist" Matt Inman of the Oatmeal, to name just a few of the bad characters in this play. The bad characters have been all over us for a long time now, ever since I shot my gun to warn off a trespassing CIA-Buddhist neighbor from an illustrious CIA family — father general counsel for the CIA, mother secretary of the OSS under Truman, entire family in the CIA — who was really pissing me off by messing with our gate, and ever since we published The Ashland Free Press, calling the government on their 9/11 shit. They've been following and harassing us ever since. At least, I assume it's them. They don't actually say who they are. But in my darkened-enlightened judgment, these newest bad characters come from the same stock of rabid and pathetic children of chaos and darkness — to use Carl Jung's words about himself (he's proud of it) — that I've met previously in so many places. My children turned out far better. They are superior people, all three of them. One of these bad characters threatened to kill me at the dinner table. Another threatened to kill me at the lake. Another described in gory detail how he loved to wring the necks of birds. Another told Charles about the spider pit in Florida. The story goes that you just show someone the pit, with the human bones stripped bare, nay, simply tell them about it, and they will back right off from doing what you don't want them to do. I think something similar must have happened to Bob Dylan, because he doesn't do anything edgy anymore. Joan Baez has had all the fire burned out of her. Neal Young is still going strong, a total hero. They killed everyone else. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see the CIA burn to smithereens in the flames of hell. Not any people, just the CIA. All the intelligence agencies, fuck them. The agents go to re-education camps to study Thomas Paine. Because they are all about fascism, sadism, and madness. I'd like to see anyone try to refute the truth of that statement. So, if you want to know who you're working for, kiddies-against-Charles-Carreon, that's my best guess. The CIA runs everything, despite what Kay Griggs says that it's really NATO. The CIA are NATO's terrorists, and although I respect Kay Griggs' judgment greatly, I believe that when you are terrorists paid for by the American government, accessing an unlimited budget, it doesn't matter who your so-called "bosses" are. And if you think they're not "domestic," you're completely deluded. They run the world, including America, as a giant totalitarian state, and no one seems to know it. Those of us who do know are like voices crying in the wilderness.

If there was some nasty secret to be told about anyone in our family, everyone would know it by now, thanks to these guys' efforts. If you're black, they just kill you. They killed Martin Luther King. Other similarly conspiring groups of people use these methods to take down potential Presidents and seekers of public office. They also killed Robert Kennedy. Look at what they did to Clinton, all because he let some girl suck his cock in the Oval Office. I thought that was standard operating procedure for presidents. John F. Kennedy had a different girl waiting for him everywhere he went. All he did was fuck. We saw a French movie the other night which was about this. Competitors playing for a rich tycoon's stash kidnapped him and then ruined him. One person posting at Ken's Popehat site, knowingly mischaracterized this collage as Kathleen Parker getting gangbanged. Who cares if it's not true? — the words spider. Maybe no one will even look at the picture to see it's not true. Like weapons of mass destruction, it has its effect which you can't turn back. Lies are very powerful. Which is why we should be more vigilant towards them as a society. But nobody cares. Nobody even cares that we are run by a criminal government that is covering up for the real 9/11 attackers. Talk about a gangbang, that's what they are doing to us. Of course, if you say this, they'll retort: "you're acting like a little kid who says, 'he did it first.' Like that fucking matters!" It does matter. Our government always tries to pretend that they got hit first, whenever they want to start a war. It gives them moral justification. There is morality around the question of who did it first.

Kathleen is not getting gangbanged. I would never do that to a woman, not even one I hate. It is corrupt boys and men who see every sexual encounter with a woman as a mandate for rape. Taking this person's statement to its logical conclusion, every picture of a woman with a naked man is a woman being raped. Rampant lying is obviously part of their terrorist arsenal.

In my collage, Kathleen Parker is totally in control, grabbing two penises, which are entirely symbolic, the one on the left symbolizing UNCHECKED MILITARISM, and the one on the right CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT. She approves of these things. It's a political cartoon. I made my meaning abundantly clear with the captions. I don't approve of art that is ambiguous. But of course, the penises also function as a sexual pun; however, NOT a rape pun, but a pleasure pun.

It's classic First Amendment stuff. Don't these guys pretend to be First Amendment people? Yeah, right —— And when the Republicans start talking about wintering wildlife, you know you got a problem.

Is it really so far out to symbolize these political realities as penises? Gimme a break! Rockets, guns, the military, the mafia, are all about penises. We can't get away from the damned things. Our society is cursed with penises. The fact is that the Priapus people just can't stand me criticizing their principle object of worship! So much of the problems in our world come down to the Priapus people. "

Sorry Tara, same as last time I still don't buy it. That's not a very empowering image of a woman and now your husband is coopting rape for his little Internet trifles.

Just admit you're misogynists and move on; at this point it's the least of our concerns. But you can't defend a photoshop of a gangbang.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @7:49 pm " The bad characters have been all over us for a long time now, ever since I shot my gun to warn off a trespassing CIA-Buddhist neighbor from an illustrious CIA family — "

O.O I'm sorry I skidded right past that… Tara's paranoia has gotten bad enough for her to FIRE A GUN AT STRANGERS?!?!

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @8:09 pm Okay so that's really not funny. Like fun and games ends when the crazy lady starts taking shots in the dark.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @8:14 pm Yup. And you hear about some people who sent Mormons or Pizzas. Please note if you send anyone into the sphere of this house you're basically reverse swatting a stranger. I had no idea she was packing and firing.

I mean I'm all for a good joke, but… has this gone beyond the scary place? Knowing what we know about her and this family, and now she confesses that she's shot at shadows in the past??

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @8:15 pm

I screenied this one, no editing out of the "I fired a weapon into the dark at someone I presumed was from the CIA." That one needs a permanent record.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @8:25 pm How'd you like to be the mailman in that neighborhood?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 7, 2012 @8:26 pm CIA-Buddhist.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @8:27 pm I'd be damn sure not to fuck with her gate, that's for sure.

azteclady • Jul 7, 2012 @8:31 pm @ W Ross: for damn sure, indeed.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @8:32 pm CIA Buddhists are the most dangerous ones, cause you can't kill them. You kill them and they could reincarnate ANYWHERE!!!! It's like that one movie where the angel was inside John Goodman.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @8:41 pm "Let me tell you about the time I almost died"

Jess • Jul 7, 2012 @8:43 pm Well, have to say if people are showing up on her/their property that is not OK – some defense may be warranted – although I don’t generally advocate just shooting blindly in the dark – at least not if you want to hit what you are shooting at.

On the other hand regarding some of Tara’s other comments . . . . .

“If there was some nasty secret to be told about anyone in our family, everyone would know it by now.”

Yep, that is what happens when you piss off the internet.

“In my collage, Kathleen Parker is totally in control, grabbing two penises, which are entirely symbolic. . . . . .. She approves of these things.”

Really? Did you ask her? Doubt that.

“It's a political cartoon. I made my meaning abundantly clear with the captions. I don't approve of art that is ambiguous. But of course, the penises also function as a sexual pun; however, NOT a rape pun, but a pleasure pun.”

Sorry Tara but those “tools” need to be inserted in a different place to provide womanly “pleasure”, if you know what I mean – surely I don’t need to provide you a drawing to explain this do I?

Kelly • Jul 7, 2012 @8:45 pm You know, we should just stop thinking that she can't get any crazier… she always does.

Shots at shadows? CIA- Buddhists? I am not even going into the whole spider pit deal. Just wow.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @8:52 pm @Jess, when your justification for shooting at the person who touched your gate is "They're CIA-Buddhist" I think it's time to reevaluate the situation.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @8:56 pm Trying to find any news article that might reference that incident, no luck so far.

Jess • Jul 7, 2012 @9:13 pm @Chris – true. Very dangerous just shooting guns off. Didn't mean to be flippant. But also wonder if they are gettig some folks, who shouldn't be, actually showing up at their house as a result of all the publicity.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @9:25 pm Halloween at the Carreons

The night has fallen and all through the neighborhood kids dressed as vampires, ghouls, demons and soldiers roam about. However a celebration of foolishness is the last thing on the mind of one man, Charles Carreon.

Charles: Tara those aren't real demons, put down the gun.
Charles: Then put down the gun.
Charles: I think they just want candy honey.
Tara: If by candy you mean our minds!
Charles: Just put down the gun.
Tara: No I'll show these Illuminati Buddhist what's what.
Charles: Honey…
Tara: What they got to you to?!
Charles: Of course not.
Tara: Then lock n' load!
Charles sighs and grabs a gun. Hoping he might direct her towards the desert where no children might roam.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:32 pm

PART 4 OF 4 (Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Chapter IX: Charles Carreon Dismisses His Lawsuit Cont'd)

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @9:48 pm She's already making changes (little ones; she broke up the first paragraph) but I'm glad I got the screenshot.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @9:51 pm Yeah this deserved it's own paragraph for sure:

So, if you want to know who you're working for, kiddies-against-Charles-Carreon, that's my best guess. The CIA runs everything, despite what Kay Griggs says that it's really NATO. The CIA are NATO's terrorists, and although I respect Kay Griggs' judgment greatly, I believe that when you are terrorists paid for by the American government, accessing an unlimited budget, it doesn't matter who your so-called "bosses" are. And if you think they're not "domestic," you're completely deluded. They run the world, including America, as a giant totalitarian state, and no one seems to know it. Those of us who do know are like voices crying in the wilderness.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @9:52 pm Do you think she knows we're not really Illuminati and we all work for Langley?

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @9:54 pm Here's how I know I don't work for the CIA. Cause if they offered me a job, I would absolutely take it in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry, but if the CIA wanted me, they wouldn't have to trick me into working for them, lol.

Mike K • Jul 7, 2012 @9:54 pm I was thinking more focus should be on this section: "… Because they [intelligence agencies] are all about fascism, sadism, and madness. I'd like to see anyone try to refute the truth of that statement. And I have made up my mind to say the truth until the day I die. "

But then again, I kind of missed some of the crazy like her trying to scare off a neighbor messing with her gate. Aren't there laws against discharging a firearm inside city limits? Also, from what one of the various interviews or filings said, the pizza places called him to confirm his pizza orders. Which to me says no actual pizzas were delivered.

I think the random edits inserting random contents might be part of the reason so many of her posts make so little sense.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:08 pm @MikeK When I see one worth mentioning I'm screencapping it from now on. Going back through copy/pastes and old screencaps and comparing… she changes history a lot.

To her credit, it's mostly additions, but after @Cartooness trying to fail and bail I don't trust anyone not to DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING when people call them on their bullshit.

"Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see the CIA burn to smithereens in the flames of hell. Not any people, just the CIA."

She also threatens the CIA but it's such a rich tapestry at this point… I mean throw it on the crazy pile.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:09 pm ""PSYCHO SANTA BOOTLEG MOVIE," by Charles Carreon

"DON'T MESS WITH MY MOM," by Charles Carreon"

She's posting now. That means she's watching us…

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:10 pm She just posted again with two new links, – they're held up in moderation. You know the place.

Mike K • Jul 7, 2012 @10:17 pm I found the law I was looking for: ... ocType=ARS

Ironically just searching the phrase I used above gave me the AZ state law on it. Nice when Google gives you exactly what you're looking for.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:23 pm Oh God. He did the "Don't mess with my Mom."

His mic is still distorted. Stop redlining the mic you hack! :D

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:24 pm Oh my God. The other is the live recording of him doing the song.

This is… Oh good god…

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:35 pm (Sorry to keep microblogging but things keep happening.)

Large change to the threats section, padded out now to read "Another threatened to kill me at the lake in Mt. Shasta. Another guy at Shasta, one of a gang of guys who descended upon us, described in gory detail how he loved to wring the necks of birds. Another guy accosted Charles in an Ashland coffee shop and warned him about the spider pit in Florida."

Moo • Jul 7, 2012 @10:36 pm Heavenly? Amazing?

Charles, will you sign my boot?

n o 0 n e • Jul 7, 2012 @10:43 pm mind blowing crazy. that video, ugh. . .

"there is so much you can do when you make a video" – yep, so much. the only thing they missed was the star-wipe.

and c.i.a. buddhists and on and on. well, thank buddha the cray-cray has not ended yet.

and for all the 'bad characters' out there, here's a little Lord Quas to help you get over that psycho-santa 'song'::

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @10:50 pm I put the video up on Facebook since they're distributing it with a downloadible link. So if you're having trouble getting it to download, just go here

Also, I need to just repeat… WOW. That this was what they CHOSE TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC FACE. Yikes.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 7, 2012 @11:00 pm Makes you wonder what they opted to NOT show…

Kelly • Jul 7, 2012 @11:06 pm Oh good gods. O.O Words cannot describe that video.

W Ross • Jul 7, 2012 @11:18 pm Seems to allow single links without moderation. Here's the song.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @11:32 pm That mic should sue for rapeutation.

Chris R. • Jul 7, 2012 @11:52 pm Just heard the .wav file (thanks W Ross) and I have to say… we should start an indiegogo fundraiser to get Charles some singing lessons if he's going to make this a regular thing.

T.Stark • Jul 7, 2012 @11:53 pm Tara needs some tin foil. Earlier I suspected she's schizophrenic, and the rant about the CIA drives it home for me.

Time to refill your Risperidone script- or do you go old school with the Ramones approved Thorazine?

She needs to be sedated…

just_wow • Jul 8, 2012 @12:11 am Even a jaded reputation-rapist like myself shudders at the horrific and depraved things Charles Carreon has done to his own reputation.

just_wow • Jul 8, 2012 @12:30 am Well I'm embarrassed. After further perusal I see that the noun is Rapeutationist. I still prefer reputation-rapist. Rapeutationist sounds too much like receptionist. I think it could lead to some awkward misunderstandings.

Why did he do a Legal Analysis? That's the thing he's worst at.

Is there a morning after pill for reputations? Charlie's is going to need one after those videos.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @12:33 am Is there a morning after pill for reputations? Charlie's is going to need one after those videos.
I surrender the thread to you.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @1:12 am As far as I can tell these reediting/changing her posts is a reoccurring thing, so when you read something the only thing you can be sure off, is that all of it is written after the original posting date but that is it.

It looks like, when she has a new idea/delusion popping up, she revisits all she has done before and adds/rewrites the posts so they fit her new epiphany.

I try not to get too much into reading her writings, because I don’t want to be sucked in to a need of understanding the writings and the need of understanding the writer (this need comes from my own madness ;-) ) so I only try to scan-read them, but one thing that I see is, this also can be a side-effect from this continues reediting and so picking up things from her past posts and integrate them into the now, that she is messing up her timelines.

So writing she is firing a gun and that she is mad about people (CIA-Buddhists) messing with her gate in one segment of a text, doesn’t mean the happened at the same time ,she can very well be talking of a gun incident at a previous place where they lived and referring to the gate at their home where they live now, and in the process confusing others (and possible herself) in believing that they are both now and related where they are not in reality.

@Chris R. when you searched for a newspaper article on the gun discharging incident and you didn’t find it, this can very well be because it happened in another town, maybe it was the reason they had to move. (but this is pure speculation on my part)

Also I get the impression that here is an reoccurring thing happening, they lose to the internet as they do now, they react in building a new website and make videos writing new stuff.

When they kicked out of the Buddhist community, hmmm….. sorry when they stepped out of the Buddhist community, there was the birth of American Buddha with all the ramblings and videos beside it.

They were kicked out of the Nader camp, hmmmm…. Again sorry they were asked not to contact the office that much (ever)again, the Nader Library came to be with all the deranged posts and videos.

I can be wrong on this one but it looks like a awful much of coincidence, but I have to make the note that the ramblings start far before the final take down, so the sites can been made before they were kicked (out) and even have contributed to it.

As in this case the proceedings aren’t over yet, for we don’t know what Inman and IndieGoGo are going to do with their legal costs and the Doe v. CC case is not dropped or judged on. But they have already started this new outlet.

Note to myself (and all others):
It is us who giving them the satisfaction and the attention they crave, so I’m part of the problem of them littering the internet even further. but I do not want to stop for it’s too much fun and entertaining (what the heck would I do with all the time I will have when this stops)

Stuart • Jul 8, 2012 @4:20 am @Nibor: "It is us who giving them the satisfaction and the attention they crave"

That's because it's like watching a train wreak in super slow motion that we can pause and critique every small failure and subsequent derailment and the conductors of this train have purposely done so thinking it was a good idea at the time.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @5:34 am @Stuart I know I know, it's sould be wrong doing this but o man what an entertainment is it :-) :-)

Just had to point it out so mine concience is put to rest and I could pick up the popcorn, chips and soda again ;-)

Stuart • Jul 8, 2012 @6:39 am I'd share my popcorn but my 7 year old keeps taking it.

Anyone else wonder if CC was sane before he met his wife or are both of them just like WBC and try to incite people so that they can so sue them?

I want to see CC lose this game he's played. I want to see him dropped a peg or two. I don't want to see him harmed physically but I want his career to suffer for acting like a bully on a playground where his victim fought back.

Matthew • Jul 8, 2012 @6:40 am As with most conspiracy theorists, Tara fantasises about being able to do what she thinks the powers that be are doing:

"I want the agents to go to re-education camps to study Thomas Paine. Because they are all about fascism, sadism, and madness."

Despite the flaws of western democracies (and I'd count the unaccountability of secret services among those) we don't have re-education camps. I doubt that would be the case if 9-11 truthers got into power – maybe they should start calling themselves crypto-fascists against imagined government fascism.

Jane • Jul 8, 2012 @7:04 am CC has a photo essay of his years in Colestin Valley: ... %20ASHLAND

I ran across this view into their lives at the beginning of the drama but didn’t think it pertained. Now that she’s brought up the gun firing, I might as well share.
There are over 800 pages making quite a long read, but pages 772 & 837 mention the firing of her gun (and the community’s board of directors request to ”put the lady of the house in therapy for a year.”) I did not see any mention of the trespassers being CIA, unless CIA is another word for drug lord. Page 771 shows yet another example how this marital unit can be vindictive asses when others dare to not see eye-to-eye with them.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @7:39 am @Jane, you rock.

I first saw this painted-out sign on a short visit back from California where we moved to after the Tashi Choling board of directors told the Carreons to remove all firearms from their home and put the lady of the house in therapy for a year. Getting that kind of a letter from your church may go down easy with Anglos, but it sure made me feel Mexican. Like I'd had enough of these prissy ass mother fuckers hanging on my dick. Telling me what to do, in my own house, on my own land, just because my wife decided to expend a little gunpowder when the local semi-retired drug lord and his latest flame decided to be in hearing range.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @7:40 am The retired drug lord surveyed my land in order to prove both that he wasn't standing on my land when my wife fired her pistol (he proved that he was), and to prove that my house was one inch onto the property of another landowner, who didn't really care. He also used the survey to arrange a "lawful trespass" with Tod Miller, Code Enforcement Officer, who was willing to press code violation charges against me, but couldn't find a way to photograph my land, and knew I wouldn't let him win his case without evidence.
I wonder if that's the same house they had to demolish because of code violations.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @7:43 am @ JaneI believe the CIA, Nazi’s, cannibals and devils are recent additions to their vocabulary.

But I will take my hat off, for your patients for going true all of those pages, I also hope I hasn’t damaged you too much.

Jane • Jul 8, 2012 @8:13 am @Nibor CC's words aren't nearly as difficult to read through as his wife's. Also, I've been exposed to a fair number of wingnuts in my experience so it doesn’t faze me too much. ;)

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @8:18 am They go through life assuming you either buy into their beliefs completely or you're the enemy. It's a lonely existence.

Matt Scott • Jul 8, 2012 @8:24 am

Holy crap… she used to be part of the illuminati!

Matt Scott • Jul 8, 2012 @8:38 am As a lawyer, I can tell you, it does not pay to represent yourself.
-Charles Carreon

This photo essay is the gift that keeps on giving.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:05 am @Matt Scott Now wait a second, that photo essay is exactly what we do, except in this case it's wrong because….?

The whole thing is a giant slamfuck of some neighbor they didn't like.

Basically, since forever the Tara and Charles Carreon seem to have been a hassle/menace in every place they've lived. The gun thing is especially troubling since she doesn't seem to understand that that's wrong.

I think this has to be Folle a Deux. To behave this way, they need each other to enable them. Charles needs Tara to agree with anything he does, and vice versa.

This is two crazy people who've built a bubble around themselves and pushed out anyone who ever pointed out how badly they both need help.

(That being said, I'll still watch and laugh because they've been made aware that they're nutbars MANY MANY times in their history and have chosen to throw that information away.)

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @9:07 am @Matt, What page was that on?

Matt Scott • Jul 8, 2012 @9:20 am @Chris R- I've linked it (click on -Charles Carreon)

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:21 am


W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:22 am

I like how they made their kids live in a dirt shed.

Matt Scott • Jul 8, 2012 @9:22 am Or… apparently, I didn't.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:23 am

I wish I could live in Fallout, but for reals!

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:26 am

Design on Significantly Less than a Dime.

Bet you need to keep your tetanus shots up to date living there.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:35 am

There's your new go-to picture of Charles Carreon. That being said if this was 1998 and your kids are just hitting 30… you can't raise a child in a house like this. It's not safe, and it's not humane. If you were two jackass hippies and you wanted to live in an unsafe shack, more power to you.

But they were right to code you for your kids sake. That thing is too ghetto to live in in Oregon. (If it was in a warmer state I'd have less issue, but there's no way that thing held heat correctly, most of it isn't even insulated.)

guest • Jul 8, 2012 @9:57 am I have sort of been following along. There is a new update. I think she may actually be hallucinating.

"Actually, a few times they DID identify themselves. Once, literally out of the blue, like Star Trek, as if he beamed in on a matter transporter, a guy appeared out of nowhere into nowhere where we were hanging out on the lawn by a stream. I was reading a silly little book about the CIA that Charles picked up for me at Barnes & Noble. The guy walks up — we're the only ones there — and tells me that the book I'm reading is a really good book. I said, "No, actually, it's crap. He says the CIA can do whatever they want to do, that they are above the law." He was a very dignified, tall, dark-haired gentleman who said he was from Air Force Intelligence, made a little small talk, and then invited us to come to the local Ordo Templi Orientis office. I'm thinking in my mind, "Right, like I'm going to walk right into the lair of the Devil! He must think I'm stupid. Then I'd be sacrificed in a Black Mass that I willingly walked into. I don't think so." Then he disappeared from where he came.

Another time Robert Anton Wilson (Uncle Bob) sent two of his goons to visit us: Eddy Nix and his beautiful "friend." Eddy Nix (an Illuminati name) wanted to get Charles to help jack a rich Buddhist heiress named Mimi Hohenberg out of 5 million. I told Charles I would absolutely divorce him if he had anything to do with it. And I don't even like Mimi. She trashed the interior of my brand new Cherokee jeep just a week after we bought it by moving her stuff in it. But I'm not into female sacrifice, like so many other traitorous women."

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @9:58 am Tara's writing responses at the naderlib…

"Actually, a few times they DID identify themselves. Once, literally out of the blue, like Star Trek, as if he beamed in on a matter transporter, a guy appeared out of nowhere into nowhere where we were hanging out on the lawn by a stream. I was reading a silly little book about the CIA that Charles picked up for me at Barnes & Noble. The guy walks up — we're the only ones there — and tells me that the book I'm reading is a really good book. I said, "No, actually, it's crap. He says the CIA can do whatever they want to do, that they are above the law." He was a very dignified, tall, dark-haired gentleman who said he was from Air Force Intelligence, made a little small talk, and then invited us to come to the local Ordo Templi Orientis library, that they had some interesting books he thought I'd be interested in. I'm thinking in my mind, "Right, like I'm going to walk right into the lair of the Devil! He must think I'm stupid. Then I'd be sacrificed in a Black Mass that I willingly walked into. I don't think so." Then he disappeared from where he came.

Another time Robert Anton Wilson (Uncle Bob) sent two of his goons to visit us: Eddy Nix and his beautiful "friend." Besides wanting to have sex with us, Eddy Nix (an Illuminati name) wanted to get Charles to help jack a rich Buddhist heiress named Mimi Hohenberg out of 5 million. I told Charles I would absolutely divorce him if he had anything to do with it. And I don't even like Mimi. She trashed the interior of my brand new Cherokee jeep just a week after we bought it after she borrowed it and moved her stuff in it. But I'm not into female sacrifice, like so many other traitorous women."

I… uh… ok.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @10:06 am So Charles spends like 800+ pages bitching that everyone else gets away with everything and he doesn't. Then Tara gets to chime in with CIA Illuminati human sacrifice. I mean codependent enabler in the dictionary needs their picture together. Like I felt bad for him for one second, then he goes on a 100+ page rant about how everyone else has water and power and blah blah blah. Dude that just means you pissed people off so much they singled you out because you are and have always been an asshat.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @10:09 am I mean I go around pissing people off, but you have to be a special kind of asshole to repeatedly asked to move on. It happened in this photo essay, it happened in Ashland, it's happening now on the internet. No one wants you around because you are unbearable.

T.Stark • Jul 8, 2012 @10:10 am Yurts can be warm…there are several of them around here, and some of them are actually really nice.

The Carreon's yurt though- decorated in wall to wall crazy.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @10:14 am T.Stark, I am not even sure what they built can be called a yurt. Just because you package a pile of crap as a mud mask doesn't mean anyone should put it on their face.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @10:22 am @T.Stark I'm more talking about the materials and construction, not the design. The walls are too thin, no insulation, slipshod construction. A yurt can be fine, but this one looked borderline dangerous (especially things like trap door floors and such.)

You can't beat thermodynamics (or at least, not like that.)

@Chris R

Yet they can't see the pattern. Happened at their home, it happened in the Nader community, it happened with the website, it happened in the case, it happened at Occupy Wall Street, and so on and so on.

And yet it's more convenient for them to believe that hundreds of people are in on a conspiracy to destroy a completely unnoteworthy family (which would cost millions of dollars over the course of FOURTEEN YEARS) then it is to believe that there's something about their choices that make them unwelcome in polite society.

You're not rebels, you have social Aspergers. Seek help.

John Ammon • Jul 8, 2012 @10:40 am I really think they thrive off of people not liking them, it makes them feel "special".

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @10:51 am Poor Thomas Paine. First Glenn Beck and now the Carreons co-op & twist his writings.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @10:51 am @W Ross I'm offended to use them and an ASD (Aspergers) in the same sentence :-)

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @11:22 am @Valerie, yeah anyone who doesn't actually understand Thomas Paine probably thinks he was a quack job the way he's cited by people. Maybe he has suffered rapeutation.

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @11:28 am Couple of things related to the Kathleen Parker "art."

The issue is not whether or not she is being gangbanged.

The issue is that while your husband submitted a pterodactyl drinking a CARTOON CHARACTER SMOOTHIE as evidence of nefarious intent, you created a lewd image of a REAL PERSON in a sexually situation she would certainly find offensive. Both legal, but to review, CARTOON SMOOTHIE vs. REAL PERSON.

If you want a violent example of CARTOON SMOOTHIE vs. REAL PERSON, review your charming picture of Ann Coulter's medusa head on a plate which also uses the female-empowering term "bitch."

On a related note, if you remain capable of self-reflection, consider your ideology. You assume that sinister forces, especially in our own country, are subversive evildoers who must be stopped. You think that everyone who isn't with you is against you. You believe violent intimidation solves problems (see "I shot at my CIA Buddhist neighbor") You know whose ideology that reminds me of? Hitler. There I Godwined it.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @11:35 am It's weird because you see these happy pictures of Charles in his photo essay and you want to believe he was happy and could be happy. However it seems that every time he and his wife try to find happiness it includes being part of a group and inevitably they are cast out of the group because instead of building upon the groups ideology they try to subvert it to their own needs.

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @11:47 am @ Nibor I agree. You are a bright and funny guy and shouldn't be lumped in with these wackos.

These poor souls have Carreon disease: The profound and manic need to continually shoot one's self in the foot. Warning signs include delusions of grandeur, problems with Buddhists, and shoddily produced art & music. Remember, folks, friends don't let friends photoshop cocks.

Narad • Jul 8, 2012 @11:53 am Do you think she knows we're not really Illuminati and we all work for Langley?
It's really too bad the domestic E5 transmissions from Warrenton have stopped. That stuff could have kept her busy for hours day in and day out.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @11:55 am The question now is… Who is Uncle Bob really?

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @11:59 am I know that there was or is someone famous who said something like:

When everybody else around you seems to be crazy to you, consider the possibility that is you who is crazy.

Something to consider CC and TC ????

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @12:01 pm @Valerie (blush) thanks (blush) ;-)

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @12:02 pm @Valerie, On Godwin. Anyone can go Godwin on a conversation, but only a special few can do it when the conversation is hundreds of pages long and only with themselves.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @12:11 pm So 425 is the magic goodwin number

By the way I didn't know what it was, had to google this one, glad I did :-( now every long thread out there and I read, I'm forced to look at these refereces (me refusing to use them), thanks Valerie and Chris R.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @12:12 pm Sorry -o = Godwin

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @12:17 pm @ Chris R Are you referring to me or Tara? Please just tell me that it isn't both. That is a comparison I couldn't live with.

Jess • Jul 8, 2012 @12:18 pm @Valerie – I think you just won with that comment "Remember, folks, friends don't let friends photoshop cocks". On another note is that a seal point siamese I see on your shoulder?

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @12:20 pm I was referring to Tara.

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @12:21 pm @ Jess, he was a seal point Siamese-Burmese-somethingelse-ese mix (kitten mill). Unfortunately, my sidekick died a few days ago, but I will always have fond memories of his shoulder sitting & ability to swear better than any cat I have ever known…

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @12:21 pm @ Chris R Thank God.

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @12:27 pm Great new post at Sartirical Charles

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @12:53 pm And Tara is online again

Nader Librarÿ

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @12:58 pm @ Nibor Yep. As coherent and incisive as ever.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @1:03 pm And true to form:

My answer except that I'm not irrational. I have totally fashioned My Mind according to My Will.
But the universe is irrational, no doubt about it.
I'm rational! It's the rest of the universe that isn't!

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @1:08 pm My answer except that I'm not irrational. I have totally fashioned My Mind according to My Will.
But the universe is irrational, no doubt about it.
I curse the irrational universe.
She makes me want to repeat myself:

Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @11:59 am

I know that there was or is someone famous who said something like:

When everybody else around you seems to be crazy to you, consider the possibility that is you who is crazy.

Something to consider CC and TC ????

Grifter • Jul 8, 2012 @1:24 pm Every time she quotes PKD as though he wouldn't call her batshit crazy, I want to punch something.

And, of course, there's irony in her blockquote: "Madness has its own dynamism; it just goes on."

Narad • Jul 8, 2012 @1:44 pm I'm rational! It's the rest of the universe that isn't!
She really doesn't seem to be getting the whole Buddhism thing.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @1:46 pm She really doesn't seem to be getting the whole Buddhism thing.
Probably why even the Buddhist didn't want her around. She perverts everything she touches.

Jess • Jul 8, 2012 @1:47 pm The Principle of Cause and Effect is the foundation for all problem solving. If the Universe were not rational, every event in life would appear as a mere chance phenomenon; paradoxical; defying any logical appraisal. The Universe is rational since its creation and existence are a result of cause and effect. The fact Tara feels the Universe is not rational is further proof she has no understanding about how her and CC’s behavior “cause” results in the “effects” of what is happening to them.

Mike K • Jul 8, 2012 @2:06 pm It's interesting that some of the things she's saying seem to be things reserved for God. Making her mind according to her will, others should bow to her, etc. Then she says that she doesn't want to be a god. Then she says she'd get rid of all men if she could. That statement alone is something I wouldn't want to hear from someone that owns a shotgun; from someone that has shot it to scare a neighbor for being too close to her property it's terrifying.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @2:07 pm Did you think I wanted to become a deity? OMG, that is SO male! Spare me the maleness of this world. I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you. I told that to Charles the other night, and he got a hurt look on his face. He said, "You wouldn't even save the best man of all?" I said, "No fucking way. You're still a man." I said it with a lot of force so he would shut the fuck up. But no, he's got to shout me down. He's always got a sneaky, smart-stupid comeback. He lives on the strategists. He says, "Well, there are no girls who are any better." Fucker, he won the argument this time. But he can't even begin to compare to my win rate. I've been winning my whole life. He's been winning to, but between the two of us, I have the upper hand. He had the upper hand during the first 30 years of our marriage. But I'm going to make sure we go out with a BANG!
Okay first she goes all man hater, then Charlie Sheen, and at the end I am pretty sure she threatened to kill them both….

Narad • Jul 8, 2012 @2:15 pm Probably why even the Buddhist didn't want her around. She perverts everything she touches.
Oh, I doubt that anybody wants her around, but I thought her quarrel was with the syncretic Tibetan variant.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:19 pm She's in rare form this weekend, that's for sure. "Going out with a bang" sounds a bit creepy though.

Thorne • Jul 8, 2012 @2:23 pm "I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you."


Congratulations on dooming creation forever. Can't continue the species by eliminating one of the two "building blocks" for new life.

And Hitler was merely "genocidal". Amateur. ;)

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:28 pm "I know I'm going to Heaven, cause I served my time married to Tara."

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 8, 2012 @2:33 pm I'm working on taking down Carl Jung and the rest of the Nazis right now. I've got a lot of ammunition pointed in their direction. They might be getting a little nervous to have their BIG SECRET come out, which Houston Stewart Chamberlain so foolishly gave me.

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @2:42 pm I believe Carl Jung went out in the 1960s. Unless the zombie apocalypse is upon us, I think someone has beaten you to the punch, Tara.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:44 pm She kinda reminds me of Rita Repulsa from Mighty Morphine Power Rangers (in demeanor and tone.)

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @2:45 pm Ok, I just googled Houston Stewart Chamberlain and he died in the 1920s. WTF is going on?! Fellow Illuminati, have I been banished from the inner circle? I thought I was for sure on the zombie planning committee.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:46 pm (And I guess fashion… and planning… and motivation.)

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:47 pm @Valerie It starts with a D and sounds like "illusional." :)

Valerie • Jul 8, 2012 @2:51 pm Ok, in fairness, I just looked at a picture of the Chamberlain guy and staring into those dead eyes he may actually have been a zombie all along. Sorry for not believing you, Tara. ... erlain.jpg

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @2:58 pm ... ion=recent

New article .

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 8, 2012 @3:11 pm RE: Satirical Charles:

Carreon said he never threatened to sue, only to collect evidence of any trademark damage.
Compare that to the email he sent to Paul Alan Levy:

As far as when and where I will sue your client, be certain that it will occur if your client does not cede the domain[...]
[Y]ou cannot guarantee that Public Citizen will provide her with free legal services on June 1, 2015, when I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.
And so on.

azteclady • Jul 8, 2012 @3:18 pm I gotta say, TC has a lot of energy–it makes me tired just to read the quotes you guys post here.

@ Chris R: If I were CC, I wouldn't get a hurt look in my face, I would run, as far and as fast as possible–and probably call the authorities on the way.

Narad • Jul 8, 2012 @3:30 pm I gotta say, TC has a lot of energy
Yup. I've seen manic episodes with delusional features up close on a number of occasions. The similarity hasn't gone unnoticed.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 8, 2012 @3:39 pm W Ross, I think that is referring to the "Fake Inman" lawsuit…

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @3:50 pm @Scott Jacobs Yes, it is.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @4:18 pm I am losing respect for Matthias Gafni. He continually quotes Carreon without even simply reading the actual complaints.

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @5:18 pm Oh look the picture is in the post now, Charles with the double fingers in the air. How quaint.

John Ammon • Jul 8, 2012 @5:26 pm Hey W Ross, I want to be a Mighty Morphine Power Ranger! That sounds awesome! :P I assume this is another example of "autocorrect suching your bells"?

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @5:45 pm @John Mammon Yes, but that would be a WAY better show. All five of them leaning against a wall, sometimes breaking from that to steal a car stereo to sell.

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @5:47 pm *Ammon

That's not even a word, auto correct.

Grifter • Jul 8, 2012 @5:55 pm Mammon is totally a word!

Still…kind of a weird one to be in your autocorrect…

W Ross • Jul 8, 2012 @5:58 pm Wow… they don't call it a Kindle Fire for nothing, apparently. I knew auto correct was a tool of the devil.


Oh, and honestly I want to see footage of the Yurt getting launched into outer space

Chris R. • Jul 8, 2012 @7:36 pm @Laura K, Did I miss something?

Laura K • Jul 9, 2012 @1:43 am Chris R–perils of posting after work. I realized as soon as I posted the blasted thing that I can't spell Kook–as in kooky, weird, etrc, and I'd had this image of the cowardly lion in Wizard of Oz jumping around chanting "I do believe in 'spooks'" substituting 'kooks' and, well, the rest is bad comment history.

Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @5:33 am Wow. I'm reading the email exchange between CC and Google's legal counsel. He's quite the character, to put it in mild terms.

He insists in talking to a Google lawyer and threatens litigation if he can't. He, again, assumes that he is entitled to some sort of service. What an idiot.

I love the lawyers response. You guys are too polite.

With regards to the second part of your voicemail, it does not appear your client has any contractual relationship with Google and is instead trying to formulate some sort of theory of entitlement based on its view of its relationship with Google. If I am mistaken and your client has a contract with Google, please provide me with that contract and your basis for concluding that Google has breached it. Otherwise, I don't believe this theory has any legal merit and I don't anticipate that discussions based on this theory would be productive.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @6:41 am @Laura K, oh okay. You could have told me "Oh Tara said that and then edited it out" and I'd totally believe you :P However I guess it's funnier this way. Thanks for a good laugh to wake up to lol.

Laura K • Jul 9, 2012 @9:31 am Wow…I came THAT close to pulling a Tara? That'll teach me…yech. Glad it was still an lol moment

Jack Cass • Jul 9, 2012 @9:50 am I'm going to break out of "lurk mode" and post this bit of frivolity. I think The Dead Milkmen wrote this song about Tara… 24 years ago

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @10:28 am It's interesting that she's just completely emasculated Charles in her last few posts, because it puts a whole different spin on this whole campaign and some of his dumber moves.

I may need Nibor's freaky powers of social observation here, but if we look at the history of the family's big moves they were prompted by Charles and crew steering into Tara's crazy.

So do you think she's pushing him here more than he's pushing himself? His early moves here were dull, but not psychotic, and as the level of drama raised he went further and further off the rails until he's releasing 60 second videos where he honestly looks intoxicated or high and is just yelling into the mic.

So does the field look the same if we take Tara at her word that every action in the Carreon clan is controlled by or instigated by her? I know her recent stuff is the delusional ramblings of a broken robot, but I think we should indulge her a bit and see if a world where a desperate Charles is trying to keep his trophy wife happy?

Evidence for this: Tara stole the money. Tara shot at the guy. Tara's sites caused the lawsuits with google/etc. Tara's comments, Tara's songs, Tara's art… TARA TARA TARA.

I'm starting to lose my rage at Charles Carreon. I'm wondering if he's not bad, he's just incredibly weak and impotent in his relationship. He's doing his best to protect the mother of his children from bankrupting the family, getting institutionalized, or causing the family further harm.

Dunno if I love the theory, but it weirdly plays with the evidence.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @10:30 am if

John Ammon • Jul 9, 2012 @10:45 am I finally tried to watch that video… I think I made about 20 seconds in before my brain started hemorrhaging and I had to exterminate the tab with extreme prejudice…

Thorne • Jul 9, 2012 @11:39 am @W Ross

Here ya go:

Her behavior doesn't get anymore 'textbook'.

You're welcome. ;)

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @11:42 am @W Ross,

Right here Satirical Charles signed the post as Tara's Sock Puppet. Which is more and more evident now, but I think they noticed back then.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @11:52 am OK, so it's not just me, then.

I almost pity Charles Carreon more than I'm angry at him. That's got to be just awful.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @11:57 am @W Ross, he enables her too. So don't feel all so bad for Carreon. It gets more interesting though read this from his wikipedia (

Carreon was born in Phoenix, Arizona. He attended Arizona State University, but left after meeting and marrying his wife in 1974. He later earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Southern Oregon State College and his law degree from UCLA School of Law in 1986.
He left school for her. Then there's at least a 5 year gap in him going to school if he left his freshman year. More if he left later in his education. Math: 4 year college 3 year law school = 7 years. Gap between leaving and completing school 12 years.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @11:58 am Blew your mind right?

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @12:02 pm They also left for Oregon because I presume she wanted to, then left Oregon when her antics(and his) got them shunned by their community there.

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @12:18 pm W Ross wrote: I may need Nibor's freaky powers of social observation here
I guess thanks :-)

I have som ideas on this one and going to write them down but it will take a little, my english bad, need spellcheck Word2010, so will be back in a moment withe a post. giggel GGIIIGGGGGGELLLLL.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @12:31 pm @Nibor It's a complement. Your brain may be differently organized, but it's Sherlock Holmesean when you get into theory and behavior.

@Chris R Wow… yeah, that's definitely another puzzle piece. (This is also a good reason for Tara to get "humble" as she so refuses to do. Every time she tells another story, she gives us another thread to pull to figure this whole mad story out… and I've got an email in to Indigo Ray ;) )

Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @1:11 pm Wow — @W Ross et al., I think you are beginning to unravel this mystery!

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @1:36 pm This post can be a little rough on the edges.
For I wanted to write so much, but I also need to sleep sometimes :-)
So these are more my basic/initial thoughts and not a good read/story.

Forgive me if it all seems incoherent and/or repetitive I did my best in the sort time I had given myself to write this.

@W Ross

I thought of this after reading the last few posts from TC and didn’t think it would add anything to this discussion and first wanted to wait on new developments, but I think your first impression is right that it is TC who runs the show but as I see it there is more to it.

And getting a little more compassion with CC, for as far as I can judge from way over here and not actually seeing them interact ,could also be in its place, not that he is getting from me, for I am very into “the freedom of choice” doctrine, but with the addition that no matter what, you are always responsible for the (free)choices you (un)conscious make even if the frame work on which they are made is distorted (as in my case by my ASD) .

I believe he is an intelligent guy but, and with a big BUT, I also think he is still responsible for his actions and they were and are bad and driven from butthurt and he is and stays a douchebag, although it seems not a simple butthurt from the original (by him unexpected) Oatmeal reaction as we thought before.

As far as I can determine I think it was TC who took the “mother sweet talking a Kodiak bear” gag personal, maybe not as an attack on his/her mother, but as an attack on the archetype Mother and was very offended by it, I’m strengthened in this by her belief/delusion that she is a god/entity archetype mother/woman.

So she persuaded “bullied” CC in taking action and under that pressure he wrote the bad first draft off the complaint and probably pushed by TC, filed it before he would have done had he worked for someone. And pushed henceforth into all what has expired.

I also think that he is (or was long ago) really deeply in love with her, but that he has himself no or a very small personality (ego) (this is also conflicting with his intelligence), and I think she has an very strong personality(ego) so he compensates his small ego with hers and she is pleasured / groomed with his devotion.

His ego size and intelligence stimulated wrongly, telling him he is nothing and even he will not be saved when it depended on her is a classic example off wrong, often result in narcissistic behaviour and all his actions and statements seem to support this.

I think that love Isn’t the main motivation any more I am guessing but I think I has more to do with addiction to her and maybe (a little) Stockholm syndrome. So he hasn’t any real conscience choice any more.

When I look at the “bootleg” video I see a puppy who, maybe after using something (D or/and D) he probably shouldn’t have, wanting only one thing and that is to please and approvement of his handler/wife.

Also I don’t know how the other male participants here would act but I think I can safely say that only an very small number of them would let anybody(including wife) say something like TC did to CC and stay without at least a big fight. This seems to support my thesis that he has no real control over his life (anymore).

But all my observations and thoughts on this subject are based on the ramblings of TC and CC themselves and as far as we know they can be manipulating us.

Although I am convinced that the reoccurring signs and patterns agree with me.

I want to remind everybody that this are mine thoughts one this case, I myself am socially challenged ;-) ,but I’ve had a great deal off contacts/observations with/off the mentally ill and based my ideas on this.
So please take none of the above as facts (and please don’t sue me over it) and feel free to challenge me if you think I’m wrong.

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @1:47 pm @ W Ross I guessed it was and I accepted it already as such.
I sometimes try to be funny make jokes (and am not that good at it) specially when I get compliments, they are complicated for me to handle. ;-)

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @2:29 pm I didn't said to much on TC because we only see her ups and don't know if there are lows that would make the diverence between bipolar and meglomania but there also seems to be a bit of paranoia scrisophobia (don't mind the spelling typing on my iPhone now so no real spell check)
But possible aditional damage from d&d can not be dissmissed and from extensive grooming (not the grooming of hair kind but mental grooming kind) behavior

Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @2:51 pm Oops. I guess the DIRA turned into a DDOS? (Not that I condone it, though.) gives me:

Error establishing a database connection

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @2:55 pm Me also but they were changing it all the time since it went up so it also can mean that they are updating it again

Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @2:56 pm Oh, there's an Ars article about that site. So maybe its just getting a lot of views.

I'm reading a lot of comments to the tone of "why you keep talking about these sad, delusional, people? It's a waste of time."

I would agree if these sad delusional people didn't keep trying to waste everybody's time and money through the legal system.

Nibor • Jul 9, 2012 @2:59 pm And weren't so entertaining ( I know it wrong but with a bag of popcorn or chips I just can't help myself :-) )

Mike K • Jul 9, 2012 @4:09 pm I'm thinking that Charles has a decent sized ego in his own right. I don't think he could have been seen as a good lawyer by some of his colleagues without one. His response to my polite email indicated a strong attachment to his wife and a huge blind spot for any of her activities. It also indicated a lack of logic concerning her, but I'm led to believe that's somewhat normal.

It's possible that Tara isn't posting things she actually says to her husband, but that she thinks she should have said (or that happened in her delusions, considering she's received evidence of a conspiracy from dead people that are out to get her). I'm not sure that makes a difference as far as analyzing her would go, but as was said earlier, few people would put up with a spouse threatening to kill them that matter of factly.

William C • Jul 9, 2012 @4:12 pm He added me on Google+ after I commented on his picture o.O
Note: I did not praise him in the least. Also I did not add him.


Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @4:26 pm tears in my eyes

HeatherCat • Jul 9, 2012 @4:35 pm Happy, happy, joy, joy!!! Not quite what I was imagining, but much classier than I had in mind.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @4:40 pm Now all eyes on naderlibrary for comments on the pictures.

John Ammon • Jul 9, 2012 @4:40 pm Matt Inman wins the internet… always, for all time. I tip my hat to him.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @5:10 pm New Carreon related news:
Ars: ... e-oatmeal/
Adam: ... -internet/
Satirical: ... -internet/

Lakonislate • Jul 9, 2012 @5:11 pm A duffel bag with more than $200.000 dollars in it… If I understand anything about Charles and Tara, they'll now accuse Inman of being D. B. Cooper.

Margaret • Jul 9, 2012 @5:17 pm @Lakonislate: More like Son of D.B. Cooper.

*Snoopy Dance*

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @5:36 pm

Very much related. The little touches make it all the more epic. Good going, Oats.

Marzipan • Jul 9, 2012 @5:51 pm @W Ross, I'm not sure – given their new endeavors, I almost think this might be more apropos of their emotional state.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 9, 2012 @6:01 pm Loading the Oatmeal's "FU" picture page and seeing a ad = priceless.

Myk • Jul 9, 2012 @6:13 pm As W Ross says, it's the small details that make it sooooooo delicious. Oatmeal wins internet; waiting for advanced version to be released.

Joe • Jul 9, 2012 @6:29 pm Matt Inman rocks and I will be even more thrilled when "Doe" puts the cherry on top of the FU CC sundae.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @6:35 pm @Joe

Doe's not there yet, but this post is almost as good: ... -internet/

So Charles owns huh? That's not weird at all.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @6:45 pm @Adam, the internet has a sense of irony. I knew it.

Roxy • Jul 9, 2012 @6:57 pm More photos! ... 374463014/

John Ammon • Jul 9, 2012 @7:01 pm I hereby bequeath the quintessential "Keep Calm and Charles Carreon" image to the internets. Enjoy.

Iain • Jul 9, 2012 @7:36 pm It's my professional internet-observer opinion that earlier comments are correct, and interacting with these lunatics is just giveing them what they want. Let it go. It's okay :-)

Moo • Jul 9, 2012 @7:44 pm I am still waiting for Inman to propose to me. When will it happen?

Wondering • Jul 9, 2012 @8:05 pm I love the touch of the mom picture being framed. It's so classy!
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:39 pm


747 Comments (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery)

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @7:00 pm I think it's easy to stand up for free speech you agree with, it's even easy to be an advocate for someone's free speech if you don't agree with them on principle alone. The gritty part of free speech is when someone you don't agree with is using it to call you out. That's what separates the 1st Amendment purist from the Carreons of this world.

VPJ • Jul 9, 2012 @7:02 pm People I respect — people I trust — say that Mr. Carreon was in the past a decent man who defended free speech.
May be so, though it would be hard to see that from the past few weeks of this. It has been lovely popcorn munching material, tho.

Still, Mr. Carreon strikes me as the type who appeared to do the right thing until his character was directly tested. At that point, he failed. To borrow a phrase, succumbed to the saucy wink.

Brett • Jul 9, 2012 @7:10 pm First of all Mr Carreon, it's time for you to learn a new word – money is fungible. $200,000 is $200,000 – the money from the Oatmeal's own bank account is exactly the same as the money from donations. And I really wish the ghastly rapeutation website was open to comments.

Ann • Jul 9, 2012 @7:13 pm I have a hard time imagining a Charles Carreon that is decent or a champion of actual free speech, to which Chris R. referred. There is almost the certainty of mental illness, brought on by drug use or just a tremendous nervous breakdown resulting from personal tragedy (he's written about a few and I think his marriage would certainly qualify).

This is the worst part of watching a douchebag implode. The part where I start feeling sorry for him.

Tragic indeed.

deezerd • Jul 9, 2012 @7:14 pm At one of my old jobs, there was a sign hanging in the break room reading "The true test of character is what you do when no one is watching." Post-Carreon, I might add: " … or when EVERYONE is watching, and can choose either to man up – or to weasel out."

Carreon clearly chose poorly, and that's all the sadder if he really was once the man some say he was.

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @7:16 pm I tried using rapeutate in actual dialogue today on a blind subject, it didn't go well…

TJIC • Jul 9, 2012 @7:24 pm @Ann:

> This is the worst part of watching a douchebag implode. The part where I start feeling sorry for him.


I got off the hate-on-Carreon bus about halfway through.

The man was clearly behaving like a douche, but can I be sure that there's no set of circumstances that would have me acting like an even worse douche?

I don't know what personal demons he's battling, but I assume that he's got a few.

I'm glad he lost, but I don't relish seeing much more humiliation. Thankfully, the whole thing seems to be winding down.

Mark • Jul 9, 2012 @7:27 pm Maybe CC was a "decent man" to his friends. But just looking at his and TC's websites and the litigations documented there makes me think otherwise. They seem to simply burn bridges everywhere they go. This latest imbroglio seems perfectly fit with their MO.

Gigi • Jul 9, 2012 @7:32 pm So what happened to Funnyjunk? Their actions seem to have been overshadowed by Carreon's personal quest…

Dan Weber • Jul 9, 2012 @7:33 pm Back in his freak-of-the-week post, Ken reminded us that free speech battles aren't so black-and-white. What if it was the guy who produced the comics we love that was being the censorious thug against someone we all hated? Would we argue as forcefully for the douchebag's rights?

I would hope so.

Mark Lyon • Jul 9, 2012 @7:34 pm "This is roughly like crowing that you dominated the captain of the firing squad by making him offer you a blindfold and a cigarette before shooing you."

Or posting "1st-Degree Murder…MISTRIAL!" on facebook.

nlp • Jul 9, 2012 @7:35 pm The sad part, just before the unleashing of the whirlwind, was the moment Carreon could have stopped it. When he got that response letter he could have taken a deep breath and sent back a reply saying, in effect, "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I had believed that all the art had been removed. Thank you for your patience, and I will donate $X to the fund." And it would have been over. The internet mob would have disbursed, the fund would grow, and there would have been sunshine and ponies. Instead, he sued, and he sounded like a man with spittle in his beard. (Please note, I am making no claims regarding Carreon's facial hair or lack thereof.)

nlp • Jul 9, 2012 @7:40 pm By the way, Ken, it was my understanding that captains of firing squads shot you, rather than shooing you, but perhaps you have more knowledge of the subject than I do.

Ollie • Jul 9, 2012 @7:47 pm good thing the illuminati made sure Matt got the money home safely. good work guys

Chris • Jul 9, 2012 @7:49 pm Boing-Boing has photos of him with the money:

Adam Raymer • Jul 9, 2012 @7:56 pm I think part of Carreon's problem, and his new-found craziness, is his wife. Most of what she writes shows borderline traits, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's rubbed off on Carreon himself.

Delvan Neville • Jul 9, 2012 @8:13 pm Don't worry nlp: his name may be trademarked, but his facial hair (or theoretical hair) isn't. Spittle away! :D

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @8:15 pm @Adam, yeah we discussed it in the thread of part ix, basically he met and married her in 74 and dropped out of college. Moved to Oregon, didn't finish school until 86 and every time she has had crazy outbursts they've had to drop ties with communities they're involved in and sometimes even move.

Robert White • Jul 9, 2012 @8:22 pm But didn't we already learn in Waaah v. Snowflake that each Delicate and Unique Snowflake is already entitled to having the law rewritten to their individual sensitivities?

Now in the famous STFU ruling this power was, perhaps unjustly, limited to cases where the tort and resolution happened wholly within plantif's "mental sphere".

So perhaps the precedent is a tad vague.

Robert White • Jul 9, 2012 @8:23 pm Of course I recall you have to issue a Formal Declaration of Snowflake to establish standing in Waaah…

Robert White • Jul 9, 2012 @8:31 pm On the note of past performance and its action as predictor of future returns.

Winning doesn't test a man's character, and many a batshit crazy fucktard can skate through life with nary a blip because of the acts of fortune and having their bug-nutz behavior going unseen in ill-publicized corner cases of their life.

The fact that Carreon seems to have gone under the radar until this incident isn't actually any sort of evidence for or against previous mental state. He was likely just as cramped in the membrane then as now.

Only this time, either the self restraint mechanism gave way due to over use, or perhaps indeed, his stability and self control is slipping.

I myself, coming from a long line of batshit crazy folk, occasionally struggle with "chat rage" or the possibility of "disproportionate response." And like most men, I dealt whit most of these issues in late adolescence. Rarely I do suffer relapse, where I wish there was in Internet Protocol that let one stab someone in the face over broadband, but like most people in my state, I let it pass.

So maybe Chuckles just had one too many hits off the angry-weed this one time, but this one time is still going on so I doubt it.

More likely the dike has given way and the levy has overflown, and there's now crazy all over the road in Mystic Connecticut.

Robert White • Jul 9, 2012 @8:36 pm BTW: there is no reason to "hate" Carreon, just recognize that he and his ilk need to be pounded down like any abhorrent extrusion of impropriety.

I don't hate him. I pitty him a little. But I don't for an instant regret hammering him back down where he won't do harm (or metaphorically stub the toe of) innocent passers by.

I don't hate weeds in my lawn. I even let them grow there since I like natural habitat, but on my long dirt driveway I crush them with my car when I drive to keep the road passable for as wide a swath as possible.

If'n he retire to his dirt-patch and fester in is mud like a good little weed, we'd all go back to not caring about him.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 9, 2012 @8:54 pm I 'm with Adam… I don't know when the people you know knew the man, Ken, but I think after years of exposure to what is CLEARLY a very, very, VERY insane woman has eventually brought him down to her level of insanity.

Rand Bell • Jul 9, 2012 @8:57 pm Rapeutation: 1. noun, the act of having fucked yourself in the ass so completely that you mistake the dildo in the back of your throat as having been put there by someone else. 2. Poorly conceived analogy equating verbal or written criticism for a horrendous and horrific sex crime. See also "Carreoned".

Grifter • Jul 9, 2012 @9:03 pm Anyone ever see the movie "Bug"?

M. • Jul 9, 2012 @9:11 pm Tara Carreon is crazy in that estrogen-fueled harpy in sweatpants way that fuels misogyny. Charles Carreon just needs a nap and a steady supply of dirt weed, administered by bhang suppository if he resists.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:23 pm So this story is pretty much over unless he seriously attempts to make that a tort or Tara enjoys another box of wine/6" bong rip.

Which is to say it's probably not over.

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:24 pm (He should start ButthurtPAC! Then he could raise unlimited money for the Butthurt community to lobby for his new law!)

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:59 pm (Posted this in the wrong thread. Round up…

His Facebook public pic, with 30,000 likes ... =1&theater

30,000 likes on Facebook for that photo already. Yikes…

MSNBC ... 22304?lite

Tech Crunch ... -of-money/

Boing Boing

SPI ... to-lawyer/

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @10:23 pm ... &start=110

"Everything about the Illuminati is disgusting. Do you put on a dress, Matt Inman, and pretend to be a girl? Do you spice up your sadism with a little pedophilia?

Same question for Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon. "

Cthulhu rises… here we go…

Matthew Cline • Jul 9, 2012 @10:26 pm Quoth Carreon:

I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate.
You don't instruct your adversaries. My adversaries instruct me.
It seems that Carreon considers himself to be an Internet Tough Guy.

The use of the word "zombies" is always a signifier of serious and credible legal analysis.
He might be referring to computers which have been hijacked by a virus and are being remotely controlled by the virus creator, in which case "zombie" is a perfectly fine word to use, though given the context I don't see how that could be what he is referring to.

Unless . . . Mr. Carreon, through the Trojan horse "fair play," is suggesting a major revision of fundamental First Amendment concepts solely to protect his own wounded pride and the feelings of his ilk.
He seems to be saying that a statement on the Internet which "goes viral" should be treated differently by the law than a statement which doesn't go viral.

Brett • Jul 9, 2012 @10:51 pm Umm, what does one do when the crazy starts to look dangerous, not just simply incoherent? I think recent events may have been the tipping point into full Charlie Sheen level crazy.

"Did you think I wanted to become a deity? OMG, that is SO male! Spare me the maleness of this world. I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you. I told that to Charles the other night, and he got a hurt look on his face. He said, "You wouldn't even save the best man of all?" I said, "No fucking way. You're still a man." I said it with a lot of force so that that would be the end of it. But no, he's got to shout me down. He's always got a sneaky, smart-stupid comeback. He lives on the strategists. He says, "Well, there are no girls who are any better." Fucker, he won the argument this time. But he can't even begin to compare to my win rate. I've been winning my whole life. He's been winning to, but between the two of us, I have the upper hand. He had the upper hand during the first 30 years of our marriage. But I'm going to make sure we go out with a BANG!"

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @10:52 pm Reading that screed she just put up… she's gonna freak when she finds out I come from Omaha.


James Pollock • Jul 9, 2012 @10:54 pm As to use of the term "zombie", I believe that this is another case of the "Internet lawyer" ALMOST, but NOT QUITE getting the terminology correct. Referring to a compromised computer as a "zombie" is archaic terminology, the current trend is to refer to "bots" and "botnets" instead. But other than being about 8-10 years out-of-date, he pretty much almost got the idea of a zombie computer right… except that there's no evidence (at least, not publicly-disclosed evidence) that a botnet was turned on him. (Kind of like complaining about genetically-engineered biological warfare, because you caught a cold. Or are allergic to the flowering trees in your yard. Yes, "zombie" computers (botnets) exist, but you haven't been attacked by any.)

Moo • Jul 9, 2012 @11:34 pm Are putting on a dress and pedophilia related somehow?

Chris R. • Jul 9, 2012 @11:41 pm I'm just waiting for her to start talking in knock knock jokes.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 9, 2012 @11:44 pm My adversaries instruct me.
You know where one frequently gets instruction? School.

And boy howdy, did Carreon's adversaries take his ass to school…

W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @11:45 pm Their hit list grows. She adds to it as she finds people she disagrees with. So far we're at:

Inman and
Ars Technica
Marc Randazza
The Fake Tweeters
The Cybersquatters
The DOS Attacker and Assorted Rapeutationists
The Digital Mob ... an-affair/

apauld • Jul 9, 2012 @11:48 pm When I saw the rapeutation thing yesterday, I was hoping it was another parody site. But, alas the Carreon family have now just taken crazy to a much larger/sicker proportion. Trying to make a new, federal ruling to limit the first amendment rights to free speech is totally reprehensible; and not understanding that the internet spans across national boundries is just stupid. They are now more than vile, they are now just bile.

Robert White • Jul 9, 2012 @11:48 pm Inman would look terrible in a dress… Now I got some Illuminatis robes he would look good getting out of…


(too gay? be honest… 8-)

Robert White • Jul 10, 2012 @12:09 am That word, "instruct", I don't think it means what you think it means.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 10, 2012 @12:51 am It'd be way more efficient if the Greatest Hits list were condensed to simply read "The Illuminati"

Ki • Jul 10, 2012 @2:15 am Reading through this, the whole thing reminds me of a typical Japanese RPG. Heroes beat the final boss (Charles) and declare victory, all the while the real evil, the true final boss sits back unchallenged with maniacal grin (Tara).

Elix • Jul 10, 2012 @2:19 am I'm almost completely certain that all Carreon wants is the ability to sue anyone he doesn't like for the tort of inflicting internet butthurt.

Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar (I'm not even American!), but I'm pretty sure that is not only nowhere in the constitution nor did the founding fathers intend for it to be. For precisely the reason that Carreon is demonstrating by his actions.

Charles and Tara Carreon, I hope you get well soon.

Gigi • Jul 10, 2012 @2:40 am I actually feel sorry for Charlie the Censor. Here's a quote from Tara's frustration outlet: "DO NOT FUCK WITH ME! You think Charles is tough? He would be NOTHING without me." ... &start=110

Susan • Jul 10, 2012 @3:02 am Tara: "What kind of cybersquatter gets a lawyer from Public Citizen to represent him four hours of early morning daylight after a letter is sent to a web host provider asking the name of the cybersquatter? Must be a VERY IMPORTANT cybersquatter to put the entire reputation of Public Citizen on the line and on emergency notice for him."

One who is an American citizen threatened with 1st Amendment restrictions.

Tara: "BOYCOTT PUBLIC CITIZEN UNTIL PAUL LEVY IS FIRED! That's what I'm doing. Not one more penny. And I have been a regular donor for years."

If she has been donating for years then it really must have stung to have opposing council from Public Citizen.

Dunex • Jul 10, 2012 @4:20 am Meh, as soon as Tara says she hates something I feel the urge to donate/help..I am gonna end up broke :(

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @4:34 am Ohhhhhh-kaaaaay. The good in all this is that she makes my unmedicated bipolar self feel perfectly sane and rational by comparison.

Ara Ararauna • Jul 10, 2012 @4:46 am Glad that this episode is coming to a conclusion, but I don't think we have reached the end of the book yet…

Oh boy, I feel bad for Chuckles, not because of all this ordeal FunnyJunk dragged him in by "unwittingly placing a carrot on string" in front of his nose (the culmination of trolling and a clear invitation to selfexposure), but because he received kneaded poison from his woman, that blargs about unchecked. Feels like she isn't reaching menopause quite good…

Well, we know why she dropped (expeled?) school in the past, and maybe she finished it around 86 thanks to and with and astounding degree in "fellatio" and not by "intellectual awards", lol. Of course, with such degree she has more rights to blarg in self-nonsense when called out by people who clearly displays more neurons than her hollow inner paradise, and other self-deluding paraphernalia which would put any psychoanalyst and psychiatrist to easily declare her ill and in urgent need of sedatives, and a very long long vacation from internet, that monster that "never agrees with her".

That's why some people can't have internet, they are not mentally ready to face their own faults when people starts to notice that something is wrong with X. Keyboards are know to deliver a huge recoil to their users.

PS: If she is confronted with an @ picture in a Rorschach test, she sees pterodactyls, gorillas and naked women prancing about phallic totems, FACT.

Dave Canon • Jul 10, 2012 @5:06 am I’d like to propose a new internet meme: “Stop! Don’t Carreon”. To be used when someone is either being a censor like Charles or spouting crazy nonsense like Tara in her blog/forum.

Hughhh • Jul 10, 2012 @5:07 am Mister White, you have quite a way with words. Well played, sir. :)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 10, 2012 @5:23 am Its not over yet…

Carreon may have gone "Me Bad" on Carreon v Everybody, but Somebody in Everybody might still move to change it to be dismiss with prejudice based on Carreon's other statements, just to make Damn Sure.

His "charity" theory is kooky and could seriously disrupty IndieGoGo if he raises it again (like he's threatened publicly), and he's also threatened people with "I may sue you later, when your pro bono attorney is gone".

But, more importantly, Doe v Carreon is still ongoing. We have what, a month, for Carreon to decide whether he's going to fold or fight? I'm hoping he folds. But he could decide to fight for a couple rounds.

Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @5:26 am @Ara Ararauna the stopping with school and finishing it much later refers to CC (and wikipedia says he stopped with school to be with TC)

Mike K • Jul 10, 2012 @5:34 am You know, it's funny. The only way I can see for a male wearing female clothing to be a bad thing is if the person believes that females are inherently worse than males. To see that a woman thinks that, is, well, disturbing.

Stuart • Jul 10, 2012 @6:04 am [youtube

Stuart • Jul 10, 2012 @6:05 am well, I failed at that. Lets try again


Louise • Jul 10, 2012 @6:07 am @Ara Ararauna. I think everyone here agrees that TC has mental health issues. I'm not sure it helps to blame them on the menopause nor to suggest that any qualifications she may have were gained not through merit but because she slept with people in authority.

Lakonislate • Jul 10, 2012 @6:18 am I am curious about one thing: If Matt Inman had decided not to take a picture of the money, would that have been a problem? People sometimes say "I changed my mind," I don't see anything immoral or illegal about that.

Half the internet has been watching and considering every tiny move Inman might or should make, but the mere fact that he's been walking on eggshells kind of feels like a "the terrorists have already won" scenario. He's handled it very well, but beyond the question of whether the charities get the money they were supposed to get, does it even matter if he had lied about something else, or been inaccurate, or wrong?

In short, even though Carreon was pretty obviously wrong and stupid, all of this may still have had a somewhat chilling effect. Although I admit I am a pessimist.

Courtney • Jul 10, 2012 @6:22 am The thing that really pisses me off about people like this whining about "distributed reputation attacks" or "internet mobbing" is that that kind of thing really does happen–it just didn't happen to them.

There are plenty of cases of decent people being viciously hounded by an "internet mob" in order to shut down what they are saying. The most recent one I have seen was the coordinated attack on Anita Sarkeesian by a bunch of misogynistic gamers who were offended that she was trying to raise money to produce a series of videos analyzing the way female characters are treated in video games. A group of at least a dozen people coordinated an attack involving rape and death threats sent through pretty much every digital channel where she could be expected to receive messages, attempts to shut down her Kickstarter campaign by claiming it was terrorism, DDoS attacks on her website and pornographic vandalism of the Wikipedia page about her.

As horrible as that was, there are already existing remedies for what happened to her. She worked through existing channels to keep the Kickstarter going, repair the Wikipedia page, and improve security on her website. She calmly talked about what was happening on her Kickstarter page and on her website, making the point that no one should have to put up with this and that she wasn't going to let it stop her project. The attacks got media attention, and ultimately her Kickstarter raised over 26 times the money she needed from almost 7,000 supporters. I have no idea what legal remedies she is seeking, because she's not talking about it. (The only comment she has made is that a few "scarier things" have happened than what she described, but that she is safe and "working with authorities to deal with it.")

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @6:30 am Tara may wear the pants… but she wears these pants.

Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @6:38 am @Lakonislate I think that Matt has enough knowledge about internet users and his own fan base specific that deviating from his initial plan would equal to online suicide.

So not taking the picture or keeping some of the money (not that he needs it) will probably never have entered his mind, he just to internet savvy.

He is depended for his income on the internet (fan base) he would never ever risk this.

Oh, adding the two other charities, would not have endangered anything, for it was in reaction of popular demand, so he just obeyed the wishes off his fans.

And this is the only thing blockaded by the whole thing (CC's win :-( )

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @6:49 am Another thing worth remembering is the Oatmeal put some of his financial well being in danger for this. Carrying a sack of $200,000 dollars to an off site location with nothing but a friend with a gun and a reporter, to play with it and return it… that's dangerous. He may be doing well, but I'm sure he couldn't take a 200,000 dollar hit.

So Matthew in a very small way put his finances and even his life in danger to keep his word and give us some lulz.

Contrast that with Charles Carreon, who wanted to get a bad judgement for a bad client to get a bad precedent to use in his battle with Penguin.

Most of this is about the First Amendment… but some of this is due to the ridiculous good and evil spread here, lol.

Kelly • Jul 10, 2012 @7:32 am Love the photo shoot!

@ W Ross: Prof. Elemental!! Sorry, he is a bit of a big deal in my house, lol!

As to CC and TC. I don't pity him not really. Either TC is batshit crazy and he just watches as she runs amok or he simply is as batshit as she is and has no clue about their combined mental health issues. I have been thinking about all the evidence and yes, TC is clearly not mentally healthy. Whether she is getting any sort of help or not is not clear. Honestly, CC should be trying to focus on THAT and not stupid lawsuits and attempting to change laws so his butthurt can be all better.

As for the Doe vs CC…I don't know that he is going to give it up. He is already starting that new website (which I had hoped was a parody) now whinging about his butthurt all over again. This tells me that he is willing to drag it out as long as he can.

He, and perhaps TC playing puppeteer with him, has now realized just what a fool he made of himself. He has shown enough narcissistic traits in the past for me to think that he won't allow that to go on.

(Disclaimer: All my opinion, I am not claiming facts or anything.)

Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @7:39 am Kelly wrote:
(Disclaimer: All my opinion, I am not claiming facts or anything.)
This makes me sad, not that you are saying it Kelly for I have used it also in some of my comments, but that it would possibly be necessary at all.

Matthew • Jul 10, 2012 @7:42 am Tara's logic such as it is, goes like this, I think:

Matt Inman is a modern day Hitler Youth type as he used "Hitler's porta-potty" as a hyperbolic description of his style, in an interview.

From that and from standing against the blessed Carreons, anything connected with him is part of some sort of Nazi-style Illuminati plot.

Jung's ideas underpin all of this. Jung (apparently, in an manuscript he decided against publishing) suggested that men dressing as women would free them from subjugation*

The Franklin Scandal was a massive paedophile ring that went all the way to the White House and was covered up by the Illuminati (none of this is true – at most it was a local scandal, but it's clear that witnesses invented a story).

The accused in the Franklin Scandal once dressed as women for a performance (according to John de Camp, is by no means reliable).

Therefore all these Illuminati types must be cross-dressing paedophiles.

So the apparent springing from nowhere of accusations of paedophilia actually follows a weird and twist chain of cause and effect to the conspiracist mind. Once you buy into one conspiracy theory it's common to buy into more and see connections everywhere, since you've surrendered any idea of critical assessment of the evidence.

Since Tara and Charles are so concerned by the actions of large numbers of people on the Internet, no doubt they will be offering support to Larry Silverstein.

*for a more informed and nuanced reading of the work in question: ... -red-book/

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @7:43 am @Kelly CRACKING!

I wonder if he sought this out, because what Inman did is VERY similar to what other copyrite holders did to he and Tara over the 60,000 files available on their websites, much of it pirated material Tara has stolen and given away libraried. (


W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @7:45 am @Matthew Holy shit you're the Rosetta Stone of Word Salad. Two mighty Internets to you, sir.

Matthew • Jul 10, 2012 @7:45 am Oh and for the all Franklin thing, Google will give lots of lurid speculation and nonsense. Wikipedia, through the diligence of some editors, just sticks to the facts: ... llegations

Be extremely skeptical of anything that attempts to go beyond what it said in that article.

Kelly • Jul 10, 2012 @7:52 am @Nibor: I know me too, but better safe than sorry. I just don't want them turning their crazy on me.

@W Ross: Hee! Though, thanks to grogginess and coffee, I am now listening to the song and picturing Inman as Prof Elemenal and CC as Mr B.

As to the cross-dressing accusation. I just sort of shrugged and moved on. Clearly she is reaching for anything she can to try and … make fun of? Inman. She doesn't seem to get that men wore skirts first and for a longer time frame than they have been wearing trousers. Then again, I am surprised she didn't link Inman to Hoover when she started down that road.

Matthew • Jul 10, 2012 @7:56 am @W Ross, thanks!

Back in 2006, as some generally interested in skepticism, I joined the JREF forum. The mistake I made was to click on the conspiracy theories section and wasted a lot of time trying to argue with these people (mostly about 9/11). So I can sort of follow the thought processes, a lot of the time.

The thing that's interesting is that I'm convinced that these people are necessarily mentally ill. No professional would attempt a diagnosis on the basis of internet postings anyway, but it seems that a lot of conspiracy types seem not to have a problem functioning in other parts of their lives. My theory is that fantasies about conspiracies are in a bubble that gives them an odd comfort but deep down, doesn't impinge on their reality. So they sound off but rarely actually do anything.

One thing I'm sure of: Tara isn't going to stop and at some point we'll just have to leave her be, for everyone's sake.

Kelly • Jul 10, 2012 @8:05 am @ Matthew: Wow! I sort of understand her thought process a bit more now. She does seem to live a big conspiracy theory. That worries me though, what is the line between ranting and speculating online and it bleeding over into real life? It seems she has become more irrational and reaching…

Jason T • Jul 10, 2012 @8:20 am What are Inman's tax implications to making/raising/withdrawing $200+?

Thorne • Jul 10, 2012 @8:45 am "Everything about the Illuminati is disgusting. Do you put on a dress, Matt Inman, and pretend to be a girl? Do you spice up your sadism with a little pedophilia?

Same question for Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon. "

Bitch can't count. I see TWO questions.

Joe • Jul 10, 2012 @9:27 am

Is it just me, or is there absolutely no connection to his discussion about GPS and government tracking of activities and the need for a new DIRA tort? His legal analysis raises additional questions as to his lawyering capabilities – as if we didn't have enough already.

As far as his comment about internet mobs, I think Ann Bransom did an outstanding job of explaining why this shouldn’t really be an issue on her blog.

Specifically ”. . . . . there is a reason that the audience was right 91% of the time on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, . . . . . . and as a group we are very good at assessing what the facts are.” I think that last sentence is key. When people come together as a loosely joined crowd on the internet they are very good at determining what the facts are. It also makes them pretty good about doing the morally responsible thing and not going after someone who doesn’t deserve it. The larger the internet mob the more they tend to gravitate to the moral center. If a single person or small set of people try to go after someone and the rest of the internet is watching, and if they care about the subject, they will step in and protect the person being wrongfully harassed. Call it crowd sourced morality, but it seems to be fair and consistent in what I’ve seen in prior situations.

And while I would agree the situation with Carreon is tragic, what continues to bother me most about Charles Carreon is his ongoing obstinate insistence he is right and everyone else is wrong. He has not changed his stance on this. I don’t think this will be over until he learns otherwise. If he were to say he was wrong and sincerely apologize I think a lot of people would forgive him and move on. But he just can’t do it – that would require some sense of humility which he lacks.

nlp • Jul 10, 2012 @10:02 am Joe, there's an old saying that if you are absolutely sober and haven't had a drink in a week, and three people tell you you're drunk, the only thing to do is lie down and take a nap. Carreon can't actually recognize the internet response to his attacks as the equivalent of being called a drunk, which is why he keeps going forward with his attack.

As for the inner dynamic in the marriage, I've known other couples who shared an odd worldview. They essentially feed each other and feed off each other. I suspect that to really break the chain of logic for the Carreons would require separation from each other, and that obviously isn't going to happen.

In many cases of internet rage, where many people target someone who has injured another, the attacks die down if the person doesn't do anything to further inflame the crowd. Judith Griggs, of Cooks Source infamy, ducked for cover and the rage eventually died down. The more the Carreons complains in public, the more attacks will be launched. At this point I can't see either the Carreons or the internet giving up.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @10:12 am @nlp EXACTLY.

tl;dr Re "Tara the Victim"

The fact is that if Tara keeps posting things, she's adding content that will cause conversation. She won't like that conversation, and her answer to that is to post more things feeding into that conversation.

It's not stiffling to free speech to say "If you shut the fuck up, people will stop having a conversation with you," it's true. She is absolutely welcome (and encouraged) to babble free association all day into a public forum, but when she does that she is going into the public sphere and saying "THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS!"

Just because she has no where to comment on her posts doesn't mean she just gets to put billboards up and we shouldn't discuss them due to their privacy or propriety. She is putting her thoughts out into the marketplace of ideas, and when a grown up person does that, they need to expect that others can and will respond.

If she doesn't like what's happening in the comments of these threads, she can stop reading them.
If she doesn't like people looking at her, she can stop talking.
If she doesn't like people finding untruths, she can stop lying.
If she doesn't like people finding embarrassing shit, she can stop posting embarrassing shit on the Internet.
If she doesn't want to experience inflamatory speech, she should stop speaking about others in an inflammatory way.

Tara Carreon isn't being harassed, she want's to have her cake and eat it too. She wants to be able to be the girl screaming insults from the back of a moving car, drive by-ing people with free speech while expecting none to come back at her.

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Tara and Charles are in no way victims, and they never will be until they stop returning fire. You cannot start a fight then complain about how bad you got beat up afterwards.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @10:24 am ... mments-bar

Bets on lrryie being TC? 19 comments, heavy comment editing, huge block paragraphs, etc etc. The first comment that made me think it's a TC Sock:

"He did not withdraw $200 K. he withdrew $20K.

The $200K was the total amount raised from the fundraising.

$20K was the orginal target amount for the fund raising, it was obviously exceeded.

Having $20 K in the bank does not indicate he is "quite successful", it only indicates that he had $20K in the bank. Lots of people who have put money in the bank for a long period of time and let it sit have $20K in the bank.

What I would like to see is the deposits into his personal accounts since this fund raising began, to show that the $20K he is claiming is his (what he withdrew and photographed) did not come from, or was not a result of, the fund raising. Yes, I know the money from the fund raising was supposed to have been transfered directly to those organizations receiving the funds instead of Inman having access to it, but what we don't know is how much they actually received (only the words of Inman) and I have not seen any receipt confrimations from these organizations that were supposed to have received the funds showing how much they actually received. An audit of his personal accounts would show if any of that money did someway make it into Inmans personal accounts. Not saying he did anything wrong, but he wanted to present proof that he was on the up and up about this fund raising thing and a picture of $20K alone doesn't really prove anything in this regards.

I'm sorry, but I have an inherent sense of mistrust for anyone who would use fund raising for what are worthy causes as an "in your face Carreon" publicity stunt and who acted like an immature idiot just like his opponent. I expect maturity and seriousness in fund raising and use of those funds for worthy causes, and not cavalier self serving juvenile antics and idiotic behavior. When it comes to money (and most other things) I have learned to not take anyones word on the internet least of all that of a perfect stranger."

Luke • Jul 10, 2012 @10:56 am @W Ross – The posts are way too coherent to be TC. MC on the other hand… And how anyone can look at those pictures and think there is only 20k there is beyond me.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:41 pm

PART 2 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery)

Mike K • Jul 10, 2012 @11:06 am @Luke it would be possible if you didn't know that it's next to impossible to replace bills in those bands with a lower denomination.Theoretically if there were stacks of 1s below the visible 20s, it could be that low. The thing is, those bands are so tight you have to cut them to get the bills out which would mean that the bank would have had to have been in on such a deception (which a Carreon would believe).

Luke • Jul 10, 2012 @11:09 am @Courtney – Thank you for mentioning the case of Anita Sarkeesian, I hadn't heard of it before and looking forward to see how the videos turn out.

While I doubt the issue is completely over I think that in Anita's case the internet came through loud and clear when she was confronted with online douchebaggery. I don't think she would have been able to raise $168k if it hadn't been for the douchebags. Much as in the case of Inman, people put their money where their mouth is. And as Joe said above "If a single person or small set of people try to go after someone and the rest of the internet is watching, and if they care about the subject, they will step in and protect the person being wrongfully harassed."

Luke • Jul 10, 2012 @11:12 am @Mike K – Good point. I keep forgetting to think that everyone is in on the conspiracy!

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @11:13 am Randomly: Do you suppose Nader is aware of Queen Nutbag and her consort?

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 10, 2012 @11:14 am @ W Ross – no bet. If it is TC, then she is surprisingly good at disguising her writing style. TC's native word salad may be completely off the charts as to content and meaning, but ironically she has a competent grasp of sentence structure, and for the most part her grammar, spelling, and capitalization tend to come up clean. lrryie's writing is distinctly less literate, from a copy editor's standpoint. Not saying it wouldn't be possible to fake that, but I don't think it's in character for someone like TC, who very evidently prides herself on her writing.

Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @11:14 am Here is a link to the article that the reporter who was with Matt when the photo's were shot wrote:

And it makes clear that it was the total amount raised, even including some coins to make the full number (look on the floor between the F and U) .

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @11:24 am I tried to register for the forums but maxed out attempts because I just cannot read confirmation codes worth a darn. *sigh*

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @11:27 am So… are both cases (Carreon v. Inman et al and Doe v. Carreon) in standby mode, waiting for Judge Chen?

Mike K • Jul 10, 2012 @11:28 am That must make you a robot! *gasp*
Seriously, though, most have an audio version which might be easier for you to do.
I wish you good luck in your quest to become human ;)

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @11:31 am I kinda like the term "Zombies" cause it's accurate (just not in the way they're thinking.) We're not automated robots, sure, but we are cracking open their skulls and eating their sweet, sweet brains.

And then we leave a review, like a "Yelp" for attention whores.

Yes, I think everyone involved in the Streisand Effect for whatever purpose should be known as a "zombie."


Beth • Jul 10, 2012 @11:32 am One of the things I find interesting about the "distributed attack" concept is the level of denial present. It couldn't be that all these people individually have come to the conclusion that you're wrong. It must be that we are all puppets, controlled by a single source.

He's forgetting a couple of things about the Internet. One is that there is an enormous variety of tastes, values, and morals represented. Another is that we argue with each other just for fun. If the entire Internet is agreeing on something, that is because there is a basic truth being addressed.

If Inman were truly doing something morally reprehensible, someone besides the Carreons would call him on it. And others would chime in. Why hasn't that happened? I'm going to try to imagine the response of someone who is the closest to the Carreon's viewpoint and still a semi-reasonable person:

Inman's initial response was juvenile.
He's just bringing charity in to get attention. Publicity whore.
Suing the charities in response is… STILL NOT OK.

But no. According to the "distributed attack" theory, all these people disagree with you because every one of them is a mindless sheep, or a puppet under Inman's control, or otherwise working in concert with the mob. It certainly couldn't be that everyone actually disagrees with you.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @11:33 am *s


Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @11:34 am @Mark Doe v. Carreon goes before the judge (Chen) next month
Carreon v. everyone is over, except when one of everyone dicides to presue legal costs or an anti-SLAPP.

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @11:35 am @Mike K:


Hello. This is Mary. I am a human with soft skin.

Robert White • Jul 10, 2012 @12:18 pm @Beth — You wrong Inman. He didn't "bring int he charities just to be an attention whore." Have you read the site? He -is- an attention whore, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you are good at it.

He brought in the charities to sharpen the knife and increase the chances of raising enough money to really stick the knife in hard.

That's called "knowing your audience" and "being effective".

Besides FJ and Carreon are cancers, and there was a picture of a bear so what choice did he have? The bit kind-of wrote itself. /doh.

Chris R. • Jul 10, 2012 @12:25 pm @M, I am sure every celebrity has some crazy obsessed with them. He might be aware of their "devotion" but I doubt he keeps tabs on what she does. I mean Charles had to demand Paul Levy forward his email to Nader, so it's not like Nader wants to be in actual contact with them.

Chris R. • Jul 10, 2012 @12:28 pm @RW, I like the sharpening the knife analogy. Charles has brought all of this on himself. After the first C&D letter the internet was angry at Funny Junk and if Carreon hadn't acted out, no one would have cared about him. The rest is history, but trying to bully bloggers, parody twitter accounts, and everyone else was just him falling into one pit trap after another.

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @12:33 pm @Chris R.: It's too bad they're not into Perot. I'm sure the three of them would get on like a house on fire.

Nibor • Jul 10, 2012 @12:38 pm @Robert White I am almost sorry (have read somewhere you have problems when someone takes only a part of a post and pulls it out of context :-) ) but this wasn't Beth who stated it but she took an imaginary point of view and still came out that CC was wrong

Beth wrote:
I'm going to try to imagine the response of someone who is the closest to the Carreon's viewpoint and still a semi-reasonable person:
Inman's initial response was juvenile.
He's just bringing charity in to get attention. Publicity whore.
Suing the charities in response is… STILL NOT OK.

Beth • Jul 10, 2012 @12:59 pm @RW, I'm sorry if my post was unclear. I thought Inman's response was hilarious, appropriate, and generous.

My point was that Charles' "distributed attack" fantasy theory is based on the idea that everyone attacking his reputation is doing so because they are aligned with Inman. In truth, Charles' reputation is damaged due to his own behavior.

He refuses to acknowledge that his complete and thorough unpopularity is not due to every single person on the internet being an Inman fan. His complete and thorough unpopularity is due to his own actions.

Orville • Jul 10, 2012 @1:04 pm One of the interesting tidbits I picked up from this saga is that The Oatmeal brings in $500k a year. I doubt that all of the Carreon websites combined bring in even $50k a year. Especially since Chas plead poverty when it came time to travel to the venue he chose to file his law suit in.

I don't believe for a minute that having more money makes a person better, or that it makes them right when a dispute erupts – but website income can be roughly equated to popularity. Chuckie just didn't have a significant portion of the internet's attention, and I suspect that really stuck in his craw.

Now, however, he has the attention he craves. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole affair has raised his income a bit. Lots of people are going to his websites and reading what he has to say. Lots of people know his name. I bet the fact that the majority of it is negative attention doesn't phase him one bit.

Soon though, the internet will move on to the next thing. Then it will be time for another pro se plea for attention. We'll just have to see what shape the next stunt will take.

Regardless, he won't ever have the success The Oatmeal enjoys. I hope he and Tara enjoy the flavor that adds as they chew on their livers.

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @2:06 pm @Orville

"Now, however, he has the attention he craves. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole affair has raised his income a bit."

Wait, how is that again? I do appreciate that the Carreons are old school. I mean, sure, we bitch about Tara's yellow-on-red color choices, and all of Charles' blogs are straight out of WordPress. No advertising "sponsored link" begging for click-throughs, no Facebook "like" thingies. They are straight out of 1999.

Contrast that with FunnyJunk, whose method of generating income is to place more advertising than than (stolen) content on the page.

Contrast that again with Inman, who is a consumate post-Fordist entrepreneur. The majority of his comics have some form of merchandising, no doubt ordered in small wholesale lots: t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters and signed prints, it goes on and on. I have no doubt that Inman pulls in $500,000k or more from his stuff. Sure, his profit margins are smaller and his products cost him more to acquire, but he sells to the world market. Look in the comments below Inman's blog post – the Illuminati are already clamping for "Philanthropy > Douchebaggery" T-Shirts, baby clothes(!), etc.

I'm betting Carreon is the one getting REALLY shafted financially. He's old school. I'm betting with what he has in domain names and hosting, he's operating at a loss. The only thing he gets out of this is a damaged professional rep.

Hell, FunnyJunk will probably see a quick bump in advertising profits as users rally to support the site (I'm betting they'll see a long term loss, though).

/will stop now

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @2:08 pm Clamping = Clamoring
The other choice was "clam lure". Really, autocorrect?

Thorne • Jul 10, 2012 @2:29 pm @ Swindapa

"Clamping = Clamoring
The other choice was "clam lure". Really, autocorrect?"

A funny thought…
Maybe a ton of Tara's ravings are a result of being seriously autocorrected.

Think about it…

She could be trying to type

"Matt Inman has a nice charitable pedigree"

And Autocorrect turns it into

"Matt Inman is a Nazi-controlling pedophile"

I dare you to tell me this theory makes less sense than anything else TC's been spouting since this all began. ;)

Orville • Jul 10, 2012 @2:40 pm @Swindapa

By "income" I meant "website income". I agree that professional hit he has taken most likely has substantially hurt his income as a lawyer – though taking on FunnyJunk as a client suggests to me he wasn't doing that well anyway.

As for his websites not having advertising – I admit I never have been to one. The sheer amount of crazy I have seen quoted repels me, and I had no desire to line his pockets by increasing his hit count.

I am a bit gobsmacked to hear he doesn't have any way of monetizing the content his clan is spewing forth. In my mind it takes his actions from "stupid, but understandable" to "back away slowly and look for a large rock".

It makes his "victory" even more Pyrrhic than I imagined.

William C • Jul 10, 2012 @2:41 pm I'm still rather disturbed that Charlie himself added me to his "circle" on Google+.

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @3:00 pm @William C

This is probably akin to his $10 donation to Indiegogo.

He's probably using you as a specimen for his DIRA legal studies. :)

Allen C. • Jul 10, 2012 @3:01 pm I'm kind of thinking the internet should just back off the Carreons at this point. Really all that is really needed is for Chuckles to be destroyed in court once or twice (Doe v Carreon and maybe The Oatmeal coming after him for attorney costs). Basically ensure Carreon has no ability to follow through on the "I'll get you when the pro bono lawyers are gone."

Getting all worked up over Rapeutation seems pointless. Looking over American Bhudda and Nader's Library, TC was posting crazy shit years before anyone ever noticed Chuckles and will be posting it for years after the Internet tires of her. Actually this is likely the first time they've had an significant traffic at anyone of their crackpot sites and it is likely Tara is secretly (or not so secretly) getting off on the attention. She's clearly crazy and harmless though, all that really matters is removing Chuckles ability to file lawsuits. She probably things she's now some kind of ultra successful anti Illumanti crusader because she drew the attention of the 'Illumanti' to take her out. Of course crazy people never realize that if there was an Illumanti and you really pissed them off, your body would just end up in a hole in the desert.

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @3:20 pm @Thorne
I like it!

Upon the secret sign of the popehat, I swear: there is not one ounce of advertising on their sites, nor is there any conceivable way for them to be making money from pageviews. Go click away.

@Allen C.
Tara is not harmless. The nice hippie Buddhist people called the *code inspectors* on the Carreons after Tara took potshots at the "CIA" and "Drug lords" who wandered too close to her property. Think about that for a minute.

I do agree that the Internet should stop poking them though. Some poor Mormon boy is going to get shot.

Spectating, taking an interest in a family that has put thousands of pages up, documenting their crazy for the world to see… What exactly is wrong with that?

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @3:21 pm "Stop poking TC for fear she might do some real harm" was EXACTLY one of her arguments against Inman and the internet trolls. Just sayin'.

Allen C. • Jul 10, 2012 @3:44 pm I guess my thinking is more as follows:

!. She is incapable of engaging in rational discourse with the internet. So we're not going to talk to her and cause her to have moment of clarity where she realizes how CC was acting as a censor and she was acting nuts.

2. She has no ability to hurt us. CC tried to hurt "us" (the internet folk) by going after the Does, but Public Citizen is shutting that avenue of attack down.

3. The Carreons are setting up whole websites about this to get attention from it.

Basically we've feeding her with attention (which she wants), making her feel important (look at ALL these people out to get me because I'm such a great activist), and increasing the crazy. The only real winner is Ars who gets to write an article (and thus pageviews) every time she posts a stupid rant. It's just kind of devolved into troll vs troll in a way at this point in my mind. She's a fun squeaky toy to bat around for awhile, but she has no variety.

No matter how this ends, TC is claiming victory. She'll sit there in her house in Tuscon and talk about how badass she was because the Illumanti never did dare send a hit squad after her. If she ends up in the psych ward, it was a victory because she was so dangerous the shadow government locked her away to hide the truth. I see refusal to engage her as the strongest message. "Your husband lost all his court cases, The Oatmeal got its money, even Public Citizen kicked you in the nuts, and none of us even care to engage you because you're a irrelevant loser." Basically I feel she can't tell the difference between negative and positive attention, she just loves attention.

Allen C. • Jul 10, 2012 @3:52 pm Also:
@Swindapa and @Mark:
If I lived in the vicinity of the Carreons I have no doubt I'd have a different viewpoint on how harmless she is. I see they've been run out of town before and if they were in my town I'd be trying to get them run out.

In terms of doing harm though she can't do harm to us. She's going to take out all her frustration by putting a couple rounds in some local she had a pre existing issue with when she boils over.

Basically the internet can without a doubt easily provoke her to higher and higher levels of rage. The problem is once she get all worked out and foaming at the mouth she's going to hit some soft target in the local community. She has neither the means nor the long planning ability to actually focus in on anything beyond that.

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @3:52 pm Interesting post by TC. This is what she says:

There has been a third DOS attack against my websites this morning.

(among other things, of course. she is never that succinct.)

Notice that she said: "my websites", not "our websites".

"My websites."

Stuart • Jul 10, 2012 @4:01 pm @Allen: I kind of what to see her implode from all the attention but you're correct she may lash out at someone innocent with real physical violence. Isn't there some way of reporting someone who appears to be a danger to themselves and to others?

Stuart • Jul 10, 2012 @4:01 pm want not what -sigh-

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @4:06 pm @Allen C. You're certainly welcome to not participate! That's the beauty of Internet Freedom!

Mike K • Jul 10, 2012 @4:10 pm Anyone think that the 'DOS attack' was people legitimately visiting 'her sites' after someone wrote an article about how crazy she was?

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @4:16 pm @Mike K That's likely. A DOS attack against a small site by even someone using something like the LOIC would have kept it down for much longer than a few moments, and the DOS attacks SEEM to happen right after major publications release stories on the site.

And note she's trying to connect Public Citizen with it now:

"There has been a third DOS attack against my websites this morning. Let's get one thing clear: THESE INMAN HACKERS ARE DEFINITELY NOT FOR FREE SPEECH! Their First Amendment concerns are TOTAL BULLSHIT. They want to be free from the law that prohibits them from viciously attacking their business competitors and deprive me, Charles and anyone who associates with us the right to speak freely about social, political and legal concerns. And isn't it lovely that Public Citizen has put their weight behind this anti-free speech hate campaign?"

So yeah, when Tara stops making claims like that, I think people will probably be less interested. But saying "Guise, we should totally not pay attention to the crazy meth clown that's doing the bat shit dance every single day while going 'LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!'" well… good luck with that >:D

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @4:17 pm @Mike K

Yup, I bet she purchases the smallest website packages. If they go for the ultra cheap hosting packages, there's a chance that they will be charged for their vastly increased bandwidth.

Now that I think about it… ……

(My attorney asks me to advise you that the above was merely a tasteless joke. He's Samoan, and knows about these things)

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @4:25 pm @Swindapa, we can't stop here. This is bat country.

Chris R. • Jul 10, 2012 @4:38 pm I think his server issues are explained here: ... 9443976193

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @4:42 pm

Maybe we should take this all off site. Didn't know all the comments were pissing Ken and Patrick off.

Allen C. • Jul 10, 2012 @4:49 pm @Stuart
I'd imagine she's already on the local police force's radar given how she acts. I'd assume they could call in other agencies as they saw the need. I'm just not sure how much a surge of random reports from people on the internet would be taken by the police (basically how do we get the cops to take a bunch of random strangers off the internet as credible people). Basically I just hope/assume the local authorities have a way of managing her and they're aware she's under even more stress due to Chuckles recent actions.

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @4:51 pm @Mark: The "let me show you them" is implied.

Mark • Jul 10, 2012 @4:55 pm Yeah, I read Ken's post. I'm outta here. If someone wants to create a subreddit to discuss CC and TC, I'm all for it.

Nice talking to you, folks! KEEP THE LASAGNA FLYING!

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @5:03 pm I can see why the thread mentioned got closed, but I'm not seeing that any discussion going on any of the threads I'm reading is comparable. I've been terribly wrong in critical social situations before, though.

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @5:39 pm I'd like to point out that the title of Ken's original article is "All this talk of harassment is harrassing me!" I'm impressed with his precognitive abilities.

Seriously, @Ken @Patrick, thank you for hosting a forum where we can debate with other intelligent people – in a polite and pleasant manner – about the topic at hand. Speaking for myself, I have really appreciated all of the insight and added tidbits the Carreon threads have brought along, both in the actual posts as well as in comments section.

Ken • Jul 10, 2012 @5:53 pm Didn't know all the comments were pissing Ken and Patrick off.
"All the comments" are not pissing anyone off.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @6:20 pm Ok, didn't know if you meant just that thread or all the threads. Didn't want to cause a hassle, ya know? Misscommunication.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @6:21 pm By "all the comments" I meant the number of comments, I wasn't suggesting you meant every comment.

Robert White • Jul 10, 2012 @7:01 pm Chuckels isn't a linguist either. "Rapeutation" would be a portmanteau of "rape and reputation" yes? That would combine as "rape reputation" which converts as a "reputation for rape". In a portmanteau you are limited in what words you can have interstitially. "rape of ones reputation" isn't really correct to combine. This would actually then apply linguistically that we think chuckles is…

Nope, doesn't work.

For it to have any application in the direction he is trying to synthesize it would have to portmanteau in some sort of collective or grouping noun. If you had "ddosutation" mabye?

Nah, He's just trying to "force it" and make the language do things it doesn't want to do. He's trying to make us accept hist forced linguistic advances. Shame there isn't a word for -that-… oh wait…

So Chaz -does- have a rapeutation then… I just don't think that is the fault of all of us out here…

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @7:05 pm ... -ring?lite

"Charles Carreon, an attorney now infamous for his role in a legal battle against cartoonist Matthew "The Oatmeal" Inman, has been characterized as an evildoer in many reports. But when I asked what he thought about how the fight between him and Inman ended, he was a surprisingly good sport and focused on the good that came of it all.
"While it's not the largest sum of money I have ever had a substantial role in raising," he wrote to me, referencing the $211,223.04 collected by Inman's fundraiser, "it is the first time I've seen it go to charity, and I think it's great."
Advertise | AdChoices

"I had no idea being a cartoon villain could be this rewarding," he added. "I think Matt and I should team up for a mud-wrestling match and see if we can top a million. Being the Mexican, I get to wear a mask.""

HeatherCat • Jul 10, 2012 @7:18 pm @W Ross – let the listing of fitting luchador names begin!!

Or not. Seriously, it sounds like he's trying to become all buddy-buddy with Oats after all this. I somehow do NOT think that'll happen.

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @7:18 pm Carreon fancies himself quite the spin doctor, doesn't he?

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @7:32 pm God, I just got a mental flash of CC in an American flag speedo ala his Ars Technica photos.

John Ammon • Jul 10, 2012 @7:44 pm Man, I just won't let the "I'm a Mexican" line go, huh… No Chas, you're an American, as much as I loathe that fact, it's still true. You were not born in Mexico, you are not Mexican. He has a real problem with these bothersome notions of "fact" and "truth".

I'm disappointed that MSNBC (though not surprised), didn't see his statements for what they are.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 10, 2012 @7:47 pm I wonder what Tara thinks about her husband wanting to mudwrestle with the oats. =]

John Ammon • Jul 10, 2012 @7:49 pm He* won't let the "I'm a Mexican" line go


Grifter • Jul 10, 2012 @7:53 pm @John Ammon:

I just thought you were saying you couldn't let it go without pointing out what an idiot he was for saying it…

John Ammon • Jul 10, 2012 @7:55 pm @Grifter:

Well, you know, that too :P

Shannon Lynch • Jul 10, 2012 @8:14 pm This goes to the Popehat, I started reading because of the whole Carreon debacle going on. I enjoy all the articles that you post and seeing the back and forth with the commenters, it seems like a good community here =]

Swindapa • Jul 10, 2012 @8:14 pm Carreon has tacitly admitted to the fact that nothing he could do in future, short of mud wrestling another man, would be as embarrassing as what he just put himself through.

I can get behind that sentiment l.

azteclady • Jul 10, 2012 @8:32 pm "While it's not the largest sum of money I have ever had a substantial role in raising," he wrote to me, referencing the $211,223.04 collected by Inman's fundraiser, "it is the first time I've seen it go to charity, and I think it's great."

Okay, not quite.

Not the largest sum he's had a 'substantial' role in raising?

Dear lord.

Robert White • Jul 10, 2012 @9:10 pm And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the kind of Mental Gymnastics™ that keep persons like under the radar of normal folk.

If every utter humiliation gets re-written as noble success, then you can only catch the Bug Nutz if you see it happening at the time.

And so now the shiny veneer of sanity slowly re congeals over the despicable shit-storm in the man beneath.

Grifter • Jul 10, 2012 @9:38 pm There's a new post on the "library"…
Can someone translate this newest TC crazy for me? My Sense Parser appears to be broken; it just keeps veering off to the side and then into the ground.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @9:41 pm Late night word salad from TLC (TM)

"I have no idea when it was that I became the most radical person in the world. Who knows, perhaps even the whole universe! It was when I stopped being a "Buddhist." I put the word "Buddhist" in quotes because — and I was going to write "even," but I should really say "especially" — after 22 years, I had no idea what the word even meant. It seemed that I was the only one who was interested in the answer to that question. Nobody else even asked it. And as I struggled to come to terms with my rejection of everything I experienced during those 22 years — because of having an experience of the utter emptiness of it all, the utter uselessness of it all — I found myself asking the very strange question, "What is Buddhism?" I wanted to know whether I was or wasn't. I made a large list. OMG, what a revelation to find that it was nothing at all, just a chaotic cesspool of conflicting meanings.

I got the highest teachings, believe me. It's a matter of record. And I was the main transcriptionist for all those teachings. Just like what I do now, you might say that library work came naturally to me. So I handled the teachings intimately. And I saw that nobody knew what the hell they were talking about. I'm sighing remembering it; it exhausted me to see that it was just so much bullshit!

My lama was nice; I loved him very, very much, and he really, really loved me. We had a relationship of great mutual respect. He thought very highly of me, and I thought very highly of him. We hung out a LOT together. We had a SPECIAL relationship, which however was never sexual. And I adored him until I saw him relate to his so-called "superiors." Like the big lamas, like Dudjom Rinpoche, or Pednor Rinpoche. Actually, he related perfectly to his "superior" Dudjom Ripoche. I was at the teaching in Ashland, I don't remember when — 1978 or something — where Dudjom Rinpoche broke out laughing and started pointing at Gyatrul Rinpoche, and he joking and laughing, and then the phrase "Gyatrul Rinpoche is my true successor" was translated from Tibetan into English. His son, Shenphen Rinpoche must have been there; I can't remember, maybe he wasn't. Can it be possible that no one told him? Because he stepped into his father's role like it was his birthright.

Oh, I don't want to get into the birth thing right now, because it's really complicated. Who can keep track of all the reincarnations of Tibetan lamas? And it's not simple, like generationally successive, one every generation. No, there can be 7 of them at the same time, and they can even belong to different lineages. They have a rating system, and the Tibetans seem to know what it is, but I could never figure it out, and I don't think anyone else could, either. For some events, w'd have three levels of thrones, and Rinpoche knew who to put on each one. And a lot of times, it didn't really make sense or seem fair, especially when he put himself on a lower one.

But with Pednor Rinpoche, he really did have a difficult relationship with him. Pednor Rinpoche was kind of like a mobster-lama. He was tough. You didn't fuck with him. He'd make jokes and laugh about the whole room full of us, being zombies. As if that was fucking fair! We only did what they told us to do, then they laughed at us. You had to be quiet and keep your head low. You can imagine how well that went over with me. Well, I was the exception, and rarely followed the rule. The bowing and scraping thing was never for me. Which is why Rinpoche hit me over the head once as I was walking up to get an empowerment from Pednor Rinpoche — more of those same vibes that came from him — I never liked him. In fact, one of the things he's known for is sponsoring a huge number of young boy monks. But are they happy? No way. If they could run away into the woods, and live in America forever after, even free and on the run, they would. They hated their life.

saving to continue" ... &start=110

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @9:42 pm @Grifter I got that she had a SPECIAL relationship with her Lama and not much else.

M. • Jul 10, 2012 @9:43 pm Is she for real? I take back what I said earlier, she can have the mandatory bhang per rectum.

Valerie • Jul 10, 2012 @9:50 pm Hi Ken & Patrick, I hope nothing I have said is out of bounds – I was drawn here by the Carreon Kurfluffel, but I am enjoying the way you explore first amendment issues in a nerd friendly environment. Please don't censor the comments – the discussions are both entertaining and informative.

GrumpyOldDad • Jul 10, 2012 @9:52 pm Pretty sure Dira is pronounced dīəˈrēə.

Grifter • Jul 10, 2012 @10:02 pm Granted asking the "why" of anything TC or CC do is leaping headfirst down the rabbit hole, but why does she keep just editing her posts to make them longer? Why not just make a new post? It's not like there's other posters on the thread…

And on a side note, she has apparently doesn't actually know what schizophrenia is.

Valerie • Jul 10, 2012 @10:10 pm Tara's last post really seems utterly unrelated to the Inman-Carreon saga. I would never judge another person's spiritual journey, and it seems like she had some good reasons for disillusion with her faith.

That being said, I still don't see how Buddhist Lama corruption fits into an anti-Carreon conspiracy any more than the Catholic abuse scandal indicates a conspiracy involving me (I'm an admittedly cynical papist). Both are lamentable and perhaps food for thought about power and its corruptions, but…

I kind of wonder if she's folded back in on herself in terms of her meditations. I mean I wonder if we will see mainly Tara-centric nuttiness with random bursts of general Carreon conspiracy theory over the next few days. Interesting.

W Ross • Jul 10, 2012 @10:22 pm Oh God. It's expanded to double it's original size! The crazy is growing exponentially.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 10, 2012 @10:29 pm Tara is Dr. Dolittle now.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 10, 2012 @10:36 pm "What percentage of the humongous amount of money that poured towards the Katrina victims, actually got to their intended recipients? More money was donated than was donated to the 9/11 victims from what I heard. But there was a huge steal operation going on with all that money. I'm just guessing, but I think probably around 12% of the whole got to the victims. Wherever there is money, there is theft."

This is where Charles got his Inman is stealing from charities idea.

Thorne • Jul 10, 2012 @10:41 pm Man, everything she's saying has already been said much more succinctly by Homer Simpson in the "Homer the Heretic" episode:

"Boy, everyone is stupid except me."

Gal • Jul 11, 2012 @12:18 am "Weirdized"? Really? I think Tara put that there specifically to put a hole in Thorne's autocorrect theory.

Patches • Jul 11, 2012 @3:07 am "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to be sued for saying it."

Ki • Jul 11, 2012 @3:53 am @Patches

I find it quite amusing what you did there.

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @6:21 am It strikes me that she really doesn't understand Buddhist teachings at all. I think that's rather sad if she actually spent 22 years studying them. It's even sadder that she falls into the trap of "If I don't understand it, nobody can." It is pretty funny that she says that Inman et al didn't do anything to make sure the donated money made it to the charities, when about 93% made it to the charities despite her husband's best efforts.

It's interesting that she sees family sized groups as inherently better than nationwide groups. It reminds me of the hierarchy of government types where a single ruler can be both the best and worst type, rule by a small group can be second best or second worst and rule by the people least good or least bad. I don't think she realizes that while there are families that are great, there are also families that are horribly dysfunctional and that things could be even worse without a government net that catches some of the worst ones.

Gal • Jul 11, 2012 @6:30 am @Mike K: It's not even Inman et al, she specifies the ACS AWF because they didn't do enough to make sure that the money would eventually get to them.

Anyone who wants to donate to those charities directly could do so as they pleased. People who donated to the Bearlove campaign did so for a reason, and that reason wasn't "Cancer is bad, Bears are good" it was "Phylanthropy > Douchebaggery" in most cases, and "I want legal standing" in one.

It's not that difficult to understand, unless you're a drug-addled dingbat participating in a one-woman crusade against reason.

Swindapa • Jul 11, 2012 @6:40 am See, I'm really interested in their hippie-Buddhist, living in a shack days. I a avidly clicked my way through that whole damn photo essay. So this post is interesting to me.

Can we pin down the chronology any more than we have? She mentions 1978 in her post – how long did they live in a yurt (I have to admit, that was a cool yurt)? When did they leave? Was this the house that was cited for code violation? Were the kids born before or after they made the decision to stop bathing and be dirty flower children? Etc., etc. Someone mentioned looking for news articles involving Tara shooting at neighbors during this period, but I doubt there will be any – hippies tend to be insular and avoid eyes of the "man" as much as possible. Which is why I was so shocked when Charles made apparent that his neighbors had called the authorities about his housing conditions, but I digress…

This is especially interesting if one compares to how the Carreons live today, in a "Tuscon coffin", ie tract housing (I admit, I looked at their current house on google earth. Creepy, i know). That's a big move, intellectually, egotistically, from "doing it on your own" out in the wilderness, to living in a suburban house that looks like thousands of other houses. Not sure where that takes us, I'm just saying.

TacoMagic • Jul 11, 2012 @7:34 am The true test of an advocate for free speech is to defend the rights of the person saying the things you would spend your entire life denouncing as evil.

Mr. Carreon has, unfortunately, failed this test in a spectacular show of pitiable and toddler-like behavior.

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @7:46 am I'm not sure on any of that Swindapa, but based on her recent rant it's possible that their perspective on possessions changed. While I'm not a Buddhist, I'm fairly certain that one of the ideas is that objects are unimportant, especially compared to people and animals that have souls. If they fell out of favor with that idea, it's possible that the modern house and 'junk' they filled it with is purposely at odds with their previous life.

Just to reiterate, I'm not an expert on Buddhism or any other religion so I use different terms and may be wrong. That particular point struck me from her rant because she mentions other 'lamas' stealing from her 'lama'. While the group she was in may have been corrupt, I'm assuming some sharing of things is considered normal.

Wil • Jul 11, 2012 @8:14 am My reaction to Carreon's spin doctoring: it's like intentionally causing a car accident, having your insurance pay out for the damages, and then claiming that you were glad you had a hand in getting the other party a new car.

SteveW • Jul 11, 2012 @8:45 am Okay, I think I finally have all the parts of this, and now see the big picture. Ann is right about "the crazy." Go and Google "gang stalking." Then go and re-looking at {shudder} "rapeutation." Essentially Carreon appears to have created his own version of the gang stalking mythos.

SteveW • Jul 11, 2012 @8:47 am Swindapa, is Google Earthing Carreon's home taking the Streisand Effect full circle?

Erista • Jul 11, 2012 @9:15 am The "Rapeutation" website is stupid. If I hadn't already known what was going between the Oatmeal and Carreon on AND already been told that this website was a shot at the Oatmeal, I would have had no fucking idea what the video was about. If you're trying to make fun of someone and yet people don't understand what you are trying to say even when they've already been told you're trying to make fun of someone, you have failed.

Nicholas weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @9:18 am hey:

People who donated to the Bearlove campaign did so for a reason, and that reason wasn't "Cancer is bad, Bears are good" it was "Phylanthropy > Douchebaggery" in most cases, and "I want legal standing" in one.
Its at least two people who donated for "I want standing".

I donated so I could have standing in any possible class action lawsuit of The Internet vs Douchebag Attorney for Tortious interference. :)

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @9:22 am @Swindapa, when they show the little hut their daughters lived in Charles says something like "It was a constant battle to get them not to smoke in there" and they mention their deceased son coming to visit in the photo essay. I am pretty sure the yurt was a 90's thing.

Bruce McGlory • Jul 11, 2012 @10:08 am "Because being ridiculed based on your bad behavior is equivalent to sexual assault, you know."

It's pretty clear, given what's happened of late, that many of your male commenters would say its worse, cuz MISANDRY!!

Nibor • Jul 11, 2012 @10:32 am @Swindapa & Chris R.
I did some recearch trying to get the facts straight so this is what I found.

1974 CC married TC
1978 Photo essay starts
1986 CC Law degree
1987 State Bar of California
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Works at law firms in LA
1993 Oregon State Bar
Dep. DA for Jackson County, Oregon
Living in Ashland, Oregon ???
1994 Bankruptcy CC
Building Illegal house in Colestine Valley, Jackson county OR
1995 CC on U.S. District Court for the Dist. Oregon
Private Practice
1996 case starts
1997 1998 Gun incident, more to the end of period
1998 Photo essay ends
2000 First mentioning of a home in Tucson not same address as now.
2001 case ends
CC Start with online orientation law/writes book
2005 60 day suspension Oregon bar (for trust funds misuse)
2006 60 day suspension California bar + 2 year stayed
(for practising law in Canada & trust fund misuse)
2009 First mentioning of home in Tucson were they live now
US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

Disclaimer: This information comes from so many different sources, so these are not facts just indications of the information as far as I could find them

Nibor • Jul 11, 2012 @10:34 am 2008 CC sues in case for compensation

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @10:48 am Wow Nibor great recap.

Swindapa • Jul 11, 2012 @11:39 am Thanks Nibor, awesome summary!

To add to these details, I browsed through the public records available at the Pima County Property Appraisers. Looks like there was a warranty deed issued ($172,000) by the US Bank National Association in 2007, to the Carreons. So they've been at their current address about five years. Ain't public records laws, combined with the Internet, a scary thing?

We need to start a collaborative google doc, with citations and such (not serious, just my inner grad student coming out)

Jane • Jul 11, 2012 @11:39 am @Swindapa – The first half of the following writing by CC goes into a little more detail about their life during this time and may help answer some of your questions. ... egrace.htm

Swindapa • Jul 11, 2012 @11:53 am @jane

Thanks! Weren't you the one who put us onto the photo essay too?

Nibor • Jul 11, 2012 @12:23 pm Thanks Jane, completed the recap a little.

1974 Married TC
197. Travelled to India studied Buddhist teaching
1978 Photo essay starts
Living in the woods (Oregon) in Buddhist commune setting
1982 moved to home in LA
Start law school
1986 Law degree
1987 State Bar of California
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Works at law firms in LA
1993 Oregon State Bar
Dep. DA for Jackson County, Oregon
Living in Ashland/ Colestine Valley, Oregon
1994 Filled for Bankruptcy
Building Illegal house in Colestine Valley, Jackson county OR
1995 U.S. District Court for the Dist. Oregon
Starts Private Practice
1996 case starts
1997 1998 Gun incident, more to the end of period
1998 Photo essay ends
2000 First mentioning of a home in Tucson not same address as now.
2001 case ends
Start online orientation law/writes book
2005 60 day suspension Oregon bar (for trust funds misuse)
2006 60 day suspension California bar + 2 year stayed
(for practising law in Canada & trust fund misuse)
2007 First mentioning of home in Tucson were they live now
2008 sues in case for compensation
2009 US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

Disclaimer: This information comes from so many different sources, so these are not facts just indications of the information as far as I could find them

Nicholas weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @12:37 pm Is there more information/citation on the various gun incidents?

Jane • Jul 11, 2012 @12:47 pm @Swindapa – Yes, that was me, though it’s my guess that many people have ran across the essay this past month. Their parting from what she termed the ‘Death Cult’ intrigues me, so I’ve been researching what’s available online.

Wil • Jul 11, 2012 @12:52 pm I just endured navigating the FunnyJunk and, aside from needing to bleach my eyes, I get the impression that generally their users don't have any idea whether "the admin" hired Chuck or Chuck took it upon himself. Also apparently the day the suit was dropped the search functionality on FJ that had been crippled/disabled started working again.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that FJ has not weighed in on any of this *at all*? I mean, if they didn't hire Carreon it's no harm, no foul for them to say, "We didn't hire that douchebag." If they did, and they felt he was misrepresenting them with the initial letter (or the letter was outside what his job duties were supposed to be) I can't see how it would hurt to come out and say, "We hired Carreon to be our DMCA rep, not send demand troll letters" or "Yeah, we hired him to take care of some other stuff, we didn't expect this" or something similar.

Nibor • Jul 11, 2012 @12:57 pm @Nicholas weaver:
Only the mentioning by TC and by CC in the photo essay,

But there is something you could dig (pacer) up, one of the cases you already dug up, was about a compensation for legal costs by CC from someone in 2000/2001, in these papers the in 1994 illegal build home was mentioned and I believe an restraining order.

So I can imagine that the original case was about a restraining order for TC for shooting ? There is mentioning of a survey to establish if the incident took place on their land or not (in the photo essay), when concluded that it was on their land the case was denied/dropped,

Please remind, this is all pure guessing but it would add up timeline wise.

And newspaper wise, it was at their Colestine Valley home, Jackson county OR, they owned the land there. Likely between 1997 and 1998

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @12:59 pm So is the death cult supposedly the group of Buddhists in Oregon? Now that you remind of that, it seems like a weird way to refer to it.

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @1:00 pm @Wil:

Based on misc reports I've heard, the FJ admin is less than quality character. So it wouldn't surprise me if CC did hire him and the FJ admin deceived CC into thinking that all of The Oatmeal comics were removed, banking on the fact that he probably wouldn't spend the time on due diligence.

But all of that is pretty heavy on hearsay and speculation :P

Robert White • Jul 11, 2012 @1:03 pm @Wil — It's not "odd", its "smart".

First, you should never publicly comment on any legal matter that you are or may be a party too, at least not without running it through a (competent) lawyer.

FunnyJunk wasn't a first-order party in Carreon-v-Inman, but they clearly could have become deeply entangled by opening their mouth.

Innman had quite succinctly shot down their opening salvo over the linking and any claims of defamation (truth being the ultimate defense) by showing the ongoing bad behavior of FJ.

As it is, FJ is enjoying a web-traffic up-tick and paying no price for it at all.

It would be very dumb for FJ to make so much as a peep while the shitstorm rages on.

Silence is underused and oft misunderstood, particularly now that we have a "silence equals guilt" social mentality (actively used to undermine the incredible genius of the fifth amendment), but FJ is using silence to greatest effect.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @1:10 pm @Wil The difference between Funny Junk's admin and the Carreon Clan is that The Admin knows the Internet. He might not be good at Internet, but he disappeared day one and has kept a low profile since, thus mitigating his fail.

Charles Carreon scould learn a thing or two from him.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @1:10 pm @could

S. Weasel • Jul 11, 2012 @1:35 pm FunnyJunk has had a couple of traffic spikes thanks to the controversy, but it doesn't look to be sticking: Alexa summary.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 11, 2012 @2:05 pm A Buddhist teacher I knew once commented that teachers needed to be careful about accepting students with mental illnesses. People with borderline personality disorder, in particular, see Buddhism as describing their experience exactly. They don't understand the difference between never having developed a well-formed ego vs learning to live a life that isn't confined by ones sense of self. They can become more disturbed instead of finding peace.

Gal • Jul 11, 2012 @2:58 pm Can anyone point out the details of TC's shooting incident? I must've missed that one.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @3:12 pm "
100 robot zombies complained to Photobucket, and got our video taken down. See what I'm saying? THEY and their army of corrupt journalists can say as many bad things about you as they want, but YOU aren't allowed to speak. The Inman gang are a bunch of fascists. There is NOTHING to admire about these guys, and everything to condemn. They are NOT the little guys, but the BIG guys in disguise.

Here's the Psycho Santa Video for now: ... FINAL3.wmv "

I… wut?

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @3:13 pm Uhhh and is down.

Never a dull day.

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @3:15 pm I'm beginning to wonder if "CIA" and "Illuminati" are just descriptors to Tara, like "dickbag" or "douchebag" are to the rest of us…

Nicholas weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @3:15 pm Even the Year 2000 federal case was mostly hardcopy, so someone would have to go to the federal courthouse to get those.

The pre 2000 restraining order and other kerfluffles were in the state court (so no Pacer) and probably hardcopy only as well.

If Charles doesn't fold on Doe v Carreon, someone in the area would probably be well employed to drop by and get all the case files from the federal and state courts on Carreon's pro se antics, but if (and I hope he does) fold, its not worth the effort.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @3:17 pm "THEY and their army of corrupt journalists can say as many bad things about you as they want, but YOU aren't allowed to speak."

This is humorous, because we all know (and so do they) that they could just upload it on You-Tube. Unless it was taken down for the Oatmeal content in it and in that case it IS Fair Use and shouldn't have been taken down.

But you don't want to put it on You-Tube cause you don't want us to be able to comment on it, which is why you tried to use a different site.

Swindapa • Jul 11, 2012 @3:17 pm This came by way of Jane on an older thread, so thank her for them:

Swindapa • Jul 11, 2012 @3:18 pm That last comment as @Gal:

This came by way of Jane on an older thread, so thank her for them:

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @3:21 pm And, while I'm making my afternoon check-in, I'll say this:
Since the need for being careful about my identity seems to have passed (as Charles calms down and stops suing everyone and their mother), I'll begin posting under my non-throwaway identity, and link my real email address for the popehat admins.

So, without further ado:
Swindapa = Elegy

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @3:39 pm What do you know, you name a site rapeutation and people complain about it's content. No one could have known. Not even a White Hat Internet Lawyer.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @3:53 pm ... r_embedded

And Tara FINALLY takes my wonderful advice.

Pierce Nichols • Jul 11, 2012 @3:55 pm @Swindapa: I submit that mud wrestling another man would be substantially less embarrassing than Carreon's actual conduct.

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @4:07 pm Theoretically it could be considered to violate their terms of service. Even if the use of copyrighted material (audio and visual) is fair use, you could make the case for it having nudity, if crudely drawn which is prohibited. I considered reporting the YouTube vid so it would at least be age restricted. Someone could also claim some form of hate speech, but that would be a real stretch.

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @4:33 pm For what it's worth, I say let them keep their ridiculous video up, it's their right to look crazy, why would we want to take that away from them? The right to free speech can be as much of a blessing as it is a curse; especially when nothing we could say about them would be as shameful and incriminating as their own words >_<

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @4:38 pm But if you complain about it, you won't notice that the comments are open >:D

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @4:44 pm

New butt0hurt (also, they closed comments and ratings after receiving about 7 dislikes in a few minutes, lol.)


W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @4:45 pm

OK last post for a bit, but Ken ought to rearead this page. MUCH deeper into the Tort he'd like, including:

"first, i think that the immunity provided by the cda, 47 usc sec. 230 needs to be re-thought. when combined with the allowance of pseudonymous posting by virtually all websites, three evils grow under its protection: (1) people pretending to be third parties while actually being the site publishers, (2) single users pretending to be multiple users, and (3) publication of defamatory and privacy-invasive information for which no effective redress is possible due to anonymity."

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @4:59 pm Did anyone mention to Chas that when you create an account on a website, the only "rights" you have are the ones that the owner of the site gives you? This is a constant battle for me on my own sites with the trolls that come around on occasion.

They whine and moan about "free speech" and that they have the "right" to say what they want, which is certainly true, but not on my website, because I own it. If you want free speech, go start your own site, I certainly can't stop you. But if you're making threats and being rude on my site, guess what, it won't last long.

It's the equivalent of being invited onto private property and then saying horrible things, if the owner wants you out, he'll get you out, one way or the other. I might be hazy on the actual legal precedents, but I think the analogy is solid :P

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @5:03 pm How long do you think until Chas sues Photobucket for a "breach of contract" >_<

All it takes from Photobucket is a quick google search to realize they can simply laugh him away.

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @5:03 pm I think it's interesting how he posted Doe's name on the site now. I realize that since it's the internet it was somewhat public after the initial release, but I thought it was great how few people used it. I personally chose to forget it after reading it the first time, but found it again in Ars comments. I'm curious how the 'Wikipedia Clique' fits into their view of what happened.

The updated analysis is both intriguing and scary. It would seem to make all speech on the internet actionable, since it's foreseeable given the timeless quality of things on the internet that someone somewhere will eventually perform some illegal action based on it.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @5:07 pm @Mike K I saw that too. Guess he's getting revenge. I wonder if that's kosher? (Probably is, I can't imagine he'd give Levy any ammo.)

John Ammon • Jul 11, 2012 @5:10 pm @Mike K – Which is exactly why everything he's whining about is garbage and would/should never be taken seriously.

The whole pity-party that Chas is throwing himself is laughable. The fact that he hasn't just STFU already only makes him look worse. I haven't heard a peep from anyone outside his family who's supporting him on any level.

As inappropriate as I think the analogy is, Chas raped his own reputation. In fact, he didn't even have a real reputation before this whole thing started, so really, he's upset that people see him for what he is. The old saying "giving him enough rope to hang himself" seems to fit. At this point we're not doing any harm, he just keeps piling the damage onto his own reputation by making terrible videos and horrible websites.

T. J. Brumfield • Jul 11, 2012 @5:18 pm I'm still curious why the RIAA hasn't done anything about all the pirated music on his website.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @5:21 pm You have to admit when someone's named Wikipedia as part of the conspiracy against them that they've fucking lost it.

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @5:22 pm @W Ross, well wikipedia can be USED for a conspiracy by immoral editors, but that would be like naming gmail for allowing us to communicate about people we don't like… just dumb.
Site Admin
Posts: 33189
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Charles Carreon, Tara Carreon, and Family

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest