Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:43 pm

PART 3 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery Cont'd)

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @6:06 pm I was figuring that by 'Wikipedia Clique' he was referring to the editors that were going to delete his page. I'm assuming they'll be renewing that discussion again shortly, unless he does something so worthy of scorn as to merit it on his wikipedia page and saving it for a while.

n o 0 n e • Jul 11, 2012 @6:10 pm @W Ross

thank you for introducing me to Professor Elemental. despite my love for hip-hop and things with a wodehousian flair i was unaware of this fine gentlemen or the expressive genre known as 'chap-hop' that so effusively combines the two.

upon my sam, i am in your debt.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @6:10 pm T.J: Because they don't have Arizona council.

Carreon is very good (and probably right, actually, in this case) at fighting jurisdictional claims. The RIAA would need to sue in Arizona or California, or Carreon would tie them up forever in court on jurisdiction (Penguin v American Buddha is still in the appeals process over just that issue).

Myk • Jul 11, 2012 @6:34 pm @T.J @Nicholas – It would be fun, though, if RIAA were to launch a raid akin to the Kim Dotcom one- armed agents rappelling from helicopters etc. I would pay money to see the look on Tara's face when that one goes down! I realise it'll never happen, but one can daydream…

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @6:45 pm @Myk, that would probably be tragic because if she still owns her firearms she'd begin firing on police and they'd respond in suit.

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @6:56 pm Charles is going full Tara right now on adding pages and names by the buttload.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @7:18 pm Wow, Charles just went off the deep end here:

Paul Alan Levy, an attorney at Public Citizen Group who is said to be “an expert in issues of Internet free speech, removal jurisdiction, and the representation of ‘lawyers in trouble’ from sanctions, contempt findings and the like,” has sued me on behalf of a “Doe Plaintiff” who, so I hear from third-hand sources, is alleged to be the registrant of (For the record – I have never read one line of the complaint.) Paul looks entirely sane, so we can only conclude that the smell of oatmeal is more intoxicating than it might seem. Freedom of speech is at stake! Aux les barricades!
You would think he'd actually read the complaint by now.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @7:20 pm Oh, and he edits as I read!

Of course, the real question is, will Paul represent Mr. Recovreur if Walgreens fires him for unauthorized use of his workplace computer? Paul looks entirely sane, so we can only conclude that the smell of oatmeal is more intoxicating than it might seem.

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @7:37 pm Lol. 2 blog posts a day = has to use work computer? It must take him a real long time to write things down.

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @7:37 pm I expect Ken will be listed eventually. You should write your own paragraph and send it to him. Then you can practice your snark and and save him a few hours of research.

I notice that other than a few grammar mistakes that he's being very careful about what he writes. He's avoiding anything that could be remotely considered defamatory, although it's pretty bad that he'd mention someone's wife as part of his 'war' despite her presumably not mentioning his name ever.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @7:44 pm Mike K: Yeah.

And hey, it IS protected, he can rant and rave as much as he wants. Its amusing to a large degree, but by the same token we can taunt him and taunt him and taunt him…

The "at work" comment even can probably be classed as opinion, and therefore protected. Just because the Real Chuckles may think it takes 4 billable hours to do a post (lawyers work slow, especially when they are happy things don't settle because it gives them a chance to bond with their clients and bill them more!), doesn't mean Satirical Charles does.

Ann • Jul 11, 2012 @7:49 pm Yeah. So any pity that may have been seeding itself in my southern sensibilities for that piece of shit just got squished w/ the mention of Chris' wife. The only members of the Carreon clan that have been discussed have been those who have inserted themselves into the conversation.

Referring to this as a war is preposterous. That said, it is now on like Donkey Kong.

Marzipan • Jul 11, 2012 @7:54 pm Indeed, Ann. Seems like he's trying to drag in the family of all his critics as he views his family as having been dragged in.

Truth be told, I'm surprised he hasn't included you for being…what was it, the "Lying Little Bitch"?…who started another fundraiser with the explicit purpose of demonstrating FU is a perfectly legitimate reason for donating money. Who else here will end up on his hit list…err…"Rapeutationers" list?

joe • Jul 11, 2012 @7:55 pm Nicholas, Ann, where is he posting this – can you provide the link?

Shannon Lynch • Jul 11, 2012 @7:58 pm

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @8:00 pm I'm not surprised by the creepiness of bringing in Chris' wife. When Carreon and I talked via Twitter DMs, he asked me if I had any allegiances, claiming he didn't have time to research me. A few minutes later, he asked what a particular professor I'd worked for (on First Amendment issues) would say about his case. I checked my IP logs and confirmed that he had downloaded my resume. So much for having no time to research.

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @8:00 pm Yeah, I can't find the list of enemies from his main site, all links appear to have been taken off. Perhaps you guys are reading something he thinks is protected?

Link Please!

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @8:00 pm In late, sorry, thanks for the link.

Marzipan • Jul 11, 2012 @8:05 pm @Adam, yeesh. Sounds like he's been doing the Creep. I wish he would have taken his own advice: "Might have a career ahead of him if he learns that the smell of fecal matter is actually a warning of potential toxicity, not a signal to drive your snout deeply into the source of the aroma."

Then again, after lying around in it for decades, I'm sure his intellectual sniffer has habituated to the stink of fetid arguments, no matter how forcefully he advances them.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:05 pm Adam: Hey, look at it this way, you're first on Carreon's parade, you should be honored!

I'm dissapointed, all my PACER money and, for what, cool quotes like

Far from being worried, Mr. Carreon stated that he was pleased that negotiations had not proved successful because it allowed him to “bond with [his] clients and get more money out of them.”
(Declaration of ROBERT L. LOMBARDO, in Global Innovations, Inc. et al v. ALS Scan, Inc. et al)

Ann • Jul 11, 2012 @8:07 pm @Adam – he's back on Twitter?????

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @8:10 pm @Ann: no, this was when he originally filed against Inman. He had followed me on Twitter, so I DM'd him asking for a copy of the complaint. He didn't oblige.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:13 pm Oh, adam, Carreon's claiming to have evidence of an evil DOS attack on him:

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @8:14 pm And…. I found the link to that post – got a little over excited at the douchebaggery there, won't happen again.

What is bizarre to me is this: from its initial launch, I thought "" was going to be Charles way of introducing a serious discussion of what he (perceived) to be the faults of current tort law – despite the bizarre fonts and colors, and distinct lack of capitalization in his "legal analysis".

Instead, he's sunk to extremely personal attacks against the people he thinks are after him in something like 72-hours or less. This only serves to undercut any high ground he could hope to hold, and it reveals his douchebaggery in all its glory. This guy is a foot-shot Olympian.

I'm just waiting on him to start jumping on 4chan. They were on his list of rapeutationists earlier. Hopefully they'll jump up and down on him instead. (Ok, on second thought, I wouldn't wish that on anyone)

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @8:23 pm @Nicholas: I saw. I'm waiting for something to get posted. If he's right, then he's right. I've already said that if those kinds of attacks are happening, then that's despicable.

Say, you have a tech background, yes?

@Elegy: indeed. Here I thought he might use the site to bring a unique perspective on how we should approach the First Amendment in the Internet context. Then again, the site's name is a rape pun playing off of

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @8:27 pm Wow….

The Carreons are the Endboss of the Internet.

I never thought I'd see it in my day…

Ken • Jul 11, 2012 @8:28 pm I'm betting that I find out that I'm bald and fat, and possibly stupid.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:28 pm Adam: Yeah. Ph.D. Computer Science, specializing in network measurement and network security.

If it is an actual DOS, rather than a flashcrowd and curious people hitting reload, that his system is back up says its just some script kiddies with something like LOIC, which means if it is a real DOS, he could probably track them down pretty easily because anyone who would do such a weak-sauce DOS is probably stupid enough to do it from their own home system.

And I would be willing to help him on that, on a pro bono basis. Even reprehensible douchebags deserve free speech rights on their own site.

Ken • Jul 11, 2012 @8:30 pm Agreed. A DOS is not free speech. I have zero problem with douchebags doing that being outed, tracked down, and reported to anyone who will listen.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:34 pm ken: I suspect Carreon won't be so classy. Expect something dissing your family. That seems more his style.

Oh, and Adam, he's surprised people notice him!

Almost immediately after I posted this comment on July 11, 2012, Adam responded with a tweet that appeared on his own blog, posting a link back here. The dynamics of DIRAs generate strange attractors.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @8:41 pm I confess that I'm not nearly nerdy enough to understand what that means.

(not the DOS description — that I understand crystal clear, and I join in your offer to help track down the malcontents.)

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @8:43 pm @Adam
You're right, I should have said multiple foot-shot champion. He was sunk from the point he picked the domain name.

I was hoping that the mudwrestling comment was signaling the "aw shucks, let's let bygone be bygones/we were all just kidding" phase. Instead, the man starts piling on the crazy, Tara style. Good god.

I wasn't really ready to buy into the "conflating rape with what he's going through" argument at first – I just figured it was evidence of poor taste and little thought on his part.

But damned if I don't buy it now. I think the man's butthurt has gotten so bad, it is evident that he really feels he is being "raped".

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:45 pm Translation:

"Script Kiddies": Think the cliche pimply-faced asshole living in Mama's basement. Cliche, but true. Tends to use off the shelf tools (scripts), thus the derogatory term.

LOIC: "Low Orbit Ion Cannon": "Anonymous's" simple DDoS tool, but it by default is running from the user's computer. Thus its pretty easy to track down who's using it.

Grifter • Jul 11, 2012 @8:47 pm Wait, Adam, were you questioning the DOS stuff, or the strange attractor accusation?

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @8:48 pm @Ken

"In the "Legal Analysis" he says: denial of service attacks (my network has suffered three major dos attacks, and i have quadrupled my server space, at considerable cost, simply to stay online) or other digital trespasses to chattels"

Now go and look at the Nader Library thread here: ... m.php?f=24

And note the 100,000 reads she's gotten in just the first two articles. If he's got DOS stuff then yeah, release it and throw the book. But I'm guessing his sites went down on high traffic and he had to pay to go to some next tier or something before they turned them back on- counting to him as the site being knocked off line.

In that case, it's the salacious speech that's causing the traffic, not somebody firing mad packets at it. That's my guess.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @8:51 pm W Ross: That's my bet too.

The failures have been "Can't connect to database" in some cases, and his main site (the CharlesCarreon domain also hosts rapeutation and his other wonders. But its all database driven, and probably on a pretty dinky VM hosting through BlueHost. And it attracts a lot more traffic than he was used to.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @8:51 pm Oh, no, I get the DOS stuff Weaver's talking about. I used to do some low-level network security stuff for MySpace.

The strange attractor thing, complete with link to this page… no idea.

Grifter • Jul 11, 2012 @8:54 pm @Adam Steinbaugh:

It's a chaos theory thing (that he's misusing). A strange attractor is a point in an equation that other data points "sort of" circle around, causing a sort of linked-looking eddy thing (I'm being very technical), and I believe he's saying you are linked to him like a strange attractor in a system.

He is undoubtedly picturing something like this:

Grifter • Jul 11, 2012 @8:55 pm …which is on the page he linked, if I'd actually read it. I guess he's saying you're his other butterfly wing. It's a…compliment?

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @9:00 pm @Adam

That's chaos theory stuff, ever popular with hippies and graduate students who subsist on too much postmodernism. Put simply, it's a point in n-space (or the complex plane, etc) about which certain equations exhibit certain kinds of behavior.

It's difficult to explain in layman's terms and no math, which is why I'm betting Carreon is just using a buzz word. Whatever he thinks it means, it doesn't. But I have no idea what he thinks it means.

Robert White • Jul 11, 2012 @9:06 pm Plus, the whole "butterfly" thing was disproved because of the failure of the "initial condition" hypothesis. That is, the chaos butterfly works only if the universe is static as the initial condition, but because the universe isn't static when the flapping happens, no "resultant" storm.

I'm no math wiz, but I love it when people who are -wholly- clueless use the words to steal cachet.

also, "DOS" my ass, they just aren't used to having anything they said actually read. e.g. "toh noes, someone hit my site, I must be under attack!".

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:06 pm @Nicholas Weaver Cool, so it's not me. Cause that's a LOT of traffic for a month on a site that gets no traffic. My bet is they were coasting along on a very inexpensive plan, then their sites got popular and the costs went up.

If he's got evidence, he'll show his hand; real evidence of a DOS is usually pretty concrete unless it's sophisticated (in my understanding.)

@noOne You're welcome. Always good to keep a little Chap Hop in your trouser pocket.

/sets up soapbox

OK so we're kind of through the Looking Glass here folks. I want to say here and now that anybody who suddenly goes Anonymous, shuts up, or heads off; I don't blame ya and do what you gotta. Shit is getting real when people start mentioning family members of press and commenters.

If you stay, and if you have a web presence, the Carreon's may subject you to embarrassing disclosures. They may make generalized statements about you in print, or contact your friends and family. They may photoshop a murder of dicks on your forehead (yes, they're like crows.)

If you stay I can't promise you victory… I can't promise you safety, or a delicious ham sandwich… But I can promise you one thing…


Dozens and dozens of delightful, memorable, once in a lifetime lulz as you and your newfound friends are viciously attacked by Bellatrix Lestrange and Stephen Segal's half-brother in the most public, failure ridden way possible. You will laugh like you haven't laughed before, and then you will laugh again, because Tara will edit and repost the thing you just laughed at, making it hilarious.

And you'll probably get sued.

So if I never see you again, know I thought you fought bravely on the fields of hilarity, and I was proud to know you.

But if you stay… well, again, probably dicks right on your face.

But it will be funny.

(*required music )

Ann • Jul 11, 2012 @9:07 pm If he's having database connection issues, could be SQL injection. The Nader Library site is very late nineties in construction and aesthetics. Is it a leap to think the site was utilizing inline selection statements prior to the "attacks" and then some poor website admin had to convert them to stored procedures? SQL injection could be purposeful, or it could be cropping up in the "bot-ish" version now that the site is more easily crawlable with all the inbound links?

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:11 pm

A new section. So you don't "DOS" him with hits, here's the full text so far. Busy little bees, they. This ought to be a night.

"As a Rapeutation gets going, many minor league Rapeutationists start to send hate emails. What is the effect of receiving hate emails, you might ask? It depends upon a lot of things. In The Sex.Com Chronicles, I described the anxiety caused by receiving scary faxes (the instant-delivery technology of the day), and you might think hate emails would cause the same response. But they don’t. As I received and read a few hundred hate emails, I experienced a range of responses. I was mostly amused, occasionally challenged, rarely annoyed, and in the aggregate, somewhat saddened.

Amused because although the writers were familiar with my name, they didn’t know me, so much of what they said seemed silly and misdirected. Challenged when the writer raised a relevant point that seemed worthy of a response. Annoyed for a range of reasons that all amounted one thing — I had let them get under my skin. Saddened because so many people had the time spit bile at me, over a legal spat about comic websites, while the world is literally burning up around us, while American-made drones hunt humans like video-game targets on the other side of the world, while migrants struggle through the desert a few miles south of here in the Sonora desert, just trying to make it to a place where they can have a decent living. In that context, wasting time hatemailing me seemed like a terrible waste of mental energy. But I digress. This post is to give you access to some of the hatemails I received, to put names to some of the hatemailers, and allow you, dear reader, a view into the workings of a DIRA.


PREVIOUS : The Rapeutationists"

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @9:15 pm Ann: Nah. Naderlibrary/american-buddha are hosted on a different server from Charles's "professional" sites. Its the raputation professional site and the other professional sites that have been having issues today.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @9:18 pm Oh, and if I do get sued, for expressing my constitutionally protected opinions and right to search and publish public records, let it be known I will make sure that the words "Snort my taint" end up in the legal record for the case.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @9:19 pm Robert: Of course, the goal is to find the butterfly thats causing all the bad weather and KILL IT!

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @9:20 pm "while the world is literally burning up"
I loled when I read this on his site.

I have minimal web presence Ross, so I have severe doubts they'll find me without latching onto some other random person. I may do website work, but I'm somewhat anti-social and have a tendency to reveal vague details that don't identify me when online.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:22 pm You know that part where the hero rides in on the horse made of Internets?

Well now you do.

Welcome to thunderdome, motherfather. Treebeard just stood up, and he's pissed about how you're treatin' his forest.

(Told you there'd be lulz.)

Tali • Jul 11, 2012 @9:23 pm @W Ross
A Citizen Kane style applause for your soapbox preaching. ... /&size=400×1000

I feel like I've missed a lot in the time I've been AFK, but I guess having a baby (and forgetting to pay the internet bill in the process) will do that to you ;)

Now that I'm back, I'm totally with you. I'm in it for the lulz!

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:25 pm Then remember that part of the movie where yet another hero takes notice?



Wil • Jul 11, 2012 @9:29 pm As a professional SQL geek, from what I can tell the Nader Library website is patched and not vulnerable to SQL injection. It's not intentional…they just lucked out. I've done a decent amount of intrusion testing for SQL injection and later versions of most forum software (Vbulletin, PHPbb, etc.) are relatively immune.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:32 pm @Wil Nice, so that base is covered.

I got the photo of the site uploaded so they can't delete their way out of it. We've missed screenshots of stuff that rabbited later and kicked ourselves so I wanted to have it.

Mir • Jul 11, 2012 @9:33 pm I've been checking these threads and watching the Carreons self-destruct ever since this thing started. (And you all are hilarious, by the way) Watching their reactions now, these two Dean Koontz quotes keep running through my head. (Both quotes are found in From the Corner of His Eye.)

“The problem with movies and books is they make evil look glamorous, exciting, when it’s no such thing. It’s boring and it’s depressing and it’s stupid. (They) are shallow, empty, boring people who couldn’t give you five minutes of interesting conversation if you had the piss-poor luck to be at a party full of them."

"When you're as hollow as Enoch Kane, the emptiness aches. He's desperate to fill it, but he doesn't have the patience or the commitment to fill it with anything worthwhile… So a man like Kane obsesses on one thing after another…anything that seems to give meaning to his days, but that requires no real self-discovery or self-sacrifice."

I'm not saying the Carreons are evil necessarily, but IMO they are certainly behaving as if they were hollow….

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 11, 2012 @9:36 pm Wil Wheaton just incited the entire internet to hack my Twitter feed and fill it with lots of tweets. You guys know any reputable lawyers?

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:42 pm Just Charles.

So no, not any reputable ones.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 11, 2012 @9:43 pm Adam: Better Call Saul!

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:45 pm *Points at Adam* 25 retweets already. Hope your ready to get your blog read. You've just been outted as a Very Interesting Internet Person (VIIP) and will now be slaughtered by a tidal wave of 160 character love.


ahem… carry on.

(You should have worn a hoodie. It's the thieves cowl of the digital age.)

Jeff S • Jul 11, 2012 @9:49 pm Oh no!! Adam! Hold on tight for the DOS!!

Mir • Jul 11, 2012 @9:51 pm I knew there was a reason I still hung around. This is better than a television show. *eat popcorn quietly in the corner*

Mir • Jul 11, 2012 @9:53 pm *eats

That was a description, not an order. :)

Chris R. • Jul 11, 2012 @9:53 pm My favorite part is him making fun of my abandoned wordpress sites. Which I stopped working on after I decided I wasn't any good at making desktop wallpapers after 4 days. I am pretty sure I didn't get any comments on my satirical charles page within the first 4 days either.

Robert White • Jul 11, 2012 @9:54 pm Note the the Crowd: You should take any link and put "" at the end of the host part of a link if you would like to

(a) be polite to a site owner who isn't scaled up to support extra hits.

(b) have a better than average chance of not showing up as a "hit" in any logs.

This is the "coral cache" ( service that caches and forwards content to reduce and distribute load for any web page.

So for example (using my site as an example because I _refuse_ to link at those tards in any way) "" becomes "".

So too for all these Carreon sites. If you add and use that then you can watch the ass-hat sites without DOSing and _usually_ without directly visiting the site. (it will turn into a direct visit redirect on occasion).

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @9:55 pm @W Ross
I'm in to win it. I outed my real meta-identity earlier on this thread, and I'm here until Ken and Patrick get tired of us and start closing comments on all the Carreon threads.

Heck, I even went and got a gravatar.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @9:58 pm "The Rapeutationists in the Inman-Carreon-Oatmeal Affair are a mixed bag of people who apparently can’t find any real issues of importance to focus their attention upon, and have thus devoted themselves to licking Matt Inman’s hindquarters. There’s no rhyme or reason to their involvement, and some have already harvested so many clicks from the fiasco, that I suggest we proceed in reverse order, from the obscure foot-soldiers to the royalty of Rapeutationists. And all of you, please be patient. In the fullness of time, you will find yourselves revealed here."

There's the official threat in the "raeputationists" thread.

Again, in a rare moment of seriousness, this shit has gotten real, and if you're in here, they may try to embarass you.

That being said…

/steps up on soapbox

Tara, I don't need you to embarrass me on the Internet.
I'm 31 and I'm divorced. A few years ago I had to go to a psychiatric hospital for a suicidal plan (self checked in, but true.) I'm a treated Bipolar with Severe ADHD and social anxiety, and I do spend a lot of my time on the computer. I'm not fat, but I could lose a few, and I've had relationships I'm not proud of. My parents will be a dead hole, my mom is battling stage three cancer and my dad… lol my dad is everything I wish I could be and am not. I'm a satirist, so I've probably told my share of off color jokes and those can be found a lot of places. I don't have a "real job" (I write novels and satire and for magazines, but hardly full time) and I often don't finish what I start, and often say the wrong thing in social situations which makes me awkward and weird in person.

Oh, and I snore.

The point is there ain't shit you can say to threaten me in regards to "outting me on the Internet," because I'm not embarrassed to be me and I'm not frightened of Sea Hags.

Suck it,

Will Goddamned Ross of Omaha Motherfucking Nebraska

Mike K • Jul 11, 2012 @10:01 pm This may be a stupid question but… wouldn't a typical person (especially a lawyer) want to read all the information about a lawsuit against himself immediately?

I mean, as soon as I was served with the papers I would read them through immediately. I wouldn't be wasting the time (over a week) building a site (how does it take that long to build anyway?) about how people were violating my rights (not that many are) and researching their families in an attempt to hurt them.

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @10:05 pm @Mike K

You forgot about the horrible video

Gal • Jul 11, 2012 @10:05 pm @Tali: Gratz!

@W Ross: Apart from anything else, the more people he goes after, the greater the chances of someone filing an anti SLAPP suit, are they not?

Also, his proposed tort is insane. Ken hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the more objectionable an act is, the more likely it is that simply pointing it out would lead to an "internet mobbing."

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @10:06 pm @Mike K At this point we can't be rightly sure what they're doing, lol. But I do know if Wil Wheaton is mentioning it to people, it will be expensive, bandwidth wise.

Let them build their audacious little Temple to the Illuminati… The bandwidth costs will bury them, because the more salacious it is the more traffic it'll get- the more news stories it will cause- and the stronger the Streisand Effect will become.

You don't beat Charles Carreon….

Charles Carreon beats Charles Carreon.

Elegy • Jul 11, 2012 @10:12 pm @Gal

I doubt Carreon will face professional censure over this. Nor do I think he should.

What has he done? Sent a strong arm complaint letter; this douchebaggey, but that is something that is done with regularity.

He has filed one frivolous suit (the Inman suit), ok two if you count the guy in Florida in 2003.

Satirical Charles preemptively filed counter-suit on him.

Oh yeah, he's making a public spectacle and giant ass on himself. Certainly this isn't making the other lawyers happy, no doubt they'll be the butt of more jokes, but then again you get these sorts of people in every field. It's his constitutional right to make as big of an ass of himself as he can.

I just don't see yanking his professional certification over this. Partially, that seems too extreme. His rep is already ruined, and he'll never live down the infamy.

M. • Jul 11, 2012 @10:14 pm Anyone want to give a synopsis?

Robert White • Jul 11, 2012 @10:20 pm Please don't use that -stupid- word. You are just validating him.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @10:21 pm @Elegy I'm just tired of all the threats and the bullying from the Wicked Witch of the Southwest and the Arazona SIDS. From day three they've been implying "if you keep paying attention to us in ways we don't approve of, you might get sued." I don't care if he's professionally censured or not, I just hope the world knows the story when he does it.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @10:22 pm *"it" being whatever he does

Gal • Jul 11, 2012 @10:22 pm @Elegy: I agree that he hasn't done enough to face censure yet (except perhaps for legal fees, unless I'm mistaken this nonsense did cost California taxpayers some money.) But it seems he hasn't given up on Doe Hunting. And if he does continue with that then yes, I do believe he should face censure.

Matt Scott • Jul 11, 2012 @10:27 pm God, you work way too many hours for a few days and come home (after some sleep) to a big 'ol Carreon present.

@Chris- Carreon doesn't seem to realize that Satirizing him really shouldn't take all that much time… a lot of rehashing what the man says himself, plus some dinos, some dick drawings (which I'm planning on making the background of my girlfriends computer when she's not looking), and boom, you have a kickass website.

W Ross • Jul 11, 2012 @10:32 pm ... -i-say-so/


n o 0 n e • Jul 12, 2012 @1:25 am @w ross –

i will now have chap-hop in my pocket wherever i go thanks to Professor Element and your off hand recommendation.

also, thanks for taking to the soapbox, your bravery and anns and nibors and etc. (i'm not dissing, it's just that the list would be long) has made this and all of the other CC related threads here a joy and an education to read.

so, to go further and emulate at least a minor hero. . .

i'm 41 and i'm married.

a year ago i had to go to a hospital for a detox (alcohol – self checked in, but true.)

i'm a recovering alcohol addict who has escaped the places where i abused, and i do spend a lot of my time on my farm.

i'm not fat now, but i was really getting there – i've lost 11 kg since i moved to japan, stopped abusing, and changed my diet and routines.

and i've had relationships i'm not proud of.

family info redacted since they are all well and kicking.

i don't have a "real job" (i am the benificiary of an accident settlement [on a bike hit by a car that ran a stop sign] that thanks to a good lawyer has my savings set while i am living off of a wife that wants to work while i try to fit in to a new society.)

and i while i do finish what i start, i generally don't start much.

oh, and i really fucking snore.

my bravery ends here. gomen nasai.

many thanks (and infinite apologies) to @W Ross

LaserGuy • Jul 12, 2012 @2:26 am OK, my first time posting here, hopefully I don't screw it up too badly! ;)

@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.)
IMHO, it appears that in the E-MAIL sent to Register.Com, he requested the disclosure of privileged and personal information regarding a private registration, based on the representation that this information was to be used specifically to add said person as a named defendant in an existing federal lawsuit -

"Tomorrow I am going to amend the Complaint to allege a claim for cybersquatting in violation of the ACPA, with a prayer for imposition of the maximum $100,000 statutory penalty against fictitiously-named Defendant Doe 2.

I hereby request that, prior to 3 p.m. PST on Friday June 22,2012,

3) Disclose the Private Registrant's name and contact information to me…

If discloses the identity of the Private Registrant prior to 3 p.m., I will name the Private Registrant as Doe 2 in the First Amended Complaint. If fails to disclose the identity of Private Registration by the 3 p.m. deadline, I will be forced to name as Doe 2 in the First Amended Complaint."

He didn't say "Hey, Register.Com – can you please give me this guy's confidential info, so I can dig into his personal life, and then launch a vindictive personal attack against him and his family on a new web site?!"

This is outrageous! Given that he is an officer of the court, I would think (or at least hope) that misusing his position in such a manner would be a serious ethical breach?

Someone needs to contact the state bar about this.

I am particularly disturbed by his linking to a page with a picture of CD's wife apparently holding their young child, which he then follows with the bone-chilling comment -

"But there are no innocents in war."

WTF?!!! Was that a threat?!

Register.Com also has some MAJOR egg on their face on this one – I wonder if they realize just how the information they "coughed up" for him is now being used?

That's a news story in and of itself.

Given the "disturbing" nature of some of what he was posting, I did a little checking on who was hosting his new site. While the WhoIs info is pointing to an offshore privacy service located in Australia, the site itself appears to be hosted at

Given the content of that site, you might find this hosting company's TOS rather interesting -

Particularly Section "10. PROHIBITED USES", which includes…

04 – appears to prohibit profanity.

05 – "Private Information and Images. Subscribers may not post or disclose any personal or private information about or images of children or any third party without the consent of said party (or a parent's consent in the case of a minor)."

13 – Other Illegal Activities, including – "failure to comply with applicable on-line privacy laws".

14 – "Obscene, Defamatory, Abusive or Threatening Language. Use of the Services to store, post, transmit, display or otherwise make available obscene, defamatory, harassing, abusive or threatening language is prohibited."

16 – Other Activities, includes anything that harms, or threatens to harm, the hosting company's reputation or goodwill.

If you know of any site they are hosting that is in violation of their TOS, you might want to contact them and let them know about it.

S. Weasel • Jul 12, 2012 @4:11 am I'm coming 'round to the idea the Carreons are just a pair of sad old acid casualties. Which makes this whole business a lot less fun.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @6:40 am LaserGuy: Charles is an asshole, but I don't think he's done anything that should be considered a violation of BlueHosts's terms of service.

Let the loony rant.

Allen C • Jul 12, 2012 @7:04 am This all suddenly becomes clear. When Carreon worked for Sweet Entertainment (a Canadian company) he finalized a lawsuit against an American company that has stolen some of Sweet's media.

He takes the money and puts it in a trust. He was not supposed to do this, his orders were to deliver it to Sweet Entertainment. He then withdraws some of the money for personal needs (his condo in Vancouver).

Due to his actions surrounding Sweet Entertainment, Carreon ended up doing a 60 day suspension. I'm not sure if he was ever reinstated in Oregon or that was part of the reason he's in Arizona and filling in Northern Cali.

Suddenly the whole "I want to put Inman's money in a trust" makes a lot of sense.

For sourcing, see here:
http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpr ... -p0087.pdf

Scroll down to the the telephone memo written by Lynda Bey-Roode. It's on page 3 of that memo.

Kristen • Jul 12, 2012 @7:13 am Wow I wish all Internet sites were like theirs (apostraphe?); I can read it once, go back several hours later and it's magically different. Here I thought the 'in' thing was to add editing openly so people can see what changes have been made.

I wouldn't be very interesting as a raputationist: stay at home mom of three with two on the Autism Spectrum. I don't have much of an Internet presence, just Twitter. My husband is awesomer than me but it'd be hard to make fun of his for special-needs children iPhone app, unless to joke about it selling hundred of copies in two months* (not a typo). :D

Low blow to go after Chris' family. BTW, since when is working retail an insult? Taking care of your family, no matter what you have to do is very noble. I work as a waitress when we need the income. There's no shame in that.

*wait, maybe I do want to be a raputationist, Strisand-effect my husband's app, baby! ;)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @7:14 am And he also has massive Chutzpah: He threatened to sue the Oregon Bar Association for publishing information about his suspension, a suspension that he agreed to by stipulation!

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @7:16 am Does CC knows that there is a difference between a Denial of Service (DoS) attack and a Disk Operating System (DOS) attack.

For those who do not know what this DOS thing is, a little extra (privileged) information out of the sacred and ancient books (and I did write books correct here, spelled without an “e” for I refer to the paper version of a book, which can be found in the building that is called library, on the other floors and rooms than the ones you use the internet PC’s and/or connection) which date from the time before.

Once a long time ago maybe even before you were born , computers were text based and to operate, at that time our mighty al knowing and providing supreme Microsoft, was without the Windows interface, then we (and yes I am that old) used DOS to interact with and operate the computer, just by typing command’s this without the use of a mouse or touchscreen, go and look it up there will be pictures if you are unable to imagining it.

Back to the case at hand, what if the web server CC uses brakes down under the load of 30+ users a minute and reboots to the DOS 3.14 screen ?

Is there a possibility that that is what is happening for that explains he sees that there is a DOS attack? For when you have a DoS attack there will be no notice on your computer that tells you it is so. As far as I understand you can get a message that the traffic is high and the server is not able to answer all requests or that the error buffer is full. But there is not the message “Hey man your under attack from a DoS, use this information to make yourself ridiculous on the internets”

Disclaimer: But this is only me thinking and asking out loud, not stating that these are facts, I don’t want to be a named rapeutationist. Brrr shivering from fear ;-)

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @7:29 am @LaserGuy

Good post! On one hand, I would say he's definitely violated his TOS. And I would say your point about is a fair one, and come to think of it, it is a news story in itself. I mean, litigation is threatened, they cave immediately, and the guy runs off and starts blaring it on the Internet; it should be a lesson to them.

On the other hand, I think Charles should be allowed to rant and rave as much as he likes.

First, it's his constitutional right to make as big of a fool of himself as he wants to. Is this rapeutation campaign improving his real world reputation any? Nope, he's just shooting himself in the foot, again and again. His credibility is now shot, and will remain so because google doesn't forget.

Second, Satirical Charles knew it would come to this when he signed on. Remember, SC waited until AFTER CC named as a co-defendant an Ars Technica reader who was impersonating him on Twitter l. Satirical Charles knew this was coming, before he ever stepped into the ring. Hell, SC is suing CC, which, when you look at it, is the same reason CC is in the spotlight today.

Third, CC is only giving back as good as he gets. Go read back through the hundreds of comments in these threads. We've picked over Charles life with a fine toothed comb. I've looked at his house on google earth, examined his property records and taxes, etc. Put shortly, why can we do it, but he can't? Hell, we go on and on a out his wife (to be fair, she goes on and in about us, too)

Again, I think your point about registrar is a great one – someone really should point out what CC did with the information after they exhibited about as much backbone as cooked pasta.

But, vehemently, the solution here is not to sink to his level, and attempt to get him shut down for TOS violation. That is what HE does.

The solution is to let him make such an ass of himself, so that he has not one ounce of dignity or credibility left, both professionally or personally. The biggest revenge will be to sit back, and lol while he shoots himself in the foot, over and over, in full public view.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @7:30 am @Laserguy here is some extra info on the Registar issue:

First post is with the same rage you are reacting: ... s-carreon/

Second post is a reaction after Adam was corrected by Marc Randazza ... umble-pie/

But the first thing that happend in the Doe v CC case was a letter from Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen to Registar which resulted in removing SC identity again. So the first post of Adam wasn't that wrong.

See this popehat article for the letter: ... gets-sued/

What my question is, when a case is filed in name of a J.Doe is it legal for the acused to publicly name this J.Doe ???

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @7:32 am That's "we go on and on about his wife" not "we go on an in his wife".


Damn you autocorrect.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @7:39 am @Elegy an Freudian autocorrect function? :-)

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @7:41 am The difference on the family issue is that noone looked into his family at all until they started to say stupid things in their own right. The daughters are barely mentioned, and usually when they are it's somewhat sympathetic. The wife is talked about on the merits of her conspiracy theories. CC is apparently willing to bring in family members of people he sees as attacking him for the sole reason of being related to that 'attacker'. Otherwise, yes, he's essentially done some of the same kind of research on others that has been done on him, with the exception that most people haven't posted their lives as in depth as he has.

@Nibor Of course we remember DOS systems. Windows 98 still used it, and I remember playing games like hangman and chess on our old Tandy when I was growing up. Then playing with certain games that were more obviously DOS based (including the original Warcraft). For what it's worth, I also remember books although I frequently wished they were electronic. They were the only acceptable form of entertainment for boredom in class.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @7:48 am @laserguy I have made a comment that is linking to different sites on the registar issue, but it's in the awaiting moderation list, I let you know when it get posted.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @7:49 am @nibor

You should see the things autocorrect says to my mom. Talk about Freudian.

And to this day, I still use the cmd prompt in windows more than windows itself. My family's first computer was a 286 DOS machine, with a 20mb hard drive. Computer guy told my dad that "this is a you'll ever need". I believe my dad paid $4500 for it. Consequentially, my brain has moved past DOS, but my soul never will.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @7:57 am I mix them up but I believe it was a 288*, 286, 386, 486, pentium, etc.
But also a commodore 64,128 and amiga.
And even a Z80 for a little while :-)

The good old days.

* I never seem to remember if it was a 2 or a 1 before the 88.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @8:05 am looked it up But it was a 8088, 186, 286, etc

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @8:07 am yikes, you guys remember models on all of your old computers? All I remember is Tandy, then various Gateways including an Astro, the Compaq in college (could probably figure out the model, but that's because I did IT on it), and a Dell (only PC I've purchased myself). I don't even remember the model, but then I was more interested in making sure its specs met my needs, specifically 4 GB RAM (it's several years old before that was common). Next thing you'll say is that you've actually seen floppy disks bigger than 5 1/4" or that you remember using modems at speeds less than 256K. :p (not that any of those make you guys old, just surprising things I learned about in the course of computer classes that I never knew about otherwise)

LaserGuy • Jul 12, 2012 @8:07 am @NW: Well, for starters…

"05. Private Information and Images. Subscribers may not post or disclose any personal or private information about or images of children or any third party without the consent of said party (or a parent's consent in the case of a minor)."

So unless you're saying Chris & the others gave him permission, that one seems pretty clear-cut.

Chris also chose to exercise his right to speak anonymously. That's a pretty damn important and constitutionally protected right, going back to the start of our country. It's also a right that Doe vs. Carreon is seeking to protect.

I am therefore quite angry that an atty would misuse their position to gain personal info, in order to then use that to not only deprive Chris of that right by publicly outing (as well as personally attacking) him, but going after Chris's wife and kid as well!

He is also explicitly threatening to do this to others, to intimidate / scare / bully / discourage free speech on this matter by those that don't agree with his tactics. This is what this whole lawsuit is about, remember?

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @8:13 am LaserGuy, I'm not sure where he got the pictures from but if he got them from a site that specifically says that by uploading the picture you are allowing others to use the picture, that would be permission. I noticed that Photobucket's ToS included some lines about that, and I suspect that the social networking sites he grabbed them from have similar policies. The name was also made public, rather than being given as privileged information, so while scummy, nothing wrong there. It also seems that the name is hearsay in that Carreon never actually saw the registration info before it reverted to anonymous.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 12, 2012 @8:15 am I actually want to thank Charles Carreon.

Three months ago I went rock climbing and fell off, shattering my right foot into oblivion. I was told I was lucky I just landed on my foot and reminded several times I could have died. So after major surgery, bed rest, struggling to learn how to walk after two months in a wheelchair, and all these fucking horrible things you can imagine how bored and depressed you can get for being confined and useless.

The whole Carreon/Inman debacle definately provides lulz. And it has brought me to laughing tears. I actually will sometimes and go read Tara's rants when I feel discouraged or upset because they are just so out there and loony how do you not cringe from it knowing she is deadpan serious and laugh so hard BECAUSE she is so deadpan serious.

So thank you Carreon for giving a kid perspective here. It doesn't matter if you lose your ability to run, walk, or be a normal physical person again because your voice is what really matters. You can lose anything and everything, but your ability to speak out and say your opinion is worth dieing for.

Of course….you showed it by being a censorious douchebag….but that's besides the point.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 12, 2012 @8:16 am *dying (and all other typos I apologize)

Grifter • Jul 12, 2012 @8:21 am @Nibor/Mike K

I have two words:

Oregon Trail.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @8:22 am For those who want to get their money worth out of my beer, err, Pacer money: ... ocket.html

Is the case which caused the first cited bar complaint, where Charles rushed to the courthouse to try to file first in California, despite the plaintiffs AND defendants being in Maryland.

Forum shopping attempt smacked-down… But hey, it succeeded in allowing him to bond with (and presumably bill) his clients.

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @8:24 am @laserguy he (only)linked to a google+ page, so that's totaly legal, for all you put on there is fair game for all and is public, if you don't want that you can shield the info you wish to share. you may not ripp the pictures and info to post elsewhere but linking is allouwd

But it is not nice or decent to do so (to put it pollite), that is true but it is not ilegal

But is I ask myself, it legal that he dicloses J.Doe's name when he is in court deallings with him, where the identity is consealed?

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @8:28 am @Grifter sorry was only 5 months at first relase, so I tip my hat and offer you my cain.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @8:32 am Oh, the other thing thats amusing in Charles's forum shopping attempt. He argues that because ALS scans sold porn subscriptions to Californians, it can then fall under the jurisdiction of the California Courts…

Which is how Penguin is trying to get him to stay in the NY courts in Penguin v American Buddha: sales of Charles's self-published book.

I think Charles was NEVER a 1st Amendment defender. Rather, he is a very determined advocate for himself/his client. Since he largely represented pornographers, a group which often needs 1st amendment defense, he became a 1st amendment defender. Now that his only client is himself, he's switched around the other way.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @8:39 am @Laserguy

The proper response to butthurt is not to be butthurt in return and attempt to censor Charles as he has attempted to censor the Internet at large. As noted somewhere above, CC is making efforts not to post slanderous and/or libelous commentary. Until he does, he can say all the nasty things – and do all the nasty things – that he likes.

Might I also suggest that if you're serious about Satirical Charles' right to anonymity, you refer to him as Satirical Charles and not by his given name. Yes, the info is out there now, but you don't have to help disseminate it. Just a suggestion, though, :-)

@Nicholas Weaver
Thanks again for using your beer money to finance my Carreon fixes. Shame it's just the docket though, would love to see the original complaint (don't go rush off and spend real moneys on it!). We could start a crowd sourced indiegogo project for you, but you might get sued.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @8:50 am The complaint is up there: THe RECAP docket link includes links to the case files, declarations, etc.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @8:52 am Also, some of the files aren't in RECAP but should be up soon: it takes a while for it to process documents sometimes.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @8:58 am Awesome, thanks again!

Nibor • Jul 12, 2012 @9:27 am I don`t know but when I look at the raw source data of the rapeutation web site I see something that is a tracking java script

It links to "track dot larkpub dot com" so beware he is tracking his visitors ;-)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @9:38 am His tracker is hosted on American Buddha's server (, so its an in-house tracking solution. However, "Lark Publications" is a non-entity.

Its using open source analytics.

This analytics should allow Charles to easily see if his DOS complaint is false, by seeing where the referrers come from and that the "DOS" he got was simply Ars and others pointing to

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @9:40 am @Nibor he's definitely using pwiki analytics, which is being run on the larkpub site. Probably just logging location and ip. Which is fairly standard for any wordpress installation.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @9:44 am @Nicholas, I doubt his claims are relevant since the site hasn't gone down since the first day it was linked to often. Further more he claims proof but then doesn't present it. If he had a log, he could just dump it and it'd be settled.

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @9:47 am The "tracking" is just web analytics, same as pretty much every site on the web has the capability of doing (and a lot do).

Having that on his website isn't particularly nefarious and doesn't allow him to identify visitors (that would require ISPs to give up details of IP addresses, which they aren't going to do). I can't honestly see anything to beware of here.

Details of the software involved:

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @9:49 am And this is the specific WordPress pluging he's using:

It could easily be part of the template he's chosen.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:44 pm

PART 4 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery Cont'd.)

LaserGuy • Jul 12, 2012 @9:55 am @All: Doesn't matter if it's public or legal or not – their TOS prohibits posting any personal info without that person's permission. There's a good reason for that policy, it's called personal privacy.

In any event, it's not my desire to censor anybody – he's got several sites to rant from. But that doesn't mean we should give him a "free pass" when he starts involving people's wife & kids either. :(

@Elegy: SC had already posted his first name on his own site before he was outed, so I'm not disclosing anything. A commonplace first name is hardly identifying, which is likely why he felt comfortable revealing it himself.

@Mike K: The difference is, TC made herself a very public figure on this, while Chris's wife & child had nothing to do with it, and had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

@Nibor: understood – same thing happened to my 1st post!

BTW, SC dropped a tactical nuke in response to outing his wife and kid. Check-out the "full file" on his Did I Ever Tell You post. I found pgs 22-26 particularly interesting! I wondered what "Sweet Entertainment" was involved in that would cause the Vancouver Police to repeatedly "raid" the company, and what kind of video or production "content" someone would be so interested in keeping, or that would need to be reviewed to determine if it was legal???

Reading further, I then came across pg 78-87 (Warning, not on a full stomach!)

I know sometimes ppl will do something so outrageous as to invite being "slapped-down hard" due to the Streisand Effect, but I always figured that end result was unintentional?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @10:35 am LaserGuy: And there is a good reason NOT to seek his site's removal by TOS-lawyering.

His action is mostly harmless: he has no followers, and if he actually tried to say, disrupt the Better Charles's employment, would be in a world o legal hurt. But seeking to remove Charles Carreon's site would be an act of asshat-douchebaggery censorship.

Even frothing at the mouth lunatics, especially frothing at the mouth lunatics, need to have their right to speech protected. Just as we have the right to mock him, laugh at him, ridicule him, he has the right to be ridiculous, and we would be ill served if we did not defend his right to be a total, complete douchebag.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @10:40 am I do not support oppressing Charles Carreon's right to free speech. You have to defend the lowest of the low in order to protect the highest of the high. If anyone is DOSing him I hope they are brought to justice. If anyone TOSes him, I'll personally find him a new host if I have to. I am Satirical Charles and I approve this message.

John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @10:41 am @LaserGuy:

Am I reading that correctly? Did the "what hat internet lawyer" want to get paid in pr0n??

Chas… ಠ_ಠ

Luke • Jul 12, 2012 @10:44 am @W Ross – "They may photoshop a murder of dicks on your forehead (yes, they're like crows.)"

I am very glad I wasn't sipping coffee when I read this! Going to have to remember this one, "A pod of whales, a gaggle of geese, a murder of dicks…"

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @10:52 am @LaserGuy Troll not, lest ye be trolled. That's the principle here. We can absolutely win by taking his stuff off the Internet whenever he makes an accidental misstep….

At our own peril. We respond with actions instead of words, or just moving around information and we fall into the sort of world Charles Carreon wants us to live in. He wants that visceral "I'll SHOW YOU" reaction.

He wants our rage, for it sustains him. <- Related.

azteclady • Jul 12, 2012 @11:04 am LaserGuy: our host Ken is fond of saying something along the lines, "to combat hate speech, we need more speech"

So unless what CC is doing is criminal/illegal, his speech is as protected as Matt Inman's or Satirical Charles', and if we care about freedom of speech at all, we should care about freedom of speech for all.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @11:12 am John: No, Charles wanted to get paid in the computer he was unwilling to return….

John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @11:16 am @Nicholas Weaver:

But was it because of the content on said computer? o_O

Pure speculation. But it's still fun speculation ;)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @11:17 am No, the porn was WHY he couldn't return it to Canada, he was afraid it wouldn't get through customs. I think he really just wanted a laptop, because he had no personal laptop, and was using it for personal use.

The Box O Porn on CDs, on the other hand….

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @11:18 am Oh, I wonder if this is why Tara is obsessed with subpoenaing people's porn collection?

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @11:19 am http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpr ... -p0087.pdf

The Ross Report: My favorite parts of pages 1-2 of TELEPHONE MEMO

Lyn Bey-Roode Telephone Memo

"Then a few things happened, and there were some challenges that came up during the time that Carreon was working for Sweet Entertainment. Carreon developed a relationship with Carreon's partner[s?]"

My word! A married man consorting with adult film stars! How scandalous!

"Carreon was divided; he was not clear which way to go,"

For money… or for booty. Which way indeed!

"The partners were attempting to gain more interest in the company."

Boy, starting a (implied?) sexual relationship with the company lawyer would be a good way to do that!

"Mr. Price thinks Carreon left Sweet Entertainment because of a combination of being fired and leaving."

That usually does it, yes.

"All Sweet Entertainment's equipment was siezed, including about 100 computers, all their records, their files, "everything." at that time Carreon "got scared" and asked "are you guys going to be in business? Then Carreon withdrew. But there was already turmoil with the partners and employees."

Wonder what sort of videos we could find on those computers, lol. Possibly one of wunterSlash banging a camgirl, which when I think about it would be BLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *cough… cough…* it would be just BLURRGGHHHHHHHHHHH…. *cough… cough… heavy breathing… spit…" let's just move on.

"Carreon expressed an interest in keeping the content to for himself and/or for one of his companies."

Probably Fapalot Holdings, or Strokington Inc.

"Carreon was interested in doing something with the contents for his own interest."

…into a dirty tube sock…

"Mr. Price had a problem with that since he did not want to be put in a conflict situation, and Carreon quickly let it go. Carreon wanted this content "in lieu of payment."

'I may be broke, but I filled the spank bank!' I miss those old days where a lawyer could be paid in a jug of liquor, a barrel of powder, or a bushel of digital vaginas. Simpler times, they.

"One of the issues that arose was that Carreon kept some of that content."


"Mr. Price is not sure how much content Carreon has and how much Sweet Entertainment has."

'I was SURE that Butt Crazy Nurses went up to 27… but I can only find 1-8… CARREEEONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!'

"Carreon brought some content back to Canada, but not all."

'NOT THAT! That's for Willie…. Take ANYTHING else!'

"Then Sweet Entertainment was raided."


(Satirical Charles… thank you for this.)

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @11:26 am (but yeah, if that statement is true, there was a time when Charles asked to be paid in disturbing images of exploited women Pronz.)

John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @11:29 am @W Ross:

See, that's where I got that he wanted the pr0n, he wanted the "content", according to Mr. Price. A computer is not "content", it delivers "content".

Also, did you start reading "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs" in mid analysis? :P

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @11:31 am @John Ammon Butters is our generation's Steinbeck. (See, I highbrow-lowbrowed you there.)

But yeah, he also tried to jack a computer, but that content stuff is separate and pretty clearly shows that he wanted to be paid in porn (probably to start his on site… called… wait for it…

"American Booty"

Yeah… that's just right.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @11:32 am I do not support oppressing Charles Carreon's right to free speech. You have to defend the lowest of the low in order to protect the highest of the high. If anyone is DOSing him I hope they are brought to justice. If anyone TOSes him, I'll personally find him a new host if I have to. I am Satirical Charles and I approve this message.


John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @11:33 am @W Ross:

Goes down smooth…

I think there's a double entendre there that I didn't intend.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @11:47 am Btw someone else did the research for me here: ... -is-mafia/

But it's a good look into his ego.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @11:49 am Chris, you are the hammer of the Gods.

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @11:54 am I hadn't really noticed this before (from Carreon's lastest "legal analysis" edit):

“That’s where foreseeability gets into it. When Henry VIII said, ‘Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?’ (or words to that effect) he knew that someone would. The analysis isn’t really any more problematic than determining whether conduct is ‘outrageous’ for purposes of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.”

As with the Georges, he's a few out: but what's six Henrys between friends? It's only 358 years between their birth dates and their death dates; and 355 between the dates of their coronations.

Also, according to Wikipedia:

"Upon hearing reports of Becket's actions, Henry is said to have uttered words that were interpreted by his men as wishing Becket killed. The king's exact words are in doubt and several versions have been reported. The most commonly quoted, as handed down by "oral tradition", is "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", but according to historian Simon Schama this is incorrect: he accepts the account of the contemporary biographer Edward Grim, writing in Latin, who gives us "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" Many variations have found their way into popular culture." ... assination

And that's before we start wondering how the words of a 12th Century monarch with extensive political power should form the basis of an argument for a new tort, even they were accurately reported.

I really don't think we can base much on "he must have known the effect despite not specifically asking for or arranging it" especially not in legal terms.

Also, I'm not sure how much stuff happened immediately after the initial Inman letter and fundraiser. From that point onwards it was Carreon and not Inman who was escalating things.

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @12:27 pm I was just thinking about CC's tort that he wants to invent. The way he wants it set up, he would be the one ultimately liable for all of the criminal (and non-criminal) acts conducted against him. His speech was an initial cause of Inman's speech which caused a lot of the following speech. Even if all of the following speech was deemed (under his invented tort) to make those people liable, he's then liable for it because their speech was a foreseeable consequence of his speech and if the subsequent speech is actionable, it makes his speech actionable.

I'm obviously over thinking things, since I think too much as it is, but the way he worded things would seem to cause a string of liability that would be able to go back quite a few steps.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @12:33 pm ... =253709955

Charles Carreon's first Wiki (as written by Charles Carreon.)

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @12:42 pm

There are the Wikipedia folks, punching him in the dickparts. Side note, if he used the NoRivalsMedia account, did he make Wikipedia edits in their name? I don't think he's still affiliated with them, is he?

If not that's kind of a dick move. (Not that I should be suprised.)

Ends with:

"June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen (NoRivalsMedia) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.}} The Bushranger One ping only 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)"

Orville • Jul 12, 2012 @1:00 pm Can a bar association disbar someone for suing it?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @1:08 pm Oh, and for those who want to have fun with PhotoShop: NoRivalsMedia at wikipedia uploaded this version of the Carreon photo:

as CC-SA, so you can go to town with photoshop, dicks, and photoshop-dicks.

Because Charles Carreon released this photo for your enjoyment.

Kelly • Jul 12, 2012 @1:14 pm Oh my, I step away for a day and I have hours of reading to do!

I'm staying, watching, and adding my opinions. He can try and search me out all he wants. He won't find much and if he does, I couldn't care less. Now, should he post pictures of my kids… yeah it would be on then. It is every sort of wrong to drag someone's children into his little Whinging Fit. Wrong. That isn't about free speech, that is all about attempting to smear people and frighten them into shutting up. That just makes me very angry.

Really, Wil Wheaton is watching… CC should realize what that means.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 12, 2012 @1:30 pm DOS data is up. Mr. Weaver, your thoughts?

It seems to me like it might evidence a DOS attack, but it's not clear whether the data refers to access to just or, say,,, naderlibrary, etc. If those tools were being used to download all those sites, that just might be people using scraping tools for what they're intended to be used for — and not trying to DOS him.

But if someone's downloading 10-18GB of data from just, then, yeah, that might be construed as a DOS attack.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @1:31 pm

Site Sucker, Web Reaper, Xenu Sleuth are all web crawlers / archivers.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @1:32 pm Same with Wget

Stuart • Jul 12, 2012 @1:37 pm Lamest "DoS" ever. First Bluehost would most defiantly detect a DDoS/DoS attack. This is mostly normal traffic. It's just his site is getting a lot more attention than it's use to plus looks like some good souls are trying to preserve the crazy.

neewom • Jul 12, 2012 @1:38 pm So, the "evidence" on Rapeutation is up.

SiteSucker? Wget? really? At least that's a relatively accurate description of the services in question.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @1:44 pm I suspect it wasn't legit dos, but rather curious people causing an inadvertant DOS attempting to archive one or more of his sites, interacting with a loop in the site design which caused the auto-crawlers to go crazy. E.G., Site Sucker by default doesn't include any limits on depth.

With some searching the loop could probably be found, but since finding the loop would probably be something he'd call a DOS, or a tool he'd consider a DOS tool, I don't want to try.

But a log of the URLs requested by the DOS attackers would be able to tell if this was a site-design error which caused the site-sucker type tools to loop, or if it is a real DOS attack, in which case, he already has enough information to go get em, and should probably work with Ken on constructing a well-worded, non-streisand-effecting nastygram to the ISPs involved.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 12, 2012 @1:51 pm I concur. The use of what might be a datacenter in Brazil (though other sites describe it as a static cable ISP) is suspicious, especially given that the same IP turns up as having been used by a forum spammer. Might be a proxy itself.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @1:57 pm OK, using a program to suck all the files and information off a website is NOT a DoS. It's using an aggregation technique.

Note the bottom of the page here, for example:

People have been saying "I want to sort through an archieve of the information on Charles Carreon's site and have availed themselves of a full copy.

That's like a restaurant getting upset because someone ate too much at their all you can eat salad bar. If you host gigs and gigs worth of music, movies and books, it's going to be bandwidth expensive.

I am disappoint.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @1:58 pm "Just for shits and giggles I ran Web Reaper over the prick's private website:
…and…wow…just, WOW! Currently downloading over SIXTY THOUSAND files…and uh…a LARGE portion of it seems to be pirated music. I mean…holy crap…this guy is a copyright lawyer who has a SHIT TON of PIRATED MATERIAL on his personal website! o_O"

Yeah, if you're hosting 60 thousand files, 18 gigs of bandwidth is possible from one user.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:01 pm W Ross: American-Buddha is on a different server. So unless links are from there to the Charles Carreon server for hosting reasons, load on American Buddha shouldn't affect Charles's sites:

> dig +short
> dig +short

> dig +short
> dig +short

So I still suspect loop rather than "just sheer tons of copyrighted crap" being the cause.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 12, 2012 @2:02 pm Mr. Weaver, would you mind if I quote and cite you on my blog (and link back here / to your bio)?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:04 pm OR the logs could be for american-buddha, in which case, yeah, he's hosting a shit-ton of pirated stuff and a crawler will go crazy.

But as the symptom we saw was being down/inconsistent, I don't think its people sucking Tara's copyright-violation-buddhist-"library" that was burning the bandwidth.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:06 pm Adam: Sure. But I'm not 100% certain it wasn't a deliberate DOS: the HTTP requests themselves are whats needed to tell the difference between "idiot tool + idiot site" and "deliberate attack":

Deliberate attack would have the tool repeatedly fetching the same URLs, "idiot tool + idiot site" would have the tool repeatedly fetching DIFFERENT URLs that nonetheless point to the same basic content but, because its automatically generated, relative URLs keep changing so a simple "did I fetch this already" test would fail.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:12 pm The other thing: Once Charles identifies the loop, a proper robots.txt file would stop the dumb crawlers. SiteSucker at least respects robots.txt by default, and just trimming the looping bit would solve that problem.

He shouldn't HAVE to: its a defect in the SiteSucker and related tool that they probably are suceptible to loops, and that SiteSucker at least does not set a default depth for its breadth first traversal nor a rate limit, but griping about other people's bad tools won't help.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:17 pm However, it is clear that some douchebags WERE hosing Charles's bandwidth. Whether it was deliberate or accidental is unknown, and only Charles has the data to tell: If the crawlers kept fetching the same URLs it was deliberate. If the crawlers fetched different URLs due to the dynamically generated design of the sites, it was accidental.

If it is accidental, there isn't much Charles can do beyond fixing his site to eliminate the loops the crawlers ran down.

If its deliberate, I wish him luck in writing a well structured NastyGram to the attackers' ISPs.

Grifter • Jul 12, 2012 @2:18 pm That does not seem to be evidence of a DoS attack. That is evidence of a heavy load. The evidence of DoS is evidence that shows the heavy load did not come from a legit or accidental source.

It seems akin to saying "See that shark tank? it killed that guy. Here's evidence there's sharks in the tank!"…what he needs is evidence that the sharks killed the guy

Grifter • Jul 12, 2012 @2:21 pm I also wonder if his methods of web maintenance (like his frequent edits) are helping cause this looping, if looping is what it is?

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @2:21 pm He doesn't specify what servers count as being part of "his network" so he could easily be counting American Buddha and the Nader Library – and given that they seem to have a lot of the same content but with different domain names, plus lots of TOC links and links to the next document, you'd expect loops, even if were to download lots of stuff twice in the different versions.

Also, I'm pretty sure he's on shared servers* (Amazon for Buddha/Nader and BlueHoost for his professional site and this new one). Given that a proper DoS attack would affect other customers you'd think that the hosting companies would be on it.

Also has hardly any content, if you wanted to DoS it, would you really use a site scraper and modify its settings to try and cause problems? Wouldn't it be easier to use something specifically designed to cause a DoS?

*reverse DNS from the IPs



Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @2:22 pm If that log is for all of the sites on the same server as rapeutation, maybe it's just that he has a lot of files spread out on his personal sites. He has shown a tendency to post lots of documents and his blog contains some relatively large images along with some short audio files and other things on his main site.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @2:23 pm And if he does show the URLs, and it WAS clear that this was deliberate, not site design + dumb crawler effects, I will gladly help him write a suitable NastyGram ™ should he wish to contact me.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @2:28 pm @Nicholas Weaver Yeah I think you're wrong here. I'd like to see the actual logs or screenies of them, but what we see here doesn't say what the load was or where it was. It's not the original copy, it's a bunch of stuff he typed.

Unless there's some actual context for things, it's a little early to join in a doe hunt with Charles, I think.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @2:29 pm (Also, you'll be assisting him in legal actions across 8 countries if you're right, lol.)

joe • Jul 12, 2012 @2:31 pm Nicholas, Adam, Will Ross, Chris R., Robert White, Ann, Scott Jacobs, and everyone else who posts here under their real name, I salute you.

Have to say, Carreon, Kimberlin, etc. wouldn’t find any dirty laundry on me because there isn’t any to find. I’m squeaky clean with sharp well pressed edges. I’m not just square, I’m a cube. I'm all together very unexciting compared to the rest of you. The only reason I don’t post under my real name is because if some whack job comes after me with frivolous lawsuits I have to waste my time dealing with it. Every once in a while I get a bit crazy, like when I put up the Crazy Crystal Cox YouTube Video. And that is one of the reasons I remain anonymous – I mean have you SEEN that woman? She is one scary looking dude. On a positive note if one of those nut jobs came after me, Texas has one hell of an anti-SLAPP with punitive damages required to be sufficient enough to prevent a repeat of behavior. On the other hand, I think Carreon much like Cox, doesn’t have much in the way of financial juice and thus is basically judgment proof. Kimberlin has simply taken a different approach hiding behind a 503.

Meanwhile, the comments about DOS and 8088’s sure brought back memories. Many years ago, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, my first job was tech support. The system of choice back then was the 8088 with dual 5 and ¼ inch floppy drives. There was no such thing as a hard drive in those days. One of our remote office employees was having trouble with her computer so I told her to mail me the disk along with a piece of paper with the error message. Well, she decided that mailing the disk meant to peel open the square plastic covering on the disk and remove it. She then proceeded to “staple” the disk to a piece of paper with the error message. Needless to say there was no recovering that one. In other words she pulled a “Carreon”.

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @2:40 pm Nicholas Weaver, I glanced at the google site search results for his professional site and noticed some pages with ?p=# so your looping theory is highly probable. That along with all the /tag pages could easily mean that any legit program came across tons of duplicate content.

The site I work on has needed a bit of work to the htaccess and robots files to fix some of those issues due to the addition of a blog (which I don't write). Our issues were mainly just SEO concerns of Google seeing duplicate content and idiots linking to our pages incorrectly though.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 12, 2012 @2:44 pm Did some research into the IPs. Seems to me that most (if not all) of the uses of SiteSucker/2.3.6 are coming from the same person — a number of the IPs are data centers or have been used by the same forum spammer, suggesting that whoever it is was using multiple proxies.

So, maybe a DOS attack. Like Mr. Weaver says, though, fuller logs would give better info on that.

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @2:53 pm is definitely on a shared server, rather than a dedicated one:

That makes it reasonably likely that even a small traffic spike could cause problems for (especially as its running wordpress with plugins) since its share of the overall server resources is going to be limited.

Given that we know that Tara also she's been DoS'd three times, it could be that Charles has just posted the stats for those times and that the rapeutation problem was just heavy traffic from the attention it was getting.

Suffice it to say he's not really giving evidence of malice without a lot more detail.

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @2:57 pm Looks like Buddha and Nader have their own server, though, or at least their own IP address (given that the Amazon service is cloud based, perhaps that's how it works):

Still, there's enough content on those sites for anyone trying to mirror them to cause problems without intending to.

LaserGuy • Jul 12, 2012 @3:38 pm Freedom of Speech is great, he can froth all he wants. But Freedom of Speech does not extend to CyberStalking. Like someone rightly said earlier, you start going after my wife & kids, IT'S ON.

Freedom of Speech also includes the freedom to post anonymously. But by posting that information, he took that freedom away from SC. And he is threatening to do the same thing to the other DOEs. In order to stifle Freedom of Speech of those who disagree with these bullying antics.

Isn't the purpose of the lawsuit to put a stop to that?

In any case, with all the play this is getting on the Interwebs, it's only a matter of time before someone from BlueHost gets curious and takes a look-see. And then it's game over. Not because of anything to do with freedom of speech. But for the same reason PhotoBucket already told him it's game over. At which point he'll probably make a PHUCK BLUEHOST page, to match his PHUCK PHOTOBUCKET one.

I just hope Judge Chen(?) gets a chance to see his handywork first. Before he gets his own page(?!)

Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Am I reading that correctly? Did the "what hat internet lawyer" want to get paid in pr0n??

"in lieu of payment" – isn't that a hoot?! Even that small section from the middle of page 23 ("though it was odd" paragraph) to the top of the next page, is just chock-full of "Sweet Entertainment"!
Ah, I see W Ross picked up on that now.
I'm still curious what the requirements are for the "hard" job of reviewing "content" obtained from a pr0n competitor, to decide which ones are "legal"??? But hey, it pays $10K/month!
Oh Gawd, I just realized why Chuckles is so jealous of Inman's success…
He showed him the Ultimate "Money Shot"! ROFLMAO!
I'm getting goofy, I seriously need to get some sleep!
Anyways, next up – some tracking info!

LaserGuy • Jul 12, 2012 @3:43 pm Damn, I am tired – everything in "double block" above should be regular text – must not have typed the close tag right. Too bad we can't edit these things.

John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @3:46 pm @LaserGuy:

I read it, I got it :P

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @3:51 pm Assuming the traffic is ACTUAL DOS rather than inadvertant DOS:

If they are proxies, well, all you can really do is get the ISP to shut them down, and if they are proxies, the ISP would want to generally shut them down anyway.

If its individuals, you write a kind NastyGram for the ISP to forward to the customer, explaining that: "Yes, I'm unpopular, but my speech is just as valued as yours. And being a forgiving soul, I'm not going to involve law enforcement, or lawsuits, or anything else like that. But the next person you try this on may not be so kind and forgiving, so knock it off."

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @3:55 pm @LaserGuy Satirical Charles has posted here specifically asking nobody to go after Carreon either by complaining about ToS violations or by DoS attacking his website.

I'd say it was his call, wouldn't you?

Even without that specific statement, I'd say that it was up to him, and him only, if he wanted to complain to Carreon's hosting company about what is said.

I don't see the point in fighting other people's battles for them.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 12, 2012 @3:56 pm No, laserguy, the purpose of Doe v Carreon is to stop Carreon's credible threat of filing a nuisance lawsuit. Carreon put, in writing, a threat to sue SC basically "sometime in the next 3 years, in whatever venue is most inconvenient for SC", on grounds that are bogus and designed to threaten and intimidate SC into stopping speech that Charles dislikes.

Carreon's "Stalking" is really very little different than posting public records about Chuckles himself. We've been a bit more polite about things, e.g. not involving Tara until she involved herself first, but still. Well, Charles's is much more pathetic, less effective, and less funny.

The harm would be if, through DOS or TOS, someone blocked his right to make a total douchebag of himself in public.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @4:08 pm

Site Sucker. Doesn't look like a DoS tool to me.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @4:33 pm's_Link_Sleuth

Xenu Link Sleuth is a program that checks for broken links.

Also a program that downloads websites. Again, these websites were offered to the public for download and there's nothing on them that says one can't bulk download to enjoy later (hell, Tara's library of stolen content is all designed to be downloaded and enjoyed off site, so why can't you enjoy the site off site? (site.)

Gecko does a lot of things but also is not a DoS tool. This one is out of my depth, though.

Seriously, I'm failing to see any evidence of a DoS here at all, just some curious people happening to download the whole thing- which again is the "All you can eat" restaurant thing, you can't offer it then moan when your intended customer takes you up on it.

Anything he posted he was offering to pay for the bandwidth on. The fact that some number of people said "I'll have one of everything" is a consequence of the amount of material (unless he provides better logs that show otherwise.)

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @4:45 pm @Laser Guy, I do appreciate your support in the matter. However remember that the only remedy for speech you disagree with is your own speech. I have chosen to do so satirically and anonymously(up until now). Please join me and create more speech instead of less. I encourage you to talk about his behavior openly, however I am not going to cry to the internet that he is trying to "rapeutate" me. I understand you're angry at what Charles has done, being angry is fine, but using the tactics of censors to fight censors only creates more censors. If you want to help me in relation to my anonymity, please write and complain about their breach of my privacy. If you want to help fight Charles Carreon's behavior, remain lawful and civilized. We can be better than the people we abhor, we need to be better. It's not always easy being on the right side of things, but it helps you sleep at night.

Scott Jacobs • Jul 12, 2012 @5:16 pm Joe, I never say anything online that I wouldn't say to the person's face. With that in mind, why would I ever post under a name that is not my own?

Stuart • Jul 12, 2012 @5:25 pm @ Scott, I think because like quite a few of us we do not have the time to put into fighting a frivolous lawsuit such as this. I hope CC gets his butt handed to him in this case and I hope Inman's lawyers join in.

Robert White • Jul 12, 2012 @5:31 pm Another question is, if the site(s) content pages are subject to frequent editing, wouldn't any web archiving tools be forced to constantly re-spider the site as the content element headers indicated that the changed?

Also, since Carreon et al are known to revise their statements, and make and then withdraw various libels (slanders?) and other actionable speech, anyone trying to document said speech would need to regularly scan "old" material for new or transient defamation.

So multiply revisions per hour times the number of individuals and organizaitons that Carreon et al have variously accused and you end up with a lot of legitimate need to traverse the site regularly and deeply.

Throw on some spectators and any reasonable attempt at archiving and woo-doggy you get a huge and wholly legitimate pool of spiders.

And since the Carreon(s) are likely unable or unaware of the use of "Expires:", and likely cannot be trusted to honor same since their *ahem* "content" is demonstrably unstable, it's likely that their continuously motile segments are causing a huge amount of churn in any and every tracker/archivers.

In other words, given the utter lack of stability of content, they are likely gaming themselves and unknowingly coordinating their own site disruption by triggering each scan anew.

Stuart • Jul 12, 2012 @5:36 pm To me it looks like someone or multiple someones repeatedly copied his site likely due to the amount of edits and hide behind proxies for fear of being sued for just what is happening. The appearance (to CC) of a DoS. I've worked in the industry long enough to feel comfortable saying this was not a DoS.

Matthew • Jul 12, 2012 @5:45 pm Generally, site sucking tools have to be run manually, they don't monitor sites looking for changes.

The exception to that would be the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, but that only indexes sites periodically and I'm sure it's designed to do it in a way that is indistinguishable from normal traffic (they don't need to grab everything as quickly as possible).

And if someone did attempt to get an up to date version of a site they'd already downloaded, only the new stuff would be download, which wouldn't amount to much.

Kelly • Jul 12, 2012 @5:51 pm @ Laser Guy: That was me, or at least I was one of the people who said that. That being said, I have to agree with Chris R, so far CC has only proven how desperate he is. I am a minor player, very minor, in all of this so I doubt either CC or TC would bother with me. If they do, it would be my choice to demand they take down pictures of my children should they post them.

I use my real name here because I highly doubt anyone but Ken and the other site admins would have the information to track me. They would find a divorced mom of four with very little money, who is a nerd/geek, and possibly my student loans. Oh and I'm Pagan and usually declare myself liberal. I haven't done much to add to the discussion except toss out valid Science. If Science scares CC… well then he may come after me.

@W Ross: The Wiki stuff… I thought he claimed to be Mexican not Native American. Or does he claim both and is just more vocal about allegedly being Mexican?

@Scott Jacobs: I second what you said. If people want to be offended by my honest opinion, that is their right just as it is my right to give my opinion.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @6:11 pm And I'm saying he doesn't say what those are stats for, and if it's for a cluster of his sites. Cause again, if there are 60,000 files and a ton of movies and songs and stuff, then 18 gigs of bandwidth isn't really a whole lot to suck (that's like 20 films, depending on the resolution. It's not a DoS amount of traffic.)

So without some context as to what site or sites these numbers are for, they're useless (not to mention we're not seeing a report, we're seeing numbers and information he chose to show us.)

Again, gonna need more before I can say "ZOMG they're RAEPING HIM!"

This just looks like people were reading and checking a lot, and a couple of people used legal tools as they were intended to order the entire volume of the site at once.

That's not DoS, that's more like a digital "black friday."

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @6:15 pm http://censoriousdouchebag.files.wordpr ... -p0087.pdf

SLAAMMMMMMMSSSS on the breaks…


"Mr. Carreon said he had 'his kid's [or kids'] stuff on the computer' and that he had to first 'clean it up.'"

O.o Wut?

Kelly • Jul 12, 2012 @6:41 pm What the heck could his kids have had on the computer that he needed to 'clean up'? That just sounds…fishy… and more than a bit disturbing.

Mike K • Jul 12, 2012 @6:51 pm Just to play (God's?) advocate on that question, he could have meant pictures of his kids or work of theirs that he was correcting for them. I mean the answer that would make the most sense is that he let them use a computer that was meant to only be used for work purposes and was loaded with material that only CC and the company he worked for were meant to see at the time.

Valerie • Jul 12, 2012 @6:57 pm Wow – just returned to the thread after a day away. The crazy just keeps on coming!

Its funny that a guy who sees himself as the champion of the proletariat decides outing someone as an assistant manager at Walgreens is somehow insulting. Its an honest & necessary job – which is more than one can say for Chuckles' career (not law careers in general, just him).

As for the photobucket kerfuffel, I personally wouldn't have complained. The video is a treasure that must be preserved for the ages – but I don't own photobucket, so its not my call. He did violate the ToS.

As for Tara complaining that their decision is somehow unAmerican, that is a bit pot & kettle, given that her husband is seeking to promote an actual law to limit speech. But I don't expect self-awareness or reason to intrude on the Nader Library anytime soon.

If anything, I would suggest we hold an Indigogo fundraiser to make sure they have all the bandwith they need to keep the crazy coming.

Kristen • Jul 12, 2012 @7:00 pm I'm the same age as his kids (there abouts), weren't they adults at the time? I graduated HS in 1999 and from what I've seen his kids are older than me.

That makes it even weirder if they were indeed using the laptop, doesn't it?

John Ammon • Jul 12, 2012 @7:14 pm @Kristen:

That's kind of what I was thinking, they would have been adults or college age.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @7:22 pm Oh come on guys, now you're just fishing in his kid's direction. Uncalled for. Games, word documents, more games, some .torrent stuff, more games, homework. All scattered willy nilly in about 4 million different directories. If his kids were using it wit any regularity, they would have trashed it – (kids would be how old at this time?)

Hell, my personal machine has digital litter all over it, and I'm almost 30.

The bigger question is why were his kids playing on a laptop that is nominally owned by his client and employer in the first place. WTF? Thats grounds for firing anywhere, what with privacy and business concerns.

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @7:30 pm @W Ross, thanks for the tip: ... hypocrite/

Chris R. • Jul 12, 2012 @7:30 pm @Elegy I agree and covered in the above post.

Kelly • Jul 12, 2012 @7:38 pm @ Chris R: I see now what he was doing with the computer… it was just worded in a wonky way earlier. Also, SC's take on scientific process had me laughing and then sighing and shaking my head. Sadly, too many scientists actually work that way.

Kristen • Jul 12, 2012 @7:56 pm @Elegy,

I don't feel I was "fishing in his kids' direction". I was simply pointing out that his excuse is absurd especially considering timing and ages. Nobody should have touched his client's computer is the point. My statement consisted simply of pointing out that his children must have been grown at the time. I do not feel it was out of line.

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @8:24 pm @Kristen
Sorry, that was *not* directed at you, and you weren't out of line at all. And I agree with you, it's a weird excuse, especially if the kids are of college age or older at the time and not around the house. I thinks it's definitely germane that he let the kids use the laptop, and to speculate as to WHY or IF he was making excuses. That's about CC's professional decisions. I apologize that you got hit in the "don't bring up the kids" broadside, not my intentions at all. :-)

Kristen • Jul 12, 2012 @8:29 pm @Elegy

I realized I probably misunderstood your comment after my knee-jerk reply. Thank you for the clarification. :)

Elegy • Jul 12, 2012 @8:36 pm @Chris R

And that's why the interwebs love you, because you're a classy guy. Love the new post. I'm thinking two or three more drcades of humiliation, tops, until he gives up frothing at the mouth and learns to keep a low profile.

W Ross • Jul 12, 2012 @9:04 pm Elegy's right, with the context stuff of the other documents that makes more sense. I was like "In 2005 who are the 'kids'"? but yeah a parent would probably say that about his 30 year olds too. And "clean" can probably be used in other cases too. Probably nothing.

CF • Jul 13, 2012 @4:11 am From Charles rapeutational website during an argument with photobucket. Maybe I'm too simple to understand this whole thing, but isn't this what he is complaining about Inmam and the rest of his "zombies" as doing?

i’m well aware of what the first amendment means, but there is nothing in your tos that says a video may not refer to anyone by name. everyone has a name, that name is public, and their privacy is not invaded by using a name that everyone knows already. no personal information was posted. so you are just inventing excuses to justify a breach of the tos.
when do i get my refund?
charles carreon

Source –

Ara Aranaura • Jul 13, 2012 @8:05 am @Nibor – I'm sorry, I didn't know they had a Wikipedia article (why they even have one?). Scratch all that little paragraph in my post then as it came from a misunderstanding on my part :)

Still, I do think that she has a Ph in what I said due to her "expertise" about the onanistic ways and other Photoshop issues she muster about that same subject *sways madly on her bird swing*.

Argh, typing on a different computer while at job, no good *hides*

Roxy • Jul 13, 2012 @9:03 am I'm not a legal professional, but wouldn't allowing anyone to use the client provided computer containing client documents and correspondence breach the attorney/client privileged?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 13, 2012 @9:56 am I do think its ironic that he got ToSed from PhotoBucket for the same reasons he tried to get Inman ToSed from IndieGoGo, but whoever filed the complaint against Carreon to PhotoBucket is a censourous douchebag worthy of scorn.

Especially since PsychoSanta is so unwatchable that it is incapable of causing any butt-hurt, let alone even Carreon's definition of tortous butt-hurt.

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @10:02 am @Nicholas Weaver:

I'm not suggesting that we support censoring, however, we should definitely support the rights of the site owners, and respect that they wanted it off their site. Because ultimately, whether it was a breach of ToS or not, it's their site, it's their property and if they don't want it there "just because", it's well within their rights to remove it.

W Ross • Jul 13, 2012 @10:05 am They may want to start self-censoring anyway. ... ning-mate/

If Condie is Mitt's running mate, American Buddha (and especially the parts with defamation on them ala "she was bushes' mistress," etc- are about to get a lot more attention than we could ever show them.

Kelly • Jul 13, 2012 @10:35 am @W Ross: If they start self-censoring the fun level will drop considerably.

Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @10:57 am @Nicholas Weaver, your opinions on the matter influenced this: ... on-s-money

@John Adams, Photobucket definitely has a right to protect themselves or their business interest as they see fit. However their Terms of Service is vague and after only a couple days they removed his account and didn't refund him. The lowest photobucket membership is like $29.99 which isn't a lot but but for one year they are charging roughly $.08 per day. So I think it would be reasonable that they refund his money. Had they hosted him for a greater period of time I could understand their refusal, but they are just being disingenuous now.

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @11:07 am @Chris R:

But it is their call, since it's their website. Right or Wrong, it's still ultimately up to them. Should it have been reported? Probably not, but it's at Photobucket's discretion to ban accounts, and as an owner and admin of several websites myself, I certainly respect that. A lot of ToS are written to be vague for a reason, and most give the site final say in almost all matters.

Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @11:26 am @John Adams, I completely agree with everything you said. However Carreon asking for a refund isn't that outrageous, nor would it financially impact them meaningfully to do so.

Mike K • Jul 13, 2012 @11:30 am In my opinion the video does violate the terms. At the least it has crudely drawn penises which would fall under nudity. That being said, the account probably shouldn't be banned for one instance of violation when the video could have just been removed and the user given a warning. They really should give users specifics on why things aren't within guidelines instead of just saying it violates the terms.

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @11:30 am @Chris R:

I agree, a refund isn't out of the question. But again, it's up to Photobucket, he could obviously sue him over it, claiming breach, though I'm not sure how far that would get him… but hey, that hasn't stopped him yet >_<

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @11:32 am @Mike K:

When I'm banning or warning users on my sites, I'll often very specifically quote sections of the ToS, which usually leaves them very little wiggle room. I find it's often a good policy.

Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @11:37 am @John, sorry for misquoting your name twice!

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @11:39 am @Chris R.:

No biggie ;)

Gal • Jul 13, 2012 @11:41 am @Chris: I'd be happy to sign your petition, but after reading's privacy policy they can quite frankly go fuck themselves with a Saguaro Cactus.

If you don't mind a fictitious mailing address (wtf do they need that for anyway?) I'll gladly sign.

T. J. Brumfield • Jul 13, 2012 @11:46 am The astute Ann Bransom wrote a piece asking what happened to FunnyJunk during this whole mess. ... funnyjunk/

ShelbyC • Jul 13, 2012 @12:50 pm "they can quite frankly go fuck themselves with a Saguaro Cactus."

Now there's something you don't do twice.

Nibor • Jul 13, 2012 @12:57 pm @ShelbyC Had to google that one, for we don't have cactus growing in the wild over here, but I can positively say that I think you are right on that one.


Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @1:06 pm @Gal, be my guest.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 13, 2012 @1:35 pm Carreon is Above The Law's lawyer of the month. Congratulations!

Grifter • Jul 13, 2012 @1:36 pm I have a question for everyone defending Carreon's rights to free speech re: Photobucket etc. How does the fact that he's fought so hard against the free speech of others factor in? While, of course, I also subscribe to the “don't like what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it” philosophy, I am conflicted:

A part of me questions why we can't just hold him to his own words. If he feels it's appropriate to make a ToS call to a registrar, why can't we do it to him? If he feels that hosts should be policing speech, why do we have sympathy when the do it to him? Again, I'm not advocating these behaviors, I'm just wondering about what the logical framework is for saying these are bad things to do in light of his stated opinions that these are just fine things to do (unless they're happening to him).

Robert White • Jul 13, 2012 @1:42 pm Having no actual information, I can still suggest that PhotoBucket might be aware of the Internet and have some professional interest in same. It is not unlikly that they became aware of Carreon and his reputation for, among other things, suing people with whom he has previously conducted business.

It is not unlikely that they simply booted Carreon spontaneously after seeing/noticing the word "rape" occurring repeatedly in the referrer link(s) coming into their web site.

That is, given the content and the likely future content, there is a non-trivial chance that -nobody- complained to PhotoBucket at all and they simply chose not to allow themselves to be associated with someone like Carreon.

There is a "natural fallout" to being Carreonesque and that is that people start treating you like the pariah you have demonstrated yourself to be. Businesses are made of people.

As I said, I have no actual information that this -did- happen, but I would find it likely that it -could- happen.

Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @1:48 pm @Grifter you don't remedy censorious behavior by emulating it.

Nibor • Jul 13, 2012 @2:01 pm @Grifter I don't think it's a question of sympaty towards cc but more that we don't want to become what he is.

So disagree with someones actions and then do the same back or agree when someone else does the same action, just is not the right thing to do.

Even if every fiber in your body tries to convince you otherwise, that is human nature at work, but it is the thing what seperates the ones that are more decent from the bullies and douchbags out there

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @2:08 pm @Robert White:

That fits quite well into my "it's the website's business" mantra, doesn't it? :P While it might not be a good idea for people to report him, it's also Photobucket's sole discretion to boot him, they may have decided to do so to avoid having association with him, again, totally their call, right or wrong.

Grifter • Jul 13, 2012 @2:21 pm @Nibor and Chris:

I agree that this isn't about sympathy, nor shall we generally get rid of censorius behavior by emulating it, however, I'm just asking why it is that it is wrong to give him what he's asking for. He's never advocated DoS (and also they're illegal), so that's obviously out, but when he's brandishing certain legal behaviors, can not an argument be made that he'll only learn if the same is done to him, thus showing him the consequences of what he's asking for? Like I said, I'm not advocating it by any means myself, as my default position is always anti-censorship. I generally have to be dragged by my reason or another's towards the idea of limiting any kind of speech whatsoever, and I'm certainly not there yet, I'm just exploring the concept in my tiny, tiny brain.

Nibor • Jul 13, 2012 @2:55 pm @Grifter do you hit someone to "learn" them to not hit others anymore?

As a child maybe, but as an educated grownup ?

So long as he does not violates the law, step back maybe watch and enjoy or start argue with him try to convince him of his errors but respect his freedoms( of speech) also when he does not.

And when his actions become no longer legal hand it over to the lawenforcers

And when impulses are becoming no longer contanable than walk away this makes a

Nibor • Jul 13, 2012 @3:03 pm All the diference between a fighter for freedoms (of speech)

And NO it is NOT fair but in the end you KNOW you did right aldough it dos not always FEEL right, but I repeat myself so I will stop now.

Good night and I will be back soon

Grifter • Jul 13, 2012 @3:13 pm @Nibor:

I lol'd at your example, because I had originally typed it as an analogy, but got too long winded. How funny you'd choose the same concept!

But no, I wouldn't hit someone for hitting, but if they're standing on a street corner telling everyone that they should enjoy being hit, that hitting people is A-OK fun times, I would ask whether someone who hit them to make them experience exactly what they're advocating is really in the wrong?

Again, I'm questioning only the use of his own legal tactics; like you said, he hasn't violated or advocated breaking the law, so those that do that to him are obviously wrong.

And yes, I have done things to demonstrate the error of their ways to grown-ups, when they've demonstrated a consistent stubborn unwillingness to even attempt empathy. It eventually ends something like this:

"Seriously, can you please quit that noise, it's annoying"
"I'll say it again, I don't think it's annoying, I'm not stopping…you should learn to like this!"
"Okay then…(plays equal-leveled other sound)"
"Hey, that's annoying!"
"Oh, is it now?"
"Hmmm…I'll shut off my noise then."
"Thank you very much. (Turns off other sound)"

just_wow • Jul 13, 2012 @3:21 pm Did someone say something about 'begging for clicks?' ... +is+lying/

Ann • Jul 13, 2012 @3:21 pm Not to change the subject, but if anyone's interested I wrote an article over on TJ's site about where the hell FunnyJunk is in all this mess. Kind of an unexplored piece of the puzzle. Would be interested to get your all's thoughts on my sheer speculation: ... funnyjunk/

just_wow • Jul 13, 2012 @3:22 pm The above link is from 2010. It doesn't relate to the current controversy except to show how terribly pathetic FJ and its admin are.

Ann • Jul 13, 2012 @3:25 pm Holy crap, Just_Wow. You and I just crashed into each other's brain waves.

Nicely done.

just_wow • Jul 13, 2012 @3:33 pm lol :)

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @3:38 pm I hereby award an internets to each of you, well done!

Matthew • Jul 13, 2012 @4:02 pm Adam: "Carreon is Above The Law's lawyer of the month. Congratulations!"

I have to agree with that article when it says that these two were robbed: ... lunteer/2/

Just goes to show that there are whole levels of douchebag that the Carreons have never got near.


On the subject of "teaching Carreon a lesson" you either stand for a principle or you don't. Using someone's methods against them is unlikely to do anything other than convince them that you're a hypocrite. Plus it runs the risk of eroding the principle you're supposed to be standing up for.

I'm also slightly saddened by the apparent desire to portray Carreon as wrong in all things. The things he has does wrong stand fine on there own there's no need to twist things to make everything his fault.

Photobucket have the right set whatever terms they wish, but their decision goes against the spirit of the service they're offering. Of they'd done it to someone on the other side of the argument then there'd be universal condemnation, rather than apologetics from some quarters.

I'm sure satirical Charles' hosting company could probably find something in their ToS to shut his site if they wanted to. Would people spring to their defence in that case?

John Ammon • Jul 13, 2012 @4:19 pm @Matthew:

Would it be right if that happened, probably not, but they do have that right.

Robert White • Jul 13, 2012 @5:25 pm @Matthew — If the back-links from Carreon were "" or "" would it be bad for photobucket to preemptively disassociate themselves?

It's bad enough that Carreon is "diluting the Rape™ brand name" by conflating "people said meant truths about me" with "people forcibly penetrated me against my will". It is bad enough that his output is childish and kind-of annoying. It's bad enough that what starts with this is and is known from current example to be likely to end with pornographic slanders of public figures.

Combine all three and how can you -blame- photobucket for just saying "never mind, I'm out".

If you disagree, perhaps you can start "" and sell image hosting just for these sorts of sites. It is clearly a niche that photobucket has chosen to leave open.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:45 pm

PART 5 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery Cont'd.)

Chris R. • Jul 13, 2012 @5:32 pm @Robert White, I don't blame photobucket for removing his account. He has other avenues of free speech as he has proven with youtube. I do think their ToS could be more clear, and I think they should at least refund him. This is not just for Carreon but anyone who does business with photobucket.

Grifter • Jul 13, 2012 @5:36 pm @Matthew:

"On the subject of "teaching Carreon a lesson" you either stand for a principle or you don't"

I do stand on the principle of free speech, but I also stand on the principle that one is responsible for the speech one makes…in this case, the speech directly relates to the concept of free speech.

For example, the Westboro monsters don't advocate the silencing of speech; therefore, trying to silence them is bad for someone who claims to be a free speech advocate.
In this case, Carreon has diretly advocated the silencing of speech, and if I recollect (it's hard to recollect all the crazy!) has stooped to appeals to the authority of hosts (site and fundraising) in hopes they will entertain a perspective on their TOS. While I recognize it's kind of "stooping to his level", my brain has also seen fit to say that it can also be interpreted as holding him responsible. My brain has pointed out that it is saying to him: "You think this is okay, therefore you cannot complain…as soon as you change your mind and say it is not okay, then you can complain". While I understand the idea that "We're better than that", and I wasn't really advocating it, I was wondering if there's a real articulable reason that it's wrong.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 13, 2012 @6:32 pm Photobucket is in business to make money. If they make money by defending free speech, fine, but that's not really the niche they've carved out for themselves. They're an inexpensive place to host images. They appeal to bargain hunters.

Hosting controversial content takes staff time, as Charles' multiple emails demonstrate (not even counting the complaints they claim to have received), and possibly legal costs. If you want your company to have a reputation for defending your customers' free speech, you'll be respected in the industry, but your pricing structure has to reflect the costs that are involved in that business model. Some companies want that market, some are content to leave it to others.

Mike K • Jul 13, 2012 @6:56 pm Grifter, I don't have any sympathy for Carreon for having his video reported for ToS violations either. I wouldn't do it personally because unlike your annoying noise situation I can just ignore him completely if I choose. On the other hand there is definitely a good reason to not stoop to his level since an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. There are times where it's acceptable to do something back to a person, for example self defense. In those cases I don't think the purpose is to teach the person a lesson (psychology shows us that positive reinforcement is much stronger than negative) but more to prevent negative consequences. I could give some other examples, but I'd rather stay away from controversial issues that are unrelated to this situation.

Applying that idea to Photobucket, people complained, most likely for bad reasons (since nobody was particularly harmed by it), forcing the company to at least look into the matter. The company obviously decided that the consequences of not removing Carreon were worse than the consequences of keeping him. Further they decided to keep his money, probably because they know he wouldn't have a case against them and every little bit of money improves their bottom line. I don't agree with the no refund part since he wasn't uploading multiple violations of the ToS or himself being a nuisance (until the banning). I think the fair thing would have been for him to just have his content removed allowing him to keep his account (rendering it a waste of his money since he couldn't use it for what he wanted) or given him a partial refund (he had use of the service for at least a short time so a full refund is a bit much).

Mike K • Jul 13, 2012 @7:24 pm This is barely relevant, but, is the title of his post on the rapeutation site, "Hate eMails", capitalized in a grammatically correct way? I mean to me email should be 'e-mail', but I don't think I've ever seen where it was correct to capitalize mail. I've seen people use other shortcuts like eNEWS, but other than all the i products, seems to be rather rare.

Captain Obvious • Jul 13, 2012 @8:09 pm This is your captain speaking. For your viewing pleasure this weekend we have included a video spoof of Charles here

dex • Jul 13, 2012 @8:21 pm I'd say that Carreon's fall from grace is far, far from tragic, given that he was a minor, silly figure to begin with, and really didn't suffer much of a drop. "Lame" is about the strongest word you can affix to his betraying his supposed principles.

@Captain O

Good stuff.

Captain Obvious • Jul 13, 2012 @8:43 pm Thanks Dex – for some reason it doesn't show up in the window here correctly but you can find it directly on YouTube under

Charles Carreon – Nut

So you can view it in full screen – and then spend the rest of your weekend trying to scrub that song out of your brain.

dex • Jul 13, 2012 @8:53 pm @Captain O

Thanks. Post the link on Reddit for an easy 900 views.

dex • Jul 13, 2012 @9:08 pm Carreon taking credit for the 200k is like the star of a spectacular FAIL video on YouTube claiming that 10,000,000 views of him splitting his scrotum on an iron rail has to do with his incredible screen presence.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @1:27 am @Grifter hi, I’m back sorry I had to pass out for a few hours.

I think that in you comment you put your finger on your sore spot, what if someone is yelling stuff and it annoys you,
1) you can go up to them and try to reason with them but there are many people that cannot be reasoned with.
2) you can start to yell back, but it solves nothing, only get more attention to the yelling and let him spread his message more effectively (Streisand effect)

so what now?

When they are in a public space let’s say a public park (where it is allowed to proclaim/yell)
The best thing is to move on, for it is legal and it is good that there is a place for those in need of yelling stuff.
And we will defend this right so we can use it one day when we are in need of using it ourselves.

Change of scenery now the “proclaimer” is standing in your yard so you go over and tell him not to do so (and in the process probably tell him to go off your yard) if he refuses you call the police for he is trespassing so he IS doing something illegal.

When he would be yelling let’s say in a neighbourhood and it is not allowed to disturb the peace after 11:00pm again you can argue with him or yell but eventually you can call the cops for again he is doing something illegal.

So long somebody is doing something annoying but does not break the law, let them for there can be a time for yourself when you are in need of annoying others.

As far as I read back in your comment you somewhat hesitative but agree with me on this one, you only got a but.

You pointed it out in your comment:
What if someone first, once or even constantly tries to change these rules and make it illegal to proclaim anymore in that park.
Because he has been butthurt by what is said or for he cannot enjoy his sandwich in peace in “his” (public) park as he egotistical wants.

Than he loses that fight, for there are those of us that defend this right to yell in the park (as long as you do not yell for illegal issues like hate, harm, etc..)

Now he goes to the park and start yelling/proclaiming himself that he is being wronged, obviously not understanding that is doing the same thing he didn’t wanted someone else to do.

So you can argue with him even yell at him that he is stupid, but you do not want to go to the counsel and try to get him banned from proclaiming in “your” (public) park, even if he is telling everybody that you should do so.

For there will be some of us, who despise him and disagree with him, standing beside him and defend the right, including his right, of yelling in THE PUBLIC park (as long as you do not yell for illegal issues like hate, harm, etc..) for there will be a day when one of us needs a place to yell.

I thing that you already know this, only your guts is telling you it’s unfair.
I defend these kind of things, so I can sleep at night, knowing that what I did is right, even if it feels unfair at first sight, for in the end I win, I have a clean conscious that allows me to survive/function in this world.

But hey that only me yelling ;-)

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @1:40 am a little note: this is not an attack on you, for you already have said multiple times that you will defend the right of free speech and condamn any illigal actions. I am just trying to explain it a little more as you asked me/us to so the you I use in the text is not pointed at you but more in a explainetroy global use.

Have no clue if sentence above makes sense in english but in my head it sounds right :-)

So Grifter please don't take the text personaly.

Mike K • Jul 14, 2012 @6:23 am Nibor, I'm not sure that analogy is entirely accurate. CC was breaking the rules as interpreted by the admin of Photobucket. It would be more like a guy not wearing a shirt in a restaurant that says "no shirt, no shoes, no service" while trying to shout his message. Perhaps more apt would be a guy in a private place with his shirt off and his message painted all over his body. What the guy is doing isn't illegal, but if one of the other patrons of the establishment complains, the guy would be kicked out.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @7:04 am @Mike K, I think that the admin of photobucket was totally in his right to kick CC of, let me be clear about that.

Maybe their ToS could be a little more clear and I would like it when they refund CC, more in the way of here is your money we don't want it we don't need the hustle.

But that is not what I try to say in my comment here, it is me trying to explain to Grifter (a fellow aspi as I understand now) why you don't go and fight someone like CC with his own tactics although it feels so right to do so.

I think it was stupid of CC to try to post on photobucket in the first place, for the are a less open forum than youtube with higher standards and CC did not do his homework on that one, he kept in character as it where and we are becoming to expect from him.

But I think it is not right that people that are not personally involved/attacked/offended by the video complain and try to get it expelled just to hurt CC, if it was Matt who had complained I would full heartily agree with that.
But trying to stop him with his own means, when you just are annoyed by him (and not really personally involved) for what he has done, is in my opinion just one step to far.

As I said before the admin had the right to expel him, for it is his site, hmmm…. this sounds a little like the thread on the post “Reader mail”, for whatever reason he thinks is appropriate.
But NOT because he is “forced” by others who only want to bully him to do so, that is the difference I tried to explain to Grifter.

Gal • Jul 14, 2012 @8:33 am @Matthew: I disagree that the Easters were robbed. To my mind, the Easters are horrible people who happen to be Lawyers. Carreon is a Lawyer who used his standing and education to attempt to extort money and undermine the principle of free speech by wielding the court system as his own personal cudgel. And when that backfired he undertook further efforts to deny satirists their right to free speech, while attempting to deprive the ACS and AWF of charity money in the process. And when that fell through he began another campaign against free speech with his ridiculous proposed tort.

Sure, the Easters are ahead of him for "citizen of the month" but "Lawyer of the month" is all Chuckles.

Mike K • Jul 14, 2012 @8:45 am I think I understand what you're trying to say better now. You're talking about in general doing what to CC what was done to him. I think it still misses that little bit of ambiguity. Maybe the better analogy would be a someone renting an apartment that forbids pets and keeping a cat. Now if you or I visit that apartment, we don't particularly care or need to know about the rule against pets. It's only between the landlord and tenant. The only time it would be appropriate to report it is if the person kept a violent pet that caused problems. Does that example fit a little better with your idea of the situation? I mean, it's premised on a different set of rights, but it seems appropriate. If CC is breaking the ToS of any service he's using, to me that adds a bit of ambiguity to the situation that's missing from the yelling in the park example. As a stranger, it's still not right to report him for it, unless he's causing or is likely to cause harm.

Grifter • Jul 14, 2012 @8:59 am @Nibor:
I don't feel attacked. I'm getting exactly what I asked for; thanks for your thinking!


I had a whole thing typed up as a response to Nibor, but I like your analogy a lot so I'm going to run with it.

Apartment doesn't allow pets. Person A (PA) complains about every pet owner to the management, and is just generally a jerk. Then PA buys a cat. Is it wrong (as opposed to petty) for one of the other tenants to report him, and does it matter whether they were one of the reported pet owners or not?

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @9:06 am I can not follow it entirely, but yes I think it is fitting better to CC's specific situation now, where the yeller I tried to use was more to explain it in a globaly way for that was what Grifter was asking if I understood him right.

In your annalogy I am missing the part where you want to tell the landlord abouth the pet, not because the pet is hindering you, but because you just don't like the man, one of the reasons you don't like the man is that he is complaining to other landlords that tenants in their building's have pet's, independently of they are alowed to have pets or not.

When you include that in your analogy it would fit this specific situation, I gues

But again I think we are saying about the same and see eye to eye but my bad english and my autism is making it hard to get our points across.

Also I got the feel that there is some emotion/resentment on your side that makes it a little harder to get my view, this is totaly normal for my brain is diverently wired and I am very limmited on the emotional side of things.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @9:08 am @Mike K. I see Grifter gets it better than me :-)

Grifter • Jul 14, 2012 @9:13 am @Nibor:

I don't have an emotional investment or hatred. I was just thinking about whether it was wrong if someone did it (again, as opposed to petty), and couldn't come up with what I thought were satisfactory arguments against. I was taking "wants to make his life unpleasant" as a given motive, with the reasons for that not necessary.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @9:24 am @Grifter hmmmm, Is it the "not wrong" is not the same as "right" debacle where we are puzzeld about? I used "we" because I struggel a lot with that question all the time.

Grifter • Jul 14, 2012 @9:36 am @Nibor:
That is a good question.

To me there are good things, bad things, and neutral things. Neutral things are things that you can do, that you have every right to do, but that aren't ethically "good" (helping orphans cross the street) or ethically "bad" (punching orphans in the mouth). Walking down the street is neutral; you have a right to do it, and if it gives you pleasure, have at it. Actively trying to stop someone by force or its equivalent (as opposed to argument to the person) from doing a neutral thing would be a "bad" thing.

I don't think one can argue that one is doing "good" by whining to Carreon's service provider, so that's out. My qustion was, if it gives one pleasure for amusement, lulz, or from a sense of satisfaction of ones dislike, is it an ethically "bad", wrong, thing to do.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @9:46 am @Grifter Yes in my world (of value's) it is wrong ethically, it is bullying, again as far as my values to which I live go.

A better choice of words would be, I find it wrong, independently from if it is or not.
This will be different for everybody, as usual with ethical questinons.

Grifter • Jul 14, 2012 @9:49 am @Nibor:
And to me it is wrong too…but what I'm asking fundamentally I guess is is it wrong to hold someone to their own ethical standard.

Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @9:57 am @Grifter As long as that is not conflicting with:
your own ethical standard, if you ask it yourselve,
mine own ethical standard, if you ask me,
the group A owns ethical standard, if you ask the group A,

so there is no defenitive awnser for as far as I understand it.

Mike K • Jul 14, 2012 @9:58 am Nibor, for the most part I would say we agree. Part of my thinking was that it didn't seem to completely answer what Grifter was asking and that as an imperfect analogy it was missing the elements needed to answer his question.

Grifter, I think that probably depends on the reason you're doing the whining. If it's being done because it's fun, it probably still fits in the neutral category as long as it doesn't do any real harm. If it's being done in an attempt to hurt a person (whether it does or not), then it might slide into bad.

I was thinking back on something said way earlier. It was mentioned that CC's right to free speech obviously wasn't violated by the reports to Photobucket because he immediately found an alternative. Would his rights have been violated even if every video hosting site, website hosting service, and ISP didn't allow his content? I'm still thinking no, but such a thing would definitely limit his speech.

Jess • Jul 14, 2012 @10:12 am He still has Youtube as a channel for his videos and rants – and he certainly uses it. So do others and there is a video parodying Carreon posted under Charles Carreon Nut. If there is one thing I have to fault Capt. Obvious on, it is that I can't get that song out of my head – damn you Captain.

Grifter • Jul 14, 2012 @10:20 am @Mike K:

"video hosting site, website hosting service, and ISP"s are different things. Hosting sites have the right to stop you from doing things they don't like; it is my understanding that ISPs can't unless its illegal. I'm sure (to be hyperbolic) that both the KKK and the Westboro monsters have phone lines; as a utility they must grant access. And ICANN would have to give him a domain. But it is conceivable that if every hosting provider in the world said no, he'd have to host it himself.

dex • Jul 14, 2012 @10:41 am ... re=related

Holy God

Ann • Jul 14, 2012 @11:07 am Jesus. Can someone transcribe the first part. All I heard was "pterodactyl" up until Psycho Santa, which is, once again, stuck in my head.

dex • Jul 14, 2012 @11:16 am Charles and Tara are like whackier, eviler relatives of this couple. I thought of this scene when Tara described Charles doing a cowboy accent in court, and it was obvious he was reading over her shoulder actually correcting her as she wrote.

Joe • Jul 14, 2012 @11:31 am @Ann – if you want to get the Psycho Santa ditty out of your head try this one on Carreon

John Ammon • Jul 14, 2012 @12:06 pm @Mike K:

If they're all private sites, they have the right to refuse service, for any reason, they don't have to guarantee anyone free speech.

It's like when you walk into a store and you see a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service". It's the same principle.

Tali • Jul 14, 2012 @12:34 pm @dex
HOLY HELL! What is this…I don't even…
This is worse than karaoke night at the pub…

@Ann I've been trying to figure out what he's saying, and no matter how many times I listen to it I can't make out more than a few words (like "Seattle apartment" and something about "Rosemary's Baby")

Tali • Jul 14, 2012 @12:42 pm Ok, I've listened a little more (why the hell am I doing this?) and I'm pretty sure I've at least got the gist of part of what he's saying.
I think he's asking if anyone is carrying Matt Inman's baby. And if so (Then he says something I can't quite make out about calling operation rescue) and that that woman better deliver the baby because it might turn out to be Rosmary's baby. Then more unintelligible bits then something about "you never know it might just be the apocalypse rolling out of your hips"


Nibor • Jul 14, 2012 @12:52 pm @Tali please be carefull we don't want to lose you to the darkside.
Know it is not all real and do not walk towards the darklight, it is a trick.
If they offer you cookies please turn around and run what ever you do, run and don't look around.
From that moment on all we want is please stop watching and listening to that thing.
Be asured it will go away, it will only take time, maybe al few elctro shocks but you will be alright. ;-)

Tali • Jul 14, 2012 @1:11 pm @Nibor
lol I'll be careful (famous last words)
I figure as long as I am only trying to figure out the words he is speaking and not actually trying to rationalize/understand what he means by those words.
And I know better than to accept his cookies (or promises of dinosaurs), but its good to know electrotherapy can be used to cure any side effects of Carreon over-exposure.

Ann • Jul 14, 2012 @1:29 pm I noticed Matt took the Bear Love thumbnail off his homepage. The pages are still there, but the thumbnail is gone. I wonder if that was a personal decision, an attorney recommendation, or a girlfriend inperative. He really does probably need to be careful of the crazy, especially given Tara's history with firearms. O_O

dex • Jul 14, 2012 @3:23 pm Charles Carreon is bald, broke, pushing sixty, and married to a slightly creepier version of Minnie Castevet. (It isn't hard to imagine a crookedly lipsticked Tara delivering drugged foodstuffs to her neighbors in the hopes of rendering their bodies inert and fecund for the reception of Satan.) Matthew Inman is young, fit, rich and good-looking; somehow I bet your warnings go unheeded, Charles.

n o 0 n e • Jul 14, 2012 @4:21 pm @captain obvious

i love that song! leroy pullins is ∞ times better than musician CC on every day of every week in every month until ∞. i realise that the resulting equation = ∞, but there you go.

in the video you have anonymous poster spelled as "anonymous poser", slight difference in meaning there, but ultimately quite fun!


AlphaCentauri • Jul 14, 2012 @4:57 pm dex • Jul 14, 2012 @10:41 am ... re=related
Holy God
In case this ethical discussion wasn't enough to convince us we don't want to lower ourselves to CC's level ….

Chris R. • Jul 14, 2012 @5:26 pm Cray gonna cray.

Kristen • Jul 14, 2012 @5:31 pm The first 32 seconds of that video (all I could get through) made my brain sad. :'(

I couldn't understand a word he was "singing". Somebody should tell him the microphone is not supposed to be *in* his mouth.

Captain Obvious • Jul 14, 2012 @6:14 pm Noone – thanks – that was actually deliberate. Poser as Satirical Charles is posing as Charles. But good catch.

n o 0 n e • Jul 15, 2012 @3:48 pm @captain obvious

well done then!

Mark • Jul 15, 2012 @5:26 pm Interesting. Seems that the Nader Library have been fighting DCMA notices. Notice the dates on those emails.

Wil • Jul 16, 2012 @10:20 am I suspect there might be quite a few more, once someone gets wind of their MP3 links. I think that they are really twisting the meaning of "library" as well as the associated code. Since when is HTML "difficult to copy"? Most browsers have the capability of copying a webpage and following links to grab associated pages. Although I have to say that the tactics of posting still shots from movies with text as a "video" is…creative…and reveals someone with way too much time on their hands.

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @11:11 am I'm not sure how it's difficult to copy either. You either highlight everything, copy into word processor, and done; or you save as html and bam, you have something instantly viewable in any browser and many word processors.

Interesting how you mention that the posting of stills and captions means someone has too much time. That's what Charles said of all the "hate" email he got, since people could have spent that time saving puppies or other random things he thinks are important (which he could have done instead of wasting time responding…).

I'd think that responding to all of those requests was why it was taking them so long to create their new site/video, but they're pretty much cookie cutter responses and should have only taken a minute each to send and possibly another minute to take down the content. I was wondering how they decide what color to make the pages. Clicking randomly on the links in those letters led to similar pages with widely different background colors.

W Ross • Jul 16, 2012 @2:08 pm

OK, does it actually count as speech when you don't say what you plan to, and just show a blurry picture and explain what you INTEND to do? Cause it's one thing for Charles to out people; he's due that. That's the game.

But now he's putting up vague pictures/paragraphs about people he MIGHT do it to in the future (presumably unless they become quiet) and has actually (jokingly) asked for their domain.

Is that legit?

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @2:33 pm He didn't actually hide the guy's identity though. The file has his full name and the tool-tip has his full name. When I read it, the only thing he said about what he was going to do was an offer for a trade (probably joking), so it should be fine still.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @3:41 pm He's an internet specialist, of course he hid the guys identity!

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @4:13 pm Not sure whether this is projection or idle/vague threat.

"I think you should be humble, Matt. Move to a third-world country, get another name, another face, and accept the fact that you have LOST your reputation in America.

It's sad, but true. Matt Inman will never be the same. His life is ruined now. He'll be lucky not to commit suicide. It's that bad. It really, really is. His life is OVER!"

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @4:27 pm Anyone else amused at how surprised TC is that more people noticing you means more people complaining about your behavior and more people requesting that their copyrighted materials are taken down? The language she uses in one of the latest posts is somewhat amusing to me too, but then that's because I don't swear, usually. I am curious to know who complained to their ISP (and what was complained about), since I strongly doubt it's the person she claims it is.

John Ammon • Jul 16, 2012 @4:28 pm Adam, is that CC or TC? I'm leaning toward TC because of the level of obvious crazy present.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @4:28 pm Adam, ZOMG! That means Tara has rapeutated Matt! It is all so clear now.

Grifter • Jul 16, 2012 @4:35 pm @Nike:

Obviously, it must be Matt Inman, since no one else ever has ever had a first initial M, nor has anyone ever used an initial that was different from their own! Duh!

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @4:36 pm @John It's TC.

She's also alleging that Inman himself complained to their ISP and signed his email with "M."

John Ammon • Jul 16, 2012 @4:44 pm Well, who else could M mean?

Morbo, Mentok, Malificent, Mongo?

Nope, must me M for Matt.

Solid logic.

Ann • Jul 16, 2012 @4:50 pm I'm pretty sure "M" stands for "Multiple". As in, one of TC's many personalities complaining against the others.

It is really tragic that the Carrions do not have ONE outside friend or family member who can get them help. But more terrifying that CC is in a position to litigate against ppl.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @4:51 pm John, unfortunately this who debacle has had nothing to do with logic :)

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @4:54 pm For some reason I'm starting to wonder if the Carreons are being paid by Inman. They have to be the best thing that has ever happened to his profit margin. Heck, they almost convinced me to buy something from his store, and nothing there particularly appeals to me.

John Ammon • Jul 16, 2012 @4:57 pm Ann, I've met people like them before, they don't have any outside people because I'm fairly certain (if the Oregon Buddhist debacle is any indication) that they don't know how to keep friends… unless they're as schizo as Tara, but even then, I'm sure that's just a powder-keg in itself.

just_wow • Jul 16, 2012 @5:02 pm @Mike K

This actually hasn't been his biggest traffic spike of the last 6 months.

A few other sites on the other hand are probably seeing their biggest traffic spikes ever.

Mark • Jul 16, 2012 @5:06 pm It's interesting that they take down the material from one site (Nader Library) due to the DMCA notice but still have the gall to link to the same content on another site (American Buddha) from the very page that contains the DMCA counternotification! Boy, these guys like to cling to every bit of technicality they can find, apparently.


Endless popcorn. Endless.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @5:14 pm John, unfortunately this who debacle has had nothing to do with logic
Suessian Slip, who debacle. Lol.

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @5:38 pm At least it's not a Whovian debacle. Those get messy.

Christine • Jul 16, 2012 @5:53 pm TC says: Since Matt Inman has NOT DENIED that he dresses up in girl's dresses and acts like a girl, and spices his sadism up with pedophilia, we can only assume that these accusations are true. The law says that a reasonable person, when accused of a crime, if he does not deny it, is assumed to be guilty of those crimes.
Now, not a lawyer myself, which law says that? 'Cause I see big 5th Amendment issues with that logic…

Robert White • Jul 16, 2012 @6:00 pm @Ann — The most likely reason to take down the bearlove thumbnails and primary link is that the campeign is over but new visitors are probably kvetching about not being able to participate.

I am put in mind of the dying kid wants postcards problem where once the beast is out it is hard to kill.

So I would suspect that Inman leaves the pages up for reference and completeness, but doesn't want the unwary, particularly the cross section of same who cannot read well enough to see the end date, to pester him with "your link to indiegogo is bad" emails etc.

No lawyer or girlfriend pressure required, just a spam filter and the average rate of human gullibility and/or me-too-ism.

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @6:01 pm Hm. About the whole DMCA, legalities aside, does it seem like copyright should be the way that it is?

It seems to me that the individuals who created and perpetuate the current legal standards regarding this topic are not doing so with any regard for objective reality.

Stealing is wrong, as a moral imperative I think many people (though I am certain not all) can accept this.

Sharing is good – many children are taught this from childhood. It is probably rooted in a more abstract "empathy is good", which is a benefit to us a species.

Sharing and stealing are not identical. Fabled Robin Hood did not share with the rich and poor – he stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Even as someone who creates intellectual property as a means of sustaining myself (though to be fair, software for legacy database migration is not all the rage in BitTorrents) I think that my employer is reasonable to expect that whatever work they pay me for, I will not give away or resell to another individual, corporation, contractor, et cetera.

I think they are also reasonable to expect that whatever work they pay me for is either entirely my own, or uses appropriate licenses (either purchased or GNU GPL).

I think it is not reasonable to expect end users to be bound to silence about the specific product (either figuratively or in the case of a few companies I have contracted with, quite literally).

What is worse, to me, is the notion that they can own a configuration of bits on an individuals hard drive – and that the reproduction or transmission of that configuration, for private use, is equivalent to the theft (and thus deprivation) of a physical good.

So, even for someone so obviously disturbed as Mr. Carreon, I have sympathy to his attempts to share works we he found enjoyment of. I, too, like Phillip Dick.

That Clans of the Alphane Moon is included in the request is just… appropriate.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @6:17 pm The package arrived! …. and was promptly thrown in the garbage, unopened.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @6:19 pm @Christine there's an evidentiary rule that allows you to construe silence as an admission, but it's in no way applicable to this situation.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @6:27 pm Ben, I think copyright can be abused when it comes to fair use principles. However I think entire replication of a work is unfair. I also don't see the claim that because they are a nonprofit that calls themselves a digital library how that makes the reproduction of multiple works fair. Or should all creative work be licensed under a creative commons license in your view?

Robert White • Jul 16, 2012 @6:27 pm Isn't throwing away the package unopened instead of forwarding it on to his clients a failure of his duty as council to FunnyJunk?

I mean -we- can't complain about it since it wasn't duty to us, but it was still done.

Looks like one or more Carreon jumped up and down on the package several times and tossed it about before discarding it. That is a sure sign of victory immortalized forever.

Tantrum box!

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @6:28 pm Robert, you beat me to it.

Mike K • Jul 16, 2012 @6:31 pm The sticker says it was received in damaged condition. The tossing it away without looking at says quite a bit about the person that threw it away though.

John Ammon • Jul 16, 2012 @6:39 pm Wouldn't it be ironic if there was actually money inside, as a "I feel bad for you" token from Matt >_<

Robert White • Jul 16, 2012 @6:45 pm Looking again, I imagine not the jumping up and down…

Two haggard hands reach out to the shiny red and white package thinking the latest purchase has arrived, or perhaps the renewal of an all important mood stabilizer from the long-term care pharmacy.

The shaking hands read the address and become confused since it is hand written. The eyes verge upwards slightly to take in the sender's city… and then the dreaded name.

A spasm contorts the withered frame crushing the side-walls of the rigid mailer beyond its endurance. The walls colapse outward into the sweaty palms as thumbs press ever inward on the most hated name.

"He did it. I can't believe the bastard actually kept his word." the gargled voice mutters.

The box goes flying, as if with a mind of its own. The girzzled hands flutter innocently.

The postal worker has seen this scene play out before, here at the will-call window. She backs away slowly and retrieves the crushed and dented box.

The Carreon speaks, aloud this time. "This box is damaged! You ruined this box!" Its the only thing the befuddled mind can find. It knows that, having had it's way with the box all will know of its unthinking rage.

The postmistress sighs, this too is not new. "Yes, this was -clearly- our fault" she says, "see, now you have proof". She gently affixes the "received in damaged condition" sticker. It is all she has to offer to stave off the irrational storm that is likely to come. It's part of the local postal mythology, it's just something that needs to be done. 'They' must be blamed, and now, before the wrath and the spittle-laced invective boils out on upon the souls of the more sane. "Nobody can blame you now, your honor is safe… They will never know… 'They' clearly did this to your package."

The Carreon creeps away, mollified by the tiny sticker and the $20 sheet of "forever stamps" so newly acquired just before the advent of the hateful box. 'With these stamps', The Carreon muses to itself, 'my words will be immortal. The Nader will hear me forever…'

Mark • Jul 16, 2012 @6:52 pm Oh god, that unopened package is gold, pure gold.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @6:55 pm It says it was received in damaged condition. I wonder if that was a final FU from Inman.

As for the not forwarding it to FunnyJunk, it's entirely possible Carreon asked FJ what he should do with it and they just kind of shrugged.

Should've auctioned off the drawing itself for charity.

Robert White • Jul 16, 2012 @7:11 pm @Adam — There probably isn't any original drawing to be worth auctioning off. A copy printed from your computer is likely just as original if Inman uses an electronic/computer image editing program to do his drawings. (It looks to me like he does, as they don't have that post-scanner feel to them.)

So it would be the act of sending the printed copy through the mail that would make it "the real one" and only Carreon or FJ would then be entitled to do the auctioning.

Of course, once the box was mixed with regular common garbage it would be up for grabs, so an enterprising trash guy, or a johny-on-the-spot could score a true original if they wait for the trash truck and were allowed to fish.

Of course if this was pulled from, or placed at, a "dumpster" then it's already common garbage…

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 16, 2012 @7:32 pm @Robert: I wouldn't run the risk of going near that property without a bullet-proof vest.

One that preferably doesn't say "FBI" in big letters.

Captain Obvious • Jul 16, 2012 @7:36 pm I am quite put out that I am not on the list of Rapeutationists. I mean I put out a multi-media video about Charles Carreon being a nut and post it on YouTube and – - – — – - nothing. They must be too busy counting jellybeans – obviously.

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @7:48 pm Chris,

I do not think that people not being compensated should be subject to copyright. Imitation is an important tool in learning and communication. What people see as being "fundamentally different" between recreating a painting (which is a classical standard of teaching 'artistic composition' – a subject which I have, despite my attempts, not been able to fully grasp) and recreating a copyrighted, digital image is actual just a matter of scale – if we accept that technology reducing the work required to achieve a thing, does not intrinsically alter that thing. For example, whether we use an automated wheat thresher or a more antiquated method like winnowing with a scythe and a bowl, either way we end up with the grain and no chaff. One way is just more efficient.

So, really what people object to is the pace that current technology sets – and the ease with which intellectual property can become disassociated from it's creator. Nobody has a problem with someone remembering a song and singing it to themselves – or even singing it to friends.

There can be no real doubt they have taken that set of stimuli, stored it in their memory and then proceeded to recreate it.

But when we involve 'technology' then 'magic happens', as in;

Person A generates an ordered set
Person A broadcasts ordered set
Magic Happens
Person B receives ordered set
Person A owns person B's copy of that ordered set

I think, perhaps, we have confused somethings owner with it's originator. Another, more concrete example would be if I made a chair.

I make a chair
I give you the chair
You make a chair like my chair
I say I own the chair that is like my chair

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @7:50 pm Ha!

First line definitely could have been composed better. Feel compelled to clarify;

I think individuals not engaged in commerce should not be subject to copyright.

W Ross • Jul 16, 2012 @7:51 pm Holy flipping God. HUGE UPDATE on the Nader library thread. 25 DCMA notices.

That's game. If they fight that, they're broke. Checkmate, Charles. Strange game… the only way to win is not to play…

W Ross • Jul 16, 2012 @7:58 pm Also, when does this become actual defamation?

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @8:05 pm I like how she is equating cartoon violence to real people with dicks in their faces.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @8:10 pm Ben, I don't think we are on the same wavelength, so I am having a hard time understanding your view. Do you think that once something can be reproduced by another person the idea is no longer restricted for reproduction? So as long as I can retype any work that is composed of text, it is then mine to give away? If then that is the case, how do we as a society support the artist and creators? Are they to labor to enrich my life for free or just personal satisfaction?

W Ross • Jul 16, 2012 @8:17 pm She pulled mention of Paul Levy off too. Bit off a bit more than you could chew there Tara?

Robert White • Jul 16, 2012 @8:45 pm @ Chris R. — Side note. As a society we supported artists and creators for countless generations before copyright. We didn't "create rock stars" before copyright. We didn't make crap-tons of money off artists and creators before copyright.

But then again, why should spending a year in a studio creating twelve songs -pay- -more- than spending a year doing any other job.

If work product were the basis of proper compensation we would pay the descendants of brick-layers every time someone stood on, over, under or near any structure they laid brick for.

I am -not- against copyright. I love my words. I would like the ability, should my words ever really "get out there", to control who can butcher them and how much, and maybe get some green folding applause if someone were to take my words and turn them into some hollywood blockbuster. (not that I'm holding my breath).

I also like that copyright lets me put out software under the GPL so it cannot be used unless the user agrees to share the proceeds of my work and their work on just as I shared my work with them.

It is, however, ridiculous to imagine that maintaining the copyright on Happy Birthday (the song) is in any way likely to make the two long-dead women who wrote it rise from the grave and create more work.

It is also ridiculous for each participant in the work of creation to imagine their variations on the eternal stories get to claim ground without acknowledging the existing ground they used in their advance.

DRM is RIGHT OUT since it doesn't just evaporate the moment the copyrights actually expire, so the things so locked are technologically encumbered in -excess- of the rights granted by copyright.

In terms of non-commercial copying… I am of the "so what" school. I think copyright should be a "no butchering" and "no bogarting profits" protection. But I don't think it should be a decades long license to toll for literal reproduction or "sampling" . Yea, a tricky line to draw. But a line I think should be drawn.

The idea that our culture, the songs of my youth, the songs of my today even, are not mine is ridiculous.

It is the structure of the law, and common sense, that what is made by the mind alone, and then communicated to another mind, is a public good. That we -artificially- grant back to the creator particular exclusive rights is a reward and and a thank you.

When I write, which I do, I -don't- -own- those words. Not really. Not if I show them to people anyway, because once I do that those words, if they have any value, belong to those people too. They couldn't divest themselves of them and give them back to me if they wanted. "What has been seen can not be un-seen" is a truth, not just a meme. So once I set my words free they are not mine. They are not "property". They can not be stolen or borrowed. They are contagion.

People have been writing and creating music since the dawn of time, and pretty much for the pure applause. When we as a society decided to give the artist a chance to live on their effort, largely because we don't need them out plowing the fields these days, we didn't promise them luxury or a lifetime's earnings for "pop goes the world."

The record RIAA's charter says they exist -solely- to promote the distribution of music. Well guess what, it distributes itself these days. Why haven't they declared victory and left the field?

They are profiteering douchebags. PERIOD. They are redundant and need to be laid off.

See all the short arguments are too short. The long of it is that everything you have been raised to expect of fame and fortune and the production of the arts is less than a century old. It is starting to topple since the means of production has finally re-caught-up with the means of distribution. Music used to be all live, and it was only worth the cost of the one ticket each. Music got to be almost all recorded, and that was expensive. Now that it isn't expensive any more to record or distribute, the temporary disparity is dead.

The law just hasn't caught up to this microscopic 100-year oddity and its necessary demise.

Artists aren't -supposed- to be block-busters. It's bad for them. It inflates their egos and then you get atrocious "solo projects" and bald trollops falling out of limos.

This money for art thing is an effing disaster for the arts -and- the money.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:46 pm

PART 6 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery Cont'd.)

Wil Hutton • Jul 16, 2012 @8:46 pm Ben, what you're talking about is distribution of a copyrighted work. It doesn't matter if there is commerce or not; it's physical or digital; or it's taped to a balloon. I feel that the copyright holder should have the right to say how a work should be distributed; Penguin is in every right to tell the Carreons to remove the works that they published without permission. However, I also take a slightly different tack on copyright issues. I feel that the duration of copyright should be defined to a reasonable period of time (say, 25 years) and after that all works should pass in to the public domain. No reprinting, re-releasing, renewing, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. The litmus test there is, of course, availability to the public – the day that your work is introduced to the world in a mass format, the clock starts ticking. During that time, the copyright holder enjoys all of the protections that copyright holders currently do – including the right to distribute the work. The reason for that is I feel overly long (currently, effectively infinite) copyright duration hurts free exchange of ideas. I do not feel that short term control (such as preventing someone from digitally distributing a work while it is in print) does the same harm. However, there are copyright holders out there that had, at one point, made a work available but have no intention of ever letting their work see the light of day again. They hold it close to their chest, forever out of print, and resist any attempts to resurrect it. I've seen this with roleplaying game publishers; I've also read that the large majority of recorded music is kept perpetually out of print by the record labels. To me, that's cheating society. Now of course, I'm not a lawyer and it might not be feasible for copyright to work that way, but hey it's my little pipe dream.

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @9:09 pm RW, I don't disagree with anything you said. I think copyright is broken, I don't think distributors should be the ones who own it. I think creators should be owners if anything. I also agree with Wil that there should be a time limit that can't be renewed. However I do see initial flaws in your relation to the past. In the past there where no mediums other than live performances for music, publishing wasn't wide spread, and paintings were created once and sold. However today people want their own copy, to play/read/view at their choosing. In the past an artist controlled where they performed music etc. and if they wanted to charge for that, they could. If I want to control a piece of art, music, or literature (as to view/listen/read) for myself, I think it's fair that I pay for that right. Really to fix the system, we would need to make it so copyrights weren't transferable. I also agree that digital locks like DRM and "licensing" software is an abuse of the whole system. I am pissed that I can't play Diablo III unless I have internet connectivity in fact. I still think that I should pay for a copy of it though, if I want to play it.

azteclady • Jul 16, 2012 @9:18 pm @ Ben I don't think copyright works the way you think it works.

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @9:31 pm Chris,

I am indeed saying that an individual should not be constrained in what patterns they can communicate or to whom.

Because, in the end, that is all that a copyrighted work is, yes? A pattern

As to paintings – imitation has a long history, stretching back to antiquity – the distinction our modern society seems to be one of accuracy and efficiency.

We reproduce these patterns passively – just through observing, memorizing and cogitating upon them – yet, when we use technology to augment our natural faculties, some nondescript event transpires to make it wrong.

Ownership of physical things is also exclusive – it is the reason why theft is even a problem. If one could copy your neighbor food, without depriving them of food, would that be wrong? Is it wrong to copy the way that your neighbor stacks and orders their food?

Claiming ownership of a configuration of binary digits, to me, seems preposterous. At most, I believe we should be able to claim some right to any concrete value that they add, which is why I think that copyright, in any form, ought to apply if and only if it concerns commerce.

W Ross • Jul 16, 2012 @9:33 pm @Ben So I write a book. Then you give it to everyone. How do I write for a living? Should anyone who does anything that can be replicated just quit, or should they work for you entirely for free?

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @9:43 pm AztecLady,

Perhaps I do not. I understand it to be that when you copyright a composition, in this case of a book, you are being given the exclusive rights of an ordered set of characters, as well as a combinatorial set of ordered sets, consisting of any of the component members therein.

So if A writes book M{n0, n1, n2…nx},
B 'buys and reads' M{n1…nx}
B writes L{M{n1…nx}}
Person B gives person C L{M{n1…nx}}

Then person B has violated person A's 'copyright' because he has reproduced – at least in part – M{n0… nx}.

Am I incorrect?

Chris R. • Jul 16, 2012 @9:47 pm @Ben, maybe you misunderstand the issue above (if not, I apologize). On the sites that are being issued the DMCA notices, they reproduced in full the works in question without modification other than how they are distributed and are allowing people to read them with unfettered access. There is no building upon the works or sampling thereof.

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @9:51 pm W Ross, well, a more realistic alternative would be a 'crowd' patronage model.

People like your stories, they pay you to write them a story. People appreciate your music, they fund your composition of a song. People enjoy your painting, they commission a painting.

With crowdfunding sites as they are, this would seem to me to be a model that more closely approximates the reality of what is happening. Owning a pattern is as patently (hehe) ridiculous as owning the representation of that pattern that occurs in our own, biological memory.

Ben • Jul 16, 2012 @9:59 pm Oh, sorry.

No, I understood that they had added no value to the works, just reproduced them (So in the previous example person b would be writing the set of all elements on M into L, instead of just the elements n at one to n at x).

I was just meaning that I do not think it is correct to restrict access to information and ideas, like that.

But then, on an anecdotal note, I got annoyed when I visited Yale and I had to get special written permission to enter the stacks.

And that was purely physical and exclusive (and also, in hindsight the policy was enacted for a completely reasonable goal – student guests had previously carelessly ruined several valuable documents).

So perhaps my views on copyright are colored by a deeper conceit that "All information should be made readily available to me!" That's what my friend surmises from that episode, anyways. :)

John Ammon • Jul 16, 2012 @10:07 pm @Ben

As someone who regularly "creates", I'm very protective of my work, nothing infuriates an artist more than someone trying to pass off your work as theirs.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 16, 2012 @10:25 pm Wow, I can't believe they're throwing out the package unopened, after all this publicity. Auction it on eBay unopened. Considering what people paid for a grilled cheese sandwich that looked like Jesus ….

The page of "hate emails" on rapeutation is a hoot. He's equating a courteous email explaining why he doesn't have standing under California law to bring a suit against the fundraiser with a one-line email saying, "fuck you and rot in hell, assturd." There are just no filters in his frontal lobe at all.

I'm sure the neuropharmacologists of the world would love to know exactly what combination of recreational chemicals produced the Carreon family.

Jeff S • Jul 16, 2012 @10:27 pm 10 bucks says they just set the package there, snapped the photo, and then greedily opened it like a 4 year old on Christmas morning.

Narad • Jul 16, 2012 @11:14 pm Claiming ownership of a configuration of binary digits, to me, seems preposterous.
This is a very odd thing to say in light of all the set-theoretic posturing. You're basically claiming that it would be "preposterous" for anything that is representable to be owned. Your very noggin is under the Bekenstein bound.

Wil Hutton • Jul 16, 2012 @11:57 pm Okay, this is way-past-bedtime-dewombing day-Newcastle-induced rambling. For thousands of years, artists have been fostered by the wealthy, who owned the works once they paid the artists. The idea that before permanent recording of non-tangible works (or the ability to take photographs/copies) this was somewhat different is post-R.U. Sirius "information wants to be free" crap (to me, cyberpunk is 1990s hippy stuff and I *like* cyberpunk) – the only things that "society" owned were those that were so widely disseminated, such as folk songs or legends, that there was no value in controlling them. Artists need to eat, and much wealthier people who wanted pretty things made that happen. To whit, someone -a publisher, a recording company, a rich investor – paid or loaned real cash monies for an artist (the Ramones, Philip K. Dick, Andy Warhol) to produce an artistic work. While, in a philosophical sense, that work is "society's", the investment that the "patron" put into it should see some kind of return. Whether it was 500 years ago or now, that means controlling how that work is reproduced. Just because you *can* distill that work into a bunch of 0s and 1s and distribute it far and wide, doesn't mean you or anyone else *should* be able to do so with impunity, any more you should be able to walk into an unlocked house and watch their cable (which is the proper analogy – nothing is stolen, but do you really want strangers in your house using your stuff?). Conversely, something that winds up worming its way into the collective societal subconscious – say Nine Inch Nails or Star Wars- deserves at some point to be liberated from the patron's grasp (the record label or George Lucas) and placed into the hands of the public domain, because honestly after long enough time has passed if they're still holding on to it they're being greedy douchenozzles. Plus, by the time it's gotten to the point that everyone knows the meaning of "It's A Trap!", it's very difficult to argue that George Lucas has any real control over the work anyway. The idea is to strike a balance between balancing the creator's, or the rights holder's, interest versus that of society at large with the weight toward the right's holder at the beginning with an increasing share going toward society as time goes on.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 17, 2012 @12:41 am @AlphaCentauri: to be fair, he does say on the page that he's including emails that made him think.

How those are "hate" emails is beyond me. That 90% of unsolicited comments and emails on the internet come from feral children who somehow managed not to electrocute themselves while typing out obscenities (and the other 10% consisting of constructive criticism or spam) is not a novel observation.

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @12:47 am "Your very noggin is under the Bekenstein bound."

Hm? Most systems, save for a gravitational singularity, lay 'beneath' the Bekenstein bound. That is why it is used, as a computational upper limit within a given region. If my noggin' was one of the relatively few examples of a system above such a theoretical computational limit, I think we would all be in a grave amount of peril. Oh the heat I would radiate!

As to "You're basically claiming that it would be "preposterous" for anything that is representable to be owned."

No that is not the claim put forth, because a set is not it's powerset. They share combinatorial elements, but not the same mathematical identity. Let us examine more closely;

We will start with a supposition that I hope we can both agree to;

A car may be owned.

What people might call 'common sense', yes? (Unless, I suppose, one object to private ownership… Or just private ownership of cars.)

Well, a car can certainly be represented by something – it can be represented by a symbol or ordered set of symbols (as a word) it might be represented by diagram, a schematic, or even a set of information that represents it down to the quantum level :D

We still both agree that the car can be owned, regardless of our ability to represent it, yes?

So, suppose now that we have a massive garage, with a massive number of light switches in it – and that each light switch's state could be used to adjust the subatomic state of a space within this massive, magical garage.

If that individual then takes the garage he owns, the light switches he owns and proceeds to flip the light switches, one by one, to precisely reproduce that car – can he be said to have deprived the car owner of his car?

I would hope we can agree that this is, tautologically, not the case – because he reproduced it. Our original owner still has their car, but there are now two cars; originator and perfect facsimile.

Sweeping out further, has our magical garage deprived the owners manufacturer of something?

Certainly we might say that the manufacturer is deprived of 'potential business' – yet just as certainly we could say that another manufacturer would deprive them of 'potential business', should they create an entirely different car.

We might say that another manufacturer creating another car is intrinsically different – a car manufacturer should own all of the representations of their car, all of the ways that it might be recreated. By that account, they should own the representation that occurs passively, in our own little magical garage in our 'noggin'.

The previous loose set theory/literary analog demonstrate that while I may own an instance or object, I may not (or should not reasonably allowed to) own an abstract construct (or the results of it's independent reproduction).

Nibor • Jul 17, 2012 @4:03 am @Ben I can't say I fully understand all you are saying but I am getting the idea that it is intellectual property what is hard for you to grasp because it is not physically to grasp.

It is not a car, a book, a song where the problem lays it is that car, that book and that song.

Coping that car is wrong, when you make a car that is not a copy or a close copy (and what is close copy is a huge debate often fought in court see Apple v Samsung), that is perfectly okay.

You made an analogy about a chair, let’s use that one:
A. You designed (new unique design, so not a copy of existing design) and made a chair
B. You give/sell the chair to someone
C1. He/she makes a chair (no problem)
C2. He/she copies your design and makes a chair like yours without your permission (problem)

And you don't own that new chair, you own the design of that new chair. (it is not a physical thing)

It is not a chair that composes the problem here, but it is the ungraspable thing called idea and design that is baffling and hard to get for me too (my mind suffers some of the same problems as yours does, as I understand, not that I am suffering by the way ;-) ).

There are things that can’t be copyrighted like a chair, a car, a song or a book but if you make/think/design a unique one that design/idea/concept is your property (as long as you don’t sell the right to it on to someone else, like a publisher or a company you work for and has it in the contract that everything you make/think off in their employ is their property ), and you choice by who and how it is spread and if you earn from it or not.

However I can use a photo or a part of a text and use it to comment on the original and that is fair use, but if I sell or distribute a copy of something without the consent of the owner, than I’m wrong,

There are people that spread their ideas/designs and give (on forehand) everybody permission to spread it, use it as they see fit, copyright free material. (This makes it more confusing for someone like me what is allowed or not).

Am I making some sense to you Ben?

Side note: over here in my country a library may loan books, CD’s, etc. but they first have to buy these themselves, what if the stuff on the Nader Library are copies (not owned by N.L.) itself would that be an problem ?

W Ross • Jul 17, 2012 @5:40 am @Ben See that's the thing though. YOU don't want me taking your car and walking off with it, cause it's your shit that you worked hard to acquire. But when it's my shit, you suggest "Maybe crowdfund it, cause I'm gonna steal it!"

That's an entitled point of view. I spent my entire life filling the contents of my head to be able to write, and years practicing, getting rejected by publishers, and a million other things. Then I offer a royalty free PDF for 99 cents so I don't over burden people with rights and shit, and so they can move it from device to device.

I've done all that, and you've… uh… logged in. And presumably clicked a button.

You're saying I shouldn't even get a lousy buck, because "information should be free, dude?" People like you are why Newton held back manuscripts for years and years rather than releasing them… because he didn't want his life's work to be stolen.

W Ross • Jul 17, 2012 @5:48 am @Ben And I also want to say… cut the bullshit. You want shit for free, all your enlightened nonsense is a way you trying to morally talk around the fact that you're taking a contrary position because if a small number of people in society do that they can be significantly enriched by doing so- you're not a philosopher.

You're taking a large quantity of things that aren't free and stealing them, then saying "My way is better, look!" the way someone driving down the shoulder to escape a traffic jam does. That whole position is illusory, however, because if the world was just like you, the traffic jam would exist on the shoulder too.

It's only a working philosophy because a small number of people decided to say "fuck the rest of society, I'm getting mine" and if EVERYONE was as selfish and entitled as you you'd end up with far less entertainment content (and especially video games- PC Gaming is nearly dead already because of piracy.)

Simply put, you can be an asshole only because the vast majority of us choose not to be. If we were as selfish and entitled as you seem to be, the whole system would collapse under the weight of apathy and sloth.

But no, you're totally an information warrior of the new digmillenium.

W Ross • Jul 17, 2012 @7:18 am ... funnyjunk/


John Ammon • Jul 17, 2012 @8:38 am @W Ross: Based on how he forms his arguments, I'd take a bet that Ben is a math guy, in that instance I could somewhat understand his stance. People who have never created anything have a hard time understanding why we artists are protective of our work, they often don't understand the effort, time and emotional investment in a creative work. As a designer, it's a constant battle for me, proving to my customers that my time and my work is paying for. It boggles my mind that people can love my work, but then have a hard time paying money for it >_<

John Ammon • Jul 17, 2012 @8:39 am is worth paying for.*

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @8:40 am Wow, talk about the Streisand effect…

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @8:46 am More hate emails posted on

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @9:52 am John,

I create intellectual property for a living as well. Not to my own specifications (that did not work out) but to an employers. I am not an artist. I sometimes like artwork. I rarely enjoy it enough to purchase it, though I have an acquaintance who likes to go to galleries.

W Ross, so then, reproduction must by necessity be theft. yes? I consider theft of a car to be bad because it deprives the owner of all the functionality his car. I consider replication of a certain string of binary digits to be the purpose of a computer. It seems to follow that claiming that I own any such bits arranged in that sequence would be attempting to deprive the owner of his computer, or at least partially of it's use. I do not perceive this to be 'philosophy', though I suppose that like most things it can be discussed as such.

It is not really germane to this discussion what I do and do not engage in, but I personally do not participate in any of the peer-to-peer file sharing. Not that I believe it is unethical, but that our culture as a whole disagrees with me. It holds little benefit for me yet runs the risk that I am, in fact, wrong. Which when a viewpoint is opposed by society-at-large, seems to often be the case.


I believe that I do understand you. You believe that an idea can be owned, yes? I would contend that the only way in which an idea could be effectively owned is through utter secrecy.

Chris R. • Jul 17, 2012 @10:35 am Ben, let me clarify a point then, since I'm trying to understand. Lets not compare cars to music. If someone steals a book from a store is that theft?

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @10:40 am Yes.

John Ammon • Jul 17, 2012 @10:45 am Ben, it seems like your biggest sticking point is digital vs. physical. In your mind, are digital creations, "ones and zeros" less valuable than "physical" creations like books and cars?

They take just as much time and effort to create, the fact that they're digital shouldn't give them any less value or worth as an item that can be stolen.

Valerie • Jul 17, 2012 @10:51 am Man, just when I think they've understood the Carreon (excuse me Strisand) Effect, they return to delight. I am very much looking forward to this creation TC is advertising at the moment:

"I'm going to have to do a picture of Matt as Rudra. It won't be pretty, what with horses and boars entering his rectum and three skulls. But it will be accurate. "

"It will be accurate." Fucking priceless.

Chris R. • Jul 17, 2012 @10:52 am Ben, ok. Is it because the cost of producing the physical book, shipping it, etc?

Jack Cass • Jul 17, 2012 @10:57 am The comments about Carreon's vocals on his "song" made me think of this ... _keyid=249

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @10:59 am Yes, I concede that a physical book and corresponding .epub that I can get on my Nook are of equivalent value to me. (Well, probably favoring the value of .epub's, actually – they are both cheaper and they do not take up shelf/storage space. But in the sense that they both provide the same core benefit.)

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @11:04 am Chris,

It is not. People may value things for different reasons. The store owner may value the physical book for it's ability to feed his family, or for it's importance to society, or for the labor that went into it's production or any number of other reasons.

Stealing is wrong because resources are limited and it deprives another person of the use of that thing. It impedes our ability to decide what is crucial, what is luxury and what is superfluous.

Nibor • Jul 17, 2012 @11:08 am @Ben yes if you would live in a world where there is no ownership you are right but Apple would be not the compagny it is if that was true for we made laws that say a idea/design/song/story are considerd propety although it can not be held in your hand, the work put in to them is awarded with ownership even if it feels wrong it is the law and almost every designer writer creator and majority of people agree

Nibor • Jul 17, 2012 @11:17 am @Ben you are correct about the limited resources but this is also true for authors for there are not many real good ones and they would stop if they would not be payed so in a twist you agree

Only you did not see original creators as a (limited) resource but they are

Chris R. • Jul 17, 2012 @11:21 am Ben,

It impedes our ability to decide what is crucial, what is luxury and what is superfluous.
I agree entirely, which is why I am against file sharing. Just because I can have it all, it doesn't mean I should. A world without pursuit, would be unimaginable to me. Choosing how to spend your resources gives the expenditure meaning in it of itself.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @11:24 am @whoever said this was game over from all the DMCA notices

I don't think so. Tara has explained American Buddha's response to DMCA notices. It goes something like this:
1. Tara receives a DMCA notice
2. Tara says "eff off, I'm a library, if you don't like it sue".

I'm not sure where she said this and I'm typing on my phone – I think it was when she was talking about Inman NOT sending a DMCA notice to FunnyJunk first. Can anyone provide a link?

My point is, is that IF these DMCA notices aren't pure harassment by anonymous trollers, Tara's position is that she is within the law and you'll have to sue to get the content removed. I see this resulting in two outcomes: either she doesn't get sued, because who wants to step into this rats nest of insanity, or we have lulzs for years following the court cases. Either way, I doubt she'll he removing all of her copyrighted content anytime soon.

Ben • Jul 17, 2012 @11:50 am Nibor,

Huh. That is an interesting way of viewing it. You are not owning a specific ordering of ones and zeroes, but instead purchasing a more ephemeral quality along the lines of "a portion of the originator". A property that a physical craftsman may not, necessarily, imbue into their work.

I will have to contemplate that for a time.


Simply because one can does not mean that one should. I agree, might does not make right. Yet, as humans, we cannot help but reproduce thoughts in our acts of communication (thus Dawkins' meme theory).

To me, it would appear that the resources involved are the processor, the memory and transmission method and electricity. Since the work is not consumed by the act of copying, it is not a limited resource.

So, the instruments used all belong to private individuals acting privately – they do not prevent others from having access to an idea. In fact they increase it.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @12:06 pm Found it – and it appears I've misquoted her:

"HE NEVER SENT EVEN ONE DMCA NOTICE TO FUNNYJUNK, which means that Funnyjunk wasn't responsible to do EVEN ONE LITTLE THING for him and his content. In the law, there's something very important: it's called "NOTICE." You can't prosecute a person without NOTICE. As the ABOL LIbrarian, don't expect me to take down your content without DMCA "NOTICE." And a letter or email doesn't qualify; a DMCA NOTICE has to be in the proper, legal form. Those are the REAL Internet Rules."

So, sorry Tara, but I SWEAR I read somewhere on you site that you routinely ignored DMCA notices because you are a "library".

Laura K • Jul 17, 2012 @12:09 pm Elegy…wow. And here all this time I've wondered what kind of weird shit is in the Vatican library…Tara would make it look dull…

John Ammon • Jul 17, 2012 @12:17 pm What's a "Notice", is a "notice" something other than a type of message? I wasn't aware that "notice" was a delivery method. o_O

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @12:37 pm They are putting DMCA counter-notices, which, according to the Chilling Effects site means the following:

If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

So, indeed, they are saying "go away, I'm a 'library'; if you disagree, sue me."

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @12:50 pm @Mark

Interesting. Is that confirmed (first hand knowledge) or just a likely assumption?

So what happens If you file notice, receive a counter-notice, and fail to sue? Obviously the content goes back up but if it's still a violation, can you turn around and provide notice again, at a later date, or does the infringer now have right to your content by default?

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @1:16 pm Here's an example of NaderLibrary counter-notice

As for the details of the DMCA process, I have no idea. The Carreons seem to be experts on this, though.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 17, 2012 @1:18 pm One thing on Tara's counter-notices being "go Sue Me": She's remarkably hard to sue, and everyone who might sue her knows it.

Penguin vs The Carreons is still tied up in the court of appeal on purely jurisdictional issues (namely, can they be sued in New York. And I think Charles Carreon is right on the issue: their connection to New York is so tenuous to be irrelevant.).

Thus in order to sue Tara on this, the copyright holder really has to sue in Arizona, or perhaps Oregon or California, and Oregon and California would be something they'd fight but might lose ("American Buddha Inc" is still an Oregon company, and you can make a very strong case that legally, Tara == Charles, and Charles has the CA bar connection).

Beyond that, Charles will fight, for free, forever. Once its clear that they will lose more than $X, the incentives for them change from "oops, me bad" (Carreon v Inman, Toyota, debt collectors, etc) to "I'll fight forever". And since the copyright judgements are not in the $10K in legal fee range, but in the $100K+ range, Carreon will fight to the end as he's doing in Penguin v American Buddha

So in order to smack down a site which is irrelevant, no loss of revenue, and not even a good example to make for others in the "Don't do this or get crushed category", the content owner would have to

1) Hire local council

2) Break the corporate veil to target the Carreons themselves

3) And then try to extract enough value to cover their costs against a judgement-proof, pro se opponent…

So if a copyright holder wanted to sue the Carreons, and not get stuck like Penguin in a jurisdictional morasse, it would be talking tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to get, uhh, absolutely F-all.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @1:23 pm Apparently the Carreons actively file counter-DMCA materials, and were involved in a case against the City of Ashland over Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terror Land". So there's one instance.

Here's the counter-notification: ... ATION2.pdf

Here's the collected case material, up to the appeal:

Don't know if this stuff has been floated to all of you professional kibitzers on Popehat – if it has, I apologize for the repost.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @1:28 pm @All

Any knowledge of the Carreon's filing of counter-DMCA notices should be directly attributed to Mark, not me – he's the one who pointed it out in the first place.

Wasn't trying to steal your thunder, Mark. Sorry. :-)

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @1:32 pm I don't have any thunder to steal. All I did was a simple Google search. :)

BTW: the concept of having a freely available digital library is new to me. I would expect a library to have at least a membership requirement before allowing users to view the books. Anyone else know of similar sites?

The closest that I know is the Gutenberg Project, but it only carries books in the public domain (or otherwise copyright-free).

John Ammon • Jul 17, 2012 @1:33 pm So the solution to avoid being sued for copyright violation is to be a poor-as-dirt, stubborn lawyer with a tenuous grasp of copyright law?

Mark • Jul 17, 2012 @1:34 pm To correct my previous post: actually they (NaderLibrary/American-Buddha) do have a membership program, but it is not enforced when you attempt to "check out" the books.

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 17, 2012 @1:40 pm John: Yeah, and not be doing the same infringing activities that a lot of other (bittorrent) users are doing, so it isn't worth making an example out of you.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @1:43 pm @Nicholas Weaver
My reading of this whole DMCA ordeal, to the "T". I might point out that interjecting a much larger issue into this case – how and how much a library is allowed to reproduce online – is a brilliant defensive strategy, because it will stretch the legal process into YEARS as it moves up the chain of courts in appeals, etc.

In this case, the Carreons' reputation as a bat-shiat crazy litigatious douchebag will actually serve him well, because any copyright holder will weigh the costs of tangling with this guy legally, for YEARS, over REALLY STUPID interpretations of well-understood laws and back down immediately. The only people that can afford to really

@John Ammon

So what I'm saying is: yup, you nailed it in one.


Well I didn't even know there was such a thing as a "counter-DMCA notice", so yeah, you still have some thunder. :-D

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @1:45 pm Erk, that should have been:

The only people that can afford to really tangle with the Carreons are the big publishing houses with lots of in-house legal representation.

azteclady • Jul 17, 2012 @1:48 pm Can a number of people whose copyrights are being violated by the nader library and/or the american buddha site file some sort of class action against them? If so, would that reduce the individual expense to the point where it would be worth the effort?

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 17, 2012 @1:51 pm Elegy: Actually, that doesn't help too much. Penguin v American Buddha smacked down the "We are a library" bit very early on. Things like Carreon's gross misreading of the DMCA and California Charity statutes don't last very long.

The tie-up on Penguin v American Buddha is much more about "does Charles do enough 'business' in New York to be sueable in a New York court". Well, if people actually bought his book, he might not survive the appeal. Which, to my mind is unfortunate, because it means that basically anyone who ever sold anything online to anybody can now be sued in any state for the sole convenience of the plaintiff.

(that Carreon is notorious for having done the opposite: rushing to the courthouse in California to slow things down in a case where both sides were in Maryland, is just a bit of irony on the top…)

Nicholas Weaver • Jul 17, 2012 @1:52 pm erk: Being a big publishing house doesn't help, they need local council: Thats probably why Penguin is fighting so hard in New York rather than just going "eh, whatever" and moving the venue to Arizona.

Elegy • Jul 17, 2012 @2:00 pm @Nicholas Weaver

Obviously, I am not a lawyer – thanks for the correction. :-D

Chris R. • Jul 17, 2012 @2:04 pm Ben, thanks for clarifying your point of view numerous times. I think I can now sufficiently say that while I respect your point of view, I disagree with it. I do not think ideas and actual bodies of work are the same. I have many ideas, I act on few, and invest substantial time in fewer.

Wil • Jul 17, 2012 @5:16 pm Ben, I think your disconnect from most other commenters (Chris R., myself) is that we distinguish between the idea and the expression of that idea. You are right – ideas cannot be copyrighted and once they are out in the wide world, they can't be controlled. However, the specific expression of an idea – whether it be a book, a painting, or a song – is completely unique to the person that created it. When another person copies the expression of an idea down to the last detail – whether it is through analog or digital means – they are effectively giving the middle finger to everything that the creator put into that work. There is no part of the work that you can point to and say, "This came from a childhood memory, this was a profound thought." The work and the creator are intimately linked in a way that goes beyond the idea itself, and that link manifests from how the idea was expressed in choosing specific colors, words, or notes. Because of this, simply copying a creator's work with no regard to the wishes of the creator because you think that it should be allowed deprives the creator of something less tangible than money or use – but doesn't make it any less of a theft.

And hopefully I haven't gone full Donna Barstow…because obviously there are limits. ABOL goes above and beyond, seemingly based on a flimsy interpretation of what it means to be a "library". Barstow goes off the rail by calling any and all "copying" theft. The sane solution lies somewhere in between the two.

Mike K • Jul 17, 2012 @5:36 pm I'm shocked after reading through the emails that Charles posted. I would say most of them were rather polite. I imagine that most of the emails he actually got weren't polite, but so far calling them "Hate eMail" seems a bit extreme.

Christine • Jul 17, 2012 @6:49 pm After reading some of these "Hate" E-mails, I have to agree with you Mike. There are some rude ones in there (those can usually be told by the subject lines or fake E-mail addresses, without having to read content) but some of them are either asking for clarification or giving advice of the "quit now before it's too late" variety. If you're looking for a great one specifically, I enjoyed page 24, from Shannon in Seattle. I kind of want to send her a thank you note for the laugh!
Also, at, the song that's just been put up is wonderful.

W Ross • Jul 17, 2012 @7:30 pm


Kelly • Jul 17, 2012 @7:37 pm @ W Ross: That is the best 'version' of that song yet! I am still laughing. :D

W Ross • Jul 17, 2012 @7:59 pm I think somebody just "served" Charles Carreon. According to the rules, "it's on."

McNugget • Jul 17, 2012 @9:47 pm I continue to be amazed that no one has taken issue with him being FJ's DMCA takedown/ notice guy. Is it reasonable, after watching his response to Inman and his response(es) to the DMCA takedown notices served on him and his wife at their personal sites, to expect *anyone* to be comfortable mailing him and and asking that their work be removed from FJ? I would love to see another artist contact him specifically about their uncredited work being used on FJ and see his reaction. it just seems so illogical to allow someone to be your legal filter who refuses to remedy any situation. He's just going to refuse to take things down and threaten lawsuits or tell them if they want it gone they need to sue, just like he's doing now, and I just can't see how using that as your blanket response helps FJ or anyone paying him to be their DMCA takedown notice guy.

Hughhh • Jul 19, 2012 @5:06 am All due respect to Bryan Durel (AKA "admin" at FJ), I don't think he had any idea what kind of person he was engaging when he initially asked CC to write that fateful letter to Inman. Durel probably typed "DMCA internet specialist attorney" into Lycos or HotBot, and CC's name popped up.

In short, I believe Durel operates with very limited financial, technical, social and mental resources.

Sidenote: Y'all have been hilarious, insightful, informative and thoroughly entertaining throughout all X parts of this sorry tale. As my man Andy Kaufman would say, T'ank you veddy much!

Ann Bransom • Jul 19, 2012 @7:17 am Quick update: all the money from LLB's Delicous Oatmeal that Might Have Been has been donated to the two charities. ... t-and.html

I know many of you here donated, and I just wanted to say thank you SO MUCH. Let's keep fighting the good fight against censorship!

Ann Bransom • Jul 19, 2012 @7:18 am In other news, Tara is promoting Oestia on Nader Library.

"It's only for the really smart people." ... 3dc969e438

Tali • Jul 19, 2012 @6:57 pm Congrats Ann! I'm so glad you were able to raise so much!

n o 0 n e • Jul 19, 2012 @10:24 pm when did a TOS get approved? i remember seeing this community shouting down such suggestions as well as making suggestions to the Carreons about how to improve their sites in order to fight such attacks. any way, those Carreons. . . Cray Cray!

FROM TC on July 19 — "Charles told me that he found himself on the site today, looking for something about someone, and he found a discussion of whether they should attack American Buddha Online Library with a TOS complaint, and they agreed that they would. They think they are going to determine all of our lives by group concensus. They are a bunch of wannabe Communists. I went fo find the reference, and it was just so very, very horrible, like being with a pack of wolverines or hyenas, it was so very, very ugly, I had to get away! I couldn't get through Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus! Trilogy, either, for the very same reason. It was too ugly."

damn, what a liar!

Hughhh • Jul 19, 2012 @10:29 pm If only Tara would provide a link to said reference, we could all know what she's talking about. Or maybe not.

Hughhh • Jul 19, 2012 @10:42 pm I forgot to mention earlier — for those trying to decipher CC's "singing" on the YouTube video linked by dex — that the lyrics are on the front page of

Psycho Santa, Qu'est Que C'est , Fa fa fa fa fap FAPFAPFAP

Hughhh • Jul 20, 2012 @12:14 am TC has ninja edited her most recent post (quoted above by no0ne) to splice in images of and references to "hungry ghosts" and George A Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

They said they had gone over every aspect of our life with a fine tooth comb, looked at our house on Google earth, checked our tax records, property records, and history of lawsuits. Like they were just going to eat us up.
[image of the movie poster]
Her post now concludes with this:

Strangely,, and all of the sites associated with Matt Inman, are professional gossip/slander sites that accuse OTHERS of gossiping and slandering! Everything they are guilty of, they accuse others of doing. It's sick, and aberrational, and not at all funny. They FEED off of people's hate.
They examine every issue very crudely, and then declare victory in their analysis.

Hughhh • Jul 20, 2012 @1:34 am And now we have an actual new post. Watch out, easily-identifiable Mike K, you Internet terrorist, you!

I guess you'll have to ask David Wynn Miller the answer to that profound punctuation question, Mike K. I hope it doesn't keep you up at nights! I think you should ask Matt Inman to do a nasty cartoon series on dashes and no-dashes, because he knows EVERYTHING about grammar, and then all you Internet terrorists can be schooled properly about THE WORD.
If anyone's wondering, these late night transcriptions are brought to you thanks to my significantly non-US-related timezone. :) I'm not sure Tara can cite the same as her reason for being up at this godly hour.

Joe Pullen • Jul 20, 2012 @5:52 am Popehat is a "professional gossip/slander site" – who knew?

M. • Jul 20, 2012 @6:04 am What the fuck is she blathering about? Tara, please go back to your anti-psychotics. They miss you very much.

PLW • Jul 20, 2012 @6:16 am I'm pretty sure it's a thoroughly amateur gossip/slander site.

Valerie • Jul 20, 2012 @6:45 am I think TC and CC have basic reading comprehension problems. Its pretty clear to me that the majority of voices on this site did not support TOS attacks or any attempt to silence their crazy, crazy voices. A few people did, but a majority stood firm for freedom to make yourself look like a wack-job. I think there was more support for copyright holders to enforce the DMCA, but that as someone pointed out, unless someone is willing to engage with this litigious crew for a very long time, that is not likely.

In fact, I believe that Satirical Charles created a petition requesting that Photobucket refund the Carreons' money (not sure if it was Satirical Charles or someone else, but the top of the petition has Charles on a Dino with a rocket launcher, so I am assuming it is). ... on-s-money

Thorne • Jul 20, 2012 @6:45 am Oh, and really… we "feed off of people's hate"…??

I think it's pretty clear we all feed off of Tara's batshit insanity.
It's the only other constant in the universe besides hydrogen.

Valerie • Jul 20, 2012 @7:10 am @ Thorne Yup.

and Tara, if you come back to this site, I would point out that we are not the ones shooting videos like Psycho Santa and photoshopping penises on our "enemies" pictures (I do wonder if you have a Nixonian enemies list of rapeutationists).

The records people looked at about your husband and your family were public information. Don't start suing the universe if you don't want people to look for evidence of past malfeasance and hypocrisy. You have a website full of pirated material, crude propaganda, and other assorted strange shit. I imagine very few people knew or cared about the site until you & Chuckles decided to file a baseless lawsuit because your feelings were hurt. And then they called you out.

I mean come on – you posted crap about Matt Inman's mom who had literally nothing to do with the matter. Why? I can only assume because you are a vindictive nut job who can't see that doing so is fundamentally different from looking into Charles Carreon's colorful legal history.

One last thing – you cited exactly 1 example of a so called grammar Nazi here. You might find a few more. They are not the majority & they are not similar to Jared Longer, so please don't waste the SPLC's time writing an email to an organization that has better shit to do than listen to your weird-ass conspiracy theories.

Step away from the computer, put on your tin foil hat, and everything will be ok. But if you want to keep publishing nonsensical junk and inviting ridicule, that's cool too. Just have an iota of self-awareness.

Valerie • Jul 20, 2012 @7:17 am Also, when you say, "Charles told me that he found himself on the site today, looking for something about someone," can I assume that is an individual you wish to add to your rapeutationist enemies list?

—Your Illuminati Friend and Hungry Ghost (damn I could go for some ribs right now…

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 20, 2012 @1:06 pm Well, at least Mr. Carreon was finally able to find himself.

Mark • Jul 20, 2012 @3:52 pm Judge Chen ruled that Carreon v Inman and Doe v Carron are not related. ... 4.33.0.pdf

(Thanks to whomever is keeping us updated via RECAP)

W Ross • Jul 20, 2012 @4:05 pm Tara, we know you're reading this and nobody cares or is scared of you. Something real happened in America today, and nobody cares about your attention whoring or moron of a husband.

Today is not the day for someone who likes firing a gun at people to run their mouths. More important stuff is going on.

Thorne • Jul 20, 2012 @4:16 pm "Awakening", by Tara Carreon

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who was actually a secret Illumnati stooge
Blah-blah… Buddhists….
Something… something… Conspiracy…
GodDAMN, my poetry's fucking awful.


Mike K • Jul 20, 2012 @9:27 pm Wow, I don't read her site or this thread for a couple of days and I'm accused of being a grammar nazi. Too bad she missed the part where my question was on capitalization rather than punctuation, especially since it's fairly obvious from the comment she quoted that I consider both 'email' and 'e-mail' acceptable.

Since she was worried about my sleeping habits I should let her know that grammar has never kept me up at night. The thoughts that keep me up at night are typically fantasy or work related because I have trouble shutting down for the night.

Valerie • Jul 22, 2012 @1:02 pm And the latest cray-cray is:

"Matt Inman's cartoons are probably funded with our tax dollars, like all those war games the Pentagon makes for children."

You know that box you can check on your taxes so $1 can go to the presidential race? I would love it if there was a similar box to tic to subsidize comedy (although, one could argue that funding the presidential campaign already does that, at least as long as Stewart and Colbert are on the air).

S. Weasel • Jul 22, 2012 @1:08 pm Sorry if this has come up before, but I was just browsing cheap Kindle non-fiction and ran across Charles' bibliography. It's quite extensive.

No, I wasn't tempted. Not even for the bargain rate of £.77 per title.

Mike K • Jul 23, 2012 @1:44 pm Any chance of a translator for her recent series of posts? It's as if I asked what color the sky was and got an answer of "Purple monkey dishwasher". It almost seems relevant at first, if wrong, but quickly takes on the appearance of random nonsense.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:46 pm

PART 7 OF 7 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part X: Philanthropy > Douchebaggery Cont'd.)

Grifter • Jul 23, 2012 @1:59 pm So I hadn't checked the TC craziness for a bit. On doing so:

I would like to apologize for even bringing up the subject of TOSing, since obviously just bringing it up is sufficient for Tara to think it's being advocated.

For the record: I was just looking at it from a perspective, and looking for a cohesive response to that perspective. I was never advocating (Dammit, I know better than trying to be defensive to crazy, but nonetheless I am).

Also: the irony of her copypasting The Elements of Style is hilarious.

Mark • Jul 23, 2012 @2:41 pm I really have no idea what she's saying, but I haven't wasted too much of my time trying to understand it either.

I find I funny though that they (she?) can't leave that "COME HURR AND LOVE MEEEE" picture alone. Just goes to show how f'ing PISSED they (she?) must have been when they received that letter in the first place.

Mark • Jul 23, 2012 @2:45 pm BTW: CC apparently removed all references from the Oatmeal from his site.

Patrick • Jul 23, 2012 @4:30 pm Carreon is right that there isn't much room for legal redress when you draw the ire of the internet. But for most people(who don't have law degrees or substantial resources), there just isn't much room for legal redress. Period. Internet mobbing is one of the few ways that the law can be exploited for the benefit of regular people, rather than the many ways that the law is exploited to people's determent. (e.g. threatening frivolous lawsuits, patent and copyright bullying, lobbying, and escaping prosecution through application of expensive lawyers and legalized bribery.)

I guess that, in this context, Carreon's behavior makes perfect sense.

Mark • Jul 25, 2012 @9:42 am TC is still fuming about all this ordeal. Impressive the amount of hatred in her. Now she flat out confirms one of the theories that circulated on this forum a couple of posts ago.

AN EXCEPTIONAL, HEROIC, OFF-THE-CHARTS, ABSOLUTELY UNHEARD-OF lawyer would be one who took a hit for his client, like Charles did. He completely took all the heat in this matter in order to protect his client. And to stand up for women. There was no way he was going to get out of doing that, while he had ME as a wife. I don't let my husband bend over and take it in the ass from no sadist Internet punks! Go and rape some other man, you perverts.

John Ammon • Jul 25, 2012 @9:48 am Man, they really feed off each other's cray cray, don't they?

Yeah Tara, Chas is a "hero"… like all men who have the integrity to sue charity based on butt-hurt acquired from a drawing that they took way out of context.

This is the part where I roll my eyes.

Valerie • Jul 25, 2012 @10:28 am It seems like most of what she is posting now has shit all to do with Matt Inman, except that she randomly inserts his name in the middle of her 'ahem' meditations… on um… whatever the fuck that mind dump is about.

Come on Tara, it's time to find a new nemesis and start a new thread.

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @12:30 am Nope, now Charles has become qualified to diagnose mental health: ... c209c46e5b
"SMISH: Social Media-Induced Self Hate
by Charles Carreon

A new mental disease for the Internet age is proposed for inclusion in the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders: Social Media-Induced Self-Hate ("SMISH"). This proposal stems from the writer’s inquiry into a closely-related disorder, dubbed SMIDS for Social Media-Induced Delusional Disorder, and explores the likelihood that both SMISH and SMIDS may simultaneously afflict one individual, with one disorder or the other gaining the upper hand due primarily to the nature of the sufferer’s interactions with Social Media.

The primary subjective characteristics of SMISH are a sense of insecurity and compulsive reinforcement-seeking behavior through Social Media. Secondary characteristics are a fear of judgment by Social Media Peers (“SMPeers”) and compulsive propitiatory behavior intended to head off judgment and establish trust-links that will protect the SMISH-sufferer from becoming an Object of Hatred among their SMPeers. A tertiary characteristic is total involvement with the Social Media world and a corollary loss of interest in relationships with Real World Peers aside from interactions within the Social Media world. At that point, SMISH has ensnared the sufferer in a cycle of addictive behavior from which they will likely exit only after a period of serious self-assessment, or an intervention by concerned friends and relations.

The objective indications of SMISH usually manifest sequentially and in conjunction with the emergence of the subjective characteristics outlined above. Victims generally progress from incipient SMISH, characterized by an inclination to overvalue SMPeers and devalue Non-Social Media relationships, to acute SMISH, characterized by increasingly compulsive abuse of Social Media, to the third level of true addictive behavior, characterized by frenzied posting and craven toadying to SMPeer authority-figures. The disease often takes hold in an acute form over the course of a few evenings, and progress to a chronic condition over a period of weeks.

SMISH does not require any particular type of host subject to become established, and the notion that only certain types are predisposed should be rejected at the outset. Narcissistic personalities might seem less inclined to SMISH than insecure types; however, the desire to gain mass approval of SMPeers appears to reveal hidden faults in even robust personalities, that, like gullies that turn to ravines overnight in a torrential flood, become deep fissures, exposing the raw heart of a painfully-suffering ego.

SMISH can produce consequences that seem merely pathetic, as when one sees a young girl posting compliments in praise of aggressive male personalities in hopes of receiving a word of approval. For youthful sufferers of this stripe, moderate treatment modalities, including redirection of the individual toward non-Social Media relationships and relationship counseling, may be entirely adequate. However, SMISH can evolve in two other identified directions: a suicidal state, or SMIDS.

Suicide due to SMISH is an established phenomenon for which a brief online search will provide sufficient anecdotes to eliminate doubt as to whether SMISH can be fatal. What is essential is that caregivers realize that once suicidal ideation has taken hold of a SMISH-sufferer, the condition cannot be dismissed as merely an Internet neurosis. Treatment for SMISH-induced suicidal ideation must be as radical as the condition, with the understanding that the stakes are life and death. The sufferer’s use of Social Media must be terminated immediately, all communication with or about SMPeers must cease, and an intensive program of self-approval must be put in place. Physical exercise, outdoor recreation, and non-reflective outward-oriented activities should supplant the previous introverted, obsessive attachment to Social Media. Such an aggressive course of therapy may well produce dramatic results in a short period of time if the disease is caught before it progresses too far.

The evolution of SMISH into SMIDS is far more insidious, however, because SMIDS-sufferers outwardly direct their pain towards the Objects of Hatred who are their chosen online prey. Like road-rage on the streets and highways, SMIDS creates hazards for other individuals of which society must be mindful. Since a separate discussion of SMIDS has already been published, we will not repeat that analysis here, and rather discuss briefly why SMISH has the potential to co-exist with or turn into SMIDS.

Simply put, SMISH is at bottom fueled by the fear of judgment by SMPeers. Among the community of SMPeers, dominant, aggressive personalities skilled in ad hominem argument and the use of pointed invective rule the roost. SMISH-sufferers are often passive personalities who lack verbal combat skills. Although initially attracted to Social Media because many of their Real World Peers are interacting online, as they learn to deploy propitiatory tactics such as shilling and toadying for their more aggressive SMPeers, they are seduced by the online environment and become addicted to its self-abasing rituals. Nevertheless, over time, they find themselves both immersed in self-hate at having sold their integrity for an impermanent sense of personal safety, and walking on eggshells, experiencing profound anxiety about the possibility of becoming an object of online derision, or most fearfully, an actual Object of Hatred ("ObHat").

Many SMISH-sufferers adapt to their passive role online, and master the craven postures of appeasement seen on so many blogs and bulletin boards, where covens of SMISH-sufferers gather around dominant SMPeers in fulsome displays of unwholesome adulation. Many SMISH-sufferers alternate between SMISH and SMIDS on an occasional basis, joining occasionally with Social Media Mobs to hurl Cybercurses at various ObHats, thereby demonstrating their loyalty to dominant SMPeers, and ensuring themselves against becoming an ObHat themselves. Although not being entirely committed to the aggressive conduct, they nevertheless engage in it convincingly, much like an ordinary citizen who finds herself caught in a momentary mob hysteria, then later thinks better of it. Finally, some SMISH-sufferers “ripen” into the pure aggressive neurosis of SMIDS, as they discover that the only way to feel “safe” in a toxic Social Media environment is with a verbal rock in their hand, ready to give as good as they get. They have contacted their inner brownshirt, and civil society has gained a new enemy. For further discussion of SMIDS, see the related article."

Hughhh • Jul 26, 2012 @4:28 am Tara Carreon's mastery of Photoshop knows no bounds: ... 8415#18415

Well, "KEN"? If that is your real name… o_O

Nibor • Jul 26, 2012 @6:43 am So if I get it right you act out (insane/differently/aggressively) to get the approvement or attention from other online people you value high.

Hmm, sounds common clan/group/social behaviour and has its excesses when one does not understands the rules or is unable to “fit in”, this behaviour is deemed a problem or a mental illness

Because someone might flee into making him/herself into a joke/aggressor so he/she is not accepted by compiling but accepted by being a cray/douche

Hmm again, sound familiar someone behaves bad, puts out a lot of garbage (to entertain the masses of online people) when that does not work, tries to bully them. As that not seem to have the right response they make complete fools out of themselves by spewing the most incoherent and offensive things online.
(please remind it has to be online, for how other than that can the highly regarded (online) individuals find their excesses)

Then CC puts his and TC’s psychiatric report on his website (where he also tell the(online) world that he raped his reputation) to tell us what?

That it all is not his/her fault, but it is the (online)peers pressure that they feel that made them do the things they do, so an insanity plea?

This is what he is saying or did I get it wrong?

Note to myself: Maybe I misunderstand it all and he actually thinks that I am or others like me are the ones that have the illness, hmm I believe my shrink will disagree with that ;-)

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @7:10 am I believe Ken has already been "outed" by another of his "victims," Donna Barstow. Sorry Tara, the mystery has been solved. :(

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @7:11 am That's some weapons-grade crazy over there.

And I've lost track of the number of times my full name has been posted or linked to here or published elsehwere. She's a pretty incompetent researcher.

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @8:12 am Am I the only one who finds deep irony in Chas and Tara investigating potential "mental illnesses"?

Mark • Jul 26, 2012 @10:20 am This is all recycled bullshit, pardon my french.

TIDS – Tantra-Induced Delusional Syndrome:

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @10:40 am @ Ken Wasn't your full name also in the podcast you did on the Oatmeal case? Is it possible she didn't listen to that? Seems unlikely given that you are on her enemies list.

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but since I don't want my criticism of censorious asshattery to be considered as "COMPLETELY ILLEGITIMATE" by whatever rules Tara believes that I believe in, here goes:

Hello, my name is Valerie O'Gilain, and I am addicted to Popehat.

Thanks Carreons, I wouldn't have known this blog existed without your "weapons grade crazy." You have added sunshine to the day of this laid-off constitution-loving social studies teacher. :)

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @10:51 am Also, if you are the head of the Boston Mob, do you know where I could buy a horse's head on the cheap? I need it for… personal reasons.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @10:52 am If you want to know what kind of liars these Inman guys are, they claim to have the RIGHT to know the "true creditor party," have "the true character and principal nature of the proceedings" identified, have the true party APPEAR, and be told the TRUE NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY THEY ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT (KANGAROO COURT, IN THIS INSTANCE), and yet they act anonymously against us. The charge against Tara and Charles Carreon is being led by "Ken" at Popehat, who does not reveal his true name, and has private registration for his domain at WhoIs. He claims to be a lawyer, but so does David Wynn Miller, and so did Stephen Michael Cohen, and a lot of other con men. Impersonating a lawyer is a strategy of many a fraudster. He could be the head of the Boston Mafia for all his stupid followers know. They could be working for the Devil himself.

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @11:03 am Not surprisingly, they show a complete lack of situational awareness and weak Google-fu. I was able to figure out exactly who Ken was after following this blog with just a little bit of Googling.

Sorry Ken, for those of us who's google-fu is strong, your identity is not secret :P Of course, regarding conspiracy-nuts who don't believe anything and don't know how to "internets" very well, you're completely safe, your mystique remains intact!

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @11:08 am Many people figured out who I am.

And that's before my name was published multiple times on this site. And before I linked, multiple times, to other places that reveal my name. And before multiple people posted blog posts commenting on my identity being public. And before several nutcases pursuing me created YouTube videos and hate sites about me and my writing at the blog. And before multiple blogs, forums, and news sites began routinely referring to me by my full name in linking here.

Seriously. At this point, if you can't figure out who I am, you're painfully crazy, tragically stupid, or intractably lazy.

Mark • Jul 26, 2012 @11:11 am Sorry, TC, but you don't get to demand anything.

Mark • Jul 26, 2012 @11:13 am I also find funny that she "demands" something, but doesn't provide an avenue where people can reply to her "demands".

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @11:37 am Is TC "painfully crazy, tragically stupid, or intractably lazy?" The answer is D. All of the above.

Seriously, cutting & pasting aside, how lazy is it to just toss Matt Inman into your existing Al Capp cartoonist Illuminati plot?

As I recall, she just basically cut and pasted a bunch of cartoons and other crap, said Capp had conspired to kill John Lennon and then said that Inman=Capp and John Lennon = Chas.

There is nothing worse than a lazy conspiracy theorist.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @11:39 am Also:

It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after [I] read about Mr. Sweet's CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE discussed below. There is more to it. Not only do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That's why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will say, "It's not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can't give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer."
SHE'S ON TO US!!!! SHE'S ON TO US ALL!!!! Initiate Protocol Seven Sigma! Notify our man in the Vatican! Tell the Pentagon agents to wipe all data files! Activate the secondary fluoride effects! Disinter Oliver Wendell Holmes! Somebody call Matt! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE CALL MATT INMAN AND ASK HIM WHAT TO DO!!!!

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @11:45 am @Ken Roger that. Sanding the monkey.

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @12:25 pm Our precious bodily fluids!

Shannon Lynch • Jul 26, 2012 @12:49 pm Maybe they will make a song about you Ken :)

Mark • Jul 26, 2012 @2:10 pm Roger that, I'll keep the lasagna flying. 18291.

Jeff S • Jul 26, 2012 @3:19 pm Protocol Seven Sigma. Roger that. Charlie, Tango, Cash, uh, 47, Victor, Charlie, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman!

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @4:04 pm Oh dear, she's discovered what was already widely published.

However, she remains too crazy, stupid, or lazy to read or comprehend the name of the author of a post:

Kenneth Paul White signed his name "Via Angus," on his list of Ten Recommended Books at, where he revealed his Illuminati connections: "Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, Illuminatus! More than anything else on this list, Wilson and Shea's satire of conspiracy theory, with a touch of Arthur Clarke, H. P. Lovecraft, and James Joyce, made me the paranoiac that I am today." Angus was a Celtic God who discovered the fountain of youth, i.e., he was a pure Illuminati god.
I'll bet $100 that Kenneth Paul White is a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn.
Also, she thinks that "Via Angus," where the word "Angus" is linked to a post written by someone named Angus, actually means the author "signed his name 'Via Angus.'"

Yes, "Via" is the first name. It's a family name. It recalls my Aunt Via, who is married to my Uncle Hat-tip.

What an utter whackjob.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @4:11 pm Also note that, despite portraying herself and her verminous husband as people who defend rights, she hates defense lawyers. Big surprise.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @4:13 pm I'll give her this—the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man line is a hit, a palpable hit.

::golf clap::

Robert • Jul 26, 2012 @4:20 pm Yes more keep this going please.


John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @4:24 pm Hahahahaha… I was wondering where she was going with "Via Angus"… I figured that was a reference to where you found part of the content for the article… that's common practice. She thought it was a name >_<

This is how the mind of a crazy person works, they take something that's completely innocuous, insert some ignorance, and then formulate a conspiracy that apparently soothes their addled brains…

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @4:45 pm Geez, Tara, thanks for ruining Ghost Busters for me. That was my favorite movie as a kid and now all it calls to mind is your crazy ass and the first amendment.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @5:15 pm I must say, that miter looks very cunning on that pig.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @5:36 pm It's interesting.

Tara Carreon claims that my identity is a mystery.

And yet:

1. Her IP address seems to be I say that because I checked the visitor logs on my law firm web site, and a visitor from Tuscon at that IP address visited my firm's page and my page, the same things she quotes and the same pictures she copies on her forum.

2. The visitor logs show that she got to my firm's web site from a link in an email — suggesting someone emailed a link to her this afternoon.

3. Yet a visitor from the same IP address in Tuscon visited the site 20 days ago — well before the "who is Ken" nonsense. Was that Charlie the Censor? Or did Tara know who I was, but just forget?

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @5:47 pm @Ken – Either are valid hypothesis.

Ann • Jul 26, 2012 @5:53 pm @Ken – FTR, I think you look smashing in that pope hat ;)

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @5:57 pm Is it my imagination, or did she put lipstick on that pig?

Plus, I think that pig's been working out.

Hughhh • Jul 26, 2012 @6:00 pm Anyone for haiku?

Tara Carreon
Not too good at internets
Photoshop is hard
Kenneth "Popehat" White
Miter wearing pig of death
Hiding in plain sight

Chris R. • Jul 26, 2012 @6:15 pm Wait so her problem with Ken is mainly based around "you are not guilty until convicted?" Isn't that the basis of the whole legal system in the US? Innocent until proven guilty? :-(

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 26, 2012 @6:30 pm @ Chris R – well, that and he's so secretive about his identity, don't you know. Oh, and she seems to have a problem with his looks – a boat very evidently missed by some hundreds of misguided women on Regretsy alone. Either they or she must be short on discernment, I guess. As to that… has she looked at Charles lately? You really have to wonder about the eye of the beholder. From where I stand, that is – to coin a phrase – SOME PIG.

(NB I was going to link the Regretsy episode, but last time I posted a link it got spam-trapped. Easy to find, though – it appears in the Ravelympics post.)

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @6:33 pm @Hughhh – Those were so funny I shared them with my wife… reminded me of the Haiku that Kyle wrote about Cartman on South Park :P

Shannon Lynch • Jul 26, 2012 @6:49 pm Charlie: Freedom of my speech, censor yours. I'm innocent of all crimes but you are all guilty until proven innocent.

We are in backwards America if Charlie is correct

Jess • Jul 26, 2012 @7:00 pm W. Ross – "SMISH: Social Media-Induced Self Hate.”

That is great. Geez I think I just tonsil snorted my martini :-)

I submit that both CC and TC suffer from a severe case of SMISH

And RE TC’s statement " There was no way he was going to get out of doing that, while he had ME as a wife.” Right – so now we know who has been driving CC to do all this silly stuff. And “I don't let my husband bend over and take it in the ass from no sadist Internet punks!” Well I hate to tell her but CC has already bent over and been “rapeutationed”

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @7:08 pm @ Jess

Self-inflicted "rapeutation", at that.

Or would that make it "masturtation"??


John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @7:13 pm Masturtation is quite a bit less offensive :P and far more true.

Ann • Jul 26, 2012 @7:16 pm Does anyone else feel like they've heard his proposed DSM-IV diagnosis names used as sexual euphemisms on Jersey Shore?

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @7:37 pm As usual, she keeps changing the posts. She now grasps the existence of co-bloggers, but still doesn't know what "via" means. Plus she has now seized on the FTC disclosure in the about page and lacks the mental capacity to understand that it's satirical:

And here's Ken's FTC disclosure. He has a relationship with the publishing industry, probably Penguin who is suing us. He's probably getting paid by them to do their dirty work against us. Penguin is dirty through and through.
She is truly a disturbed person.

Ken • Jul 26, 2012 @7:39 pm Besides this Popehat "author" Patrick, who listed Robert Anton Wilson as one of his favorite writers — "Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, Illuminatus! More than anything else on this list, Wilson and Shea's satire of conspiracy theory, with a touch of Arthur Clarke, H. P. Lovecraft, and James Joyce, made me the paranoiac that I am today" — another "author" at is named Via Angus. Angus was a Celtic God who discovered the fountain of youth. That indicates that at least several of the authors at are of an Illuminati persuasion. Which means the whole lot is, as far as I'm concerned. How else could they get along with each other? On their "About" page, they indicate that this may very well be so by saying: "Naturally, the views of one author do not necessarily reflect the views of any other. Indeed, sometimes acrimonious arguments break out in comments, though these may in fact be fake altercations, staged for our own amusement at the reader's expense."

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @7:43 pm @Ken: I keep trying to visualize all of these statements and sentences entering TC's mind and being rearranged and reconstructed into a series of thoughts that somehow validate her own paranoia… It's quite beautiful (if not terribly frightening) in my mind.

Also, how has she not figured out the "Via" thing at this point ಠ_ಠ for serious.

Mark • Jul 26, 2012 @8:07 pm TC/CC like to invent diseases; how about a real one now?

Valerie • Jul 26, 2012 @8:20 pm @ "the author" / "Patrick" / "Via Angus" / "Ken" / Illuminatus master / celtic god of youth (lucky you :) )

Wow. This is beyond weapons grade crazy, its apocalyptic doomsday Dr. Strangelove crazy at this point.

Also, new rule – you don't get to create your own religion if you are too lazy or stoopid to click on a link to tell you what Via Angus means. Here's a hint, Tara, Via = "way" in Latin or "by way of" in English. Click on the shiny link & the rest will become apparent.

Chris R. • Jul 26, 2012 @8:42 pm Ken, she obviously has figured out you are a clone of Steve Jobs. Look at her last post.

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @8:53 pm By Jeebus, the sheer amount of "Here's Your Sign"s Jeff Foxworthy could hand Tara would be epic in its scope.

Roxy • Jul 26, 2012 @8:54 pm I guess Ann did all that work on the ipsum for nothing. I can just go and refresh her site from time to time, it always changes yet stays the same cray cray.

BeeKay • Jul 26, 2012 @9:38 pm (to be pedantic, "Here's Your Sign" is Bill Engvall's schtick, not Foxworthy's, though they have performed together.)

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @9:42 pm I don't know what to say at this point. I think I'm addicted to Tara Carreon. Give them a reality show

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @9:44 pm Keeping Up With The Carreons?

Chris R. • Jul 26, 2012 @9:45 pm Carreons Gonna Carry On, new on MTV2

John Ammon • Jul 26, 2012 @9:56 pm Carreon My Wayward Son, new on VH1

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @9:59 pm Now I'm certainly no doctor, and Internet diagnosis are notoriously inaccurate, but I'm starting to think she might just suffer from the hurt that comes from the butt.

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @10:01 pm @ BeeKay

That's right.
Total brain fart on my part.

Hughhh • Jul 27, 2012 @12:00 am @Ken, Tara has now edited her fourth-most-recent post, as she's now figured out what "via Angus" means.

… another "author" at is named Via Angus …
Also a quick FYI, and this may be intentional, but the heading above the "Visit the Popehat Forum!" link now links to the informative "Via Angus" YouTube video.

Hughhh • Jul 27, 2012 @12:02 am Grr argh, can someone fix my /blockquote tag pretty please..? How embarrassment.

Mikey • Jul 27, 2012 @1:31 am Hi, I've been lurking for the past month or so after following a link about the Funny Junk debacle. I love the site and wanted to make a couple comments.
First (unfortunately), I may be forced to sue you for traumatic brain injury and severe emotional distress unless you IMMEDIATELY place appropriate warnings on all links leading to Carreon family websites. I mean really, I have a friggin MA in psychology, but trying to follow her "thoughts" made me feel like I was 10 again watching the tunnel scene in Willie Wonka! Oh, and just noting her personal post count vs the total forum postings, that's all her isn't it? Just yelling at the walls. wow.

The other thing is I feel y'all are being selfish. If you were truly giving people, you would have already started a petition to get Tara and Charlie their own reality show. Share the wonder with the entire world!

Chris R. • Jul 27, 2012 @1:36 am Carreon and On and On and On, new of Spike

Chris R. • Jul 27, 2012 @1:43 am of = on. Just so you know.

Smorz • Jul 27, 2012 @4:42 am @Chris R. – So long as on /= of it clears things up:)

TC on the other hand is hopeless.

M. • Jul 27, 2012 @4:44 am I think calling it a "reality" show would be ignoring the elephant in the room.

A Bored Network Engineer • Jul 27, 2012 @5:28 am appears to belong to the ISP 'Cox' who have a point of presence in Tuscon. Given the format of its reverse DNS name of the ISP it suggest a residental or business broadband line. Some business grade ISPs will allocate a small block of IP's to customers usually for making external servers avaliable on the internet which appears to be the case here. (My experience suggests ISP's would usually offer 1,2,4 or 8 IP's for a single small customer.)

Now i did some digging and found two interesting things, the first is I found some old cached records suggesting that the following domains were historically run from the address

looking at the A records for those domains it looks like and are now hosted by an external party. I dug deeper and found out that there is still an apache server running on which currently hosts run by Mr Carreon himself.

Long story short, and is Charles Carreon.

ChimpZilla • Jul 27, 2012 @5:55 am M: Can't that be said for most "reality" shows though? If most reality shows reflected most people's reality, I'd be more terrified of this world and the direction it's headed, than I already am…

nlp • Jul 27, 2012 @6:58 am Which Oliver Wendall Holmes do you want? The doctor or the Supreme Court Justice? You could make a valid point for either.

M. • Jul 27, 2012 @7:03 am @ChimpZilla: That's precisely why I don't watch reality TV.

S. Weasel • Jul 27, 2012 @7:16 am I'm still devastated to learn Ken isn't an adorable little boy.

Boo. The avatars, they lie.

John Ammon • Jul 27, 2012 @8:14 am @S. Weasel: Does that mean you're not really an adorable weasel adorned with spectacles? o_O

Ken • Jul 27, 2012 @8:21 am another "author" at is named Angus. His favorite book is Carl Jung's "Answer to Job,"
Ms. Carreon's voyage of discovery has reached the point where she now understands the meaning of the common word "via." However, she still things Angus is a Popehat author. Apparently she thinks so because Patrick linked to him. She thinks so even thought the link takes you to Angus' web site – a different web site with a different name. She thinks so even though there aren't any posts here by Angus and he's not listed as a Popehat author. It's not clear to me if she believes that anyone we link to, or anyone we identify as a source for a story or idea, is by definition a Popehat author. That would mean we have an awful lot of authors. Actually, since we've linked her and her husband, it would make them Popehat authors.

Still, one step at a time, right?

Ken • Jul 27, 2012 @8:23 am Also, she's now edited earlier posts to attack two firms I used to work for and the judge I used to clerk for. She also hates defense lawyers, because they defend white collar criminals, which she apparently defines to include people accused of sex crimes. She doesn't like people accused of crimes being defended, and she doesn't like the sort of clients that hire big law firms being defended. She apparently only approves of THE PEOPLE being represented. It's not clear if anyone can see or hear THE PEOPLE other than her.

Nibor • Jul 27, 2012 @8:40 am @Ken, you actually sugesting that you think there is any merrit/logic/sanity in what she is publishing ??????

hmmm, do you need the phone number of my shrink, or do the ones close to you have enough influence on you to bring you back to our side of reality ?

Or is it time to sound the alarms (popesignal?) that we are losing you ?

note to self: maybe he is only making fun of it, naaayyyy ;-)

Nibor • Jul 27, 2012 @8:46 am @Ken If I got my fackts right, she herself worked for some lawfirm(s) when they lived in LA way back, when CC was getting his law degree and his first interns (that is what you call it over there if I'm right).

So maybe these firms didn't hire CC or her and this is old pain.

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 27, 2012 @8:48 am @S. Weasel, @ John Ammon… no, they don't! The avatars, they tell the true. Ken is an adorable little boy. (I of course absolutely am a two-headed imperial eagle wearing mismatched socks. I was about to confess my puzzlement over what M. looks like, but then I looked more closely and suddenly realized that, duh, she put de lime in de coconut; I trust she drink it all up and den she feel better.)

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @8:50 am Yeah, one thing I think lawyers get unfairly criticized for is taking on unsavory clients.

The thing is, that is kind of the foundation of our system. You couldn't give people a fair trial if THE PEOPLE (the prosecution) got to just got to shit all over the defendant who had no expertise in the law.

The right to an attorney is fundamental to our legal system (6th amendment, as I recollect) and if lawyers only represented nice little old ladies accused of shoplifting cat food, the system wouldn't really work.

I don't like white-collar criminals or sex offenders, but they are innocent till proven guilty, and until they are convicted I accept that they have the same rights as me, you, or the Carreons.

Yet another example in TC's "thought" process where nobody's rights matter unless their last name is Carreon.

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @8:51 am I assume the unedited posts are cashed somewhere so TC can't pull a Stalin and just edit out the parts of old posts that make her look stoopid?

Nibor • Jul 27, 2012 @9:10 am @Valerie but she does, all the time, editing, reediting, rereediting, etc. when ever she finds something that only makes her look stoopid and not a total cray cray lunatic.

M. • Jul 27, 2012 @9:25 am @Tsarina of Tsocks: All day every day! ;)

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 27, 2012 @9:41 am @Valerie – wait a minute… there are parts of old posts that don't???

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @9:56 am @ Tsarina I guess it is a matter of degree. Stupid is thinking that its a good idea to diss people with popular websites & chat with yourself in your own forum about cray-cray.

Stoopid is when you reveal that you #1, don't understand a basic English word like via, #2 can't find the most basic information on someone like Ken, & #3 don't understand the concept of linking to another site that you don't necessarily own.

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 27, 2012 @10:06 am Fair enough. And studip is taking pride in ferreting out "obscure" facts that are actually unhidden in plain sight. Wow, what a piece of detective work, for instance, discovering Ken's Seekrit Identity. She may actually have had to read the bio on his law firm's web site to do that, or follow a link from this one… hell, maybe it even required some use of that little-known tool the internet search engine. No wonder she's so impressed with her own investigative chops.

Missiletoe • Jul 27, 2012 @10:37 am Love the author link on the side now that says "Via Angus". I enjoyed watching the video it linked to of the angus cows.

John Ammon • Jul 27, 2012 @10:40 am That Angus link is awesome… so Via Angus is a blogging cow with huge nuts?

Gal • Jul 27, 2012 @10:41 am OK, hold up.

And Judge Richard Gadbois, who he clerked with, is considered to be a real sonofabitch. I heard he once put two lawyers in leg chains and paraded them around the courtroom because they lied to him about being admitted in the Central District of California when they were just San Diego lawyers.
IANAL, and I don't really expect anyone to do anything about it, but isn't that Libel?

Ken • Jul 27, 2012 @10:47 am The Angus link wasn't me. One of my funnier co-bloggers.

IANAL, and I don't really expect anyone to do anything about it, but isn't that Libel?
Judge Gadbois passed away in 1996. Generally there's no cause of action for defamation of the dead.

For what it's worth, Judge Gadbois was a human being like me, meaning he had flaws like anyone else. But he was the sort of judge who got Christmas cards from people he had sent to prison, because he treated them with respect. I have no memory of the leg-irons incident, and no idea whether it happened. But I would not be at all surprised if a federal judge took a lawyer into custody for a lie about being admitted. Don't lie to federal judges.

Gal • Jul 27, 2012 @10:52 am I have to say, Ken Doesn't look as bad as TC claims, but Angus looks delicious.

Ken • Jul 27, 2012 @10:52 am Wait — looks like she was referring to this incident in which Judge Gadbois sanctioned two lawyers when he discovered mid-trial that they had not applied to be admitted to the Central District, and threatened one with leg irons if he applied for admission without disclosing he had been sanctioned. Sounds rather dramatically different, doesn't it?

The 9th Circuit overturned him. The leg irons comment is over the top, though not (in my experience) notably so for a federal judge. The monetary sanctions? Eh. The 9th Circuit found them inappropriate. But you have to be pretty stupid or careless to launch into a trial without getting admitted to the bar of the court you're practicing in.

Anita • Jul 27, 2012 @12:03 pm So Tara got her facts wrong? Color me surprised!

mojo • Jul 27, 2012 @12:17 pm "Pig in a Popehat": Possible Pun?

Chris R. • Jul 27, 2012 @12:30 pm Ken, it's not like she can distinguish tone. She thinks everything said online is 100% non-parody, meant to be truth and probably reads everything as all caps even thought it wasn't written that way.

This is how a normal person reads a sentence:
If that's your opinion we should just glue your mouth shut.

This is how a Tara reads a sentence:

However I am not sure if her brain translates the actual sentence into wingdings or not.

Robert • Jul 27, 2012 @1:23 pm No end in sight to this awesome craziness.
Cancelled my HBO.

PS… Can someone get aliens involved in her posts? I'd like to hear an x-filesy, Roswelly plot arc please.

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 27, 2012 @9:00 pm Now she apparently fantasizes about kidnapping Ken and forcing him to ingest Wisdom Plants and listen to Charles Carreon.

Which may be the only way either of them could make sense.


Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @9:11 pm Check out her new stuff. Its high quality.

Ken • Jul 27, 2012 @9:37 pm I'm pretty sure that kidnapping for purposes of indoctrinating someone in Ralph Nader lore violates the Geneva Conventions.

Chris R. • Jul 27, 2012 @10:04 pm Some how I don't feel like she could plan a successful kidnapping. However please if you are reading this, don't try to prove me wrong.

Luke • Jul 27, 2012 @10:26 pm Looks like she deleted a post somewhere too.

Interesting that she still believes FJ and Charles were in the right to send the initial letter, even though Charles said it was a mistake.

Roxy • Jul 28, 2012 @7:23 am @Luke: It's like Chris Rock says, women don't need something like "sense" to make an argument.

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @10:39 am Ok, here goes, I am about to apply some TC Logic and see what I come up with:

Tara on giving to charities:

"You're predating on the gambling crowd, just like Glenn Beck predated on the right-wing Republicans in the Goldline scam. They didn't know what fucking hit them. It was just Glenn Beck, their hero!"

Ready? Ok tinfoil thinking cap is on, F-word & frivolous rape references set to maximum.

+Glen Beck was a rapist hero of the fucking Republican party, who, as a fucking mainstream political party of rapists, must necessarily be pawns of the mother fucking Illuminati.

+Glen Beck wrote a fucking book "inspired by Thomas Paine."

+Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Thomas Paine.

+Thus, Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Glenn Beck's fucking book.

+Thus, Tara is a hero of the fucking Republican rapist party.

+Thus, Tara is part of the mother-fucking, raping Illuminati conspiracy.

+Thus, Tara rapes & conspires against her-fucking-self.


This is your brain on Carreon. Any questions?

Grifter • Jul 28, 2012 @11:02 am "Making wild, nonsensical, and possibly recursive conspiracy theories isn't normal.

But on TC it is."

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 28, 2012 @4:22 pm ALL OF YOU LITTLE MONSTERS ARE WORSE THAN RUPERT MURDOCK. (And don't say I got that from Lady Gaga. I was Lady Gaga before Madonna was Lady Gaga. She stole that from me.) If Ralph Nader was here, he'd punch your lights out, and then put you in jail forever.

@VIAANGUS I Know you're out there, Viaangus. That's a centurion name if I ever heard one, and the Illuminati is from Rome. HUH, CURIOUS.

@Ken You're not even an Asian child, and that probably makes you a rapist, most likely. Clearly that is a picture of a child you abducted in order to train into another Illuminati member by making him read Al Capp cartoons. You work in a Law Firm that represents people in legal difficulties (AKA CRIMINALS AND OR HATE-CRIMERS.) Also, I don't find you to my sexual liking, and that's presumably important to the date for some reason. But your pole will not come near this hole. Just know that you could have had me, and you ruined it.

@MarcRenandStimpyDazza You suggested Charles should hit me and sell my body, and worse you stopped sending us a Christmas Card. We white out all our Christmas Cards and then resell them in packs on E-Bay. Now we only have a pack of 11, and who's going to want that? In conclusion, you're a misogynist and probably work for the Disney Company.

@Matthew Inman You think you're just so clever and handsome, don't you? So deliciously, naughtily adorable, with your Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia face and your little pile of money that could buy so many domain names… Just alpha-maleing around the Internet with so many friends and making so much money… Just using that tight little bottom to seduce all the girls into following you to Budhist hell… so decadent… like the forbidden fruit of the Internet just waiting for an older woman to teach you the ways of love… What was I writing about now?

In conclusion you are all guilty of crimes against the people's library, and I sentence you all to $500 pain and suffering. Please remit directly to Charles' email address, because Kickstarter refuses to host "Fund my life" projects no matter how many times I try to tell them that my forum is a digital library.

Yours in Christ,
Satirical Tara Carreon

Mike K • Jul 28, 2012 @9:36 pm I've been busy reading other things (a webcomic), so I'm a bit behind.

Other than wondering about their sanity in thinking that being untrained and inexperienced in mental health issues (other than their own) qualifies them to determine certain things are symptoms of an unrecognized illness, I'm disappointed that Charles has changed the "Hate eMails" post (still hilarious that my computer recognizes that capitalization as incorrect) page from pictures to text copies. I imagine the dozens of images were too hard on his server, but still they seemed more real as images.

I'm also mildly disappointed that my email wasn't hateful or thought provoking enough to be included, although he wrote a moderate length response to it.

Grifter • Jul 28, 2012 @9:42 pm @Mike K:

Which comic?

Chris R. • Jul 28, 2012 @10:17 pm @satirical Tara, wow that's creepy spot on. You should guest blog on satirical Charles' blog.

Nibor • Jul 29, 2012 @2:56 am That would be funny as h… Satirical Charles and Tara on one site just to srcew everything up just a little more.

So Pleeeaaaassssss Satritcal Tara C. Pleeeaaaasssss do make contact with Satirical Charles, he wil probably give you an entire section on his blog to get you word out :-) :-) :-) Pleeeeeeaaaassssssss ;-)

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 29, 2012 @7:17 pm @ChrisR Take it with my blessings. My hate-filled, bile spewing, angry blessings.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 29, 2012 @7:36 pm Made contact with my loving husband, and also sent him my thoughts about this: Krishna willing he will publish them to the Internet, which is kind of like being a celebrity, when you think about it.

I don't think about it, though.

Mike K • Jul 29, 2012 @9:34 pm Grifter, I started reading The Order of the Stick on Monday. Friday night I got caught up. I probably have an addictive personality, which means that once I decided it was good I had to read all of it at the expense of doing other things ;)

Myk • Jul 29, 2012 @9:36 pm @Ken – I'm a little puzzled by TC's claim that she worked at {insert various legal firms here} – am I misreading, or does she imply that she and/or Chucky worked with you by association? Were you scarred {emotionally/physically/sexually} by the experience? If you can't remember, maybe you've suppressed the memory. Or maybe our Illuminati bretheren conveniently erased your mind. MIB posse reprezentin', and all that.

Grifter • Jul 29, 2012 @9:43 pm @Mike K: That's exactly what I do every time I find a new one I like.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 29, 2012 @10:40 pm


Valerie • Jul 30, 2012 @3:00 pm Johnjacobjinglehimersmit. His name is my name to. That is all.

flip • Aug 7, 2012 @6:03 am I have been busy elsewhere so I have no doubt people will have moved on from this thread … but I'm posting this anyway.

@W Ross

Just wanted to say: you're awesome. The lulz you provided are great!

And for all the comments on copyright: thanks. I've just been having this argument on another site and share much the same opinion/frustration as you.

Do you have a blog I could follow?


You seem to think that copyright only has to do with the initial creation. In your example in this comment, people pay another person to create a work. The issue is that copyright may remain the originator's (and not the clients). If the clients then go and distribute the work without further permission/royalties from the originator, then that's a copyright breach.

You really need to read up on copyrights because your comments suggest a lot of misunderstandings as to what it does and how it works.

Additionally, attempting to put a mathematical model on it doesn't work, because countries have different laws (not least of which includes the Berne Convention which makes copyright laws in one country applicable in another), fair use (or not) clauses, public domain/expiry, precedents, and not to mention that a creator can pick and choose how, where and when to apply various levels of copyright/creative commons. There's too many variables to do a mathematical equation with.

By the way, in my country they also take into consideration a "moral" copyright. That is, they look at it from the perspective that a creator has a right to their work and a right to do what they want with it, and if that will is not followed by others then that's considered a breach.

IANAL but a well-read (on this topic) artist.

@John (also here)

Big thumbs up! I am the same.


any more you should be able to walk into an unlocked house and watch their cable (which is the proper analogy – nothing is stolen, but do you really want strangers in your house using your stuff?).
Thank you for this analogy. It's a perfect example and I hope you won't mind if I use it myself in the future :)
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:50 pm

181 Comments (Innocently, And With No Intent To Cause Any Mischief Whatsoever)

deezerd • Jul 26, 2012 @8:52 pm BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! ;)

So what size dice does that one come with? Do you get to create a Lawful Evil Lizard-Cleric? ;)

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @8:58 pm You've doomed us all, you fool!!

ttl • Jul 26, 2012 @9:01 pm Is thiw one of the new amazon links?

azteclady • Jul 26, 2012 @9:06 pm *laughing so hard I'm gasping*

doug • Jul 26, 2012 @9:06 pm i once had Illuminati.

Joe Carl White • Jul 26, 2012 @9:06 pm Orbital Mind Control Lasers FTW

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @9:08 pm Sure hope that's a Fieldberry candle…

A Gooseberry candle can only strengthen She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Saned. ;)

Random Encounter • Jul 26, 2012 @9:13 pm The James Birch Society attacks the Boy Sprouts for control aided by the Orbital Mind Control Lasers.

Scottf • Jul 26, 2012 @9:17 pm So, the rumors were true! What dark path have you lured us down?

John David Galt • Jul 26, 2012 @9:19 pm I play "Things Man Was Not Meant to Know." You're all doooooooomed!!

Octopede • Jul 26, 2012 @9:27 pm The presence of an unused, decorative candle affirms that Ken likely has a bag of dried potpourri nearby, or is about to become a goth but hasn't yet found the time. I'm guessing it smells of cinnamon or huckleberry.

Globex Corporation • Jul 26, 2012 @9:27 pm It's so bad it's good. At a certain point, I'm sure this is going to start feeling like making fun of a person with a disability though (if that isn't exactly what it already is).

Rliyen • Jul 26, 2012 @9:27 pm I play Murphy's Law.

Angela • Jul 26, 2012 @9:28 pm You forgot to include a Freemason's apron

Frost • Jul 26, 2012 @9:30 pm This, sir, is simply brilliant. Bravo.
*Opens new browser tab. Waits for it….*

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @9:35 pm *sniff sniff* Sometimes you see something so beautiful… that you just can't stand it.

*holds up a lighter*

Jon • Jul 26, 2012 @9:45 pm And the best part is the new link at the bottom of the "Authors" section at the top of every page…

firehat • Jul 26, 2012 @9:50 pm Has anyone alerted the Above Top Secret forums?

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 26, 2012 @9:52 pm @Jan – Dear, dear Auntie Via!

Did you notice that Ken did not deny dressing in women's clothes? You know what THAT proves, right?

Oh dear, there just is not enough popcorn in the world.

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @9:55 pm Whatever happens at this point, don't let them know about the Cthulhu initiative… until the harvesting of souls. A=B B=Tau Code: 19119111117771116621. The flower is red.

Chris • Jul 26, 2012 @9:57 pm My college age son took our 1980s version of Illuminati to play with his friends. They like it so much, he will not return the game!

And who can forget Steve Jackson Games versus the US Secret Service?

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @10:05 pm "The flower is red."

There is no spoon.

W Ross • Jul 26, 2012 @10:10 pm The spoon is with the tall man. How is the weather in Moscow?

Tsarina of Tsocks • Jul 26, 2012 @10:17 pm Le lansquenet frappe à minuit.

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @10:20 pm The cake is a lie.

Chris R. • Jul 26, 2012 @10:36 pm My wife is pretty pissed at me now that I began laughing uncontrollably right next to her ear when I saw this. Even then, it's totally worth it.

eigenperson • Jul 26, 2012 @11:17 pm Are crazy conspiracy theories keeping you up at night?

Do you worry that lawyers are conspiring — on the INTERNET — against you and your family?

Are you unable to tell the difference between a first name and a preposition?

All of these could be symptoms of Internet-linked paranoia, a serious but treatable condition.

If you experience any of these symptoms, ask your doctor if VIAANGUS is right for you.

VIAANGUS is the only prescription medication that is FDA-approved to treat severe cases of Internet-linked paranoia that don't respond to other drugs. In clinical trials, some patients saw relief within just six days.* Plus, you only have to take one tablet a day. That's right, one tablet a day, by mouth!

(Coincidentally, "By Mouth" is also the name of our chief information officer, here at Oscar-Meyers-Squibb.)

VIAANGUS is not for everyone. Women who are crazy or may become crazy should not use VIAANGUS. Do not take VIAANGUS with milk or other liquids, because this presents the risk of nasal expulsion. Side effects of VIAANGUS can include temper tantrums, incoherent blogging syndrome (better known as IBS), and terminating sanctions. See your doctor immediately if you experience any of these conditions.

Ask your doctor about VIAANGUS today!

* Results not typical.

Thorne • Jul 26, 2012 @11:24 pm Lose the 'G'. ;)

Hughhh • Jul 26, 2012 @11:27 pm i once had Illuminati.
Robitussin should clear that up.

B • Jul 27, 2012 @12:44 am Now, I know I'm new here, but when did we start selling Ubik by its new name?

Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 27, 2012 @12:45 am Ha. I once (indirectly) manipulated the fraternal organization Nixon founded. I can has magic deciphering Illuminati ring now?

John O. • Jul 27, 2012 @2:29 am I'm even more amused because of the link in the authors list!

Thorne • Jul 27, 2012 @2:32 am All out of Illuminati rings at the moment…

How about an unlimited supply of Photoshop Penises instead? ;)

desconhecido • Jul 27, 2012 @5:40 am Thorene:Lose the 'G'.

Be careful. You do that you might get sued by Carls, Jr.

PhilG • Jul 27, 2012 @6:24 am I would accuse you of being part of Majestic 12 but I'm pretty sure lawyers can't count that high without hiring an accountant. (omglawyerburn)

On a not-really-more-serious note, someone needs to design a firefox/chrome plugin that makes the nader library site not hurt my eyes so much. There is a lot of funny there but it's in a painfully red box.

C. S. P. Schofield • Jul 27, 2012 @6:32 am Random Encounter,

That would be the Birch John Society.


Rich • Jul 27, 2012 @6:47 am Shouldn't that candle be black?

David • Jul 27, 2012 @6:48 am

Rich • Jul 27, 2012 @6:51 am @PhilG

Nah, the smarter lawyers take off their shoes and socks and we can usually get to twenty.

Alex • Jul 27, 2012 @7:11 am I bet we'll hear about this on Tara's forum rather soon.

mojo • Jul 27, 2012 @8:14 am Ia! Ia! Cthulhu ftagn!

John • Jul 27, 2012 @8:30 am I believe this had the desired effect, almost 2 pages on her forums about Ken now.

Allen • Jul 27, 2012 @8:43 am Now that's a marvelous still life, so rich with symbolism. My favorite is the Freemason hint with the biography of Franklin.

Bravo sir, bravo.

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @9:04 am Eeeeexcellent…

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @9:06 am D'oh I pasted the wrong thing.

Rob W. • Jul 27, 2012 @9:31 am Have you gained access to the secret world yet? If so…follow the signs in Kingsmouth…lux omnia vincit

mojo • Jul 27, 2012 @9:37 am "What an utter whackjob."

Hey is that any way to talk about a VETERAN?

David • Jul 27, 2012 @10:17 am @PhilG If you ever encounter her, your first utterance should be "Flatlander Woman"… just in case!

PhilG • Jul 27, 2012 @10:26 am @David Hah! That was totally where I pulled the MJ12 reference from! +1 internets for you.

@Rich Crafty lawyer tricks I see!

mojo • Jul 27, 2012 @12:25 pm Poking around (NOT a DOS attack, really!)


Aaron • Jul 27, 2012 @1:49 pm Ken, I think I found why Charles Carreon got into this whole mess in the first place. Sorry if it's been said before:

"AN EXCEPTIONAL, HEROIC, OFF-THE-CHARTS, ABSOLUTELY UNHEARD-OF lawyer would be one who took a hit for his client, like Charles did. He completely took all the heat in this matter in order to protect his client. And to stand up for women. There was no way he was going to get out of doing that, while he had ME as a wife."

So, you see, he did it for the women, and because he was an exceptional, off-the-charts heroic lawyer who just wanted to protect his poor, innocent client, not because he misread a yo-mama joke to his client and decided it was unacceptable levels of butthurt which he must respond to with scary legislation. It all makes sense now.

Also because his wife told him to.

Aaron • Jul 27, 2012 @1:50 pm Err, scary litigation. I shouldn't get those two mixed up.

John Ammon • Jul 27, 2012 @1:54 pm I peed a little.

Random Encounter • Jul 27, 2012 @2:19 pm Dangit, you made me look, and we were both wrong. It was the Fred Birch Society and not in that edition.

Gimli the Dwarf Gloin's son • Jul 27, 2012 @2:31 pm Ken, you speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you.

M. • Jul 27, 2012 @4:22 pm If CC really thinks Inman's fat mother painting is sufficiently demeaning to women to call for a lawsuit, the NAACP had better get to work. They have a lot of Internet denizens to sue.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 27, 2012 @4:24 pm @eigenperson OMG, while reading your post I experienced the nasal expulsion and I wasn't even drinking milk! Should I file a Medwatch report?

Robert White • Jul 27, 2012 @5:29 pm I once destroyed the pentagon with the Mafia using the power of five (it is the pentagon after all).

Valerie • Jul 27, 2012 @8:58 pm Oh no! Tara's feeling neglected & writing poetry!

"I knew you wouldn't be able to stand the honest feedback.
Just too painful, isn't it?"

Wow – this poem has references to the usual (Nazis, Communists, The People etc.) + load of bonuses including an Alan Ginsburg reference + hyenas + wikipedia + gratuitious use of "fuck" and, surprizingly an utter lack of self awareness.

The Cray-Cray just ain't going a-way (see? at least my poetry rhymes)…

I will bid you all sweet dreams & leave you with this sample to whet your cannibal appitite:

"We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Instead of arrogantly putting flags and skulls on our automobiles.
Obama is just another traitor.
In a long line of traitors.
Starting with George Washington.
Who have corrupted our children.
And made this world a nightmare.
Put it on my gravestone.
Fuck all you violent bastards!"

AlphaCentauri • Jul 27, 2012 @9:14 pm Is anyone else imagining a sequel to "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" including a patient character based on Tara?

But I guess they wouldn't want a patient character who upstages the malingering lead character.

Mark • Jul 28, 2012 @8:00 am The American Cancer Society doesn't qualify as a worthwhile recipient of your charitable dollars by the FTC's guidelines, because they don't monitor their fundraisers.

Holy mother of god. I think she will approach maximum craziness anytime soon.

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @10:24 am Ok, here goes, I am about to apply some TC Logic and see what I come up with:

Tara on giving to charities:

"You're predating on the gambling crowd, just like Glenn Beck predated on the right-wing Republicans in the Goldline scam. They didn't know what fucking hit them. It was just Glenn Beck, their hero!"

Ready? Ok tinfoil thinking cap is on, F-word & frivolous rape references set to maximum.

+Glen Beck was a rapist hero of the fucking Republican party, who, as a fucking mainstream political party of rapists, must necessarily be pawns of the mother fucking Illuminati.

+Glen Beck wrote a fucking book "inspired by Thomas Paine."

+Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Thomas Paine.

+Thus, Tara's fucking reeducation camp begins with reading Glenn Beck's fucking book.

+Thus, Tara is a hero of the fucking Republican rapist party.

+Thus, Tara is part of the mother-fucking, raping Illuminati conspiracy.

+Thus, Tara rapes & conspires against her-fucking-self.


This is your brain on Carreon. Any questions?

Mark • Jul 28, 2012 @3:12 pm Wow, reading the examination by CC here is infuriating. ... olbo.1.htm

Basically, someone browses to get to an image that was forwarded to him. American-Budda does not protect any of its pages. However, it seems that CC expects that guy to somehow "register" before attempting to read something that is completely freely available on the Internet, and accuses that guy of trying to "get around" the membership requirement to browse American-Buddha.

What a douchebag.

Mark • Jul 28, 2012 @3:17 pm CC is also a frivolous man — and a douchebag in its rapport with everybody else.

BY MR. CARREON: And there is definitely — I mean, this is, like, theoretical, but if you were sued because of what happened on August 1 and August 2, would you turn to the city and say, well, please defend me?

MS. O'KASEY: I object to the form of the question. It calls for a legal conclusion as well. If you can answer, answer. If you don't know the answer, tell him that.

THE WITNESS: I do not know.

BY MR. CARREON: You do not know what you would do if you were sued?

A That is correct.

Q Okay. Well, why is that?

MS. O'KASEY: I object and instruct you not to answer. Counsel, this has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

MR. CARREON: It has everything to do with it, Counsel, but don't use up my transcript. If you want to chatter with me, let's go off the record and we can chatter extensively.

MS. O'KASEY: I would like my objection on the record, that's all. I'm entitled to it.

MR. CARREON: Let's try to keep them brief; they are expensive to me.

MS. O'KASEY: You chose to bring the lawsuit, Counsel, not the city of Ashland, so the expenses related to that are a choice that you –

MR. CARREON: I'm going to bill you for every frivolous word; okay?

MS. O'KASEY: If you would like to ask a question relevant to the lawsuit, that would be good.

MR. CARREON: And I'm going to bill you for that because that was definitely frivolous.

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @3:40 pm @ Mark Wow.

Chris R. • Jul 28, 2012 @3:49 pm Mark, a censor is going to try to censor.

Mark • Jul 28, 2012 @3:53 pm And, I just stumbled on yet-another-religion by CC while googling for case 1:2006-CV-03054-PA.

How many religions these guys have???

Jess • Jul 28, 2012 @4:02 pm Well TC is on the cray cray wagon again.

It starts with a kidnapping.
Then a drugging.
And progresses to indoctrination in Thomas Paine, Lucretius, and Ralph Nader.
And yes, even to Charles Carreon.
One of the better minds of our sad era.
Unfortunately, he's not a woman.
Kenneth Paul White — I fucking hate you.
You are shit on my list.

So she is bored with Inman and has found a new target.

You and that Robert Anton Wilson clown.
You worthless pieces of shit!
You little joiner, you.
You don't have an original bone in your body, you big, fat imitating monkey.
You got to be part of the Illuminati, the big, fat, tough guys.
Why don't you go bribe another reporter to tell lies for you?
With the money you get from taking bribes, of course!
You're not a lawyer, you're a nightmare.
You and your little friend, Marc Randazza Pimp Hand.
Fuck you!
Oh no, we Illuminati are nightmare fat tough guys with pimp hands! Either that or we’re the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man.

Time to light the campfire and grab some chocolate bars and graham crackers.

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @4:21 pm Is that from an actual transcript?

Also, definitely = theoretical?

Pete • Jul 28, 2012 @4:28 pm I often wondered why TC believes Popehat is linked to the Illuminati. Tonight I learned that one of TC's least favorite people, Robert Anton Wilson (author of the Illuminatus Trilogy), was involved in and actively promoted the Discordianism Society. Note that one of the five degrees of Discordianism is "Pope", and Robert Anton Wilson's first gesture when taking the stage would be to declare everyone within the audience to be ordained Discordian Popes. Clearly this is indisputable proof that Ken is an Illuminatus disciple of Robert Anton Wilson.

TC – please accept my apologies for having thought you were irreparably deranged. Just kidding; I still think you're batshit crazy.

John Ammon • Jul 28, 2012 @4:31 pm @Jess – To be fair, I don't think she's ever been off the wagon.

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @4:37 pm Ok, I see that it is in fact an actual transcript. Can any actual lawyer comment on whether or not the language / demeanor he employs during the deposition is standard? I mean the level of snarky condescension seems high for something going on the record, but IANAL.

Mark • Jul 28, 2012 @5:19 pm @Valerie, yeah sorry — should have linked to that transcript as well.

The entire case (AB vs city of Ashland) is cringe-worthy; in particular his email exchange with the Google lawyer. I had to stop reading otherwise I would have broken by teeth due to the pressure I was applying to them.

M. • Jul 28, 2012 @5:28 pm My favorite part is that the candle is obviously brand-new. Ken, you scoundrel.

Shannon Lynch • Jul 28, 2012 @6:47 pm If a lawyer talked to me like that to get answers out of me I would ask to be held in contempt. It is normal to speak to witnesses like that?

Valerie • Jul 28, 2012 @7:14 pm Excuse me, I would like to, um, adjourn here for a moment while I regain my composure.

I'm shocked!

Shannon Lynch • Jul 29, 2012 @8:03 am lol that was funny! my favorite part was when he went "Do you want to ask him to speculate? It seemed to work the last time."

Caricature lawyer=Charles Carreon

Mark • Jul 29, 2012 @1:59 pm Oh and TC's latest poems sound a little SLAPP-y…

Aren't nice legal letters preferable to all this?
I'll take them any day.
A nice day in court.
Where everyone listens.

dex • Jul 29, 2012 @7:57 pm Tara styles herself as strong and independent, but she obviously depends on Charles absolutely for all things, is overawed by him, and wouldn't make it here in the real world on her own for a day. Sweetie, you're pathetic.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 29, 2012 @8:11 pm Am not!

dex • Jul 29, 2012 @8:22 pm Get a job!

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 29, 2012 @8:25 pm Are you hiring? Especially if it's a job where I can just kinda coast and write things on the Internet. I can do art for you too, and I'm well versed in the arts of erotic massage.

I'll work for minimum wage, but I'm not real good with petty cash or company computers so just know there will be… expenses.

dex • Jul 29, 2012 @8:34 pm I'll pay you a hundred dollars an hour to stand in the freeway at night draped in a black sheet.

Myk • Jul 29, 2012 @8:46 pm @Rich – A little late to the party, but FWIW, most lawyers could take off their shoes & socks and count to at least 23, in my reckoning. Present company excepted, of course. But then there's Ken. And Patrick.

M. • Jul 29, 2012 @8:51 pm Satirical Tara Carreon, c/o the Department of Redundancy Department.*

*I'm being facetious, please do carry on.

Chris R. • Jul 29, 2012 @10:40 pm Satirical Tara Carreon joins the axis of evil:

Thorne • Jul 30, 2012 @9:46 am I've got a poem for Tara…

Roses are red
Violets are blue
You're a twat
The End

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 30, 2012 @10:14 am @Thorne

Roses are red
Ambulances are white
If you come near my gate…
I'll shoot at you in the night.

Valerie • Jul 30, 2012 @10:32 am Humm. I am fine with calling out the stoopid, crazy, and hypocritical but I don't think we should be implying that any of the Carreons should die or harm themselves.

They are self-righteous, frivolous lawsuit loving gun nuts, but they are also human beings and asking them to go stand on the highway in a black sheet at night, for instane, even as a joke, strikes me as inappropriate. (Not to mention that it lends credibility to the idea that all their critics are violent and barbaric.) Mocking their crazy prose and behavior is one thing, but it seems to me that this sort of thing goes too far.

Disclaimer: I am just stating my opinion. I don't run this site and I don't want to get into a flame war on this topic.

Valerie • Jul 30, 2012 @11:14 am TC has a recent post that, to summarize, points out that they do not live and extravagant life and do good things like plant trees and show solidarity with the poor. She concludes by saying:

"What are you going to do with the truth? Ridicule it?"

No, at least I'm not. If you are reading this Tara, everything you just described is good. I am glad you care about the poor. I am glad that you plant trees. But you are missing the point. The fact that I find much of your behavior and rhetoric offensive does not mean that I find all other parts of your life risible.

What you don't seem to understand is that your critics are not angry at you for planting trees or owning a Prius or identifying with the poor.

I can believe that some of what you do and say is true & good, and that other things you do & say are false and/or bad.

I am angry at you for the way you talk about & treat people you disagree with and at your husband for abusing the legal system to attack people who have hurt his feelings. I participate in mocking your blog because I find much of what you say hypocritical and douchey. For instance:

++ You do not attempt to speak about your critics / opponents in a politie tone, yet you expect to be treated politely.

++ You do not want your speech silenced, yet you seek to silence others.

++ You want to be free to photoshop Ann Coulter's head on a plate and say "You'll get yours bitch," and yet you would condemn Matt Inman for creating a cartoon pterodactyl ripping the head off a crudely drawn person.

Lastly, you assume that anyone who says something bad about you is part of an evil conspiracy or a fool or a gullible child. I am none of those things, nor are most other critics / satirists. Most of us are educated adults who are capable of making reasoned decisions about what behaviors and ideas we like and dislike & how we choose to express our opinions.

It must be comforting to assume all your critics (Occupy Tuscon or the Nader campaign, for instance) are stupid puppets in a grand conspiracy – otherwise you might have to conclude that at least some of the ill will directed at you is caused by your own actions.

You have been mocked, not because you drive a Prius and live in a regular house, but because your (and Charles') legal and online behavior is abhorrent to many people.

Speaking of which, in the US, The People includes all of us. I am part of The People, but you don't speak or act for me, any more than I speak for you or act on your behalf. How many rotton apples have justified themselves by claiming to act for the good of "The People" or "das Volk."

Thorne • Jul 30, 2012 @11:17 am Right back at'cha, STC…

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Once I figure out how many words constitutes "frivolous"
I'mma bill you.

(This is fun…)

mojo • Jul 30, 2012 @12:02 pm "…but IANAL."

That must make you real popular in… certain circles.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 30, 2012 @2:19 pm

Yeah, that's right! Come at us, bros. You are all pudding eating, Rita ignoring Chinese-ComuBots.

As I say here in my new post, Charles wouldn't even hurt a fly. He's basically a human tractor. ... &start=140

Now please enjoy his new Party Rock Anthem.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 30, 2012 @2:22 pm @Thorne

Roses are red, and you give them to a hottie…
I don't like you…
Because you're ILLUMINATI!!!

Don't you ever dance back at me Thorne, cause then it's ON. I'm going to Poetry serve you, you little Nihilist!

Thorne • Jul 30, 2012 @2:44 pm Oh, yeah…..?!

Apples are picked,
While potatoes are dug.
The Carreons invented Oestia…
Sounds like an erectile dysfunction drug.

Satirical Tara Carreon • Jul 30, 2012 @2:52 pm @Thorne

Oh yeah?!?!

Coins are silver,
But oranges are orange.
… awww, fuck.

W Ross • Jul 30, 2012 @3:37 pm "We live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Tucson out of solidarity to our poor brothers and sisters (we bought our house for $170,000), and we own one Prius."

170,000 dollar house and a 26,000 dollar car isn't poor. It's not even solidarity with poor-poor. Go live in section 8 housing, ride the bus, and eat most of your meals at McDonalds because you live in a food desert and then tell me how "totally slummin" you are.

You're doing just fine, and you'll continue to do fine (even after the the judgments from the publishers and record companies.) There are a lot of clients who need a lawyer with no sense of right and wrong or moral responsibility, so the Carreons will never starve.

Sorry your butt hurts, though.

*Hands TC a cushion.*

W Ross • Jul 30, 2012 @3:54 pm

Also, Mattew Inman has a whole section now, so it's much easier to browse the butthurt.

Valerie • Jul 30, 2012 @3:59 pm @ W Ross

I agree they are inflating their "man of the people" credentials, but I think that if we focus on that, it undermines the core reason these guys are asshats and worthy of contempt. Abusing the legal system & grossly hypocritical blogging behavior is more of the issue, no?

I mean, if they were just middle class posers, I seriously doubt that any of us would find them interesting enough to mock or criticize. Doesn't their unique butthurt stem from more egregious behaviors than claiming unearned street cred?

Shorty had them apple bottom jeans and the boots with the fur. End transmission.

W Ross • Jul 30, 2012 @4:00 pm @Valerie You could certainly write posts to that effect if you wish to do so, I'm certainly not stopping you ;).

Grifter • Jul 30, 2012 @4:02 pm And, for the record, they live nowhere near the poorest sections of Tucson. I live in one of the poorer sections, though it's not out of fricking solidarity (My house cost less than half theirs, fwiw). They live near the local military base (so, not super rich, but certainly no ghetto).

M. • Jul 30, 2012 @4:07 pm @Valerie:
(Ben Folds Five – Rockin' the Suburbs)
(Everclear – Volvo Driving Soccer Mom)

Trust me, being a middle class poser offers plenty of fodder for derision.

M. • Jul 30, 2012 @4:09 pm Ah, my comment is awaiting moderation. I'm telling the ACLU you violated my First Amendment rights! *runs away sobbing*

Valerie • Jul 30, 2012 @4:14 pm @ W. Ross

I know. I've appreciated your comments and satire in the magical Carreon wonderland on Popehat. I'm just trying to wax all philosophical n' shit.

Seriously, though, I am genuinely curious about your opinion – do you think its legit / prudent to go after this aspect of their lives? I mean there is so much more pertinent crazy and hypocrisy to wallow in.

Personally, I have many sane and mostly nice friends who have been posers taking pride in their "solidarity" with the masses – hell, I was a middle class poser back in the day :) (My mother grew up on welfare & my adopted sister is black – Regrettably, I have whipped both facts out to try to gain instant cred, despite my own white bread upbringing.)

Also, thank you for pointing out that the cray-cray butthurt has been indexed for posterity. Certainly adds to the gravitas of this farce. ;)

W Ross • Jul 30, 2012 @4:24 pm I think if you believe there are certain parameters, you ought to follow them.

dex • Jul 30, 2012 @6:49 pm @Valerie

Fair enough. Feel free to address me directly tho. Unless you just don't talk to barbarians.

@Satirical Tara

l'll pay you one dollar an hour to stand at the side of the freeway on a hot day gyrating with a billboard that advertises your husband as America's shittiest internet lawyer.

Chris R. • Jul 30, 2012 @6:52 pm I think her using her social status (wealthy, poor, or in between) as to why they are decent people is inline with her other posts of somehow being sinless and part of all that is good in this world. I don't think poor or wealthy people are inherently good or evil. I don't think judging people by class is any less prejudice then by ethnicity, sex, religion etc. I also find it odd that they "live there to show solidarity" but not because of any other reasons. Also, no one who owns their own home and drives a Prius is poor.

M. • Jul 30, 2012 @10:07 pm @dex and Satirical Tara: And I'll pay you $500 if you wear Ellie Gonsalves' "Tomb Raider" bikini while doing so.

Valerie • Jul 31, 2012 @9:05 am @ Dex Sorry about that – I was using it as an example and didn't want it to come off as a personal attack on you. Obviously that didn't work (face palm).

@ Chris R. More than anything, the whole episode reminded me or this, from fat, sequinned, 70s Elvis:

I agree with you on the Prius point & good / evil point ($170,000 for a house also struck me as solidly middle class). I guess I just see the "solidarity with the poor" BS as both eye-rollingly obnoxious and commonplace (Free Tibet stickers anyone?), but I do see your point about class prejudice – it is another example of her painting a group with a very wide brush.

In other news, as promised, Tara has her first draft of Matt Inman as Rueda crapping out demons (accompanied, naturally, by some hypocritical nonsense of Inman pissing off Tibetan Buddhists). I cannot wait to see the finished piece in full technicolor!

Valerie • Jul 31, 2012 @9:15 am I don't understand why everyone is offering Tara money to do something crazy – she does that shit for free.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 31, 2012 @7:53 pm I suspect the slum-quotient of Charles and Tara's neighborhood depends less on the price of the houses and more on the type of people who are willing to live near the Carreons. One house full of crazy people with firearms will chase away most people who don't fall in to the same demographic. Tucson probably needs a special zoning code just for them.

Jess • Jul 31, 2012 @8:04 pm @Valerie – I seem to recall another person on another thread making the statement of f*ck you and f*ck your horse and someone else then talking about the aspect of making sexual congress with a horse. Looks like TC is becoming an avid Popehat reader as the latest dreadful cartoon she has on the site appears to be depicting just that.

AlphaCentauri • Jul 31, 2012 @11:45 pm I wonder if it has any roots in ancient Indo-European horse sacrifices. The horse would symbolize the universe or the earth goddess, and the king or queens in would symbolically marry the horse before it was sacrificed as a sign of sovereignty. (In one area of Ireland the king may have literally copulated with the horse.) In that context, "to f*** you and f*** your horse" would express absolute dominance over a rival.

M. • Jul 31, 2012 @11:50 pm I prefer the local variation "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."

Valerie • Aug 1, 2012 @7:03 am @Alpha Cen?turi I'm sure that a crazy lady screeching at her neighbors and shooting at CIA buddhists lowers property values. Although… Any idea what houses near Ted Nuget go for? Maybe they could all get together and have their very own gated community.

Valerie • Aug 1, 2012 @7:14 am Where can I buy one of the brain ballerinas to spin in my frontal lobes and make me whole instead of a communist? TC didn't post an address to mail to OR how many proofs of purchase of Chas crappy book I'd need. ... &start=150

dex • Aug 1, 2012 @7:58 am I hope that someday Charles and Tara do a Christmas album.

Valerie • Aug 1, 2012 @8:07 am I wouldn't hold my breath on that Christmas album. These are people who (no joke) tried to get Barnes and Noble (& the Hollywood Mafia) to stop playing carols them in the background. They would punch Frosty's face off and then stab Santa in the nuts with that carrot noes. ... 40584.html

dex • Aug 1, 2012 @8:12 am I bet if you could peek into Tara's mind it would be like that scene in Event Horizon where you get a sudden horrific glimpse of a cannibalistic space orgy.

John Ammon • Aug 1, 2012 @8:20 am You're probably spot-on dex.

dex • Aug 1, 2012 @8:55 am Just a flash of blood-soaked naked astronauts screaming and retching and then you wake up on your back pale and traumatized.

Mark • Aug 1, 2012 @2:24 pm Doe v. Carreon has been assigned to Judge Cousins and a case mgmt conf was set for Oct. But Carreon / his counsel hasn't made an appearance yet. Hmmm. ... ocket.html

Mark • Aug 1, 2012 @3:25 pm Oops my bad. "Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Richard Seeborg for all further proceedings."

n o 0 n e • Aug 1, 2012 @6:29 pm charles, is that you? ... tation.jpg

John Ammon • Aug 1, 2012 @7:57 pm It burns usssss!

Myk • Aug 1, 2012 @8:35 pm @Valerie "Any idea what houses near Ted Nuget go for? Maybe they could all get together and have their very own gated community." One with the locks on the outside of the gates.

Ara Ararauna • Aug 1, 2012 @9:59 pm *gasps for air* OK, I've reached my hilarity cap for today, I think I broke mine rib… Guys, keep up the good work with the posts. They are so epic that are able to collapse lungs, seriously.

*wielding the Dagger of Alacrity +3, rolls 2d20 to attempt 'Steal' on 'Nixonland' book*

Valerie • Aug 2, 2012 @12:35 pm Oh Tara, even haters don't have 2 noses. ... &start=150

Hughhh • Aug 3, 2012 @12:16 am When someone asks me where I live, I say, "I live in an arroyo, I live in a flower."
There's also a self-portrait and a self-photo (?) now up, at the link posted by Valerie.


Thorne • Aug 3, 2012 @4:30 am "Don't Forget 2 Hate"….??

This from the person who wrote "Kenneth Paul White — I fucking hate you!"…?

Tara must draw herself little 'Note to Self' reminders instead of using Post-It Notes like a normal human being.

Oh, right…

S. Weasel • Aug 3, 2012 @4:40 am Self portrait(s) posted today. I'm telling you guys, these people are acid casualties (which rather takes the fun out of watching them flame out).

Valerie • Aug 3, 2012 @6:52 am Ok, so the nudie pic is strange, but I don't think its a self-portrait (because she didn't label it "Self-Portrait" like the one below).

The self portrait with the parrot is reasonably good, although it looks like the kinds of stuff my sister did in AP Art.

As for Tara 2012, its yet more proof that most white people look dumb in dreds.

Valerie • Aug 3, 2012 @6:54 am Anyone else think she's still posting under the Inman / Ken / illuminati thread because she finally has an audience for her "art?"

dex • Aug 3, 2012 @10:38 am She looks like a naked grandmother in a dung hat.

Mark • Aug 3, 2012 @2:32 pm She is a master troll, c'mon.

W Ross • Aug 3, 2012 @4:25 pm She's got DREADS?!?!

Why am I not surprised.

John Ammon • Aug 3, 2012 @5:10 pm Why am I reminded of the episode of Archer where Pam Poovy has dreads after being deported from Jamaica…

Valerie • Aug 8, 2012 @9:47 am She's harping on Angus again. I guess she still hasn't figured that out.

She is also fantasizing about spanking our collective asses, which is quite creepy when described thusly: "With a smile on my face I am WAILING on your soft and tender ass[es]! Some random crap about Jung and the FDA as well. ... 7dd8f8c17c

Thanks Tara. I was starting to miss my daily dose of carreon cray cray.

Grifter • Aug 8, 2012 @10:26 am @Valerie:

I like "usually the FIRST thing that comes out in the news is the most true, not the second, recanted version"…because as we all know, Dewey defeated Truman, and Obamacare was struck down by the Supreme Court.

And I figure she knows that cows are actually deep philosophers. And wasn't Son of Sam a dog?

M. • Aug 8, 2012 @4:26 pm As a great Dutch woman once quipped: "…and I said to myself: 'WTF?'"

dex • Aug 8, 2012 @8:44 pm Love Tar Tar's calls for civility, dialogue, and the pursuit of truth through rigorous study and reflection. The fact that she is a rude and incoherent pseudo-intellectual and as reflective as a vampire doesn't bother me at all.

Valerie • Aug 11, 2012 @4:41 am Oh Angus, Tara is crying out for you to explain Carl Jung in your soothing meliflious moos. Go to her!

"Would someone tell me what Jung is talking about here? I need a little help, Angus at, to interpret the meaning of this passage, which is beyond me [crazy ramblings and out do context quotes]…
And if your explanation, Angus, is severely occulted, as I'm sure is your wont, don't you think that talking like this, as a lot of crazy Rosicrucians do, creates dangerous confusion? What if someone misses part of the "wisdom commentary"?"

Susan • Aug 11, 2012 @9:53 am @Grifter
Minor point – Son of Sam was David Berkowitz, Sam was the dog.

Grifter • Aug 11, 2012 @1:08 pm @Susan:

So, it was an offhand comment in furtherance of a joke, but since you brought it up, my natural nosy instincts kicked in and I decided to look it up (since I knew pretty much nothing but the dog bit):

Apparently the "Sam" had no bearing on the dog, the dog was incidental. I guess "Sam Carr" was his landlord, and he thought his landlord was host to a powerful demon. The dog who issued orders was the landlord's dog, and the dog's name was Harvey, which just makes me think of Jimmy Stewart, now.

The more you know!

David Canon • Aug 13, 2012 @10:24 am Can I suggest leaving this poor woman alone from now on.

I've just caught up with Oatmeal story (holiday got in the way of keeping up with the drama). At first I found it all quite amusing, the Carreons seemed a little peculiar (and perhaps somewhat deluded), and they did seem to somewhat deserve the backlash they got.
Now I am concerned that Tara has had some kind of breakdown. I'm certainly not a psychiatrist, but I can't help but feel the writings on the Nader Library must indicate something. Anyone qualified feel like commenting?

I think perhaps it's time to stop visiting the Nader Library for the entertainment value of it. Perhaps without the attention/number of site hits, she'll retreat back into the land of the somewhat sane.

n o 0 n e • Aug 15, 2012 @7:04 pm that damned kid is at it again::

some one light the charles signal!

Hughhh • Aug 15, 2012 @8:01 pm Very OTT of me to re-post this here, but I do believe that one of the comments on The Oatmeal's new Tesla page bears repeating:

Joe Huang
As an American, who is Slobodan Milosevic? I'd say Tesla is THE most famous Serb. Then the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand.

Hughhh • Aug 15, 2012 @9:20 pm Somebody posted on the "Part X" comment thread, a request that the Nader Library somehow be made easier to read. Short of writing a script to perform on-the-fly translations from Taraspeak to English, I figured an easier, quasi-solution was to make the colours and fonts a bit less offensive.

To that end I've found a Google Chrome extension which seems to do a fair job. The extension is called Change Colors (I'm not linking to the install page to sidestep Popehat's two-or-more-links spam filter). With about a minute's tweaking, my browser now displays said Library pages thusly: click!

I've shrunk the screenshot down from 1280 wide to 600 using MS Office Picture Manager, so it looks quite horribly pixelated and evil. The actual result, in all its full-size glory, looks less so.

Those attempting to keep up with Carr[dash?]eons may wish to check it out. :)

Hughhh • Aug 15, 2012 @9:23 pm Could the Popehat Illuminati (perhaps Viaangus) please fix my broken screencap link?

Valerie • Aug 15, 2012 @11:15 pm Sooooo…. Tara is still writing about how the Oatmeal is corrupting the youth and causing every shooting that happens anywhere (but at least she's crediting him for the cartoons she's posting). All this crap interspersed with rants about Fascists, random screen shots w/ subtitles, random Carl Jung (which we all know ViaAngus supports and must answer for), and miscellaneous indecipherable bull shit and cursing. ... &start=170

Valerie • Aug 15, 2012 @11:16 pm And then there's this… ... &start=100

W Ross • Aug 15, 2012 @11:51 pm

Look at it, Charles and Tara. That's 266,000 more dollars, and you can't touch a penny of it. It's all going to Science. Doesn't that burn, that in less than 12 hours Oatmeal can make that much money just appear? Want to know a secret?


(Fuck Edison.)

John Ammon • Aug 16, 2012 @8:18 am I think Matthew has found his calling… making awesome fundraisers!

W Ross • Aug 16, 2012 @5:45 pm You know that somewhere Charles Carreon is considering donating, then finding some obscure law that he can then use to shoehorn his way as a trustee.

"It uh… violates New York Law to… umm… JUST GIVE ME THE MONEY! GIVE IT TO ME! GIVE IT TO ME RIGHT NOW! I TRIED SO FUCKING HARD AND GOT NOTHING, YOU GIVE ME THAT GODDAMNED MONEY, MATTHEW… I'm sorry…. terrible sorry about that… what I meant to say was that since this is a Historic site, it needs additional oversite, and as someone who donated five American Dollars and a long time fan of Nicolas Tesberg, I really think FUCKING GIVE IT TO ME! GIVE IT! I HUNGER FOR ALL THAT SWEET STICKY CURRENCY.." and so on…

PhilG • Aug 17, 2012 @6:12 am @Hughhh Brilliant, I made a request before and I'll go try out your idea right now

W Ross • Aug 17, 2012 @2:29 pm ... 9284cc33eb

Tara's posted some more rambling lunacy about how more of society should worship her crying mother-vagina… or something. Seems blissfully unaware that more than $536,000 dollars has now been raised for Tesla.

I like how she's made the only thread people care about on her site her dream journal now, and then she adds "with Matthew Inman" or "well, Angus from Popehat?" the way people add "in bed" to their fortunes.

Adam Steinbaugh • Aug 20, 2012 @12:32 am And now we have a new movie about the CIA or something.

Valerie • Aug 20, 2012 @3:16 am @ Adam S I couldn't get a movie, only the mp3.. I was expecting a rousing hate fest like Psycho Santa or Pterodactyl Killa.

Turns out, Charles thinks he can channel James Taylor and give us a poignant, heartfelt, hateful, soft-rock ballad about how everyone is working for the CIA. (If Tara wrote it, it would be about how everyone was working for the Carl Jung). He has learned to use a microphone, more or less. Kudos Charles!

Does any one know how Doe vs Satirical Carreon is proceeding? Is it still making its way through the courts.

W Ross • Aug 20, 2012 @3:19 pm He seems like a rape-ier Mr. Rogers.

W Ross • Aug 20, 2012 @3:19 pm ( the movie link, Valarie.)

Valerie • Aug 20, 2012 @8:39 pm @ W Ross – thanks, although aside from Charles bad miming & the randomly placed sitar in the background, I'm not sure what the video adds to the nonsensical lyrics. Also, it is definitely not a beautiful day in the Carreon's neighborhood, especially if you are a CIA Buddhist near their property.

Valerie • Aug 22, 2012 @7:56 am Does anyone know if satirical charles case (Doe v. Carreon?) suit is still on?

Mark • Aug 22, 2012 @2:19 pm @ Valerie,

I've been following that suit through ... ocket.html

Interestingly enough there CC or his counsel has not made an appearance yet.

Valerie • Aug 22, 2012 @2:21 pm @ Mark Does that mean its likely over and done with or just that Carreon is stalling.

Valerie • Aug 22, 2012 @2:22 pm I'm just curious. I am wondering how much shit Charlie still has to clean off his shoes…

dex • Aug 22, 2012 @4:42 pm God, what a loser.

W Ross • Aug 23, 2012 @12:55 am ... 1.14.0.pdf

Looks like Paul Levy is laying down the smack.

Robin Sijbesma • Aug 23, 2012 @6:48 am First, it is I, Nibor (Sypher).

@W Ross, read the piece, but what is wrong with CC (how can I ask this stupid question) if I am reading it right, CC wrote a letter to the management of Doe's workplace (obvious to get him fired) that's low.

And Doe making himself now publically known as Chris, takes the sting out of that part of the leverage that CC could think he had.

But he still manages to surprise me as how big a douchbag he is.

Robin Sijbesma • Aug 23, 2012 @6:50 am With the douchbag part I of course referred to CC

W Ross • Aug 24, 2012 @6:08 pm ... b040c0a3c4

Somebody must have noticed that there's over a million dollars in the tesla fund now.

John Ammon • Aug 24, 2012 @6:34 pm I love how she takes all of his horrible greeting cards (who's purpose are to be horrible) out of context and examines them without the intended hyperbole.

Valerie • Aug 24, 2012 @10:31 pm This is not a family that understands irony at all. Had she read Swifts A Modest Proposal, she'd have declared him an Al Capp Hitler Stalin Jared Longer and capped his ass like it was a CIA buddhist…

As for the Inman monster thing, she promised that inspired piece quite a while ago – gettin' lazy Tara.

What's up with the snakes?

Joe Pullen • Aug 24, 2012 @11:32 pm I suspect that Charlie, being the coward he is, has been dodging getting served. Probably been hiding behind Tara's skirts on in some yurt up on a mountainside.

W Ross • Aug 27, 2012 @7:35 pm ... &start=180

Tara suggests we all boycott the entire Internet, because her friends aren't more popular on Facebook.

Valerie • Aug 28, 2012 @5:31 am @W Ross – I see she added a fancy border to her Matt Inman LSD "art."

Beginning to get boring – just more "'come and see the violence inherent in the system! 'elp! 'elp! I'm being repressed!" from someone with a massive ego and no self awareness.

Funniest comment (other than the change to the forum's title, which I nearly missed) = "Matt Inman's people made thousands of bad reviews about Charles' book, "The Sex.Com Chronicles," on Amazon. Obviously, a thousand people didn't read the book and give it a fair assessment." – Obviously, because I seriously doubt 1000 people have read the book period.

Still, consider the good that has come from this – more than $200,000 for bears and cancer and a brand new Tesla museum. Thanks Carreons, you have managed to inadvertently do good for humanity!

Mark • Aug 28, 2012 @6:08 pm If I were affiliated (and had a time machine), I would highly recommend TC's site to the Church of Subgenius's classic "High Weirdness by Mail" collection

Robin Sijbesma • Sep 5, 2012 @12:50 pm yes it is Nibor,

@ W Ross I reacted on your comment (Aug 23, 2012 @12:55 am) but Ken's well earned hiatus kept it in moderation, because I am now using my own name. so a ICYMI.

Mark • Sep 12, 2012 @5:59 pm Whoa — just saw this post over at Censorious Douchebag: ... ow-i-thug/

Holy shit, I know this sounds repetitious, but god, how much of a douche can someone be?

Mark • Sep 14, 2012 @1:52 pm So, according to this: ... 1.16.0.pdf

CC had 21 days to respond to the lawsuit counting from Aug 3rd, otherwise the "judgement by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint."

Does this mean that Doe v Carreon is over?

V • Sep 14, 2012 @3:28 pm Mark, see comments on ... t-remains/

Mark • Sep 14, 2012 @8:56 pm Ah, looks like the party moved elsewhere! No wonder it was quiet in here. Thanks @V.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:51 pm

37 Comments (The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk, Part XI: What Remains)

Adam Steinbaugh • Sep 10, 2012 @9:50 am Good thing I have no employer for him to whine to.

Marcus • Sep 10, 2012 @9:53 am Isn't Walgreens a franchised chain? In which case, Walgreens corporate does not employ the blogger, does not own or control the location where the alleged activities occurred, and does not own or control the computers that Charles Carreon wishes preserved. That makes it likely that the entire "preservation of digital evidence" letter is improperly addressed. Not sure if that has any effect, as it appears the letter was passed along to the employee anyway (and thus presumably to the franchise owner).

Wil • Sep 10, 2012 @10:23 am Do Walgreens retail locations even have PCs where employees can freely use the Internet without monitoring, blocking, etc.?

Tali • Sep 10, 2012 @10:31 am According to the letter, he is an assistant manager, and I would assume there is a back office for management, which more than likely has a computer. But for the common employee, no.

Zach • Sep 10, 2012 @10:32 am I don't believe that Walgreens is any more of a franchised chain than Walmart is. I think the only national retail chains to use anything resembling that model are the co-ops that supply independent hardware (TrueValue etc.) and rural grocery stores (in the West, Unified Grocers).

Gavin • Sep 10, 2012 @11:21 am *sigh* What a mockery he has made of what had previously been a respectable career. I guess it's an important lesson to learn from at how quickly it is to fall from good standing without any hope of return.

Gavin • Sep 10, 2012 @11:21 am *by a respectable career, I don't mean the career of practicing law. I mean his own personal career.

AJ • Sep 10, 2012 @12:28 pm It would seem the denoument of this little drama will be when Carreon ends up accusing himself of defamation. I can't imagine anyone wanting to hire him for any purpose. Well, if you want to become infamous for 15 minutes you might consider it.

Robert White • Sep 10, 2012 @3:13 pm Chuckles is factually known to have misappropriated employers resources to host his blogs (and pay rent) and whatnot.

Theives and crooks, petty or grand, always assume that everyone else is just like them. (Other people do too, which is why most people regularly blurt out "why would anybody do that?" etc. because they could never do whatever.) So the my ex neighbor who is now doing 8 years for theft across state lines, had like nine motion detector flood lights on his property.

So chuckle head probably cannot fathom that someone would use their own resources (or something free like wordpress) when they could just as easily misuse the resources of nearby people and businesses.

So of course the guy _must_ have used Walgreen's computers, after all, it's what censorousdouchbag would do, and so it is what must have happened.

This is probably why he sued Inmann. Chucky Cheater knows he would have stolen, misused, and otherwise appropriated a good fraction of the cash, so he must make sure Matt would not. Likewise his actions are always personal attacks so Inmann's bear love drawing _had_ to be a personal and intended-to-be-factual representation of CC's mom, just like everything on his blog is intended to be personal and mistake for fact when he posts about Nader and Condy and whomever passes his vision that day.

Connie • Sep 10, 2012 @4:21 pm Thanks for the update. I was wondering if he was going to try anything with the Million + Tesla museum fundraiser.

James Pollock • Sep 10, 2012 @8:22 pm So, does Mr. Carreon not understand that if he had been successful in severing the employment of his critic, the declaratory action against him would quickly be amended to include the pendant tortious interference state claim? This time with actual damages attached? Or could his plan be to include Walgreen's when it comes back denying there's any evidence that plaintiff used their equipment?

For that matter, why didn't the judge quash this, seeing as how the first part of a declaratory judgment suit is "I did this" (the rest being "now would you please tell respondent that there's nothing wrong with that?" If he's already said what he did, why would the court need evidence of any kind showing where or how he did it?

Nicholas Weaver • Sep 10, 2012 @8:51 pm James: The judge has no say in Carreon's thuggery-letter. Thats the whole point of such legal thuggery, you DON'T need a judge's approval to send it. No subpoena, no order, just your own letterhead saying "Douchebag Lawyer, esquire"…

Such thuggish threats are how he GOT Satirical Charles's identity in the first place: thuggish threats on lawyer letterhead work.

nlp • Sep 10, 2012 @9:08 pm There are times when I would almost pity him. His initial cease and desist letter to Inman played out in a totally different manner than he anticipated, and he was thrown into a world he didn't understand despite his claim that he was an internet lawyer. And now he is being mocked in a manner he doesn't understand, and it seems that no matter what he does he is going to be attacked. He seems to be drowning, alone without a lifejacket, in a sea of contempt, and I feel a flicker of sympathy or pity.

And then I remember some of his really horrible attacks on other people, some of the awful things he has done, and the pity melts away.

The more he attacks others, the more attention he gets, so at this point he needs his ego to be stroked on a regular basis, which is why he keeps the battle going.

May he get what he deserves.

Robert White • Sep 10, 2012 @9:29 pm Feel no pity. By outing himself he has saved some person from the horror of being his client and having this stupidity come out of _their_ livelihood.

Hell, Inmann probably _saved_ FunnyJunk from Chuckles Douchbag Esquire.

Mr. Polesmoke then went on to save the rest of us from him himself.

(The comments about his previous career are likely unfounded as well. It looks like he just managed to stay under the radar by hiding in his ratcave. Barring some medical evidence of a late onset brain tumor, it is likely the case that he was always this kind of tard, but before social media nobody had a forum broad enough to make his actions seen, or to blow enough clean air to show what lay behind the Chuckles smoke-screen of doom.)

AlphaCentauri • Sep 11, 2012 @12:03 am I'd love to hear the medical explanation for him and his family all being batshit crazy. Maybe they're smoking a Mexican folk-art bong glazed with lead pigments.

V • Sep 11, 2012 @2:19 am Shouldn't CC have filed a response to the complaint by now? (even the amended one)

Nicholas weaver • Sep 11, 2012 @4:41 am V: he has 21 days from the amended complaint and proof of service

V • Sep 11, 2012 @5:42 am Nicholas, thanks. I thought so, but wasn't sure. The amended complaint and summons were filed on August 3rd, so he should've received the summons around that date.
So unless he was served much later or we missed something, I'd guess that means his time is up by now and it'll go to judgement by default ( like the summons says).

Nicholas Weaver • Sep 11, 2012 @8:50 am V: Yeup. ... ocket.html

Now unless he managed to really duck the process server, you can expect the next filing to be a motion for a default judgment, including Paul Levy and Catherine Gellis's attorneys fees.

Nicholas Weaver • Sep 11, 2012 @9:52 am Also, its probably pretty hard for Charles to duck process servers, since he probably accepts service on behalf of a few remaining trademark clients. Especially since Charles does know about the lawsuit.

So I'm suspecting Levy is drafting the motion for default judgment, if he hasn't already.

"default. Woo-Hoo! the two sweetest words in the English language"

Dan Weber • Sep 11, 2012 @3:13 pm The biggest evidence that he ducked the process server is that we have yet to learn about a lawsuit against the server.

Robert White • Sep 12, 2012 @3:11 am @Dan Weber — You got that wrong. He can't sue the process server until the default judgment is issued. Then he can sue the server as part of the suit against the state for failing to serve him where he was clearly and publicly to be found obviously in residence (under the dumpster behind the Residence Inn on route 10, as expected) as fully presented to the court in his prescient psychic reply brief issued a full three days before the initial complaint, and further publicized in the renown international journal "The Nader Library".

Joe Pullen • Sep 12, 2012 @4:30 am Word is Chuckie has indeed been ducking service. Maybe they should try his yurt.

Nicholas Weaver • Sep 12, 2012 @8:50 am I'm surprised he's able to: He's a lawyer, and he has to accept service on the behalf of his clients. Isn't deliberately ducking service the kind of thing that makes the bar association mad? And its not like nobody knows where he and Tara live…

The other thing, he's practically judgment proof: His house is worth far less than the Arizona homestead exemption, his car is not worth much more than the Arizona limit on a car, etc.

Yet ducking service makes it worse: If he just went "ah, me bad" at the start of August, I'm certain Satirical Charles would have accepted it, and probably even have stopped the blog by now because it wouldn't be funny (well, Nazi-fighting dinosaurs are ALWAYS funny).

Which means the odds are now much more that Levy will ask the court (and get) his time reimbursed. And although Charles is judgment proof, bankruptcy is still not pleasant.

Nicholas Weaver • Sep 12, 2012 @9:17 am Oh, and worse for Chuckles: One possibility is the court might actually deem him already having been served, since his thuggery-letter makes it clear he is already aware of the case, since he cites it specifically.

Gavin • Sep 12, 2012 @9:42 am Perhaps he'll keep up is antics and eventually go the way of Jack Thompson?

Joe Pullen • Sep 13, 2012 @4:18 am @Nicholas – you are assuming of course that he actually has clients :-)

Mark • Sep 14, 2012 @8:59 pm How about Carreon v. Inman et al? CC dismissed it, but I haven't heard anything from Judge Chen. They had a "case mgmt statement" due today and a "case mgmt conf" set for 9/21.

Adam Steinbaugh • Sep 20, 2012 @2:49 pm Quiet. Too quiet.

Mark • Sep 30, 2012 @8:46 am The horror. The HORROR. ... spotlight/

Robin Sijbesma • Oct 2, 2012 @3:11 am So everything is still on:
CLERKS NOTICE Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/15/2012 10:00 AM ... ocket.html

Mark • Oct 6, 2012 @4:18 pm Indeed CC is evading being serviced. ... 1.19.1.pdf

God, everything CC does reeks of douchiness. Just look at the attached documents.

Grifter • Oct 6, 2012 @8:03 pm I always had this image of servers in my head as waiting in bushes to jump out and serve you…it looks like the process server they got just mailed it certified mail?

Grifter • Oct 6, 2012 @8:11 pm Oh, I just wasn't looking at all the right exhibits. He also knocked and called. Still a little less ambush-y than I expected from movies and TV, which, as we all know, portray reality perfectly.

Mark • Oct 17, 2012 @3:41 pm CC's efforts to avoid being served via traditional methods are paying off. Judge Seeborg (cool name!) just denied the request to declare the service effective via the use of email and instead asked them to "try harder". ... 1.24.0.pdf

Grifter • Oct 17, 2012 @3:48 pm Hey, it looks like my view of process servers isn't utterly crazy!

"The process server could easily wait outside the fence for defendant to enter or leave the residence and could then leave the papers in the defendant’s presence. Alternatively, the process server may choose to wait near a location defendant is thought to frequent, such as an office or grocery store. If the defendant still refuses to accept the papers, it will be considered sufficient if the “server is in close proximity to the defendant, clearly communicates intent to serve court documents, and makes reasonable efforts to leave the papers with the defendant.”

Mark • Oct 17, 2012 @5:03 pm Problem is "could easily wait outside" == "more money".

I wonder if Mr Recouvreur will be able to recover these costs from CC once this travesty is finished.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:52 pm

106 Comments (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part XII: Brave Sir Charlie Ran Away)

Andrew • Oct 18, 2012 @8:06 am done.

Grifter • Oct 18, 2012 @8:09 am I don't have a lot of money. By that I mean "any extra".

But I live in the area and I'd volunteer to be a "special appointment" server if they wanted some volunteers to save on costs of waiting around…

Daryl Herbert • Oct 18, 2012 @8:10 am Since he's bragging about being a fancy-pants lawyer, doesn't that give you a clue as to where he will be? He can't hide from process servers when he makes a court appearance unless he does it by phone.

You can send your process server to the courtroom even if he appears by phone, to ask the court staff where he can be found (as in, "I'm here looking for Charles Carreon. Isn't he going to come in today? I need to serve him with something"). If you make it known to the court clerks that he's ducking service, he'll drop a few points in their eyes.

Ken • Oct 18, 2012 @8:17 am Daryl: Maybe I'll respond after he's been served; for now I'm not going to say anything that will provide data that might assist him in evading service.

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @8:18 am This whole thing is even more complicated by FRCP Rule 4(g).

On another note, allow me to reiterate the fact that I'm bored and would be DELIGHTED to drive to Tucson.

Michael • Oct 18, 2012 @8:28 am So… all I have to do to avoid getting sued is tell them I'm not interested? Sweet, I'll have to remember this.

This is absurd.

David Veatch • Oct 18, 2012 @8:31 am This is the case that put on my RSS feed. Though the generally high quality and irreverent attitude keeps me here, updates are very much appreciated. I've put my money where my mouth is. I understand Mr. Carreon used to be a decent guy fighting a decent fight. If that's the case, it's too bad he's fallen so far from grace.

Bib • Oct 18, 2012 @8:33 am Left funds for a half-hour. Hey, it's not much, but it's a start.

TheOtherMatt • Oct 18, 2012 @8:34 am As I understand it anyone age >= 18 can serve process, so couldn't they do a crowd sourced thing and have people from teh Internet hang out at Brave Sir Charlie's until he shows up

Adam R • Oct 18, 2012 @8:37 am I might just need to revive the @CCTranslated twitter account…

Jessica • Oct 18, 2012 @8:39 am Not to be a jerk or anything, but can't Matt pay the fees? I feel like he's gone to the well a bunch of times lately for money, and he's headed out on a book tour. I don't think he's hurting for money so badly he has to crowd source this one.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @8:40 am What struck me as odd is that the Judge missed a couple of things in his denial of alternate service, namely that

a: Charles has shown that he is not just aware that the case exists, but details of the case because he used the case number in his letter to walgreens.

b: One of the email addresses used is the one specifically used by the Northern California Federal Court to send electronic communications to Carreon, who practices in that very court.

I'm also surprised there aren't bar association rules that deal with lawyers ducking service.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @8:41 am Oh, and I kicked in for some time too…

Shawn • Oct 18, 2012 @8:44 am @TheOtherMatt: I was thinking the same thing. Get some local rock bands to show up, do a 'benefit' concert, with a couple hundred people in the audience all with copies of the papers. Or just form a 'picket line' around his house, no body gets in until he's served!

Shawn • Oct 18, 2012 @8:45 am @Jessica: This is not a case involving The Oatmeal. This is some one that made a blog site to make fun of Charlie the Censor during the whole Oatmeal thing.

plutosdad • Oct 18, 2012 @8:50 am It's amazing that he can avoid being served when he has talked about the lawsuit and obviously knows about it, yet if you are poor and owe money to someone, the credit agency can MAIL you a summons and since you probably moved you will end up with a warrant for FTA.

Jason • Oct 18, 2012 @8:50 am @Nicholas, I imagine that the Bar would be VERY interested in a complaint that Carreon is violating California Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that California has case law which specifically establishes that evasion of service process so violates the code and constitutes contempt of court: ... 5/934.html

It's fascinating. Does Carreon think he'll EVER get hired again?

Jason • Oct 18, 2012 @8:55 am All that said, though, I just read the judge's denial, and it seems like he paved the road to at least two or three ways that service can be effected within a VERY short period of time.

Scott • Oct 18, 2012 @9:06 am Done. Happy to be part of the mouse army.

perlhaqr • Oct 18, 2012 @9:16 am Public Citizen tip-jar hit.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @9:23 am Jason. Yeah.

But for alternate service, I'd personally vote for a billboard truck, parked outside Chuckles's house for a week, playing La Cucaracha with the case information written on the side, since I think that can be reasonably expected to be noticed. :)

This is Not Legal Advice • Oct 18, 2012 @9:37 am FRCP 4(e)(1) – you can serve based on the law of the state where the district court is (i.e., California law, because the suit was filed in CAND)

Cal Civ Pro 415.40 – you can serve someone at their out-of-California address by sending the summons/complaint via U.S. mail (return receipt requested, postage prepaid). Meaning you can mail it to Carreon's AZ address on file with the California state bar.

M. Lowenstein (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 762 – it doesn't matter if the person has an in-state presence. Even if Carreon has a presence in California, that doesn't take away your ability to use certified mail to serve him.

So congratulations, you've already raised enough money to serve him 100 times over.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an attorney licensed in any state. I don't certify that this post is accurate. I don't certify that any of those statutes/cases are still good law. Rely on it at your own risk.

This is Not Legal Advice • Oct 18, 2012 @9:38 am By the way, I won't be offended if you choose not to publish the last comment, because you don't want to tip off Mr. Carreon that you are choosing to serve him in that manner.

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @9:38 am @Nicholas: I think you mean "any song by the Dead Kennedys"

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @9:40 am Adam: Yeah. Style points. Or the Ramones.

Jon • Oct 18, 2012 @9:47 am I have to think that an average, non-attorney, person would not get the leeway to return an envelope unopened, and upon hearing it is a servicer answer "ain't no one here but us chickens!", not to mention trying to get the plaintiff fired quoting the case to the employer…
Am I wrong to think that the judge asking the plaintiff to keep trying is atypical and absurdly beyond reasonable?

J Mortimer • Oct 18, 2012 @9:58 am I wonder how much it would cost to have a bomber air drop a few hundred thousand Xeroxed copies of the process over his house?

Or maybe we could papiermache a ton of them into a ball, construct a giant slingshot and launch the thing through his living room window?

Or we could borrow some of the owls from the Harry Potter movies and have them harass him until he opens one of the damn things?

………..If only we were millionaires.

Dan Weber • Oct 18, 2012 @10:09 am Adam wins with FRCP Rule 4(g). Please tip your Public Citizen server, he'll be here all week.

I totally understand why the court wants to be sure its bases are all covered with regards to serving papers, but I don't understand how someone can continue to be a lawyer after refusing to participate in a critical part of the legal process.

Roger • Oct 18, 2012 @10:23 am Jessica, Matt is not the blogger suing Carreon. (Now, could he donate a little money as a random citizen? Sure, and I suspect he has.)

Anglave • Oct 18, 2012 @10:26 am Done.

Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk is the case that brought me to Popehat, and I've received many hours of entertainment as a result. I donated to BEARLOVE, and I'm happy to donate for Satirical Charles.

eigenperson • Oct 18, 2012 @10:30 am Donated $50.

En Passant • Oct 18, 2012 @10:31 am I'm not an expert in process serving, but I've heard tales from people employed in process serving and skip tracing.

First, I reiterate what the court in the instant case Recouvreur v. Carreon noted:

Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the methods by which service may be effected. Rule 4(e)(1) permits service by any means permitted by the law of the state in which the case is pending, or the state in which the defendant resides. Alternatively, Rule 4(e)(2) allows service by: (1) personal delivery of the summons and complaint to defendant; (2) leaving a copy of each with a person at the defendant’s residence, or (3) leaving a copy of each with an agent authorized to accept service.
That gives considerable latitude to the server — any of two states' rules or Federal rules.

As far as I know, deception as to the server's identity or purpose is not forbidden, nor is stealth. For example, a server could employ a barber to place the papers into defendant's hands when he went to get his hair cut.

Unless Charles the Slippery is holed up in his castle with no contact to the outside world, service can be done. Even if he is holed up, he or a member of his household must occasionally venture outside for various necessities, or have them delivered. For example, a process server posing as a pizza delivery (from the very shop he ordered from) could accomplish service (and even deliver the pizza at the same time). All he must do is utter the magic words "you have been served" and certify under penalty of perjury that they place the papers in defendant's hands or on his person.

Although such methods may be expensive, they can be very effective against process dodgers. They even have the bonus psychological effect of causing dodger some butthurt for having been gullible or off-guard.

James Pollock • Oct 18, 2012 @10:32 am "Am I wrong to think that the judge asking the plaintiff to keep trying is atypical and absurdly beyond reasonable?"
You don't want to leave any opportunity for a successful appeal. A court that the defendant does not actually reside in has to be very careful on the matter of obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant, as those are the ones scrutinized the most.
Best case scenario: crowdsource enough process serving to keep Carreon in his house until he has to do something on a legal matter, and then either serve him or get him for UPL in Arizona.

SA • Oct 18, 2012 @10:33 am Silly semi-on-topic – service in a comic strip:

(although I doubt the Judge would condone picking a fight once the target has shown up at the place you'd expected him to be)

… and thanks for the update on this case.

En Passant • Oct 18, 2012 @10:44 am Jason wrote Oct 18, 2012 @8:50 am:

It appears that California has case law which specifically establishes that evasion of service process so violates the code and constitutes contempt of court: [citation omitted]
It is important to understand that the case you cite, In re Holmes (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 934 [193 Cal. Rptr. 790] is about avoiding subpoena service, or detaining a witness or party in an ongoing case already in court. It has nothing to do with service of summons and complaint upon defendant or avoiding service of summons and complaint.

Ken • Oct 18, 2012 @10:55 am I won't be commenting on any legal analysis of service in here.

Shawn • Oct 18, 2012 @11:02 am I won't be commenting on any legal analysis of service in here.

@Ken: If not here, then where? take all our fun away!

Chris • Oct 18, 2012 @11:17 am Done.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @11:23 am Shawn: Charles reads this. Thus its right that Ken only comments after the filings are smacked down…

And then ken won't have to comment because they will be up in all their glory on Pacer.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 18, 2012 @11:32 am For the non lawyers like me, the joke is FCRP 4(G) which I looked up(emphasis added):

(g) Serving a Minor or an Incompetent Person. A minor or an incompetent person in a judicial district of the United States must be served by following state law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state where service is made. A minor or an incompetent person who is not within any judicial district of the United States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f)(2)(A), (f)(2)(B), or (f)(3).

Jon • Oct 18, 2012 @11:34 am @James I guess that makes sense…I just hope that when he is finally served it is scented with eau de taint, assuming lack of proximity to Ken.
(If anyone actually makes "eau de taint: the discerning scent of contempt" I want royalties to be paid to Popehat.)

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @11:45 am Submitted for your LOLs, if only tangentially-related: I was adding feeds to my new RSS feeder. Tried to add Carreon's and (unlike when I added it awhile ago), was asked for an email address. Then I noticed the name of the RSS feed: CouplesClickTV.

Which appears to be a swingers' site?

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @11:55 am Yep, this is the kind of riveting content you can expect when you subscribe to the RSS feed on Charles Carreon's law firm website (NSFW):

Jacob Henner • Oct 18, 2012 @12:10 pm Does anyone know if this is the type of thing that would be admissable in a potential future trial? That is, can the obvious evasion of service be brought up, say as evidence of bad faith/awareness of unethical behavior/frivolous litigation?

BNT • Oct 18, 2012 @12:43 pm @Adam: That screencap leaves me wondering if "wearing patent leather shoes" is a euphemism of which I'm blissfully unaware.

I'm going to pretend it's not. It's funnier that way.

alexa-blue • Oct 18, 2012 @1:00 pm Done.

Art • Oct 18, 2012 @1:13 pm @Ken

It's understandable that you can't comment now but could you provide us with some delicious legal analysis when the dust finally settles on this debacle? I know there will be open records and such but we're not all fancy-pants lawyer types and it is great to have someone competent go through 'em and point out the important/fun parts with a generous helping of snark.

En Passant • Oct 18, 2012 @1:21 pm BNT wrote Oct 18, 2012 @12:43 pm:

@Adam: That screencap leaves me wondering if "wearing patent leather shoes" is a euphemism of which I'm blissfully unaware.
Or a joke on an old meme or urban legend..

Mark • Oct 18, 2012 @1:21 pm TC must be fuming not being able to talk about this in her private circlejerk of one.

Pete • Oct 18, 2012 @2:27 pm Happy to help! One hour funded.

Windypundit • Oct 18, 2012 @2:58 pm Funded. Let us know what happens.

Matthew Cline • Oct 18, 2012 @3:51 pm Wait, so if you want to avoid a lawsuit, all you have to do is refuse to take the service papers? That doesn't make any sense.

Josh C • Oct 18, 2012 @4:26 pm Would you consider speculating on process service after it's successful?

Jay Z • Oct 18, 2012 @5:01 pm I will contribute some $ when I get home. It's crazy that it's so hard to serve him. Is that just AZ law being stupid and obtuse (as usual), or is this pretty common place?

(I know you might not be willing to answer right now, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts after he's been served)

tilrman • Oct 18, 2012 @5:33 pm Ethically and legally speaking, can the papers be posted publically so that someone who happens to bump into Sir Charlie can serve him with a copy? His knowing that any stranger (or less-than-friendly acquaintence) on the street might hand him papers at any moment would at least partly turn the tables in the waiting game.

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @5:36 pm @Jay Z: it's based on Federal and CA law, not AZ in this instance. It's a reasonable ruling that leaves the door open to substituted service — that is, service by email or other means — if Carreon keeps dodging service. That said, it doesn't sound like the judge is keen on allowing email service, but it's not out of the question.

This ruling is likely preferable to the judge granting permission to serve via email and thereby giving Carreon a chance to litigate this phase of the case up through the appellate court. Because that's his express strategy: delay consequences and drive up the cost (in time and money) to protect the blogger's rights.

James Pollock • Oct 18, 2012 @5:51 pm I've only a general understanding of the rules, but vague memories from civil procedure class suggests that service by publication should become available soon, if it hasn't yet. Look for the ad in the Tucson newspaper…

James Pollock • Oct 18, 2012 @5:52 pm Looking forward to part XIII.

KronWeld • Oct 18, 2012 @6:38 pm It would be great if The Oatmeal posted this request as well. Anyone know how to actually get a hold of him and suggest it? There is no e-mail address on his page and he asks to be contacted on Facebook, but not through messaging. I don't do Facebook so that rules me out.

Adam Steinbaugh • Oct 18, 2012 @6:41 pm @KronWeld: Oatmeal did tweet it, to his credit, and the site subsequently crashed (which also happens when I reload it twice in a day).

John Pomeroy • Oct 18, 2012 @7:04 pm Just paid for some guy to hang around for half-an-hour. Chuck'll have to come out sooner or later, no?

KronWeld • Oct 18, 2012 @7:11 pm @Adam – Thanks. I didn't know that. It should help.

Aaron W • Oct 18, 2012 @7:30 pm Since Ken isn't commenting on the legalities surrounding service, perhaps another attorney would weigh in?

It seems like Mr. Carreon, as an officer of the court, would have an obligation to not obfuscate or otherwise attempt to prevent service of court orders, correct? So is Carreon paving the way for an ethics complaint against him?

(And perhaps, if we're very lucky, that's why Ken isn't commenting?)

Joe Pullen • Oct 18, 2012 @7:30 pm Given all of the recent examples of the benefits of maintaining one's anonymity, etc. I think I'll zip out tomorrow and buy a few pre-paid cards and hit the tip jar for a few days of process server time skulking around in hopes of pinningI down Chuckles. The pleasure of seeing CC having to face up to the mess he has created would truly be a real fine brandy and cigar type of moment.

Chris R. • Oct 18, 2012 @8:18 pm If the Oatmeal sneezes in a website's general direction they tend to crash.

En Passant • Oct 18, 2012 @8:36 pm @Aaron W Oct 18, 2012 @7:30 pm:

I'm not "weighing in" because I know not from Shinola about AZ law and process service. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

But here is a recent AZ appellate case, somewhat on point, that would appear to bode well for Public Citizen's efforts in the long run. Especially on the issues of due diligence and impracticability standards under AZ law.

Jay Z • Oct 18, 2012 @11:20 pm @Adam Steinbaugh: Ahh, that makes sense, thanks!

@Ken: How many hits did you get from Oatmeal fans? (for the record, the first time I came for the oatmeal coverage, stayed for the insightful first amendment commentary)

Sari Everna • Oct 19, 2012 @2:43 am Count me among those who came for the Carreon, and never left. I've been keeping my dad in the loop about the continuing saga of Carreon, and we had some amusing thoughts, his first being "If he keeps this up, maybe they should ask the judge to declare him dead!" and I can't deny that the thought of the aftermath appeals to my sense of schadenfreude. And what other reason could there be for him to be impossible to reach? His other suggestion was to blockade the house. After all, if you won't allow anyone in or out until he's served, well, he has to get food somehow. Of course, I personally like the idea of getting him via pizza delivery. You'd just have to intercept the delivery guy and have the papers in a plastic bag. And then Carreon would have been served pizza!

Of course, it's all more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but it's amusing to think up ways of ferreting out that rat.

AlphaCentauri • Oct 19, 2012 @5:57 am If the other residents of the house are clearly helping him avoid service, and since they have been made it clear on line that they take a personal interest in this entire mess, can they be added as defendants — so that anyone who comes to the door gets served?

Nate • Oct 19, 2012 @7:19 am AlphaCentauri – it's my understanding they members of the household don't need to be added as defendants in order to be served on his behalf. IANAL of course, I'm just going off what someone quoted above.

Consider a donation made, all the way from the UK, in thanks of the many hours of entertainment and lulz this & SC have provided.

I can understand why Ken is keeping quiet, he doesn't want to give away plans to CC. I am partial to the pizza guy idea, but I am now imagining CC cursing those "illuminati nazi's" because now he can't even order pizza/take out. I suspect these process servers have so many more tricks up their sleeves yet, which is probably why the judge denied the request. I'm quite amused by how (much more) paranoid this must all be making the Carreons. Hell, we don't even need someone intent on serving the papers sitting outside the house…just random people taking it in turns to very obviously sitting there. Onnnnnn second thoughts…doesn't TC have a shotgun. Ummmmm…pizza box it is.

perlhaqr • Oct 19, 2012 @8:16 am I can understand Ken not wanting to comment, for fear of giving away the strategy and letting Carreon thereby avoid service. But I also like the idea of just naming every possibility, so that he has to be paranoid about … well, everything! And then it sounds like Dr. Seuss.

"We could serve him in a box.
We could serve him with a fox.
We could serve him on the train.
We could serve him in the rain.
We could serve him at his house.
We could serve him mail-by-mouse.
We could serve him in the dark,
we could serve him at the park.
We could serve him with a goat,
we could serve him on a boat.
We could serve him here or there,
we could serve him anywhere!"

Ken • Oct 19, 2012 @9:02 am Thanks to everyone for the support. Expect a post next week.

It's not my decision to make, but I think service should be handled by professionals and not crowdsourced. I'm not sure the people offering to try to serve Mr. Carreon are aware of all relevant factors.

Dan Weber • Oct 19, 2012 @10:16 am "If you think a professional is expensive, wait until you pay for an amateur."

$60 sounds expensive, but it doesn't surprise me as the market clearing rate for someone willing to walk up the whack-jobs and give them very bad news.

Nicholas Weaver • Oct 19, 2012 @10:28 am but it doesn't surprise me as the market clearing rate for someone willing to walk up the whack-jobs and give them very bad news.
Especially for someone willing to represent the Buddhist/CIA Illuminati conspiracy.

James Pollock • Oct 19, 2012 @10:29 am The fun part is that the server him- or her-self makes nowhere NEAR $60 an hour. In the job postings I've seen, they're offered a flat rate (but this may be a regional difference) but it still doesn't add up to much more than $12-15 per hour.

mojo • Oct 19, 2012 @11:46 am Are there no "hot chicks" in the US Marshall's office?

Derrick Coetzee • Oct 19, 2012 @2:33 pm If only I could run into Carreon in the street with a copy of these papers. I'd hand them to him, put on a pair of sunglasses, and then say, "Carreon – you just got served."

Also, donated $10. :-)

Kevin Malone • Oct 19, 2012 @8:06 pm I do not get it. How does Carreon's right to due process get abused by refusing to continue humoring his desperate attempt to avoid due process?

Kelly • Oct 20, 2012 @8:21 am Why does it not surprise me that he is still acting like a 5 year old? Will donate as soon as I can. If anything, he provides amusement.

Artor • Oct 20, 2012 @11:39 pm I had an interesting experience serving papers once. There was a man running his business in a small town, but a guy lived across the street from the shop who was a raging antisocial asshole. The boss wanted to by him out so he would go away, and offered earnest money for the sale of his house through an intermediary. Mr. Asshole took the earnest money and signed an agreement to sell, but reneged and refused to return the money, so a lawsuit ensued and papers had to be served. The interested parties can't serve their own papers, so they asked me to do it for them.
I was extremely hesitant, as Mr. Asshole had pointed a gun at me for straying over his unmarked property line before, and to knock on his door would involve going around the back of his house & inside his gate. I refused for a couple weeks, but something had to be done, so one morning, I agreed to do the deed.
Fortunately, the boss had just handed me the papers, and I saw Mr. Asshole getting in his car to leave. There was my chance to meet him without a gun in his hands! I ran out into the street in front of him and called out as he tried to swerve around me, "Mr. Asshole! You have been served!" He wouldn't stop to take the papers, so I tossed them to land on his windshield. It was a dewy morning, so the manila folder stuck flat, right in his field of view, with the official court markings staring him in the face as he tried to peer around them and navigate down the road.
He did eventually sell the house and move, but as you can guess, he was an asshole every step of the way.

Luna_the_cat • Oct 21, 2012 @4:24 pm Just out of curiosity, and speaking of very bad legal behaviour, had you seen this: ?

Ken • Oct 21, 2012 @5:34 pm Luna: Ten people pointed me to it today.

I've offered my help.

Luna_the_cat • Oct 21, 2012 @5:52 pm I should have known! :-D

Robert White • Oct 22, 2012 @3:10 pm You know, back in the prehistory of the internet, when the email protocols were being invented, they included both delivery and read receipts. Spammers ruined this by harvesting those receipts as a means of scraping addresses of the innocent in a quest to sell larger penises to unsuspecting minors.

So the receipts for email are dead.

So they have some sort of gate on their house… I wonder what a waterproof envelope and a whole heck of a lot of nylon wire tires might accomplish… I mean even if they hired someone to remove the zip ties and envelope, that someone would be their agent and on their premises…

The problem with trying to catch Chuckles the Clown out doing is lawyerly business is that he isn't licensed to practice in the state where he lives, so he _doesn't_ go out for that purpose lest he be jailed for contempt.

Once the freaky cult closes its compound things can be a little unlike normal human interaction.

Censorious Calamity is very like Phred Phelps… it's wacko Waco all the way to the edge of the property.

marc • Oct 22, 2012 @8:11 pm May I suggest you have someone hang out at the Sky Bar on Wednesdays in Tuscon? From what I have read on the Nader Library (Tara and Charles rant and rave outlet) they hang out there quite a bit to annoy the crowd gathered there. It should be pretty easy to serve him papers there, he'll have his guard down a bit, or at least he'll be more receptive to being approached.

Random Encounter • Oct 23, 2012 @10:37 am Maybe he fancies himself some sort of Buck Godot.

Lizard • Oct 23, 2012 @10:53 am @Ken re: . Uhm… I could sort of make some kind of sense out of most of that swamp[1] of consciousness rant, but I am lost at the link between studying Thomas Paine and "fascism, sadism, and madness". Isn't Thomas Paine pretty much the antithesis of "fascism, sadism, and madness"?

I am trying to make sense of the ravings of a madwoman. What does that say about my own sanity?

[1]As opposed to stream.

Analee • Oct 23, 2012 @6:03 pm @perlhaqr: Between your Carreon Seuss comment and Jon's "Eau de Taint" comment, I lost two mouthfuls of water to near back-to-back spittakes.

I only wish that I didn't have rent due on November 1st, because if I didn't, I'd toss an hours' worth to a good cause. I hate that living paycheck to paycheck renders me unable to contribute to all the good causes I want to support. :(

Joe Pullen • Oct 23, 2012 @7:38 pm Ken now has his own parfumee "Eau de Taint" idea courtesy of Jon.

Ah the sweet smell of snark.

Adam • Oct 24, 2012 @12:37 am Pencil me in as another in the "came for the Oatmeal, stayed because it's great" popehat readers.

@Robert White: I believe you're wrong about e-mail read receipts. Both delivery success and read receipts are relatively new standards compared to SMTP. It turns out (unsurprisingly?) that e-mail is exceptionally complicated. begins to address the mess that *just this little corner* of internet messaging turned into.

The most effective read receipt is the easiest to use now: embed a tracking code into an image signature, and most people will load it, verifying their receipt of the mail.

If anyone knows where I can read about legal precedents regarding proof of e-mail receipt (or lack thereof) I'd love to read about it. I ain't no lawyer, but I could probably be an expert witness about e-mail, sadly.

Ken • Oct 24, 2012 @10:16 am @Joe Pullen: Which Jon? Who did that? I love it!

Joe Pullen • Oct 24, 2012 @11:17 am @Ken – Jon • Oct 18, 2012 @11:34 am

I got the idea from Jon and Analee's posts. The artwork and concept execution is mine.

Joe Pullen • Oct 24, 2012 @11:37 am @Adam, @Robert White. Interesting fact I learned a few months ago from our use of – there is a HTML email feature that embeds a "cookie" in the email. While there are a few email systems sophisticated enough to strip it out apparently they are few and used by only a few large corporations. Once the email is "read" my understanding is the cookie sends a read receipt back to the email record on I suppose you could sign up via credit card for a few months at $65 a whack and – presto – proof he has read it. Although I'm not certain this would work in a court of law since you'd have to prove he is the only one with access to his email and someone else didn't actually read it.

Adam • Oct 24, 2012 @11:46 am @Joe Pullen: The "cookie" you're describing is the image technique I alluded to. If you send an HTML e-mail with an IMG tag that includes a unique identifier, you can tell from your web server logs whether it was loaded.

A significant fraction of spam uses this technique as well. Due to this, many e-mail clients no longer load images by default. Gmail does not, for example. If your e-mail client loads images by default, get a new one.

This technique works better when you're receiving e-mail from someone you know. I know I stand a greater chance of clicking the "load images in this mail" button when I suspect no foul play is going on. I do this all the time for marketing e-mails from Newegg and various other websites. I know they're tracking me, but I want to see the deals. Give and take.

theNuszAbides • Oct 24, 2012 @4:56 pm within 24 hours i shall have funds to forward. no conquistador-vulture hybrid deserves to prevent himself from being served!

Mark • Oct 25, 2012 @2:01 pm This is too funny: Sir Charlie has hired services of a whois privacy service company … IN AUSTRALIA (

Very conveniently out of reach of US subpoenas I guess.

Just try a whois of his usual domains (e.g., and see for yourself.

I distinctly recalled doing a whois in the past and receiving all his AZ address/email address just fine. Just proves that we probably should screenshot and archive everything about this guy.

… I wonder if this is related to avoiding being serviced… (/sarcasm)

Mark • Oct 25, 2012 @2:23 pm Oh, and apparently Lady Tara IS acknowledging DMCA notices against her Nader Library. Here's one from Oct 15th: ... nich.2.htm

God forbid she misses on a DMCA deadline!

(I wonder how long that page will stay up.)

Valerie • Nov 8, 2012 @5:03 pm Wuss.

Tali McPike • Nov 24, 2012 @12:04 pm Carreon has FINALLY been served! ... 1.31.0.pdf ... dment-cas/

Joe Pullen • Nov 24, 2012 @5:17 pm Ah yes heard from Satirical Chucky that Sir Charles had gotten served the other day. More fun to come I'm sure. Getting the Holiday popcorn ready.

Mark • Dec 2, 2012 @5:50 am Here's what CC had to say about this, according to the documents:

I have no interest in litigating this matter, and accordingly will not consent to or expose myself to service. There is no case or controversy, and your client has no Article III standing to file this suit, which is simply some bizarre form of harassment in which you play the role of officious interloper.

The irony is strong with this one.

Mark • Dec 5, 2012 @2:21 pm Can some kind soul explain what is happening here? I got lost in the legalese… ... 1.34.0.pdf

Grifter • Dec 5, 2012 @2:47 pm Can someone explain how a lawyer can say:

"I have no interest in litigating this matter, and accordingly will not consent to or expose myself to service."

and not be bashed by the Bar for it? It seems that a lawyer who admits that he is avoiding service, and doing it solely because he doesn't wanna have to deal with the case, should face sanctions as an officer of the court, no?

V • Dec 5, 2012 @3:40 pm @Mark
There's a request to award lawyer and service costs (that were made while trying to serve CC with papers) to the blogger.
CC wants more time to respond to that request, because he says he has been busy trying to negotiate with the blogger's team to make the suit go away and will be busy the upcoming couple of days. He says the blogger's team declined to give him more time to respond to said request, so now he's asking the court.

Mark • Dec 6, 2012 @3:32 pm @V thanks. I thought as much, but the roundabout language got me confused.

Nate • Dec 7, 2012 @1:53 am In the emails from the latest exhibits Levy wishes Carreon good luck with his American Buddha case. It looks like Carreon has a hearing today about Penguin's copyright suit against him. ... v.uscourts
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:53 pm

73 Comments (In Which Charles Carreon Says Mostly True Things About Me In A Footnote)

Valerie • Mar 20, 2013 @6:02 pm Charles Carreon – the gift no one asked for that keeps on giving… I will have to check out the Nader Library chuckle fest soon – should be some good, new stuff…

Valerie • Mar 20, 2013 @6:06 pm BTW, my vote is not for lie or inability to read, it is for inability to think critically and empathize. Like, "how will others understand the flood of bullshit that flows freely from my lips…" Will they like it or will they see me as a narcissistic, censorious asshat with a batshit crazy wife."

Lucy • Mar 20, 2013 @6:16 pm In his efforts to paint you in a bad light, he includes "… with a libertarian following…"

This made me consider what a room full of Popehat followers would actually look/think like.

Then I wondered what a room full of Carreon disciples would look/think like.

In this context, I am decidedly ok with being mistaken for or assumed to be libertarian.

Lucy • Mar 20, 2013 @6:18 pm *Libertarian. Sorry.

James Ewell Brown Stuart • Mar 20, 2013 @6:21 pm I'm so Conservative that I violently dislike, but don't hate, Republicans. I own, but do not love, firearms. I still believe in the original Constitution, tho' written by lawyers, but not as currently interpreted by the 9 asshats in black dresses. A pox on all 9, AND dey mommas!

Nicholas Weaver • Mar 20, 2013 @6:25 pm This from Mr "I'm to fatigued[1] to remember what was in the protective order I signed"

1 What fatigue? One other case? Or is the stress of perhaps being guilty of practicing law without a license getting to Charles?

Nicholas Weaver • Mar 20, 2013 @6:30 pm Oh, and I think Charles may just be jealous that Kimberland beat him in the vote for Censorious Asshat of the Year

SPQR • Mar 20, 2013 @6:32 pm "White, a criminal defense lawyer with a Libertarian following,…"

This is a lie too, I'm not Libertarian.

Clark • Mar 20, 2013 @6:43 pm > White, a criminal defense lawyer with a Libertarian following, derides other lawyers at as “Censorious Asshats.”

This sentence would be improved with a comma or two. Or maybe a pair of parenthesis. Or – certainly with a monkey who can juggle.

V • Mar 20, 2013 @6:43 pm Maybe one Libertarian follower is enough? There's probably one, right?

Is the Libertarian comment and using Gripesite Operator just how CC thinks/speaks and can't censor himself or is CC trying to game the judge by using those terms? I can't think of any other reason to even mention politics.

Clark • Mar 20, 2013 @6:44 pm > This made me consider what a room full of Popehat followers would actually look/think like.

I had that thought too, once. I could eat again three days later. Lost four pounds!

sorrykb • Mar 20, 2013 @6:49 pm I am a Popehat follower and I am not a libertarian (neither capital "L" nor lowercase).
And I've yet to see Ken deride other lawyers at Popehat. Just how many lawyers does Popehat have???

ULTRAGOTHA • Mar 20, 2013 @6:50 pm I'm not a Libertarian or a libertarian. I'm a bleeding heart pinko-socialist tree-hugging gay marriage liberal who keeps a copy of the Constitution where most people keep a Bible.

Does that mean I have to stop following this blog? I will cry.

Adam Steinbaugh • Mar 20, 2013 @6:51 pm I've long been tempted to write a letter to the Arizona State Bar, but I can't bring myself to do it. It would feel too much like contacting a critic's employer.

Hopefully, he'll take the AZ bar exam and resolve that issue on his own.

Valerie • Mar 20, 2013 @6:52 pm @ Mr. James Ewell Brown Stuart, could you elaborate on how your love of constitution relates to Mr. Carreon (I do not mean this in an offensive way, but tone is hard to convey in writing). Although I lean left for the most part, I don't think free speech is a left or right issue – I think of all the rights in our constitution, it is the most unambiguous and ought to be the most untouchable – but, for clarification, which aspects as (mis)read by the Supreme Court do you think apply here and how does their interpretation offend you? I just want to understand what you are saying.

Adam Steinbaugh • Mar 20, 2013 @6:53 pm "This made me consider what a room full of Popehat followers would actually look/think like."

If the Prenda hearing was an accurate sample: 25-35 years old, nerdy, pale, and skinny.

MattS • Mar 20, 2013 @6:55 pm What judge is this case before? Any chance it can be transferred to Judge Otis D. Wright II of Prenda Law smack down fame?

Valerie • Mar 20, 2013 @6:56 pm Also, for the record, Charles Carreon is a bigger free speech time waster than Donald Trump (v. Bill Maher over a hair joke), and that is saying something. Seriously, how many resources have already gone into defending against his BS that could have been better spent? How many judges' time wasted? White hat lawyer my ass…

sorrykb • Mar 20, 2013 @7:02 pm @Adam Steinbaugh: Hey! I'll have you know I'm 43 years old. As to "nerdy, pale, and skinny"…. No comment.

Lucy • Mar 20, 2013 @7:03 pm @V,

There are probably more Libertarians here than at your local library or grocery store.

I was witness to the numbers at one of their coming out events; A particularly well written post with a great comment thread.

Clark wrote it. If you're not aware of the Libertarian population density here, and it matters to you, I highly recommend reading that post. ... r-is-fine/

V • Mar 20, 2013 @7:07 pm @MattS
Hon. Richard Seeborg
I think judge Seeborg can handle the case just fine.

Thanks. Nope, don't particularly care to know the density, even if I knew what a Libertarian was. (No, please don't explain. Please don't. Nooooooooo. )

Lucy • Mar 20, 2013 @7:19 pm My vote is with the deliberate lie.

There may be a grey area, as few things are strictly black or white. However in Carreon's behavioral history, he reliably has tried to get away with as much ridiculousness as possible before succumbing to the shadows, suffocating on his own bitterness for a time, and then resurrecting like a rubber monster prop in an old black and white B list horror flick.

Suzanne • Mar 20, 2013 @7:25 pm I'm with ULTRAGOTHA (though I have a Bible along with my Constitution). I may not comment often, but I need my daily dose of Popehat. As for pale, nerdy and skinny, 2 out of 3 aint bad, I'm working on the third.
As for deriding lawyers, Ken only skewers the ones who deserve it.

Bear • Mar 20, 2013 @7:29 pm I'm definitely not a "Libertarian", although I am a libertarian by the L. Neil Smith ZAP/NAP definition. But libertarians tend not to be "followers" (cat-herding comes to mind). I can't quibble about thinking Carreon is a censorious ass-hat. Is that close enough?

Terry Towels • Mar 20, 2013 @7:34 pm What ULTRAGOTHA said. Do not fit the profile from the hearing. At all. Well, other people say nerdy, but I'm a piker in that area.

Bear • Mar 20, 2013 @7:36 pm Libertarians: "…25-35 years old, nerdy, pale, and skinny."

I am kinda pale. But I attribute that to the long, cold New Hampshire winter spring.

Dan Weber • Mar 20, 2013 @7:39 pm I think it's just "let's throw everything against the wall judge and see what sticks."

Steve Simmons • Mar 20, 2013 @7:58 pm Lucy wrote:

This made me consider what a room full of Popehat followers would actually look/think like.
Then I wondered what a room full of Carreon disciples would look/think like.
The former would look like the normal spectrum of humanity, but wearing pope hats. The latter would be the same, with dunce caps.

Bethany • Mar 20, 2013 @8:36 pm Delurking for a little while here…
So is the timing of this just coincidence, or does Carreon mistakenly think that the Internet can't handle him and Prenda Law at the same time?

And why is there never enough popcorn?

Myk • Mar 20, 2013 @8:46 pm @Valerie – She's still going strong… "The sadistic penis people just had a good old time telling stories about their sadistic penises. They never got tired of their sadistic penises. They wanted to see sadistic penises everywhere. Under every symbol, every ritual, in every story, they hid a sadistic penis, or two or three, all the sadistic penises in the universe, jabbing, thrusting, cutting, smashing, spearing.

These guys, like Carl Jung, and Robert Anton Wilson, Albert Pike, Apuleius, they are so religious, psychological, and scholarly, they can tell us all about sadistic penis religion, sadistic penis psychology, and sadistic penis scholarship. I, and the whole world, stand in awe of their learning and erudition on penises. "

htom • Mar 20, 2013 @9:28 pm So, was it misleading, deliberate lie, or failure of reading comprehension? Why can't it be all three?

MattS • Mar 20, 2013 @10:02 pm Bethany,

"And why is there never enough popcorn?"

Because Ken keeps posting popcorn worthy posts so fast that the popcorn growers can't keep up with demand. :)

G Thompson • Mar 20, 2013 @11:07 pm This is what a whole lot of Popehat followers in a room looks like expressing there feelings about Carreon and other asshats (not just lawyers either)

what it looks like

wgering • Mar 21, 2013 @12:45 am 25-35 years old, nerdy, pale, and skinny.
And terrified of ponies.

That Anonymous Coward • Mar 21, 2013 @1:44 am If I am supposed to be scared of ponies why do I keep demanding one from G?

Anonymous • Mar 21, 2013 @2:11 am "Libertarian audience" my ass, I'm a Scandinavian-style social liberal and voted for the Socialist People's Party in the last national election.

Nate • Mar 21, 2013 @4:03 am To be fair, it's not just other lawyers that Ken derides for being censorious asshats. He's pretty equal opportunities in that, regardless of profession ;) So even that's not accurate.

Will there be an actual hearing in front of the judge on this or will the decision be made purely on filings? Seems to me he's cherry picking 'facts' to suit himself. Also, the thing that bugged me was that all the way through that latest filing of CC's he refers to himself as the Lawyer. Like that makes him special. Looks a lot like game play to me, attempting to influence the judge by reminding him that he's not an 'ordinary' defendant. I dunno how well that will work for him, it bugged the life out of me.

Also, his writing just gives me a headache and I have to stop reading (also a cunning plan) it's like no one ever taught him out to write these things; obviously, I wouldn't have a clue how to write them myself but IANAL so I don't have to.

Grandy • Mar 21, 2013 @4:25 am As a gentle reminder, those among our readership who are not L/libertarian can continue to read the blog, and avoid excess ridicule of their beliefs and value systems, by becoming a member of Popehat.

Note: Popehat's authors are the sole determiners of what "excess" constitutes.

Jeff • Mar 21, 2013 @6:44 am Hi Ken. I've not seen you limit your derision of censorious asshats merely to lawyers. I also haven't seen any stats that might lead one to believe your 'following' is of any particular political persuasion. So, do *you* have an opportunity/desire to officially respond to Mr. Carreon's motion?

John Beaty • Mar 21, 2013 @7:32 am Well, one out of three.
For more giggles, google "Charles Carreon Fierce Grace". You will turn up CC's 5000-word review of the Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) movie. 4500 words about CC, 500 words about the movie. (He didn't like it: when RD has his stroke, he doesn't go towards the light. Therefor he wasn't close to dying.) He's spread it thickly across the 'net, so you can find it in many places,, but definitely take time to read the comments.

Merissa • Mar 21, 2013 @7:39 am I also am a bleeding heart socialist, with occasional "what the fuck is wrong with you people" moments of what Americans would classify as conservatism due to my Texas upbringing.

That's what I value so much about this blog – people from many points along the political spectrum, generally getting along and not chewing each other's faces off. It's a powerful thing, Ken/Patrick/et. al., to be able to post about such srs bzns without having hourly Political Krakatoa in the comments section. Well, actually, I'm here for the snark.

Nicholas Weaver • Mar 21, 2013 @7:41 am Also, its clear Ken had someone else in the office produce this document, as it doesn't end with "Snort My Taint"

Lucy • Mar 21, 2013 @8:11 am I don't affiliate myself with any political category, but I am an active voter.

It is just more satire that Carreon attempts to leverage a demographic of Popehat readers in a way that would imply Ken is in control of that somehow. Or responsible in some way. Or to go a step further, implying Ken should be ashamed in some way. He does this in such a manner to deprive the other writers at Popehat of any credit.

What a buffoon.

GrimGhost • Mar 21, 2013 @8:32 am "Ken White is a) a lawyer b) who derides some other lawyers as Censorious Asshats c) when he's not spying for North Korea."

Ken, you have to be a whole lot calmer person than I am to describe the previous sentence as "mostly true."

Blah • Mar 21, 2013 @8:54 am Man, I hope the judge smirks as hard as I did when I read that footnote. The fact that you calling Carreon a censorious asshat is now a matter of judicial record is a thing of true, rare, pure beauty.

Joe Pullen • Mar 21, 2013 @9:22 am @Jeff, I believe (in non legal terms) Ken has basically already told Carreon to go pound sand.

Nicholas Weaver • Mar 21, 2013 @10:21 am @Jeff Not only has Ken already told Carreon to (in far more polite terms) "Snort his taint", Carreon, by his winy little footnote and inclusion of the amazingly-irrelevant subpoena response as an exhibit, has notified the judge that yes, Charles Carreon is a winy little censorious asshat.

Joe Pullen • Mar 21, 2013 @10:26 am Is winy a new word – ie. whiny and tiny all rolled into one?

BTW nice find on the AZ bar status.

Malc • Mar 21, 2013 @10:26 am @Lucy,

When you say

"There are probably more Libertarians here than at your local library or grocery store"

that is probably true, since Big-L Libertarians are rare and marginalized supporters of a political _party_ that, in my view, occasionally rises to the level of being hopeless, but usually wallows in the depths of irrelevance.

But Small-L libertarians are far more common; in fact a significant chunk of the pro-choice community and the anti-theocracy movement do so for libertarian reasons.

[ I am certain that relatively few small-L libertarians are Big-L Libertarians, and have more than once opined that some Big-L Libertarians are not actually small-L libertarian. But not all Democrats support (pure) democracy, because at its core democracy includes 9 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner... ]

Nicholas Weaver • Mar 21, 2013 @10:27 am The AZ bar status find was initially Adam, I just remembered the cases showing that he's still practicing in CA (iCall v Tribair), listing his AZ addresses in his filings, and probably since moving to Arizona, been practicing in CA state as well as federal court (that criminal case in SF).

Joe Pullen • Mar 21, 2013 @10:40 am @Nicholas – ah good to know.

In other news "winy" meaning 1. of, like, or characteristic of wine. 2. affected by wine, may not be an altogether bad description of Carreon – especially as 1.) he would be more palatable if he put a cork in it, and 2.) if he had consumed to much of the stuff it might account for a portion of his bizarre behavior.

Ashley • Mar 21, 2013 @10:42 am @Merissa, I couldn't have said it better!

And, like @Nate said, the reason why I keep coming back to Popehat because I'm always hoping for an entry deriding any censorious asshat. Or, if I'm really lucky, an incompetent marketeer. (I'm in marketing, and seeing the bad eggs taken to task is quite satisfying!)

NoneCallMeTim • Mar 21, 2013 @10:46 am In your objections you state it
"…contains requests and / or instructions that are overbroad and exceed the scope of discovery permissable under Rule 34…"

I disagree; there is nothing that Rule 34 doesn't permit :-O

Thad • Mar 21, 2013 @11:10 am (The other Thad)

Hey, I am not and never have been a librarian. But then, I only pop in here from time to time, so perhaps I'm not a follower, in which case that doesn't count.

Ollie • Mar 21, 2013 @12:06 pm This probably sounds crazy, but, to be honest, I can somewhat see where Carreon might be going with his argument. I mean, frivolous litigation chills speech and is an affront to first amendment rights. However, a precedent saying that you could be responsible for the legal fees in a case like this could cause losses for, say, copyright holders with borderline cases or even legitimate cases, in which they're stuck between losing control of the copyright or potentially losing a lot of money if litigation doesn't go their way. Or a defamation case where someone who was actually defamed might be discouraged from litigating for the same sorts of reasons. Granted, Carreon's case isn't even borderline, it's just flat out frivolous, and in that he stretches the argument too far. And in no way am I defending Carreon himself. But am I the only one who thinks that, to a certain degree, he has a point?

Elliot • Mar 21, 2013 @12:54 pm Does anyone have a working link to Carreon's latest magnum opus (the opposition to the fees motion)?

James Pollock • Mar 21, 2013 @1:10 pm The first challenge of libertarians is getting any two libertarians to agree on what "libertarian" means. Herding libertarians is at least one order of magnitude more difficult than herding cats.

Malc • Mar 21, 2013 @1:34 pm @Ollie,

Even Carreon has acknowledged that his actions were never intended to result in litigation to resolve a real controversy, and that he acted in a way to run up the lawyers bills (by e.g. attempting to evade service).

Malc • Mar 21, 2013 @1:47 pm @Elliot, ... 1.39.0.pdf

The whole docket is here: ... ct_Court/3–12-cv-03435/Recouvreur_v_Carreon/

En Passant • Mar 21, 2013 @2:38 pm Nicholas Weaver wrote Mar 21, 2013 @10:27 am:

The AZ bar status find was initially Adam, I just remembered the cases showing that he's still practicing in CA (iCall v Tribair), …
Here is his licensing information currently on file with the State Bar of California.

Jon • Mar 21, 2013 @2:45 pm Malc — that's not the current one, though I had forgotten about this jaw-dropping claim in the one you cited:

The Court should not be incited by the assertion that defendant evaded service. He did not. He simply declined to waive service.
Further evidence that Chuckles lives in a different reality from the rest of us.

V • Mar 21, 2013 @2:57 pm Elliot, ... 1.56.0.pdf

James Ewell Brown Stuart • Mar 21, 2013 @3:49 pm @Valerie, I was commenting on the "Libertarian Membership" accusations of Mr. Carreon. I also agree with James Pollock's comments on Libertarians and cat-herding. I know felines quite well. I might even BE a closet Libertarian. I certainly AM a cat staffer.

Regarding the Constitution & the Supreme Court, let's take the infamous Second Amendment. I don't see any reason at all for any government to control the ownership of firearms by any citizen. WHOA! Whut???

By that, I assert that ANY felonius use of ANY type of firearm (or other death-dealing weaponry) can be dealt with by well-written laws and use of extreme punishments, including the death penalty. Those longly imprisoned for such abuse will have much time to rethink their actions. Those executed for murderous abuse will not trouble society further.

That's just one small example I give you now to answer your questions. Please do not take the courtesy of this answer to you as license to grill me about all of my beliefs on Life, the Universe & Everything, as Mr. Carreon is the one on trial here, not me.

Adam Steinbaugh • Mar 21, 2013 @5:07 pm "I can somewhat see where Carreon might be going with his argument. I mean, frivolous litigation chills speech and is an affront to first amendment rights. However, a precedent saying that you could be responsible for the legal fees in a case like this "

I somewhat agree, but Carreon isn't doing himself any favors by arguing that sending threatening letters IS litigation (in order to take refuge in the Litigation Privilege) while also implying that rights holders could find themselves subject to attorneys fees on the whim of a "gripe" blogger.

The point is to deter abusive, frivolous legal threats. If a use is debatable as a fair use, then the rights holder should be immune from arguing its case. But in clear cases of fair use, those sending frivolous legal threats should bear the costs of their bloviating.

Bob Brown • Mar 21, 2013 @6:23 pm I note with a certain amount of delight that the domain name is available to be registered. Alas, I'm a teacher in a state college. I can afford the ten bucks for registration, but not the $$$,$$$ for vexatious litigation. Perhaps someone else will take the hint. ( is also available, but just doesn't have "that ring" about it.)

James Pollock • Mar 21, 2013 @7:44 pm "Regarding the Constitution & the Supreme Court, let's take the infamous Second Amendment. I don't see any reason at all for any government to control the ownership of firearms by any citizen."

With respect (and some trepidation re: can of worms, opening), I do. Some citizens are demonstrably unfit to possess a firearm. (Admittedly, possession and ownership are not quite the same thing, but I doubt anyone really wants to argue that a right to ownership that doesn't convey a right of possession by implication is a meaningful right.) Some persons should be denied a right of possession of a firearm by reason of age (too young), mental impairment (senile dementia, mental illness), current status of incarceration (prisoners are citizens) I think that these are largely non-controversial; I might go so far as to suggest that a safe-handling course (available through regulated private industry) might be a valid pre-requisite to firearm possession.

Valerie • Mar 21, 2013 @8:42 pm @James Ewell Brown Stuart Woah, dude, chill out – no need to get defensive. I'm not attacking your political views.

I just didn't see (and still don't see) the connection between the 2nd amendment and the censorious yet amusing asshattery of Charles Carreon (other than maybe Tara's threatening to shoot Buddhists, Illuminati and various others who come too close to her land). I wasn't asking you to defend your gun control position – that's not the subject at hand.

Fear not, I have great interest in Mr. Carreon's endless stream of butthurt-induced foot bullets, and very little interest in your politics (and I assume that feeling is mutual), so I shall not "grill you."

Instead, for the moment, as I await more asshattery from bold Charlie, I shall ready my popcorn and seek out more of the Tara-brand cray. Time to go seek out the "hidden, sadistic penises" @Myk alluded to…

Perhaps the "jabbing, thrusting, cutting, smashing, spearing" penises hold the key to understanding Carreon's misleading footnote… (You remember, like Al Capp and Lil' Abner held the secret to John Lennon's assassination).

The truth is out there, people – the hot, throbbing truth.

Alan Bleiweiss • Mar 22, 2013 @12:29 am "I leave the decision about which one it is to the reader — and to the judge."

My vote is to just leave the decision to us. Save the judge the heartache. We've got this one…

Robert White • Mar 23, 2013 @5:05 am 48, grey fluffy mohawk, bullring in my nose and matching one in each ear, a little heavy, pale, gay-redneck with opinions perpendicular to most of American politics in general (liberal I guess, but all outliers and stuff). I blend in with everyone.

Lucy • Mar 29, 2013 @5:00 am Just… what the… ... tics.shtml

Mark • Apr 12, 2013 @1:01 pm Oh my god. ... 1.58.0.pdf

Dan Weber • Apr 12, 2013 @1:30 pm $46,000? That's gonna leave a mark.

Hey, maybe you shouldn't dodge service.

My prediction is that he'll spend the rest of his life refusing to pay that bill, BTW. Paying it would admit he was wrong.

Mark • Apr 12, 2013 @1:37 pm I'm more interested in what Judge Seeborg thought of CC's actions throughout this trial. I'm furiously refreshing Nader Library.

Evidence supports a finding of malicious conduct during the course of this case. Defendant first went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service. Then, in response to this motion for attorney fees under the Lanham Act, defendant engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics in preparation of his opposition to the motion.
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Charles Carreon:, by Kenneth Paul White

Postby admin » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:55 pm

83 Comments (Charles Carreon Encounters Actual Legal Consequences)

DP • Apr 12, 2013 @2:57 pm I think you mean "Matthew Inman of the Oatmeal"

Caudex • Apr 12, 2013 @3:02 pm I can't wait to see Missus Carreon react to this. I wonder how long it'll take her to invoke Godwin's Law? And yes, I've ventured onto her little echo chamber. (My sanity was not in danger, since I'm already deranged.)

SassQueen • Apr 12, 2013 @3:02 pm Prenda and Chaz both getting boned? April is like the awesomest month ever.

Tali McPike • Apr 12, 2013 @3:02 pm Justice Is Sweet! I'm just waiting for Tara's crazy rant on how Judge Seeborg is part of the Illuminati conspiracy and is being paid by Techdirt, Ken, et al., as well as some promise of appeal.

Jordan • Apr 12, 2013 @3:13 pm Is this a final ruling? Can/will Carreon appeal this?

shg • Apr 12, 2013 @3:13 pm It reminds me of that joke about 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. Somebody, whether the satirical blogger, or Public Citizen, or Cathy, will have to eat the balance. At least Carreon will feel the sting. I only hope he has assets.

Mark • Apr 12, 2013 @3:18 pm Now it would be good time to remind CC …

That a judgment can be renewed indefinitely until collected, and that California judgments accrue 10% interest, which can compounded once ever ten years by capitalizing the accumulated interest

Michael • Apr 12, 2013 @3:25 pm Is there no way to inflict punishment, over and above the award of fees, for the behavior he has displayed?

John Ammon • Apr 12, 2013 @3:29 pm Muahahaha. Justice!

Sad that he can still technically practice law… but I guess you can't win them all.

RavingRambler • Apr 12, 2013 @3:40 pm @John Technically, yes, but who would hire him? His search results are likely going to be dominated by this debacle for ages to come.

John Ammon • Apr 12, 2013 @3:46 pm @RavingRambler – True enough. But there are people who don't do research on the internet first (far more than I'd like to think about actually)

Wondering • Apr 12, 2013 @4:02 pm I'm glad for the ruling. But I have a feeling he'll find a way to evade actually paying the money.

Didn't he sue Toyota for repo-ing his car?

Lucy • Apr 12, 2013 @4:16 pm That's a lot of money. If he wasn't just so awful, someone might feel bad for him. He really is just so incredibly out there awful though.

It is nice to see the system work.

So it's there a remaining $30,000 balance to be paid or was Satirical Charles's representation based on an awarded/pro bono basis?

Great job Mr. Levy!


apauld • Apr 12, 2013 @4:44 pm @RavingRambler – Thought you might like to read this article from about two weeks ago: 'Internet Lawyer' Charles Carreon Has A New Best Friend And He's An SEO Expert Who Hates Anonymous Critics

nlp • Apr 12, 2013 @4:44 pm @John, but remember, he specializes in Internet Law.

sta • Apr 12, 2013 @5:28 pm Not including fees in the offer of judgment? Rookie mistake.

John • Apr 12, 2013 @5:55 pm Oh my god this is fantastic. What's the site the Tara posts her craziness at? Some site pretending to be a library… I can't remember the address

azteclady • Apr 12, 2013 @6:02 pm Good people do good things–I'm pretty sure both Satirical Charles and Mr Levy are very grateful for all you do, Ken.

So are we. Thank you.

John • Apr 12, 2013 @6:04 pm Found it: ... &start=200

Hopefully we'll get some more laughs out of that soon

NotPiffany • Apr 12, 2013 @6:09 pm Heh. I love the "BOOM Headshot" tag. May we have the opportunity to see it again someday.

TerryTowels • Apr 12, 2013 @6:44 pm I wish the title had read "Chapter IVX: In Which Charles Carreon Encounters Actual Legal Consequences"

Also, Levy had really nice things to say about you, Ken. Congrats, you help to uplift the image of lawyers.

TerryTowels • Apr 12, 2013 @6:45 pm Arghhh. Chapter XIV

Trebuchet • Apr 12, 2013 @6:48 pm @apauld: That link (for CC's new best friend) is made of pure awesome. Be sure to follow the link for Tom Forrest's resume. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles! He'll probably be spamming Ken any day now.

RavingRambler • Apr 12, 2013 @6:58 pm @apauld Oh. My. Goodness. The crazy is strong with this one, stronger than we knew.

Tali McPike • Apr 12, 2013 @7:05 pm Well, Tara has posted something tonight. Its just not anything specifically about the case, just about suffering

Tali McPike • Apr 12, 2013 @7:07 pm And I still suck at html tags >.< ... &start=200

Kelly • Apr 12, 2013 @7:12 pm Finally, *some* justice. Now, how long will it take to wring the money out of him?

Also, that 'CC's new best friend' article was awesome!

apauld • Apr 12, 2013 @7:15 pm @Trebuchet – did you read Forrest's comments to others commenting on the story? Just Crazy. The last person to respond like that to stories involving them on techdirt was …. Tara Carreon! Yep, Charles wife; she kept us greatly entertained there for quite a long time.
@RavingRambler – I found it interesting that birds of a feather do indeed flock together

Tali McPike • Apr 12, 2013 @7:54 pm @Apauld did you notice Tara wrote a rant/poem about Techdirt and Anonymous Coward? I swear, if I didn't know better, I'd say Tara was Forrest, perhaps they are at least friends from the hippie commune or something.

En Passant • Apr 12, 2013 @8:25 pm SassQueen wrote Apr 12, 2013 @3:02 pm:

April is like the awesomest month ever.
Sanctions from litigious asshats, needing
Benchslaps to the face; feeding
Popcorn forward markets fresh cash.

Oatmeal warmed us up, freezing
All in forgetful suspense, awaiting
Process service on evasive counsel.

But Wright surprised us, gaveling from another bench
Orders to show cause. With Penda henchmen caviling,
We ambled in his brilliance over to Popehat,
And drank coffee, and talked for hours.

OK Old Possum, I'll turn in my doggerel license now.

Delvan Neville • Apr 12, 2013 @8:46 pm @Tali McPike:

You're working for the evil Penguin and the donkey people, too. I just know it!

That Anonymous Coward • Apr 12, 2013 @9:44 pm @apauld – SEO dude owes me like $25K. He made the offer, I accepted and told him where to send the cash. Mike's not emailed me yet to say its arrived.

So finally this story has an ending.
There was a new effect term coined, we met his wife O_O , and learned that justice does work.

The problem for me is I'm from the age of the cashing in movie sequels, so I have this feeling this isn't the final chapter and some bad cross promotion will revive the franchise.

Narad • Apr 12, 2013 @10:06 pm Character is destiny.
"Ηθος ανθρωπω δαιμων." One of Heraclitus's greatest hits. I don't know that I'd go for daimon as "destiny," but I do so hope that Charles and Tara are able to connect the dots between the pre-Socratics and their own Buddhist posturing, so that it really leaves a mark.

apauld • Apr 12, 2013 @10:33 pm I just realized that the one person who hasn't been thanked and praised for all of this is popehat commenter Chris R.; if it wasn't for Chris making a serious stand for his own first amendment rights (in the face of seemingly great adversity) Carreon (and possibly others like him in the future) would still feel free to be a censorious douchebag(s). Chris could've caved to the pressure and retreated but didn't. So thank you Chris, I hope you and your family are doing well now and into the future. Paul.

Narad • Apr 12, 2013 @10:58 pm That link (for CC's new best friend) is made of pure awesome.
The fact that they immediately started posting stooge reviews on Yelp is priceless.

orvis barfley • Apr 12, 2013 @11:25 pm you are a good guy, ken white. i am pleased to share the surface of this planet with the likes of you out there somewhere.

darius404 • Apr 12, 2013 @11:34 pm In the comments for that article, #44 Tom Forrest posts somewhat of a rebuttal, touting HTP Company as "#1 all over the world for "Internet Advertising Company" on Google". One trip to Google later, this turns out to be true.

On a whim, I googled "HTP Company". In addition to it's own website and it's LinkedIn profile, I noticed the top search results included reviews of HTP…. by Ripoff Report and Yelp.

One of the Yelp reviewers had something interesting to say about his correspondence with HTP. To wit, he felt business with HTP was mismanaged, and after complaining of this he received what amounted to a legal threat from one Charles Carreon.

nlp • Apr 13, 2013 @12:31 am To wit, he felt business with HTP was mismanaged, and after complaining of this he received what amounted to a legal threat from one Charles Carreon.

"And the seasons, they go round and round, and the painted ponies go up and down. We're captives on the carousel of time."

If Charles Carreon is intent on making a fool of himself all over again then I have to start investing in popcorn companies. (Please note: the ponies referred to are not actually alive).

Gal • Apr 13, 2013 @2:17 am Can't stop laughing at the replies to "Anonymous Coward."

OngChotwI • Apr 13, 2013 @2:33 am Adam Steinbaugh tweeted this link to Penguin suing Carreon in Oregon: ... 67.1.0.pdf

Nicholas Weaver • Apr 13, 2013 @7:04 am Don't celebrate yet. Charles is amazingly judgement proof: His house is within the limit and his car is a dented door away from Arizona's bankruptcy protections for personal property, and given how badly he is at paying his bills, it is doubtful he has any other assets.

In fact, even the $8K for ducking service and refusing to pay for it when asked is probably unpayable. And that was a bulletproof motion.

Thus his decision to go "Full Carreon" in objecting to fees in the way he did rather than just say Your honor, the letter may have been a douchebag move, but its not an exceptional douchebag move makes sense: $8K, $80K, $800K, its all unpayable. So why not make the unpayable amount as big as possible?

Thus my bet ($100, payable to public citizen. Any takers? No?): Charles will attempt to delay and appeal. The only thing which might limit his appeals are bond requirements, and he's going to move that he can't afford any such bond.

Nicholas Weaver • Apr 13, 2013 @7:06 am Oh, and if anyone gets a threat from Charles Carreon in his capacity as an attorney for someone else (like said SEO dude): His office is in his house in Arizona. Which, according to the Arizona Bar, means he is probably practicing law without a license.

That Anonymous Coward • Apr 13, 2013 @7:41 am @Nicholas Weaver – so what your saying is it would be a bad idea for me to try and get Charles to represent me against the SEO guy not holding to his word? ... html#c1636

Ken • Apr 13, 2013 @8:32 am Tara speaks. Because securing a complete victory for the client, vindicating their rights, and being awarded $46k in attorney fees is blowing smoke up the client's ass.

That Anonymous Coward • Apr 13, 2013 @8:44 am @Ken – Its like Geocities never closed…. my eyes they burn…

Trebuchet • Apr 13, 2013 @8:56 am @Trebuchet – did you read Forrest's comments to others commenting on the story? Just Crazy.
Oh yeah! Not just crazy, but illiterate to boot! I love the other commenter correcting his grammar and spelling! I'd almost bet a dollar that HTP Company consists of Forrest and nobody else. His CV shows two stints at running HTP with a brief period of a real job in between. And don't forget: Intercontinental Ballistic Missles! Complete with a link to Wikipedia!

Nicholas Weaver • Apr 13, 2013 @9:14 am Ken, it's like Tara isn't trying anymore. I was hoping for at least .2 Cox of craziness here. Instead we get this millicox of weaksauce. Where is the photoshopped penises? Where is the bad song?

Lucy • Apr 13, 2013 @9:14 am She seems to have a strange affection for poop and orifices and running on hate.

Someone should let her know the natural remedies aren't working, she should give real pharmaceuticals a chance.

Lucy • Apr 13, 2013 @9:31 am Holy cow! That Tom guy just took on every commenter on that article. I just skimmed, but from what I saw, it was like… just who does that kind of thing??? Just arguing with everybody, like a drunk Chihuahua barging into a perfectly nice back yard BBQ and nipping at all the ankles. I couldn't read all the way through. I don't have the stomach for that kind of embarrassment. Just, wow.

Nate2002 • Apr 13, 2013 @9:39 am I'm amused that without the ridiculous lengths he went to in order to object to fees he's ended up with a huge judgement against him. $8k would probably have been doable, hell, he just needs a couple of those SEO guys to represent and it's sorted. But $46k is the cost of some people's homes. It just reflects what's been his problem all along, the doubling down and going all in. I agree that by $46k it's probably not gonna get paid off, is there no way to garnish earnings?

Interesting that Tara uses the English spelling of arse in that cartoon. And I'm also incredibly disappoint over the lack of dicks. Also…does she really think that Chris was/is paying $700 an hour (and thus will be stuck paying their debt)? I don't think she understands how pro bono works. Really, of all the responses she could have made, that's woefully lacking. TC, I am disappoint!

ChrisTS • Apr 13, 2013 @11:22 am What in the name of anything is that woman's site? Apart from eye-blasting 'graphics,' I can only see one vulgarity laden rant after another (ok, there is the very finely drawn cartoon [cough]).

This particular group of evil crazies is new to me (started visiting here for recent Prenda stuff). I just have no idea what to make of it.

I also wish someone would explain to me what she thinks Buddhism has to do with it.

azteclady • Apr 13, 2013 @11:27 am ChrisTS, I think that for any of the Tara/Charles Carreon BS to make sense, a person has to be under the influence of something strong–really strong.

ChrisTS • Apr 13, 2013 @12:43 pm @azteclady: So, it will all be clear to me around 8:00 PM? :-)

GrimGhost • Apr 13, 2013 @1:49 pm @ChrisTS — if you can score some hallucinogenic mushrooms in the meantime, then yes. Or LSD. Mere ethanol alone won't put you in TC's frame of mind, no matter how much you drink.

apauld • Apr 13, 2013 @2:13 pm @TAC – I think your trying to accept his offer is what made him finally STFU. I should also mention (since I didn't at the time) that your comment:
*pulls doll out of thin air*
show us on the doll where the bad press touched you was brilliant.
@Tali – I wondered if Tara and Tom were huffin' the same brand of glue

orvis barfley • Apr 13, 2013 @2:27 pm and here, all this time, i thought tara was the name of a house. silly me.

if my ship ever does come in, i've got the name ready for the eyesore i plan to build: thistle dew.

Dan Weber • Apr 13, 2013 @3:34 pm just who does that kind of thing?

An SEO wizard, obviously.

It will be very very hard to get any actual money out of Carreon. Can one get a lien on a debtor's house effectively?

I'm glad the SEO wizard is paying Carreon money, though. That gives Plaintiff something to seize.

Narad • Apr 13, 2013 @3:40 pm I also wish someone would explain to me what she thinks Buddhism has to do with it.
Charles and Tara were apparently at one time Lamaists, with Gyatrul Rinpoche as guru. Then, after leaving the compound and getting the law degree, etc., they tried to return and were bitterly disappointed in the process, with Tara ultimately claiming some version of Stockholm syndrome or something. I have no idea what sort of weird metaphysical glop they're stewing in now. You can check out Charles's "50 Ways to Leave Your Lama" or Tara's strange collage about nihilism (which confirms, to me at least, that all the prostrations and mantras notwithstanding, she never ever had the slightest philosophical grasp of the Buddhist part of "Tibetan Buddhism").

I have little interest in plumbing the depths of this, but my general impression is that Tara got pissed off about being passed over in the hierarchy and not being declared a reincarnated Bodhisattva or some such. I have little doubt that she could readily liken koans to "Illuminati puzzles" at this point, and the whole thing seems to permeate her conspiratorial worldview.

Dan Weber • Apr 13, 2013 @3:43 pm ... pay-46100/

Update says Charles Carreon has gotten new clients from all this. So, good news, he's not indigent!

Joe Pullen • Apr 13, 2013 @4:52 pm The Prius is gettin repoed for sure. Like Nicholas I don't trust that he won't attempt another douche move and attempt to appeal it up the chain if for no reason than to drive up legal fees for Satirical Chaz.

Nicholas Weaver • Apr 13, 2013 @5:24 pm The Prius won't be repo-ed: AZ bankruptcy protects a 5k car which sounds about right for an abused 10yr old Prius if Charles puts a couple dents in the doors accidentally.

Rusty • Apr 13, 2013 @6:21 pm Holy Keeerriiisttt – read a couple of Tara's well thought out brain dumps and all I can say is: Deb Frisch lives!

Tali McPike • Apr 13, 2013 @6:30 pm @Dan Webber, my bet is, at least one of those new clients is Forrest, our SEO Wizard friend, as darius404 pointed out that yelp review mentions (as does Forrest in the comments on Techdirt) that Carreon is HTP's legal counsel.

@apauld no doubt, there is something connecting them, their flavor of crazy is much too similar.

John David Galt • Apr 13, 2013 @7:32 pm There are consequences for bad behavior. They come slowly. But they do come.

They came for one rather inept bad guy, but only because he was able to find a "dream team" for free (major attaboys to Ken and Levy!) That's a far cry from proving the general case, especially in cases where officials are the bad guys.

It's progress. But we need to know how to multiply it.

That Anonymous Coward • Apr 13, 2013 @8:07 pm @apauld – He offered me $25K cash why would I not accept?
I set Mike up to work as my proxy and offered him half of the cash for Insider status on TechDirt for life for accepting the payment on my behalf.
The doll comment just sorta happened around the time I was calling him Mr. Butthurt. I felt it was classier than a Waaambulance comment, and was far more entertaining. His repertoire of comments seemed to run out of steam after puffing up his chest about how awesome he was and I started pointing out the virtual offices and how he was creating an awesome public record for potential clients to see how he works, poorly. He then fell back on the tried and true 'I'm taking my ball and leaving!'… and came right back.

I'd like to think I am doing an awesome job of redeeming the epithet 'That Anonymous Coward'.

Cea • Apr 13, 2013 @9:21 pm The "inartful drafter." Carreon is now a character in a Dickens novel.

Clownius • Apr 13, 2013 @10:43 pm Ken please never link a site that evil again.

Beyond the absolute levels of Butthurt the site itself is a disaster. First time in a very long time i have seen such a badly coded site. It even froze my computer at one point……

The rant though was amazing. It appears we are not dealing with sane people there…..

apauld • Apr 14, 2013 @12:53 am @TAC – You have.

I guess I was extra jazzed about your doll comment, because it was a great response to my intentionally watered down question to mr forrest.
I had been sitting on my couch, discussing the story with my son, who was here for his high school's spring break, when one of us found a picture of "the world's #1 SEO consultant." A picture that was put online by "the world's #1 SEO consultant" himself. After discussing the article and the issues around it and then looking at the picture that mr #1 SEO guy put of himself online, my (17 year old) son stated that "maybe you shouldn't make fun him, he seems kinda pathetic."
Though once he responded to my watered down question with his cookie cutter bile, it would have been game on again; but alas he did finally take his ball and go home.

That Anonymous Coward • Apr 14, 2013 @1:49 am @Clownius – That webpage was nothing, pray to whatever you hold holy that you never stumble upon a page maintained by Crystal Cox.

@apauld – I tend to not water things down, especially when dealing with someone who seems to delight in trying to show how much better they are than other people who dare to question them. (This would explain my repeated run-ins with Copyright Trolls)

Oh my FSM, I hadn't bothered to look for a picture of him until now. He struck me as being tone deaf and to wrapped up in his 'skills' to understand the internet, and it looks like I was right. O_O

Anyone who disagreed with him was a moron, and he had all of these accomplishments to back up why he was better than everyone else. Which mirrors the interactions with Charles and Tara, I did these cool things that one time and it should buy me a pass on things.

It gives me concern, we've all seen the current 'entitled' generation. Kids who fresh out of college expect to be Sr. VPs and globe hopping by the 2nd week on the job, have we missed an Older Generation who are to smug in their tenuous grasp of technology that was cutting edge 15 yrs ago and think that gives them a pass forever?

Kirk Taylor • Apr 14, 2013 @4:59 am After mere minutes on Tara's website, I became convinced that everything she's writing is a desperate attempt to get someone like Ken to sue her for defamation so she can play the hypocrite card.

Mark • Apr 14, 2013 @5:45 am That's funny: is redirecting right now to that has a Ramones video embedded.

ChrisTS • Apr 14, 2013 @10:46 am @Grim Ghost

"if you can score some hallucinogenic mushrooms in the meantime, then yes. Or LSD. Mere ethanol alone won't put you in TC's frame of mind, no matter how much you drink."

Well, I did my best with what I had on hand and did manage to forget most of yesterday.

Caudex • Apr 14, 2013 @11:17 am @ChrisTS, @Grim Ghost
I got my hands on, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, “…two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers… and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls."
Miz Carreon's site becomes less "demented ravings" and more "rantings of eldritch creatures beyond space and time" when you're tripping on all of the aforementioned. It's glorious.

Caudex • Apr 14, 2013 @11:19 am @Mark, I'm guessing he's trying to dodge a DDOS–there's a method of combating DDOSes that involves redirecting like that. I'd doubt it's someone else, since Chas loves him some Ramones.

Chad Miller • Apr 14, 2013 @11:24 am Kirk Taylor: Novel theory, but it goes back a lot further than that. You should see the stuff she put up during the Bush administration. And by "see" I mean "avoid, particularly at work".

Speaking of hypocrites, one thing she (temporarily) deleted included a picture of a journalist she didn't like photoshopped to have a penis in each hand. This was fun to point out right around the time that "rapeutation" site went up.

Narad • Apr 14, 2013 @12:56 pm In a perhaps amusing sidelight, when I went looking for Tara's opinions on Zen, I stumbled across a posting on The back story is that Kelley Lynch, Cohen's former business manager, was found in 2005 to have stolen about $5 million from Cohen over the years, and Cohen got a $9.5 million judgment (which she never paid, of course; last year, she was sentenced to 18 months for continued harassment).

So, apparently Lynch had some history with… Tara and Charles! This seems to tie back to Tara's resentment over June Campbell. As for Zen, all one gets is Charles's "review" of Cohen's Ten New Songs. Apparently, he doesn't like either. (Although, as a subitist of the Huineng variety, I can't say I think much myself of the Japanese fixation on zazen.)

Narad • Apr 14, 2013 @12:59 pm Miz Carreon's site becomes less "demented ravings" and more "rantings of eldritch creatures beyond space and time" when you're tripping on all of the aforementioned.
Her repudiation of ayahuasca is not to be missed.

Notme • Apr 14, 2013 @1:46 pm All the concern over hypocrisy and dementia overlook one clear explanation: trolls gonna troll.

Mark • Apr 15, 2013 @2:15 pm It is worth nothing that Ms Gellis also blogged about this. ... awyer.html

Lucy • Apr 15, 2013 @7:09 pm She explained details of his exceptional behavior.

Dealing with him was no easy feat. Like she says, legal professionals simply shouldn't behave that way.

Thanks for that link. Nice work Ms. Gellis!

Steve Florman • Apr 19, 2013 @7:42 am How much in legal fees is Inman still on the hook for?

Mark • Apr 24, 2013 @1:08 pm TC's radio silence seems to indicate that CC is probably going to appeal. Hmm… Probably shouldn't put the popcorn down yet.

Kevin • May 25, 2013 @5:58 pm Carreon just filed notice of appeal. ... 1.59.0.pdf
Site Admin
Posts: 29962
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