PART 3 OF 3 (The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion Cont'd.)
Stuart • Jul 2, 2012 @6:21 am @Docrailgun
CC became FJs DMCA agent just a day or so before sending the letter. Prior to this FJ had no DMCA agent, which apparently is required for safe harbor laws. CC himself mentioned this in an interview saying that now that he was the DMCA agent FJ couldn't be busted for prior acts.
I think a lot of people here are correct in that CC solicited FJ and now FJ is trying to stay under the radar.
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:34 am Good morning, agents, I greet you with the sign of the all seeing eye.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
@ Anita You know, I missed that the first time through. So apparently our noble predecessors in the Vast Conspiracy made a slight spelling error. We really should be living in Americca. Now, since that is true, and Mecca also ends with cca, Al Queda must be involved somewhere. I will consult Bin Laden in his hideout at Castle Greyskull and get back to you on that.
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:39 am @ Adam So after the judge puts this motion to bed later this week, will the case move forward? I am assuming he can't just throw the whole thing out since this hearing only relates to the emergency motion.
After that hearing, what are the chances of this whole thing moving forward? Anyone think Charlie will realize he really should drop the whole thing?
John Eddy • Jul 2, 2012 @6:41 am "he'll probably try to sue PayPal next"
I foresee wanting to ask you for the winning Powerball numbers on Wednesday next….
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @6:42 am @ S Weasel Have you looked at American Buddha and her Mondo Bizzaro art? Some of that makes the Nader Library look like Plato.
ShelbyC • Jul 2, 2012 @6:48 am "Anyone think Charlie will realize he really should drop the whole thing?"
Yes, I think he'll declare victory, claim he prevented the Oatmeal from embezzelling the money, and drop the lawsuit.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:01 am Here is hoping that either IndieGoGo or Inman's laywers make it a point to take Carreon to the cleaners: filing both an anti-SLAPP motion, motion for sanctions against Carreon, and motions to recover attorneys fees.
Because this would be a bad precedent if some Pro Se crazy can, by spending $350 in court filing (oh, and $10, musn't forget the $10), tie up thousands of dollars worth of legal time in a vain attempt to stifle a critic without punishment.
Carreon had plenty of chances just to walk away. At this point, he should be destroyed in court.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:10 am Oh, and an amusing thought. I won't do it because it seems rather harassy-ish to me, and nobody else should either. DO NOT DO THE FOLLOWING.
But the thought is good for a chuckle, so I have to post it:
Carreon didn't just send a C&D letter. He used a process server, in a deliberate attempt to intimidate in his $20K "extortion" [1] letter.
It would be amusing to create an IndieGoGo fundraiser for "Repay Charles": raise money to hire a process server to deliver to Charles Carreon a crisp, new, $10 bill and a letter stating:
Here is the $10 you donated to the Bearlove Good, Cancer Bad campaign, returned to you. Now you have no grounds to sue.
Signed: -the Internet
[1] Litigation condom: Not legally extortion. But many would consider it extortion.
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:13 am So two observations, Tara, since I know you are a big fan of this blog:
Quote: "Regarding this accusation that Charles is a "censorious douchebag," Inman's gang has made clear what they consider "censorious" — having any morals at all! To NOT BE censorious means to express the opinion that anyone can do whatever they feel like doing, including murder."
#1 By stating that people who speak freely in a way you do not like have no morals, you sound like Jerry Falwell & the Moral Majority that campaigned for the censorship of media that promoted an "anti-family" agenda. You do realize that, in there view, much of the content of your websites would fall under this heading under their belief system, no?
#2 Yes, that is exactly what to "NOT BE censorious" means. We punish actions in the US, not thoughts. This is why Ted Nugent is not in jail for implying he would shoot President Obama if he was re-elected. That is why the loathsome KKK & neo-Nazis can tell people to prepare for a race war. And, finally, it is why you can publish a picture of Ann Coulter's severed medusa head on a plate that says "You'll get yours, bitch!"
http://www.naderlibrary.com/mondo.anncoulter.htm
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @7:13 am ** their view, not there view D'oh!
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:28 am WTF: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.22.8.pdf
Does this mean that Chuckles the Censor is attaching King Kong attacking a Pterodactyl images to his emails to other attorneys in this manner?!?!?!/
SPQR • Jul 2, 2012 @7:39 am The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons.
Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @7:49 am That's assumes his malpractice suits against himself doesn't take precedence.
Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @7:51 am ^Fail grammar. Need to go read me some more Oatmeal.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @7:58 am Oh, and I've officially spent WAY WAY WAY too much money (~$50 now) on PACER digging up Chuckles the Censor's old cases and throwing them into RECAP.
I hope that its money well spent: by showing Charles's willingness to play fast & loose, and to repeatedly abuse the legal process, that THIS time, the other side will finally succeed in forcing Charles to pay for the costs.
McNugget • Jul 2, 2012 @8:05 am I also have a problem with CC being Funnyjunk"s DMCA agent. Is it realistic to expect any artist to be comfortable notifying CC that they want their work removed from Funnyjunk after seeing what happened to Inman?
Rand Bell • Jul 2, 2012 @8:19 am @Nicholas — I'd be more than happy to contribute to your PACER -> RECAP activities.
If only there was a interweb tool to let crowds contribute to a fund…
Wizerp • Jul 2, 2012 @8:25 am @Nicholas Wait, wait. That (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.22.8.pdf) can't be legit – it's signed by a "Chalres Carreon". Someone call Charles!
Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @8:40 am As earlier commenters have mentioned about Charles Carreon's practice such as with Mattel, I'm starting to believe FunnyJunk had no inkling of what he was planning on doing and to his insanity. The initial demand letter by CC may have been a result of him trolling websites looking for an easy buck or two, saw an old "defamatory" blog post on Inman's site and thought hey easy money! Let's see if I can rope in FunnyJunk the nameless client and get their buy-in to threaten Inman for $20,000.
If he really needed the money, he should have just put up a charity fundraiser for himself through IndieGoGo's site and just cry for help instead of this insane litigation that I believe will ultimately bankrupt himself and his family and tarnish what little reputation he had. Really this is just as crazy as that disbarred DC court judge suing a family dry cleaner for millions of dollars for losing his limited edition business suit pants. =__=
Darryl Mott Jr. • Jul 2, 2012 @8:48 am In gambling, when you're on a losing streak and are in the hole, you have two options. You can either double-down and risk more money to win back what you lost, or you can cut your losses and try again another day. However, there's a saying in gambling…"The House always wins", which makes the smart move the cut-and-run.
Charlie chose…poorly.
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @8:57 am @Everyone — FJ has suffered negative harm (a.k.a. "windfall profit") in this case.
They have no interest in CC's public pursuit of his private jihad, so they have nothing to lose.
They have their loyal fan base, left untouched.
They have had all our page views tacked on to their advertisement counters, for a net income boost.
They have the kind of -legitimate- link-to(s) from real pages, such as this, to raise their overall search relevance for years to come.
If there are ads on Tara and Chuck's site then they are likewise enriched.
[ASIDE: I do hope that in the SLAPP and Rule 11 actions, that the lawyers lay claim to the various Carreon web properties (domain names _and_ content) as "valuable assets" so that all this linking can not be used as unjust enrichment for the Carreon clan. Plus it's extra funny if batshit woman has to start her rants from scratch while the original nonsense gets immortalized. No spoilative deleting there CC, your sites are now material evidence!]
The EFF and Inman need to make sure they take TC's and CC's toys before they go home.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @8:59 am Randal: Nah… Its money well spent if it helps in any way the sanctions, anti-SLAPP motion, or anything else that the defendants' attorneys use to rain down the Wrath on Charles.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @9:00 am Wizerp: Yeah. Its SUPPOSED to be signed by "Chuckles the Insane Pro Se Litigant Clown ™"
HeatherCat • Jul 2, 2012 @9:05 am @SPQR – I agree that this will likely bankrupt them… which reminds me: they've filed for bankruptcy before, right?
Are they still in that timeframe where they can't file again? Or was it quite a while ago?
Not that it matters much, I'm just curious how low the bottom is.
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @9:12 am Is there a rule against sending opposing counsel batshit crazy artwork?
Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @9:20 am The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons
Again?
Looking back, it's little surprise that Chas would be unable to secure a bond for the TRO, assuming he even knew he needed one.
Nate • Jul 2, 2012 @9:20 am Just enjoyed reading the responses from Indiegogo & Matt Inman's lawyers. What a joy to read they were. And how giggleworthy that they're using Carreon's own evidence against him. It was also smile inducing (and I may have added an "exxxxxcellent") at the fact the money (at least the credit card share) had already been transferred before the TRO was filed. And then there was a moment of…oh god, is he gonna sue pay pal now?! lol.
This case continues to intrigue me and even more than that, I'm enjoying the intelligent and snarky analysis you're all providing.
I've just one complaint…I spent the night with crazy dreams about the Iluminati and I've run out of tinfoil to block the signals. And since I don't know if I'm THEM or US I'm clearly a THEM but my handbook came and isn't yellow, so what the hell does that make me?!
Tara's rantings & conspiracy theories are hilarious and tragic in equal measure. I've just seen her stuff based on Ken's quote from one of the earlier threads:
You guys who keep coming up with the examples of falsehood and hypocrisy just rock. You're the Army of Davids. Do me a favor — whenever you find a good web page showing an inconsistent statement, or an item that shows hypocrisy, take a screenshot or print it to pdf in case he memory-holes it.
Which she's apparently thinking way too deeply about what David is being referred to and attributing to David Wynn Miller (I don't even know who that is, is he in the handbook?). When everyone knows Ken's talking about the other David . Shush, don't tip her off, she hasn't figured out yet that our lord high ovine is really David Duchovny.
I wasn't sure whether to lol at the America thing, is she intentionally dyslexic? I imagine she happily manipulated the letters to suit her own purpose. In fact, I never know whether to lol or not at what she writes because mental delusions can happen to anyone after all, but damn, I've never had so much enjoyment from watching it happen before. :/
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @9:24 am HeatherCat: Their bankruptcy was discharged in 98 or so IIRC.
The problem they are going to face however:
1) Bankruptcy is much more painful now thanks to "reforms" passed by Congress. It isn't debtors prison, but its trending towards that way.
2) I don't know the answer, but sanctions from the SLAPP suit and others may not be considered normal debts, but there MAY be difficulty in discharging them through bankruptcy since they are not just normal debts, but fines imposed due to willful acts.
It depends on how petty and vindictive Inman and IndieGoGo's lawyers feel like being. Hopefully, they will be no more nor less vindictive and petty than Carreon…
Vince • Jul 2, 2012 @9:30 am I don't believe for a minute that Carreon doesn't know that every move he makes digs him deeper into his hole. What I think he hasn't caught on to is just how big the shovel is.
dinatural • Jul 2, 2012 @9:31 am Following this epic saga soap-opera since the beginning and was linked to Popehat from BoingBoing. I wanted to ask to lawyers who follow on this site. I'm sure being a lawyer, you get regular pretty boring lawsuits about some debts, or some percentages not understood in a contract etc, but lawsuits like this must seem really fun to do, I'm imagining giddy lawyers behind their desks laughing uncontrollably while writing the responses to this supposed law-knowledgeable man, and speaking jargon amongst themselves to make even more fun of him. I must not be that far away
Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @9:37 am @Valerie: yeah, this'll continue until someone moves to dismiss or SLAPP-strike. Or Carreon decides to pack it in and go home.
Anyone able to get ECF to email them with alerts? I cannot for the life of me get it to work.
Josh D • Jul 2, 2012 @9:57 am To those who were asking about Chuckles relationship to FunnyJunk:
I recall reading a while back that FJ hired CC to go over their operational procedures to ensure that they were complying with applicable laws (which explains why he became listed as the DCMA agent). While he was researching them he came across the blog post by Matt "Awesome" Inman and recommended to FJ that they take action. The results of this recommendation are, well, I think we all know pretty well.
W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:04 am To the new: Welcome new Carreonheads one and all.
You've fallen into an endless rabbithole of turbo lulz and insanity, and we're glad to have you here in the Illuminati! So whether you came from Ars or Boing Boing, ED or the Wiki, Forbes or Lowering the Bar, gather round and pull out your popcorn, because with the Carreons the show absolutely never ends.
Welcome to the Internet's weirdest obsession. It's like birdwatching but for law trolls!
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:11 am @ W Ross Sadly, I think its more akin to watching NASCAR for the accidents…
Susan • Jul 2, 2012 @10:13 am W Ross
Yes master, your wish is my command. I love popcorn.
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @10:14 am Wait, I thought everyone watched NASCAR for the high speed left turns. You mean some people actually watch to see horrific accidents? :O
Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @10:14 am Accidents were the only reason I ever watched NASCAR…
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:22 am Any theories as to why she keeps referring to critics as kids or children? Is it just an attempt to be patronizing or does she seriously think that most of the people posting here are teenagers?
I mean, I'm in my mid-30s, so I will take it as a compliment, just like when the nice man at the bar asks for ID, but it does seem kind of odd given that so much of her venom has focused on this particular blog (run by lawyers & read by people who have at least a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and an interest in free speech issues).
Just another mystery to ponder…
W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:23 am OK so with the influx of new folks, all the new stuff, and to keep these threads from getting too long, I'm finally building the links library. I'll link it in just a few, and then I'll currate any links people throw in the comments with a line or two about what it is.
There are like 100's of articles, briefs, pages etc to sift through when you get addicted to this case, and we need some semiorganized list. Link in like 10.
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @10:25 am @ Wil Then you will most certainly love watching the Carreons fire foot-bullet after foot bullet.
Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @10:28 am "It depends on how petty and vindictive Inman and IndieGoGo's lawyers feel like being. Hopefully, they will be no more nor less vindictive and petty than Carreon…"
TBQH I wouldn't view it as vindictive or petty.
Newton's Law: Every action has an equal but opposite reaction. He was well aware of what the consequence of his power-abuse could bring (presumably). He's already laying the ground work of being too broke to even travel for the hearing (lol @ 1K for one night in Cali) so I'm sure he'll start providing all sorts of proof that he's broke and cannot pay the other parties should he be fined.
So, if he has no money in the bank, then his websites/house/bicycle are fair game if you ask me.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't his abuse of the legal system for his personal vendetta be an issue to take to the bar? How can someone continue to practice law if they are proven to behave this way?
… It also gives me great pleasure that any future client of Carrions with half a brain will google his name and then run far, far away.
/me in before paypal and newton are added to the suit.
W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @10:43 am http://prefacesandasides.blogspot.com/2 ... brary.html
OK so that's going to be the links storehouse. I have about an hour I can work on it now, then I'll do a lot tonight. Don't clog comments ehre with suggestions, do that over there, but don't talk abou the case over there, do it over here. That should keep the comments there filled with just shit I got to change.
This should eventually make it so newbies don't have to sift 3000 comments to get the whole story. Won't be much OC there, but I want to collect the jargon, links, etc and organize them as we find stuff to increase our overall speed.
Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @10:53 am It won't be petty for their lawyers to make sure that Carreon faces the just consequences for his actions.
For every case of a censorious douchebag that Ken brings to our attention, there are 10 more we never see because the victim meekly complies, not wanting to bother with a lawsuit, even a bogus one.
The law provides remedies for these abuses of the legal system for a reason. If the ones we notice receive sanctions from the court system, the ones we don't see will be more likely to see the light of day.
I notice that Exhibit G of Inman's response includes the Forbes article, where Carreon is bragging that he'll "find something" wrong with which to sue Inman on the evening of the 14th. That's the same time he made the donation and then pretended the next day to have been tricked. Neither Inman's nor IndieGoGo's lawyers pointed that out now, but I suspect it will come into play for the SLAPP portion of this farce.
Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:07 am @W Ross- I was contemplating building a library myself, complete w/ articles on the topic, the filings, and every bit of goodness available. I'm working 60+ hrs a week right now, so I dunno how quickly I'd be able to get such a beast up, but I'd recommend using Omeka (it's like wordpress for libraries/museums/other stuff), it'd be perfect for archiving all this junk.
W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:09 am @Matt Using what I know how to use with the space I got. It might not be pretty but it'll work, lol.
Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:11 am @W Ross- I completely understand.
Chris R. • Jul 2, 2012 @11:47 am @Valerie, she refers to us as "children" and "kids" because since we are mere genetic clones we may look and act our ages, we are all really only 7 years old. She figured us out.
W Ross • Jul 2, 2012 @11:50 am @Matt However, Blogger is now getting rapey with the line spacing, so it might not work well for this. Damn you when you're right. I'll fool with it later tonight.
Matt Scott • Jul 2, 2012 @11:57 am @W Ross, if you do go that way, I'll help out in any way I can. I've built a site with Omeka before.
Reese • Jul 2, 2012 @11:58 am This whole thing feels like the court system version of suicide-by-cop. He is too far in to get out unscathed, so, he is going out guns a blazing, filing amended complaints right and left, digging himself deeper and deeper into this mess, and all we can do it watch, slack-jawed, saying to ourselves that this can't really be real.
@ Chris
– — – .. — -. / – — / -.. .. … — .. … … / -… .- … . -.. / — -. / .–. .-.. .- .. -. – .. ..-. ..-. / -… . .. -. –. / .- -. / .. -.. .. — -
dares based on Morse Code will not be left unchallenged.
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @12:00 pm I don't mind being called a kid. I'm the youngest person where I work. I've also always understood kids better (kids make sense, adults are just weird, especially all y'all). The exception being that I always got along better with teachers in high school and college than people my own age.
desconhecido • Jul 2, 2012 @12:17 pm There is something called "tortious interference," which basically means wrongful interference with a contract. Indiegogo and Inman established what appears to be a perfectly fine contract between them. Carreon filed a frivolous lawsuit against Indiegogo and offered to withdraw his suit if Indiegogo uinilaterally broke its contract with Inman. Then, Carreon bragged about that in one of his filings.
I'm pretty sure that if a normal, sane, non-lawyer person tried to interfere in the contractual relationship between Indiegogo and Inman in a manner similar to Carreon's that a suit for tortious interference might be called for. Is there something about Carreon's status as a pro-se litigant which exempts him from liability for interfering with others' contracts?
SteveW • Jul 2, 2012 @12:24 pm So, what with all these "Illuminati" concerns of clan Carreon, has anybody notified Steve Jackson Games? There's got to be a marketing opportunity for them in this.
desconhecido • Jul 2, 2012 @12:27 pm I know that the issue of Carreon being licensed only in California has been raised several times already, but I was just wondering if it would be considered "practice of law" to hire a process server to serve papers on a third party. As applied to our current train wreck: if Carreon hires a process server in Washington State to serve papers on Inman on behalf of FJ, is Carreon practicing law in Washington State? Would a lawyer under these circumstances be expected to hire a Washington attorney as "local counsel", or whatever it would be called? Is an inquiry with the Washington State bar in order?
Valerie • Jul 2, 2012 @12:45 pm @ Mike I don't mind being called a kid, per se, my parents call me and my 40 year old significant other "the kids." With Tara, however, I do wonder what part of the conspiracy this designation reinforces. Also, I am a high school teacher, so we should get along fine .
@ Chris R I DONT'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! CODE BADGER, CODE BADGER! DO NOT PET THE PURPLE UNICORN.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @12:53 pm Putting the links and stuff in one place:
Carreon involved cases on RECAP:
3:12-cv-03112-EMC Carreon v. Inman et al:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... ocket.html
Why we so love this guy (NOT).
Carreon's bankruptcy:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District of Oregon
Bankruptcy Petition #: 94-60117-fra13
Charles Hernan Carreon and Tara Lyn Carreon
Filed 1/13/1994
Discharged 12/22/1997
http://ia600806.us.archive.org/29/items ... ocket.html
(may work)
Oregon cases
6:01-cv-03073-TC Carreon v. Jackson County et al
The order (document 20 in RECAP) is a smackdown on Carreon, and shows some of the games he plays, especially footnote #2. Most of the documents exist only in hardcopy however.
http://ia600803.us.archive.org/20/items ... ocket.html
1:00-cv-03084-CO Carreon v. Miller :
http://ia600408.us.archive.org/33/items ... ocket.html
Amost all hardcopy. Charles folded at the last minute, and it seems to be related to the other Oregon case.
3:00-cv-00235-ST Cohen v. Carreon et al
Nothing of note in RECAP, but it looks to be Carreon on the receiving end of a nuisance suit
Carreon's Pro Se games more recently in Arizona:
4:10-cv-00182-FRZ-DTF Carreon v. Seidberg Law Offices, P.C. et al
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... ocket.html
Carreon attempts to sue Citibank's lawyers after his wife ignored the default judgement in Arizona. Features a choice warning for Carreon from the other lawyer.
4:11-cv-00039-FRZ Carreon v. Toyota Financial Services Corporation et al
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... ocket.html
Carreon misses payment on his Prius, gets mad, stops paying altogether, Toyota starts to repo, he sues…
3:10-cv-00436-NC Arden v. Kastell et al
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... ocket.html
This is perhaps the most interesting, a nuisance lawsuit where Carreon was first the guy's defense attorney in a criminal manner, and then went and sued the cops etc who arrested him. (Both strangly outside Carreon's normal trademark/contract practice)
Typical Carreon misread-of-evidence and ignore-the-law, but in service of someone else. I wonder if Carreon is related to Gary Arden?
1:09-cv-00528 Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
http://ia600605.us.archive.org/25/items ... ocket.html
Witness the powwwah of Carreon's effectively Pro Se defense… This is "oh, we are a library" lunacy…
I'm going through PACER now to add items to it…
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @12:55 pm Oh, as far as I can tell, Penguin v American Buddha hasn't yet proceeded past Chuckles motion fight over "no jurisdiction in new york"
Jane • Jul 2, 2012 @12:56 pm This quote of CC's may explain some of his mindset considering he was just 12 years old in 1968:
"In 1968 I ran away from home and started doing blotter and windowpane with my pals. By sixteen my mind was hammered thin as gold foil, and I began trying to reassemble my understanding of the world."
http://www.american-buddha.com/faq.2.htm
Jeff • Jul 2, 2012 @1:06 pm Has anyone seen todays Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller? Coincidence?
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @1:08 pm I would say it's more a convention in her own mind. She sees herself as being more intelligent than everyone else and that makes them kids to her. Alternatively, she could just think of herself as so old that everyone else is a kid by virtue of being younger than her.
Valerie, as long as you're not like the two or three teachers I hated (just thought of another one in middle school for a fourth) we could probably get along. To put that in perspective, I probably had close to two dozen different teachers in high school (don't feel like counting and I took as many classes as possible). The weird thing in that to me is that even the teachers I didn't like liked me and thought I was a great student (my deception was masterful).
My parents still refer to me as their 'baby'. Personally, I try to avoid referring to people as kids unless they actually are children, but I'm just that nice a person. I don't even swear, out loud…
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:12 pm Oh, one more of Chuckle's purported web sites (thanks Penguin, I didn't know about this one):
http://badcrazy.com/
And the Charles Carreon essay collection:
http://www.american-buddha.com/arizonak ... m#loggedin
Basically, I think Penguin made a strategic mistake: The Carreons will fight every little procedural nit because they can't fight on the law front (the legal arguments are, well, delusional). If Penguin dismissed the NY case and moved it to Oregon or New Mexico, they would have crushed Chuckles' wife by now.
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @1:23 pm Given the quality of Carreon's pro se filings, it's being charitable to accuse him of "practicing law" in any jurisdiction. If he loses his license in CA, it would just mean that when he files pro se nuisance suits in the future, he can't drag any clueless clients down with him.
As far as FJ, as long as they maintain CC as their agent for DMCA complaints, they aren't doing anything to distance themselves from him. It just appears that way because they're keeping quiet like a good client should, in contrast to the way their attorney and his family are behaving.
NB: The America/sheep reference shows she's on to us. The other David is a smokescreen. King David was a shepherd, after all. But it also shows their communication code:
Carreon =
Car= a vehicle, and we know what happened to the Prius
REO= repossessed real estate
n= unknown, as in who's going to own the car and the house when the SLAPP motion is filed?
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:29 pm OK, Crazy begets CRAZY:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.26.0.pdf
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.27.0.pdf
I wonder if the courts are going to need a Wikipedia-like edit lock?!?
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:31 pm Ha, I get it. Someone uploaded a bogus case report to PACER.
HAHA
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:32 pm err, to RECAP I mean.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @1:35 pm Oh wait, that might be real then pulled on PACER? Looking at the real PACER interface, I see a "Gino Romano" pro se movant.
But ?her? two filings are in RECAP but not PACER.
Ann Bransom • Jul 2, 2012 @1:47 pm WTF O_O
Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:47 pm If those two motions were actually filed, could it cause problems for Inman's team? Has the court system ever had to deal with Anon-style trolling before?
Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:49 pm Apparently, it is a new thing with "Gino Romano":
http://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/ ... /80121.htm
Wil • Jul 2, 2012 @1:51 pm Sorry…wise I could delete the last comment. It is an *old* thing with this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches
Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @1:54 pm @ Nicholas Weaver.
First, WTF on a cracker!
Second, "thats why we are stranged"?
Third, one lists his residence as Philly and the other Brooklyn.
I don't even know what to say to this. It looks real…but…
I think I need more popcorn…and beer, perhaps LOTS of beer.
Kelly • Jul 2, 2012 @1:57 pm I should clarify: Looks real as in, looks as if they were actually filed. Nothing more.
Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @2:02 pm http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.23.1.pdf
I'm assuming this is a direct order from the Judge in the case that Carreon's motion for restraining order is DENIED?
What will Carreon do now that he's been given a vulgar as well as a professional smack down in writing?
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:04 pm Victor: No. The standard routine for orders is both sides write what they think the judge SHOULD sign, and then the judge signs the one he wants.
Thus this is the EFF's proposed "Go away, Carreon" order.
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @2:05 pm Victor, that looks like something that was drawn up by defense attorneys so that the judge literally just has to sign a paper. You can see a similar proposed order written by Carreon for the TRO.
I feel like y'all need to be let in on some great music, so here are three excellent songs appropriate for all ages. B)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... DiSYp_51iY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmcP3MShzS0
Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @2:05 pm @Victor: It doesn't have the judge's signature on it. It appears one of Mr. Inman's lawyers filed that and is saying, "Look, all you have to do is sign this!" Which the judge surely will.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:07 pm Wil: I think (or at least hope) the courts have a procedure for a quick "Go away" motion for such obvious crazy.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:08 pm For contrast, this is Carreon's proposed order:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.20.4.pdf
which I doubt the judge will sign.
Adam Steinbaugh • Jul 2, 2012 @2:09 pm Dammit, Weaver, you spotted those at the same time I did. haha. Looks like we have a new contender for craziest participant in this saga.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:13 pm Of course, Carreon's proposed order is already moot, since it was ONLY
PENDING HEARING on the above Order to Show Cause, Indiegogo is HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from disbursing the Charitable Fund, or any portion thereof to Inman.
Since IndieGoGo already sent it to the NWF and ACS, its moot. As a bonus, even if the restraining order was in force, Indiegogo could still just send the money onto the NWF and ACS. The hearing would be about
Indiegogo, Inc. (“Indiegogo”) should not be restrained and enjoined pending trial from transferring the $220,014 now in the possession of Indiegogo, Inc. (the “Charitable Fund”) to Matthew Inman (“Inman”), or to any other person or entity,
So suck on it Chuckles: Even if you filed in time AND got the judge to sign it, your little restraining order would have had no effect beyond wasting the time and effort of defense attorneys dealing with a frivolous motion, because you forgot the "any other person or entity" in your proposed order.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:13 pm Adam: Since when I check pacer itself, that UberCrazy doesn't show up, I suspect the court just dropped it already as obvious nonsense, but someone running RECAP got it in time…
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @2:19 pm #Proposed Orders: It really should read "The law is apparently unknown to you. Go away, file no more, and muzzle your harridan."
Lawyers usually file "proposed" motions so that the court has the option to just sign and forget. Lawyers cannot say "You have failed. DIAF" so in general, the shorter the proposed motion chosen, the greater the slap-down. Sort of like the difference between being struck by a tawse instead of a car antena.
mojo • Jul 2, 2012 @2:19 pm And not ONE use of the word "taint"!
Wondering • Jul 2, 2012 @2:21 pm I continue to be amused that Indiegogo's and Inman's lawyers properly call it the "BearLove" campaign, but Carreon refers to it as the "Bear Love" campaign, with a space between the words.
I don't know why this amuses me. Maybe I have an unhealthy obsession with grammar?
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @2:31 pm Adam: I bet you were the one who ensured that Johnathan Lee Riches's weirdness got into Recap. If so, thanks!
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @2:32 pm @US and @THEM: the receient yellow handbook posting has been determined to be a hoax. The text pages of your handbook should be predominantly white, with an optional thin blue, and a furhter optional yellow section. If the handbook you received has all pages in yellow, you may be a target for termination by THOSE IN THE KNOW ALREADY, or TIT'KA. Should any form of TIT contact or write about you, whether you are US or THEM, just mention it in a public forum, preferably with a hyperlink to the obvious mention, and agents will be dispatched pro-actively.
ASIDE: if you are unaware of your DARKNET status, rest assured that all viable and members of the so-called Illuminatis front organization(s) are being promoted as needed. Check your gas and electric bills for any mention of BTU's. Those billed for BTUs instead of Ergs are likliy on the watch list and not suitable for US status unless you know you are YOU, in which case the BTU designation is provided for plausible denyability when interacting with TIT'Kas or any other form of TIT, GIT, or TOOL.
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @2:32 pm Does Tara's picture on the naderlibrary forum make anyone else think that the person in it is crazy? I mean crazy as in trying to reach through the computer and repeatedly stab you kind of crazy. I don't watch many horror movies, but something about the picture keeps making me think that.
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:20 pm Maybe we should buy stock in Orville Redenbacher
http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDo ... EMI.htm/qx
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
June 21, 2012
IN RE JONATHAN LEE RICHES,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
ORDER ENJOINING "GINO ROMANO" OR ANY OTHER ALIAS USED BY JONATHAN LEE RICHES FROM FILING FUTURE PLEADINGS WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:32 pm Here's one going back to 2010, when he was an inmate in Lexington Federal Medical Center, a prison where he apparently did not have access to a typewriter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96685601/Mart ... t-Appeal-1
He helpfully includes a diagram of the erectile dysfunction he's suffering from Martha Stewart giving him an STD. (It looks like he traced it rather than drawing it freehand.)
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @3:35 pm Judge Chen has spoken. Inman must deliver proof that he sent the final two checks to the charities… Somehow I don't like this.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.usc ... 4.28.0.pdf
I almost makes me think that if Inman doesn't provide proof (which he will, of course, I imagine), the TRO would be accepted by the Judge. :/
Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @3:38 pm @Mark: Wow. UNCOOL.
That's wide of the mark of "Get thee gone, Charles Carreon."
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:39 pm He's got his own wikipedia page, though more about the suits he's filed than about who he is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lee_Riches
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @3:42 pm And from one of the Wikipedia references, information about what he did to get into prison:
Jonathan Lee Riches of Holiday, Fla., was a pro. Before his arrest, law enforcement officers watched as he walked into two banks pretending to be a tourist and got $7,000 in advances on credit cards.
He had fake driver's licenses, made from Texas and New Jersey templates, and before he went in to speak to tellers, he sat in his car and memorized the personal information of the person he was pretending to be.
To wire himself money, Merchant said, Riches defeated Western Union's security by convincing phone companies that he was a repairman and had to have all phone calls to his victims forwarded to another number for two hours. The Western Union verification calls went to his cell phone, and he smoothly confirmed his false identity.
Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @3:52 pm I would think that you could forget sending a check to the charity and wire transfer the funds and still meet the judges deadline. I think the judge just wants to make sure all bases are covered before laying the smack down.
Dan Weber • Jul 2, 2012 @3:53 pm I almost makes me think that if Inman doesn't provide proof (which he will, of course, I imagine), the TRO would be accepted by the Judge. :/
I don't think so. There were several problems with the TRO request, any single one of which would sink it.
However, Inman made a claim that would moot the entire TRO. The judge is asking for proof. I expect that, once Inman submits that proof, the judge will confirm it is tossed out. It is much easier for the judge to say "the TRO is denied because the activity already occurred" than to attempt to engage Chas on the merits of the law. IANAL but this seems just about appeal-proof.
Thomas • Jul 2, 2012 @3:57 pm @ Mark
Hmmm, I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't seem to blow CC off like I thought the judge would.
What difference would producing the checks make? Indiegogo never had the money the judge is questioning the first place. Whether he sends it or not seems, to me, irrelevant to what the TRO requests.
I'm baffled at how the first request for proof of anything in this case falls on Inman.
Mark Lyon • Jul 2, 2012 @3:58 pm I would also note, your honor, that no proof of the photograph has been provided either.
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:10 pm @Thomas
Actually the money was collected on two forms of payment: credit card (sent to Indiegogo) and Paypal (sent to Inman). Indiegogo sent their part directly to the charities. Funny that the Judge didn't request proof from Indiegogo, by the way.
Paypal donations were sent directly to Inman, hence all this.
Maybe the Judge is indeed trying to get the fastest way of dismissing this TRO by following this technicality.
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:12 pm Also, I think the photo will appear in due course… It HAS to. That the whole point of all this nonsense, after all.
Ken • Jul 2, 2012 @4:13 pm A policy of judicial restraint would encourage a judge to rule on the narrowest basis possible and to avoid ruling on any unnecessary issue. Mootness achieves that.
S. Weasel • Jul 2, 2012 @4:16 pm Oh, Mike K, you want to see the cray-zee move? Do you wish to hear it speak? Have a YouTube.
I'm hoping that's poetry and not just stream of consciousness.
Roxy • Jul 2, 2012 @4:20 pm @Thomas: I think that providing proof would also eliminate all doubt that Inman planned to keep any portion of the money, which, I would think, would set up the excellent countersuit. At that point not only is his complaint moot, but also, entirely baseless.
I may follow too much tumblr but I would have loved a .gif of Inman with a bowl of oatmeal on top of said cash dancing and smacking it's hypothetical ass.
Thorne • Jul 2, 2012 @4:22 pm I think "mootness" is a word that should be used in sentences a LOT more…
Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @4:24 pm It seems that the judge is taking the CEO of Indiegogo's sworn statement that that portion of the money was transferred at face value (I don't recall seeing actual checks/wire transfers/receipt statements from the charities in the Indiegogo evidence), but he is not taking Inman's sworn statement that Inman sent the checks as sufficient.
Mike K • Jul 2, 2012 @4:27 pm Mr. Weasel, I resent that she had one of the Matrix movies playing behind her in that clip. I also agree with one of the top comments regarding vogons.
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:34 pm Maybe the Judge asked Inman only, and not Indiegogo, because Inman was the subject of CC's TRO? After all Indiegogo was never accused by CC of not wanting to distribute the funds collected.
Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @4:37 pm Au contraire: Indiegogo is the subject of the TRO. Charles wanted to restrain them from disbursing money to Inman. He just didn't realize that half-ish of the money was never under Indiegogo's control anyway. Indiegogo did not, in fact, disburse any money to Inman. However, Inman was still, however temporarily, in possession of some of the money, despite Charles' best efforts.
Wondering • Jul 2, 2012 @4:45 pm Has Inman's portion gone to the charities yet? The paperwork says he sent the checks to his lawyers for them to give to the charities, but the paperwork doesn't seem to say they've distributed those checks to the charities yet. Maybe that's why the judge is asking.
Drew • Jul 2, 2012 @4:47 pm In his filings, Inman stated that he gave the checks to his lawyer to forward on to the charities, but nobody said outright that the money had been sent.
raphidae • Jul 2, 2012 @4:47 pm Truer by every step he takes: http://www.carreon.info/ (where's my cease-and-desist?)
ShelbyC • Jul 2, 2012 @4:52 pm @Ken: "A policy of judicial restraint would encourage a judge to rule on the narrowest basis possible and to avoid ruling on any unnecessary issue. Mootness achieves that."
Isn't mootness a jurisdictional question, which must be resolved before the judge can consider the merits? The judge couldn't consider the merits at all without finding that the request is not moot.
Matt Westcott • Jul 2, 2012 @4:54 pm Wouldn't it be the sweetest justice of all if they could concoct some scenario whereby the proof is submitted to the Judge in the form of a photograph of the two checks accompanied by Inman's drawing of… you get the idea.
Victor • Jul 2, 2012 @4:56 pm Thanks everyone for clearing that up. I've never been involved with dealing with courts and lawyers and only have Law & Order as part of my education. This whole ordeal and the information I'm getting from this blog definitely makes learning about laws fun =)
It boggles the mind how one lawyer who can't even say he has his own firm can tie up the courts with so much nonsense. Does it cost nothing to file paperwork and revisions after revisions to courts for this individual??
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @4:57 pm We do a declaration from Indiegogo's counsel (Mr. Tangri) stating that "consisent with its terms of service, Indiegogo yesterday transferred the balance of the Bear Love Campaign proceeds." (Exhibit H to Tangri declaration).
I wonder if these were deemed sufficient proof by the Judge.
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @5:03 pm IMPORTANT: Don't judge the judge… Particularly when dealing with ass-hats a good (smart) judge will dot every i and cross every t possible to prevent appeal and any/all other avenues for shenanigans.
The judge may want to have proof that the issue is completely out of reach of the ass-hat -and- the court. Said prof allowing all opinions to issue with words like "has" instead of words like "shall" or "will".
For instance we have mentioned that CC may now seek to involve PayPal, and we have seen CC and TC issues subpoena against lawyers and process servers.
If the court can have before it -proof- that the entire matter is completely resolved it can even go so far as to rule sua sponte that the entire case is moot and therefore immediately dismissed with prejudice.
So don't judge the judge in your imaginations, you don't know what the rulings will look like until they issue.
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @5:06 pm Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
Shameless Plug: if you like my writing, click my name, read, and send commentary email. (It's not a blog, there are no adverts, its just the desperate attention seeking of a would-be author. OR its a clever Illuminatis ploy to harvest your ip addresses for handbook updates.
Mark • Jul 2, 2012 @5:07 pm Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Just kidding.
Nicholas Weaver • Jul 2, 2012 @5:09 pm Also, Inman's declaration is that "My lawyers have the checks ready to send", probably because his lawyers advised him to not actually send the money until the judge says its OK.
This is the judge saying, quite directly "send the money, because it makes Chuckles's complaint moot".
Margaret • Jul 2, 2012 @5:09 pm @Robert White: Your point, I am taking it.
Boyd • Jul 2, 2012 @7:33 pm There I was on Saturday night, reading the first paragraph of your post, and said, "Civ V has an X-pac? Where have I been?" Off I went to Steam, got it all running, and I've finally come back to finish reading the rest of your post.
Nah, I'm not ashamed. Guys in their mid-50s do crazy stuff all the time. Ahem.
CCChicago • Jul 2, 2012 @8:20 pm In this case, what proof would meet Judge Chen's standard to find the TRO issue moot? If counsel for Inman was holding the checks, and they sent them registered mail right after receiving the latest order, would that suffice even though the checks were mailed after the TRO request has been filed?
Robert White • Jul 2, 2012 @8:34 pm Given that the proof of the payment from Indiegogo was a formal deposition/statement to that effect, I should think (IANAL) that a formal statement from Inman's laywer that at such and such a place and time payment in the form of check was sent by them to (charities) would be sufficient.
This isn't a "I doubt you are going to do it, so prove it" kind of situation, its a "please prove that the money is with the charities so I can kill this whole stupid SLAPP" kind of thing.
Dont Panic: The wheels of justice turn slowly but the grind exceedingly fine (if memory of the quote is correct).
Keith Ealanta • Jul 2, 2012 @9:01 pm Oh how I'd like some anti-stone-throwing laws – that meant that if you attempted to sue, you opened your house to examination for similar classes of offences. Of course any such law would need to be carefully balanced, but it'd be great if these big organisations could be examined for copyright breaches when they sue an individual for copying a song, and the likes of Funny Junk had to demonstrate tha they were not worse offenders when sueing others for beach of copyright.
CCChicago • Jul 2, 2012 @9:21 pm Thank you, Robert.
I agree with you and have no doubt that this is a "shut this idiot up please for all of us concerned" scenario.
I guess I asked the question because it just seems odd from a civil procedure standpoint that a judge would basically tell the adverse party to go ahead and perform whatever action is necessary for the filing to become moot.
(fair warning: I did go to law school, but never took the bar or practiced, and I've probably forgotten 99% of what I've learned by now, so I'm almost certainly completely confused.)
Llachlan • Jul 2, 2012 @9:44 pm I have lost sooo much of my long weekend to reading these briefs, but the one thing that made me laugh the most was that Mr. Romano actually got his filed before Carreon – he might be crazy but he apparently has his litigious s**t together…
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @10:52 pm If I were Inman, I would want to make sure the money from the credit card companies was definitely in my possession before writing a check on my own bank account. Perhaps he is having his lawyers keep the money in escrow until the time period for a chargeback has passed?
AlphaCentauri • Jul 2, 2012 @10:53 pm oops, I meant Paypal. Paypal if anything has a reputation for more aggressive chargeback policies against merchants than credit card companies do.
Robert White • Jul 3, 2012 @1:34 am True, but usually only if one of the two parties of the exchange ask for it. So unless all the CC partisans were actually smart enough to use PayPal and then reverse teh charges, it isn't likely much of an exposure.
Kendie • Jul 3, 2012 @8:15 am I love the Judge's order! It's essentially saying "Inman, get the money to the charities now, so I can dismiss this nonsense."
Ken • Jul 3, 2012 @3:35 pm Minor update #4: Inman's response to court order.
CCChicago • Jul 3, 2012 @4:05 pm Carreon filed for dismissal?
http://ia600809.us.archive.org/8/items/ ... 4.30.0.pdf
Mark • Jul 3, 2012 @4:18 pm Just like that.
Llachlan • Jul 3, 2012 @6:32 pm I don't think they should grant the dismissal, but I suppose they have no choice – it would have been nice to see him have to shell out for the money everyone else has had to spend dealing with him.
W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:53 pm https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater
30,000 likes on Facebook for that photo already. Yikes…
W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:54 pm http://digitallife.today.msnbc.msn.com/ ... 22304?lite
MSNBC has picked it up. This is reviralling, lol.
W Ross • Jul 9, 2012 @9:57 pm http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/09/the-oa ... -of-money/
Tech Crunch has picked it up too…
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/09/oatmeal.html
And boing boing…
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/20 ... to-lawyer/
And the SPI…